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

Material Information

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

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic education ( jstor )
Educational philosophies ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Middle schools ( jstor )
Preservice teachers ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Traditionalism ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Instruction and Curriculum -- UF ( lcsh )
Instruction and Curriculum thesis, Ph.D ( 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.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by William Scott Wise.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
029543465 ( ALEPH )
40471832 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


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.




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 O 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.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTERS
I STATEMENT 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
Assumptions 9
Importance of the Study 9
Definition of Terms 11
II TI 1EORET1CAL FRAMEWORK 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
IIIMETHODOLOGY 32
Research Design 32
Instrumentation 33
Collection of the Data 36
Treatment and Analysis of the Data 39
IV

IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 41
Description of the Research Sample 42
Statistical Analysis of the Research Questions 52
Experimentalist!! 52
Rationalism 54
Experientialist 57
Traditionalist 59
Individual Responses 62
V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS,
and RECOMMENDATIONS 70
Summary 70
Discussion and Conclusions 72
Recommendations for Further Study 80
APPENDICES 82
A RESEARCH INSTRUMENT: A SURVEY OF
EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPFÍY 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 CORRESPONDENCE 106
REFERENCES 110
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 118
v

LIST OF TABLES
Table page
1. Participating Research Sample 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
10Computed 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
VI

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
Curriculum Orientations 73
vii

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.
viii

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 of preservice 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 of preservice 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.
IX

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?
1

2
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,

3
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.

4
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).

5
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.

6
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

7
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)
8
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.

9
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 (axiology).
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

10
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 of preservice
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

11
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).
12
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).

13
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:
14

15
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.

16
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,

17
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 of Kurt 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 ffom 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

18
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

19
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

20
Efficiency
(bureaucratic- (bureaucratic-
liberalism) elitism)
Image of
Social
Darwinism
Equity
Excellence
(decentralized-
liberalism)
Image of
Egalitarianism
Liberty
(decentralized-
elitism)
Figure 1 Competing values and images of schooling.
Source: Values and images items adapted from “Educational Governance and
Administration,” Sergiovanni et al., 1987.

21
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

22
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

23
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

24
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

25
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

26
Efficiency Image of
Social
Darwinism
EXPERIMENT ALISM
Equity
RATIONALISM
Excellence
Image of
Egalitarianism
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.

27
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

28
“Behaviorist”
Efficiency
“Traditionalist”
EXPERIMENTAL! SM
RATIONALISM
Equity
Excellence
“Experientialist”
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.

29
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 of preservice 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 study7
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 1A: There is no significant difference in the Experimentalism
philosophy of preservice teachers as measured by scores on the research instrument by
area of academic specialization.
i

Hypothesis IB: There is no significant difference in the Experimentalism
philosophy of preservice teachers as measured by scores on the research instrument by
30
area of program of study.
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 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.

31
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

33
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.

34
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 HI-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.

35
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)

36
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.

37
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
38
Pre-Service
Teachers
Elementary
(K - 5th)
Middle
(6th - 8th)
Secondary*
(9th and above)
Total
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 literasture, and reading

39
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.

40
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.
41

42
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

43
TABLE 2
Frequency Distribution on Selected Demographic Information Variables
Variable
Level
Frequency
%
Current Class
- Freshman
24
9.09
- Sophomore
76
28.79
- Junior
61
23.11
- Senior
70
26.52
- Graduate Student
20
7.58
- Other
13
4.92
Program of Study
- Early Childhood
17
6.44
- Elementary
126
47.73
- Middle Level Education
28
10.61
- Secondary Education
36
13.64
- Masters Certification
13
4.92
- Other / No Response
44
16.67
Academic
- English
109
41.29
Specialization
- Mathematics
49
18.56
- Social Science
38
14.39
- Science
33
12.50
- Other / No Response*
35
13.26
Gender
- Female
202
76.52
- Male
62
23.48
Educational
- Yes
41
15.53
Psychology
-No
223
84 47
* 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-cat egorical
n= 264

44
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
Descriptor
Frequency
of Responses
Percentage
of Responses
Percentage of
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
16.67
TOTAL
427a
99.99
n = 264
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
45
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 ”

46
TABLE 4
Frequency Distribution of Responses
By Educational Philosophy Statements
Statement
f
A
%
f
B
%
f
C
%
f
D
%
f
E
%
1
39
14.77
137
51.89
33
12.50
49
18.56
6
2.27
2.
85
32.20
139
52.65
15
5.68
21
7.95
4
1.52
3.
86
32.58
111
42.05
33
12.50
32
12.12
2
0.76
4.
36
13.64
124
46.97
36
13.69
61
23.11
7
2.65
5.
31
11.74
99
37.50
63
23.86
62
23.48
9
3.41
6.
14
5.30
86
32.58
53
20.08
91
34.47
20
7.58
7.
65
24.62
109
41.29
15
5.68
50
18.94
25
9.47
8.
34
12.88
107
40.53
48
18.18
51
19.32
24
9.09
9.
19
7.20
103
39.02
56
21.21
65
24.62
21
7.95
10.
67
25.38
133
50.39
29
10.98
32
12.12
3
1.14
11
44
16.67
110
41.67
29
10.98
71
26.89
10
3.79
12.
32
12.12
120
45.45
76
28.79
31
11.74
5
1.89
13.
39
1402
102
38.64
33
12.50
73
27.65
19
7.20
14.
79
29.92
129
48.86
23
8.71
26
9.85
7
2.65
15.
104
39.39
124
46.97
27
10.23
9
3 41
0
0.00
16.
102
38.64
130
49.24
24
7.58
9
3.41
3
1.14
17.
38
14.39
142
53.79
46
17.42
36
13.64
2
0.76
18
70
26.52
113
42.80
23
8.71
46
17.42
12
4.55
19.
58
21.97
118
44.70
40
15.15
47
17.80
1
0.38
20.
15
5.68
110
41.67
68
25.76
67
25.38
4
1.52
21.
69
26.14
108
40.91
28
10.61
42
15.91
17
6.44
22.
44
16.67
140
53.03
25
9.47
50
18.94
5
1 89
23.
34
12.88
46
17.42
70
26.52
75
28.41
39
14.77
24.
71
26.89
141
53.41
17
6.44
26
9.85
9
3.41

47
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

48
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

49
TABLE 5
Frequency Distribution of Responses
By Curriculum Orientation
Problem
Experientialist
f %
Social
Behaviorist
f %
Traditionalist
f %
Apathy
135
51.14
58
21.97
71
26.89
Discipline
74
28.03
84
31.82
106
40.15
Individual
Differences
148
56.06
87
32.95
29
10.98
Basics
127
48.11
92
34.85
45
17.05
Drug Abuse
Education
142
53.79
78
29 55
44
16 67
Standardized
Test Scores
111 42.05
21
7.95
132
50.00

50
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:

51
“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

52
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.

53
TABLE 6
Frequency, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Experimentalism
As a Function of Academic Specialization and Program of Study
ELEMENTARY
MIDDLE
SECONDARY
(a)
76.00
6.00
27.00
ENGLISH (b)
4.16
2.00
3.48
(d) 3.21
(c)
4.38
2.00
3.39
33.00
5.00
11.00
MATH
4.79
3.20
6.45
4.81
4.57
4 66
4.66
SOCIAL
11.00
10.00
17.00
SCIENCE
4.54
3.00
6.00
4.51
2.88
5.19
3.87
16.00
4.00
13.00
SCIENCE
3.94
1.50
3.85
3.10
3.34
3.00
5.37
SPECIAL
25.00
3.00
7.00
EDUCATION
4.80
3.00
4.14
3.98
4.13
2.65
5.34
(d)
4.45
2.54
4.78
(a) - Frequency, (b) - Mean, (c) - Standard Deviation, (d) = Cumulative Average

54
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 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 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

55
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

56
TABLE 7
Frequency, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Rationalism
As a Function of Academic Specialization and Program of Study
ELEMENTARY
MIDDLE
SECONDARY
(a)
76.00
6.00
27.00
ENGLISH (b)
9.19
6.50
10.59
(d) 8.76
(c)
8.43
7.06
8.87
33.00
5.00
11.00
MATH
11.78
17.20
10.91
13.30
7.04
6.14
6 66
SOCIAL
11.00
10.00
17.00
SCIENCE
7.27
10.60
8.00
8.62
7.84
10.30
10.13
16.00
4.00
13.00
SCIENCE
9.94
3.50
10.69
8.04
7.35
12.66
8.37
SPECIAL
25.00
3.00
7.00
EDUCATION
10.36
13.33
9.86
11.18
8.97
5.69
5.79
(d)
9.71
10.23
10.01
(a) = Frequency, (b) = Mean, (c) = Standard Deviation, (d) = Cumulative Average

57
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 3 A 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

58
TABLE 8
Frequency, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Experientialist Orientation
As a Function of Academic Specialization and Program of Study
ELEMENTARY
MIDDLE
SECONDARY
(a)
76.00
6.00
27.00
ENGLISH (b)
10.14
12.16
10.59
(d) 10.96
(c)
1.87
2.04
2.29
33.00
5.00
11.00
MATH
10.09
9.40
10.27
9.92
2.04
2.07
1.79
SOCIAL
11.00
10.00
17.00
SCIENCE
9.64
11.20
11.06
10.63
2.01
2.10
2.05
16.00
4.00
13.00
SCIENCE
9.50
12.00
11.46
10.99
1.26
2.45
2.11
SPECIAL
25.00
3.00
7.00
EDUCATION
10.08
12.33
10.57
10.99
2.14
1.53
1.62
(d)
9.89
11.42
10.79
(a) - Frequency, (b) - Mean, (c) = Standard Deviation, (d) = Cumulative Average

59
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

60
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 119. 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.

61
TABLE 9
Frequency, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Traditionalist Orientation
As a Function of Academic Specialization and Program of Study
ELEMENTARY
MIDDLE
SECONDARY
(a)
76.00
6.00
27.00
ENGLISH (b)
13.12
11.50
12.85
(d) 12 49
(c)
2.08
2.26
2.25
33.00
5.00
11.00
MATH
13.15
14.00
13.18
13.44
1.64
1.41
1.40
SOCIAL
11.00
10.00
17.00
SCIENCE
12.45
12.50
12.18
12.38
2 81
2.12
2.32
16.00
4.00
13.00
SCIENCE
14.19
10.75
12.69
12.54
1.76
2.99
2.18
SPECIAL
25.00
3.00
7.00
EDUCATION
13.36
11.33
13.43
12.71
1.91
2.08
1.40
(d)
13.25
12.02
12.87
(a) - Frequency, (b) - Mean, (c) - Standard Deviation, (d) = Cumulative Average

62
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 151 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
D < .05
F-Value
1 EXPERIMENT ALISM
Overall
1.01
.45
(A)
1.04
.39
(B)
2.31
.10
(C)
.34
.95
2 RATIONALISM
Overall
.89
.59
(A)
1 83
.12
(B)
.21
.81
(C)
.71
.68
3 EXPERIENTIALIST
Overall
1.74
.04*
(A)
1.48
.21
(B)
6 33
.01*
(C)
1.31
.24
4 TRADITIONALIST
Overall
1.94
.02*
(A)
1.19
.31
(B)
3.34
.04*
(C)
1.51
.15
* 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

64
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
65
Responses
By Academic Specialization
Chi-Square P x
By Program of Study
Chi-Square P x
3
13.47
.64
5.95
.65
5
20.41
.20
10.49
.23
9
15.66
.48
8.35
.40
10
17.65
.35
11.88
16
13
20.71
19
13.78
.09
15
9.84
.63
12.06
.06
21
15.37
.50
8.21
.41
23
19.52
.24
9.99
.27
p < .05

TABLE 12
Chi-Square and Probability for Rationalism Response Items
By Academic Specialization By Program of Study
66
Responses
By Academic Specialization
Chi-Square P x
By Program of Study
Chi-Square P x
1
22.23
.14
3.90
.87
2
15.10
51
3.85
.87
4
15.47
.49
19.72
.01*
6
39.37
.01*
16.29
.04*
7
16.62
.41
6.16
63
8
13.79
.61
21.34
.01*
11
29.85
.02*
6.57
58
12
13.92
61
10.44
.24
14
18.15
.58
5.01
89
16
26.14
.05*
7.42
49
17
11.91
.75
7.68
.47
18
16.18
.44
5.01
.76
19
22.97
.12
11.54
.17
20
15.69
.48
4.04
.85
22
10.96
.81
16.03
.04*
24
16.62
.41
2.84
.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
67
Responses
By Academic Specialization
Chi-Square P x
By Program of Study
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

68
TABLE 14
Chi-Square and Probability for Traditionalist Response Items
By Academic Specialization By Program of Study
Responses
By Academic Specialization
Chi-Square P x
By Program of Study
Chi-Square P x
1
14.13
.08
0.65
.96
(Student Apathy)
2
13.80
.09
12.27
.02*
(Student Discipline)
3
6.96
.54
6.89
14
(Individual Differences)
4
5.17
.74
4.72
.32
(Teaching Basics)
5
6.12
.63
5.90
.21
(Drug Abuse Education)
6
4.62
.80
2.74
.60
(Standardized Testing)
p< .05
* Indicates comparison significant at the .05 level

69
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.
70

71
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.

72
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.

73
Traditionalist
curriculum orientation
Experimentalism
Rationalism
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

74
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-l, 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

75
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

76
or secondary-level programs. That is, the Experientialist orientation was significantly
more popular with the group of preservice 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 of preservice teachers in elementary-level programs That
is, the Traditionalist orientation was significantly more popular with the group of

77
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

78
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 of preservice teachers specializing in Math

79
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.

80
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 of preservice teachers who
have experienced a course in educational philosophy as part of their teacher
81
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.
***************t********************************************************
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
83

84
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)
5PROFESSIONAL SPECIALIZATION:
(Within the College of Education)
Middle Grade Education
Children's Literature
Mathematics Education
Special Education
Other, (specify)
6GENDER: Female
Male
7. AGE: 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.)

85
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?

86
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?

87
Section III SCHOOL PROBLEMS AND PROPOSALS3
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 bom 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
Source: Items adapted from "Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility,”
Schubert (1986).

88
Section DI: SCHOOL PROBLEMS AND PROPOSALS3 (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
a Source Items adapted from "Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility,”
Schubert (1986).

89
Section 01: SCHOOL PROBLEMS AND PROPOSALS3 (continued)
DRUG ABUSE EDUCATION
Toa 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 "
Schubert (1986).
Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility,”

90
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) 1 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.
1 A B C D E
2 A B C D E
3 A B C D E
4 A B C D E
5 A B C D E
6 A 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.The backbone of the school curriculum is subject matter; activities are useful
mainly to facilitate the learning of subject matter. 11
A B C D E
12.A teacher may properly teach that some laws are unchanging and certain
in their essential nature
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.

91
Section IV EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY STATEMENTS*1
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.
A B C D E
2. The true view of education is so arranging learning that the child gradually
builds up a storehouse of know ledge 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.
A B C D E
A B C D E
4.Required reading of literary works, even though it may bring an unfavorable
attitude toward literature, is necessary in a sound educational program.
A B C D E
5.To learn means to devise a way of acting in a situation for which
old ways are inadequate
5 A B C D E
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.
A B C D E
7.Learning is a process of mastering objective knowledge and developing skills
by drill, trial and error, memorization, and logical education.
A B C D E
8.The teacher must indoctrinate students with correct moral principles in order
to bring about their healthy moral development.
8 ABODE
9.Moral education is the continuous criticism and reconstruction of ideals
and values
ABODE
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.
10
ABODE
11 The backbone of the school curriculum is subject matter; activities are usefiil
mainly to facilitate the learning of subject matter. 11
ABODE
12. A teacher may properly teach that some laws are unchanging and certain
in their essential nature.
12 ABODE
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.

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

Post-Survey READING MATERIALS
for
A SURVEY OF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY
AND CURRICULUM ORIENTATION PREFERENCES
Governmental Issues
What is your “position ' on the following issues regarding the U S. government?
* Drug laws do more harm than good and should be repealed.
* Citizens should be allowed to own handguns.
* Tariffs and other barriers to free trade should be eliminated.
* Sex legislation for consenting adults should be repealed.
Do your preferences align with the political philosophy of:
Liberals (Democrats)? .... or Conservatives (Republicans)?
Do you favor more (bureaucratic) or less (libertarian) government intervention into our homes?
Would you expect a “professional” politician to have an informed position regarding these issues?
Educational Issues
What is your “position” on the following issues regarding the U S. school system?
* There should exist a national core curriculum.
* School attendance should be voluntary
* A “voucher system” would improve the current state of U S. schooling.
* School funding should not be tied to property taxes.
Do your preferences align with the political philosophy of the:
Liberals (Equity)? .... or Conservatives (Excellence)?
Do you favor MORE (Efficiency) or LESS (Liberty) educational intervention into our schools?
Would you expect a “professional” educator to have an informed position regarding these issues?
ABOUT THIS EXERCISE
I hope that through this exercise you gain a better understanding the complicated (and politically
driven) world of U S. schooling Use this as a “foundation” or philosophical “base” from which you build
your philosophy as you continue your study of teaching, instruction and curriculum.
Step 1: Complete the “Survey of Educational Philosophy and Curriculum Orientation Preferences”
(You already did that!)
Step 2: Read the following pages regarding: “Three Curriculum Orientations”
“Experimentalism vs. Rationalism”, and “Public Values of Education”.
Step 3: Review your “Preference Score” from the survey. Compare your Educational Philosophy and
Curriculum Orientation with your colleagues and instructors
Thank you again for your participation I welcome any comments regarding the exercise or seminar.
I am also available for individual consultation regarding the exercise. I can be contacted through the
Office of Instruction and Curriculum. 2215 Norman Hall, Gainesville, FL 32601. (352) 392-0751
W. Scott Wise
93

94
THREE CURRICULUM ORIENTATIONS3
EXPERIENTIALIST
(Relaxed, easy-going, sits in front of the room,
encourages questions throughout his address )
What?
The curriculum consists of a dialogue, an interchange of experiences and
ideas, not just among experts or from experts to recipients, but among
everyone engaged in the educative process
Why?
Individuals are agents of their own learning, they are basically good, reflect
upon their own experience, and are drawn together to others who share
similar situations Only when each person's learning grows from his or her
own experience can it truly be 'for' that learner. This is the true democracy,
and the opposite of what is happening in most schools today
How?
We move from the psychological to the logical We begin with the
learners' genuine interests (not whims) that are embedded in their
experience and enable them to pursue those interests gradually by
becoming acquainted with the disciplines of knowledge
Who?
The curriculum must involve teachers, students, community members, and
curriculum leaders in a shared community of growth All of them must
acknowledge that they can both teach and learn from the others in honest
and worthwhile ways
Where?
Anywhere that learners can genuinely reflect on their experience and act on
the fruits of that reflection to reconstruct their personal perspectives and
political institutions. Because of the autocracy and oppressive control
exerted by many schools, this is perhaps best done outside of formal
educative institutions.
When?
Education occurs continuously as we experience life.
Source: Items adapted from "Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility,”
Schubert, 1986

95
Three Curriculum Orientations3 (continued)
SOCIAL BEHAVIORIST
(Paces in front of the room, appears as a typical scientist, exudes efficiency.)
What?
The curriculum should consist of operationally designed skills and
knowledge Such knowledge consists of traditional "basic" subjects such
as mathematics, social sciences, natural sciences, and the humanities and
arts Much more emphasis should be place on science, technology, and
mathematics, and on the preparation for the world of work.
Why?
We have moved beyond the agricultural and industrial revolutions into a
postindustrial society where communication is the mechanism by which
economies flourish. Students must be prepared to enter this new world
How?
First, we need to apply educational research knowledge to our schools
Second, we need more and better research on how learning takes place and
how different categories of learners can best be taught
Who?
First, we need more and better researchers. Second, we need applied
researchers who develop the means for improving learning in experimental
schools. Third, we need teachers (and administrators) who are able and
willing to design and use curricular packages based on this research. As to
who should be educated; everyone according to their capacity. We are
continually refining our ability to assess students and place them in
appropriate educational settings.
Where?
Appropriate curricula can be most efficiently delivered by schools and
technical institutions Within these schools there should be a planned
variation of learning environments to accommodate the particular skills
needed by categories of carefully evaluated student needs.
When?
Formal education should begin early and, in our continually changing
society, should also be available to retrain people who need new skills
throughout adult life. "When" also refers to proper sequencing of
instruction, one of the primary tasks for educational researchers to analyze
Source: Items adapted from "Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility,”
Schubert, 1986.

96
Three Curriculum Orientations3 (continued)
INTELLECTUAL TRADITIONALIST
(Standing at a podium in nearly formal attire, obviously steeped in the classics.)
What?
The curriculum should consist of the liberal arts tradition. Learners should
be exposed to the great books, and of course would need facility in the
technique and art of reading, writing, and computing.
Why?
The benefits are twofold: to develop the mind and to become acquainted
with life's great ideas and questions. The ideas (i.e., beauty, truth, equality,
justice) and questions regarding the events of life (i.e., birth, death, love,
society) are themes that recur timelessly in great literature
How?
Acquaintance with the great books develops the mind and introduces the
great mysteries and events of life This derives from serious reading,
contemplation, and discussion. It can be refined by rigorous writing and
motivated by excellent lectures and Socratic questioning
Who?
Everyone should have this type of education Even young children can be
exposed to great myths, fables, poetry, songs, paintings, and stories. Since
we are never completely educated, the teacher must be a person who is
becoming liberally educated himself or herself
Where?
Ideally, one should always pursue one's education. Formal education,
however, should take place in schools or tutorials.
When?
Education should proceed throughout life. It should especially be made
available to the young, similar to the school system as we know it today
Source: Items adapted from "Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility,”
Schubert, 1986.

97
EXPERIMENTALISM vs. rationalism3
What is Real
ONTOLOGY
Reality is a world
of experiences
Reality is a world
of the mind/reason
What is Knowledge
EPISTEMOLOGY
Knowledge is what
works; what is
Knowledge is a
consistency of ideas,
what is revealed
through study
What is Good
AXIOLOGY
Good is determined
by a test of public standards
Good is imitation
of the ideal self
Teaching Reality
Subject matter of social
experiences- social studies
Subject matter of the
mind -- literature,
philosophy, religion
Teaching Truth
Problem solving,
project method
Discipline the mind,
drill, lecture and
discussion
Teaching Goodness
(Values)
Making group decisions
in light of consequences
Disciplining behavior,
imitating heroes and
other exemplars
Source: Items adapted from “Curriculum Development: A Guide to Practice,”
Wiles & Bondi, 1993.

98
PUBLIC VALUES OF EDUCATION3
At the heart of educational policy debates are four widely held but conflicting values:
Equity, Excellence, Efficiency, and Liberty.
Even those these values are deeply embedded in our American heritage, they exist in a
constant state of tension such that too much emphasis on any one hinders expression of
each of the other three
EQUITY
“Fairness is sharing the resources available for schooling according to need.”
“Chapter Ed” Efficiency
Funding Formulas EQUITY
Excellence
“Special Ed” Liberty
Fair play and EQUAL OPPORTUNITY do not always mean provision of identical
resources to each student or the same access to every educational program. Sometimes
sameness is considered unfair. The “handicapping” systems used in sports such as golf
and bowling are an example of providing for an “equitable” or evenhanded chance to win.
The reasoning is similar in providing “special-education” students more resources than are
afforded to “regular” students.
3 Source: Items adapted from “Educational Governance and Administration,”
Sergiovanni et al., 1987.

99
Public Values of Education3 (continued)
EXCELLENCE
“The achievement of high standards is maintained through traditional values.”
Efficiency
Best and Brightest
Equity
EXCELLENCE Standardization
Liberty
High Academic Standards
Of the four values, Excellence is the most difficult to define This difficulty stems in part
from the political rhetoric with which the word is used by special-interest groups who
favor one or another of the other values Excellence is defined in terms of the Equity
value when it describes a program’s ability to respond to underprivileged groups.
Excellence is defined in the Efficiency value when programs result in higher test scores or
other measurable objectives Finally, Excellence is described in the Liberty value when it
describes programs that are locally determined to meet local needs.
3 Source: Items adapted from “Educational Governance and Administration,”
Sergiovanni et al, 1987.

100
Public Values of Education3 (continued)
EFFICIENCY
“America’s concern for accountability, getting one’s money’s worth ”
Government Control
EFFICIENCY
Added $
(Taxes)
Equity
Skills
Testing
Excellence
Liberty
Accountability is manifested in the form of product testing (students), program budgeting
(objectives), and adoption of systems-analysis designs that emphasize efficiency in
operations However, teacher salaries are the greatest cost (usually about 85%) of any
school budget Questions are raised, rightly or not, in the mind of the public when teacher
salaries increase without measurable increases in productivity.
3 Source: Items adapted from “Educational Governance and Administration,”
Sergiovanni et al., 1987.

101
Public Values of Education3 (continued)
LIBERTY
“Choice: local control of our education and our schools.”
Equity
School-Based
Management
Efficiency
Excellence
Private (or Home)
Schooling
LIBERTY
Local Control
Schools are particularly significant in maintaining the value of Liberty, for they represent
the last vestige of local control in the tradition of the town meeting and the local tax
referendum. The slipping away of local control, or centralization, requires that decision be
made at a higher and more remote level, farther away from the school or classroom.
3 Source: Items adapted from “Educational Governance and Administration,”
Sergiovanni et al., 1987.

