The relationship of educational philosophy to the curriculum orientation preferences of perservice teachers

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The relationship of educational philosophy to the curriculum orientation preferences of perservice teachers
Physical Description:
ix, 118 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Wise, William Scott, 1957-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Instruction and Curriculum thesis, Ph.D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Instruction and Curriculum -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1998.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 110-117).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Statement of Responsibility:
by William Scott Wise.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029543465
oclc - 40471832
System ID:
AA00025811:00001

Full Text










THE RELATIONSHIP OF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY
TO THE CURRICULUM ORIENTATION PREFERENCES
OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS











By

WILLIAM SCOTT WISE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1998































Copyright 1998

by

William Scott Wise














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The expertise, encouragement, and support of several individuals have made this

study possible. This section gives special recognition to a few directly involved,

recognizing that many others have assisted throughout.

The writer sincerely thanks his chairperson, Dr. Ginger Weade-Lamme, who

provided invaluable advice, suggestions, and encouragement throughout the study.

Special thanks are extended to the other members of the committee, Dr. Eugene Todd,

Dr. Arthur 0. White, and Dr. Lynn Oberlin, who served as valuable advisors and provided

support when needed.

Special personal thanks and appreciation are also due to my wife Karen for

providing the understanding and patience required to complete such a task. To my

parents, William A. and Patricia, and my sister Gretchen, goes my appreciation for loving

support and encouragement.

Grateful recognition is also due to many colleagues and friends, particularly

Dr. Winifred B. Cooke who provided special assistance and Stephen Davis who provided

much encouragement throughout the study. Acknowledgment is also due to the

preservice teachers, course instructors, and teacher educators who contributed their time

and thinking as respondents and administrators in this study.














TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS ..................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................. ............................................. vi

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................ ..................................... vii

ABSTRACT ............. ......... ....................................................... ........................ viii

CHAPTERS

I STATEM ENT OF THE PROBLEM ............................................... .............. 1

The Description of the Study ...................................................................... 1
Need for the Study .......................................................... ..... ........................ 2
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................. 6
Limitations of the Study .................................... .................. .................. 8
A ssu m p tio n s ................................................................................................ 9
Importance of the Study .. .......................................................................... 9
Definition of Terms .................................................. .. ................ ................... 11

II THEORETICAL FRAM EW ORK ............ ................................................. 14

The Nature of Curriculum ............................................................................. 14
The Nature of Curriculum Development ..................................................... 16
Competing Values and Images of Schooling .................................................. 18
Conceptual Framework .................................................. ............................. 21
Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................. 29

III M ETHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 32

R e se arc h D e sig n ........................................................................................... 3 2
Instrumentation .... ...................................................................................... 33
Collection of the Data .................................................................................. 36
Treatment and Analysis of the Data .............................................................. 39








IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA................................. 41

D description of the R research Sam ple .............................................................. 42
Statistical Analysis of the Research Questions ............................................... 52
E x p erim e n ta lism ...................................................................................... 5 2
R a tio n a lism ......................................................................................... ... 5 4
E x p e rie n tia list ......................................................................................... 5 7
T rad itio n alist ................................................................................. ......... 5 9
Individual R esponses ............................................ ........ .......................... 62

V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS,
and RECOM M END ATION S ................................................................ 70
S u m m ary ...... ...................................................................................... ........ 7 0
D discussion and C conclusions ......................................................................... 72
Recommendations for Further Study ............................................................ 80

A P P E N D IC E S ................... .................................................................... ..... .... 82

A RESEARCH INSTRUMENT: A SURVEY OF
EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND
CURRICULUM ORIENTATION PREFERENCES ........................ ...... 83

B SEMINAR READING MATERIALS:
THREE CURRICULUM ORIENTATIONS
AND PUBLIC VALUES OF EDUCATION ............................................ 92

C SEMINAR HANDOUTS: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
TO THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT ....................................... ........... 102

D C O R R E SP O N D EN C E ................................................................................. 106

R E F E R E N C E S ... ......... .............. ................................................. ...................... 1 10

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................................ .................................. 118














LIST OF TABLES
Table page

1. Participating R research Sam ple ................................................................ 38
2. Frequency Distribution on
Selected Demographic Information Variables .................................... 43
3. Frequency Distribution for Teaching Experience ...................................... 44
4. Frequency Distribution of Responses
By Educational Philosophy Statements ............................................. ... 46
5. Frequency Distribution of Responses By Curriculum Orientation ............ 49
6. Frequency, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Experimentalism
as a Function of Academic Specialization and Program of Study ......... 53
7. Frequency, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Rationalism
as a Function of Academic Specialization and Program of Study .......... 56
8. Frequency, Mean, and Standard Deviation
of Experientialist Orientation as a Function of
Academic Specialization and Program of Study ................................ 58
9. Frequency, Mean, and Standard Deviation
of Traditionalist Orientation as a Function of
Academic Specialization and Program of Study .................................. 61
10. Computed Probability and F-Value of Dependent Variable Responses
as a Function of Specified Independent Variables ................................ 63
11. Chi-Square and Probability for Experimentalism Response Items
by Academic Specialization by Program of Study ................................ 65
12. Chi-Square and Probability for Rationalism Response Items
by Academic Specialization by Program of Study ................................ 66
13. Chi-Square and Probability for Experientialist Response Items
by Academic Specialization by Program of Study ............................... 67
14. Chi-Square and Probability for Traditionalist Response Items
by Academic Specialization by Program of Study ............................ 68














LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1. Competing Values and Images of Schooling ........................................... 20

2. Educational Philosophies Combined with
Competing Values and Images of Schooling ........................................ 26

3. Proposed Conceptual Model for Testing Relationships between
Educational Philosophy and Orientations to Curriculum ..................... 28

4. Combinations of Educational Philosophies and
C curriculum O rientations .................................................................... 73














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE RELATIONSHIP OF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY
TO THE CURRICULUM ORIENTATION PREFERENCES
OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS

By

William Scott Wise

August, 1998


Chairperson: Dr. Ginger Weade-Lamme
Major Department: Instruction and Curriculum

The focus of this research was to explore the possible relationship between certain

educational philosophies and curriculum orientation preferences held by prospective

teachers in varying types of teacher education programs. Two philosophical systems,

Experimentalism and Rationalism, and two curriculum orientations, Experientialist and

Intellectual Traditionalist, were selected for investigation. Five types of academic

specialization were selected for investigation: English, mathematics, social science,

science, and special education. In addition, three types of programs of study were

selected for investigation: elementary, middle, and secondary. A conceptual model is

presented to provide a framework from which hypotheses were generated to guide

analysis.








To collect data relevant to the focus of this study a self-report questionnaire was

utilized to gather information from selected groups of preservice teachers enrolled in

introductory education courses. The 264 preservice teachers comprising the sample were

drawn from selected colleges in north and central Florida.

The reported means for each group of preservice teachers indicated that there was

consistency among the groups as to their choice of educational philosophy and curriculum

orientation. The educational philosophy of Rationalism was more popular than

Experimentalism across each of the three levels of program of study and four of five

academic specializations. Further, each group ofpreservice teachers selected the

Experientialist curriculum orientation as most reflective of their position.

A two-way analysis of was computed as well as chi squares for each response to

determine the amount of variance accounted for by the model. The purpose of these

analyses was to determine whether any of the groups differ significantly from any other

group. Statistical analyses revealed that there was no relationship between the educational

philosophies under investigation and the independent variables, types of programs of study

and types of academic specialization. However, differences were revealed regarding

curriculum orientation by type of program of study. First, the Experientialist orientation

was significantly more popular with the group ofpreservice teachers intending to teach at

the elementary level. Second, the Traditionalist orientation was significantly more popular

with middle-level preservice teachers than with those intending to teach at the elementary

level.














CHAPTER I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM


The Description of the Study


This study investigates the relationships between preservice teachers' educational

philosophy and their preferences regarding selected dimensions of curriculum orientation.

Specifically, the study sought to investigate the relationship of the selected responses of

preservice teachers to the philosophies of Experimentalism and Rationalism, and to the

Experientialist and Intellectual Traditionalist curriculum orientations. A conceptual model

has been constructed to provide a framework from which hypotheses could be generated

to guide analysis. Secondary purposes involve exploratory investigation of relationships

among preservice teachers' educational philosophy, curriculum improvement preferences,

academic specialization, and program of study. Specifically, answers to the following

questions were sought:

1. To what extent are there significant differences in the educational philosophy

and curriculum improvement preferences among preservice teachers by area of academic

specialization: English, mathematics, social science, science, and special education?

2. To what extent are there significant differences among preservice teachers by

program of study: elementary, middle, and secondary?








3. To what extent are existing differences among preservice teachers by area of

academic specialization similar among different programs of study?


Need for the Study


A recent example of curriculum reform that points to the vital need for achieving

consistency between the philosophical beliefs of teachers and the activities required of

them is the middle school movement. Reacting to the conflicting professional views and

public pressures of the late fifties and early sixties about the purpose of intermediate level

schooling, several professional educators proposed a curriculum reformation based on the

characteristics and tasks of the early adolescent. At first glance the purpose of

reorganizing schools to meet the needs of the early adolescent more effectively appeared

to be well established. As of 1993 the number of middle schools in the United States had

increased from 1000 to over 5000 (George & Alexander, 1993). Studies indicated

moderate increases in the number of schools adopting middle level practices such as

interdisciplinary teams, advisory groups, and transitional programs (Mac Iver & Epstein,

1991, 1993). National surveys however also revealed that while the number of school

districts reorganizing by grade level continued to increase, many principles of effective

school and curriculum organization advocated by proponents of the middle school

movement had not been implemented (Alexander & McEwin, 1989; Beane, 1990; Epstein

& Mac Iver, 1990; Harrington-Lueker, 1990).

For example, interdisciplinary team organization (ITO) was proposed as an

essential component of the middle school concept sometime ago (Alexander & Williams,








1969). According to Jackson (1989) however, only 37% of all middle schools utilized

interdisciplinary team teaching at any time between grades five and nine. The concept of

heterogeneous grouping of students for instruction was even more strongly supported by

research evidence. According to George (1990) most schools however appeared to be

unable to respond to research evidence regarding curriculum and instruction

improvements and continued to "track" students for instruction, homogeneously grouped

by ability, in preparation for secondary schooling. Consequently, the definition of what

middle level education reorganization had accomplished had increasingly become the

subject of philosophical discussion and deliberation (Beane, 1990).

Considerable evidence documents the current interest in improving middle level

schools. Serious efforts to substantiate the current and potential value of upholding the

goals for middle level schooling include several recent textbooks and a number of

publications from state agencies. The National Middle School Association reissued its

1982 document This We Believe (1992) which explains the ten "essentials" of all true

middle level schools. Publications such as Caught in the Middle (1987) and Making the

Middle Grades Work (1988) create an image of curriculum firmly grounded in the

characteristics of the learner at the middle level. Emphases on organizational aspects of

teacher closeness to students and the exploratory nature of the curriculum are examples

of approaches designed to put the learner-based orientation into practice. However,

teachers, particularly beginning and preservice teachers, often perceive a gap between this

image of middle level curriculum and their experiences in middle school classrooms.








Since the beginning and throughout the middle school reform movement,

proponents of restructuring these schools have emphasized the need for personnel trained

for and committed to the education of middle level students. (Williams, 1965; Alexander

& McEwin, 1988, George & Alexander, 1993). One well-known textbook on the junior

high school written during the beginning of the middle school movement states:

perhaps the most serious obstacle to the educational development
of the junior high school has been the lack of teachers specifically
prepared for work at this level. This long-standing and all-too-
general problem has elicited such labels as "the blind spot in
teacher education" and "the forgotten teaching area." (Van Til
et al., 1967, p. 49)

Still accurate today, this statement is testament to the foresight of VanTil et al. Many

proponents of middle level education point to the limited and slow expansion of specific

teacher training programs as a major reason that the potential of the movement has rarely

been realized in practice (Scales, 1992; Scales & McEwin, 1994). According to Scales

(1994) previous research has shown that only a fifth of middle grade teachers undergoes

any special preparation for teaching at the middle level. Although one of the primary

recommendations regarding the preparation of preservice teachers involves increasing the

duration and quality of field-based experiences (VanZandt & Harlan, 1995), Valentine and

his associates (1993) report a drop in student teaching experiences in the middle grades

from 58% in 1981 to 32% in 1992. Other sources point to issues such as insufficient

leadership training, various political forces, or low quality preparation programs as factors

that have kept middle level curriculum from developing into the image of early proponents

(Alexander & McEwin; 1984, Swaim, 1993).








Research and reports during the late 1980s and early 1990s indicate that teacher-

education institutions began taking purposeful steps to improve middle level teacher

education Proponents of middle school reform challenged teacher educators to design

programs with a strict middle level focus rather than slightly revised elementary or

secondary perspectives (Manning, 1993). Teachers preparing for careers in middle level

schools are advised to be well versed in young adolescent development and middle school

concepts and philosophical beliefs. However, possible solutions to the obstruction of

middle level curriculum goals may also be found in the method by which future teachers

are trained. Rather than placing emphasis on training teachers with specific knowledge

needed for teaching at the middle level, teacher educators could take a closer look at the

practical knowledge preservice teachers bring to a middle level education program.

