A PROBLEM ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFICULTIES PECULIAR TO STUDENT-TEACHING A D issertatio n Presented to the Faculty o f the School of Education The U niversity of Southern C alifornia In P a rtia l F ulfillm ent o f the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education hy John Robert Devine June 1950 UMI Number: DP25800 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI DP25800 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. Date...... Dean Guidance Committee Cnairman TABLE OF CONTENTS chapter page I . THE PROBLEM A® ITS SETTING...................... I The problem 1 Im plioatlone o f the problem . . . . . . . 0 Underlying assum ptions. . . . • • • » • • 3 D elim itations • » • . • • • . . . . • . • 4 D efinition of terms . . . . . . . . . . . 5 O rganisation of the rep o rt. . . . . . . . 7 I I . BELATED LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Teacher education curriculum . . . . . . . 8 Problems of student ^teacher s. . . . . . . 14 Student-teacher problems and the curriculum . • • » . » . • • • • • • . . 15 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 I I I . SELECTION OF METHODS AND PRELIMINARY TRIALS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 S election of method fo r co llectio n of d iffic u ltie s 18 D escriptive explanation of problem co llectio n method ♦ * . . ♦ • • ♦ • • • El Summary . • • . . . . . . • • • . • • • * 23 IF . ADAPTATION AND STANDARDISATION OF METHOD. . 04 Establishm ent of categories * * • • » » * 04 I ll CHAPTER PAGE Standardisation of categories ♦ ♦ ♦ • • * . 26 A dditional check on categories * . . ♦ . * 29 Summary...................... 31 ¥• APPLICATION OF THE METHOD TO COLLECTION OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 In stitu tio n s used in the study . . . . . . 33 C ollection of d iffic u ltie s * . . . ♦ . ♦ ♦ 34 Method used to evaluate d iffic u ltie s * ♦ • 33 S ta tistic a l method used to tre a t data • • • 38 Summary 41 VI. ANALYSIS OF DIFFICULTIES BY FREQUENCY COUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Frequency count of d iffic u ltie s submitted by student-taachers ................... 42 Frequency count of d iffic u ltie s submitted by sp ecialists 48 Comparison of the frequency count of student-teaehers and sp ecialists . • ♦ • 52 Im plications of frequency count 56 Summary 58 FIX. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFICULTIES PECULIAR TO STUDENT-TEACHING • 60 C lassification of d iffic u ltie s ♦ 60 iv GH&PTER PAGE C heeR -list ratin g of d iffic u ltie s • * ♦ ♦ . * 61 A nalysis of ratin g s . ♦ . . . . * • • * . ♦ * 63 R esults of the an aly sis of the importance of major areas of d ifficu lty * • • • • • * # 66 R esults of the analysis of the im portance of individual d i f f i c u l t i e s ................................. ?0 Summary * * • • • • * * • * • • * * * * * » • IB? ¥111 • AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFICULTY OF PROBLEMS PECULIAR TO STUDENT-TEACHING* • . ................... 130 A nalysis of d iffic u lty ratings* * * * * * * ♦ 130 R esults of the an aly sis of the d iffic u lty of major problem areas* * • • « * • • • • * 138 R esults o f the analy sis of the d iffic u lty of individual problems* . * . * .......................* 137 Summary • • * • * • » • * • * • • * • • • • • 193 IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................* . 198 Statem ent of findings and conclusions * * * • 198 Recommendations • * * • • « • • » * • * * • * 806 Statem ent of lim itatio n s in conclusions * * • * • • * • * * * • • * * * 80? A pplication of conclusions * * * * * * * * * 808 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY * ............................................... . 210 APPENDIX A* Correspondence * • * ♦ * * • * • • 21? V CHAPTER PAGE APPENDIX B* In stru ctio n s • 225 APPENDIX C. Ch.eek~li st ♦ 230 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I . Number of problems subm itted by prelim in­ ary groups at the U niversity of Southern C alifornia 28 I I . In stitu tio n s th a t p artic ip ated in the study 35 I I I . D istrib u tio n of student-teachers train in g for elem entary and secondary teaching who contributed d iffic u ltie s of stu d en t- teaching. • 44 IF* Frequency count of d iffic u ltie s subm itted by student-teachers . . » # . • • • # . . • 47 7 . Bank order of frequency of d iffic u ltie s as mentioned by student-teachers . . . . . . . 49 F I. Frequency count of d iffic u ltie s subm itted by sp e c ia lists. 51 ¥11* Bank order of the frequency of d iffic u ltie s as mentioned by sp e c ia lists « • . . . • • • 55 F ill. The three categories mentioned most fre ­ quently by student-teachers and by sp e c ia lists + . 54 IX. The three categories mentioned le a st fre ­ quently by student-teachers and by sp e c ia lists 55 v ii ta b le page X* Comparison of frequency counts of d iff­ ic u ltie s mentioned by student-teachers and sp e c ia lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 XI* Number of item s c la ssifie d under each category. . . . . . . . . . • • • • » • * , 68 XII* Significance of differences between average ratin g s of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as to the importance of problems under the major categories * • • * • « * • • • • • • 67 XIII* Percentage of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists who rated categories of student-teaching d iffic u ltie s im portant • * • * * * • • » • 69 XIV* Significance of differences between ratin g s of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as to the importance of problems under category 1. • • • * * * * . . • • • • • * • 78 XV* S ignificance of differences between ratin g s of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as to the importance of problems under category 8. * . . * • • . • * . • • . * * • 75 XVI* Significance of differences between ratin g s of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as to the importance of problems under category 3* • • • • • • • • • • . . * • . • 73 v iii TABLE PAGE XVII* Significance of differences between ratin g s of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as to the im portance of problems under category 4* * • * * • * • • ? • * * « * « * 81 XVIII* Significance of differences between ratin g s of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as to the importance of problems under category 5* * • » * * » • * * • « • • • * * 83 XIX* S ignificance of differences between ratin g s of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as to the im portance of problems under category 6* .................... * • * * • • • • • • • 87 XX* S ignificance of differences between ratin g s of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as to the importance of problems under category 7 . * * , * . « . • • • • » • • « • 90 XXI* S ignificance o f differences between ratin g s of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as to the importance of problems under category 8* * * • * * * • • * * * # • * # * 98 XXII* Significance of differences between ratin g s of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as to the importance of problems under category 9* • * • • * * • • * * * • • * * * 101