APPENDIX C
SEMINAR HANDOUTS:
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
TO THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

Summary of Responses to the
PROBLEMS FACING CURRICULUM3
School problems have a way of returning every ten years or so depending on social
conditions. The labels may change, but many of the problems, and proposals for
correcting them are perennial In this section, you made a forced choice of these
reoccurring problems and proposals in an effort to examine their curriculum implications
from three perspectives or "orientations".
The following is a key to the survey Section III: Problems Facing Curriculum
Instructional (Classroom) Problems
APATHY DISCIPLINE IND DIFF
Experientialist
Behaviorist
Traditionalist
BASICS
Experientialist
Behaviorist
Traditionalist
Behaviorist
Traditionalist
Experientialist
Traditionalist
Experientialist
Behaviorist
Institutional (School) Problems
DRUG ABUSE STAND TEST
Traditionalist
Experientialist
Behaviorist
Behaviorist
Traditionalist
Experientialist
Calculating Your Score
To calculate your score add the six (6) numbers for each of the orientations and place
them in the blanks provided below Your preferred orientation is the LOWEST SCORE.
Experientialist Behaviorist
Traditionalist
Do you seem to have a strong preference for one of the three orientations?
How well does your curriculum orientation match your Educational Philosophy?
Source: Items adapted from "Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Perspective,”
Schubert, 1986.
103

104
Summary of Responses to the
EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY STATEMENTS3
The following is a scoring exercise and key to the Survey Section IV: Educational Philosophy Statements.
For each of your responses, assign the following points:
(A) Strongly Agree = +2
(B) Somewhat Agree = +1
(C) No Opinion/Apply = 0
(D) Somewhat Disagree = -1
(E) Strongly Disagree = -2 EXPERIMENTAL1SM RATIONALISM
4.
5.
1 Preserving established aims and objectives
2. Building knowledge for use in the future
3. Making conclusions based on experience
Requiring reading of classic literary works
Learning means for devising new methods
6. Bringing youth into conformity with society
7 Mastering skills and knowledge by repetition
8. Indoctrinating students with moral principles
9. Reconstructing moral ideals and values
10. Examining and testing moral standards
11. Facilitating learning through subject matter
12. Teaching that some laws are unchanging
13. Teaching children to test moral alternatives
14. Requiring minimum basic standards of achievement
15. Revising existing knowledge in the light of new facts
16 Learning history because it embraces wisdom
17. Training the skills of reasoning and memory
18. Transmitting knowledge from teacher to student
19 Preparing for the future by studying the past
20. Arranging curriculum to represent our heritage
21. Regarding child life as inherently valuable
22. Mastering knowledge as the aim of instruction
23. Denying reality beyond human experience
24. Learning as increasing the storehouse of knowledge
EXP(x 2 )
(Add Columns, Negative Totals Possible) TOTALS: =_
9.
10.
13.
15.
21.
23.
1
2.
4.
6.
7.
8
11
12.
14.
16.
17.
18.
19
20.
22.
24.
(See Next Page)
3 Source: Items adapted from “A Short Test of One’s Educational Philosophy,” Educational and
Psychological Measurement. Vol. 26, No. 2, Curran, et al., 1966.

105
Summary of Responses, Philosophy Statements (Continued)
SCORING RESULTS
If, in scoring the exercise, you find that a majority of your agreement falls in a
single column, you are selecting a dominant set of beliefs. If you discover yourself spread
rather evenly, you may have an eclectic set of educational values. Indecisiveness in
agreeing or disagreeing (answering “C” several times) could indicate other values and
beliefs not contained within one of these major educational systems.
In all formal systems of philosophy, an important measure of the system’s validity
is its consistency. Your consistency in taking this test can be measured by comparing your
prediction with your score. Again, keep in mind, lack of consistency may also be due to
valuing another set of educational beliefs, consistent in themselves, but not included as one
of the possible systems selected for representation here.
Calculating Your Score
To calculate your score subtract the smaller total (on the previous page) from the larger,
then, keep the side of the larger
Example: (EXP 30) minus (RAT 18) - (EXP 12)
(EXP 12) minus (RAT -12) = (EXP 24), in the case of a negative column total
Continuum of Philosophies
. toward . . toward
EXPERIMENT ALISM RATIONALISM
I 1 1
64 48 32 16 0 16 32 48 64
Are you comfortable with your place on the continuum? Any questions? . . discussion?
How do you compare with your peers? . . with the your school and instructors?

APPENDIX D
CORRESPONDENCE

Tuesday, May 13, 1997
MEMO
TO: Dr Peter Gorman, Instructor
EDF 2005, Seminole Community College
FR: W. Scott Wise
136 Oakdale Street
Windermere, Florida 34786
(407) 876-6759
RE: Introduction to Education PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION SEMINAR
Thank you again for participating in this research project. Enclosed is the set of materials
used in Introduction to Education courses in central Florida this semester. The exercise is
in two parts:
(1) A (40-45 minute) take-home (or in-class) SURVEY that includes:
Section I: Demographics (approx. 5 minutes to complete)
Section II: Images of Teaching (approx. 15 minutes)
Section III: Problems and Proposals (approx. 10-15 minutes)
Section IV: Educational Philosophy Statements (approx. 10 minutes)
(2) A SEMINAR that includes an 8-page handout designed to enhance the
discussion and explain the meaning of the exercise and scores.
(15-60 minutes of class time, at the discretion of the instructor)
A sample of this handout is included with the instructor’s copy of the survey.
Copies of the SURVEY can be distributed at any time prior to my presentation Ideally,
they could be handed out next week, TUESDAY, MAY 20 and returned to you in class
on THURSDAY, MAY 22 This will enable us to include the data in the study.
At this time I am available to conduct the seminar in your class on the following evenings:
* Tuesday, May 27 * Thursday, May 29 * Tuesday, June 10
* Thursday, June 12 * Tuesday, June 17 * Thursday, June 19
Feel free to call me at my Orlando home (# above) to arrange for a convenient seminar
date, or if you have any questions or comments regarding the exercise. Thanks again.
107

108
Tuesday, May 27, 1997
MEMO
TO: Dr Peter Gorman, Instructor
EDF 2005, Seminole Community College
FR: W. Scott Wise
136 Oakdale Street
Windermere, Florida 34786
(407) 876-6759
RE: PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION Exercise Results
Thank you again for participating in this research project Individual and class results for
your group will be provided during the seminar. Many participants expressed an interest in
comparing their scores with classmates and the overall sample population. Below is the
final average (mean) statistics all participants in the study to date.
Total Study
(300+ participants)
EDUCATIONAL
PHILOSOPHY
Exp vs Rat.
Rationalism 4.0
CURRICULUM
ORIENTATION
1st Choice E-B-T
Experientialist 40%
Behaviorist 30%
Traditionalist 30%
CURRICULUM
ORIENTATION
Exp vs. Trad.
Head-to-Head
65% to 35%
I look forward to meeting with your class and conducting the follow-up seminar next
week

109
Thursday, May 29, 1997
MEMO
TO: Dr. Peter Gorman, Instructor
EDF 2005, Seminole Community College
FR: W. Scott Wise
136 Oakdale Street
Windermere, Florida 34786
(407) 876-6759
RE: Philosophy of Education Follow-Up
Thank you for offering to your students the opportunity to participate in this education
research project. The enthusiasm expressed by the group during the seminar was
encouraging and very much appreciated
A copy of the research findings will be delivered to you upon completion of the project.
Thanks again!

110
REFERENCES
Adler, S (1984). A field study of selected student teacher perspectives toward social
studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 12, 13-30.
Adwere-Boamah, J, Delay, D, & Jones, O. (1982). Fundamental points of view of
teachers on education: An investigation of the Kerlinger and Kaya attitudinal
scale. Educational Research Quarterly, 7, 17-20.
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Alexander, W, & McEwin, C K (1984). Training the middle level educator—Where
does the solution lie? NASSP Bulletin. 68, 6-11.
Alexander, W., & McEwin, C.K (1988). Preparing to teach at the middle level
Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Alexander, W., & McEwin, C.K (1989). Schools in the middle: status and progress.
Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Alexander, W., & Williams, E. (1969). The emergent middle school (2nd ed.)
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Alverman, D (1981). The possible values of dissonance in student teaching experiences.
Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 24-25.
Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Barrows, T. (1981). College students’ knowledge and beliefs: A survey of global
understanding. New York: Change Magazine Press.
Bayles, E.E. (1966) Pragmatism in education. New York: Harper & Row
Beane, J (1990). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Columbus,
Ohio. National Middle School Association

Ill
Berman, L. (1968) New priorities in the curriculum Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Brown, B B (1968). The experimental mind in education. New York: Harper & Row.
Bucher, R, & Stelling, J. (1977). Becoming professional. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Butler, D J (1966) Idealism in education. New York: Harper & Row.
Butler, D J. (1968) Four philosophies and their practice in education and religion
New York: Harper & Row.
California State Department of Education. (1987) Caught in the middle. Sacramento,
CA: Author.
Chiara, C. & Johnson, E. (1972, January). The middle school: Is it doomed for failure?
The Clearing House, pp. 288-292.
Children’s Defense Fund. (1988). Making the middle grades work. Washington, DC:
Author
Clark, C M., & Peterson, PL (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. Wittrock,
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd. ed., p. 255). New York: Macmillan.
Clandinin, D J (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. Philadelphia:
Falmer.
Connelly, F. M, & Clandinin, D. J (1988) Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives
of experience. New York: Teachers College Press.
Curran, R L., Gordon, I.J., & Doyle, F.J. (1966). A short test of one’s educational
philosophy. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 26. 383-393.
Cusick, P. A. (1983). The egalitarian ideal and the American high school. New York:
Longman, Inc.
DeVita, J., Pumerantz, P , & Wilklow, L. (1970). The effective middle school.
New York: Parker Publishing Company.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of
education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Doll, R C. (1982). Curriculum improvement. Decision making and process (5th ed ).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon

112
Eichom, D (1980). The school In Johnson, M, Toward adolescence: The middle
school years: Part 1 (pp. 56-73). Chicago. The National Society for the Study of
Education.
Eisner, E.W , & Vallance, E (1974). Conflicting conceptions of curriculum. Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan.
Epstein, J., & Mac Iver, D (1990). Education in the middle grades: Overview of
national practices and trends Columbus, OH: National Middle School
Association.
Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational
reform. In R. Elmore & S. Fuhrman, The governance of curriculum: Yearbook
(pp. 186-202). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Gay, G. (1980). Conceptual models of the curriculum-planning process. In Considered
action for curriculum improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development
George, P. (1988). What’s the truth about tracking and ability grouping really? An
explanation for teachers and parents. Gainesville, FL: Teacher Education
Resources.
George, P (1990). Establishing and maintaining quality middle school programs
Education Digest. 55, 21-5.
George, P , & Alexander, W (1993). The exemplary middle school (2nd ed ).
Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace
George, P , & Lawrence, G (1982) Handbook for middle school teaching. Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.
George, P , Stevenson, C , Thomason, J , & Beane, J. (1992). The Middle school-and
beyond. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Glickman, C (1985). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon

113
Glickman, C , & Esposito, J. (1979). Leadership guide for elementary school
improvement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Goodlad, J.I. (1984) A place called school Highstown, NJ: McGraw-Hill.
Goodman, J (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of
preservice teachers’ professional perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education.
4, 121-137.
Goodman, J., & Adler, S. (1985). Becoming an elementary social studies teacher:
A study of perspectives. Theory and Research in Social Education. 13, 1-20.
Gowan, D.B., Newsome, G.L., & Chandler, A.K. (1961). A scale to study logical
consistency of ideas about education Journal of Psychology, 51, 443-55.
Greene, M. (1986). Philosophy and teaching. In M. Wittrock. Handbook of research on
teaching (3rd ed., p 479). New York: Macmillan.
Guilford, J P. (1977). Wav beyond the I. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
Hamilton, D., MacDonald, B., King, C., Jenkins, D., & Parlett, M (1977). Beyond the
numbers game: A reader in educational evaluation Berkeley, CA: McCutchan
Hamrick, M.C. (1969). A critical incident approach to identification of the philosophical
position of classroom teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 31, 291. (University Microfilms No. 70-
11741)
Harrington-Lueker, D. (1990) Middle school reality falls short of the ideal. American
School Board Journal. 177, 27.
Havinghurst, R. (1953). Human development and education. New York: David McKay
Company, Inc.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior belief and cognitive change in learning to teach.
American Education Research Journal, 26. 160-189
Howard, A., & Stoumbis, G (1970). The junior high and middle school: Issues and
practices. Scranton, PA: Intext Educational Publishers.
Jackson, A. W. (1989). Educating young adolescents: Why we must restructure
middle grade schools. The American Psychologist. 44, 831-6.
Johnston, J H, & Markle, G C (1986). What research says to the middle level
practitioner Columbus, Ohio: National Middle School Association

114
Johnston, S. (1992). Images: A way of understanding the practical knowledge of student
teachers Teaching & Teacher Education, 8, 123-136.
Joyce, B , & Weil, M. (1986). Models of teaching (3rd ed ) Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall
Kerlinger, F., (1961). Factor invariance in the measurement of attitudes toward
education Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2. 275-285.
Kerlinger, F, & Kaya, E. (1959). The construction and factor analytic validation of
scales to measure attitudes toward education. Educational and Psychological
Measurement. Yol, 19. (1), 13-29.
Killion, J., & Todnem, G. (1991). A process for personal theory building Educational
Leadership. 48. 14-16.
Lanier, J., & Little, J. (1986). Research on teacher education. In Wittrock, M.,
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 527-569). New York:
Macmillan.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.
Lodge, R C (1947). Philosophy of Education. New York: Harper
and Brothers.
Lortie, D (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lounsbury, J. (1991). As I see it. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Lounsbury, J., & Vars, G. (1978). Curriculum for the middle school years. New York:
Harper and Row
Mac Iver, D., & Epstein, J. (1991). Responsive practice in the middle grades: Teacher
teams, advisory groups, remedial instruction, and school transition programs
American Journal of Education. 99. 587-622.
Mac Iver, D., & Epstein, J (1993). Middle grades research: Not yet mature, but no
longer a child Elementary School Journal. 93. 519-533.
Mahlios, M., & Maxon, M. (1994). Images of teaching: Entry level preservice teachers
describe their beliefs about teaching and children. The Professional Educator. 17,
1-18.

115
Manning, M. L (1993). Recommendations for improving middle-level teacher
education Action in Teacher Education, 15, 47-51.
Marks, W.L., & Nystrand, R O (1981). Strategies for educational change. New York:
Macmillan
McAtee, W.A., & Punch, K.F. (1977). Progressivism and traditionalism in teachers’
attitudes toward education The Australian Journal of Education, 21. 268-276
McNeil, J D. (1977). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction Boston: Little,
Brown, & Company.
Messick, R , & Reynolds, K. (1992). Middle level curriculum. New York: Longman.
Muth, K.D., & Alverman, D (1992). Teaching and learning in the middle grades.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
National Middle School Association. (1992). This we believe. Columbus, OH Author.
Oliver, W.A. (1953). Teachers’ educational beliefs versus their classroom practices
Journal of Educational Research. 47, 47-55.
Pajares, M F. (1992). Teachers’beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research. 62, 307-332.
Peters, T , & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s
best run companies. New York: Harper & Row
Phenix, P. (1961). Philosophies of education. New York: John Wiley
Rodriguez, A. J. (1993). A dose of reality: Understanding the origin of the
theory/practice dichotomy in teacher education for the students’ point of view.
Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 213-222.
Romano, L., & Georgiady, N. (1994). Building an effective middle school
Madison, WS. Brown & Benchmark.
Ross, D , Bondy, E., & Kyle, D. (1993). Reflective teaching for student empowerment:
Elementary curriculum and methods. New York: Macmillan.
Ryans, D (1961). Inventory estimated teacher characteristics as covariants of observer
assessed pupil behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology. 52, 91-97.

116
Saylor, J , Alexander, W., & Lewis, A. (1981) Curriculum planning for better teaching
(4th ed ). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Scales, P. (1992). The effect of preservice preparation on middle grades teachers’ beliefs
about teaching and teacher education. Midpoints, 2, 1-12.
Scales, P , & McEwin, C. (1994). Growing pains: The making of America’s middle
school teachers. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Schubert, W. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York:
Macmillan
Schwab, J.J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sergiovanni, T., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F., & Thurston, P. (1987). Educational
governance and administration. (2nd ed ). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sergiovanni, T , & Starrat, R. (1983). Supervision: Human perspectives (3rd ed ).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sergiovanni, T., & Starratt, R. (1993). Supervision: A redefinition (5th ed ).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shane, H.G., & Tabler, M B (1981). Educating for a new millennium.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Sherman, R, & Webb, R. (1990). Qualitative Research in education: Focus and
methods. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Falmer Press
Stevenson, C. (1992). Teaching ten to fourteen year olds. New York: Longman.
Strain, J.P. (1975). Idealism: A clarification of an educational philosophy. Educational
Theory. 25, 264-279.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Swaim, J. (1993). National middle school association supports Carnegie
recommendations. Quality Teaching. 2. 10-11.

117
Tabachnick, B. R, & Zeichner, K. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience
on the development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35,
28-36.
Thomson, S. (1990). An agenda for excellence at the middle level. Reston, VA:
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Unruh G , & Unruh, A. (1984). Curriculum development: Problems, processes, and
progress. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Valentine, J W , Clark, D. C , Irvin, J. L., Keefe, J„ «& Melton, G. (1993). Leadership in
middle level education. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School
Principals.
Van Hoose, J , & Strahan, D (1988). Young adolescent development and school
practices: Promoting harmony. Columbus, OH: National Middle School
Association.
VanTil, W., Vars, G., school years (2nd ed). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company.
VanZandt, L. M., «fe Harlan, N. K. (1995). A professional development school improves
teacher preparation: Twain meets trinity in Texas. Middle School Journal, 26,
11-16.
Weber, C O. (1960). Basic philosophies of education. New York: Rinehard.
Wiles, J., New York: Macmillan.
Williams, E. (1965). Schools for the middle years. Educational Leadership, 23, 217-23.
Wolfe, D., «fe Eicher, K. (1988). The Principal as instructional leader: Implications for
student teaching. In Buttery, T. American Middle School Education: Vol. XI
(pp. 24-30). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Institute.
Zeichner, K. M , <& Gore, J. M. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd ed., pp. 329-348). New York:
Macmillan.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
William Scott Wise was bom March 1, 1957, in Cleveland, Ohio. After graduating
from Daytona Mainland High School in 1974, he attended the University of Florida,
Gainesville, receiving a Bachelor of Music Education degree from the College of Fine
Arts.
Mr Wise taught for eight years in the public schools of Ventura County,
California, and Nassua and Volusia Counties in Florida. In 1987, he entered the Graduate
School of the University of Florida, where he received the Master of Education degree in
administration and supervision in 1988 and the specialist degree in educational leadership
in 1989.
After working as a public school administrator, Mr Wise began working as a
graduate teaching assistant supervising teaching interns in the Department of Instruction
and Curriculum. He also worked in the Office of Instructional Resources as a tutor and
instructor until 1997 when he resigned to begin full-time work in the doctoral program in
education instruction and curriculum at the University of Florida.
Mr. Wise is married to the former Karen Peterson of Winter Park, Florida They
currently reside in Windermere, Florida.
118

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
tegma Weade-Lamme,
Associate Professor of
Instruction and Curriculum
írperson
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
(jL '
Eiigene A. Todd
Professor of Instruction and Curriculum
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Arthur O White
Professor of Foundations of Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Lynn G/ Oberlin
Professor of Instruction and Curriculum

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education
and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
August, 1998
Dean, College of Education
Dean, Graduate School




PAGE 1

7+( 5(/$7,216+,3 2) ('8&$7,21$/ 3+,/2623+< 72 7+( &855,&8/80 25,(17$7,21 35()(5(1&(6 2) 35(6(59,&( 7($&+(56 %\ :,//,$0 6&277 :,6( $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

&RS\ULJKW E\ :LOOLDP 6FRWW :LVH

PAGE 3

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

PAGE 4

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

PAGE 5

,9 35(6(17$7,21 $1' $1$/<6,6 2) 7+( '$7$ 'HVFULSWLRQ RI WKH 5HVHDUFK 6DPSOH 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VLV RI WKH 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQV ([SHULPHQWDOLVW 5DWLRQDOLVP ([SHULHQWLDOLVW 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW ,QGLYLGXDO 5HVSRQVHV 9 6800$5< ',6&866,21 DQG &21&/86,216 DQG 5(&200(1'$7,216 6XPPDU\ 'LVFXVVLRQ DQG &RQFOXVLRQV 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU )XUWKHU 6WXG\ $33(1',&(6 $ 5(6($5&+ ,167580(17 $ 6859(< 2) ('8&$7,21$/ 3+,/2623)< $1' &855,&8/80 25,(17$7,21 35()(5(1&(6 % 6(0,1$5 5($',1* 0$7(5,$/6 7+5(( &855,&8/80 25,(17$7,216 $1' 38%/,& 9$/8(6 2) ('8&$7,21 & 6(0,1$5 +$1'2876 6800$5< 2) 5(63216(6 72 7+( 5(6($5&+ ,167580(17 &255(6321'(1&( 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ Y

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

/,67 2) ),*85(6 )LJXUH SDJH &RPSHWLQJ 9DOXHV DQG ,PDJHV RI 6FKRROLQJ (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSKLHV &RPELQHG ZLWK &RPSHWLQJ 9DOXHV DQG ,PDJHV RI 6FKRROLQJ 3URSRVHG &RQFHSWXDO 0RGHO IRU 7HVWLQJ 5HODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\ DQG 2ULHQWDWLRQV WR &XUULFXOXP &RPELQDWLRQV RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSKLHV DQG &XUULFXOXP 2ULHQWDWLRQV YLL

PAGE 8

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

PAGE 9

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

PAGE 10

&+$37(5 67$7(0(17 2) 7+( 352%/(0 7KH 'HVFULSWLRQ RI WKH 6WXG\ 7KLV VWXG\ LQYHVWLJDWHV WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUVn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n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

PAGE 11

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t $OH[DQGHU f 6WXGLHV LQGLFDWHG PRGHUDWH LQFUHDVHV LQ WKH QXPEHU RI VFKRROV DGRSWLQJ PLGGOH OHYHO SUDFWLFHV VXFK DV LQWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\ WHDPV DGYLVRU\ JURXSV DQG WUDQVLWLRQDO SURJUDPV 0DF ,YHU t (SVWHLQ f 1DWLRQDO VXUYH\V KRZHYHU DOVR UHYHDOHG WKDW ZKLOH WKH QXPEHU RI VFKRRO GLVWULFWV UHRUJDQL]LQJ E\ JUDGH OHYHO FRQWLQXHG WR LQFUHDVH PDQ\ SULQFLSOHV RI HIIHFWLYH VFKRRO DQG FXUULFXOXP RUJDQL]DWLRQ DGYRFDWHG E\ SURSRQHQWV RI WKH PLGGOH VFKRRO PRYHPHQW KDG QRW EHHQ LPSOHPHQWHG $OH[DQGHU t 0F(ZLQ %HDQH (SVWHLQ t 0DF ,YHU +DUULQJWRQ/XHNHU f )RU H[DPSOH LQWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\ WHDP RUJDQL]DWLRQ ,72f ZDV SURSRVHG DV DQ HVVHQWLDO FRPSRQHQW RI WKH PLGGOH VFKRRO FRQFHSW VRPHWLPH DJR $OH[DQGHU t :LOOLDPV

PAGE 12

f $FFRUGLQJ WR -DFNVRQ f KRZHYHU RQO\ b RI DOO PLGGOH VFKRROV XWLOL]HG LQWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\ WHDP WHDFKLQJ DW DQ\ WLPH EHWZHHQ JUDGHV ILYH DQG QLQH 7KH FRQFHSW RI KHWHURJHQHRXV JURXSLQJ RI VWXGHQWV IRU LQVWUXFWLRQ ZDV HYHQ PRUH VWURQJO\ VXSSRUWHG E\ UHVHDUFK HYLGHQFH $FFRUGLQJ WR *HRUJH f PRVW VFKRROV KRZHYHU DSSHDUHG WR EH XQDEOH WR UHVSRQG WR UHVHDUFK HYLGHQFH UHJDUGLQJ FXUULFXOXP DQG LQVWUXFWLRQ LPSURYHPHQWV DQG FRQWLQXHG WR fWUDFNf VWXGHQWV IRU LQVWUXFWLRQ KRPRJHQHRXVO\ JURXSHG E\ DELOLW\ LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU VHFRQGDU\ VFKRROLQJ &RQVHTXHQWO\ WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI ZKDW PLGGOH OHYHO HGXFDWLRQ UHRUJDQL]DWLRQ KDG DFFRPSOLVKHG KDG LQFUHDVLQJO\ EHFRPH WKH VXEMHFW RI SKLORVRSKLFDO GLVFXVVLRQ DQG GHOLEHUDWLRQ %HDQH f &RQVLGHUDEOH HYLGHQFH GRFXPHQWV WKH FXUUHQW LQWHUHVW LQ LPSURYLQJ PLGGOH OHYHO VFKRROV 6HULRXV HIIRUWV WR VXEVWDQWLDWH WKH FXUUHQW DQG SRWHQWLDO YDOXH RI XSKROGLQJ WKH JRDOV IRU PLGGOH OHYHO VFKRROLQJ LQFOXGH VHYHUDO UHFHQW WH[WERRNV DQG D QXPEHU RI SXEOLFDWLRQV IURP VWDWH DJHQFLHV 7KH 1DWLRQDO 0LGGOH 6FKRRO $VVRFLDWLRQ UHLVVXHG LWV GRFXPHQW 7KLV :H %HOLHYH f ZKLFK H[SODLQV WKH WHQ fHVVHQWLDOVf RI DOO WUXH PLGGOH OHYHO VFKRROV 3XEOLFDWLRQV VXFK DV &DXJKW LQ WKH 0LGGOH f DQG 0DNLQJ WKH 0LGGOH *UDGHV :RUN f FUHDWH DQ LPDJH RI FXUULFXOXP ILUPO\ JURXQGHG LQ WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH OHDUQHU DW WKH PLGGOH OHYHO (PSKDVHV RQ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO DVSHFWV RI WHDFKHU FORVHQHVV WR VWXGHQWV DQG WKH H[SORUDWRU\ QDWXUH RI WKH FXUULFXOXP DUH H[DPSOHV RI DSSURDFKHV GHVLJQHG WR SXW WKH OHDUQHUEDVHG RULHQWDWLRQ LQWR SUDFWLFH +RZHYHU WHDFKHUV SDUWLFXODUO\ EHJLQQLQJ DQG SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV RIWHQ SHUFHLYH D JDS EHWZHHQ WKLV LPDJH RI PLGGOH OHYHO FXUULFXOXP DQG WKHLU H[SHULHQFHV LQ PLGGOH VFKRRO FODVVURRPV