Many teacher educators today are no longer concerned only with importing

knowledge about teaching. Johnston (1992) asserts that one of the foremost tasks of

teacher educators should be that of exploring the evolving practical knowledge of our

student teachers so that we can build programs that assist them to develop, understand,

articulate, and utilize that practical knowledge. This type of knowledge is not viewed as a

body of fixed, stable concepts that are applied in practice, but rather as something that is

transient and subject to change. According to Clandinin (1986, p. 19) it is "experiential,

value-laden, purposeful and oriented to practice". In this view, teacher education provides

avenues for student teachers to understand the values, attitudes, and beliefs they bring to a

preservice teacher education program and then to plot and monitor their own professional

growth thereafter.








Statement of the Problem


There is a vital need for educational leaders to achieve consistency between the

philosophical beliefs of teachers and the activities required of them in the name of

curriculum reform or improvement. Schubert (1986) contends that the most salient force

in the curriculum improvement process is the professional educator, specifically the

curriculum leader and the teacher. To claim that a particular change in curriculum and

instruction is needed however requires a congruous philosophy or ideological platform of

values, beliefs, and ideals. Mahlios and Maxson (1994) contend that students come into

teacher education programs with fairly consistent, yet vague, views of schooling and

children. According to Sergiovanni and Starratt (1993) teachers often are not cognizant

of their philosophical beliefs and find the discovery and articulation process to be

frustrating.

Guilford (1977) describes two forces that go to work almost simultaneously as an

area for improvement is identified, one convergent and the other divergent. The

convergent force serves to clarify and articulate the problem, thereby reducing the focus to

points of emphasis. The divergent force then considers possible courses of action and

their consequences Berman (1968) contends that problems of conflicting interest cannot

be resolved until the convergence force, that is, the focus point of emphasis or priority is

clearly established.

Therefore, in order for curriculum improvements to be understood and perceived

as worthwhile, an articulate and defensible sense of direction must exist. Unruh and

Unruh (1984) assert that without a theoretical base, the underlying principles or








conceptions of curriculum improvement movements can produce piecemeal reforms,

curriculum imbalance, and short-lived innovations. Conflicting conceptions of curriculum,

and what it might mean to bring about curriculum improvements, can also lead to

controversy in the school and community. However, little has been done to describe the

ideological or theoretical base of the professionals who are expected to be implementing

the changes, namely the preservice teachers. Little is known about relationships between

their educational philosophies and the substantive preferences they identify in the process

of effecting curriculum improvements.

During the last decade, a number of educators have suggested that before we can

significantly improve teacher preparation, we must first gain insight into the thinking,

rather than just the behavior, of future teachers (Goodman, 1988). Attention has recently

been focused on empirical study related to the training question, e.g., the nature of

preservice students' images of curriculum improvements (Mahlios & Maxson, 1994). The

images they explore are those that represent the means through which changing

conceptions of teaching, subject matter, and the needs of students are to be translated into

the actual opportunities for learning provided by future teachers. They also represent the

means for resolving the disparities between idealized images of what teaching will be like

and the actual practices preservice teachers witness during their internship experiences.

Regarding the beliefs of preservice teachers, Mahlios and Maxson state:

typically, we know little about the views our students hold, and
thus have little if any knowledge of how these characteristics will
interact with the dominant concepts incorporated within our
respective teacher education programs. It may in fact be that part
of the failure of some of our students to 'learn' program concepts








is a result of the clash between views within themselves and those
contained in our preparation programs. (Mahlios & Maxson,
1994, p. 11)

If proponents of curriculum improvement are to continue to call for education programs

designed to encourage a particular curriculum orientation in its graduates, the processes

by which student teachers come to understand the meaning of curriculum will require

more careful examination and exploration than has been evident in the past.


Limitations of the Study


Generalizability of the findings may be possible given replication of this study in

other teacher education programs. However, the following major limitations associated

with this research have been identified:

1. Since there is no recognized instrument designed specifically for the purpose of

this study, the researcher developed an appropriate questionnaire comprised of previously

tested research instruments.

2. Participants selected for inclusion in this study were not randomly selected.

Students in several teacher education programs in Florida comprised the sample from the

accessible population for data collection.

3. The research design used in this study is a one measurement, cross-sectional

design. Since participants responded to all self-report questionnaire items at one time,

they may have responded reactively and more consistently than what would have been true

at different times.








4. Interpretations of findings are limited because the researcher does not know

whether particular variables (e.g., program of study) are a cause or result of their

preferences for curriculum improvement.


Assumptions


The following assumptions were made relative to the conduct of this study:

1. Educational philosophies can be analyzed and compared relative to their

positions on knowledge (ontology), truth (epistemology), and values axiologyy).

2. The instrument developed by the researcher was appropriate for identifying

certain philosophical orientations.


Importance of the Study


A review of the literature on this topic reveals many studies on preservice teachers'

beliefs (e.g., Hollingsworth, 1989; Zeichner & Gore, 1990) that reaffirm the notion that

teacher education programs seem to have little influence on the students' preconceived

belief systems. However, according to Rodriguez (1993) several studies have refuted this

claim and demonstrated that students indeed have been significantly influenced by their

academic course work. Alverman (1981) states that some students welcomed the inner

struggle produced by the dissonance between the university courses and the practicum

experience and that, in fact, it served as driving force for encouraging reflection on the

value of their teaching strategies and beliefs. Goodman (1988) proposes a proactive

approach to teacher education by first, and foremost, identifying the students' intuitive








screens, that is the points of reference students use to make sense of their experiences as

they sift through the information (educational theories, ideas and strategies) presented to

them during their teacher education program (p 134).

This study is unique in its contribution to the volume of knowledge in the field of

teacher education because it explores how the educational philosophies ofpreservice

teachers relate to their substantive preferences for improving curriculum. The primary

focus in the study is to compare the educational philosophies and orientations of

curriculum held by these students. A secondary focus is to assess the extent to which

these images may be related to students' program of study and academic specialization.

The findings of this study will provide information that will be of value to teacher

educators, and most importantly, should be useful to the prospective teachers themselves.

Many teacher educators are engaging student teachers in the practice of reflective

teaching; making rational and ethical choices about what and how to teach and assuming

responsibility for those choices (Ross et al., 1993). According to Killion and Todnem

(1991) busy people, including student teachers, rarely engage in reflective experiences

unless they are given some time, some structure, and expectations to do so. It would be

useful for students of teaching to have a tool that will enable them to reflect upon and

construct practical knowledge of the reasons or explanations for their decisions (Johnston,

1992). Connelly and Clandinin (1988) suggest that images of curriculum can provide a

language of practice for teachers because they can use these images to articulate the basis

of their decisions and explore the reason they hold particular beliefs. Further, as a

student-teacher makes choices to accept or reject philosophies overtly representative of








their particular program of study, such as those endorsed for example in middle level

education, there may be reason for foundational course work that provides constructs for

reflection on the reasons for those choices.


Definition of Terms


Definitions of selected terms and concepts adopted for use in this study are listed

below:

Academic specialization refers to a block of required course work chosen by

preservice teachers from a specific subject area or academic department. Examples

include English, mathematics, social science, science, and special education.

Curriculum is a plan for providing sets of learning opportunities for persons to be

educated (Saylor et al., 1981).

Curriculum improvement refers to the positive change in curriculum brought about

in the course of everyday actions among teachers, curriculum leaders, and students

(Schubert, 1986).

Curriculum orientation is a general school of thought regarding curriculum

research, theory, and practice. Each position represented; Experientialist, Intellectual

Traditionalist, and Social Behaviorist is characterized by wide-ranging and overlapping

assumptions about what is most important to teach, how learning occurs, the roles of

teachers and students, and what classrooms ought to be like (Schubert, 1986).

Curriculum theory refers to a belief system that provides a frame of reference to

guide the practitioner in making rational choices among alternative courses of action and








sources of knowledge, in making value decisions, and in predicting the consequences of

various solutions to dilemmas (Unruh & Unruh, 1984).

Early adolescent names a stage of human development that begins just prior to

puberty and extends through the early stage of adolescence. The nature of the student at

the middle level is generally considered from three major perspectives: (1) cognitive or

intellectual development, (2) social and emotional development, and (3) physical and

physiological development.

Educational philosophy refers to a reasonably coherent set of values and

fundamental assumptions used as a basis for evaluating and guiding educational practice

(Phenix, 1961).

Images of curriculum are a personal practical knowledge that embodies a person's

experience, finds expression in practice, and is the perspective from which new experience

is taken (Clandinin, 1986).

Interdisciplinary team organization is a way of organizing the faculty so that a

group of teachers share (1) the same group of students; (2) the responsibility for planning,

teaching, and evaluating curriculum and instruction in more than one academic area; (3)

the same schedule; and (4) the same area of the building (George & Alexander, 1993).

Middle level education refers to a transitional phase of schooling that considers the

educational needs of students usually enrolled in grades 6-8 or 5-8 and 10-14 years of age,

builds on the students' prior experiences at the elementary level, and leads toward the high

school level (George & Alexander, 1993).








Middle level proponents are professional educators who, in the late 1950s and

early 1960s, began a movement toward consensus about the purposes of intermediate

schooling. Prominent spokespersons included William Alexander, Donald Eichhorn, Paul

George, John Lounsbury, and Gordon Vars (Messick & Reynolds, 1992).

Preservice teachers are students engaged in the formal study of teaching within a

program consisting of three dominant features: (1) general education course work, (2)

subject matter specialties, and (3) pedagogy, including student teaching and other clinical

experiences (Lanier & Little, 1986).

Program of study is a college program designed for the preparation of professional

teachers in either elementary, middle, or secondary education.

Tracking refers to the practice of dividing students for instruction into class-size

groups based on a measure of the students' perceived ability or prior achievement. In

order to reduce the differences between students and make teaching more effective,

differentiated learning experiences are designed and delivered to each group (George,

1988).














CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK


Presented here is a review of literature and research studies selected to provide a

direction in this study and to assist in the interpretation of the findings. An initial

discussion describes the nature of curriculum and curriculum development. Following a

discussion of competing values and images of schooling, a conceptual framework

consisting of educational philosophies and orientations to curriculum improvements is

presented as the basis for establishing a conceptual model. A final section is comprised of

research questions and hypotheses designed to validate these relationships.


The Nature of Curriculum


A dictionary definition suggests that curriculum is "a fixed series of studies

required, as in a college, for graduation." Educational scholars however describe and

promote images of curriculum with varied and conflicting descriptions. Some characterize

curriculum simply as an organized set of intended outcomes leading to the achievement of

educational goals. Others assert that curriculum is more broad in scope in that it

incorporates everything that happens inside a school. A sense of the range of alternative

views is conveyed in the following examples:








1. Curriculum is "a plan for achieving intended learning outcomes; a plan

concerned with purpose, with what is to be learned, and with the results of instruction"

(Unruh & Unruh, 1984, p 96).

2. Curriculum is "the content of instruction; what is intentionally taught to

students in a school or classroom; the guides, books, and materials that teachers use in

teaching students" (Glickman, 1985, p. 307).

3. Curriculum is "the planned school program that includes a set of general goals

for all students" (Messick & Reynolds, 1992, p. 56).

The image of curriculum that is adopted for this study is organized around the

heuristic provided by Schwab (1978) when he referred to the "commonplace of teaching."

For teaching to occur, someone, (a teacher) must be teaching someone (a student) about

something (a curriculum) at some place and point in time (a milieu). As Lanier and Little

(1986) point out, the teachers of student teachers represent a diversity of roles and

backgrounds--college professors, graduate assistants, public school supervisors, and

others. The students are adults who are either prospective or practicing teachers. The

curriculum includes studies in general education, academic specializations, and pedagogy.

The milieu of teacher education includes the general society, the university, the school

district, the school, and various other contextual settings that affect teacher education in

America.








The Nature of Curriculum Development


Curriculum development is generally expressed as a planning process aimed at

improving the achievement of educational goals. These goals are typically derived from

the study of (1) who our students are, (2) what content is important for them to know,

and (3) how they learn best. These three sources are the foundation for decisions

regarding curriculum improvement. Procedures and strategies for affecting improvement

however vary according to the source deemed most important. The following views are

taken from the citations that defined curriculum in the previous section:

1. Curriculum development is "a planning process: a complex process of

assessing needs, identifying desired learning outcomes, preparing for instruction to achieve

the outcomes, and meeting the cultural, social, and personal needs that the curriculum is to

serve" (Unruh & Unruh, 1984, p. 97).

2. Curriculum development is "the revision and modification of the content, plans,

and materials of classroom instruction" (Glickman, 1985, p. 7).

3. "Effective school programs must be developed by the staff of a particular

school in response to that setting and student group. Teacher creativity and teamwork are

required to adapt knowledge from the different subjects and academic disciplines so it will

involve students and meet their needs" (Messick & Reynolds, 1985, p. 82).

According to Schubert (1986), two general approaches to curriculum

improvement have dominated the literature. The first, "top-down" improvements are seen

as being carefully formulated prior to application from sources outside of the scope of

application. The other evolves in the course of everyday interactions between teachers,








administrators, students, and community. This "grass-roots" approach to improvement is

characterized by its inclusion of those who are most directly affected by the improved

situation.

These two approaches conceive of the planning process in very different ways.

The top-down orientation sees curriculum improvements as the result of research

conducted by experts. The task becomes to convince teachers, as implementors of

curriculum, of the worth of the proposed improvement. The work ofKurt Lewin (1951)

is considered classic in this field. His work advocates the need to "unfreeze" old

conceptions, introduce new ones through the aid of outside experts, and finally "freeze in"

improvements to the point that experts are no longer needed for maintenance of the

innovation.