PAGE 13

6LQFH WKH EHJLQQLQJ DQG WKURXJKRXW WKH PLGGOH VFKRRO UHIRUP PRYHPHQW SURSRQHQWV RI UHVWUXFWXULQJ WKHVH VFKRROV KDYH HPSKDVL]HG WKH QHHG IRU SHUVRQQHO WUDLQHG IRU DQG FRPPLWWHG WR WKH HGXFDWLRQ RI PLGGOH OHYHO VWXGHQWV :LOOLDPV $OH[DQGHU t 0F(ZLQ *HRUJH t $OH[DQGHU f 2QH ZHOONQRZQ WH[WERRN RQ WKH MXQLRU KLJK VFKRRO ZULWWHQ GXULQJ WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH PLGGOH VFKRRO PRYHPHQW VWDWHV SHUKDSV WKH PRVW VHULRXV REVWDFOH WR WKH HGXFDWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH MXQLRU KLJK VFKRRO KDV EHHQ WKH ODFN RI WHDFKHUV VSHFLILFDOO\ SUHSDUHG IRU ZRUN DW WKLV OHYHO 7KLV ORQJVWDQGLQJ DQG DOOWRR JHQHUDO SUREOHP KDV HOLFLWHG VXFK ODEHOV DV WKH EOLQG VSRW LQ WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ DQG WKH IRUJRWWHQ WHDFKLQJ DUHD 9DQ 7LO HW DO S f 6WLOO DFFXUDWH WRGD\ WKLV VWDWHPHQW LV WHVWDPHQW WR WKH IRUHVLJKW RI 9DQ7LO HW DO 0DQ\ SURSRQHQWV RI PLGGOH OHYHO HGXFDWLRQ SRLQW WR WKH OLPLWHG DQG VORZ H[SDQVLRQ RI VSHFLILF WHDFKHU WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV DV D PDMRU UHDVRQ WKDW WKH SRWHQWLDO RI WKH PRYHPHQW KDV UDUHO\ EHHQ UHDOL]HG LQ SUDFWLFH 6FDOHV 6FDOHV t 0F(ZLQ f $FFRUGLQJ WR 6FDOHV f SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK KDV VKRZQ WKDW RQO\ D ILIWK RI PLGGOH JUDGH WHDFKHUV XQGHUJRHV DQ\ VSHFLDO SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU WHDFKLQJ DW WKH PLGGOH OHYHO $OWKRXJK RQH RI WKH SULPDU\ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV LQYROYHV LQFUHDVLQJ WKH GXUDWLRQ DQG TXDOLW\ RI ILHOGEDVHG H[SHULHQFHV 9DQ=DQGW t +DUODQ f 9DOHQWLQH DQG KLV DVVRFLDWHV f UHSRUW D GURS LQ VWXGHQW WHDFKLQJ H[SHULHQFHV LQ WKH PLGGOH JUDGHV IURP b LQ WR b LQ 2WKHU VRXUFHV SRLQW WR LVVXHV VXFK DV LQVXIILFLHQW OHDGHUVKLS WUDLQLQJ YDULRXV SROLWLFDO IRUFHV RU ORZ TXDOLW\ SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DV IDFWRUV WKDW KDYH NHSW PLGGOH OHYHO FXUULFXOXP IURP GHYHORSLQJ LQWR WKH LPDJH RI HDUO\ SURSRQHQWV $OH[DQGHU t 0F(ZLQ 6ZDLP f

PAGE 14

5HVHDUFK DQG UHSRUWV GXULQJ WKH ODWH V DQG HDUO\ V LQGLFDWH WKDW WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQV EHJDQ WDNLQJ SXUSRVHIXO VWHSV WR LPSURYH PLGGOH OHYHO WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ 3URSRQHQWV RI PLGGOH VFKRRO UHIRUP FKDOOHQJHG WHDFKHU HGXFDWRUV WR GHVLJQ SURJUDPV ZLWK D VWULFW PLGGOH OHYHO IRFXV UDWKHU WKDQ VOLJKWO\ UHYLVHG HOHPHQWDU\ RU VHFRQGDU\ SHUVSHFWLYHV 0DQQLQJ f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f DVVHUWV WKDW RQH RI WKH IRUHPRVW WDVNV RI WHDFKHU HGXFDWRUV VKRXOG EH WKDW RI H[SORULQJ WKH HYROYLQJ SUDFWLFDO NQRZOHGJH RI RXU VWXGHQW WHDFKHUV VR WKDW ZH FDQ EXLOG SURJUDPV WKDW DVVLVW WKHP WR GHYHORS XQGHUVWDQG DUWLFXODWH DQG XWLOL]H WKDW SUDFWLFDO NQRZOHGJH 7KLV W\SH RI NQRZOHGJH LV QRW YLHZHG DV D ERG\ RI IL[HG VWDEOH FRQFHSWV WKDW DUH DSSOLHG LQ SUDFWLFH EXW UDWKHU DV VRPHWKLQJ WKDW LV WUDQVLHQW DQG VXEMHFW WR FKDQJH $FFRUGLQJ WR &ODQGLQLQ S f LW LV H[SHULHQWLDO YDOXHODGHQ SXUSRVHIXO DQG RULHQWHG WR SUDFWLFH ,Q WKLV YLHZ WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURYLGHV DYHQXHV IRU VWXGHQW WHDFKHUV WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH YDOXHV DWWLWXGHV DQG EHOLHIV WKH\ EULQJ WR D SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDP DQG WKHQ WR SORW DQG PRQLWRU WKHLU RZQ SURIHVVLRQDO JURZWK WKHUHDIWHU

PAGE 15

6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP 7KHUH LV D YLWDO QHHG IRU HGXFDWLRQDO OHDGHUV WR DFKLHYH FRQVLVWHQF\ EHWZHHQ WKH SKLORVRSKLFDO EHOLHIV RI WHDFKHUV DQG WKH DFWLYLWLHV UHTXLUHG RI WKHP LQ WKH QDPH RI FXUULFXOXP UHIRUP RU LPSURYHPHQW 6FKXEHUW f FRQWHQGV WKDW WKH PRVW VDOLHQW IRUFH LQ WKH FXUULFXOXP LPSURYHPHQW SURFHVV LV WKH SURIHVVLRQDO HGXFDWRU VSHFLILFDOO\ WKH FXUULFXOXP OHDGHU DQG WKH WHDFKHU 7R FODLP WKDW D SDUWLFXODU FKDQJH LQ FXUULFXOXP DQG LQVWUXFWLRQ LV QHHGHG KRZHYHU UHTXLUHV D FRQJUXRXV SKLORVRSK\ RU LGHRORJLFDO SODWIRUP RI YDOXHV EHOLHIV DQG LGHDOV 0DKOLRV DQG 0D[VRQ f FRQWHQG WKDW VWXGHQWV FRPH LQWR WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV ZLWK IDLUO\ FRQVLVWHQW \HW YDJXH YLHZV RI VFKRROLQJ DQG FKLOGUHQ $FFRUGLQJ WR 6HUJLRYDQQL DQG 6WDUUDWW f WHDFKHUV RIWHQ DUH QRW FRJQL]DQW RI WKHLU SKLORVRSKLFDO EHOLHIV DQG ILQG WKH GLVFRYHU\ DQG DUWLFXODWLRQ SURFHVV WR EH IUXVWUDWLQJ *XLOIRUG f GHVFULEHV WZR IRUFHV WKDW JR WR ZRUN DOPRVW VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ DV DQ DUHD IRU LPSURYHPHQW LV LGHQWLILHG RQH FRQYHUJHQW DQG WKH RWKHU GLYHUJHQW 7KH FRQYHUJHQW IRUFH VHUYHV WR FODULI\ DQG DUWLFXODWH WKH SUREOHP WKHUHE\ UHGXFLQJ WKH IRFXV WR SRLQWV RI HPSKDVLV 7KH GLYHUJHQW IRUFH WKHQ FRQVLGHUV SRVVLEOH FRXUVHV RI DFWLRQ DQG WKHLU FRQVHTXHQFHV %HUPDQ f FRQWHQGV WKDW SUREOHPV RI FRQIOLFWLQJ LQWHUHVW FDQQRW EH UHVROYHG XQWLO WKH FRQYHUJHQFH IRUFH WKDW LV WKH IRFXV SRLQW RI HPSKDVLV RU SULRULW\ LV FOHDUO\ HVWDEOLVKHG 7KHUHIRUH LQ RUGHU IRU FXUULFXOXP LPSURYHPHQWV WR EH XQGHUVWRRG DQG SHUFHLYHG DV ZRUWKZKLOH DQ DUWLFXODWH DQG GHIHQVLEOH VHQVH RI GLUHFWLRQ PXVW H[LVW 8QUXK DQG 8QUXK f DVVHUW WKDW ZLWKRXW D WKHRUHWLFDO EDVH WKH XQGHUO\LQJ SULQFLSOHV RU

PAGE 16

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f $WWHQWLRQ KDV UHFHQWO\ EHHQ IRFXVHG RQ HPSLULFDO VWXG\ UHODWHG WR WKH WUDLQLQJ TXHVWLRQ H J WKH QDWXUH RI SUHVHUYLFH VWXGHQWVf LPDJHV RI FXUULFXOXP LPSURYHPHQWV 0DKOLRV t 0D[VRQ f 7KH LPDJHV WKH\ H[SORUH DUH WKRVH WKDW UHSUHVHQW WKH PHDQV WKURXJK ZKLFK FKDQJLQJ FRQFHSWLRQV RI WHDFKLQJ VXEMHFW PDWWHU DQG WKH QHHGV RI VWXGHQWV DUH WR EH WUDQVODWHG LQWR WKH DFWXDO RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU OHDUQLQJ SURYLGHG E\ IXWXUH WHDFKHUV 7KH\ DOVR UHSUHVHQW WKH PHDQV IRU UHVROYLQJ WKH GLVSDULWLHV EHWZHHQ LGHDOL]HG LPDJHV RI ZKDW WHDFKLQJ ZLOO EH OLNH DQG WKH DFWXDO SUDFWLFHV SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV ZLWQHVV GXULQJ WKHLU LQWHUQVKLS H[SHULHQFHV 5HJDUGLQJ WKH EHOLHIV RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV 0DKOLRV DQG 0D[VRQ VWDWH W\SLFDOO\ ZH NQRZ OLWWOH DERXW WKH YLHZV RXU VWXGHQWV KROG DQG WKXV KDYH OLWWOH LI DQ\ NQRZOHGJH RI KRZ WKHVH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZLOO LQWHUDFW ZLWK WKH GRPLQDQW FRQFHSWV LQFRUSRUDWHG ZLWKLQ RXU UHVSHFWLYH WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV ,W PD\ LQ IDFW EH WKDW SDUW RI WKH IDLOXUH RI VRPH RI RXU VWXGHQWV WR fOHDUQf SURJUDP FRQFHSWV

PAGE 17

LV D UHVXOW RI WKH FODVK EHWZHHQ YLHZV ZLWKLQ WKHPVHOYHV DQG WKRVH FRQWDLQHG LQ RXU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV 0DKOLRV t 0D[VRQ S f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

PAGE 18

,QWHUSUHWDWLRQV RI ILQGLQJV DUH OLPLWHG EHFDXVH WKH UHVHDUFKHU GRHV QRW NQRZ ZKHWKHU SDUWLFXODU YDULDEOHV H J SURJUDP RI VWXG\f DUH D FDXVH RU UHVXOW RI WKHLU SUHIHUHQFHV IRU FXUULFXOXP LPSURYHPHQW $VVXPSWLRQV 7KH IROORZLQJ DVVXPSWLRQV ZHUH PDGH UHODWLYH WR WKH FRQGXFW RI WKLV VWXG\ (GXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV FDQ EH DQDO\]HG DQG FRPSDUHG UHODWLYH WR WKHLU SRVLWLRQV RQ NQRZOHGJH RQWRORJ\f WUXWK HSLVWHPRORJ\f DQG YDOXHV D[LRORJ\f 7KH LQVWUXPHQW GHYHORSHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU ZDV DSSURSULDWH IRU LGHQWLI\LQJ FHUWDLQ SKLORVRSKLFDO RULHQWDWLRQV ,PSRUWDQFH RI WKH 6WXG\ $ UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH RQ WKLV WRSLF UHYHDOV PDQ\ VWXGLHV RQ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUVf EHOLHIV H J +ROOLQJVZRUWK =HLFKQHU t *RUH f WKDW UHDIILUP WKH QRWLRQ WKDW WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV VHHP WR KDYH OLWWOH LQIOXHQFH RQ WKH VWXGHQWVf SUHFRQFHLYHG EHOLHI V\VWHPV +RZHYHU DFFRUGLQJ WR 5RGULJXH] f VHYHUDO VWXGLHV KDYH UHIXWHG WKLV FODLP DQG GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW VWXGHQWV LQGHHG KDYH EHHQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQIOXHQFHG E\ WKHLU DFDGHPLF FRXUVH ZRUN $OYHUPDQ f VWDWHV WKDW VRPH VWXGHQWV ZHOFRPHG WKH LQQHU VWUXJJOH SURGXFHG E\ WKH GLVVRQDQFH EHWZHHQ WKH XQLYHUVLW\ FRXUVHV DQG WKH SUDFWLFXP H[SHULHQFH DQG WKDW LQ IDFW LW VHUYHG DV GULYLQJ IRUFH IRU HQFRXUDJLQJ UHIOHFWLRQ RQ WKH YDOXH RI WKHLU WHDFKLQJ VWUDWHJLHV DQG EHOLHIV *RRGPDQ f SURSRVHV D SURDFWLYH DSSURDFK WR WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ E\ ILUVW DQG IRUHPRVW LGHQWLI\LQJ WKH VWXGHQWVf LQWXLWLYH

PAGE 19

VFUHHQV WKDW LV WKH SRLQWV RI UHIHUHQFH VWXGHQWV XVH WR PDNH VHQVH RI WKHLU H[SHULHQFHV DV WKH\ VLIW WKURXJK WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ HGXFDWLRQDO WKHRULHV LGHDV DQG VWUDWHJLHVf SUHVHQWHG WR WKHP GXULQJ WKHLU WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDP S f 7KLV VWXG\ LV XQLTXH LQ LWV FRQWULEXWLRQ WR WKH YROXPH RI NQRZOHGJH LQ WKH ILHOG RI WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ EHFDXVH LW H[SORUHV KRZ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV UHODWH WR WKHLU VXEVWDQWLYH SUHIHUHQFHV IRU LPSURYLQJ FXUULFXOXP 7KH SULPDU\ IRFXV LQ WKH VWXG\ LV WR FRPSDUH WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV DQG RULHQWDWLRQV RI FXUULFXOXP KHOG E\ WKHVH VWXGHQWV $ VHFRQGDU\ IRFXV LV WR DVVHVV WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKHVH LPDJHV PD\ EH UHODWHG WR VWXGHQWVn SURJUDP RI VWXG\ DQG DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ 7KH ILQGLQJV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZLOO SURYLGH LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW ZLOO EH RI YDOXH WR WHDFKHU HGXFDWRUV DQG PRVW LPSRUWDQWO\ VKRXOG EH XVHIXO WR WKH SURVSHFWLYH WHDFKHUV WKHPVHOYHV 0DQ\ WHDFKHU HGXFDWRUV DUH HQJDJLQJ VWXGHQW WHDFKHUV LQ WKH SUDFWLFH RI UHIOHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ PDNLQJ UDWLRQDO DQG HWKLFDO FKRLFHV DERXW ZKDW DQG KRZ WR WHDFK DQG DVVXPLQJ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU WKRVH FKRLFHV 5RVV HW DO f $FFRUGLQJ WR .LOOLRQ DQG 7RGQHP f EXV\ SHRSOH LQFOXGLQJ VWXGHQW WHDFKHUV UDUHO\ HQJDJH LQ UHIOHFWLYH H[SHULHQFHV XQOHVV WKH\ DUH JLYHQ VRPH WLPH VRPH VWUXFWXUH DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV WR GR VR ,W ZRXOG EH XVHIXO IRU VWXGHQWV RI WHDFKLQJ WR KDYH D WRRO WKDW ZLOO HQDEOH WKHP WR UHIOHFW XSRQ DQG FRQVWUXFW SUDFWLFDO NQRZOHGJH RI WKH UHDVRQV RU H[SODQDWLRQV IRU WKHLU GHFLVLRQV -RKQVWRQ f &RQQHOO\ DQG &ODQGLQLQ f VXJJHVW WKDW LPDJHV RI FXUULFXOXP FDQ SURYLGH D ODQJXDJH RI SUDFWLFH IRU WHDFKHUV EHFDXVH WKH\ FDQ XVH WKHVH LPDJHV WR DUWLFXODWH WKH EDVLV RI WKHLU GHFLVLRQV DQG H[SORUH WKH UHDVRQ WKH\ KROG SDUWLFXODU EHOLHIV )XUWKHU DV D VWXGHQWWHDFKHU PDNHV FKRLFHV WR DFFHSW RU UHMHFW SKLORVRSKLHV RYHUWO\ UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI

PAGE 20

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f &XUULFXOXP LPSURYHPHQW UHIHUV WR WKH SRVLWLYH FKDQJH LQ FXUULFXOXP EURXJKW DERXW LQ WKH FRXUVH RI HYHU\GD\ DFWLRQV DPRQJ WHDFKHUV FXUULFXOXP OHDGHUV DQG VWXGHQWV 6FKXEHUW f &XUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ LV D JHQHUDO VFKRRO RI WKRXJKW UHJDUGLQJ FXUULFXOXP UHVHDUFK WKHRU\ DQG SUDFWLFH (DFK SRVLWLRQ UHSUHVHQWHG ([SHULHQWLDOLVW ,QWHOOHFWXDO 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW DQG 6RFLDO %HKDYLRULVW LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ ZLGHUDQJLQJ DQG RYHUODSSLQJ DVVXPSWLRQV DERXW ZKDW LV PRVW LPSRUWDQW WR WHDFK KRZ OHDUQLQJ RFFXUV WKH UROHV RI WHDFKHUV DQG VWXGHQWV DQG ZKDW FODVVURRPV RXJKW WR EH OLNH 6FKXEHUW f &XUULFXOXP WKHRU\ UHIHUV WR D EHOLHI V\VWHP WKDW SURYLGHV D IUDPH RI UHIHUHQFH WR JXLGH WKH SUDFWLWLRQHU LQ PDNLQJ UDWLRQDO FKRLFHV DPRQJ DOWHUQDWLYH FRXUVHV RI DFWLRQ DQG

PAGE 21

VRXUFHV RI NQRZOHGJH LQ PDNLQJ YDOXH GHFLVLRQV DQG LQ SUHGLFWLQJ WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI YDULRXV VROXWLRQV WR GLOHPPDV 8QUXK t 8QUXK f (DUO\ DGROHVFHQW QDPHV D VWDJH RI KXPDQ GHYHORSPHQW WKDW EHJLQV MXVW SULRU WR SXEHUW\ DQG H[WHQGV WKURXJK WKH HDUO\ VWDJH RI DGROHVFHQFH 7KH QDWXUH RI WKH VWXGHQW DW WKH PLGGOH OHYHO LV JHQHUDOO\ FRQVLGHUHG IURP WKUHH PDMRU SHUVSHFWLYHV f FRJQLWLYH RU LQWHOOHFWXDO GHYHORSPHQW f VRFLDO DQG HPRWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW DQG f SK\VLFDO DQG SK\VLRORJLFDO GHYHORSPHQW (GXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ UHIHUV WR D UHDVRQDEO\ FRKHUHQW VHW RI YDOXHV DQG IXQGDPHQWDO DVVXPSWLRQV XVHG DV D EDVLV IRU HYDOXDWLQJ DQG JXLGLQJ HGXFDWLRQDO SUDFWLFH 3KHQL[ f ,PDJHV RI FXUULFXOXP DUH D SHUVRQDO SUDFWLFDO NQRZOHGJH WKDW HPERGLHV D SHUVRQnV H[SHULHQFH ILQGV H[SUHVVLRQ LQ SUDFWLFH DQG LV WKH SHUVSHFWLYH IURP ZKLFK QHZ H[SHULHQFH LV WDNHQ &ODQGLQLQ f ,QWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\ WHDP RUJDQL]DWLRQ LV D ZD\ RI RUJDQL]LQJ WKH IDFXOW\ VR WKDW D JURXS RI WHDFKHUV VKDUH f WKH VDPH JURXS RI VWXGHQWV f WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU SODQQLQJ WHDFKLQJ DQG HYDOXDWLQJ FXUULFXOXP DQG LQVWUXFWLRQ LQ PRUH WKDQ RQH DFDGHPLF DUHD f WKH VDPH VFKHGXOH DQG f WKH VDPH DUHD RI WKH EXLOGLQJ *HRUJH t $OH[DQGHU f 0LGGOH OHYHO HGXFDWLRQ UHIHUV WR D WUDQVLWLRQDO SKDVH RI VFKRROLQJ WKDW FRQVLGHUV WKH HGXFDWLRQDO QHHGV RI VWXGHQWV XVXDOO\ HQUROOHG LQ JUDGHV RU DQG \HDUV RI DJH EXLOGV RQ WKH VWXGHQWVn SULRU H[SHULHQFHV DW WKH HOHPHQWDU\ OHYHO DQG OHDGV WRZDUG WKH KLJK VFKRRO OHYHO *HRUJH t $OH[DQGHU f

PAGE 22

0LGGOH OHYHO SURSRQHQWV DUH SURIHVVLRQDO HGXFDWRUV ZKR LQ WKH ODWH V DQG HDUO\ V EHJDQ D PRYHPHQW WRZDUG FRQVHQVXV DERXW WKH SXUSRVHV RI LQWHUPHGLDWH VFKRROLQJ 3URPLQHQW VSRNHVSHUVRQV LQFOXGHG :LOOLDP $OH[DQGHU 'RQDOG (LFKKRUQ 3DXO *HRUJH -RKQ /RXQVEXU\ DQG *RUGRQ 9DUV 0HVVLFN t 5H\QROGV f 3UHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV DUH VWXGHQWV HQJDJHG LQ WKH IRUPDO VWXG\ RI WHDFKLQJ ZLWKLQ D SURJUDP FRQVLVWLQJ RI WKUHH GRPLQDQW IHDWXUHV f JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ FRXUVH ZRUN f VXEMHFW PDWWHU VSHFLDOWLHV DQG f SHGDJRJ\ LQFOXGLQJ VWXGHQW WHDFKLQJ DQG RWKHU FOLQLFDO H[SHULHQFHV /DQLHU t /LWWOH f 3URJUDP RI VWXG\ LV D FROOHJH SURJUDP GHVLJQHG IRU WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI SURIHVVLRQDO WHDFKHUV LQ HLWKHU HOHPHQWDU\ PLGGOH RU VHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQ 7UDFNLQJ UHIHUV WR WKH SUDFWLFH RI GLYLGLQJ VWXGHQWV IRU LQVWUXFWLRQ LQWR FODVVVL]H JURXSV EDVHG RQ D PHDVXUH RI WKH VWXGHQWVf SHUFHLYHG DELOLW\ RU SULRU DFKLHYHPHQW ,Q RUGHU WR UHGXFH WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV DQG PDNH WHDFKLQJ PRUH HIIHFWLYH GLIIHUHQWLDWHG OHDUQLQJ H[SHULHQFHV DUH GHVLJQHG DQG GHOLYHUHG WR HDFK JURXS *HRUJH f

PAGE 23

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fD IL[HG VHULHV RI VWXGLHV UHTXLUHG DV LQ D FROOHJH IRU JUDGXDWLRQ f (GXFDWLRQDO VFKRODUV KRZHYHU GHVFULEH DQG SURPRWH LPDJHV RI FXUULFXOXP ZLWK YDULHG DQG FRQIOLFWLQJ GHVFULSWLRQV 6RPH FKDUDFWHUL]H FXUULFXOXP VLPSO\ DV DQ RUJDQL]HG VHW RI LQWHQGHG RXWFRPHV OHDGLQJ WR WKH DFKLHYHPHQW RI HGXFDWLRQDO JRDOV 2WKHUV DVVHUW WKDW FXUULFXOXP LV PRUH EURDG LQ VFRSH LQ WKDW LW LQFRUSRUDWHV HYHU\WKLQJ WKDW KDSSHQV LQVLGH D VFKRRO $ VHQVH RI WKH UDQJH RI DOWHUQDWLYH YLHZV LV FRQYH\HG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ H[DPSOHV

PAGE 24

&XUULFXOXP LV fD SODQ IRU DFKLHYLQJ LQWHQGHG OHDUQLQJ RXWFRPHV D SODQ FRQFHUQHG ZLWK SXUSRVH ZLWK ZKDW LV WR EH OHDUQHG DQG ZLWK WKH UHVXOWV RI LQVWUXFWLRQf 8QUXK t 8QUXK S f &XUULFXOXP LV fWKH FRQWHQW RI LQVWUXFWLRQ ZKDW LV LQWHQWLRQDOO\ WDXJKW WR VWXGHQWV LQ D VFKRRO RU FODVVURRP WKH JXLGHV ERRNV DQG PDWHULDOV WKDW WHDFKHUV XVH LQ WHDFKLQJ VWXGHQWVf *OLFNPDQ S f &XUULFXOXP LV fWKH SODQQHG VFKRRO SURJUDP WKDW LQFOXGHV D VHW RI JHQHUDO JRDOV IRU DOO VWXGHQWVf 0HVVLFN t 5H\QROGV S f 7KH LPDJH RI FXUULFXOXP WKDW LV DGRSWHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ LV RUJDQL]HG DURXQG WKH KHXULVWLF SURYLGHG E\ 6FKZDE f ZKHQ KH UHIHUUHG WR WKH fFRPPRQSODFH RI WHDFKLQJ f )RU WHDFKLQJ WR RFFXU VRPHRQH D WHDFKHUf PXVW EH WHDFKLQJ VRPHRQH D VWXGHQWf DERXW VRPHWKLQJ D FXUULFXOXPf DW VRPH SODFH DQG SRLQW LQ WLPH D PLOLHXf $V /DQLHU DQG /LWWOH f SRLQW RXW WKH WHDFKHUV RI VWXGHQW WHDFKHUV UHSUHVHQW D GLYHUVLW\ RI UROHV DQG EDFNJURXQGVf§FROOHJH SURIHVVRUV JUDGXDWH DVVLVWDQWV SXEOLF VFKRRO VXSHUYLVRUV DQG RWKHUV 7KH VWXGHQWV DUH DGXOWV ZKR DUH HLWKHU SURVSHFWLYH RU SUDFWLFLQJ WHDFKHUV 7KH FXUULFXOXP LQFOXGHV VWXGLHV LQ JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQV DQG SHGDJRJ\ 7KH PLOLHX RI WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQFOXGHV WKH JHQHUDO VRFLHW\ WKH XQLYHUVLW\ WKH VFKRRO GLVWULFW WKH VFKRRO DQG YDULRXV RWKHU FRQWH[WXDO VHWWLQJV WKDW DIIHFW WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQ $PHULFD