In the decades following Lewin, organization developers have created a stockpile

of techniques for working with organizations seeking improvement. Perhaps the greatest

source of this type of expertise is found in the literature directed toward business

executives. "In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies" by

Peters and Waterman (1982) is one of the most popular and highly acclaimed resources

for those seeking improvements in schools as well as business. Much of the literature of

this movement has been adopted by Marks and Nystrand (1981) in education, and Doll

(1982) in curriculum.

According to Fullan (1994) small- and large-scale studies of top-down strategies

have consistently demonstrated that local implementation fails in the vast majority of

cases. The grass-roots proponents argue that the problem with the top-down orientation








is precisely its relation to its origins in agriculture and business. As Hamilton et. al. (1977)

point out, the notion of learning as the product, often measured by standardized testing, is

too simplistic and too insensitive Improvements from the grass-roots orientation are seen

as emerging from the experience of all persons engaged in schooling. Participants include

not only teachers, but parents, students, and administrators. Together they are immersed

in the situation and are best equipped to identify needs and take an active role in the

assessment process.

Teachers must, as Goodlad (1984) warns, think of the societal, institutional,

instructional, individual, and ideological all at once when reflecting on curriculum matters.

Whether one thinks of teachers as creators and developers of curriculum, or as the primary

implementors, they are key agents in the process of what curriculum becomes. In the

preservice teacher education program, attitudes that build curriculum improvement are

being cultivated. Schubert (1986, p. 380) submits that "the seedbed of professional

development that brings curriculum improvement lies in the education of teachers."

Therefore, it is essential that preservice teachers understand widely different orientations

to the concept of curriculum.


Competing Values and Images of Schooling


The undercurrent for reflection on school matters is represented by four widely

held but conflicting values: equity, excellence, efficiency, and liberty (Sergiovanni et. al.,

1987). A detailed account of the relationship of each is presented in Appendix B. These

values exist in a constant state of tension such that too much emphasis on any one hinders








expression of each of the other three. Sergiovanni et al. (p. 13) assert that "most of the

today's proposals for school reform emerge from the social Darwinism view and squarely

contradict the egalitarian ideal upon which the modern public-school system has

traditionally rested." An illustration that outlines a system for the contrast and comparison

of alternative values and ideals is presented in Figure 1.

A dictionary definition suggests that Egalitarianism is "a social philosophy

advocating the removal of inequalities among people, especially with respect to social,

political, and economic rights and privileges." The image of egalitarianism is represented

in the model by the value of equity combined with liberty. Education professionals have

adopted this image as an inclusive policy, with varied curriculum, that attempt to include

as many students in schools as long as possible. Regarding the egalitarian ideal and the

American high school one author states,

at base, the public schools are bound by the egalitarian ideal. As a nation we
retained the hope that our citizens will have some fairly even chance at social,
economic and political equality. Since education is one of the most important
ways to obtain that equality, all children are obligated to come to school and
similarly the schools are obligated to appeal to all their students. (Cusick, 1983,
p. 25)

However, many educators favor a more uniform rather than a differentiated curriculum to

ensure that a single measure of excellence will be employed.

The image of social Darwinism is represented in the model by the value of

excellence combined with efficiency. This philosophy reasons that life is a competitive

struggle and that the strongest survive due to natural selection. The pressures of survival

stimulate the strongest to develop skills that benefit human evolution. Consequently,

educators with this image of schooling believe that competitive schools will produce the


















(bureaucrat
liberalism)


Equity

(decentralized-
liberalism)

Image of
Egalitarianism


Efficiency


ic-


-4


Image of
Social
Darwinism


(bureaucratic-
elitism)


Excellence

(decentralized-
elitism)


Liberty


Figure 1.


Competing values and images of schooling.


Source: Values and images items adapted from "Educational Governance and
Administration," Sergiovanni et al., 1987.








type of student that will eventually provide the leadership needed for our country to

prevail in world matters. However, egalitarians regard this policy as exclusive,

sanctioning failure for students who cannot measure up to standards.


Conceptual Framework


The conceptual framework for this study combines preservice teachers'

philosophical perspective and curriculum orientation perspective with the illustration of

competing values and images presented in Figure 1. This combination resulted in a

conceptual model hypothesizing relationships between preservice teachers' educational

philosophy and substantive preferences inherent in curriculum orientation.

Philosophical Perspective

The definition of educational philosophy adopted for use in this study is that

proposed by Phenix (1961, p.57): "a reasonably coherent set of values and fundamental

assumptions used as a basis for evaluating and guiding educational practice". A similar

conception is reflected by Schubert (1986, p. 119) who describes a teacher's philosophy as

a "realm of fundamental assumptions about the nature of truth, wisdom, goodness, beauty,

reason and justice". Curran (1966) suggests that "sets of concepts" of reality, knowledge

and values are interrelated to form a philosophy. In each case, educational philosophy is

described as something "real"; a fundamental component of the decision-making process

of educators.

Greene (1986, p. 479) has suggested that the main concern of "doing" philosophy

with respect to teaching is "to clarify the language used in describing or explaining the








practice of teaching, to penetrate the arguments used in what is done, to make visible what

is presumed in the formulation of purposes and aims. It is as well, to stimulate

reflectiveness about the intentions in which teaching begins, the values that are espoused,

the ends that are pursued". Curran (1966) claims that a philosophy must be understood in

conjunction with the analytical study of teaching in order to gain insight into just what the

teacher views to be the goals of education. Noting the importance for educational leaders

to understanding their own philosophy, Sergiovanni and Starrat (1983) claim that

what is needed is some firm footing in principle. Just as a political party is
supposed to base its decisions and action on a party platform upon which it seeks
election, so too, supervisory personnel need a platform upon which, and in the
light of which, they can carry on their work. (Sergiovanni and Starrat, 1983,
pg. 226-227).

Glickman (1979) asserts that ultimately, what goes into a curriculum is derived

from a philosophical decision about the purpose of schools. Philosophies are numerous

and overlapping and many have historical roots in each other. With educational

application in mind, divergent philosophies can be simplified and classified. Overriding

conceptual categories are created by grouping various philosophies that have central

agreement on the type and scope of education. While there may be disagreement on the

specific nature of knowledge, truth, and reality, they hang together because they are in

agreement on the purpose and treatment of education (Glickman & Esposito, 1979).

Clark and Peterson (1986) report that research on teachers' implicit theories

constitutes the smallest and youngest part of the research on teacher thinking.

Researchers attempts to build a case for logical consistency between educational

philosophy and educational practices have generally focused on the construction of a valid








and reliable instrument which would measure possession of an educational philosophy.

One example is the "Philosophy Preference Assessment" (Wiles & Bondy, 1993). This

self-assessment instrument, based upon five distinct educational philosophies, is designed

to "show preferences on value-laden educational questions" (p.49). A review of the

literature discloses few attempts which measure the consistency with which such a

philosophy is held or practiced. The following review of related research presents studies

that led to the development of the instrument used in this study.

Members of the faculty of George Peabody College developed an instrument

designed to identify the educational philosophy of teachers. Participants were asked to

select one of three responses which most closely coincided with their own beliefs. Each of

the twelve sets of responses were developed to reflect the educational philosophy of

realism, idealism, or pragmatism. Lodge (1947) reported a copy of the scale in the

appendix of his book, Philosophy of Education. No evidence was provided regarding the

reliability or validity of the instrument.

Kerlinger and Kaya (1959) developed a scale to measure teachers' beliefs in terms

of two global educational philosophies, Progressivism and Traditionalism. The self-report

instrument was designed to fit an experimental theory paradigm in which permissive-

progressive attitudes and restrictive-traditional attitudes were defined as being

characteristic of a dichotomy in educational thinking. As reported by McAtee and Punch

(1977), ten items represent three critical references for both the progressive and traditional

dimensions. These are as follows: child needs, individual differences, and social learning

for the progressive dimension; discipline, subject matter, and moral standards for the








traditional dimension. According to Adwere-Boamah et al. (1982), the results of the

investigation corroborate and lend support to Kerlinger and Kaya's two component

conceptual scheme of educational philosophical orientations; Progressivism and

Traditionalism.

Another effort to develop an instrument for measuring the educational philosophy

of teachers is a two-philosophies (empirical-rational) Q-sort instrument developed by

Gowan, Newsome, and Chandler (1961). The instrument consisted of 50 statements

considered empirical and 50 considered rational. Curran, Gordan, and Doyle (1966)

transformed the GNC scale into an ordinal attitude scale and administered it to

undergraduate and graduate classes in the philosophy of education at the University of

Florida. Upon item analysis, 40 of these 100 items yielded significant discriminatory

power to measure the degree and consistency to which a person's conception of education

is conforms to experimentalism or rationalism in the three areas of ontology, epistemology

and axiology. These items were then combined with items from the work of Sayers

(1966), Ryans (1961), Kerlinger (1961), and Oliver (1953) which were felt to be

"philosophic." The scale was administered twice for test-retest reliability, and was

analyzed by class rank. The results showed graduate students to be more aligned with

Experimentalism than undergraduate students. Added to the instrument was a set of

epistemological items from the work by a faculty committee which had been charged with

development of a list of concepts which were thought to be important for graduates of the

college to hold. Further item analyses yielded a final pool of 50 items which had, over the

several test administrations with graduate and undergraduate University of Florida








classes, maintained statistically significant discriminatory power. A 24 item instrument

was developed that would reliably and validly measure groups on the continuum of a

conceptual philosophy of education that ranged from most aligned with experimentalism

to most aligned with rationalism. The results of the study revealed that the population

sampled was skewed in the direction of experimentalism. Despite the shortage of subjects

demonstrating alignment with rationalism, the items were able to yield satisfactory

discriminatory power. The authors (Curran et al., p. 392) concluded that "both item

discrimination and test validity coefficients would be strengthened if the test was now

administered to a larger sample of subjects". An illustration that outlines a system for the

contrast and comparison of educational philosophies and alternative values and ideals is

presented in Figure 2.

Curriculum Orientation Perspective

To the extent that teachers differ in their images of ideal citizens living in an ideal

society, they have varying orientations to curriculum. These orientations or views of

curriculum are characterized by assumptions about what is most important to teach, how

learning occurs, the roles of teachers and students, and what classrooms ought to be like.

Regarding teachers thought processes, Clark and Peterson (1986, p. 255) suggest that

"the thinking, planning, and decision making of teachers constitute a large part of the

psychological context of teaching. It is within this context that curriculum is interpreted

and acted upon; where teachers teach and students learn." Gay (1980, p. 57) emphasizes

that "teachers do not implement one conception in a pure approach to the exclusion of














Efficiency


EXPERIMENTALISM
Equity



Image of
Egalitarianism


Image of
Social
Darwinism


RATIONALISM
- Excellence


Liberty


Figure 2.


Educational philosophies combined with competing values and images
of schooling.


Sources: Educational philosophy items adapted from "A Short Test of One's
Educational Philosophy," Curran et al., 1966. Values and images items adapted from
"Educational Governance and Administration," Sergiovanni et al., 1987.








others but are more likely to use an eclectic approach and draw bits and pieces from

different theoretical models." Shane and Tabler (1981, p. 11) illustrate how the various

conceptions of curriculum relate to one another and or can be utilized in an eclectic

approach.

Curriculum orientations are rather wide ranging, have some overlap in them, and

are often in conflict. They are characterized by different assumptions regarding goals and

purposes of education, selection of content and objectives, characteristics of learners and

the learning process, and the nature of knowledge (Saylor et al., 1981). Unruh and Unruh

(1984) term the range of orientations a "conceptual maze" and base their discussion on the

five orientations of Eisner and Vallance (1974): the development of cognitive processes,

curriculum as technology, self-actualization, social reconstruction-relevance, and academic

rationalism. In another instance, McNeil (1977) describes a humanistic, social

reconstructionist, technological, and academic subject curriculum. Five curriculum

"designs" proposed by Saylor (1981) are subject matter/disciplines, specific

competencies/technology, human traits/processes, social functions/activities, and

individual needs and interests/activities.

Schubert (1986) developed a guest speaker approach in an attempt to illustrate the

"problematic state of curriculum knowledge." A detailed account of each of the three

curriculum orientations--intellectual traditionalist, social behaviorist, and experientialist--is

presented in Appendix B. Assuming that these differences do exist, a curriculum

orientation perspective has been established to combine with the educational philosophies














"Behaviorist"
Efficiency


EXPERIMENTALISM
Equity


"Experientialist"


"Traditionalist"
RATIONALISM
- Excellence


Liberty


Figure 3. Proposed conceptual model for testing relationships between educational
philosophy and orientations to curriculum.


















Sources: Educational philosophy items adapted from "A Short Test of One's
Educational Philosophy," Curran et al., 1966. Values and images items adapted from
"Educational Governance and Administration," Sergiovanni et al., 1987. Curriculum
orientation items adapted from "Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Perspective,"
Schubert, 1986.








expressed by Curran et al. (1966) and the competing values and ideals of Sergiovanni et

al (1987). The conceptual model of this combination is presented in Figure 3.


Research Questions and Hypotheses


The focus of this research is on the educational philosophy and curriculum

improvement preferences ofpreservice teachers as analyzed by data reported in the

instrument, "A Survey of Educational Philosophy and Curriculum Improvement

Preferences." The conceptual model will be validated by seeking answers to the following

research questions:

A. Are there significant differences in the educational philosophies and curriculum

orientations among preservice teachers by area of academic specialization?

B. Are there significant differences in the educational philosophies and curriculum

orientations among preservice teachers by area of program of study?

C. Is the difference between educational philosophies and curriculum orientations

between academic specializations the same for different programs of study?