PAGE 25

7KH 1DWXUH RI &XUULFXOXP 'HYHORSPHQW &XUULFXOXP GHYHORSPHQW LV JHQHUDOO\ H[SUHVVHG DV D SODQQLQJ SURFHVV DLPHG DW LPSURYLQJ WKH DFKLHYHPHQW RI HGXFDWLRQDO JRDOV 7KHVH JRDOV DUH W\SLFDOO\ GHULYHG IURP WKH VWXG\ RI f ZKR RXU VWXGHQWV DUH f ZKDW FRQWHQW LV LPSRUWDQW IRU WKHP WR NQRZ DQG f KRZ WKH\ OHDUQ EHVW 7KHVH WKUHH VRXUFHV DUH WKH IRXQGDWLRQ IRU GHFLVLRQV UHJDUGLQJ FXUULFXOXP LPSURYHPHQW 3URFHGXUHV DQG VWUDWHJLHV IRU DIIHFWLQJ LPSURYHPHQW KRZHYHU YDU\ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH VRXUFH GHHPHG PRVW LPSRUWDQW 7KH IROORZLQJ YLHZV DUH WDNHQ IURP WKH FLWDWLRQV WKDW GHILQHG FXUULFXOXP LQ WKH SUHYLRXV VHFWLRQ &XUULFXOXP GHYHORSPHQW LV fD SODQQLQJ SURFHVV D FRPSOH[ SURFHVV RI DVVHVVLQJ QHHGV LGHQWLI\LQJ GHVLUHG OHDUQLQJ RXWFRPHV SUHSDULQJ IRU LQVWUXFWLRQ WR DFKLHYH WKH RXWFRPHV DQG PHHWLQJ WKH FXOWXUDO VRFLDO DQG SHUVRQDO QHHGV WKDW WKH FXUULFXOXP LV WR VHUYHf 8QUXK t 8QUXK S f &XUULFXOXP GHYHORSPHQW LV fWKH UHYLVLRQ DQG PRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH FRQWHQW SODQV DQG PDWHULDOV RI FODVVURRP LQVWUXFWLRQf *OLFNPDQ S f f(IIHFWLYH VFKRRO SURJUDPV PXVW EH GHYHORSHG E\ WKH VWDII RI D SDUWLFXODU VFKRRO LQ UHVSRQVH WR WKDW VHWWLQJ DQG VWXGHQW JURXS 7HDFKHU FUHDWLYLW\ DQG WHDPZRUN DUH UHTXLUHG WR DGDSW NQRZOHGJH IURP WKH GLIIHUHQW VXEMHFWV DQG DFDGHPLF GLVFLSOLQHV VR LW ZLOO LQYROYH VWXGHQWV DQG PHHW WKHLU QHHGVf 0HVVLFN t 5H\QROGV S f $FFRUGLQJ WR 6FKXEHUW f WZR JHQHUDO DSSURDFKHV WR FXUULFXOXP LPSURYHPHQW KDYH GRPLQDWHG WKH OLWHUDWXUH 7KH ILUVW fWRSGRZQf LPSURYHPHQWV DUH VHHQ DV EHLQJ FDUHIXOO\ IRUPXODWHG SULRU WR DSSOLFDWLRQ IURP VRXUFHV RXWVLGH RI WKH VFRSH RI DSSOLFDWLRQ 7KH RWKHU HYROYHV LQ WKH FRXUVH RI HYHU\GD\ LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ WHDFKHUV

PAGE 26

DGPLQLVWUDWRUV VWXGHQWV DQG FRPPXQLW\ 7KLV fJUDVVURRWVf DSSURDFK WR LPSURYHPHQW LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ LWV LQFOXVLRQ RI WKRVH ZKR DUH PRVW GLUHFWO\ DIIHFWHG E\ WKH LPSURYHG VLWXDWLRQ 7KHVH WZR DSSURDFKHV FRQFHLYH RI WKH SODQQLQJ SURFHVV LQ YHU\ GLIIHUHQW ZD\V 7KH WRSGRZQ RULHQWDWLRQ VHHV FXUULFXOXP LPSURYHPHQWV DV WKH UHVXOW RI UHVHDUFK FRQGXFWHG E\ H[SHUWV 7KH WDVN EHFRPHV WR FRQYLQFH WHDFKHUV DV LPSOHPHQWRUV RI FXUULFXOXP RI WKH ZRUWK RI WKH SURSRVHG LPSURYHPHQW 7KH ZRUN RI .XUW /HZLQ f LV FRQVLGHUHG FODVVLF LQ WKLV ILHOG +LV ZRUN DGYRFDWHV WKH QHHG WR fXQIUHH]Hf ROG FRQFHSWLRQV LQWURGXFH QHZ RQHV WKURXJK WKH DLG RI RXWVLGH H[SHUWV DQG ILQDOO\ fIUHH]H LQf LPSURYHPHQWV WR WKH SRLQW WKDW H[SHUWV DUH QR ORQJHU QHHGHG IRU PDLQWHQDQFH RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ ,Q WKH GHFDGHV IROORZLQJ /HZLQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ GHYHORSHUV KDYH FUHDWHG D VWRFNSLOH RI WHFKQLTXHV IRU ZRUNLQJ ZLWK RUJDQL]DWLRQV VHHNLQJ LPSURYHPHQW 3HUKDSV WKH JUHDWHVW VRXUFH RI WKLV W\SH RI H[SHUWLVH LV IRXQG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH GLUHFWHG WRZDUG EXVLQHVV H[HFXWLYHV f,Q 6HDUFK RI ([FHOOHQFH /HVVRQV IIRP $PHULFDfV %HVW5XQ &RPSDQLHVf E\ 3HWHUV DQG :DWHUPDQ f LV RQH RI WKH PRVW SRSXODU DQG KLJKO\ DFFODLPHG UHVRXUFHV IRU WKRVH VHHNLQJ LPSURYHPHQWV LQ VFKRROV DV ZHOO DV EXVLQHVV 0XFK RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH RI WKLV PRYHPHQW KDV EHHQ DGRSWHG E\ 0DUNV DQG 1\VWUDQG f LQ HGXFDWLRQ DQG 'ROO f LQ FXUULFXOXP $FFRUGLQJ WR )XOODQ f VPDOO DQG ODUJHVFDOH VWXGLHV RI WRSGRZQ VWUDWHJLHV KDYH FRQVLVWHQWO\ GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW ORFDO LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ IDLOV LQ WKH YDVW PDMRULW\ RI FDVHV 7KH JUDVVURRWV SURSRQHQWV DUJXH WKDW WKH SUREOHP ZLWK WKH WRSGRZQ RULHQWDWLRQ

PAGE 27

LV SUHFLVHO\ LWV UHODWLRQ WR LWV RULJLQV LQ DJULFXOWXUH DQG EXVLQHVV $V +DPLOWRQ HW DO f SRLQW RXW WKH QRWLRQ RI OHDUQLQJ DV WKH SURGXFW RIWHQ PHDVXUHG E\ VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVWLQJ LV WRR VLPSOLVWLF DQG WRR LQVHQVLWLYH ,PSURYHPHQWV IURP WKH JUDVVURRWV RULHQWDWLRQ DUH VHHQ DV HPHUJLQJ IURP WKH H[SHULHQFH RI DOO SHUVRQV HQJDJHG LQ VFKRROLQJ 3DUWLFLSDQWV LQFOXGH QRW RQO\ WHDFKHUV EXW SDUHQWV VWXGHQWV DQG DGPLQLVWUDWRUV 7RJHWKHU WKH\ DUH LPPHUVHG LQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ DQG DUH EHVW HTXLSSHG WR LGHQWLI\ QHHGV DQG WDNH DQ DFWLYH UROH LQ WKH DVVHVVPHQW SURFHVV 7HDFKHUV PXVW DV *RRGODG f ZDUQV WKLQN RI WKH VRFLHWDO LQVWLWXWLRQDO LQVWUXFWLRQDO LQGLYLGXDO DQG LGHRORJLFDO DOO DW RQFH ZKHQ UHIOHFWLQJ RQ FXUULFXOXP PDWWHUV :KHWKHU RQH WKLQNV RI WHDFKHUV DV FUHDWRUV DQG GHYHORSHUV RI FXUULFXOXP RU DV WKH SULPDU\ LPSOHPHQWRUV WKH\ DUH NH\ DJHQWV LQ WKH SURFHVV RI ZKDW FXUULFXOXP EHFRPHV ,Q WKH SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDP DWWLWXGHV WKDW EXLOG FXUULFXOXP LPSURYHPHQW DUH EHLQJ FXOWLYDWHG 6FKXEHUW S f VXEPLWV WKDW fWKH VHHGEHG RI SURIHVVLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW WKDW EULQJV FXUULFXOXP LPSURYHPHQW OLHV LQ WKH HGXFDWLRQ RI WHDFKHUV f 7KHUHIRUH LW LV HVVHQWLDO WKDW SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV XQGHUVWDQG ZLGHO\ GLIIHUHQW RULHQWDWLRQV WR WKH FRQFHSW RI FXUULFXOXP &RPSHWLQJ 9DOXHV DQG ,PDJHV RI 6FKRROLQJ 7KH XQGHUFXUUHQW IRU UHIOHFWLRQ RQ VFKRRO PDWWHUV LV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ IRXU ZLGHO\ KHOG EXW FRQIOLFWLQJ YDOXHV HTXLW\ H[FHOOHQFH HIILFLHQF\ DQG OLEHUW\ 6HUJLRYDQQL HW DO f $ GHWDLOHG DFFRXQW RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI HDFK LV SUHVHQWHG LQ $SSHQGL[ % 7KHVH YDOXHV H[LVW LQ D FRQVWDQW VWDWH RI WHQVLRQ VXFK WKDW WRR PXFK HPSKDVLV RQ DQ\ RQH KLQGHUV

PAGE 28

H[SUHVVLRQ RI HDFK RI WKH RWKHU WKUHH 6HUJLRYDQQL HW DO S f DVVHUW WKDW fPRVW RI WKH WRGD\fV SURSRVDOV IRU VFKRRO UHIRUP HPHUJH IURP WKH VRFLDO 'DUZLQLVP YLHZ DQG VTXDUHO\ FRQWUDGLFW WKH HJDOLWDULDQ LGHDO XSRQ ZKLFK WKH PRGHUQ SXEOLFVFKRRO V\VWHP KDV WUDGLWLRQDOO\ UHVWHGf $Q LOOXVWUDWLRQ WKDW RXWOLQHV D V\VWHP IRU WKH FRQWUDVW DQG FRPSDULVRQ RI DOWHUQDWLYH YDOXHV DQG LGHDOV LV SUHVHQWHG LQ )LJXUH $ GLFWLRQDU\ GHILQLWLRQ VXJJHVWV WKDW (JDOLWDULDQLVP LV fD VRFLDO SKLORVRSK\ DGYRFDWLQJ WKH UHPRYDO RI LQHTXDOLWLHV DPRQJ SHRSOH HVSHFLDOO\ ZLWK UHVSHFW WR VRFLDO SROLWLFDO DQG HFRQRPLF ULJKWV DQG SULYLOHJHVf 7KH LPDJH RI HJDOLWDULDQLVP LV UHSUHVHQWHG LQ WKH PRGHO E\ WKH YDOXH RI HTXLW\ FRPELQHG ZLWK OLEHUW\ (GXFDWLRQ SURIHVVLRQDOV KDYH DGRSWHG WKLV LPDJH DV DQ LQFOXVLYH SROLF\ ZLWK YDULHG FXUULFXOXP WKDW DWWHPSW WR LQFOXGH DV PDQ\ VWXGHQWV LQ VFKRROV DV ORQJ DV SRVVLEOH 5HJDUGLQJ WKH HJDOLWDULDQ LGHDO DQG WKH $PHULFDQ KLJK VFKRRO RQH DXWKRU VWDWHV DW EDVH WKH SXEOLF VFKRROV DUH ERXQG E\ WKH HJDOLWDULDQ LGHDO $V D QDWLRQ ZH UHWDLQHG WKH KRSH WKDW RXU FLWL]HQV ZLOO KDYH VRPH IDLUO\ HYHQ FKDQFH DW VRFLDO HFRQRPLF DQG SROLWLFDO HTXDOLW\ 6LQFH HGXFDWLRQ LV RQH RI WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW ZD\V WR REWDLQ WKDW HTXDOLW\ DOO FKLOGUHQ DUH REOLJDWHG WR FRPH WR VFKRRO DQG VLPLODUO\ WKH VFKRROV DUH REOLJDWHG WR DSSHDO WR DOO WKHLU VWXGHQWV &XVLFN S f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

PAGE 29

(IILFLHQF\ EXUHDXFUDWLF EXUHDXFUDWLF OLEHUDOLVPf HOLWLVPf ,PDJH RI 6RFLDO 'DUZLQLVP (TXLW\ ([FHOOHQFH GHFHQWUDOL]HG OLEHUDOLVPf GHFHQWUDOL]HG HOLWLVPf ,PDJH RI (JDOLWDULDQLVP /LEHUW\ )LJXUH &RPSHWLQJ YDOXHV DQG LPDJHV RI VFKRROLQJ 6RXUFH 9DOXHV DQG LPDJHV LWHPV DGDSWHG IURP f(GXFDWLRQDO *RYHUQDQFH DQG $GPLQLVWUDWLRQf 6HUJLRYDQQL HW DO

PAGE 30

W\SH RI VWXGHQW WKDW ZLOO HYHQWXDOO\ SURYLGH WKH OHDGHUVKLS QHHGHG IRU RXU FRXQWU\ WR SUHYDLO LQ ZRUOG PDWWHUV +RZHYHU HJDOLWDULDQV UHJDUG WKLV SROLF\ DV H[FOXVLYH VDQFWLRQLQJ IDLOXUH IRU VWXGHQWV ZKR FDQQRW PHDVXUH XS WR VWDQGDUGV &RQFHSWXDO )UDPHZRUN 7KH FRQFHSWXDO IUDPHZRUN IRU WKLV VWXG\ FRPELQHV SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUVf SKLORVRSKLFDO SHUVSHFWLYH DQG FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ SHUVSHFWLYH ZLWK WKH LOOXVWUDWLRQ RI FRPSHWLQJ YDOXHV DQG LPDJHV SUHVHQWHG LQ )LJXUH 7KLV FRPELQDWLRQ UHVXOWHG LQ D FRQFHSWXDO PRGHO K\SRWKHVL]LQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUVf HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ DQG VXEVWDQWLYH SUHIHUHQFHV LQKHUHQW LQ FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ 3KLORVRSKLFDO 3HUVSHFWLYH 7KH GHILQLWLRQ RI HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ DGRSWHG IRU XVH LQ WKLV VWXG\ LV WKDW SURSRVHG E\ 3KHQL[ Sf fD UHDVRQDEO\ FRKHUHQW VHW RI YDOXHV DQG IXQGDPHQWDO DVVXPSWLRQV XVHG DV D EDVLV IRU HYDOXDWLQJ DQG JXLGLQJ HGXFDWLRQDO SUDFWLFHf $ VLPLODU FRQFHSWLRQ LV UHIOHFWHG E\ 6FKXEHUW S f ZKR GHVFULEHV D WHDFKHUfV SKLORVRSK\ DV D fUHDOP RI IXQGDPHQWDO DVVXPSWLRQV DERXW WKH QDWXUH RI WUXWK ZLVGRP JRRGQHVV EHDXW\ UHDVRQ DQG MXVWLFHf &XUUDQ f VXJJHVWV WKDW fVHWV RI FRQFHSWVf RI UHDOLW\ NQRZOHGJH DQG YDOXHV DUH LQWHUUHODWHG WR IRUP D SKLORVRSK\ ,Q HDFK FDVH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ LV GHVFULEHG DV VRPHWKLQJ fUHDOf D IXQGDPHQWDO FRPSRQHQW RI WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV RI HGXFDWRUV *UHHQH S f KDV VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH PDLQ FRQFHUQ RI fGRLQJf SKLORVRSK\ ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WHDFKLQJ LV fWR FODULI\ WKH ODQJXDJH XVHG LQ GHVFULELQJ RU H[SODLQLQJ WKH

PAGE 31

SUDFWLFH RI WHDFKLQJ WR SHQHWUDWH WKH DUJXPHQWV XVHG LQ ZKDW LV GRQH WR PDNH YLVLEOH ZKDW LV SUHVXPHG LQ WKH IRUPXODWLRQ RI SXUSRVHV DQG DLPV ,W LV DV ZHOO WR VWLPXODWH UHIOHFWLYHQHVV DERXW WKH LQWHQWLRQV LQ ZKLFK WHDFKLQJ EHJLQV WKH YDOXHV WKDW DUH HVSRXVHG WKH HQGV WKDW DUH SXUVXHGf &XUUDQ f FODLPV WKDW D SKLORVRSK\ PXVW EH XQGHUVWRRG LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK WKH DQDO\WLFDO VWXG\ RI WHDFKLQJ LQ RUGHU WR JDLQ LQVLJKW LQWR MXVW ZKDW WKH WHDFKHU YLHZV WR EH WKH JRDOV RI HGXFDWLRQ 1RWLQJ WKH LPSRUWDQFH IRU HGXFDWLRQDO OHDGHUV WR XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKHLU RZQ SKLORVRSK\ 6HUJLRYDQQL DQG 6WDUUDW f FODLP WKDW ZKDW LV QHHGHG LV VRPH ILUP IRRWLQJ LQ SULQFLSOH -XVW DV D SROLWLFDO SDUW\ LV VXSSRVHG WR EDVH LWV GHFLVLRQV DQG DFWLRQ RQ D SDUW\ SODWIRUP XSRQ ZKLFK LW VHHNV HOHFWLRQ VR WRR VXSHUYLVRU\ SHUVRQQHO QHHG D SODWIRUP XSRQ ZKLFK DQG LQ WKH OLJKW RI ZKLFK WKH\ FDQ FDUU\ RQ WKHLU ZRUN 6HUJLRYDQQL DQG 6WDUUDW SJ f *OLFNPDQ f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t (VSRVLWR f &ODUN DQG 3HWHUVRQ f UHSRUW WKDW UHVHDUFK RQ WHDFKHUVf LPSOLFLW WKHRULHV FRQVWLWXWHV WKH VPDOOHVW DQG \RXQJHVW SDUW RI WKH UHVHDUFK RQ WHDFKHU WKLQNLQJ 5HVHDUFKHUV DWWHPSWV WR EXLOG D FDVH IRU ORJLFDO FRQVLVWHQF\ EHWZHHQ HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ DQG HGXFDWLRQDO SUDFWLFHV KDYH JHQHUDOO\ IRFXVHG RQ WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI D YDOLG

PAGE 32

DQG UHOLDEOH LQVWUXPHQW ZKLFK ZRXOG PHDVXUH SRVVHVVLRQ RI DQ HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ 2QH H[DPSOH LV WKH f3KLORVRSK\ 3UHIHUHQFH $VVHVVPHQWf :LOHV t %RQG\ f 7KLV VHOIDVVHVVPHQW LQVWUXPHQW EDVHG XSRQ ILYH GLVWLQFW HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV LV GHVLJQHG WR fVKRZ SUHIHUHQFHV RQ YDOXHODGHQ HGXFDWLRQDO TXHVWLRQVf Sf $ UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH GLVFORVHV IHZ DWWHPSWV ZKLFK PHDVXUH WKH FRQVLVWHQF\ ZLWK ZKLFK VXFK D SKLORVRSK\ LV KHOG RU SUDFWLFHG 7KH IROORZLQJ UHYLHZ RI UHODWHG UHVHDUFK SUHVHQWV VWXGLHV WKDW OHG WR WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 0HPEHUV RI WKH IDFXOW\ RI *HRUJH 3HDERG\ &ROOHJH GHYHORSHG DQ LQVWUXPHQW GHVLJQHG WR LGHQWLI\ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ RI WHDFKHUV 3DUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR VHOHFW RQH RI WKUHH UHVSRQVHV ZKLFK PRVW FORVHO\ FRLQFLGHG ZLWK WKHLU RZQ EHOLHIV (DFK RI WKH WZHOYH VHWV RI UHVSRQVHV ZHUH GHYHORSHG WR UHIOHFW WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ RI UHDOLVP LGHDOLVP RU SUDJPDWLVP /RGJH f UHSRUWHG D FRS\ RI WKH VFDOH LQ WKH DSSHQGL[ RI KLV ERRN 3KLORVRSK\ RI (GXFDWLRQ 1R HYLGHQFH ZDV SURYLGHG UHJDUGLQJ WKH UHOLDELOLW\ RU YDOLGLW\ RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW .HUOLQJHU DQG .D\D f GHYHORSHG D VFDOH WR PHDVXUH WHDFKHUVf EHOLHIV LQ WHUPV RI WZR JOREDO HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV 3URJUHVVLYLVP DQG 7UDGLWLRQDOLVP 7KH VHOIUHSRUW LQVWUXPHQW ZDV GHVLJQHG WR ILW DQ H[SHULPHQWDO WKHRU\ SDUDGLJP LQ ZKLFK SHUPLVVLYH SURJUHVVLYH DWWLWXGHV DQG UHVWULFWLYHWUDGLWLRQDO DWWLWXGHV ZHUH GHILQHG DV EHLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI D GLFKRWRP\ LQ HGXFDWLRQDO WKLQNLQJ $V UHSRUWHG E\ 0F$WHH DQG 3XQFK f WHQ LWHPV UHSUHVHQW WKUHH FULWLFDO UHIHUHQFHV IRU ERWK WKH SURJUHVVLYH DQG WUDGLWLRQDO GLPHQVLRQV 7KHVH DUH DV IROORZV FKLOG QHHGV LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV DQG VRFLDO OHDUQLQJ IRU WKH SURJUHVVLYH GLPHQVLRQ GLVFLSOLQH VXEMHFW PDWWHU DQG PRUDO VWDQGDUGV IRU WKH

PAGE 33

WUDGLWLRQDO GLPHQVLRQ $FFRUGLQJ WR $GZHUH%RDPDK HW DO f WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ FRUURERUDWH DQG OHQG VXSSRUW WR .HUOLQJHU DQG .D\DfV WZR FRPSRQHQW FRQFHSWXDO VFKHPH RI HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLFDO RULHQWDWLRQV 3URJUHVVLYLVP DQG 7UDGLWLRQDOLVP $QRWKHU HIIRUW WR GHYHORS DQ LQVWUXPHQW IRU PHDVXULQJ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ RI WHDFKHUV LV D WZRSKLORVRSKLHV HPSLULFDOUDWLRQDOf 4VRUW LQVWUXPHQW GHYHORSHG E\ *RZDQ 1HZVRPH DQG &KDQGOHU f 7KH LQVWUXPHQW FRQVLVWHG RI VWDWHPHQWV FRQVLGHUHG HPSLULFDO DQG FRQVLGHUHG UDWLRQDO &XUUDQ *RUGDQ DQG 'R\OH f WUDQVIRUPHG WKH *1& VFDOH LQWR DQ RUGLQDO DWWLWXGH VFDOH DQG DGPLQLVWHUHG LW WR XQGHUJUDGXDWH DQG JUDGXDWH FODVVHV LQ WKH SKLORVRSK\ RI HGXFDWLRQ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 8SRQ LWHP DQDO\VLV RI WKHVH LWHPV \LHOGHG VLJQLILFDQW GLVFULPLQDWRU\ SRZHU WR PHDVXUH WKH GHJUHH DQG FRQVLVWHQF\ WR ZKLFK D SHUVRQfV FRQFHSWLRQ RI HGXFDWLRQ LV FRQIRUPV WR H[SHULPHQWDOLVP RU UDWLRQDOLVP LQ WKH WKUHH DUHDV RI RQWRORJ\ HSLVWHPRORJ\ DQG D[LRORJ\ 7KHVH LWHPV ZHUH WKHQ FRPELQHG ZLWK LWHPV IURP WKH ZRUN RI 6D\HUV f 5\DQV f .HUOLQJHU f DQG 2OLYHU f ZKLFK ZHUH IHOW WR EH fSKLORVRSKLFf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

PAGE 34

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f FRQFOXGHG WKDW fERWK LWHP GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DQG WHVW YDOLGLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV ZRXOG EH VWUHQJWKHQHG LI WKH WHVW ZDV QRZ DGPLQLVWHUHG WR D ODUJHU VDPSOH RI VXEMHFWVf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f VXJJHVW WKDW fWKH WKLQNLQJ SODQQLQJ DQG GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ RI WHDFKHUV FRQVWLWXWH D ODUJH SDUW RI WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQWH[W RI WHDFKLQJ ,W LV ZLWKLQ WKLV FRQWH[W WKDW FXUULFXOXP LV LQWHUSUHWHG DQG DFWHG XSRQ ZKHUH WHDFKHUV WHDFK DQG VWXGHQWV OHDUQ f *D\ S f HPSKDVL]HV WKDW fWHDFKHUV GR QRW LPSOHPHQW RQH FRQFHSWLRQ LQ D SXUH DSSURDFK WR WKH H[FOXVLRQ RI