The following research hypotheses are derived from the set of relationships

between educational philosophy and preferences for curriculum improvements that have

been proposed with the conceptual model:

Hypothesis 1 A: There is no significant difference in the Experimentalism

philosophy ofpreservice teachers as measured by scores on the research instrument by

area of academic specialization.








Hypothesis I B: There is no significant difference in the Experimentalism

philosophy of preservice teachers as measured by scores on the research instrument by

area of program of study.

Hypothesis IC: There is no significant two-way interaction for Experimentalism

among levels of academic specializations and programs of study as measured by scores on

the research instrument

Hypothesis 2A: There is no significant difference in the Rationalism philosophy of

preservice teachers as measured by scores on the research instrument by area of academic

specialization.

Hypothesis 2B: There is no significant difference in the Rationalism philosophy of

preservice teachers as measured by scores on the research instrument by area of program

of study.

Hypothesis 2C: There is no significant two-way interaction for Rationalism among

levels of academic specializations and programs of study as measured by scores on the

research instrument.

Hypothesis 3A: There is no significant difference in the Experientialist curriculum

orientation of preservice teachers as measured by scores on the research instrument by

area of academic specialization.

Hypothesis 3B: There is no significant difference in the Experientialist curriculum

orientation of preservice teachers as measured by scores on the research instrument by

area of program of study.








Hypothesis 3C: There is no significant two-way interaction for Experientialist

curriculum orientation among levels of academic specializations and programs of study as

measured by scores on the research instrument.

Hypothesis 4A: There is no significant difference in the Traditionalist curriculum

orientation of preservice teachers as measured by scores on the research instrument by

area of academic specialization.

Hypothesis 4B: There is no significant difference in the Traditionalist curriculum

orientation of preservice teachers as measured by scores on the research instrument by

area of program of study.

Hypothesis 4C: There is no significant two-way interaction for Traditionalist

curriculum orientation among levels of academic specializations and programs of study as

measured by scores on the research instrument.














CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY


The methodology for this study was organized according to the two major

purposes of this investigation. These are to test the research hypotheses derived from

theoretically expected relationships to validate the conceptual model, and, to determine if

relationships exist between educational philosophies, curriculum orientations, and

associated variables: academic specialization and program of study.

The purpose of this chapter is to present the plan that will be used to guide the

investigation. The main steps will include: the research design, instrumentation,

collection of the data, and treatment and analysis of the data.


Research Design


The research design selected for use in this study is classified as a cross-sectional,

correlational design (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). A self-report questionnaire was utilized to

gather information from groups of subjects that were drawn from a predetermined

population and the study required a score on each variable for each subject. This type of

correlational design can further be classified as "explanatory" since the major purpose is to

clarify the understanding of important phenomena through the identification of

relationships among variables (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1996).

32











Instrumentation

To assess preferences related to educational philosophy and curriculum

orientation, a four-part self-report questionnaire was used to measure the variables of

interest in this study. This instrument entitled, "A Survey of Educational Philosophy and

Curriculum Orientation Preferences," begins with a cover sheet that includes instructions

and a participant informed consent waiver. The questionnaire is divided into the

following sections: Demographic and Experience Information, Images of Curriculum,

School Problems and Proposals, and Educational Philosophy Statements. Response time

was estimated at 40-60 minutes. The survey instrument is presented in Appendix A.

Section I: Demographic and Experience Information

Respondents to the instrument were asked to provide certain information about

themselves in the Demographic and Experience Information section of the survey. This

section consists of eight items and requires about five minutes for a subject to complete. A

description of the respondent group is provided in terms of college class, program of

study, academic specialization, gender, and age. Additionally, the respondents were asked

to describe previous teaching experience in terms of three activity descriptors; tutoring,

coaching, and teaching. These descriptors were intended to assist in characterizing the

respondent group and were not requested for purposes of validating the conceptual model.

This part of Section I is also designed to prompt students to reflect upon their previous

experiences in a teaching role before beginning Sections II-IV of the survey.








Section II: Images of Curriculum

The second section of the survey is designed to elicit open responses about what

preservice teachers deem as the ideal teaching situation. Information was compared to

that in Section I to concur the academic specialization and program of study variables for

quantitative analysis. Written responses to nine open-ended questions were examined.

Examples of the questions include: What grade are you teaching? How many students

are in your class? What is the current topic of study?

Further questions ask the respondent to draw a picture and give a detailed account

of what they and their students are doing. This part of Section II is designed to prompt

students to seriously reflect upon their ideal teaching role before beginning Sections III-IV

of the survey. This section requires about 15-20 minutes for a subject to complete.

Section III: School Problems and Proposals

A questionnaire was developed for use in this study to assess preferences related to

curriculum orientation. This instrument, "School Problems and Proposals," contains six

topics that are perennial in public schools. According to Schubert (1986, p. 345),

"school problems and proposals emerge and recede with socials conditions, and they have

a way of returning again for those who wait ten years or so in the profession. The labels

may change, but many of the problems are perennial." Respondents were requested to

rank order given proposals to samples of the these recurring problems after examining

curriculum orientations from three different perspectives. This section requires about 10-

15 minutes for a subject to complete.








Section IV: Educational Philosophy Statements

The 24-item "Test of Educational Philosophy" (Curran, Gordon, & Doyle, 1966)

was used for assessment of the educational philosophies of the respondents. The response

time for this forced-choice questionnaire is estimated at 15-20 minutes. According to

Curran et al. (1966) the purpose of the researchers responsible for designing this test was

"to develop a short, reliable and valid instrument to measure the ontological,

epistemological and axiological dimensions of a teacher's philosophy of education."

The procedure for the developing the test began with a review of a Q-sort

instrument called the GNC (Gowan, Newsome, & Chandler, 1961). According to the

researchers:

this 100-item instrument was considered easily the most extensive and
authoritative source of items and thus the obvious resource with which to begin.
Upon item analysis, 40 of these 100 GNC items yielded significant discriminatory
power to measure the degree and consistency to which a person's conception of
education is experimental or rationalistic in the three areas of ontology,
epistemology and axiology. (Curran et al., 1966, p. 385)

Test items that were felt to be "philosophic" were then successively combined with items

from the work of Ryans (1961), Kerlinger (1961), Oliver (1953), and a University of

Florida faculty committee charged with the development of a list of concepts whech were

thought to be important for graduates of the college to hold. According to the

researchers:

these successive item analyses yielded a final pool of fifty items which had, over
the several test administrations with graduate and undergraduate University of
Florida classes, maintained statistically significant discriminatory power. The task
then shifted to selecting from these fifty items a short schedule of items which
would reliably and validly measure groups on the continuum of a conceptual
philosophy of education that ranged from most rationalistic to most
experimentalistic. (Curran et al., 1966, p. 385)








As a result of final item analysis, twenty-five items were selected as the most usable in a

short test that would measure a subject's predisposition to express a philosophy of

education that could be termed experimentalism. When subjected to cross-validation

analysis, one item fell below the criteria for admissibility and was therefore not

recommended for future use.


Collection of the Data


The basis for this research was to collect empirical evidence about each preservice

teacher's educational philosophy and curriculum orientation. The researcher developed a

survey instrument to be used for this purpose. The data were collected by distributing a

copy of the research instrument, "A Survey of the Educational Philosophy and

Curriculum Orientation Preferences," to preservice teachers during their introductory

education classes. Permission required to administer the instrument was granted by the

University of Florida Institutional Review Board, department chairpersons, and the course

instructors.

In the spring semester 1997, instructors at selected colleges in central and north

central Florida were personally contacted by the researcher regarding participation in the

study. Arrangements necessary for participation including distribution and collection of

the research instrument and an optional follow-up seminar conducted by the researcher

were discussed at this time. Instructors who expressed an interest in participating were

then delivered a memo explaining research procedure (Appendix D) and a class set of the

research instrument for distribution to each member of the class.









Follow-Up Procedures

Arrangements for collecting the surveys was made individually with each

participating instructor. The researcher collected each set directly from the instructor or

in an agreed upon location such as an instructor's department office. The date and time

for a follow-up seminar was confirmed during this exchange.

Response Rate

To insure an adequate sample size and diversity, fourteen course instructors at

eight different college campuses were personally contacted by the researcher. Each

instructor agreed to review correspondence explaining the study and participant

requirements (Appendix D). After reviewing the correspondence twelve of the fourteen

instructors agreed to participate. One instructor suggested including four different classes

in the study raising the total number of groups to fifteen. Of the potential 331 preservice

registered in these classes, 298 completed and returned the survey to their instructor.

Instructors cited absenteeism as the greatest contributing factor to the incomplete rate of

return. Of the 298 completed surveys, 34 could not be analyzed because they lacked

sufficient demographic data or were incorrectly completed, such as checking only one

response or multiple coding using the same rank. The 264 valid responses represent a

return rate of 79.76% of the research sample. Table 1 reports the population that returned

valid responses.









TABLE 1
Participating Research Sample


Pre-Service
Teachers Elementary Middle Secondary* Total
(K 5th) (6th 8th) (9th and above)


English** 76 6 27 109
(41.29%)


Mathematics 33 5 11 49
(18.56%)


Social Science 11 10 17 38
(14.39%)


Science 16 4 13 33
(12.50%)


Special Education 25 3 7 35
(13.26%)





Total 161 28 75 264

60.98% 10.61% 28.41%




Secondary includes post-secondary
** English includes language arts, foreign languages, children's literature, and reading








As indicated, the largest segment of the respondent group consists of preservice

teachers preparing for careers at the elementary level. An elementary program of study

was indicated by 161 of the 264 respondents, representing 60.98% of the sample group.

Further, elementary-level preservice teachers who chose the academic specialization

"English" represent 28.78% of the sample group. In contrast, the smallest groups

represented preservice teachers who were preparing to teach at the middle level. The

profiles depicted in the respondent group are not unlike those in the larger universe of

prospective teachers nationwide.


Treatment and Analysis of the Data


Participating preservice teachers were given directions in Section I of the

instrument to answer questions regarding demographics and teaching experience. Of

particular interest to the researcher were the variables academic specialization and

program of study. These variables were statistically analyzed in terms of frequencies,

means and standard deviations.

The qualitative data taken from Section II of the research instrument are used as

an adjunct to the quantitative analysis described above. Participants were given directions

to imagine and describe their classroom, their students, and themselves after several years

of teaching. They were to think of themselves as an experienced teacher; "close to the

teacher they want to be." Subjects' responses were examined comparatively to those in

Section I in order to verify the categories of variables regarding academic specialization

and program of study.








Participants were given directions in Section III to rank order the responses to

each "School Problem and Proposal." Rank ordering was to be accomplished as follows:

1 that response which is MOST reflective of your position.

2 that response which is SOMEWHAT reflective of your position.

3 that response which is LEAST reflective of your position.

Since respondents were asked in Section III to rank order their responses, these data may

be classified as ordinal data; objects that stand in relationship to each other as greater than

or less than.

Participants were given directions in Section IV to make a forced choice to each

Education Philosophy Statement. The ratings were accomplished as follows:

A that response that STRONGLY AGREES with the statement.

B that response that AGREES with the statement.

C that response that has NO OPINION or DOES NOT APPLY.

D that response that DISAGREES with the statement.

E that response that STRONGLY DISAGREES with the statement.

The data from each section of the survey, Academic Specialization, Program of

Study, Curriculum Orientation, and Educational Philosophy, were transferred into data

processing codes for input to the Statistical Analysis System (SAS). The SAS program

was used for statistical treatment of the data. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)

was computed as well as chi-squares for each response to test the proposed relationships.

The purpose of this analyses is to determine whether any of the groups differ significantly

from any other group,














CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA


The purpose of this study was to determine through a researcher developed

instrument whether responses of selected preservice teachers could be shown to be

consistent with a given educational philosophy or curriculum orientation. A conceptual

model was constructed to display possible relationships between these responses.

Specifically, answers to the following questions were sought:

A) Are there significant differences in the educational philosophies and curriculum

orientations among preservice teachers by area of academic specialization?

B) Are there significant differences in the educational philosophies and curriculum

orientations among preservice teachers by area of program of study?

C) Is the difference between educational philosophies and curriculum orientations

between academic specializations the same for different programs of study?

Answers to these questions are reported in this chapter. Following a description of

the research sample, the statistical analysis is organized into two sections. The first of

these includes results of analyses according to procedures identified within research

questions and hypotheses. The second contains analysis of individual responses for each

dependent variable, academic specialization and program of study.









Description of the Research Sample

Studies of occupational socialization (e.g., Lortie, 1975, Bucher & Stelling, 1977)

have found that the professional ideas that guide subsequent behavior are often formed

early in one's career. Educational researchers (e.g., Adler, 1984; Tabachnick & Zeichner,

1984; Goodman & Adler, 1985) have examined the teaching perspectives students

develop during their professional preparation. Goodman (1988) contends that it follows,

then, that a crucial period for examining the development of a teachers' practical

philosophy of teaching is during their preservice education.

Description of the Respondent Group

As indicated previously, 264 of the 331 sample members comprised the respondent

group, yielding a response rate of 79.76%. Given the less than full response, the

descriptions that follow are attributed to the respondent group rather than to the sample of

preservice teachers.

Demographic variables. Description of the respondent group is provided here in

terms of current class, program of study, academic specialization, gender, and educational

psychology. Summary data on these variables are provided in Table 2.

Most participants selected for this study, though accustomed to assuming informal

teaching responsibilities, were at the introductory stage of a formal teacher education

program For example, only 15.53% of the respondents had taken an educational

psychology course. Slightly over three-fourths were in their sophomore, junior, or senior

years while others were fairly evenly distributed as freshmen or graduate students.