PAGE 35

(IILFLHQF\ ,PDJH RI 6RFLDO 'DUZLQLVP (;3(5,0(17 $/,60 (TXLW\ 5$7,21$/,60 ([FHOOHQFH ,PDJH RI (JDOLWDULDQLVP /LEHUW\ )LJXUH (GXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV FRPELQHG ZLWK FRPSHWLQJ YDOXHV DQG LPDJHV RI VFKRROLQJ 6RXUFHV (GXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ LWHPV DGDSWHG IURP f$ 6KRUW 7HVW RI 2QHfV (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\f &XUUDQ HW DO 9DOXHV DQG LPDJHV LWHPV DGDSWHG IURP f(GXFDWLRQDO *RYHUQDQFH DQG $GPLQLVWUDWLRQf 6HUJLRYDQQL HW DO

PAGE 36

RWKHUV EXW DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR XVH DQ HFOHFWLF DSSURDFK DQG GUDZ ELWV DQG SLHFHV IURP GLIIHUHQW WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHOVf 6KDQH DQG 7DEOHU S f LOOXVWUDWH KRZ WKH YDULRXV FRQFHSWLRQV RI FXUULFXOXP UHODWH WR RQH DQRWKHU DQG RU FDQ EH XWLOL]HG LQ DQ HFOHFWLF DSSURDFK &XUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQV DUH UDWKHU ZLGH UDQJLQJ KDYH VRPH RYHUODS LQ WKHP DQG DUH RIWHQ LQ FRQIOLFW 7KH\ DUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ GLIIHUHQW DVVXPSWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ JRDOV DQG SXUSRVHV RI HGXFDWLRQ VHOHFWLRQ RI FRQWHQW DQG REMHFWLYHV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI OHDUQHUV DQG WKH OHDUQLQJ SURFHVV DQG WKH QDWXUH RI NQRZOHGJH 6D\ORU HW DO f 8QUXK DQG 8QUXK f WHUP WKH UDQJH RI RULHQWDWLRQV D fFRQFHSWXDO PD]Hf DQG EDVH WKHLU GLVFXVVLRQ RQ WKH ILYH RULHQWDWLRQV RI (LVQHU DQG 9DOODQFH f WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI FRJQLWLYH SURFHVVHV FXUULFXOXP DV WHFKQRORJ\ VHOIDFWXDOL]DWLRQ VRFLDO UHFRQVWUXFWLRQUHOHYDQFH DQG DFDGHPLF UDWLRQDOLVP ,Q DQRWKHU LQVWDQFH 0F1HLO f GHVFULEHV D KXPDQLVWLF VRFLDO UHFRQVWUXFWLRQLVW WHFKQRORJLFDO DQG DFDGHPLF VXEMHFW FXUULFXOXP )LYH FXUULFXOXP fGHVLJQVf SURSRVHG E\ 6D\ORU f DUH VXEMHFW PDWWHUGLVFLSOLQHV VSHFLILF FRPSHWHQFLHVWHFKQRORJ\ KXPDQ WUDLWVSURFHVVHV VRFLDO IXQFWLRQVDFWLYLWLHV DQG LQGLYLGXDO QHHGV DQG LQWHUHVWVDFWLYLWLHV 6FKXEHUW f GHYHORSHG D JXHVW VSHDNHU DSSURDFK LQ DQ DWWHPSW WR LOOXVWUDWH WKH fSUREOHPDWLF VWDWH RI FXUULFXOXP NQRZOHGJH f $ GHWDLOHG DFFRXQW RI HDFK RI WKH WKUHH FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQVf§LQWHOOHFWXDO WUDGLWLRQDOLVW VRFLDO EHKDYLRULVW DQG H[SHULHQWLDOLVWf§LV SUHVHQWHG LQ $SSHQGL[ % $VVXPLQJ WKDW WKHVH GLIIHUHQFHV GR H[LVW D FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ SHUVSHFWLYH KDV EHHQ HVWDEOLVKHG WR FRPELQH ZLWK WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV

PAGE 37

f%HKDYLRULVWf (IILFLHQF\ f7UDGLWLRQDOLVWf (;3(5,0(17$/ 60 5$7,21$/,60 (TXLW\ ([FHOOHQFH f([SHULHQWLDOLVWf /LEHUW\ )LJXUH 3URSRVHG FRQFHSWXDO PRGHO IRU WHVWLQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ DQG RULHQWDWLRQV WR FXUULFXOXP 6RXUFHV (GXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ LWHPV DGDSWHG IURP f$ 6KRUW 7HVW RI 2QHfV (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\f &XUUDQ HW DO 9DOXHV DQG LPDJHV LWHPV DGDSWHG IURP f(GXFDWLRQDO *RYHUQDQFH DQG $GPLQLVWUDWLRQf 6HUJLRYDQQL HW DO &XUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ LWHPV DGDSWHG IURP f&XUULFXOXP 3HUVSHFWLYH 3DUDGLJP DQG 3HUVSHFWLYHf 6FKXEHUW

PAGE 38

H[SUHVVHG E\ &XUUDQ HW DO f DQG WKH FRPSHWLQJ YDOXHV DQG LGHDOV RI 6HUJLRYDQQL HW DO f 7KH FRQFHSWXDO PRGHO RI WKLV FRPELQDWLRQ LV SUHVHQWHG LQ )LJXUH 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQV DQG +\SRWKHVHV 7KH IRFXV RI WKLV UHVHDUFK LV RQ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ DQG FXUULFXOXP LPSURYHPHQW SUHIHUHQFHV RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV DV DQDO\]HG E\ GDWD UHSRUWHG LQ WKH LQVWUXPHQW f$ 6XUYH\ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\ DQG &XUULFXOXP ,PSURYHPHQW 3UHIHUHQFHV f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

PAGE 39

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

PAGE 40

+\SRWKHVLV & 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW WZRZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ IRU ([SHULHQWLDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ DPRQJ OHYHOV RI DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQV DQG SURJUDPV RI VWXG\ DV PHDVXUHG E\ VFRUHV RQ WKH UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW +\SRWKHVLV $ 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV DV PHDVXUHG E\ VFRUHV RQ WKH UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW E\ DUHD RI DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ +\SRWKHVLV % 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV DV PHDVXUHG E\ VFRUHV RQ WKH UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW E\ DUHD RI SURJUDP RI VWXG\ +\SRWKHVLV & 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW WZRZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ IRU 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ DPRQJ OHYHOV RI DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQV DQG SURJUDPV RI VWXG\ DV PHDVXUHG E\ VFRUHV RQ WKH UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW

PAGE 41

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t )LQOD\ f $ VHOIUHSRUW TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV XWLOL]HG WR JDWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP JURXSV RI VXEMHFWV WKDW ZHUH GUDZQ IURP D SUHGHWHUPLQHG SRSXODWLRQ DQG WKH VWXG\ UHTXLUHG D VFRUH RQ HDFK YDULDEOH IRU HDFK VXEMHFW 7KLV W\SH RI FRUUHODWLRQDO GHVLJQ FDQ IXUWKHU EH FODVVLILHG DV fH[SODQDWRU\f VLQFH WKH PDMRU SXUSRVH LV WR FODULI\ WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI LPSRUWDQW SKHQRPHQD WKURXJK WKH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ YDULDEOHV )UDHQNHO t :DOOHQ f

PAGE 42

,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQ 7R DVVHVV SUHIHUHQFHV UHODWHG WR HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ DQG FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ D IRXUSDUW VHOIUHSRUW TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV XVHG WR PHDVXUH WKH YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KLV LQVWUXPHQW HQWLWOHG f$ 6XUYH\ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\ DQG &XUULFXOXP 2ULHQWDWLRQ 3UHIHUHQFHVf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

PAGE 43

6HFWLRQ ,, ,PDXHV RI &XUULFXOXP 7KH VHFRQG VHFWLRQ RI WKH VXUYH\ LV GHVLJQHG WR HOLFLW RSHQ UHVSRQVHV DERXW ZKDW SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV GHHP DV WKH LGHDO WHDFKLQJ VLWXDWLRQ ,QIRUPDWLRQ ZDV FRPSDUHG WR WKDW LQ 6HFWLRQ WR FRQFXU WKH DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ DQG SURJUDP RI VWXG\ YDULDEOHV IRU TXDQWLWDWLYH DQDO\VLV :ULWWHQ UHVSRQVHV WR QLQH RSHQHQGHG TXHVWLRQV ZHUH H[DPLQHG ([DPSOHV RI WKH TXHVWLRQV LQFOXGH :KDW JUDGH DUH \RX WHDFKLQJ" +RZ PDQ\ VWXGHQWV DUH LQ \RXU FODVV" :KDW LV WKH FXUUHQW WRSLF RI VWXG\" )XUWKHU TXHVWLRQV DVN WKH UHVSRQGHQW WR GUDZ D SLFWXUH DQG JLYH D GHWDLOHG DFFRXQW RI ZKDW WKH\ DQG WKHLU VWXGHQWV DUH GRLQJ 7KLV SDUW RI 6HFWLRQ ,, LV GHVLJQHG WR SURPSW VWXGHQWV WR VHULRXVO\ UHIOHFW XSRQ WKHLU LGHDO WHDFKLQJ UROH EHIRUH EHJLQQLQJ 6HFWLRQV 8,,9 RI WKH VXUYH\ 7KLV VHFWLRQ UHTXLUHV DERXW PLQXWHV IRU D VXEMHFW WR FRPSOHWH 6HFWLRQ ,,, 6FKRRO 3UREOHPV DQG 3URSRVDOV $ TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV GHYHORSHG IRU XVH LQ WKLV VWXG\ WR DVVHVV SUHIHUHQFHV UHODWHG WR FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ 7KLV LQVWUXPHQW f6FKRRO 3UREOHPV DQG 3URSRVDOVf FRQWDLQV VL[ WRSLFV WKDW DUH SHUHQQLDO LQ SXEOLF VFKRROV $FFRUGLQJ WR 6FKXEHUW S f fVFKRRO SUREOHPV DQG SURSRVDOV HPHUJH DQG UHFHGH ZLWK VRFLDOV FRQGLWLRQV DQG WKH\ KDYH D ZD\ RI UHWXUQLQJ DJDLQ IRU WKRVH ZKR ZDLW WHQ \HDUV RU VR LQ WKH SURIHVVLRQ 7KH ODEHOV PD\ FKDQJH EXW PDQ\ RI WKH SUREOHPV DUH SHUHQQLDO f 5HVSRQGHQWV ZHUH UHTXHVWHG WR UDQN RUGHU JLYHQ SURSRVDOV WR VDPSOHV RI WKH WKHVH UHFXUULQJ SUREOHPV DIWHU H[DPLQLQJ FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQV IURP WKUHH GLIIHUHQW SHUVSHFWLYHV 7KLV VHFWLRQ UHTXLUHV DERXW PLQXWHV IRU D VXEMHFW WR FRPSOHWH

PAGE 44

6HFWLRQ ,9 (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\ 6WDWHPHQWV 7KH LWHP f7HVW RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\f &XUUDQ *RUGRQ t 'R\OH f ZDV XVHG IRU DVVHVVPHQW RI WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV 7KH UHVSRQVH WLPH IRU WKLV IRUFHGFKRLFH TXHVWLRQQDLUH LV HVWLPDWHG DW PLQXWHV $FFRUGLQJ WR &XUUDQ HW DO f WKH SXUSRVH RI WKH UHVHDUFKHUV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU GHVLJQLQJ WKLV WHVW ZDV fWR GHYHORS D VKRUW UHOLDEOH DQG YDOLG LQVWUXPHQW WR PHDVXUH WKH RQWRORJLFDO HSLVWHPRORJLFDO DQG D[LRORJLFDO GLPHQVLRQV RI D WHDFKHUfV SKLORVRSK\ RI HGXFDWLRQ f 7KH SURFHGXUH IRU WKH GHYHORSLQJ WKH WHVW EHJDQ ZLWK D UHYLHZ RI D 4VRUW LQVWUXPHQW FDOOHG WKH *1& *RZDQ 1HZVRPH t &KDQGOHU f $FFRUGLQJ WR WKH UHVHDUFKHUV WKLV LWHP LQVWUXPHQW ZDV FRQVLGHUHG HDVLO\ WKH PRVW H[WHQVLYH DQG DXWKRULWDWLYH VRXUFH RI LWHPV DQG WKXV WKH REYLRXV UHVRXUFH ZLWK ZKLFK WR EHJLQ 8SRQ LWHP DQDO\VLV RI WKHVH *1& LWHPV \LHOGHG VLJQLILFDQW GLVFULPLQDWRU\ SRZHU WR PHDVXUH WKH GHJUHH DQG FRQVLVWHQF\ WR ZKLFK D SHUVRQfV FRQFHSWLRQ RI HGXFDWLRQ LV H[SHULPHQWDO RU UDWLRQDOLVWLF LQ WKH WKUHH DUHDV RI RQWRORJ\ HSLVWHPRORJ\ DQG D[LRORJ\ &XUUDQ HW DO S f 7HVW LWHPV WKDW ZHUH IHOW WR EH fSKLORVRSKLFf ZHUH WKHQ VXFFHVVLYHO\ FRPELQHG ZLWK LWHPV IURP WKH ZRUN RI 5\DQV f .HUOLQJHU f 2OLYHU f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f

PAGE 45

$V D UHVXOW RI ILQDO LWHP DQDO\VLV WZHQW\ILYH LWHPV ZHUH VHOHFWHG DV WKH PRVW XVDEOH LQ D VKRUW WHVW WKDW ZRXOG PHDVXUH D VXEMHFWfV SUHGLVSRVLWLRQ WR H[SUHVV D SKLORVRSK\ RI HGXFDWLRQ WKDW FRXOG EH WHUPHG H[SHULPHQWDOLVP :KHQ VXEMHFWHG WR FURVVYDOLGDWLRQ DQDO\VLV RQH LWHP IHOO EHORZ WKH FULWHULD IRU DGPLVVLELOLW\ DQG ZDV WKHUHIRUH QRW UHFRPPHQGHG IRU IXWXUH XVH &ROOHFWLRQ RI WKH 'DWD 7KH EDVLV IRU WKLV UHVHDUFK ZDV WR FROOHFW HPSLULFDO HYLGHQFH DERXW HDFK SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUnV HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ DQG FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ 7KH UHVHDUFKHU GHYHORSHG D VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW WR EH XVHG IRU WKLV SXUSRVH 7KH GDWD ZHUH FROOHFWHG E\ GLVWULEXWLQJ D FRS\ RI WKH UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW f$ 6XUYH\ RI WKH (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\ DQG &XUULFXOXP 2ULHQWDWLRQ 3UHIHUHQFHVf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f DQG D FODVV VHW RI WKH UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW IRU GLVWULEXWLRQ WR HDFK PHPEHU RI WKH FODVV

PAGE 46

)ROORZ8S 3URFHGXUHV $UUDQJHPHQWV IRU FROOHFWLQJ WKH VXUYH\V ZDV PDGH LQGLYLGXDOO\ ZLWK HDFK SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQVWUXFWRU 7KH UHVHDUFKHU FROOHFWHG HDFK VHW GLUHFWO\ IURP WKH LQVWUXFWRU RU LQ DQ DJUHHG XSRQ ORFDWLRQ VXFK DV DQ LQVWUXFWRUfV GHSDUWPHQW RIILFH 7KH GDWH DQG WLPH IRU D IROORZXS VHPLQDU ZDV FRQILUPHG GXULQJ WKLV H[FKDQJH 5HVSRQVH 5DWH 7R LQVXUH DQ DGHTXDWH VDPSOH VL]H DQG GLYHUVLW\ IRXUWHHQ FRXUVH LQVWUXFWRUV DW HLJKW GLIIHUHQW FROOHJH FDPSXVHV ZHUH SHUVRQDOO\ FRQWDFWHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU (DFK LQVWUXFWRU DJUHHG WR UHYLHZ FRUUHVSRQGHQFH H[SODLQLQJ WKH VWXG\ DQG SDUWLFLSDQW UHTXLUHPHQWV $SSHQGL[ 'f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b RI WKH UHVHDUFK VDPSOH 7DEOH UHSRUWV WKH SRSXODWLRQ WKDW UHWXUQHG YDOLG UHVSRQVHV

PAGE 47

7$%/( 3DUWLFLSDWLQJ 5HVHDUFK 6DPSOH 3UH6HUYLFH 7HDFKHUV (OHPHQWDU\ WKf 0LGGOH WK WKf 6HFRQGDU\r WK DQG DERYHf 7RWDO (QJOLVKrr bf 0DWKHPDWLFV bf 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH bf 6FLHQFH bf 6SHFLDO (GXFDWLRQ bf 7RWDO b b b r 6HFRQGDU\ LQFOXGHV SRVWVHFRQGDU\ rr (QJOLVK LQFOXGHV ODQJXDJH DUWV IRUHLJQ ODQJXDJHV FKLOGUHQfV OLWHUDVWXUH DQG UHDGLQJ

PAGE 48

$V LQGLFDWHG WKH ODUJHVW VHJPHQW RI WKH UHVSRQGHQW JURXS FRQVLVWV RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV SUHSDULQJ IRU FDUHHUV DW WKH HOHPHQWDU\ OHYHO $Q HOHPHQWDU\ SURJUDP RI VWXG\ ZDV LQGLFDWHG E\ RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV UHSUHVHQWLQJ b RI WKH VDPSOH JURXS )XUWKHU HOHPHQWDU\OHYHO SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV ZKR FKRVH WKH DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ f(QJOLVKf UHSUHVHQW b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fFORVH WR WKH WHDFKHU WKH\ ZDQW WR EHf 6XEMHFWVf UHVSRQVHV ZHUH H[DPLQHG FRPSDUDWLYHO\ WR WKRVH LQ 6HFWLRQ LQ RUGHU WR YHULI\ WKH FDWHJRULHV RI YDULDEOHV UHJDUGLQJ DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ DQG SURJUDP RI VWXG\

PAGE 49

3DUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH JLYHQ GLUHFWLRQV LQ 6HFWLRQ ,,, WR UDQN RUGHU WKH UHVSRQVHV WR HDFK f6FKRRO 3UREOHP DQG 3URSRVDOf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f 7KH 6$6 SURJUDP ZDV XVHG IRU VWDWLVWLFDO WUHDWPHQW RI WKH GDWD 7ZRZD\ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH $129$f ZDV FRPSXWHG DV ZHOO DV FKLVTXDUHV IRU HDFK UHVSRQVH WR WHVW WKH SURSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLSV 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV DQDO\VHV LV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU DQ\ RI WKH JURXSV GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP DQ\ RWKHU JURXS

PAGE 50

&+$37(5 ,9 35(6(17$7,21 $1' $1$/<6,6 2) 7+( '$7$ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH WKURXJK D UHVHDUFKHU GHYHORSHG LQVWUXPHQW ZKHWKHU UHVSRQVHV RI VHOHFWHG SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV FRXOG EH VKRZQ WR EH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK D JLYHQ HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ RU FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ $ FRQFHSWXDO PRGHO ZDV FRQVWUXFWHG WR GLVSOD\ SRVVLEOH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WKHVH UHVSRQVHV 6SHFLILFDOO\ DQVZHUV WR WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV ZHUH VRXJKW $f $UH WKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV DQG FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQV DPRQJ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV E\ DUHD RI DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ" %f $UH WKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV DQG FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQV DPRQJ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV E\ DUHD RI SURJUDP RI VWXG\" &f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

PAGE 51

'HVFULSWLRQ RI WKH 5HVHDUFK 6DPSOH 6WXGLHV RI RFFXSDWLRQDO VRFLDOL]DWLRQ H J /RUWLH %XFKHU t 6WHOOLQJ f KDYH IRXQG WKDW WKH SURIHVVLRQDO LGHDV WKDW JXLGH VXEVHTXHQW EHKDYLRU DUH RIWHQ IRUPHG HDUO\ LQ RQHfV FDUHHU (GXFDWLRQDO UHVHDUFKHUV H J $GOHU 7DEDFKQLFN t =HLFKQHU *RRGPDQ t $GOHU f KDYH H[DPLQHG WKH WHDFKLQJ SHUVSHFWLYHV VWXGHQWV GHYHORS GXULQJ WKHLU SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ *RRGPDQ f FRQWHQGV WKDW LW IROORZV WKHQ WKDW D FUXFLDO SHULRG IRU H[DPLQLQJ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI D WHDFKHUVf SUDFWLFDO SKLORVRSK\ RI WHDFKLQJ LV GXULQJ WKHLU SUHVHUYLFH HGXFDWLRQ 'HVFULSWLRQ RI WKH 5HVSRQGHQW *URXS $V LQGLFDWHG SUHYLRXVO\ RI WKH VDPSOH PHPEHUV FRPSULVHG WKH UHVSRQGHQW JURXS \LHOGLQJ D UHVSRQVH UDWH RI b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b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV KDG WDNHQ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO SV\FKRORJ\ FRXUVH 6OLJKWO\ RYHU WKUHHIRXUWKV ZHUH LQ WKHLU VRSKRPRUH MXQLRU RU VHQLRU \HDUV ZKLOH RWKHUV ZHUH IDLUO\ HYHQO\ GLVWULEXWHG DV IUHVKPHQ RU JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV 6OLJKWO\ RYHU WKUHHIRXUWKV RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV ZHUH IHPDOH

PAGE 52

7$%/( )UHTXHQF\ 'LVWULEXWLRQ RQ 6HOHFWHG 'HPRJUDSKLF ,QIRUPDWLRQ 9DULDEOHV 9DULDEOH /HYHO )UHTXHQF\ b &XUUHQW &ODVV )UHVKPDQ 6RSKRPRUH -XQLRU 6HQLRU *UDGXDWH 6WXGHQW 2WKHU 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ (DUO\ &KLOGKRRG (OHPHQWDU\ 0LGGOH /HYHO (GXFDWLRQ 6HFRQGDU\ (GXFDWLRQ 0DVWHUV &HUWLILFDWLRQ 2WKHU 1R 5HVSRQVH $FDGHPLF (QJOLVK 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ 0DWKHPDWLFV 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH 6FLHQFH 2WKHU 1R 5HVSRQVHr *HQGHU )HPDOH 0DOH (GXFDWLRQDO
PAGE 53

0RVW UHVSRQGHQWV OLVWHG PXOWLSOH WHDFKLQJ H[SHULHQFHV 2YHU KDOI b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQW JURXS LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH\ KDG EHHQ D WXWRU b D FRDFK DQG b LQGLFDWHG IRUPDO FODVVURRP WHDFKLQJ H[SHULHQFH $ERXW RQH RI HYHU\ IRXU UHVSRQGHQWV OLVWHG fRWKHUf H[SHULHQFHV VXFK DV FRXQVHOLQJ EDE\VLWWLQJ DQG VFRXWLQJ 0RVW fRWKHUf WHDFKLQJ H[SHULHQFHV WRRN SODFH LQ FKXUFK FODVVURRPV LQ WKH PLOLWDU\ WKH <0&$ RU DW KRPH $ERXW RQH RI HYHU\ VL[ b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQW JURXS JDYH QR LQGLFDWLRQ RI WXWRULQJ FRDFKLQJ RU WHDFKLQJ H[SHULHQFH 6XPPDU\ GDWD RI WHDFKLQJ H[SHULHQFHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 7$%/( )UHTXHQF\ 'LVWULEXWLRQ IRU 7HDFKLQJ ([SHULHQFH ([SHULHQFH 'HVFULSWRU )UHTXHQF\ RI 5HVSRQVHV 3HUFHQWDJH RI 5HVSRQVHV 3HUFHQWDJH RI 5HVSRQGHQW *URXS 7XWRULQJ &RDFKLQJ 7HDFKLQJ 2WKHU 1R 5HVSRQVH 727$/ D Q 5HVSRQGHQWV FRXOG LQGLFDWH PXOWLSOH WHDFKLQJ H[SHULHQFHV

PAGE 54

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b RI WKH WLPH 6HOHFWHG TXHVWLRQV SURGXFLQJ DW\SLFDO UHVSRQVHV ZHUH RI LQWHUHVW WR WKH UHVHDUFKHU DQG DUH GLVFXVVHG KHUH 6XPPDU\ GDWD RI WKH IUHTXHQF\ GLVWULEXWLRQ RI UHVSRQVHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH ,I GDWD DUH FRPSDUHG RQ D VWDWHPHQWE\VWDWHPHQW EDVLV UHVSRQGHQWV RIWHQ DSSHDUHG WR FRQWUDGLFW WKHPVHOYHV )RU H[DPSOH D QRWDEOH PDMRULW\ b RI WKH JURXS DJUHHG RU VWURQJO\ DJUHHG ZLWK VWDWHPHQW ZKLFK UHSUHVHQWHG WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ RI ([SHULPHQWDOLVP 7KH VWDWHPHQW UHDG f([LVWLQJ NQRZOHGJH LV WHQWDWLYH DQG LV VXEMHFW WR UHYLVLRQ LQ WKH OLJKW RI QHZ IDFWVf &RQYHUVHO\ RQO\ b RI WKH JURXS DJUHHG RU VWURQJO\ DJUHHG ZLWK VWDWHPHQW ZKLFK DOVR UHIOHFWHG ([SHULPHQWDOLVP 7KH VWDWHPHQW UHDG f7KHUH LV QR UHDOLW\ EH\RQG WKDW NQRZDEOH WKURXJK KXPDQ H[SHULHQFH f

PAGE 55

7$%/( )UHTXHQF\ 'LVWULEXWLRQ RI 5HVSRQVHV %\ (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\ 6WDWHPHQWV 6WDWHPHQW I $ b I % b I & b I b I ( b

PAGE 56

6LPLODUO\ b RI WKH JURXS DJUHHG RU VWURQJO\ DJUHHG ZLWK VWDWHPHQW ZKLFK UHSUHVHQWHG DQ HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ RI 5DWLRQDOLVP 7KLV VWDWHPHQW UHDG f$ NQRZOHGJH RI KLVWRU\ LV ZRUWKZKLOH LQ LWVHOI EHFDXVH LW HPEUDFHV WKH DFFXPXODWHG ZLVGRP RI RXU DQFHVWRUV f +RZHYHU RQO\ b RI WKH JURXS DJUHHG RU VWURQJO\ DJUHHG ZLWK VWDWHPHQW ZKLFK DOVR UHIOHFWHG 5DWLRQDOLVP 7KH VWDWHPHQW UHDG f,Q WKH LQWHUHVW RI VRFLDO VWDELOLW\ WKH \RXWK RI WKLV JHQHUDWLRQ PXVW EH EURXJKW LQWR FRQIRUPLW\ ZLWK WKH EHOLHIV DQG LQVWLWXWLRQV RI RXU QDWLRQDO KHULWDJHf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f RULHQWDWLRQV WR FXUULFXOXP ,I GDWD DUH FRPSDUHG RQ DQ LWHP E\LWHP EDVLV UHVSRQGHQWV DSSHDUHG WR FRQWUDGLFW WKHPVHOYHV )RU H[DPSOH ZKHQ IDFHG ZLWK WKH SUREOHPV RI VWXGHQW DSDWK\ LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV WHDFKLQJ WKH EDVLFV DQG GUXJ DEXVH HGXFDWLRQ UHVSRQGHQWV FKRVH WKH SURSRVDO UHIOHFWLYH RI WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ RYHU WKDW RI WKH ,QWHOOHFWXDO 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW &RQYHUVHO\ ZKHQ IDFHG ZLWK WKH SUREOHPV RI GLVFLSOLQH DQG WKH XWLOL]DWLRQ RI VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVW VFRUHV UHVSRQGHQWV

PAGE 57

GHPRQVWUDWHG D SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH SURSRVDO UHIOHFWLYH RI WKH ,QWHOOHFWXDO 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW (DFK SURSRVDO LQ WKH RUGHU LW DSSHDUHG RQ WKH UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW LV GLVFXVVHG LQ WKLV VHFWLRQ 6XPPDU\ GDWD RI UHVSRQVHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 5HJDUGLQJ VWXGHQW DSDWK\ D FOHDU PDMRULW\ b RI WKH JURXS LQGLFDWHG D SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW YLHZ WKDW VWDWHG f:KHQ WHDFKHUV VKRZ VWXGHQWV WKDW WKH\ FDQ DFKLHYH PRUH PHDQLQJ DQG GLUHFWLRQ LQ WKHLU OLYHV E\ SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ VFKRRO WKHUH ZLOO EH PXFK OHVV DSDWK\ DQG DWWHQGDQFH SUREOHPVf $ PLQRULW\ b RI WKH JURXS SUHIHUUHG WKH WUDGLWLRQDOLVW SURSRVDO IRU SUHYHQWLQJ VWXGHQW DSDWK\ ,Q WKLV YLHZ WKH WHDFKHUVf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b RI WKH JURXS VWDWHG f6WXGHQWV PXVW ILUVW EH PDGH WR SD\ DWWHQWLRQ ,I VWXGHQWV OLVWHQ WR WHDFKHUV ZKR NQRZ DQG ORYH WKHLU VXEMHFW WKH\ ZLOO VRRQ UHDOL]H WKH JUHDW SHUVRQDO HQULFKPHQW WKDW DQ HGXFDWLRQ RIIHUV $W WKDW SRLQW GLVFLSOLQH ZLOO VZLWFK IURP UHTXLUHG WR VHOI LQLWLDWHGf 2QO\ b RI WKH JURXS LQGLFDWHG WKDW LW LV RQO\ ZKHQ VWXGHQWV VHH NQRZOHGJH DV LUUHOHYDQW WKDW GLVFLSOLQH SUREOHPV RFFXU 7KLV ([SHULHQWLDOLVW YLHZ DOVR VWDWHV WKDW WKH WHDFKHUfV

PAGE 58

7$%/( )UHTXHQF\ 'LVWULEXWLRQ RI 5HVSRQVHV %\ &XUULFXOXP 2ULHQWDWLRQ 3UREOHP ([SHULHQWLDOLVW I b 6RFLDO %HKDYLRULVW I b 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW I b $SDWK\ 'LVFLSOLQH ,QGLYLGXDO 'LIIHUHQFHV %DVLFV 'UXJ $EXVH (GXFDWLRQ 6WDQGDUGL]HG 7HVW 6FRUHV

PAGE 59

FHQWUDO MRE LV WR JHW WR NQRZ VWXGHQWV ZHOO HQRXJK WR HQDEOH WKHP WR GLVFRYHU NQRZOHGJH WKDW KHOSV WR PHHW WKHLU QHHGV 7KH UHMHFWLRQ RI WKLV ([SHULHQWLDOLVW YLHZ FRQWUDVWV ZLWK WKH IROORZLQJ SUHIHUHQFH UHJDUGLQJ LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV 7KH PRVW QRWDEOH PDMRULW\ b RI WKH JURXS LQGLFDWHG WKDW FDUHIXO DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH QHHGV DQG LQWHUHVWV RI VWXGHQWV LV QHHGHG ZKHQ IDFLQJ WKH SUREOHP RI LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV 7KLV YLHZ UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ DOVR VWDWHV WKDW LI VWXGHQWV DUH WUHDWHG DOLNH WKHLU GLIIHUHQFHV EHFRPH H[DJJHUDWHG 7KH WUDGLWLRQDOLVW YLHZ WKDW LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV DUH H[DJJHUDWHG WRGD\ LQ HGXFDWLRQ ZDV SUHIHUUHG E\ RQO\ b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV 7KH HVVHQFH RI WHDFKLQJ WKH fEDVLFVf ZDV FKDUDFWHUL]HG YHU\ GLIIHUHQWO\ LQ HDFK RULHQWDWLRQ 7KH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW YLHZ WKDW WKH VNLOOV LPSRUWDQW WR OHDGLQJ D JRRG OLIH DUH UHODWHG WR KXPDQ UHODWLRQV ZDV SUHIHUUHG E\ b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQW JURXS 7KLV YLHZ VXSSRUWV FXUULFXOD HPSKDVL]LQJ VNLOO EXLOGLQJ LQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ QHHGV LGHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG SUREOHP VROYLQJ 7KH OHDVW SUHIHUUHG RULHQWDWLRQ ZDV WKDW RI WKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW 7KLV YLHZ SUHIHUUHG E\ RQO\ b RI WKH JURXS UHTXLUHG D VWXGHQW UHODWLRQVKLS fZLWK D JUHDW WHDFKHU ZKR GHHSO\ XQGHUVWDQGV WKHLU GLVFLSOLQHf 7KH EDVLF VNLOOV GHILQHG DV UHDGLQJ ZULWLQJ DQG DULWKPHWLF UHSUHVHQWHG WKH %HKDYLRULVW RULHQWDWLRQ $OWKRXJK SUHIHUUHG OHVV WKDQ WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW RULHQWDWLRQ D QRWDEOH b RI WKH JURXS DJUHHG WKDW WKHVH VNLOOV fDUH QHHGHG IRU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ VRFLHW\ DQG DUH WKH EXLOGLQJ EORFNV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG FRJQLWLYH SHUIRUPDQFHf :KHQ FRQIURQWHG ZLWK WKH VRFLHWDO SUREOHP RI GUXJ DEXVH HGXFDWLRQ D FOHDU PDMRULW\ b RI WKH JURXS SUHIHUUHG WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW YLHZ WKDW VWDWHG

PAGE 60

f,I VWXGHQWV DUH LQYROYHG ZLWK GUXJV KDYH TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKHP RU MXVW ZDQW WR WDON DERXW WKH SHHU SUHVVXUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKHP VFKRROV VKRXOG SURYLGH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SXUVXH WKLV LQWHUHVWf 7KH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW YLHZ VWDWHG WKDW WR D ODUJH H[WHQW VFKRROV DUH WU\LQJ WR SURYLGH FRXUVHV WR FRPEDW HYHU\ VHULRXV VRFLDO SUREOHP 2QO\ b RI WKH JURXS DJUHHG WKDW FRQVHTXHQWO\ FXUULFXOD DUH EHFRPLQJ LQFUHDVLQJO\ ZDWHUHGGRZQ GXH WR DWWHQWLRQ SODFHG RQ VROYLQJ VRFLDO SUREOHPV 7KH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW RULHQWDWLRQ ZDV VOLJKWO\ SUHIHUUHG E\ UHVSRQGHQWV IDFHG ZLWK WKH SUREOHP RI XVLQJ VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVW VFRUHV 7KLV YLHZ FKRVHQ E\ b RI WKH JURXS VWDWHG f6WDQGDUGL]HG DSWLWXGH WHVWV FDQ EH RI VRPH XVH LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKR KDV D SURSHQVLW\ WR VWXG\ DQ DUHD KRZHYHU WHDFKHUV VKRXOG KDYH WKH SULPDU\ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU DVVHVVPHQW RI VWXGHQW SURJUHVVf 7KH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW YLHZ SUHIHUUHG E\ b RI WKH JURXS VWDWHG f6WXGHQWV GHYDOXH RWKHU DVSHFWV RI WKHLU XQLTXH DQG DUH WUHDWHG DV ODEHOV LQVWHDG RI XQLTXH LQGLYLGXDOV ZKHQ VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVW VFRUHV DUH XVHG DV WKH SULPH PHDVXUH RI SURGXFWLYLW\f 7KH SURSRVDO SUHIHUUHG OHDVW RQ WKH HQWLUH RULHQWDWLRQ H[HUFLVH ZDV WKH %HKDYLRULVW YLHZ LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ 8VLQJ VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVW VFRUHV DV DQ REMHFWLYH PHDVXUH RI fHGXFDWLRQDO SURGXFWLRQf ZDV FKRVHQ E\ RQO\ b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQW JURXS

PAGE 61

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f WKH PRUH UHIOHFWLYH WKRVH UHVSRQVHV DSSHDUHG WR EH RI WKH SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUfV SKLORVRSK\ &RQYHUVHO\ WKH ORZHU WKH VFRUH PLQLPXP f WKH OHVV OLNHO\ WKH UHVSRQVHV DSSHDUHG WR UHIOHFW WKH SRVLWLRQ RI WKH SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHU 7KH VDPSOH VL]HV ZKLFK DUH FRQVLVWHQW WKURXJKRXW WKH VWXG\ UDQJHG IURP D ORZ RI IRU VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV DW WKH PLGGOH OHYHO WR D KLJK RI IRU (QJOLVK SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV DW WKH HOHPHQWDU\ OHYHO +\SRWKHVLV $ 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH ([SHULPHQWDOLVP SKLORVRSK\ RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV DV PHDVXUHG E\ VFRUHV RQ WKH 6XUYH\ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\ DQG &XUULFXOXP 2ULHQWDWLRQ 3UHIHUHQFHV E\ DUHD RI DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ

PAGE 62

7$%/( )UHTXHQF\ 0HDQ DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ RI ([SHULPHQWDOLVP $V D )XQFWLRQ RI $FDGHPLF 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ DQG 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ (/(0(17$5< 0,''/( 6(&21'$5< Df (1*/,6+ Ef Gf Ff 0$7+ 62&,$/ 6&,(1&( 6&,(1&( 63(&,$/ ('8&$7,21 Gf Df )UHTXHQF\ Ef 0HDQ Ff 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ Gf &XPXODWLYH $YHUDJH

PAGE 63

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

PAGE 64

7DEOH UHSRUWV WKH FHOO IUHTXHQFLHV XQZHLJKWHG FHOO PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RI WKH VL[WHHQ 5DWLRQDOLVP UHVSRQVHV LQ WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW 7KH KLJKHU WKH VFRUH PD[LPXP f WKH PRUH UHIOHFWLYH WKRVH UHVSRQVHV DSSHDUHG WR EH RI WKH SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUfV SKLORVRSK\ &RQYHUVHO\ WKH ORZHU WKH VFRUH PLQLPXP f WKH OHVV OLNHO\ WKH UHVSRQVHV DSSHDUHG WR UHIOHFW WKH SRVLWLRQ RI WKH SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHU 7KH VDPSOH VL]HV ZKLFK DUH FRQVLVWHQW WKURXJKRXW WKH VWXG\ UDQJHG IURP D ORZ RI IRU VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV DW WKH PLGGOH OHYHO WR D KLJK RI IRU (QJOLVK SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV DW WKH HOHPHQWDU\ OHYHO +\SRWKHVLV $ 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH 5DWLRQDOLVP SKLORVRSK\ RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV DV PHDVXUHG E\ VFRUHV RQ WKH 6XUYH\ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\ DQG &XUULFXOXP 2ULHQWDWLRQ 3UHIHUHQFHV E\ DUHD RI DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ )RU WKLV K\SRWKHVLV WKH )YDOXH ZDV FRPSXWHG DW 7KH SUREDELOLW\ RI REWDLQLQJ D FRPSXWHG ) YDOXH WKLV VL]H LV 6LQFH WKH SUREDELOLW\ LV JUHDWHU WKDQ WKH OHYHO FKRVHQ IRU VWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH WKH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV VKRXOG QRW EH UHMHFWHG +\SRWKHVLV % 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH 5DWLRQDOLVP SKLORVRSK\ RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV DV PHDVXUHG E\ VFRUHV RQ WKH 6XUYH\ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\ DQG &XUULFXOXP 2ULHQWDWLRQ 3UHIHUHQFHV E\ DUHD RI SURJUDP RI VWXG\ )RU WKLV K\SRWKHVLV WKH )YDOXH ZDV FRPSXWHG DW 7KH SUREDELOLW\ RI REWDLQLQJ D FRPSXWHG )YDOXH WKLV VL]H LV 6LQFH WKH SUREDELOLW\ LV JUHDWHU WKDQ WKH OHYHO FKRVHQ IRU VWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH WKH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV VKRXOG QRW EH UHMHFWHG +\SRWKHVLV & 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW WZRZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ IRU 5DWLRQDOLVP DPRQJ WKH OHYHOV RI DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQV DQG SURJUDPV RI VWXG\ DV PHDVXUHG E\ VFRUHV RQ WKH

PAGE 65

7$%/( )UHTXHQF\ 0HDQ DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ RI 5DWLRQDOLVP $V D )XQFWLRQ RI $FDGHPLF 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ DQG 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ (/(0(17$5< 0,''/( 6(&21'$5< Df (1*/,6+ Ef Gf Ff 0$7+ 62&,$/ 6&,(1&( 6&,(1&( 63(&,$/ ('8&$7,21 Gf Df )UHTXHQF\ Ef 0HDQ Ff 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ Gf &XPXODWLYH $YHUDJH

PAGE 66

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f WKH PRUH UHIOHFWLYH WKRVH UHVSRQVHV DSSHDUHG WR EH RI WKH SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUfV SKLORVRSK\ &RQYHUVHO\ WKH KLJKHU WKH VFRUH PD[LPXP f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

PAGE 67

7$%/( )UHTXHQF\ 0HDQ DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ RI ([SHULHQWLDOLVW 2ULHQWDWLRQ $V D )XQFWLRQ RI $FDGHPLF 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ DQG 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ (/(0(17$5< 0,''/( 6(&21'$5< Df (1*/,6+ Ef Gf Ff 0$7+ 62&,$/ 6&,(1&( 6&,(1&( 63(&,$/ ('8&$7,21 Gf Df )UHTXHQF\ Ef 0HDQ Ff 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ Gf &XPXODWLYH $YHUDJH

PAGE 68

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

PAGE 69

SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV DQG FRQWURO GR H[SODLQ D VLJQLILFDQW SRUWLRQ RI YDULDELOLW\ RQ WKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW VFDOH 7DEOH UHSRUWV WKH FHOO IUHTXHQFLHV XQZHLJKWHG FHOO PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RI WKH VL[ 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW UHVSRQVHV LQ WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW 7KH ORZHU WKH VFRUH PLQLPXP f WKH PRUH UHIOHFWLYH WKRVH UHVSRQVHV DSSHDUHG WR EH RI WKH SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUfV SKLORVRSK\ &RQYHUVHO\ WKH KLJKHU WKH VFRUH PD[LPXP f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

PAGE 70

7$%/( )UHTXHQF\ 0HDQ DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ RI 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW 2ULHQWDWLRQ $V D )XQFWLRQ RI $FDGHPLF 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ DQG 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ (/(0(17$5< 0,''/( 6(&21'$5< Df (1*/,6+ Ef Gf Ff 0$7+ 62&,$/ 6&,(1&( 6&,(1&( 63(&,$/ ('8&$7,21 Gf Df )UHTXHQF\ Ef 0HDQ Ff 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ Gf &XPXODWLYH $YHUDJH

PAGE 71

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

PAGE 72

7$%/( &RPSXWHG 3UREDELOLW\ )9DOXH RI 'HSHQGHQW 9DULDEOH 5HVSRQVHV $V D )XQFWLRQ RI 6SHFLILHG ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV 'HSHQGHQW 9DULDEOH )9DOXH (;3(5,0(17 $/,60 2YHUDOO $f %f &f 5$7,21$/,60 2YHUDOO $f %f &f (;3(5,(17,$/,67 2YHUDOO r $f %f r &f 75$',7,21$/,67 2YHUDOO r $f %f r &f r ,QGLFDWHV FRPSDULVRQ VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO $f %\ 7\SH RI $FDGHPLF 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ %f %\ 7\SH RI 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ &f 7ZRZD\ ,QWHUDFWLRQ $PRQJ WKH /HYHOV RI 7\SHV

PAGE 73

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f \LHOGHG D FKLVTXDUH RI DQG D SUREDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQW RI LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW D UHODWLRQVKLS ZRXOG H[LVW DW D VOLJKWO\ KLJKHU VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHO 7DEOH UHSRUWV WKH UHVSRQVHV LQ WKH UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW WKDW PHDVXUHG WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ RI 5DWLRQDOLVP 2I WKH VL[WHHQ UHVSRQVHV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ WKUHH UHVSRQVHV DQG f \LHOGHG FKL VTXDUHV RI DQG DQG SUREDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV RI DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW D UHODWLRQVKLS H[LVWHG $QDO\VLV RI IRXU 5DWLRQDOLVP UHVSRQVHV E\ SURJUDP RI VWXG\ DQG f \LHOGHG FKLVTXDUHV RI DQG DQG SUREDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV RI DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW D UHODWLRQVKLS H[LVWHG 7DEOH UHSRUWV WKH VL[ UHVSRQVHV WKDW ZHUH GHYHORSHG WR PHDVXUH WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ 2I WKH VL[ UHVSRQVHV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH

PAGE 74

7$%/( &KL6TXDUH DQG 3UREDELOLW\ IRU ([SHULPHQWDOLVP 5HVSRQVH ,WHPV %\ $FDGHPLF 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ %\ 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ 5HVSRQVHV %\ $FDGHPLF 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ &KL6TXDUH 3 [ %\ 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ &KL6TXDUH 3 [ S

PAGE 75

7$%/( &KL6TXDUH DQG 3UREDELOLW\ IRU 5DWLRQDOLVP 5HVSRQVH ,WHPV %\ $FDGHPLF 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ %\ 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ 5HVSRQVHV %\ $FDGHPLF 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ &KL6TXDUH 3 [ %\ 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ &KL6TXDUH 3 [ r r r r r r r S r ,QGLFDWHV FRPSDULVRQ VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO

PAGE 76

7$%/( &KL6TXDUH DQG 3UREDELOLW\ IRU ([SHULHQWLDOLVW 5HVSRQVH ,WHPV %\ $FDGHPLF 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ %\ 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ 5HVSRQVHV %\ $FDGHPLF 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ &KL6TXDUH 3 [ %\ 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ &KL6TXDUH 3 [ 6WXGHQW $SDWK\f 6WXGHQW 'LVFLSOLQHf ,QGLYLGXDO 'LIIHUHQFHVf 7HDFKLQJ %DVLFVf 'UXJ $EXVH (GXFDWLRQf r 6WDQGDUGL]HG 7HVWLQJf S r ,QGLFDWHV FRPSDULVRQ VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO

PAGE 77

7$%/( &KL6TXDUH DQG 3UREDELOLW\ IRU 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW 5HVSRQVH ,WHPV %\ $FDGHPLF 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ %\ 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ 5HVSRQVHV %\ $FDGHPLF 6SHFLDOL]DWLRQ &KL6TXDUH 3 [ %\ 3URJUDP RI 6WXG\ &KL6TXDUH 3 [ 6WXGHQW $SDWK\f r 6WXGHQW 'LVFLSOLQHf ,QGLYLGXDO 'LIIHUHQFHVf 7HDFKLQJ %DVLFVf 'UXJ $EXVH (GXFDWLRQf 6WDQGDUGL]HG 7HVWLQJf S r ,QGLFDWHV FRPSDULVRQ VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO

PAGE 78

LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ QR UHVSRQVHV \LHOGHG FKLVTXDUHV WKDW KDG D SUREDELOLW\ OHYHO WKDW PHW WKH FULWHULD IRU VWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH $QDO\VLV RI RQH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW UHVSRQVH E\ SURJUDP RI VWXG\ f \LHOGHG D FKLVTXDUH RI DQG D SUREDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQW RI LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW D UHODWLRQVKLS H[LVWHG 7DEOH UHSRUWV WKH VL[ UHVSRQVHV WKDW ZHUH GHYHORSHG WR PHDVXUH WKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ 2I WKH VL[ UHVSRQVHV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ QR UHVSRQVHV \LHOGHG FKLVTXDUHV WKDW KDG D SUREDELOLW\ OHYHO WKDW PHW WKH FULWHULD IRU VWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH $QDO\VLV RI RQH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW UHVSRQVH E\ SURJUDP RI VWXG\ f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

PAGE 79

&+$37(5 9 6800$5< ',6&866,21 DQG &21&/86,216 DQG 5(&200(1'$7,216 7KLV ILQDO FKDSWHU LQFOXGHV D VXPPDU\ RI WKH VWXG\ GLVFXVVLRQ DQG FRQFOXVLRQV DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK 6XPPDU\ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH H[LVWHQFH RI UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUVf HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV DQG VXEVWDQWLYH SUHIHUHQFHV UHJDUGLQJ VHOHFWHG GLPHQVLRQV RI FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH VWXG\ VRXJKW WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUVf VHOHFWHG UHVSRQVHV WR WKH SKLORVRSKLHV RI ([SHULPHQWDOLVP DQG 5DWLRQDOLVP DQG WR ([SHULHQWLDOLVW DQG ,QWHOOHFWXDO 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQV $ FRQFHSWXDO PRGHO ZDV FRQVWUXFWHG ZKLFK EOHQGHG DQ HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ SHUVSHFWLYH ZLWK D FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ SHUVSHFWLYH 7KLV PRGHO SURYLGHG D IUDPHZRUN RXW RI ZKLFK WZHOYH K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH JHQHUDWHG WR JXLGH DQDO\VLV 6HFRQGDU\ SXUSRVHV LQYROYHG H[SORUDWRU\ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUVf HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ DQG SURJUDP RI VWXG\

PAGE 80

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b RI WKH UHVHDUFK VDPSOH 7KH UHVSRQVHV RI WKHVH SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV ZHUH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ DQDO\]HG XVLQJ D WZRZD\ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH DQG D SUREDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQW RI RU JUHDWHU WR UHMHFW WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV SHUWDLQLQJ WR WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV

PAGE 81

'LVFXVVLRQ DQG &RQFOXVLRQV 7KH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH SURSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ DQG RULHQWDWLRQV WR FXUULFXOXP DV VHW IRUWK LQ &KDSWHU ,,, DQG LOOXVWUDWHG LQ )LJXUH f ZDV GHVLJQHG WR SURGXFH GDWD UHOHYDQW WR YDOLGDWLQJ WKH FRQFHSWXDO PRGHO 7KDW LV SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV ZKR LQGLFDWHG DQ HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ RI ([SHULPHQWDOLVP ZHUH H[SHFWHG WR SUHIHU WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ 6LPLODUO\ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV ZKR LQGLFDWHG DQ HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ RI 5DWLRQDOLVP ZHUH H[SHFWHG WR SUHIHU WKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ +RZHYHU WKH UHSRUWHG VFRUHV IRU b RI WKH FDVHV RI WKH RI WKH SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV ZKR VKRZHG D SUHIHUHQFH UHYHDOHG LQFRQJUXRXV UHVSRQVHV LQ WKHLU FKRLFH RI HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ DQG FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ SUHIHUHQFHV 6XPPDU\ GDWD UHJDUGLQJ FRPELQDWLRQV RI HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV DQG FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQV LV SUHVHQWHG LQ )LJXUH 3UHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV LQ FDVHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQW JURXS LQGLFDWHG WKH LQFRQJUXRXV FRPELQDWLRQ RI ([SHULPHQWDOLVP ZLWK WKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ 0RUH IUHTXHQWO\ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV LQGLFDWHG 5DWLRQDOLVP FRPELQHG ZLWK WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ LQ FDVHV ZKLFK UHSUHVHQWV b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQW JURXS )XUWKHU WKH UHSRUWHG VFRUHV IRU RQO\ b RU RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV FRQJUXLW\ LQ WKHLU FKRLFH RI HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ DQG FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ UHVSRQVHV ([SHULPHQWDOLVP FRPELQHG ZLWK WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ ZDV LQGLFDWHG LQ FDVHV bf DQG 5DWLRQDOLVP FRPELQHG ZLWK WKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ ZDV LQGLFDWHG LQ FDVHV bf E\ WKH UHVSRQGHQW JURXS ZKR LQGLFDWHG D SUHIHUHQFH

PAGE 82

7UDGLWLRQDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ ([SHULPHQWDOLVP 5DWLRQDOLVP ([SHULHQWLDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ )LJXUH &RPELQDWLRQV RI HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV DQG FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQV r r 2I WKH RULJLQDO UHVSRQGHQWV VKRZHG QR SUHIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV DQG VKRZHG QR SUHIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQV Q