Slightly over three-fourths of the 264 respondents were female.









TABLE 2
Frequency Distribution on Selected Demographic Information Variables


Variable Level Frequency %


Current Class







Program of Study







Academic
Specialization


Gender


- Freshman
- Sophomore
- Junior
- Senior
- Graduate Student
- Other

- Early Childhood
- Elementary
- Middle Level Education
- Secondary Education
- Masters Certification
- Other / No Response

- English
- Mathematics
- Social Science
- Science
- Other / No Response*


- Female
- Male


Educational
Psychology


-Yes
-No


* Other = Of the original 57 who responded "Other" 35 specified Special Education and
were included in the study as presented in Table 1. The remaining 23 were discounted as
non-categorical.


n= 264


9.09
28.79
23.11
26.52
7.58
4.92

6.44
47.73
10.61
13.64
4.92
16.67

41.29
18.56
1439
12.50
13.26

76.52
23.48

15.53
84.47









Most respondents listed multiple teaching experiences. Over half, 57.20% of the

respondent group, indicated that they had been a tutor, 22.73% a coach, and 40.91%

indicated formal classroom teaching experience. About one of every four respondents

listed "other" experiences such as counseling, baby-sitting, and scouting. Most "other"

teaching experiences took place in church classrooms, in the military, the YMCA, or at

home. About one of every six, 16.67% of the respondent group, gave no indication of

tutoring, coaching, or teaching experience. Summary data of teaching experiences are

presented in Table 3.


TABLE 3
Frequency Distribution for Teaching Experience


Experience Frequency Percentage Percentage of
Descriptor of Responses of Responses Respondent Group


Tutoring 151 35.36 57.20

Coaching 60 14.05 22.73

Teaching 108 25.29 40.91

Other 64 14.99 24.24

No Response 44 10.30 1667

TOTAL 427a 99.99


n = 264


a Respondents could indicate multiple teaching experiences.








Educational philosophy variables. Characterization of the respondent group

regarding educational philosophy is presented here according to the two dimensions

delineated prior to data collection. A comprehensive description of each educational

philosophy, Experimentalism and Rationalism, is presented in Appendix B. A comparison

of the hypothesized dichotomous relationship, presented in Figure 3, is discussed here and

statistically analyzed in the sections that follow.

Participants were given directions to make a forced choice to each of twenty-four

educational philosophy statements. The ratings were accomplished as follows:

A that response that STRONGLY AGREES with the statement.
B that response that AGREES with the statement.
C that response that has NO OPINION or DOES NOT APPLY.
D that response that DISAGREES with the statement.
E that response that STRONGLY DISAGREES with the statement.

The respondent group generally agreed or strongly agreed with the statements, marking

either B or A, 64% of the time. Selected questions producing atypical responses were of

interest to the researcher and are discussed here. Summary data of the frequency

distribution of responses are presented in Table 4.

If data are compared on a statement-by-statement basis, respondents often

appeared to contradict themselves. For example, a notable majority, 86% of the group,

agreed or strongly agreed with statement 15, which represented the educational

philosophy of Experimentalism. The statement read: "Existing knowledge is tentative and

is subject to revision in the light of new facts." Conversely, only 30% of the group agreed

or strongly agreed with statement 23, which also reflected Experimentalism. The

statement read: "There is no reality beyond that knowable through human experience."









TABLE 4
Frequency Distribution of Responses
By Educational Philosophy Statements


Statement A B C D E
f % f % f % f % f %


1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

7.
8.

9.
10.
11.
12.


39 14.77
85 32.20
86 32.58

36 13.64

31 11,74

14 5.30
65 24.62

34 12.88
19 7.20
67 25.38
44 16.67
32 12.12


39 14.02
79 29.92
104 39.39
102 38.64

38 1439
70 26.52

58 21.97
15 5.68
69 26.14
44 16.67
34 12.88
71 26.89


137 51.89

139 52.65
111 42.05

124 46.97

99 37.50
86 32.58

109 41.29
107 40.53
103 39.02
133 50.39
110 41.67
120 45.45


102 38.64
129 48.86

124 46.97
130 49.24
142 53.79
113 42.80

118 44.70
110 41.67

108 40.91
140 53.03
46 17.42
141 53.41


33 12.50
15 5.68

33 12.50

36 13.69

63 23.86
53 20.08

15 5.68
48 18.18
56 21.21
29 10.98

29 10.98
76 28.79


33 12.50
23 8.71

27 10.23

24 7.58
46 17.42
23 8.71

40 15.15
68 25.76

28 10.61
25 9.47
70 26.52
17 6.44


49 18.56
21 7.95
32 12.12

61 23.11

62 23.48
91 34.47

50 18.94
51 19.32
65 24.62
32 12.12
71 26.89
31 11.74


73 27.65

26 9.85

9 3.41
9 3.41

36 13.64
46 17.42

47 17.80
67 25.38

42 15.91
50 18.94
75 28.41
26 9.85


6 2.27
4 1.52

2 0.76

7 2.65
9 3.41

20 7.58
25 9.47
24 9.09
21 7.95

3 1.14

10 3.79
5 1.89


19 720
7 2.65

0 0.00
3 1.14

2 0.76
12 4.55

1 0.38
4 1.52
17 6.44

5 1.89
39 14.77

9 3.41








Similarly, 87% of the group, agreed or strongly agreed with statement 16, which

represented an educational philosophy of Rationalism. This statement read, "A

knowledge of history is worthwhile in itself because it embraces the accumulated wisdom

of our ancestors." However, only 38% of the group agreed or strongly agreed with

statement 6, which also reflected Rationalism. The statement read: "In the interest of

social stability, the youth of this generation must be brought into conformity with the

beliefs and institutions of our national heritage."

Curriculum orientation preference variables. Characterization of the respondent

group regarding curriculum orientation preferences is presented here according to the

three dimensions delineated prior to data collection. A comprehensive description of each

curriculum orientation, Experientialist, Social Behaviorist, and Intellectual Traditionalist,

is presented in Appendix B. A comparison of the hypothesized dichotomous relationship

between two of the three curriculum orientations, Experientialist and Intellectual

Traditionalist, presented in the conceptual model in Figure 3, is discussed here and

statistically analyzed in the sections that follow.

Six forced-choice proposals related to problems facing curriculum were used to

assess preservice teachers' orientations to curriculum. If data are compared on an item-

by-item basis respondents appeared to contradict themselves. For example, when faced

with the problems of student apathy, individual differences, teaching the basics, and drug

abuse education, respondents chose the proposal reflective of the Experientialist

curriculum orientation over that of the Intellectual Traditionalist. Conversely, when faced

with the problems of discipline and the utilization of standardized test scores, respondents








demonstrated a preference for the proposal reflective of the Intellectual Traditionalist.

Each proposal, in the order it appeared on the research instrument, is discussed in this

section. Summary data of responses are presented in Table 5.

Regarding student apathy a clear majority, 51% of the group, indicated a

preference for the Experientialist view that stated:

"When teachers show students that they can achieve more meaning and direction

in their lives by participating in school, there will be much less apathy and

attendance problems."

A minority, 26% of the group, preferred the traditionalist proposal for preventing student

apathy. In this view, the teachers' role is to convey that within their discipline lies insight

into the great events and mysteries of life. Further, the proposal stated that students will

feel a fulfillment and joy that does much to prevent apathy.

The Traditionalist orientation was preferred in two of the six categories of

problems facing schools. The widest margin of preference of the Traditionalist view over

that of the Experientialist regarded the problem of maintaining classroom discipline. The

Traditionalist orientation, preferred by 40% of the group, stated:

"Students must first be made to pay attention. If students listen to teachers who

know and love their subject, they will soon realize the great personal enrichment

that an education offers. At that point discipline will switch from required to self-

initiated."

Only 28% of the group indicated that it is only when students see knowledge as irrelevant

that discipline problems occur. This Experientialist view also states that the teacher's









TABLE 5
Frequency Distribution of Responses
By Curriculum Orientation


Social
Problem Experientialist Behaviorist Traditionalist
f % f % f %


Apathy





Discipline





Individual
Differences





Basics





Drug Abuse
Education





Standardized
Test Scores


51.14


74 28.03


148






127





142






111


56.06






48.11





53.79






42.05


21.97


31.82 106


87 32.95


34.85





29.55






7.95


29






45





44






132


26.89





40.15





1098






17.05





1667






50.00








central job is to get to know students well enough to enable them to discover knowledge

that helps to meet their needs. The rejection of this Experientialist view contrasts with the

following preference regarding individual differences.

The most notable majority, 56% of the group, indicated that careful attention to

the needs and interests of students is needed when facing the problem of individual

differences. This view, representative of the Experientialist curriculum orientation, also

states that if students are treated alike, their differences become exaggerated. The

traditionalist view that individual differences are exaggerated today in education was

preferred by only 11% of the respondents.

The essence of teaching the "basics" was characterized very differently in each

orientation. The Experientialist view that the skills important to leading a good life are

related to human relations was preferred by 48% of the respondent group. This view

supports curricula emphasizing skill building in communication, needs identification, and

problem solving. The least preferred orientation was that of the Traditionalist. This

view, preferred by only 17% of the group, required a student relationship "with a great

teacher who deeply understands their discipline." The basic skills defined as reading,

writing, and arithmetic, represented the Behaviorist orientation. Although preferred less

than the Experientialist orientation, a notable 35% of the group agreed that these skills

"are needed for participation in society and are the building blocks of communication and

cognitive performance."

When confronted with the societal problem of drug abuse education, a clear

majority, 53% of the group, preferred the Experientialist view that stated:









"If students are involved with drugs, have questions about them, or just want to

talk about the peer pressure associated with them, schools should provide

opportunity to pursue this interest."

The Traditionalist view stated that to a large extent, schools are trying to provide courses

to combat every serious social problem. Only 16% of the group agreed that consequently

curricula are becoming increasingly watered-down due to attention placed on solving

social problems.

The Traditionalist orientation was slightly preferred by respondents faced with the

problem of using standardized test scores. This view, chosen by 50% of the group, stated:

"Standardized aptitude tests can be of some use in determining who has a

propensity to study an area, however teachers should have the primary

responsibility for assessment of student progress."

The Experientialist view, preferred by 42% of the group stated:

"Students devalue other aspects of their unique, and are treated as labels instead of

unique individuals when standardized test scores are used as the prime measure of

productivity."

The proposal preferred least on the entire orientation exercise was the Behaviorist view in

this category. Using standardized test scores as an objective measure of "educational

production" was chosen by only 8% of the respondent group.









Statistical Analyses of the Research Questions


This section reports the data that are pertinent to accepting or failing to accept the

null hypotheses developed to test the problem statements. The data are represented by

cell frequency, means, and standard deviations for each of the four dependent variables as

a function of academic specialization and program of study.

Experimentalism

The first dependent variable analyzed was the educational philosophy of

Experimentalism. For Experimentalism an F-value of 1.01 with a probability of.45 was

computed for the overall model. These results indicate that the three sources of variation,

academic specialization, program of study, and interaction of preservice teachers, do not

explain a significant portion of variability on the Experimentalism scale.

Table 6 reports the cell frequencies, unweighted cell means, and standard

deviations of the eight Experimentalism responses in the survey instrument. The higher

the score (maximum 16) the more reflective those responses appeared to be of the

preservice teacher's philosophy. Conversely, the lower the score (minimum -16) the less

likely the responses appeared to reflect the position of the preservice teacher. The sample

sizes, which are consistent throughout the study, ranged from a low of 3 for special

education preservice teachers at the middle level to a high of 76 for English preservice

teachers at the elementary level.

Hypothesis 1A. There is no significant difference in the Experimentalism

philosophy of preservice teachers as measured by scores on the Survey of Educational

Philosophy and Curriculum Orientation Preferences by area of academic specialization.









TABLE 6
Frequency, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Experimentalism
As a Function of Academic Specialization and Program of Study


ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SECONDARY


(a)
ENGLISH (b)
(c)



MATH



SOCIAL
SCIENCE




SCIENCE



SPECIAL
EDUCATION





(d)


76.00
4.16
4.38


33.00
4.79
4.57


11.00
4.54
2.88


16.00
3.94
3.34


25.00
4.80
4.13


4,45


6.00
2.00
2.00


5.00
3.20
4.66


10.00
3.00
5.19


4.00
1.50
3.00


3.00
3.00
2.65


2.54


27.00
3.48
3.39


11.00
6.45
4.66


17.00
6.00
3.87


13.00
3.85
5.37


7.00
4.14
5.34


4.78


(a) -= Frequency, (b)= Mean, (c)= Standard Deviation, (d)= Cumulative Average


3.21





4.81





4.51





3.10





3.98









For this hypothesis the F-value was computed at 1.04. The probability of obtaining a

computed F-value this size is .39. Since the probability is greater than the .05 level chosen

for statistical significance, the results indicated that the null hypothesis should not be

rejected.

Hypothesis IB. There is no significant difference in the Experimentalism

philosophy ofpreservice teachers as measured by scores on the Survey of Educational

Philosophy and Curriculum Orientation Preferences by area of program of study. For this

hypothesis the F-value was computed at 2.31. The probability of obtaining a computed

F-value this size is. 10. Although this value approaches the .05 level chosen for statistical

significance, the results indicated that the null hypothesis should not be rejected.