PAGE 83

3URSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ VHOHFWHG HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLHV DQG FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQV ZHUH QRW YDOLGDWHG DQG ZHUH RFFDVLRQDOO\ FRQWUDGLFWHG E\ WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ $V SUHVHQWHG LQ )LJXUH UHVSRQGHQWV WDNHQ DV D ZKROH SUHIHUUHG SKLORVRSKLFDO VWDWHPHQWV UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ RI 5DWLRQDOLVP +RZHYHU ZKHQ FRQIURQWHG E\ SUREOHPV IDFLQJ VFKRROV UHVSRQGHQWV PRUH RIWHQ VHOHFWHG WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ DV PRVW UHIOHFWLYH RI WKHLU SRVLWLRQ $ PDMRULW\ b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV SUHIHUUHG WKH YLHZV WKDW UHIOHFWHG WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ RI 5DWLRQDOLVP RYHU ([SHULPHQWDOLVP +RZHYHU b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV E\ D PDUJLQ RI QHDUO\ WRO FKRVH SURSRVDOV IRU LPSURYLQJ FXUULFXOXP WKDW UHSUHVHQWHG WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ RYHU WKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW 7KH XQLRQ RI WKHVH PDMRULWLHV FUHDWHG D JURXS RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQW JURXS ZKR PDNH FODLPV WR SUHIHU ERWK 5DWLRQDOLVP DQG WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW RULHQWDWLRQ 7KH FRQIOLFW EHWZHHQ WKH SUHIHUUHG HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ DQG FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ VXJJHVWV WKH SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV KROG DQ LGHDOLVWLF YLHZ RI ERWK WHDFKLQJ DQG VWXGHQWV $OWKRXJK PRVW RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV KDG LQIRUPDO WHDFKLQJ H[SHULHQFH IHZ KDG EHHQ IDFHG ZLWK WKH SHUHQQLDO SUREOHPV IDFLQJ FODVVURRP WHDFKHUV 6FKXEHUW f VXJJHVWV WKDW SUREOHPV IDFLQJ WHDFKHUV PLJKW EH FODVVLILHG UHODWLYH WR WKUHH VRXUFHV RI FXUULFXODU EDODQFH VWXGHQWV VXEMHFW PDWWHU DQG VRFLHWDO QHHGV 6WXGHQW DSDWK\ WHDFKLQJ WKH EDVLFV DQG GUXJ DEXVH HGXFDWLRQ DUH H[DPSOHV RI SUREOHPV SRVHG WR WKH SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KH SUHIHUHQFH IRU 5DWLRQDOLVP VXJJHVWV WKDW SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV UHFRJQL]H WKH QHHG IRU DQG LQWHQG WR SURFXUH DQ LQWHUHVWLQJ GLVFLSOLQHG DQG VWUXFWXUHG FODVVURRP +RZHYHU WKH FRQFXUUHQW SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH

PAGE 84

([SHULHQWLDOLVW RULHQWDWLRQ VXJJHVWV RSWLPLVP WKDW HQWKXVLDVP GLVFLSOLQH DQG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ FDQ EH UHJXODWHG LQ VRPH GHJUHH E\ WKH VWXGHQWV LQ WKHLU FKDUJH 7KH UHSRUWHG PHDQV IRU HDFK JURXS RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV FRQVLVWHQF\ DPRQJ WKH JURXSV DV WR WKHLU FKRLFH RI HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ DQG FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ UHVSRQVHV (DFK JURXS RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV H[FHSW WKH DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH VHOHFWHG 5DWLRQDOLVP DV PRVW UHIOHFWLYH RI WKHLU SRVLWLRQ 7KDW LV WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ RI 5DWLRQDOLVP ZDV PRUH SRSXODU WKDQ ([SHULPHQWDOLVP DFURVV HDFK RI WKH WKUHH OHYHOV RI SURJUDP RI VWXG\ DQG IRXU RI ILYH DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQV )XUWKHU HDFK JURXS RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV VHOHFWHG WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ DV PRVW UHIOHFWLYH RI WKHLU SRVLWLRQ 7KDW LV WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW RULHQWDWLRQ ZDV PRUH SRSXODU WKDQ WKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW RULHQWDWLRQ DFURVV HDFK RI WKH WKUHH OHYHOV RI SURJUDP RI VWXG\ DQG ILYH DFDGHPLF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQV 7R GHWHUPLQH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ JURXSV WKH WKUHH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH ZHUH DQDO\]HG IRU HDFK RI IRXU GLIIHUHQW GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV (DFK TXHVWLRQ ZDV DQDO\]HG E\ VWDWLQJ WKH SUREOHP LQ WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV 2Q WKH EDVLV RI UHVXOWV QRQH RI WKH K\SRWKHVHV UHJDUGLQJ HGXFDWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ FRXOG EH UHMHFWHG DW WKH HVWDEOLVKHG SUREDELOLW\ OHYHO RI RU OHVV +RZHYHU WZR RI WKH K\SRWKHVHV UHJDUGLQJ FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ FRXOG EH UHMHFWHG 5HMHFWLRQ RI +\SRWKHVLV % UHYHDOV D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW FXUULFXOXP RULHQWDWLRQ E\ W\SH RI SURJUDP RI VWXG\ 6XEVHTXHQW VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VLV LGHQWLILHG HOHPHQWDU\ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUVf VWURQJ SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH ([SHULHQWLDOLVW RULHQWDWLRQ DV EHLQJ VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP WKDW RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV LQ PLGGOHOHYHO

PAGE 85

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f VWURQJ SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW RULHQWDWLRQ DV EHLQJ VLPLODU WR WKDW RI VHFRQGDU\OHYHO SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV \HW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP WKDW RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV LQ HOHPHQWDU\OHYHO SURJUDPV 7KDW LV WKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW RULHQWDWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH SRSXODU ZLWK WKH JURXS RI

PAGE 86

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

PAGE 87

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

PAGE 88

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

PAGE 89

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f DVVHUWV WKDW RQH RI WKH IRUHPRVW WDVNV RI WHDFKHU HGXFDWRUV VKRXOG EH WKDW RI fH[SORULQJ WKH HYROYLQJ SUDFWLFDO NQRZOHGJH RI RXU VWXGHQW WHDFKHUV VR WKDW ZH FDQ EXLOG SURJUDPV WKDW DVVLVW WKHP WR GHYHORS XQGHUVWDQG DUWLFXODWH DQG XWLOL]H WKDW SUDFWLFDO NQRZOHGJHf ,Q WKLV YLHZ WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURYLGHV DYHQXHV IRU VWXGHQW WHDFKHUV WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH YDOXHV DWWLWXGHV DQG EHOLHIV WKH\ EULQJ WR D SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDP DQG WKHQ WR SORW DQG PRQLWRU WKHLU RZQ SURIHVVLRQDO JURZWK WKHUHDIWHU 7KH IROORZLQJ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK LQ WKLV DUHD DUH RIIHUHG $ GLIIHUHQW PHWKRG RI GDWD FROOHFWLRQ VXFK DV REVHUYDWLRQV DQG LQWHUYLHZV FRXOG SURGXFH D JUHDWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI KRZ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV FRPH WR KROG WKH EHOLHIV WKH\ SURIHVV 3UH DQG SRVWWHVW GHVLJQV FRXOG EH LPSOHPHQWHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH HIIHFWV RI SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ FRXUVH DFWLYLWLHV RQ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUVf SHUFHSWLRQV DQG MXGJPHQWV UHJDUGLQJ FXUULFXOXP LVVXHV

PAGE 90

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

PAGE 91

$33(1',; $ 5(6($5&+ ,167580(17 $ 6859(< 2) ('8&$7,21$/ 3+,/2623+< $1' &855,&8/80 25,(17$7,21 35()(5(1&(6

PAGE 92

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
PAGE 93

6HFWLRQ '(02*5$3+,& $1' (;3(5,(1&( ,1)250$7,21 'LUHFWLRQV 3OHDVH UHVSRQG WR HDFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ DV LQGLFDWHG $OO LQIRUPDWLRQ LV NHSW LQ VWULFW FRQILGHQFH 1$0( /DVWf )LUVWf 2SWLRQDO )RU UHWXUQLQJ WKH UHVXOWV RI \RXU VXUYH\ RQO\f &855(17 &/$66 &KHFN RQHf )UHVKPDQ 6RSKRPRUH -XQLRU 6HQLRU *UDGXDWH 6WXGHQW 2WKHU VSHFLI\f 352*5$0 2) 678'< (DUO\ &KLOGKRRG (OHPHQWDU\ (GXFDWLRQ 0LGGOH /HYHO (GXFDWLRQ 6HFRQGDU\ (GXFDWLRQ 0DVWHUV &HUWLILFDWLRQ 2WKHU VSHFLI\f $&$'(0,& 63(&,$/,=$7,21 2XWVLGH WKH &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQf (QJOLVK 0DWKHPDWLFV 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH 6FLHQFH 2WKHU VSHFLI\f 352)(66,21$/ 63(&,$/,=$7,21 :LWKLQ WKH &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQf 0LGGOH *UDGH (GXFDWLRQ &KLOGUHQnV /LWHUDWXUH 0DWKHPDWLFV (GXFDWLRQ 6SHFLDO (GXFDWLRQ 2WKHU VSHFLI\f *(1'(5 )HPDOH 0DOH $*( RYHU ('8&$7,21$/ 36<&+2/2*< +DYH \RX WDNHQ D FRXUVH" ,I VR :KHQ" :KHUH" 7($&+,1* (;3(5,(1&( $JHVf RI FKLOGUHQ LQYROYHG 7LPH DPRXQW f§ GD\V \HDUV HWF +RZ +RZ \RX ZHUH LQYROYHG ZLWK WKHVH FKLOGUHQ VLEOLQJV WXWRULQJ SURMHFW HWF 7XWRULQJ $JHVf 7LPH +RZ &RDFKLQJ $JHVf 7LPH +RZ 7HDFKLQJ $JHVf 7LPH +RZ 2WKHU 7HDFKLQJ ([SHULHQFHV 'HVFULEH RQ WKH EDFN RI WKLV SDJHf

PAGE 94

6HFWLRQ ,, ,0$*(6 2) 7($&+,1* ,PDJLQH WKDW \RX DUH QRZ ILQLVKHG ZLWK \RXU WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDP DQG VHYHUDO \HDUV RI WHDFKLQJ
PAGE 95

6HFWLRQ ,, ,0$*(6 2) 7($&+,1* FRQWLQXHGf ,PDJLQH WKDW \RX DUH QRZ ILQLVKHG ZLWK \RXU WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDP DQG VHYHUDO \HDUV RI WHDFKLQJ
PAGE 96

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f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nV FHQWUDO MRE LV WR JHW WR NQRZ VWXGHQWV ZHOO HQRXJK WR HQDEOH WKHP WR GLVFRYHU NQRZOHGJH WKDW KHOSV WR PHHW WKHLU QHHGV 6RXUFH ,WHPV DGDSWHG IURP &XUULFXOXP 3HUVSHFWLYH 3DUDGLJP DQG 3RVVLELOLW\f 6FKXEHUW f

PAGE 97

6HFWLRQ +, 6&+22/ 352%/(06 $1' 352326$/6 FRQWLQXHGf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f%$6,&6f )DPLO\ IULHQGVKLS ZRUN PDUULDJH UDLVLQJ FKLOGUHQ DQG HQMR\LQJ RQHVHOI DUH WKH LPSRUWDQW EDVLF DVSHFWV RI RXU GDLO\ OLYHV 7KH VNLOOV LPSRUWDQW WR OHDGLQJ D JRRG OLIH DUH UHODWHG WR KXPDQ UHODWLRQV DQG LQFOXGH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ QHHGV LGHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG SUREOHP VROYLQJ 7KH EDVLFV UHDGLQJ ZULWLQJ DQG DULWKPHWLFf DUH QHHGHG IRU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ VRFLHW\ DQG DUH WKH EXLOGLQJ EORFNV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG FRJQLWLYH SHUIRUPDQFH (GXFDWLRQDO UHVHDUFK UHYHDOV WKDW WKHVH DQG UHODWHG VNLOOV FDQ EH WDXJKW PRUH GLUHFWO\ DQG HIILFLHQWO\ WKDQ HYHU EHIRUH 7KH EDVLFV RI D PHDQLQJIXO OLIH LQFOXGH WKH ZRQGHUV RI FXOWXUH WKH EHDXW\ RI WKH DUWV VFLHQFH DV D NH\ WR P\VWHULHV DQG KXPDQLWLHV DV D GRRU WR WKH KXPDQ PLQG DQG VSLULW 7KHVH FDQ EH OHDUQHG WKURXJK D UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK D JUHDW WHDFKHU ZKR GHHSO\ XQGHUVWDQGV WKHLU GLVFLSOLQH D 6RXUFH ,WHPV DGDSWHG IURP &XUULFXOXP 3HUVSHFWLYH 3DUDGLJP DQG 3RVVLELOLW\f 6FKXEHUW f

PAGE 98

6HFWLRQ 6&+22/ 352%/(06 $1' 352326$/6 FRQWLQXHGf '58* $%86( ('8&$7,21 7RD ODUJH H[WHQW VFKRROV WRGD\ DUH WU\LQJ WR SURYLGH FRXUVHV WR FRPEDW HYHU\ VHULRXV VRFLDO SUREOHP 7KH UHVXOW LV FXUULFXOD WKDW DUH EHFRPLQJ LQFUHDVLQJO\ ZDWHUHGGRZQ XQPDQDJHDEOH DQG ODFNLQJ LQ SXUSRVH ,I VWXGHQWV DUH LQYROYHG ZLWK GUXJV KDYH TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKHP RU MXVW ZDQW WR WDON DERXW WKH SHHU SUHVVXUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKHP VFKRROV VKRXOG SURYLGH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SXUVXH WKLV LQWHUHVW 6FKRROV FDQ PHHW WKHLU REOLJDWLRQ WR KHOS VROYH RQH RI VRFLHW\n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f &XUULFXOXP 3HUVSHFWLYH 3DUDGLJP DQG 3RVVLELOLW\f

PAGE 99

6HFWLRQ ,9 ('8&$7,21$/ 3+,/2623+< 67$7(0(176f ,Q WKLV TXHVWLRQQDLUH \RX ZLOO EH DVNHG WR UHVSRQG WR VWDWHPHQWV DERXW HGXFDWLRQ SKLORVRSK\ 3OHDVH UHDG HDFK VWDWHPHQW DQG WKHQ LQGLFDWH \RXU UHVSRQVH E\ FLUFOLQJ RQH RI WKH IROORZLQJ $f 67521*/< $*5(( ZLWK WKLV VWDWHPHQW %f $*5(( WR D FHUWDLQ H[WHQW ZLWK WKLV VWDWHPHQW &f KDYH 12 23,1,21 RU WKLV VWDWHPHQW '2(6 127 $33/< WR P\ VLWXDWLRQ 'f ',6$*5(( WR D FHUWDLQ H[WHQW ZLWK WKLV VWDWHPHQW (f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n LQ D VRXQG HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDP 7R OHDUQ PHDQV WR GHYLVH D ZD\ RI DFWLQJ LQ D VLWXDWLRQ IRU ZKLFK ROG ZD\V DUH LQDGHTXDWH ,Q WKH LQWHUHVW RI VRFLDO VWDELOLW\n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f$ 6KRUW 7HVW RI 2QHfV (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\f (GXFDWLRQDO DQG 3V\FKRORJLFDO 0HDVXUHPHQW 9RO 1R &XUUDQ HW DO

PAGE 100

6HFWLRQ ,9 ('8&$7,21$/ 3+,/2623+< 67$7(0(176r ,Q WKLV TXHVWLRQQDLUH \RX ZLOO EH DVNHG WR UHVSRQG WR VWDWHPHQWV DERXW HGXFDWLRQ SKLORVRSK\ 3OHDVH UHDG HDFK VWDWHPHQW DQG WKHQ LQGLFDWH \RXU UHVSRQVH E\ FLUFOLQJ RQH RI WKH IROORZLQJ $f 67521*/< $*5(( ZLWK WKLV VWDWHPHQW %f $*5(( WR D FHUWDLQ H[WHQW ZLWK WKLV VWDWHPHQW &f KDYH 12 23,1,21 RU WKLV VWDWHPHQW '2(6 127 $33/< WR P\ VLWXDWLRQ 'f ',6$*5(( WR D FHUWDLQ H[WHQW ZLWK WKLV VWDWHPHQW (f 67521*/< ',6$*5(( ZLWK WKLV VWDWHPHQW ,Q WKLV SHULRG RI UDSLG FKDQJH LW LV KLJKO\ LPSRUWDQW WKDW HGXFDWLRQ EH FKDUJHG ZLWK WKH WDVN RI SUHVHUYLQJ LQWDFW WKH ORQJ HVWDEOLVKHG DQG HQGXULQJ HGXFDWLRQDO DLPV DQG VRFLDO REMHFWLYHV $ % & ( 7KH WUXH YLHZ RI HGXFDWLRQ LV VR DUUDQJLQJ OHDUQLQJ WKDW WKH FKLOG JUDGXDOO\ EXLOGV XS D VWRUHKRXVH RI NQRZ OHGJH WKDW KH FDQ XVH LQ WKH IXWXUH ,Q DVVHVVLQJ ZKDW PDQ NQRZV WKHUH DUH QR DEVROXWHV RQO\ WHQWDWLYH FRQFOXVLRQV EDVHG RQ WKH FXUUHQW DFFXPXODWLRQ RI KXPDQ H[SHULHQFHV $ % & ( $ % & ( 5HTXLUHG UHDGLQJ RI OLWHUDU\ ZRUNV HYHQ WKRXJK LW PD\ EULQJ DQ XQIDYRUDEOH DWWLWXGH WRZDUG OLWHUDWXUH LV QHFHVVDU\ LQ D VRXQG HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDP $ % & ( 7R OHDUQ PHDQV WR GHYLVH D ZD\ RI DFWLQJ LQ D VLWXDWLRQ IRU ZKLFK ROG ZD\V DUH LQDGHTXDWH $ % & ( ,Q WKH LQWHUHVW RI VRFLDO VWDELOLW\ WKH \RXWK RI WKLV JHQHUDWLRQ PXVW EH EURXJKW LQWR FRQIRUPLW\ ZLWK WKH EHOLHIV DQG LQVWLWXWLRQV RI RXU QDWLRQDO KHULWDJH $ % & ( /HDUQLQJ LV D SURFHVV RI PDVWHULQJ REMHFWLYH NQRZOHGJH DQG GHYHORSLQJ VNLOOV E\ GULOO WULDO DQG HUURU PHPRUL]DWLRQ DQG ORJLFDO HGXFDWLRQ $ % & ( 7KH WHDFKHU PXVW LQGRFWULQDWH VWXGHQWV ZLWK FRUUHFW PRUDO SULQFLSOHV LQ RUGHU WR EULQJ DERXW WKHLU KHDOWK\ PRUDO GHYHORSPHQW $%2'( 0RUDO HGXFDWLRQ LV WKH FRQWLQXRXV FULWLFLVP DQG UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ RI LGHDOV DQG YDOXHV $%2'( 7KH WUDGLWLRQDO PRUDO VWDQGDUGV RI RXU FXOWXUH VKRXOG QRW MXVW EH DFFHSWHG WKH\ VKRXOG EH H[DPLQHG DQG WHVWHG LQ VROYLQJ WKH SUHVHQW SUREOHPV RI VWXGHQWV $%2'( 7KH EDFNERQH RI WKH VFKRRO FXUULFXOXP LV VXEMHFW PDWWHU DFWLYLWLHV DUH XVHLXO PDLQO\ WR IDFLOLWDWH WKH OHDUQLQJ RI VXEMHFW PDWWHU $%2'( $ WHDFKHU PD\ SURSHUO\ WHDFK WKDW VRPH ODZV DUH XQFKDQJLQJ DQG FHUWDLQ LQ WKHLU HVVHQWLDO QDWXUH $%2'( E 6RXUFH ,WHPV DGDSWHG IURP f$ 6KRUW 7HVW RI 2QHfV (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\f (GXFDWLRQDO DQG 3V\FKRORJLFDO 0HDVXUHPHQW 9RO 1R &XUUDQ HW DO

PAGE 101

$33(1',; % 6(0,1$5 5($',1* 0$7(5,$/6 7+5(( &855,&8/80 25,(17$7,216 $1' 38%/,& 9$/8(6 2) ('8&$7,21

PAGE 102

3RVW6XUYH\ 5($',1* 0$7(5,$/6 IRU $ 6859(< 2) ('8&$7,21$/ 3+,/2623+< $1' &855,&8/80 25,(17$7,21 35()(5(1&(6 *RYHUQPHQWDO ,VVXHV :KDW LV \RXU fSRVLWLRQf RQ WKH IROORZLQJ LVVXHV UHJDUGLQJ WKH 8 6 JRYHUQPHQW" r 'UXJ ODZV GR PRUH KDUP WKDQ JRRG DQG VKRXOG EH UHSHDOHG r &LWL]HQV VKRXOG EH DOORZHG WR RZQ KDQGJXQV r 7DULIIV DQG RWKHU EDUULHUV WR IUHH WUDGH VKRXOG EH HOLPLQDWHG r 6H[ OHJLVODWLRQ IRU FRQVHQWLQJ DGXOWV VKRXOG EH UHSHDOHG 'R \RXU SUHIHUHQFHV DOLJQ ZLWK WKH SROLWLFDO SKLORVRSK\ RI /LEHUDOV 'HPRFUDWVf" RU &RQVHUYDWLYHV 5HSXEOLFDQVf" 'R \RX IDYRU PRUH EXUHDXFUDWLFf RU OHVV OLEHUWDULDQf JRYHUQPHQW LQWHUYHQWLRQ LQWR RXU KRPHV" :RXOG \RX H[SHFW D fSURIHVVLRQDOf SROLWLFLDQ WR KDYH DQ LQIRUPHG SRVLWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKHVH LVVXHV" (GXFDWLRQDO ,VVXHV :KDW LV \RXU fSRVLWLRQf RQ WKH IROORZLQJ LVVXHV UHJDUGLQJ WKH 8 6 VFKRRO V\VWHP" r 7KHUH VKRXOG H[LVW D QDWLRQDO FRUH FXUULFXOXP r 6FKRRO DWWHQGDQFH VKRXOG EH YROXQWDU\ r $ fYRXFKHU V\VWHPf ZRXOG LPSURYH WKH FXUUHQW VWDWH RI 8 6 VFKRROLQJ r 6FKRRO IXQGLQJ VKRXOG QRW EH WLHG WR SURSHUW\ WD[HV 'R \RXU SUHIHUHQFHV DOLJQ ZLWK WKH SROLWLFDO SKLORVRSK\ RI WKH /LEHUDOV (TXLW\f" RU &RQVHUYDWLYHV ([FHOOHQFHf" 'R \RX IDYRU 025( (IILFLHQF\f RU /(66 /LEHUW\f HGXFDWLRQDO LQWHUYHQWLRQ LQWR RXU VFKRROV" :RXOG \RX H[SHFW D fSURIHVVLRQDOf HGXFDWRU WR KDYH DQ LQIRUPHG SRVLWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKHVH LVVXHV" $%287 7+,6 (;(5&,6( KRSH WKDW WKURXJK WKLV H[HUFLVH \RX JDLQ D EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH FRPSOLFDWHG DQG SROLWLFDOO\ GULYHQf ZRUOG RI 8 6 VFKRROLQJ 8VH WKLV DV D fIRXQGDWLRQf RU SKLORVRSKLFDO fEDVHf IURP ZKLFK \RX EXLOG \RXU SKLORVRSK\ DV \RX FRQWLQXH \RXU VWXG\ RI WHDFKLQJ LQVWUXFWLRQ DQG FXUULFXOXP 6WHS &RPSOHWH WKH f6XUYH\ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\ DQG &XUULFXOXP 2ULHQWDWLRQ 3UHIHUHQFHVf
PAGE 103

7+5(( &855,&8/80 25,(17$7,216 (;3(5,(17,$/,67 5HOD[HG HDV\JRLQJ VLWV LQ IURQW RI WKH URRP HQFRXUDJHV TXHVWLRQV WKURXJKRXW KLV DGGUHVVf :KDW" 7KH FXUULFXOXP FRQVLVWV RI D GLDORJXH DQ LQWHUFKDQJH RI H[SHULHQFHV DQG LGHDV QRW MXVW DPRQJ H[SHUWV RU IURP H[SHUWV WR UHFLSLHQWV EXW DPRQJ HYHU\RQH HQJDJHG LQ WKH HGXFDWLYH SURFHVV :K\" ,QGLYLGXDOV DUH DJHQWV RI WKHLU RZQ OHDUQLQJ WKH\ DUH EDVLFDOO\ JRRG UHIOHFW XSRQ WKHLU RZQ H[SHULHQFH DQG DUH GUDZQ WRJHWKHU WR RWKHUV ZKR VKDUH VLPLODU VLWXDWLRQV 2QO\ ZKHQ HDFK SHUVRQnV OHDUQLQJ JURZV IURP KLV RU KHU RZQ H[SHULHQFH FDQ LW WUXO\ EH nIRUn WKDW OHDUQHU 7KLV LV WKH WUXH GHPRFUDF\ DQG WKH RSSRVLWH RI ZKDW LV KDSSHQLQJ LQ PRVW VFKRROV WRGD\ +RZ" :H PRYH IURP WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO WR WKH ORJLFDO :H EHJLQ ZLWK WKH OHDUQHUVn JHQXLQH LQWHUHVWV QRW ZKLPVf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f 6FKXEHUW

PAGE 104

7KUHH &XUULFXOXP 2ULHQWDWLRQV FRQWLQXHGf 62&,$/ %(+$9,25,67 3DFHV LQ IURQW RI WKH URRP DSSHDUV DV D W\SLFDO VFLHQWLVW H[XGHV HIILFLHQF\f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f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f 6FKXEHUW