Hypothesis 1C. There is no significant two-way interaction for Experimentalism

among levels of academic specializations and programs of study as measured by scores on

the Survey of Educational Philosophy and Curriculum Orientation Preferences. For this

hypothesis the F-value was computed at .34. The probability of obtaining a computed

F-value this size is .95. Since the probability is greater than the .05 level chosen for

statistical significance, the results indicated that the null hypothesis should not be rejected.

Rationalism

The second dependent variable analyzed was the educational philosophy of

Rationalism. For Rationalism an F-value of.89 with a probability of .59 was computed

for the overall model. These results indicate that the three sources of variation, academic

specialization, program of study, and interaction of preservice teachers and control do not

explain a significant portion of variability on the Rationalism scale.








Table 7 reports the cell frequencies, unweighted cell means, and standard

deviations of the sixteen Rationalism responses in the survey instrument. The higher the

score (maximum 32) the more reflective those responses appeared to be of the preservice

teacher's philosophy. Conversely, the lower the score (minimum -32) the less likely the

responses appeared to reflect the position of the preservice teacher. The sample sizes,

which are consistent throughout the study, ranged from a low of 3 for special education

preservice teachers at the middle level to a high of 76 for English preservice teachers at

the elementary level.

Hypothesis 2A. There is no significant difference in the Rationalism philosophy of

preservice teachers as measured by scores on the Survey of Educational Philosophy and

Curriculum Orientation Preferences by area of academic specialization. For this

hypothesis the F-value was computed at 1.83. The probability of obtaining a computed F-

value this size is .12. Since the probability is greater than the .05 level chosen for

statistical significance, the results indicated that the null hypothesis should not be rejected.

Hypothesis 2B. There is no significant difference in the Rationalism philosophy of

preservice teachers as measured by scores on the Survey of Educational Philosophy and

Curriculum Orientation Preferences by area of program of study. For this hypothesis the

F-value was computed at .21. The probability of obtaining a computed F-value this size is

.81. Since the probability is greater than the .05 level chosen for statistical significance,

the results indicated that the null hypothesis should not be rejected.

Hypothesis 2C. There is no significant two-way interaction for Rationalism among

the levels of academic specializations and programs of study as measured by scores on the









TABLE 7
Frequency, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Rationalism
As a Function of Academic Specialization and Program of Study


ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SECONDARY


ENGLISH





MATH



SOCIAL
SCIENCE





SCIENCE


SPECIAL
EDUCATION


76.00
9.19
8.43


33.00
11.78
7.04


11.00
7.27
7.84


16.00
9.94
7.35


25.00
10.36
8.97


6.00
6.50
7.06


5.00
17.20
6.14


10.00
10.60
10.30


4.00
3.50
12.66


3,00
13.33
5.69


27.00
10.59
8.87


11.00
10.91
6.66


1700
8.00
10.13


13.00
10.69
8.37


7.00
9.86
5.79


(d) 9.71


10.23


10.01


(a) = Frequency, (b) = Mean, (c) = Standard Deviation, (d) = Cumulative Average


(d) 8.76





13.30





8.62





8.04


11.18








Survey of Educational Philosophy and Curriculum Orientation Preferences. For this

hypothesis the F-value was computed at .71. The probability of obtaining a computed

F-value this size is .68. Since the probability is greater than the .05 level chosen for

statistical significance, the results indicated that the null hypothesis should not be rejected.

Experientialist

The third dependent variable analyzed was the Experientialist curriculum

orientation. For the Experientialist orientation an F-value of 1.74 with a probability of .04

was computed for the overall model. These results indicate that one or more of the three

sources of variation, academic specialization, program of study, and interaction of

preservice teachers and control do explain a significant portion of variability on the

Experientialist scale.

Table 8 reports the cell frequencies, unweighted cell means, and standard

deviations of the six Experientialist responses in the survey instrument. The lower the

score (minimum 6) the more reflective those responses appeared to be of the preservice

teacher's philosophy. Conversely, the higher the score (maximum 18) the less likely the

responses appeared to reflect the position of the preservice teacher. The sample sizes,

which are consistent throughout the study, ranged from a low of 3 for special education

preservice teachers at the middle level to a high of 76 for English preservice teachers at

the elementary level.

Hypothesis 3A. There is no significant difference in the Experientialist curriculum

orientation of preservice teachers as measured by scores on the Survey of Educational

Philosophy and Curriculum Orientation Preferences by area of academic specialization.









TABLE 8
Frequency, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Experientialist Orientation
As a Function of Academic Specialization and Program of Study


ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SECONDARY


ENGLISH





MATH



SOCIAL
SCIENCE





SCIENCE



SPECIAL
EDUCATION


76.00
10.14
1.87


33.00
10.09
2.04


11.00
9.64
2.01


16.00
9.50
1.26


25.00
10.08
2.14


(d) 9.89


6.00
12.16
2.04


5.00
9.40
2.07


10.00
11.20
2.10


4.00
12.00
2.45


3.00
12.33
1.53


11.42


27.00
10.59
2.29


11.00
10.27
1.79


17.00
11.06
2.05


13.00
11.46
2.11


7.00
10.57
1.62


(d) 10.96





9.92





10.63





1099





10.99


10.79


(a) = Frequency, (b) = Mean, (c) = Standard Deviation, (d) = Cumulative Average








For this hypothesis the F-value was computed at 1.48. The probability of obtaining a

computed F-value this size is .21. Since the probability is greater than the .05 level chosen

for statistical significance, the results indicated that the null hypothesis should not be

rejected.
Hypothesis 3B. There is no significant difference in the Experientialist curriculum

orientation of preservice teachers as measured by scores on the Survey of Educational

Philosophy and Curriculum Orientation Preferences by area of program of study. For this

hypothesis the F-value was computed at 6.33. The probability of obtaining a computed F-

value this size is .01. Since the probability is less than the .05 level chosen for statistical

significance, the results indicated that the null hypothesis should be rejected.

Hypothesis 3C. There is no significant two-way interaction for Experientialist

curriculum orientation among levels of academic specializations and programs of study as

measured by scores on the Survey of Educational Philosophy and Curriculum Orientation

Preferences. For this hypothesis the F-value was computed at 1.31. The probability of

obtaining a computed F-value this size is .24. since the probability is greater than the .05

level chosen for statistical significance, the results indicated that the null hypothesis should

not be rejected.

Traditionalist

The fourth dependent variable analyzed was the Traditionalist curriculum

orientation. For the Traditionalist orientation an F-value of 1.94 with a probability of .02

was computed for the overall model. These results indicate that one or more of the three

sources of variation, academic specialization, program of study, and interaction of








preservice teachers and control do explain a significant portion of variability on the

Traditionalist scale.

Table 9 reports the cell frequencies, unweighted cell means, and standard

deviations of the six Traditionalist responses in the survey instrument. The lower the

score (minimum 6) the more reflective those responses appeared to be of the preservice

teacher's philosophy. Conversely, the higher the score (maximum 18) the less likely the

responses appeared to reflect the position of the preservice teacher. The sample sizes,

which are consistent throughout the study, ranged from a low of 3 for special education

preservice teachers at the middle level to a high of 76 for English preservice teachers at

the elementary level.

Hypothesis 4A. There is no significant difference in the Traditionalist curriculum

orientation of preservice teachers as measured by scores on the Survey of Educational

Philosophy and Curriculum Orientation Preferences by area of academic specialization.

For this hypothesis the F-value was computed at 1.19. The probability of obtaining a

computed F-value this size is .31. Since the probability is greater than the .05 level chosen

for statistical significance, the results indicated that the null hypothesis should not be

rejected.

Hypothesis 4B. There is no significant difference in the Traditionalist curriculum

orientation of preservice teachers as measured by scores on the Survey of Educational

Philosophy and Curriculum Orientation Preferences by area of program of study. For this

hypothesis the F-value was computed at 3.34. The probability of obtaining a computed

F-value this size is .04. Since the probability is less than the .05 level chosen for statistical

significance, the results indicated that the null hypothesis should be rejected.









TABLE 9
Frequency, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Traditionalist Orientation
As a Function of Academic Specialization and Program of Study


ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SECONDARY


ENGLISH





MATH



SOCIAL
SCIENCE


76.00
13.12
2.08


33.00
13.15
1.64


11.00
12.45
281


16.00
SCIENCE 14.19
1.76


SPECIAL 25.00
EDUCATION 13.36
1.91



(d) 13.25


6.00
11.50
2.26


5.00
14.00
1.41


10.00
12.50
2.12


4.00
10.75
2.99


3.00
11.33
2.08


12.02


27.00
12.85
2.25


11.00
13.18
1.40


17.00
12.18
2.32


13.00
12.69
2.18


7.00
13.43
1.40


(d) 12.49




13.44


12.38


12.54





12.71


12.87


(a) = Frequency, (b) = Mean, (c) = Standard Deviation, (d) = Cumulative Average








Hypothesis 4C. There is no significant two-way interaction for Traditionalist

curriculum orientation among levels of academic specializations and programs of study as

measured by scores on the Survey of Educational Philosophy and Curriculum Orientation

Preferences. For this hypothesis the F-value was computed at 1.51. The probability of

obtaining a computed F-value this size is .15. Since the probability is greater than the .05

level chosen for statistical significance, the results indicated that the null hypothesis should

not be rejected.

Summary of the data using the computed probability and F-value is presented in

Table 10. Analysis of the data enables rejection of two of the null hypotheses. Hypothesis

3B and Hypothesis 4B both concern the independent variable program of study.

Hypothesis 3B relates with the Experientialist responses indicating a probability coefficient

of.01. Hypothesis 4B relates with Traditionalist responses indicating a probability

coefficient of .04. Thus, analysis reveals two relationships between curriculum orientation

and program type that are greater than chance. Further, the analysis of variance for the

dependent variables indicated that there was no significant two-way interaction among

levels of types of academic specialization and program of study.


Individual Item Responses


The researcher was further interested in knowing if individual item responses in

each group of dependent variables could be shown to be significant at the .05 level or if

they were canceled by non-effective items in the Means Analysis. To answer these









TABLE 10
Computed Probability F-Value of Dependent Variable Responses
As a Function of Specified Independent Variables


Dependent
Variable


p< .05


1 EXPERIMENTALISM


2 RATIONALISM


3 EXPERIENTIALIST


Overall


Overall


Overall


1.01

1.04
2.31
.34


.89

1.83
.21
.71


1.74

1.48
6.33
1.31


F-Value

.45

.39
.10
.95


.59

.12
.81
.68


.04*

.21
.01*
.24


4 TRADITIONALIST


Overall 1.94


(A)
(B)
(C)


1.19
3.34
1.51


* Indicates comparison significant at the .05 level.

(A) = By Type of Academic Specialization
(B) = By Type of Program of Study
(C) Two-way Interaction Among the Levels of Types


.02*

.31
.04*
.15









questions an item analysis using chi-square by academic specialization by program of study

was conducted. The chi-square and probability coefficient for each response in the

dependent variable set are reported in Tables 11, 12, 13, and 14.

Table 11 reports the eight responses in the research instrument that measured the

educational philosophy of Experimentalism. Of the eight responses as a function of the

independent variable academic specialization, no responses yielded chi-squares that had a

probability level that met the criteria for statistical significance. Analysis of one

Experimentalism response by program of study (15) yielded a chi-square of 12.06 and a

probability coefficient of .06 indicating that a relationship would exist at a slightly higher

significance level.

Table 12 reports the 16 responses in the research instrument that measured the

educational philosophy of Rationalism. Of the sixteen responses as a function of the

independent variable academic specialization, three responses (6, 11, and 16) yielded chi-

squares of 39.37, 29.85, and 26.14 and probability coefficients of .01, .02, and .05

respectively, indicating that a relationship existed. Analysis of four Rationalism responses

by program of study (4, 6, 8, and 22) yielded chi-squares of 19.72, 16.29, 21.34, and

16.03, and probability coefficients of .01, .04, .01, and .04 respectively, indicating that a

relationship existed.

Table 13 reports the six responses that were developed to measure the

Experientialist curriculum orientation. Of the six responses as a function of the









TABLE 11
Chi-Square and Probability for Experimentalism Response Items
By Academic Specialization By Program of Study


By Academic Specialization By Program of Study

Responses Chi-Square P x Chi-Square P x


13.47


20.41


15.66


17.65


20.71


9.84


15.37


1952


5.95


10.49


8.35


11.88


13.78


12.06


8.21


9.99


p <.05









TABLE 12
Chi-Square and Probability for Rationalism Response Items
By Academic Specialization By Program of Study


By Academic Specialization By Program of Study

Responses Chi-Square P x Chi-Square P x


22.23

15.10

15.47

39.37

16.62

13.79

29.85

13.92

18.15

26.14

11.91

16.18

22.97

15.69

10.96

16.62


.14

.51

.49

.01*

.41

.61

.02*

.61

.58

.05*

.75

.44

.12

.48

81

.41


3.90

3.85

19.72

16.29

6.16

21.34

6.57

10.44

5.01

7.42

7.68

5.01

11.54

4.04

16.03

2.84


.87

.87

.01*

.04*

.63

.01*

58

.24

.89

49

.47

.76

.17

.85

.04*

.94


p < .05
* Indicates comparison significant at the .05 level









TABLE 13
Chi-Square and Probability for Experientialist Response Items
By Academic Specialization By Program of Study


By Academic Specialization By Program of Study

Responses Chi-Square P x Chi-Square P x


1 11.09 .20 1.31 86
(Student Apathy)


2 7.43 .49 9.25 .06
(Student Discipline)


3 6.33 .61 8.18 .09
(Individual Differences)


4 8.81 .36 7.14 .13
(Teaching Basics)


5 8 17 .42 5.00 .29
(Drug Abuse Education)


6 5.35 .72 11.91 .02*
(Standardized Testing)


p <.05
* Indicates comparison significant at the .05 level









TABLE 14
Chi-Square and Probability for Traditionalist Response Items
By Academic Specialization By Program of Study


By Academic Specialization By Program of Study

Responses Chi-Square P x Chi-Square P x


1
(Student Apathy)


(Student Discipline)


3
(Individual Differences)


(Teaching Basics)


5 6.12
(Drug Abuse Education)


6 4.62
(Standardized Testing)


p <.05
* Indicates comparison significant at the .05 level


14,13


0.65


13.80


12.27


6.96


.96



.02*



.14


6.89


5.17


4.72


5.90


2.74









independent variable academic specialization, no responses yielded chi-squares that had a

probability level that met the criteria for statistical significance. Analysis of one

Experientialist response by program of study (6) yielded a chi-square of 11.91 and a

probability coefficient of .02, indicating that a relationship existed.

Table 14 reports the six responses that were developed to measure the

Traditionalist curriculum orientation. Of the six responses as a function of the

independent variable academic specialization no responses yielded chi-squares that had a

probability level that met the criteria for statistical significance. Analysis of one

Traditionalist response by program of study (2) yielded a chi-square of 12.27 and a

probability coefficient of .02, indicating that a relationship existed.

The probability levels in the majority of individual response items by academic

specialization and program of study, as reported in Tables 11, 12, 13, and 14, would lead

the researcher to assert that the responses are independent of each other. That is, there

are no differences in response patterns between preservice teachers by academic

specialization or by program of study.

In Chapter V the results of the study are discussed in relation to the educational

philosophies, curriculum orientations, and the independent variables, academic

specialization and program of study. Additionally, recommendations for further study are

suggested.














CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS, and RECOMMENDATIONS


This final chapter includes a summary of the study, discussion and conclusions, and

recommendations for further research.


Summary


The purpose of this study was to investigate the existence of relationships between

preservice teachers' educational philosophies and substantive preferences regarding

selected dimensions of curriculum orientation. Specifically, the study sought to investigate

the relationship of preservice teachers' selected responses to the philosophies of

Experimentalism and Rationalism, and to Experientialist and Intellectual Traditionalist

curriculum orientations. A conceptual model was constructed which blended an

educational philosophy perspective with a curriculum orientation perspective. This model

provided a framework out of which twelve hypotheses were generated to guide analysis.

Secondary purposes involved exploratory investigation of relationships among preservice

teachers' educational philosophies, curriculum orientation, academic specialization, and

program of study.









The study utilized a four-section research instrument, A Survey of Educational

Philosophy and Curriculum Orientation Preferences, designed to collect data that, after

statistical treatment, would indicate the probability of a group of preservice teachers being

representative of a particular philosophy or orientation. The first section of the survey

provided a description of the respondent group in terms of demographics and teaching

experience. In the second section, subjects were required to provide open-response

written descriptions of an ideal in regard to selected curriculum-related components.

Subjects were required in the third section of the survey to select preferences from a

limited set of choices regarding proposals for effecting curriculum improvements. A

twenty-four item forced-choice exercise designed to assess a preference for educational

philosophy comprised the final section.

The research sample selected for participation in this study was from fourteen

classes in eight universities and community colleges in central and north-central Florida.

Of the potential 331 preservice teachers registered in these classes, 298 completed and

returned the survey. Of the completed surveys, 34 could not be analyzed because they

lacked sufficient demographic data or were incorrectly completed, such as checking only

one response or multiple coding using the same rank. The 264 valid responses

represented a return rate of 79.76% of the research sample. The responses of these

preservice teachers were statistically analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance and a

probability coefficient of .05 or greater to reject the null hypothesis pertaining to the

dependent variables.









Discussion and Conclusions


The investigation of the proposed relationship between educational philosophy and

orientations to curriculum, as set forth in Chapter III (and illustrated in Figure 3), was

designed to produce data relevant to validating the conceptual model. That is, preservice

teachers who indicated an educational philosophy of Experimentalism were expected to

prefer the Experientialist curriculum orientation. Similarly, preservice teachers who

indicated an educational philosophy of Rationalism were expected to prefer the

Traditionalist curriculum orientation. However, the reported scores for 54% of the cases,

122 of the 228 of the preservice teachers who showed a preference, revealed incongruous

responses in their choice of educational philosophy and curriculum orientation

preferences. Summary data regarding combinations of educational philosophies and

curriculum orientations is presented in Figure 4.

Preservice teachers in 20 cases, representing 9% of the respondent group,

indicated the incongruous combination of Experimentalism with the Traditionalist

curriculum orientation. More frequently, preservice teachers indicated Rationalism

combined with the Experientialist curriculum orientation in 102 cases, which represents

45% of the respondent group. Further, the reported scores for only 46%, or 106 of the

228 respondents, indicated that there was congruity in their choice of educational

philosophy and curriculum orientation responses. Experimentalism combined with the

Experientialist curriculum orientation was indicated in 77 cases (34%) and Rationalism

combined with the Traditionalist curriculum orientation was indicated in 29 cases (12%)

by the respondent group who indicated a preference.















Traditionalist
curriculum orientation


20
(9%)


Experimentalism


77
(34%)


29
(12%)


Rationalism


i


102
(45%)


Experientialist
curriculum orientation



Figure 4. Combinations of educational philosophies and curriculum orientations.*


* Of the original 264 respondents, 24 showed no preference between the educational
philosophies and 12 showed no preference between the curriculum orientations.


n = 228









Proposed relationships among selected educational philosophies and curriculum

orientations were not validated and were occasionally contradicted by the results of the

study. As presented in Figure 4, respondents taken as a whole preferred philosophical

statements representing the educational philosophy of Rationalism. However, when

confronted by problems facing schools, respondents more often selected the

Experientialist curriculum orientation as most reflective of their position.

A majority 57% of the respondents preferred the views that reflected the

educational philosophy of Rationalism over Experimentalism. However, 79% of the

respondents, by a margin of nearly 4-to-1, chose proposals for improving curriculum that

represented the Experientialist curriculum orientation over the Traditionalist. The union

of these majorities created a group of 102 preservice teachers, 45% of the respondent

group, who make claims to prefer both Rationalism and the Experientialist orientation.

The conflict between the preferred educational philosophy and curriculum

orientation suggests the possibility that preservice teachers hold an idealistic view of both

teaching and students. Although most of the respondents had informal teaching

experience, few had been faced with the perennial problems facing classroom teachers.

Schubert (1986) suggests that problems facing teachers might be classified relative to

three sources of curricular balance: students, subject matter, and societal needs. Student

apathy, teaching the basics, and drug abuse education are examples of problems posed to

the preservice teachers in this study. The preference for Rationalism suggests that

preservice teachers recognize the need for, and intend to procure, an interesting,

disciplined, and structured classroom. However, the concurrent preference for the








Experientialist orientation suggests optimism that enthusiasm, discipline, and responsibility

can be regulated in some degree by the students in their charge.

The reported means for each group of preservice teachers indicated that there was

consistency among the groups as to their choice of educational philosophy and curriculum

orientation responses. Each group of preservice teachers, except the academic

specialization Social Science, selected Rationalism as most reflective of their position.

That is, the educational philosophy of Rationalism was more popular than

Experimentalism across each of the three levels of program of study and four of five

academic specializations. Further, each group of preservice teachers selected the

Experientialist curriculum orientation as most reflective of their position. That is, the

Experientialist orientation was more popular than the Traditionalist orientation across each

of the three levels of program of study and five academic specializations.

To determine differences between groups the three independent variables

presented in Table 10 were analyzed for each of four different dependent variables. Each

question was analyzed by stating the problem in the null hypothesis. On the basis of

results, none of the hypotheses regarding educational philosophy could be rejected at the

established probability level of .05 or less. However, two of the hypotheses regarding

curriculum orientation could be rejected.

Rejection of Hypothesis 3B reveals a significant difference in the Experientialist

curriculum orientation by type of program of study. Subsequent statistical analysis

identified elementary preservice teachers' strong preference for the Experientialist

orientation as being significantly different from that of preservice teachers in middle-level









or secondary-level programs. That is, the Experientialist orientation was significantly

more popular with the group ofpreservice teachers intending to teach at the elementary

level.

The preferences expressed for a certain curriculum orientation are perhaps

connected to images of school organization held by preservice teachers. The self-

contained arrangement of students experienced by preservice teachers at the elementary

level may appear to be more compatible with the description of the Experientialist

orientation in this study. In this student-centered orientation, the teacher provides

opportunities for students to reconstruct their experience, study its possible meanings, and

interpret its significance for their own sense of meaning and direction. In this view

students become agents of their learning and are motivated by their personal interests.

Conversely, in the Traditionalist orientation, achievement is defined as knowledge

gathered through appreciation of the disciplines that have stood the test of time. In this

view an excellent teacher is a subject matter specialist who is able to inspire students to

learn a particular discipline. Preservice teachers may have found this orientation more

congruous with the subject-centered organization experienced in higher grade levels.

Hypothesis 4B, the second to be rejected, revealed a significant difference in the

Traditionalist curriculum orientation, also by type of program of study. Subsequent

statistical analysis identified middle-level preservice teachers' strong preference for the

Traditionalist orientation as being similar to that of secondary-level preservice teachers yet

significantly different from that ofpreservice teachers in elementary-level programs. That

is, the Traditionalist orientation was significantly more popular with the group of








preservice teachers intending to teach at the middle level than with those intended to teach

at the elementary level.

Interestingly, preferences for the Traditionalist orientation expressed by middle-

level preservice teachers conflicts with the principles for effective curriculum organization

advocated by proponents of the middle school movement. These principles, firmly

grounded in the characteristics of the learner at the middle level, are congruent with the

Experientialist orientation described in this study. Middle-level organization also features

a teacher who encourages an interchange of experiences and ideas among students in a

facilitator role and adopts practices such as interdisciplinary teams, advisory groups, and

other student-centered transitional programs. Further, emphases on organizational aspects

of teacher closeness to students and the exploratory nature of the curriculum are examples

of non-traditional approaches designed to put the learner-based orientation into practice.

Though not statistically significant, there was a difference in the reported means

for the dependent variable curriculum orientation in terms of academic specialization. The

reported means for each group of preservice teachers indicated that there was consistency

among the groups as to their choice of curriculum orientation responses. As stated above,

each group of preservice teachers selected the Experientialist orientation as most reflective

of their position. That is, the Experientialist orientation was more popular than the

Traditionalist orientation across each of the five academic specializations. Preservice

teachers specializing in Math preferred the Experientialist orientation by a slightly higher

degree than other groups. Differences in the preferences between groups for the

Traditional orientation was minuscule.








Differences in the reported means for the dependent variable educational

philosophy in terms of program of study, though also statistically insignificant, were of

interest to the researcher. The reported means for each group indicated that there was

consistency as to their choice of educational philosophy responses. As stated above, each

group of preservice teachers selected Rationalism as most reflective of their position.

Interestingly, comparison among groups by program of study revealed that preservice

teachers at the middle level showed the least preference for Experimentalism and the

greatest preference for Rationalism.

The educational philosophy preference of middle-level preservice teachers is

consistent with their respective curriculum orientation preference. As demonstrated by the

conceptual model, the weak preference for Experimentalism coincides with the weak

preference for the Experientialist orientation. Further, this group also showed the greatest

preference for both Rationalism and the Traditionalist orientation. The preferences for

Rationalism expressed by the middle-level preservice teachers is further evidence of the

conflict with the principles for effective curriculum organization advocated by proponents

of the middle school movement.

Statistically insignificant yet interesting differences in the reported means for the

dependent variable educational philosophy in terms of academic specialization also were

revealed. Overall, the philosophical responses reflecting Rationalism were selected more

strongly by the entire sample of 264 preservice teachers than those of Experimentalism.

Only the group of Social Science preservice teachers showed a slight preference for

Experimentalism over Rationalism. The group ofpreservice teachers specializing in Math








showed the greatest preference for Experimentalism and those in Science showed the

least. Interestingly, both groups reacted the same to philosophy statements representing

Rationalism. Again, the group of preservice teachers specializing in Math demonstrated

the greatest preference for Rationalism and those specializing in Science demonstrated the

least.

Generalizability of the above findings may be possible given replication of this

study in the future in other teacher education settings. However, the following

conclusions regarding the limitations associated with this study have also been identified:

1. The research design used in this study is a one measurement, cross-sectional

design. Since participants responded to all self-report questionnaire items at

one time, they may have responded reactively and more consistently than what

would have been true at different times.

2. Subjects were not randomly selected. Students in several teacher education

programs in Florida comprised a purposive sample for data collection.

3. The research instrument used in this study does not clearly discriminate for

statistical analysis the possibility of significant differences among preservice

teachers as to their educational philosophy.

4. Studying preservice teachers educational philosophies and curriculum

orientations in a quantitative manner such as forced choices or rank ordering

may be beyond the scope of practicality given the limitations of research

instruments available at this time.








Recommendations for Further Research


Considering the findings and limitations of this study, the writer is enthusiastic in

making recommendations for additional research in this area. The following

recommendations come from a continued belief stated in the justification for this study.

That is, rather than placing emphasis on training teachers with specific knowledge needed

for teaching in a particular academic specialization or grade level, teacher educators could

take a closer look at the practical knowledge preservice teachers bring to an education

program. Johnston (1992) asserts that one of the foremost tasks of teacher educators

should be that of "exploring the evolving practical knowledge of our student teachers so

that we can build programs that assist them to develop, understand, articulate, and utilize

that practical knowledge." In this view, teacher education provides avenues for student

teachers to understand the values, attitudes, and beliefs they bring to a preservice teacher

education program and then to plot and monitor their own professional growth thereafter.

The following recommendations for further research in this area are offered:

1. A different method of data collection, such as observations and interviews,

could produce a greater understanding of how preservice teachers come to hold

the beliefs they profess.

2. Pre and posttest designs could be implemented to determine the effects of

participation in teacher education course activities on preservice teachers'

perceptions and judgments regarding curriculum issues.









3. A study could be designed to view the language ofpreservice teachers who

have experienced a course in educational philosophy as part of their teacher

education program.

4. A study could be designed that investigates demographic variables of preservice

teachers, such as gender, age, race, and years of experience, as the independent

variables to determine their educational philosophy and curriculum orientation.

5. A longitudinal study could connect beliefs expressed by preservice teachers

with subsequent practices as teaching interns or as beginning teachers.

6. A study could be designed that investigates the beliefs and practices of

experienced, successful teachers and administrators in exemplary schools.




















APPENDIX A
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT:
A SURVEY OF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY
AND CURRICULUM ORIENTATION PREFERENCES









A SURVEY OF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY
AND CURRICULUM ORIENTATION PREFERENCES

Developed by
W. Scott Wise, Ed. S.
Department of Instruction and Curriculum
The University of Florida

This exercise is designed to incorporate a wide range of opinions and views about what
might be considered important to educators. Its purpose is two-fold:
1. To provide a construct for reflecting on our views and ideals of teaching, and
2. To collect information about opinions held by preservice teachers who are engaged in
the study of instruction and curriculum.
There is no risk or immediate benefit from participating in this exercise. For participating
you will receive a summary of the "Issues and Terminology" of the underlying theories of
this exercise. You will also receive an invitation to a seminar designed to explore your
responses and their relevance to your teaching career.

INSTRUCTIONS
STEP ONE -- Complete this survey that is organized in four sections:
Section I: Demographic and Experience Information
Section II: Images of Curriculum
Section III: School Problems and Proposals
Section IV: Educational Philosophy Statements
Specific directions are contained at the beginning of each section.
Please respond as honestly and as openly as possible.
You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer.
Be assured that all responses will remain completely anonymous.
STEP TWO -- Read the packet of materials after responding to the survey.
STEP THREE -- Attend the Seminar to explore the significance of your responses.
(Or include your mailing address in the space provided below.)

If you have any questions regarding the content or procedures of this survey feel free to
contact me anytime. My mailing address is Department of Instruction and Curriculum,
Norman 2215, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32601. My business phone is
(407) 876-6759. Thank you again for your cooperation. Questions or concerns about
your rights as a research participant may be directed to the University of Florida
Institutional Review Board Office, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611.

I have read the procedure described above. I agree to participate in the procedure and I
have received a copy of this description.
Participant's Signature ___________________ Date / /
Address (optional) ______________ City/State________ Zip _____









Section I: DEMOGRAPHIC AND EXPERIENCE INFORMATION

Directions: Please respond to each of the following as indicated.
All information is kept in strict confidence.


1. NAME (Last)


(First)


(Optional: For returning the results of your survey only)


2. CURRENT CLASS: (Check one)
Freshman
__ Sophomore
__ Junior
Senior
__ Graduate Student
__ Other, (specify)


3. PROGRAM OF STUDY:
Early Childhood
__ Elementary Education
__ Middle Level Education
Secondary Education
Masters Certification
__ Other, (specify)

4 ACADEMIC SPECIALIZATION:
(Outside the College of Education)
__ English
__ Mathematics
Social Science
__ Science
Other, (specify)


5. PROFESSIONAL SPECIALIZATION:
(Within the College of Education)
__ Middle Grade Education
Children's Literature
__ Mathematics Education
Special Education
Other, (specify)


6 GENDER:


7. AGE:


Female
Male

__ 18 25
26 35
over 35


8. EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY:
Have you taken a course? ____

If so, When? ______
Where? _______

9. TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
Age(s): of children involved
Time: amount -- days, years, etc.
How: How you were involved
with these children; siblings,
tutoring project, etc.

__ Tutoring
Age(s) ______
Time_____
How_____
Coaching
Age(s) ______
Time_____
How______
__ Teaching
Age(s) ______
Time_______
How______
Other Teaching Experiences:
(Describe on the back of this page.)









Section II: IMAGES OF TEACHING

Imagine that you are now finished with your teacher education program and
several years of teaching. You are now an "experienced teacher" and are close to the
"teacher you want to be." Picture your classroom, yourself, your students. Imagine that I
have dropped in to visit you during a representative part of the academic school day (that
is, during the time you are teaching as opposed to planning, or taking students to lunch,
etc.) Answer the following questions to tell me about what I would see. Provide me with
as much detail as you can to help develop a picture of the teacher you want to become.


1. What grade are you teaching?

2. How many students are in your class?

3. What is the current topic of study?

4. Draw a picture of yourself and your children.















5. Tell me in as much detail as you can what you are doing.
What are you saying? What materials are you using?
With whom are you talking? What are you thinking?









Section II: IMAGES OF TEACHING (continued)

Imagine that you are now finished with your teacher education program and
several years of teaching. You are now an "experienced teacher" and are close to the
"teacher you want to be." Picture your classroom, yourself, your students. Imagine that I
have dropped in to visit you during a representative part of the academic school day (that
is, during the time you are teaching as opposed to planning, or taking students to lunch,
etc.) Answer the following questions to tell me about what I would see. Provide me with
as much detail as you can to help develop a picture of the teacher you want to become.


1. What grade are you teaching?

2. How many students are in your class?

3. What is the current topic of study?

4. Draw a picture of yourself and your children.















5. Tell me in as much detail as you can what you are doing.
What are you saying? What materials are you using?
With whom are you talking? What are you thinking?









Section III: SCHOOL PROBLEMS AND PROPOSALS

Directions: Each of the six topics listed below is followed by three related statements.
For each topic, indicate the statement that is MOST reflective of your position by placing
a "1" in the blank space on the left. Place a "2" next to the statement SOMEWHAT
reflective of your position and place a "3" next to the LEAST.
PLEASE FILL IN EACH BLANK.


STUDENT APATHY

When teachers show students that they can achieve more meaning and direction in
their lives by participating in school, there will be much less apathy and attendance
problems.

When teachers use a structured system of incentives, students will come to school.
A system of instruction informed by research can then motivate students into
productive learning.

__ When teachers convey that within their discipline lies insight into the great events
and mysteries of life, students will feel fulfillment and joy. This does much to
prevent apathy.


MAINTAINING CLASSROOM DISCIPLINE

__ People are not born self-disciplined. One of the teacher's major functions is to mold
the student into a disciplined individual prepared to fit into society. Teaching that
is well prepared, rather fast-paced, and task-oriented keeps students on their toes
and interested.

__ Students must first be made to pay attention. If students listen to teachers who
know and love their subject, they will soon realize great personal enrichment that
an education offers. At that point discipline will switch from required to self-
initiated.

__ Discipline is inherent in human nature. It is only when students see knowledge as
irrelevant that discipline problems occur. The teacher's central job is to get to
know students well enough to enable them to discover knowledge that helps to
meet their needs.



a Source: Items adapted from "Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility,"
Schubert (1986).








Section III: SCHOOL PROBLEMS AND PROPOSALSa (continued)


INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN STUDENTS

__ Individual differences are much exaggerated today in education. At the root of all
individual needs, we can find common problems and ideas. These are treated in
great literature, and this is the reason the classics and the disciplines are of
perennial value.

__ If we treat all students alike, their differences become exaggerated. What is
needed is careful attention to the needs and interests of each individual and to each
group of students.

__ Diagnostic testing of needs, matching instruction to fit learning styles, and evaluation
that fits program goals is only one example of the type of systematic approaches
available to deal with individual differences of many kinds.


TEACHING THE "BASICS"

__ Family, friendship, work, marriage, raising children, and enjoying oneself are the
important basic aspects of our daily lives. The skills important to leading a good
life are related to human relations and include communication, needs identification,
and problem solving.

The basics (reading, writing, and arithmetic) are needed for participation in society
and are the building blocks of communication and cognitive performance.
Educational research reveals that these and related skills can be taught more
directly and efficiently than ever before.

__ The basics of a meaningful life include: the wonders of culture, the beauty of the
arts, science as a key to mysteries, and humanities as a door to the human mind
and spirit. These can be learned through a relationship with a great teacher who
deeply understands their discipline.






SSource: Items adapted from "Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility,"
Schubert (1986).








Section II: SCHOOL PROBLEMS AND PROPOSALSa (continued)


DRUG ABUSE EDUCATION

To a large extent, schools today are trying to provide courses to combat every
serious social problem. The result is curricula that are becoming increasingly
watered-down, unmanageable, and lacking in purpose.

If students are involved with drugs, have questions about them, or just want to talk
about the peer pressure associated with them, schools should provide opportunity
to pursue this interest.

__ Schools can meet their obligation to help solve one of society's most destructive
behavior problems through the use of well-designed instructional packages on
drug education.


USING STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES

We cannot measure educational products in terms of dollars as corporations measure
their profits. However, the best that we can do, in the interest of objectivity, is use
standardized test scores.

Standardized aptitude tests can be of some use in determining who has a propensity
to study an area, however teachers should have the primary responsibility for
assessment of student progress.

__ Students devalue other aspects of their unique identity, and are treated as labels
instead of unique individuals when standardized test scores are used as the prime
measure of productivity.











a Source: Items adapted from "Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility,"
Schubert (1986).










Section IV: EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY STATEMENTS'

In this questionnaire you will be asked to respond to statements about education philosophy. Please read
each statement and then indicate your response by circling one of the following:

(A) I STRONGLY AGREE with this statement.
(B) I AGREE to a certain extent with this statement.
(C) I have NO OPINION or this statement DOES NOT APPLY to my situation.
(D) I DISAGREE to a certain extent with this statement.
(E) I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this statement.


1. In this period of rapid change, it is highly important that education be
charged with the task of preserving intact the long established and enduring
educational aims and social objectives.

2. The true view of education is so arranging learning that the child gradually
builds up a storehouse of knowledge that he can use in the future.

3. In assessing what man knows, there are no absolutes, only tentative
conclusions based on the current accumulation of human experiences.

4. Required reading of literary works, even though it may bring an unfavorable
attitude toward literature, is necessary in a sound educational program.

5. To learn means to devise a way of acting in a situation for which
old ways are inadequate.

6. In the interest of social stability, the youth of this generation must be brought
into conformity with the beliefs and institutions of our national heritage.

7. Learning is a process of mastering objective knowledge and developing skills
by drill, trial and error, memorization, and logical education.

8. The teacher must indoctrinate students with correct moral principles in order
to bring about their healthy moral development.

9. Moral education is the continuous criticism and reconstruction of ideals
and values.

10. The traditional moral standards of our culture should not just be accepted; they
should be examined and tested in solving the present problems of students.

11. The backbone of the school curriculum is subject matter; activities are useful
mainly to facilitate the learning of subject matter.

12. A teacher may properly teach that some laws are unchanging and certain
in their essential nature.


1A B C D E


2 A B C D E


3A B C D E


4 A B C D E


5A B C D E


6A B C D E


7A B C D E


8A B C D E


9 A B C D E


10 A B C D E


11 A B C D E


12 A B C D E


b Source: Items adapted from "A Short Test of One's Educational Philosophy," Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 26, No. 2, Curran, et al., 1966.










Section IV: EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY STATEMENTS'

In this questionnaire you will be asked to respond to statements about education philosophy. Please read
each statement and then indicate your response by circling one of the following:

(A) I STRONGLY AGREE with this statement.
(B) I AGREE to a certain extent with this statement.
(C) I have NO OPINION or this statement DOES NOT APPLY to my situation.
(D) I DISAGREE to a certain extent with this statement.
(E) I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this statement.


1. In this period of rapid change, it is highly important that education be
charged with the task of preserving intact the long established and enduring
educational aims and social objectives.

2. The true view of education is so arranging learning that the child gradually
builds up a storehouse of knowledge that he can use in the future.

3. In assessing what man knows, there are no absolutes, only tentative
conclusions based on the current accumulation of human experiences.

4. Required reading of literary works, even though it may bring an unfavorable
attitude toward literature, is necessary in a sound educational program.

5. To learn means to devise a way of acting in a situation for which
old ways are inadequate.

6. In the interest of social stability, the youth of this generation must be brought
into conformity with the beliefs and institutions of our national heritage.

7 Learning is a process of mastering objective knowledge and developing skills
by drill, trial and error, memorization, and logical education.

8. The teacher must indoctrinate students with correct moral principles in order
to bring about their healthy moral development.

9. Moral education is the continuous criticism and reconstruction of ideals
and values.

10. The traditional moral standards of our culture should not just be accepted; they
should be examined and tested in solving the present problems of students.

11 The backbone of the school curriculum is subject matter; activities are useful
mainly to facilitate the learning of subject matter.

12. A teacher may properly teach that some laws are unchanging and certain
in their essential nature.


I A B C D E


2A B C D E


3A B C D E


4A B C D E


5A B C D E


6A B C D E


7 A B C D E


8 A B C D E


9 A B C D E


10 A B C D E


11 A B C D E


12 A B C D E


b Source: Items adapted from "A Short Test of One's Educational Philosophy," Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 26, No. 2, Curran, et al., 1966.