PAGE 105

7KUHH &XUULFXOXP 2ULHQWDWLRQV FRQWLQXHGf ,17(//(&78$/ 75$',7,21$/,67 6WDQGLQJ DW D SRGLXP LQ QHDUO\ IRUPDO DWWLUH REYLRXVO\ VWHHSHG LQ WKH FODVVLFVf :KDW" 7KH FXUULFXOXP VKRXOG FRQVLVW RI WKH OLEHUDO DUWV WUDGLWLRQ /HDUQHUV VKRXOG EH H[SRVHG WR WKH JUHDW ERRNV DQG RI FRXUVH ZRXOG QHHG IDFLOLW\ LQ WKH WHFKQLTXH DQG DUW RI UHDGLQJ ZULWLQJ DQG FRPSXWLQJ :K\" 7KH EHQHILWV DUH WZRIROG WR GHYHORS WKH PLQG DQG WR EHFRPH DFTXDLQWHG ZLWK OLIHnV JUHDW LGHDV DQG TXHVWLRQV 7KH LGHDV LH EHDXW\ WUXWK HTXDOLW\ MXVWLFHf DQG TXHVWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH HYHQWV RI OLIH LH ELUWK GHDWK ORYH VRFLHW\f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nV HGXFDWLRQ )RUPDO HGXFDWLRQ KRZHYHU VKRXOG WDNH SODFH LQ VFKRROV RU WXWRULDOV :KHQ" (GXFDWLRQ VKRXOG SURFHHG WKURXJKRXW OLIH ,W VKRXOG HVSHFLDOO\ EH PDGH DYDLODEOH WR WKH \RXQJ VLPLODU WR WKH VFKRRO V\VWHP DV ZH NQRZ LW WRGD\ 6RXUFH ,WHPV DGDSWHG IURP &XUULFXOXP 3HUVSHFWLYH 3DUDGLJP DQG 3RVVLELOLW\f 6FKXEHUW

PAGE 106

(;3(5,0(17$/,60 YV UDWLRQDOLVP :KDW LV 5HDO 2172/2*< 5HDOLW\ LV D ZRUOG RI H[SHULHQFHV 5HDOLW\ LV D ZRUOG RI WKH PLQGUHDVRQ :KDW LV .QRZOHGJH (3,67(02/2*< .QRZOHGJH LV ZKDW ZRUNV ZKDW LV .QRZOHGJH LV D FRQVLVWHQF\ RI LGHDV ZKDW LV UHYHDOHG WKURXJK VWXG\ :KDW LV *RRG $;,2/2*< *RRG LV GHWHUPLQHG E\ D WHVW RI SXEOLF VWDQGDUGV *RRG LV LPLWDWLRQ RI WKH LGHDO VHOI 7HDFKLQJ 5HDOLW\ 6XEMHFW PDWWHU RI VRFLDO H[SHULHQFHV VRFLDO VWXGLHV 6XEMHFW PDWWHU RI WKH PLQG f§ OLWHUDWXUH SKLORVRSK\ UHOLJLRQ 7HDFKLQJ 7UXWK 3UREOHP VROYLQJ SURMHFW PHWKRG 'LVFLSOLQH WKH PLQG GULOO OHFWXUH DQG GLVFXVVLRQ 7HDFKLQJ *RRGQHVV 9DOXHVf 0DNLQJ JURXS GHFLVLRQV LQ OLJKW RI FRQVHTXHQFHV 'LVFLSOLQLQJ EHKDYLRU LPLWDWLQJ KHURHV DQG RWKHU H[HPSODUV 6RXUFH ,WHPV DGDSWHG IURP f&XUULFXOXP 'HYHORSPHQW $ *XLGH WR 3UDFWLFHf :LOHV t %RQGL

PAGE 107

38%/,& 9$/8(6 2) ('8&$7,21 $W WKH KHDUW RI HGXFDWLRQDO SROLF\ GHEDWHV DUH IRXU ZLGHO\ KHOG EXW FRQIOLFWLQJ YDOXHV (TXLW\ ([FHOOHQFH (IILFLHQF\ DQG /LEHUW\ (YHQ WKRVH WKHVH YDOXHV DUH GHHSO\ HPEHGGHG LQ RXU $PHULFDQ KHULWDJH WKH\ H[LVW LQ D FRQVWDQW VWDWH RI WHQVLRQ VXFK WKDW WRR PXFK HPSKDVLV RQ DQ\ RQH KLQGHUV H[SUHVVLRQ RI HDFK RI WKH RWKHU WKUHH (48,7< f)DLUQHVV LV VKDULQJ WKH UHVRXUFHV DYDLODEOH IRU VFKRROLQJ DFFRUGLQJ WR QHHGf f&KDSWHU (Gf (IILFLHQF\ )XQGLQJ )RUPXODV (48,7< ([FHOOHQFH f6SHFLDO (Gf /LEHUW\ )DLU SOD\ DQG (48$/ 23325781,7< GR QRW DOZD\V PHDQ SURYLVLRQ RI LGHQWLFDO UHVRXUFHV WR HDFK VWXGHQW RU WKH VDPH DFFHVV WR HYHU\ HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDP 6RPHWLPHV VDPHQHVV LV FRQVLGHUHG XQIDLU 7KH fKDQGLFDSSLQJf V\VWHPV XVHG LQ VSRUWV VXFK DV JROI DQG ERZOLQJ DUH DQ H[DPSOH RI SURYLGLQJ IRU DQ fHTXLWDEOHf RU HYHQKDQGHG FKDQFH WR ZLQ 7KH UHDVRQLQJ LV VLPLODU LQ SURYLGLQJ fVSHFLDOHGXFDWLRQf VWXGHQWV PRUH UHVRXUFHV WKDQ DUH DIIRUGHG WR fUHJXODUf VWXGHQWV 6RXUFH ,WHPV DGDSWHG IURP f(GXFDWLRQDO *RYHUQDQFH DQG $GPLQLVWUDWLRQf 6HUJLRYDQQL HW DO

PAGE 108

3XEOLF 9DOXHV RI (GXFDWLRQ FRQWLQXHGf (;&(//(1&( f7KH DFKLHYHPHQW RI KLJK VWDQGDUGV LV PDLQWDLQHG WKURXJK WUDGLWLRQDO YDOXHVf (IILFLHQF\ %HVW DQG %ULJKWHVW (TXLW\ (;&(//(1&( 6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ /LEHUW\ +LJK $FDGHPLF 6WDQGDUGV 2I WKH IRXU YDOXHV ([FHOOHQFH LV WKH PRVW GLIILFXOW WR GHILQH 7KLV GLIILFXOW\ VWHPV LQ SDUW IURP WKH SROLWLFDO UKHWRULF ZLWK ZKLFK WKH ZRUG LV XVHG E\ VSHFLDOLQWHUHVW JURXSV ZKR IDYRU RQH RU DQRWKHU RI WKH RWKHU YDOXHV ([FHOOHQFH LV GHILQHG LQ WHUPV RI WKH (TXLW\ YDOXH ZKHQ LW GHVFULEHV D SURJUDPfV DELOLW\ WR UHVSRQG WR XQGHUSULYLOHJHG JURXSV ([FHOOHQFH LV GHILQHG LQ WKH (IILFLHQF\ YDOXH ZKHQ SURJUDPV UHVXOW LQ KLJKHU WHVW VFRUHV RU RWKHU PHDVXUDEOH REMHFWLYHV )LQDOO\ ([FHOOHQFH LV GHVFULEHG LQ WKH /LEHUW\ YDOXH ZKHQ LW GHVFULEHV SURJUDPV WKDW DUH ORFDOO\ GHWHUPLQHG WR PHHW ORFDO QHHGV 6RXUFH ,WHPV DGDSWHG IURP f(GXFDWLRQDO *RYHUQDQFH DQG $GPLQLVWUDWLRQf 6HUJLRYDQQL HW DO

PAGE 109

3XEOLF 9DOXHV RI (GXFDWLRQ FRQWLQXHGf ()),&,(1&< f$PHULFDfV FRQFHUQ IRU DFFRXQWDELOLW\ JHWWLQJ RQHfV PRQH\fV ZRUWK f *RYHUQPHQW &RQWURO ()),&,(1&< $GGHG 7D[HVf (TXLW\ 6NLOOV 7HVWLQJ ([FHOOHQFH /LEHUW\ $FFRXQWDELOLW\ LV PDQLIHVWHG LQ WKH IRUP RI SURGXFW WHVWLQJ VWXGHQWVf SURJUDP EXGJHWLQJ REMHFWLYHVf DQG DGRSWLRQ RI V\VWHPVDQDO\VLV GHVLJQV WKDW HPSKDVL]H HIILFLHQF\ LQ RSHUDWLRQV +RZHYHU WHDFKHU VDODULHV DUH WKH JUHDWHVW FRVW XVXDOO\ DERXW bf RI DQ\ VFKRRO EXGJHW 4XHVWLRQV DUH UDLVHG ULJKWO\ RU QRW LQ WKH PLQG RI WKH SXEOLF ZKHQ WHDFKHU VDODULHV LQFUHDVH ZLWKRXW PHDVXUDEOH LQFUHDVHV LQ SURGXFWLYLW\ 6RXUFH ,WHPV DGDSWHG IURP f(GXFDWLRQDO *RYHUQDQFH DQG $GPLQLVWUDWLRQf 6HUJLRYDQQL HW DO

PAGE 110

3XEOLF 9DOXHV RI (GXFDWLRQ FRQWLQXHGf /,%(57< f&KRLFH ORFDO FRQWURO RI RXU HGXFDWLRQ DQG RXU VFKRROVf (TXLW\ 6FKRRO%DVHG 0DQDJHPHQW (IILFLHQF\ ([FHOOHQFH 3ULYDWH RU +RPHf 6FKRROLQJ /,%(57< /RFDO &RQWURO 6FKRROV DUH SDUWLFXODUO\ VLJQLILFDQW LQ PDLQWDLQLQJ WKH YDOXH RI /LEHUW\ IRU WKH\ UHSUHVHQW WKH ODVW YHVWLJH RI ORFDO FRQWURO LQ WKH WUDGLWLRQ RI WKH WRZQ PHHWLQJ DQG WKH ORFDO WD[ UHIHUHQGXP 7KH VOLSSLQJ DZD\ RI ORFDO FRQWURO RU FHQWUDOL]DWLRQ UHTXLUHV WKDW GHFLVLRQ EH PDGH DW D KLJKHU DQG PRUH UHPRWH OHYHO IDUWKHU DZD\ IURP WKH VFKRRO RU FODVVURRP 6RXUFH ,WHPV DGDSWHG IURP f(GXFDWLRQDO *RYHUQDQFH DQG $GPLQLVWUDWLRQf 6HUJLRYDQQL HW DO

PAGE 111

$33(1',; & 6(0,1$5 +$1'2876 6800$5< 2) 5(63216(6 72 7+( 5(6($5&+ ,167580(17

PAGE 112

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f 3UREOHPV $3$7+< ',6&,3/,1( ,1' ',)) ([SHULHQWLDOLVW %HKDYLRULVW 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW %$6,&6 ([SHULHQWLDOLVW %HKDYLRULVW 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW %HKDYLRULVW 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW ([SHULHQWLDOLVW 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW ([SHULHQWLDOLVW %HKDYLRULVW ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 6FKRROf 3UREOHPV '58* $%86( 67$1' 7(67 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW ([SHULHQWLDOLVW %HKDYLRULVW %HKDYLRULVW 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW ([SHULHQWLDOLVW &DOFXODWLQJ
PAGE 113

6XPPDU\ RI 5HVSRQVHV WR WKH ('8&$7,21$/ 3+,/2623+< 67$7(0(176 7KH IROORZLQJ LV D VFRULQJ H[HUFLVH DQG NH\ WR WKH 6XUYH\ 6HFWLRQ ,9 (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\ 6WDWHPHQWV )RU HDFK RI \RXU UHVSRQVHV DVVLJQ WKH IROORZLQJ SRLQWV $f 6WURQJO\ $JUHH %f 6RPHZKDW $JUHH &f 1R 2SLQLRQ$SSO\ 'f 6RPHZKDW 'LVDJUHH (f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f $GG &ROXPQV 1HJDWLYH 7RWDOV 3RVVLEOHf 727$/6 B 6HH 1H[W 3DJHf 6RXUFH ,WHPV DGDSWHG IURP f$ 6KRUW 7HVW RI 2QHfV (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\f (GXFDWLRQDO DQG 3V\FKRORJLFDO 0HDVXUHPHQW 9RO 1R &XUUDQ HW DO

PAGE 114

6XPPDU\ RI 5HVSRQVHV 3KLORVRSK\ 6WDWHPHQWV &RQWLQXHGf 6&25,1* 5(68/76 ,I LQ VFRULQJ WKH H[HUFLVH \RX ILQG WKDW D PDMRULW\ RI \RXU DJUHHPHQW IDOOV LQ D VLQJOH FROXPQ \RX DUH VHOHFWLQJ D GRPLQDQW VHW RI EHOLHIV ,I \RX GLVFRYHU \RXUVHOI VSUHDG UDWKHU HYHQO\ \RX PD\ KDYH DQ HFOHFWLF VHW RI HGXFDWLRQDO YDOXHV ,QGHFLVLYHQHVV LQ DJUHHLQJ RU GLVDJUHHLQJ DQVZHULQJ f&f VHYHUDO WLPHVf FRXOG LQGLFDWH RWKHU YDOXHV DQG EHOLHIV QRW FRQWDLQHG ZLWKLQ RQH RI WKHVH PDMRU HGXFDWLRQDO V\VWHPV ,Q DOO IRUPDO V\VWHPV RI SKLORVRSK\ DQ LPSRUWDQW PHDVXUH RI WKH V\VWHPfV YDOLGLW\ LV LWV FRQVLVWHQF\
PAGE 115

$33(1',; &255(6321'(1&(

PAGE 116

7XHVGD\ 0D\ 0(02 72 'U 3HWHU *RUPDQ ,QVWUXFWRU (') 6HPLQROH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH )5 : 6FRWW :LVH 2DNGDOH 6WUHHW :LQGHUPHUH )ORULGD f 5( ,QWURGXFWLRQ WR (GXFDWLRQ 3+,/2623+< 2) ('8&$7,21 6(0,1$5 7KDQN \RX DJDLQ IRU SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ WKLV UHVHDUFK SURMHFW (QFORVHG LV WKH VHW RI PDWHULDOV XVHG LQ ,QWURGXFWLRQ WR (GXFDWLRQ FRXUVHV LQ FHQWUDO )ORULGD WKLV VHPHVWHU 7KH H[HUFLVH LV LQ WZR SDUWV f $ PLQXWHf WDNHKRPH RU LQFODVVf 6859(< WKDW LQFOXGHV 6HFWLRQ 'HPRJUDSKLFV DSSUR[ PLQXWHV WR FRPSOHWHf 6HFWLRQ ,, ,PDJHV RI 7HDFKLQJ DSSUR[ PLQXWHVf 6HFWLRQ ,,, 3UREOHPV DQG 3URSRVDOV DSSUR[ PLQXWHVf 6HFWLRQ ,9 (GXFDWLRQDO 3KLORVRSK\ 6WDWHPHQWV DSSUR[ PLQXWHVf f $ 6(0,1$5 WKDW LQFOXGHV DQ SDJH KDQGRXW GHVLJQHG WR HQKDQFH WKH GLVFXVVLRQ DQG H[SODLQ WKH PHDQLQJ RI WKH H[HUFLVH DQG VFRUHV PLQXWHV RI FODVV WLPH DW WKH GLVFUHWLRQ RI WKH LQVWUXFWRUf $ VDPSOH RI WKLV KDQGRXW LV LQFOXGHG ZLWK WKH LQVWUXFWRUfV FRS\ RI WKH VXUYH\ &RSLHV RI WKH 6859(< FDQ EH GLVWULEXWHG DW DQ\ WLPH SULRU WR P\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ ,GHDOO\ WKH\ FRXOG EH KDQGHG RXW QH[W ZHHN 78(6'$< 0$< DQG UHWXUQHG WR \RX LQ FODVV RQ 7+856'$< 0$< 7KLV ZLOO HQDEOH XV WR LQFOXGH WKH GDWD LQ WKH VWXG\ $W WKLV WLPH DP DYDLODEOH WR FRQGXFW WKH VHPLQDU LQ \RXU FODVV RQ WKH IROORZLQJ HYHQLQJV r 7XHVGD\ 0D\ r 7KXUVGD\ 0D\ r 7XHVGD\ -XQH r 7KXUVGD\ -XQH r 7XHVGD\ -XQH r 7KXUVGD\ -XQH )HHO IUHH WR FDOO PH DW P\ 2UODQGR KRPH DERYHf WR DUUDQJH IRU D FRQYHQLHQW VHPLQDU GDWH RU LI \RX KDYH DQ\ TXHVWLRQV RU FRPPHQWV UHJDUGLQJ WKH H[HUFLVH 7KDQNV DJDLQ

PAGE 117

7XHVGD\ 0D\ 0(02 72 'U 3HWHU *RUPDQ ,QVWUXFWRU (') 6HPLQROH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH )5 : 6FRWW :LVH 2DNGDOH 6WUHHW :LQGHUPHUH )ORULGD f 5( 3+,/2623+< 2) ('8&$7,21 ([HUFLVH 5HVXOWV 7KDQN \RX DJDLQ IRU SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ WKLV UHVHDUFK SURMHFW ,QGLYLGXDO DQG FODVV UHVXOWV IRU \RXU JURXS ZLOO EH SURYLGHG GXULQJ WKH VHPLQDU 0DQ\ SDUWLFLSDQWV H[SUHVVHG DQ LQWHUHVW LQ FRPSDULQJ WKHLU VFRUHV ZLWK FODVVPDWHV DQG WKH RYHUDOO VDPSOH SRSXODWLRQ %HORZ LV WKH ILQDO DYHUDJH PHDQf VWDWLVWLFV DOO SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKH VWXG\ WR GDWH 7RWDO 6WXG\ SDUWLFLSDQWVf ('8&$7,21$/ 3+,/2623+< ([S YV 5DW 5DWLRQDOLVP &855,&8/80 25,(17$7,21 VW &KRLFH (%7 ([SHULHQWLDOLVW b %HKDYLRULVW b 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW b &855,&8/80 25,(17$7,21 ([S YV 7UDG +HDGWR+HDG b WR b ORRN IRUZDUG WR PHHWLQJ ZLWK \RXU FODVV DQG FRQGXFWLQJ WKH IROORZXS VHPLQDU QH[W ZHHN

PAGE 118

7KXUVGD\ 0D\ 0(02 72 'U 3HWHU *RUPDQ ,QVWUXFWRU (') 6HPLQROH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH )5 : 6FRWW :LVH 2DNGDOH 6WUHHW :LQGHUPHUH )ORULGD f 5( 3KLORVRSK\ RI (GXFDWLRQ )ROORZ8S 7KDQN \RX IRU RIIHULQJ WR \RXU VWXGHQWV WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKLV HGXFDWLRQ UHVHDUFK SURMHFW 7KH HQWKXVLDVP H[SUHVVHG E\ WKH JURXS GXULQJ WKH VHPLQDU ZDV HQFRXUDJLQJ DQG YHU\ PXFK DSSUHFLDWHG $ FRS\ RI WKH UHVHDUFK ILQGLQJV ZLOO EH GHOLYHUHG WR \RX XSRQ FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH SURMHFW 7KDQNV DJDLQ

PAGE 119

5()(5(1&(6 $GOHU 6 f $ ILHOG VWXG\ RI VHOHFWHG VWXGHQW WHDFKHU SHUVSHFWLYHV WRZDUG VRFLDO VWXGLHV 7KHRU\ DQG 5HVHDUFK LQ 6RFLDO (GXFDWLRQ $GZHUH%RDPDK 'HOD\ t -RQHV 2 f )XQGDPHQWDO SRLQWV RI YLHZ RI WHDFKHUV RQ HGXFDWLRQ $Q LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH .HUOLQJHU DQG .D\D DWWLWXGLQDO VFDOH (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 4XDUWHUO\ $JUHVWL $ t )LQOD\ % f 6WDWLVWLFDO PHWKRGV IRU WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFHV (QJOHZRRG &OLIIV 1HZ -HUVH\ 3UHQWLFH+DOO $OH[DQGHU : t 0F(ZLQ & f 7UDLQLQJ WKH PLGGOH OHYHO HGXFDWRUf§:KHUH GRHV WKH VROXWLRQ OLH" 1$663 %XOOHWLQ $OH[DQGHU : t 0F(ZLQ &. f 3UHSDULQJ WR WHDFK DW WKH PLGGOH OHYHO &ROXPEXV 2+ 1DWLRQDO 0LGGOH 6FKRRO $VVRFLDWLRQ $OH[DQGHU : t 0F(ZLQ &. f 6FKRROV LQ WKH PLGGOH VWDWXV DQG SURJUHVV &ROXPEXV 2+ 1DWLRQDO 0LGGOH 6FKRRO $VVRFLDWLRQ $OH[DQGHU : t :LOOLDPV ( f 7KH HPHUJHQW PLGGOH VFKRRO QG HGf 1HZ
PAGE 120

,OO %HUPDQ / f 1HZ SULRULWLHV LQ WKH FXUULFXOXP &ROXPEXV 2+ 0HUULOO %URZQ % % f 7KH H[SHULPHQWDO PLQG LQ HGXFDWLRQ 1HZ
PAGE 121

(LFKRP f 7KH VFKRRO ,Q -RKQVRQ 0 7RZDUG DGROHVFHQFH 7KH PLGGOH VFKRRO \HDUV 3DUW SS f &KLFDJR 7KH 1DWLRQDO 6RFLHW\ IRU WKH 6WXG\ RI (GXFDWLRQ (LVQHU (: t 9DOODQFH ( f &RQIOLFWLQJ FRQFHSWLRQV RI FXUULFXOXP %HUNHOH\ &$ 0F&XWFKDQ (SVWHLQ t 0DF ,YHU f (GXFDWLRQ LQ WKH PLGGOH JUDGHV 2YHUYLHZ RI QDWLRQDO SUDFWLFHV DQG WUHQGV &ROXPEXV 2+ 1DWLRQDO 0LGGOH 6FKRRO $VVRFLDWLRQ )UDHQNHO t :DOOHQ 1 f +RZ WR GHVLJQ DQG HYDOXDWH UHVHDUFK LQ HGXFDWLRQ 1HZ
PAGE 122

*OLFNPDQ & t (VSRVLWR f /HDGHUVKLS JXLGH IRU HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO LPSURYHPHQW %RVWRQ $OO\Q t %DFRQ *RRGODG -, f $ SODFH FDOOHG VFKRRO +LJKVWRZQ 10F*UDZ+LOO *RRGPDQ f &RQVWUXFWLQJ D SUDFWLFDO SKLORVRSK\ RI WHDFKLQJ $ VWXG\ RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUVf SURIHVVLRQDO SHUVSHFWLYHV 7HDFKLQJ DQG 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ *RRGPDQ t $GOHU 6 f %HFRPLQJ DQ HOHPHQWDU\ VRFLDO VWXGLHV WHDFKHU $ VWXG\ RI SHUVSHFWLYHV 7KHRU\ DQG 5HVHDUFK LQ 6RFLDO (GXFDWLRQ *RZDQ '% 1HZVRPH */ t &KDQGOHU $. f $ VFDOH WR VWXG\ ORJLFDO FRQVLVWHQF\ RI LGHDV DERXW HGXFDWLRQ -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKRORJ\ *UHHQH 0 f 3KLORVRSK\ DQG WHDFKLQJ ,Q 0 :LWWURFN +DQGERRN RI UHVHDUFK RQ WHDFKLQJ UG HG S f 1HZ
PAGE 123

-RKQVWRQ 6 f ,PDJHV $ ZD\ RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH SUDFWLFDO NQRZOHGJH RI VWXGHQW WHDFKHUV 7HDFKLQJ t 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ -R\FH % t :HLO 0 f 0RGHOV RI WHDFKLQJ UG HG f (QJOHZRRG &OLIIV 13UHQWLFH+DOO .HUOLQJHU ) f )DFWRU LQYDULDQFH LQ WKH PHDVXUHPHQW RI DWWLWXGHV WRZDUG HGXFDWLRQ (GXFDWLRQDO DQG 3V\FKRORJLFDO 0HDVXUHPHQW .HUOLQJHU ) t .D\D ( f 7KH FRQVWUXFWLRQ DQG IDFWRU DQDO\WLF YDOLGDWLRQ RI VFDOHV WR PHDVXUH DWWLWXGHV WRZDUG HGXFDWLRQ (GXFDWLRQDO DQG 3V\FKRORJLFDO 0HDVXUHPHQW
PAGE 124

0DQQLQJ 0 / f 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU LPSURYLQJ PLGGOHOHYHO WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ $FWLRQ LQ 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ 0DUNV :/ t 1\VWUDQG 5 2 f 6WUDWHJLHV IRU HGXFDWLRQDO FKDQJH 1HZ
PAGE 125

6D\ORU $OH[DQGHU : t /HZLV $ f &XUULFXOXP SODQQLQJ IRU EHWWHU WHDFKLQJ WK HG f 1HZ
PAGE 126

7DEDFKQLFN % 5 t =HLFKQHU f 7KH LPSDFW RI WKH VWXGHQW WHDFKLQJ H[SHULHQFH RQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WHDFKHU SHUVSHFWLYHV -RXUQDO RI 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ 7KRPVRQ 6 f $Q DJHQGD IRU H[FHOOHQFH DW WKH PLGGOH OHYHO 5HVWRQ 9$ 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI 6HFRQGDU\ 6FKRRO 3ULQFLSDOV 8QUXK t 8QUXK $ f &XUULFXOXP GHYHORSPHQW 3UREOHPV SURFHVVHV DQG SURJUHVV %HUNHOH\ &$ 0F&XWFKDQ 3XEOLVKLQJ &RUSRUDWLRQ 9DOHQWLQH : &ODUN & ,UYLQ / .HHIH -f t 0HOWRQ f /HDGHUVKLS LQ PLGGOH OHYHO HGXFDWLRQ 5HVWRQ 9$ 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI 6HFRQGDU\ 6FKRRO 3ULQFLSDOV 9DQ +RRVH t 6WUDKDQ f
PAGE 127

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

PAGE 128

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

PAGE 129

7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ $XJXVW rtf 'HDQ &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E4YRL6LXO_13023Y INGEST_TIME 2014-10-07T20:53:03Z PACKAGE AA00025811_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES