Citation
A descriptive study based upon J.R. Hackman's analysis of group influences on individuals, that examines the new faculty-significant other collegial relationship that existed in the Cherry Creek School District

Material Information

Title:
A descriptive study based upon J.R. Hackman's analysis of group influences on individuals, that examines the new faculty-significant other collegial relationship that existed in the Cherry Creek School District with implications for the Cherry Creek new faculty induction practices
Alternate title:
New faculty - significant other collegial relationship
Creator:
Johnson, Thomas L
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xiii, 333 leaves : illustrations, forms ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Mentoring in education ( lcsh )
Group identity ( lcsh )
Mentoring in education -- Colorado -- Arapahoe County ( lcsh )
Group identity ( fast )
Mentoring in education ( fast )
Colorado -- Arapahoe County ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Thesis:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Education, School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Thomas L. Johnson.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
24655162 ( OCLC )
ocm24655162
Classification:
LD1190.E3 1989d .J63 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY, BASED UPON J.R. HACKMAN'S
ANALYSIS OF GROUP INFLUENCES ON INDIVIDUALS,
THAT EXAMINES THE NEW FACULTY SIGNIFICANT OTHER
-COLLEGIAL RELATIONSHIP THAT EXISTED IN THE CHERRY CREEK
SCHOOL DISTRICT, WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CHERRY CREEK
NEW FACULTY INDUCTION PRACTICES
by
Thomas L. Johnson
A. A., University of Minnesota, 1966
B. S., Mankato State University, 1968
M.A., University of Colorado, 1975
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
School of Education
1989


This thesis for the Doctor of Education degree by
Thomas L. Johnson
has been approved for the
School of
Education
by
Date


Johnson, Thomas L. (Ed.D., Curriculum, Supervision and
Administration)
A Descriptive Study, Based Upon J.R. Hackman's Analysis of
Group Influences on Individuals, that Examines the New Faculty
- Significant Other Collegial Relationship that Existed in the
Cherry Creek School District, with Implications for the Cherry
Creek New Faculty Induction Practices
Thesis directed by Professor Bob L. Taylor
This study sought to analyze, utilizing J.R. Hackman's
description of group influences on individuals, the collegial
relationship that developed between the new faculty member and
the person (the significant other) who was most instrumental in
assisting in the induction of the new faculty member to the
culture of the school. New faculty members in the Cherry Creek
School District were surveyed to find out if they developed
such a collegial relationship and if so, the relationship was
examined to ascertain the areas of information that were
provided and how the emotional state of the new faculty member
was affected. In addition, the demographics of the new faculty
member significant other relationship were examined. Key
attributes of the relationship in terms of demographics,
information provided, and impact on the affective state of the
new faculty member were determined. Profiles of the
significant other for each of the six subgroups of new faculty


members were constructed. These groups included novice
elementary, novice secondary, experienced elementary,
experienced secondary, transfer elementary, and transfer
secondary. Data were collapsed into smaller groups and were
analyzed, and profiles of these groups were built. The
developed profiles were found to include many identical
attributes but each of the six subgroups contained unique
attributes. While very few of the attributes were
statistically significant, the profiles that were developed
could be extremely useful when the new teacher induction
practices of the District, especially the new teacher mentor
program, are examined.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I
recommend its publication.
Si gned
Bob L. Taylor


Johnson, Thomas L. (Ed.D., Curriculum, Supervision and
Administration)
A Descriptive Study, Based Upon J.R. Hackman/s Analysis of
Group Influences on Individuals, that Examines the New Faculty
- Significant Other Collegial Relationship that Existed in the
Cherry Creek School District, with Implications for the Cherry
Creek New Faculty Induction Practices
Thesis directed by Professor Bob L. Taylor
This study sought to analyze, utilizing J.R. Hackman's
description of group influences on individuals, the collegial
relationship that developed between the new faculty member and
the person (the significant other) who was most instrumental in,
assisting in the induction of the new faculty member to the
culture of the school. New faculty members in the Cherry Creek
School District were surveyed to find out if they developed
such a collegial relationship and if so, the relationship was
examined to ascertain the areas of information that were
provided and how the emotional state of the new faculty member
was affected. In addition, the demographics of the new faculty
member significant other relationship were examined. Key
attributes of the relationship in terms of demographics,
information provided, and impact on the affective state of the
new faculty member were determined. Profiles of the
significant other for each of the six subgroups of new faculty


members were constructed. These groups included novice
elementary, novice secondary, experienced elementary,
experienced secondary, transfer elementary, and transfer
secondary. Data were collapsed into smaller groups and were
analyzed, and profiles of these groups were built. The
developed profiles were found to include many identical
attributes but each of the six subgroups contained unique
attributes. While very few of the attributes were
statistically significant, the profiles that were developed
could be extremely useful when the new teacher induction
practices of the District, especially the new teacher mentor
program, are examined.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I
recommend its publication.
Signed


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION.................................... 1
Setting of the Study.......................... 1
Background of the Problem..................... 1
Purpose of the Study............................. 3
Problem Statement................................ 5
Introduction................................... 5
The Problem.................................... 9
Subproblems.................................... 9
Delimitations................................... 12
Limitations..................................... 12
Assumptions..................................... 13
Definition of Terms............................. 14
Organization of the Study....................... 16
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE.............................. 17
Introduction.................................... 17
Group Influences on Individuals................. 18
Review of J.R. Hackman's Group
Influences on Individuals................... 19
Ambient Stlmul 1.............................. 22
Discretionary Stimuli......................... 23
Effects of Discretionary Stimuli
on Informational States..................... 26


vl
Effects of Discretionary Stimuli
on Affective States........................... 34
Norms......................................... 36
The Induction Phase of New
Teacher Socialization........................... 39
Problems of New Teachers........................ 49
Range of Problems............................. 50
Problems of Isolation......................... 53
Support Systems............................... 57
New Faculty Induction Programs.................. 61
Chapter Summary................................. 74
III. METHODOLOGY..................................... 78
Introduction.................................... 78
Subjects........................................ 78
Procedure....................................... 79
Selection of Subjects......................... 79
Data Collection............................... 79
Identification of a Significant Other....... 80
Instrument Development.......................... 81
Research Design............................... 81
Selection of Questions........................ 82
Validity Check................................ 84
Pilot Study................................... 84
Analysis of Data.............................. 84
IV. DATA ANALYSIS..................................... 86
Organization of Chapter IV
86


Introduction................................... 87
Respondents Unable to Identify
One.Significant Other...................... 88
Demographic Data............................... 88
Chi-square and ANOVA Analysis.............. 88
Informational Data............................. 92
Chi-square Analysis of Formal
Written Rules Data.......................... 92
Chi-square Analysis of Information
Regarding Unwritten Rules................... 94
Chi-square Analysis of
Feedback Information..................... 95
Affective Data............................... 95
Overall Provision of Information............. 97
Profiles of Significant Others............... 99
Introduction............................... 99
Profiles of Six Subgroups.................. 100
Novice Elementary Teachers............... 100
Novice Secondary Teachers................ 101
Experienced Elementary Teachers.......... 103
Experienced Secondary Teachers........... 105
Elementary Transfer Teachers............. 107
Secondary Transfer Teachers.............. 109
Differences Between the Six Groups......... 110
Demographic Attributes................... 110
Informational Attributes................. 114
Affective Attributes
119


Profiles of Three Collapsed Groups......... 121
Novice Teachers.......................... 121
Experienced Teachers....................... 122
Transfer Teachers.......................... 124
Differences Between the Three Groups..... 126
Profiles of Two Collapsed Groups............. 137
Elementary Teachers........................ 137
Secondary Teachers......................... 138
Differences Between the Two Groups....... 140
Profile of the Population.................... 150
Analysis of Response Patterns................ 158
Demographic Data........................... 158
Informational Data: Formal
Written Rules............................. 161
Informational Data: Unwritten Rules------ 163
Informational Data: Feedback............... 169
Affective Data............................. 172
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................... 176
Summary of Methodology......................... 177
Summary of Findings............................ 180
Conclusions.................................... 201
Recomnendat 1 ons.............................. 203
REFERENCES............................................. 207
APPENDIX
A. COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRES.................. 216


lx
B. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA GROUPED BY SIX GROUPS:
TABLES B-l THROUGH B-10...................... 232
C. INFORMATIONAL DATA GROUPED BY SIX GROUPS:
TABLES C-l THROUGH C-30...................... 242
D. AFFECTIVE DATA GROUPED BY SIX GROUPS:
TABLES D-l THROUGH D-10...................... 258
E. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION GROUPED BY NOVICE,
EXPERIENCED, AND TRANSFER TEACHERS:
TABLES E-l THROUGH E-10...................... 264
F. INFORMATIONAL DATA GROUPED BY NOVICE,
EXPERIENCED, AND TRANSFER TEACHERS:
TABLES F-l THROUGH F-30...................... 275
G. AFFECTIVE DATA GROUPED BY NOVICE,
EXPERIENCED, AND TRANSFER TEACHERS:
TABLES G-l THROUGH G-10...................... 291
H. DEMOGRAHPIC INFORMATION GROUPED BY
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS:
TABLES H-l THROUGH H-10...................... 297
I. INFORMATIONAL DATA GROUPED BY
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS:
TABLES I-1 THROUGH 1-30...................... 308
J. AFFECTIVE DATA GROUPED BY
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS:
TABLES J-l THROUGH J-10...................... 327


TABLES
Table
1. Group Means and ANOVA Summary Table: Six Groups
and Education Experience Differential...........1... 91
2. Group Means and ANOVA Summary Table: Six Groups
and Years of Residence at School.................. 92
3. Group Means and ANOVA Summary Table for Elementary
vs Secondary Teachers Regarding Written '
Information Given...............................;... 98
4. Group Means and ANOVA Sunonary Table for Elementary
vs Secondary Teachers Regarding
Total Information Given.........................J... 98
5. Demographic Profiles for Six Groups...............J... 112
6. Informational Attributes Profile of Six 1
Groups: Formal Written Rules...................... 115
7. Informational Attributes Profile of Six
Groups: Unwritten Rules.........................|... 117
8. Informational Attributes Profile of Six
Groups: Feedback................................;... 118
9. Affective Attributes Profile of Six Groups......,... 120
10. Demographic Profiles for Three Collapsed Groups.;... 128
11. Informational Attributes Profile of Three
Collapsed Groups: Formal Written Rules............. 131
I
12. Informational Attributes Profile of Three
Col lapsed Groups: Unwritten Rules.............j... 133
13. Informational Attributes Profile of Three j
Collapsed Groups: Feedback......................j... 134
14. Affective Attributes Profile of
Three Co 11 apsed Groups........................|... 136
j
15. Demographic Profiles for Two Collapsed Groups...1.. 142


xl
145
147
149
151
153
155
157.
188
192
194
197
200
Informational Attributes Profile of Two
Collapsed Groups: Formal Written Rules.........
Informational Attributes Profile of Two
Collapsed Groups: Unwritten Rules..............
Informational Attributes Profile of
Two Collapsed Groups: Feedback.................
Demographic Profile for the Population.........
Informational Attributes Profile of the
Population: Formal Written Rules...............
Informational Attributes Prof 1le of the
Population: Unwritten Rules....................
Affective Attributes Profile of the Population
Demographic Profiles for All Groups............
Informational Attributes Profile of All
Groups: Formal Written Rules...................
Informational Attributes Profile of All
Groups: Unwritten Rules........................
Informational Attributes Profile of
All Groups: Feedback...........................
Affective Attributes Profile of All Groups....


FIGURES
Figure
1. Gender Natch by Group and Population:
Significant Other and Teacher Same Gender......... 158
2. Comparison of Level of Education
Between Significant Other and Teacher............... 159
3. Comparison of Education (Teaching) Experience
Between Significant Other and Teacher............... 160
4. Formal Written Rules: Significant
Other Providing Information Regarding
Procedures for Checking Out Equipment............... 161
5. Formal Written Rules: Significant
Other Providing information Regarding
Required and Voluntary Committee Meetings............. 162
6. Informal Rules: Significant
Other Providing Information Regarding
Required and Voluntary Committee Meetings............. 163
7. Informal Written Rules: Significant
Other Providing Information Regarding
Parent Conferences.................................... 164
8. Informal Written Rules: Significant
Other Providing Information Regarding
Working Relations Among Staff......................... 165
9. Informal Written Rules: Significant
Other Providing Information Regarding
Social Activities Among Staff......................... 166
10. Informal Written Rules: Significant
Other Providing Information Regarding
Rewards and Punishments Associated
with the Unwritten Rules of the School.............. 168
11. Informal Written Rules: Significant
Other Providing Information Regarding
Who to Be on Guard for at the School................ 168


xi li
12. Significant Other Providing Feedback Information
Regarding the Staff's Perception of
the Teacher's Effectiveness........................ 169
13. Significant Other Providing Feedback Information
Regarding the Staff's Perception of
the Teacher's Abl1ities............................ 170
14. Significant Other Providing Feedback Information
Regarding the Staff's Perception of
the Teacher's Classroom Discipline................. 171
15. Significant Other Impacting the Affective
State of the.Teacher by: Collecting
and Locating Materials............................... 172
16. Significant Other Impacting the Affective
State of the Teacher by: Assisting the
Arrangment/Organlzation of the Classroom............ 173
17. Significant Other Impacting the Affective
State of the Teacher by: Providing
Feedback on Other Staff Member's
Perceptions of the Teacher........................... 174
18. Significant Other Impacting the Affective
State of the Teacher by: Providing the
Teacher with Opportunities to Observe the
Significant Other's Classes in Session.............. 175


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Setting of the Study
The Cherry Creek School District was incorporated in
1950. It encompasses 110 square miles of the suburban
southeast metropolitan Denver area, providing an educational
program for more than 26,000 students, kindergarten through
grade twelve. The program is delivered through 27 elementary
schools, five middle schools and four high schools.
Background of the Problem
In 1986 the Cherry Creek School District instituted a
Department of Staff Development. One of the initial programs
this department Implemented was a mentor program for teachers
who were new to teaching and the school district. Each
building principal, who will have a first year teacher as
employee, is asked to select an experienced member of his/her
faculty to serve as a mentor. Experienced teachers who have
taught in other school districts, but who are about to begin
their first year of teaching in Cherry Creek, may elect to have


2
a mentor teacher. The Office of Staff Development supplies a
list of characteristics It believes are deslreable In a mentor
to help guide the' Principal's selection, but no follow-up Is
done to ensure these suggested criteria were followed.
The mentor program, as It Is practiced In the Cherry
Creek system, attempts to positively Impact the Induction of
teachers new to the system in two major areas. These are the
Induction to teaching as a career and the Induction to the
culture of the school. A positive Impact occurs when the
normal length of time that it takes a new teacher to overcome
the stresses of being a novice teacher and the stresses
associated with learning and becoming an accepted member of a
school culture, both of which adversly Impact the new teacher's
effectiveness in the classroom, are shortened.
Data gathered by the Staff Development Office Indicated
that assigned mentor relationships were not always successful
in achieving the desired goals. Some new teachers find that
their assigned mentor doesn't fulfill their needs and seek out
another person, on their own, and develop with this person a
relationship closely related to that intended by the assigned
mentor program. It Is not the purpose of this study to
evaluate the mentor program in the Cherry Creek School
District, but to explore the relationships that new faculty
members establish with existing staff members, in relation to
the induction of the new staff members to the culture of the
school to which they are assigned.


3
The current mentor program in Cherry Creek seeks to
impact the teaching effectiveness of all novice teachers and
those experienced teachers new to the District who volunteer to
have a mentor. Experienced teachers who do not volunteer for a
mentor and teachers who transfer to another building within the
school district, are subject to the same stresses as novice
teachers when it comes to the understanding of the culture of
each school. No support is currently given to these groups,
and it was a purpose of this study to determine if these
teachers sought out someone to assist their induction to the
culture of the school and if so, the nature of the support that
was given. It was also a goal to determine if there were any
differences in the types of support given to novice,
experienced and transferred new faculty members. Further, the
study sought to determine if the mentor program should be
extended in some way to assist these groups.
Purpose of the Study
This study attempted to derive, from J.R. Hackman's
(1976) analysis of group Influences on individuals,
Implications which may be applied to new faculty Induction
practices in the Cherry Creek School District.
In his analysis, Hackman developed a set of postulates
which, in part, were basic assumptions of this study. The
first assumption was that groups have a pervasive and


4
substantial Impact on the behavior of the Individuals In those
groups. This Impact Is In the form of control over the
Individual through the use of stimuli which are desirable to
the group member. These stimuli are of two types, those that
are Inherent In the nature of groups (ambient stimuli) and
those over which the group exercises direct control
(discretionary stimuli). It is through the discretionary
stimuli, that a group member can achieve the group's rewards
and avoid Its punishments.
The second assumption was that Individuals use the
group to obtain Information about the external reality In which
the group operates, and to obtain information about themselves
in relation to the group for the sole purpose of acquiring the
group's rewards. These rewards are, within themselves,
directly satisfying to the Individual and can contribute
directly to his/her psychological well being.
The third major assumption of this study, was that this
Information gathering process Is an Integral and essential
feature of the Induction phase of the socialization of the
Individual to the culture of the group.
An analysis of the work of Lortle (1965), Hunt (1968),
Howey (1979), Griffin (1983), and others, substantiated the
fourth major assumption of this study. Individuals who are
actively seeking Information about the group and themselves
relative to the group, form and develop a collegial


5
relationship with established members of the group in which
they are seeking full membership.
Specifically, this study analyzed the collegial
relationship between the new faculty member and his/her
Identified significant other, that was established during the
induction phase of the socialization of the new faculty member.
This relationship was analyzed in regard to the Information
seeking and to the affective states of the new faculty member
as well as to the demographics of this collegial relationship.
Problem Statement
Introduction
Hackman (1976) indicated that the other people with
whom an individual interacts can affect profoundly how that
person thinks, feels and acts. When a person seeks to become a
member of an established group, that group can affect the
individual's behavior indirectly by influencing the
informational and affective states of group members and
directly through the development and enforcement of group
norms. The means used to affect Individual behavior Involves
the groups ability to control many of the stimuli that people
seek when they become group members. This ability to control
the desired stimuli can greatly impact the behavior of all
group members but especially those members who are new to the
organization they who have not been accepted as full members


6
of the group. Hackman has grouped these controlling stimuli
into two types.
One type he refered to as ambient stimuli which are
inherent with any group membership. However, the group has no
direct control over these stimuli nor does the group member
have any choice in being exposed to them. The group exercises
a great deal of control over the second type of stimuli which
are referred to as discretionary stimuli. It is this category
of stimuli, discretionary stimuli, that this study, examined.
Discretionary stimuli are transmitted to individual
group members differently and.selectively at the direction of
the group. These stimuli can Include messages of approval and
disapproval, Instructions about, models of and/or information
on appropriate group behavior.
Research on problems faced by new school faculty
members (Corcoran, 1981; Johnston & Ryan, 1983; McDonald, 1982;
Newberry, 1977; Lortle, 1966) indicated that new faculty
members (NFMs) often work in isolation without the benefit of
knowing the norms of the school's culture nor what is
considered to be appropriate, competent behavior. Applegate
(1977) stated that this Isolation is likely to adversely Impact
the NFM's self-concept, confidence and job performance. The
NFM is frequently left alone to learn the norms of the school's
culture and to react to the discretionary stimuli the group may
choose to Impose.


7
Recent research (McDonald, 1982; Taylor 8. Dale, 1971;
Combs, 1985) Indicated that one way to overcome this Isolation
and its accompanying problems, Is to assign an experienced
colleague as a mentor to the NFM. Combs stated that specific
problems are considered minor and manageable by the NFM if
he/she has someone who can provide support for him/her. This
support may be informational in nature or may provide models to
follow so as to.avoid the group's discretionary punishments and
achieve its discretionary rewards.
Studies of those NFMs who, on their own, established a
collegial support system, indicated that they turned to a
colleague with whom they developed a trust relationship, not to
a superior such as a principal (Pataniczek 8, Issacson, 1981).
These trusted colleagues were reported to be highly influential
and important in affecting the NFM's informational state,
including the beliefs the NFM had about the group and his/her
environment, the beliefs the NFM held about himself/herself,
and feed back on the knowledge and skills the NFM had relevant
to the activities required of him/her in his/her role of
teacher. These colleagues also had a significant impact on the
NFM's affective state and were reported to be highly
influential in assisting the NFM's understanding of the
school's norms and reward/punlshment systems (Hackman, 1976;
Combs, 1985; McDonald, 1982). Since these col leagues were
significant in assisting the induction of the NFM to the


e
culture of the school, the term "significant other" was applied
to them.
There were no assurances that each NFM will, of his/her
own accord, seek out, or find a "significant other" to aid
him/her in the process of learning the school's culture. Not
even in situations where a colleague had been assigned as a
mentor for a NFM had the relationship developed to a point
where induction to the school's culture had been aided.
Preliminary data from mentor programs such as the one employed
in the Cherry Creek School District seemed to Indicate that all
assigned mentor relationships did not achieve their desired
goals and, in fact, a number of new teachers developed a
support relationship with someone other than the assigned
mentor. It was the purpose of this study to begin to identify
some of the demographic and interactional characteristics of
the support relationships NFMs developed which assisted them in
learning about and/or being accepted as a part of the culture
of the school in which they were employed. By identifying the
significant variables, support relationships can be structured
and manipulated in such a way that the induction to the culture
of the school can be accomplished more systematically. As
indicated earlier, if this type of support relationship is
developed other NFM problems are likely to be considered minor
and manageable or in the case of those teachers who are not
successful as teachers, they will be provided with legitimate
data upon which they can seek an alternative career.


9
The Problem
This study sought to analyze, utilizing J.R. Hackman's
description of group Influences on Individuals, the collegial
relationship that developed between the new faculty member and
the person who was most Instrumental In assisting the Induction
of the new faculty member to the culture of the school. The
relationship was examined in terms of three sets of variables:
those related to the Interactions that Impacted the
Informational state of the new faculty member, those related to
the Interactions Impacting the affective state of the new
faculty member, and those related to the demographics of the
relationship.
Subproblems
1. To Identify the person (significant other), from within the
school setting, who was most Instrumental In the Induction of
the new faculty member (NFM).
2. To determine why some NFMs were unable to Identify one
person as a significant other.
3. To Identify the membership of six groups of NFMs: NFMs who
were novices to teaching at the elementary and secondary
levels; non-novice NFMs who were new to a school at the
elementary and secondary levels; and non-novice NFMs who were
new by virtue of transfer between schools within the school
district at the elementary and secondary levels.
4. To Identify the key attributes of the new faculty member -
significant other relationship for each of the six defined


10
groups using sets of selected variables relating to the
informational and affective states of the NFM and sets of
variables relating to the demographics of the new faculty
member significant other relationship.
5. To determine the variance of the key informational,
affective, and demographic variables between the sltf identified
groups of NFMs.
6. To identify the key attributes of the new faculty member -
significant other relationship for the three collapsed groups
of novice teachers, experienced teachers and transferred
teachers using sets of selected variables relating to the
informational and affective states of the NFM and sets of
variables relating to the demographics of the new faculty
member significant other relationship.
7. To determine the variance of the key informational,
affective and demograhlc variables between the three collapsed
groups of novice, experienced, and transferred NFMs.
8. To identify the key attributes of the new faculty member -
significant other relationship for the two collapsed groups of
elementary and secondary NFMs using sets of selected variables
relating to the informational and affective states of the NFM
and sets of variables relating to the demographics of the new
faculty member significant other relationship.
9. To determine the variance of the key informational,
affective and demographic variables between the two collapsed
groups of elementary and secondary NFMs.


11
10. To Identify the key attributes of the new faculty member -
significant other relationship for the entire population of
NFMs using sets of selected variables relating to the
informational and affective states of the NFM and sets of
variables relating to the demographics of the new faculty
member significant other relationship.
11. To create a profile of the significant other, in terms of
key informational, affective and demographic variables,for each
of the six identified groups of NFMs.
12. To determine the differences, if any, betweeen the six
profiles developed above.
13. To create a profile of the significant other, in terms of
key informational, affective and demographic variables, for
each of the three collapsed groups of novice, experienced, and
transferred NFMs.
14. To determine the differences, if any, between the profiles
of the three collapsed groups above.
15. To create a profile of the significant other, in terms of
key informational, affective and demographic variables, for
each of the two collapsed groups of elementary and secondary
NFMs.
16. To determine the differences, if any, between the profiles
of two collapsed groups above.
17. To create a profile of the significant other, In terms of
key informational, affective and demographic varialbes, for the
entire population of NFMs.


12
18. To determine whether or not the existing mentor program in
the Cherry Creek School District should be modified so as to
Include all experienced teachers who are new to the Cherry
Creek School District and to all teachers who are new to a
building within the school district due to transfer, and if it
be modified to include these groups, what form the mentor
program should take.
Del 1ml tat Ions
For the purpose of this study the following
delimitations were made:
1. The study was confined to the teachers who were new faculty
members in schools in the Cherry Creek School District.
2. The study was further confined to those schools in the
Cherry Creek School District that had been in existence for at
least one year prior to the inception of this study.
Limitations
For the purposes of this study the following
limitations existed:
1. When conducting survey research, the statements made are
only as valid as the respondents memory and perceptions and the
respondents willingness to state his/her opinions honestly
(Borg, 1963; Best, 1977).


13
2. No experimental manipulations were used. Any Inferences
made from the data were only associative, not causal.
3. This study was a descriptive study. Any conclusions drawn
from the data do not necessarily generalize to other school
districts.
Assumptions
In conducting this study the following assumptions have
been made:
1. A school must be In existence for at least one year before
It develops an unique and Identifiable culture and set of norms
of Its own.
2. Each school has Its own unique set of norms and seeks to
gain compliance to Its norms through the use of discretionary
rewards and punishments.
3. People who choose to remain as part of a group such as a
school go through an Induction process and are usually accepted
by the group.
4. People who have been accepted by the group can Identify a
person In the group who played a significant supporting role in
helping them learn the groups norms, avoiding its punishments
and achieving its rewards.
5. Some new faculty members In this study will not be able to
Identify one significant other.


14
Definition of Terms
Induction- The process of introducing or initiating a
person to a group, (Webster/s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
1983).
New Teacher A person who has no previous contracted
teaching experience.
Novice Teacher (same as new teacher)
New Faculty Member A person, hired as a teacher, who
is new to a school regardless of the site or amount of previous
teaching experience. He/she is a member of one of six
subgroups that this study addresses including elementary
teachers having no previous contracted teaching experience;
secondary teachers having no previous contracted teaching
experience; elementary teachers who are new to a school within
the school district being studied, but who have previous
contracted teaching experience outside the school district
being studied; secondary teachers who are new to a school
within the school district being studied, but who have previous
contracted teaching experience outside the school district
being studied; elementary teachers who are new to a school
within the school district being studied, but who have previous
contracted experience within the school district being studied;
and secondary teachers who are new to a school within the
school district being studied, but who have previous contracted
experience within the school district being studied.


15
Elementary Teacher A person who Is assigned to teach
in grades K-6.
Secondary Teacher A person who is assigned to teach
in grades 7-12.
Significant Other The person identified by the new
faculty member who he/she has determined to have had a
noticeable or measureable effect on his/her informational and
affective states during his/her induction to the culture of the
school group.
Informational State The new faculty member's current
beliefs about the organization, about himself/herself, and
about how to perform the actlvltes required of the Job those
behaviors which pay-off in the larger organization, (Hackman,
1976).
Affective State The new faculty member's attitudes
including: likes and dislikes about the organization; the
current state of his/her psychological or emotional arousal;
and personal values regarding what kinds of personal and
organizational outcomes ultimately are desirable, (Hackman,
1976).
Demographics The statistical characteristics of human
populations (i.e., age and gender), (Webster's Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary, 1983).


16
Organization of the Study
Chapter I Includes an introduction, purpose of the
study, problem statement and limitations of the study. Chapter
II contains a review of literature pertaining to J.R. Hackman's
view of group Influences on individuals, the problems of new
teachers and new faculty induction programs. Chapter III
presents the research methodology. Chapter IV displays the
results of the study. Chapter V discusses the findings,
generates conclusions and makes recommendations.


17
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
The conceptual thrust of this dissertation was to
examine how the school group impacted and assisted the new
faculty member in overcoming induction related problems. These
problems affected the new faculty member's classroom
performance and acceptance by the school group. The review of
literature that follows, traces and interrelates three major
themes which are Inherent in this concept. The first theme
examines the ways groups Influence the behavior of individual
members. The second theme explores the induction phase of the
new faculty member's socialization to the culture of the
school. The third and final theme centers on school related
problems which are unique to new faculty members and examines a
potentially promising solution to many of these problems, the
mentor system.


18
Group Influences on Individuals
Merton <1957) defined socialization as the process by
which people selectively acquire the values, attitudes,
Interests, skills, and knowledge which are current in the
groups to which they are, or seek to become, a member. Lacey
(1977) added that socialization also Includes the process of
developing a teacher perspective in which situations are both
seen and interpreted in a new way. To become a teacher is to
become creatively Involved with tasks and situations common
only to teachers. It also Involves being concerned with
particular constraints to which others do not have to subject
themselves. Lacey believes no other profession or occupation
experiences exactly similar constraints. These shared
experiences and common problems give rise to a common set of
Interests, to certain ways of looking at the world, of
interpreting the world, and obtaining a world view or a teacher
perspective.
Veenman (1984) expressed a similar definition of
socialization when he stated that the socialization approach to
the process of becoming a teacher examines the changes in the
social person. It is focused on the interplay between
individual needs, capabilities, intentions, and institutional
constraints.
It was the intention of this dissertation to focus on
the initial stage of the socialization process, the Induction


19
of the new group member. Initially, J. Richard Hackman's
(1976) review of the effects of groups on Individuals In
organizations was examined with special emphasis on the ways
groups affect Individual member's behavior both Indirectly, by
influencing the Informational and the affective states of group
members and directly, through the development and enforcement
of group norms.
Review of J.R.~Hackman's Group Influences on Individuals
Hackman (1976) posed the question, why is It that
groups seem to have such a pervasive and substantial impact on
the behavior of Individuals In organizations? One way of
viewing this phenomena Is to note that groups control many of
the stimuli to which an Individual Is exposed in the course of
his/her organizational activities. He defined stimuli as those
aspects of an Individual's environment which potentially can be
attended to by him/her, and which can affect his/her behavior.
These stimuli Include people, verbal and overt behaviors
displayed by other people, written materials, objects, aspects
of the physical surroundings, and money.
Hackman's views on the Impact of group supplied stimuli
on group members can be examined from two perspectives: (a) the
circumstances under which the stimuli are available to group
members; and (b) the type of impact the stimuli have on group
members.
Ambient stimuli, Hackman defined as those stimuli which
are potentially available to all group members, that Is, those


20
stimuli whose availability are contingent upon group
membership. These stimuli are inherent and active parts of
groups and their environment and group members are constantly
exposed to them as a regular part of their group-related
actlvites. Each member has little choice about being exposed
to them. The most prominent and potent ambient stimuli are the
other people in the group, materials in the task the group is
working on, and aspects of the workplace of the group.
There is a second type of stimuli that are transmitted
to Individual members of a given group, differently and
selectively, at the discretion of the group members. These
stimuli Hackman refered to as discretionary stimuli. These can
Include direct messages of approval or disapproval, physical
objects, money, instructions about (or models of) appropriate
behavior and so on. The contents of both ambient and
discretionary stimuli can be the same, the difference is that
dlscretlonay stimuli are under the direct control of the group
and ambient are not.
It is important to emphasize, as Hackman did, which
discretionary stimuli an individual will be exposed to depends
jointly upon the attributes of the individual including his/her
behavior, and the characteristics of the group including which
stimuli the group actually has discretionary control over, what
the stimuli are about, and the intentions of group members
about what member behaviors should be encouraged or
discouraged. The behavior of individuals can be greatly


21
affected by his/her peers/ decisions about the application, or
lack thereof, of discretionary stimuli and the impact of these
decisions will be different from one individual to another.
The question is, how can these stimuli, ambient and
discretionary affect an individual?
According to Hackman, these stimuli can affect (a) a
person's informational state, (b) his/her affective state, and
(c) his/her behavior. An individual's informational state
Includes both his/her current beliefs about the organization or
about him/herself and his/her accumulated knowledge about how
to perform the activities required as part of his/her job. The
work group can serve as a major source of information for its
members. For example, which behaviors "pay off" in the larger
organization and how the individual can behave so as to more
effectively perform his organizational task.
An individual's affective state includes his/her
attitudes including likes and dislikes about the organization,
his/her current level of psychological or emotional arousal,
and his/her personal values regarding what kinds of personal
and organizational outcomes ultimately are desirable. The
group can Influence the affective state of a member by
providing access to valued stimuli external to the group, or
even by encouraging a member to explore and possibly change his
basic values.
Stimuli encountered in the group-setting can affect
behavior in two ways: (a) directly, as when the stimuli


22
received by the Individual serve to reward or punish certain of
his/her behaviors, or (b) indirectly, through their effects on
the member's informational and affective states, that is, what
he/she thinks or believes, and what he/she likes or feels.
According to Weick (1969), in general, individuals are quite
limited in their capabilities to accept and process
information, therefore, those stimuli provided by the immediate
work group often have a pronounced impact on member's attitudes
and behaviors.
Ambient Stimul1
Since Hackman stated that little is presently known
about the impact of ambient stimuli in organizational settings,
it is impossible to estimate the extent of their impact on
individuals. Therefore, this study omitted the topic of
ambient stimuli, noting that they do have an impact on the
Individual as a member of a work group.
Ambient stimuli contribute powerfully to resistance to
change in groups that have been functioning for a time.
Hackman believes there are at least three ways in which ambient
stimuli contribute to this social inertia:
1. Ambient stimul1 Influence behavior in groups, but only
rarely are noticed.
2. The diversity of ambient stimuli which impinge on a group
tends to become narrowed and restricted over time.
3. Group members tend not to examine publicly the private
inferences they generate from ambient stimuli.


23
The resistance to change that new teachers experience when they
enter a school can probably be explained by the resistance
effect generated by ambient stimuli. The longer the group has
been Intact, the more resistant It Is to change. The attention
of this review will now be directed, to discretionary stimuli.
Discretionary Stimuli
Discretionary stimuli are under the direct control of
the group and Can be made available to specific group members
on a strict contingency basis. That Is, the stimuli depend
upon the behavior a member exhibits or the opinions he/she
expresses. With that In mind, why do groups Initiate
discretionary stimuli? Hackman Indicated that It happens for
one or more of the following reasons: (a) to educate and
socialize; (b) to produce uniformity; and (c) to produce
diversity.
Hackman added, groups primarily oriented toward the
education or socialization of their members rely heavily upon
discretionary stimuli to bring about desired changes. Such
stimuli typically are dispensed quite selectively, contingent
upon the current level of progress of each group member and may
provide the members with Information, with rewards for
correct" Ideas or behavior, or with punishment for being
Incorrect.
Even when socialization Is not a major purpose, there
are many other times that groups will mete out discretionary
stimuli to members. According to Festlnger <1950), group


24
members often believe that a high level of uniformity among
members Is necessary or appropriate for group goal attainment
and use their control of discretionary stimuli to achieve such
uniformity. This uniformity can serve the function of
efficient operation of the group and predictability of the
group and Its members or It may be for purely "malntalnance of
the group" reasons.
Cartwright and Zander (1968) proposed that the reason
may be to keep the group Intact and functioning as a unit,
Independent of task-related activities. Too much
Individualistic or Idiosyncratic behavior on the part of a few
members can threaten the very survival of the group. So can
unresolved disputes among members regarding the goals and means
to achieve the goals which the group seeks.
In contrast to pressuring toward uniformity, the group
sometimes deems It necessary to use discretionary stimuli to
create and maintain diversity among members. According to
Hackman, a number of different member roles emerge In most
groups, and these roles may become organized Into a fairly
complex and well-differentiated structure. Hackman used Bate's
(1956) definition of role which refers to expectations shared
by group members regarding who Is to carry out what types of
activities and under what circumstances. Group members are not
only reactive to group Initiated discretionary stimuli, but
they frequently are pro-active and seek out discretionary
stlmul1.


25
Why do Individuals seek out discretionary stimuli? It
was proposed by Hackman, that they do this for two reasons: (a)
to obtain information and rewards. Groups are heavily used as sources of data about the
nature of reality. According to Festinger (1950), the degree
to which an individual turns to a group to validate an opinion
or belief or to obtain a social "definition" of a situation is
inversely proportional to the degree to which the relevant data
are already available in physical reality.
Individuals use the group for Information not only
about external reality, but for data about themselves as well.
Hackman postulated that socially obtained information has been
central in many theories of how one's self-concept is developed
and maintained. This is exemplified in Cooley's (1922) term
"looking-glass-self" in which he examined the Importance of the
self-knowledge gained from the actions and reactions of others
towards oneself. Likewise Berkowltz (1969) spoke of the
"reference group" as one which an individual could use as a
sounding board to gain more information about himself.
Festinger (1954) demonstrated how individuals used relevant
others to validate their opinions of themselves. Merton and
Kltt (1950) demonstrated how individuals used others to test
the appropriateness of their level of satisfaction with the
rewards and costs they were experiencing while Schachter (1964)
demonstrated how individuals used others to appropriately label
the emotions they were experiencing.


26
In addition to controlling Information needed by the
Individual In his pursuit of extrinsic rewards, groups also
control stlmuli which are directly satisfying to members,
Hackman (1976) reported. He further stated, that some such
stimuli can contribute directly to the psychological well-being
of a member, for example, those which enhance his feelings of
self-esteem and social acceptance, those which help a member
adapt to high psychological stress from the external
environment and so on. Other stimuli such as physical safety
and comfort, and financial gain may be more relevant to the
member's physical or material wel1-being.
Hackman stated the control over positive stimuli,
whether directly sought out or not, resided with the group, and
the Individual who aspired to receiving them must behave In
such a way as to convince his/her fellow group members that
he/she was deserving. The same principle applied to stimuli
that are viewed as unpleasant by group members. Because of
these principles, the group can have a great deal of Impact on
a member's behavior and expressed attitudes.
Effects of Discretionary Stimuli on Informational States
Since Individuals seek out Information about their
environment from the group and the group wishes to Impart
information to the group member so as to maintain uniformity
among groups members, the attention of this review will now be
focused upon the effects of discretionary stimuli on member
Informational states. Hackman (1976) viewed the effects on


27
three levels: (a) on the beliefs a member holds about the group
and Its environment; hlm/herself; and relevant to the activities required by his/her organizational
role or job.
By relying only on their own senses and experiences,
individuals never achieve a very clear or accurate view of
their environment. They are very dependent on their group to
supply the needed Information, a task that many groups are more
than willing to fulfill. If the group members hold a similar
view of the environment, everything is fine, but If
disagreements occur, most groups are not very competent In
handling these disagreements (Hackman 1976).
In an attempt to move away from any appearance of
disagreement and Interpersonal discomfort, many groups tend to
generate substantial pressure of uniformity of belief among
members. This Is especially true when new members Join the
group (e.g., first year teachers) since the perceptions and
beliefs of these new members may turn out to be divergent from
the existing views of veteran group members.
Hackman recounted that he personally viewed this
phenomena. A new group member was present during a
conversation between two veteran members of the work group.
The main topic of the conversation was the frustrations the
veterans had experienced recently at the hands of management.
The conversation ran Its course without either participant


28
appearing to notice the presence of the new employee.
Questioned later, one of the veterans admitted that the
conversation had been informally staged and that its main
purpose was to help the newcomer learn that it was "useless to
suggest any changes in how things are done here, because
management never pays any attention," (which Indeed represented
the existing views of the work group). Hackman indicated that
this interaction probably had a substantial Impact on the
beliefs of the new member, simply because his lack of personal
experience in the organization made him heavily dependent upon
his work group for information about the organization.
The Information sought from group members, though not
quite this subtle, centers around two general issues: (a)
What rewards and costs are present in the environment, and who
controls them and (b) what behaviors by group members lead to
the acqulstlon of the rewards and avoidance of the costs.
Group members can also gain information about reality
by directly observing other group members, seeing the results
of their actions and on the basis of these observations draw
inferences about the real nature of the group and its
environment. Hackman cautioned that there are traps to be
aware of when one relies on personal observations of the group
as a strategy for learning about the reality of the
environment. One trap is that what works for some group
members (e.g., those with high status) may backfire when
attempted by a new member (or one with low status). A member


29
who bases his/her behavior on beliefs about reality gleaned
solely from observational data, therefore, runs a high risk of
behaving In a personally maladaptive way.
The degree to which group members accept stimuli from
the group in formulating their own views of the nature of
reality, varies considerably In different circumstances. In
general, evidence suggested, according to Hackman, that member
acceptance of group-supplied data about reality Is a function
of the following three interrelated factors:
1. Characteristics of the environment. According to Asch
(1951) and Wiener (1958) (as reported In Hackman 1976), to the
extent that the targets of a member's perceptions or beliefs
are amblgious or unclear, then his/her reliance on the group
for Information about those targets Increases. This suggested
that Individuals should be more dependent on the group for
information on the social environment than on the physical
environment because the social environment Is
characteristically more amblgious and obscure than Is the
physical.
2. Characteristics of the perceiver. Kelley and Lamb (1957)
and League and Jackson (1964) (as reported In Hackman, 1976)
stated that to the extent that an individual feels poorly
qualified to assess the environment for him/herself, he/she
will more heavily rely on the group for information about it.
Since the degree of lack of self confidence varies from time to


time, so to will the degree of Influence of the group on member
beliefs about the environment.
3. Characteristics of the Group. Rosenberg (1961) and
Kelman (1950) (as reported in Hackman 1976) reported that If
member self-confidence Is held constant, a group member will
tend to accept group-supplied data about the reality to the
extent he perceives the group as being a credible, competent,
successful, trustworthy source of Information.
In addition, Allen and Levine (1971) noted that the
greater the unanimity of views of group members, the more an
Individual will accept Information provided by the group,
probably at least in part, because unanimity Increases the
credibility of the group in the eyes of the member.
Hackman (1976) stated that Just as the group can
significantly affect a member's perceptions of the environment,
so can It Influence the beliefs he/she holds about hlm/herself.
In analyzing the Influence of group on the Individual,
Jones and Gerard (1967) made a distinction between "comparative
appraisal" and "reflected appraisal" when analyzing the groups
effect on and Individual's beliefs about hlm/herself. In
comparative appraisal, the Individual determines his/her
relative standing by means of others on some attribute simply
by observng the relevant others; no explicit action by them
towards him/her Is required. To assess one's skill on a task
being performed at the same time by other group members, an
Individual might watch the performance of others making


31
comparisons and references to him/herself to see if he/she were
doing better or poorer than his/her peers.
In reflective appraisal, an individual obtains
information about him/herself by observing and interpreting the
actual behaviors of other individuals toward him/her. As
referred to earlier, in Cooley's "looking glass self," an
individual comes to gain self understanding by inferring what
he/she "must be_like," given the way others behave towards
him/her.
Once again, in both types of appraisal an individual is
actively seeking information, but in this case it is
information about him/herself, not the environment. He/she uses
that information to make inferences and attributions about
him/herself. Groups often take direct action to Influence the
beliefs of a member about him/herself, by actually providing
him/her with explicit personal evaluations or
characterizations. The strength of these appraisals can be
seen when a threatening new member who is obviously more
task-competent than the current members, for example, is
convinced by the group that he/she is not so capable as he/she
might have thought.
It is important to make a distinction between "learning
that" and "learning how" (Ryle, 1949) in securing information
from the group. Ryle argued that acquiring information,
(learning that) can be directly imparted by others, whereas
improving skills and response capabilities (learning how) can


32
only be inculcated gradually, through coaching, practice and
examp 1e.
Hackman (1976) stated that the group was of
considerable importance in "learning how," for several reasons.
Personal trial-and-error in learning a new skill or behavior
pattern is, in many cases, very inefficient. The help of other
group members often permits an individual to shortcut his/her
learning process and to lessen the personal risks involved in
the learning. As reported earlier, if a person is forced or
allowed to learn on his/her own, through trial and error
learning, whatever way the person learns to survive will become
a major part of his/her behavior with no regard to the
correctness or effectiveness of it.
In general, Hackman continued, the group can assist
members in developing Job-relevant knowledge and skills in
three ways: (a) by direct instruction, by providing
feedback about behavior, and correct or appropriate behavior.
By Itself, direct instruction is probably useful only
for the most simple skills and behaviors. Simply being told,
for example, how to drive a car or how to perform an
appendectomy is not sufficient to master such skills. However,
while direct instruction is not sufficient for an individual to
develop needed skills and behavior patterns, it often is a
necessary part of such learning and represents an important


33
resource, (discretionary stimuli) held by the group and may be
provided or withheld at the group's discretion.
Feedback, Hackman (1976) reported, can serve two major
functions for a group member: It can provide him/her with
information about what behaviors are "right" (or appropriate)
and "wrong" (inappropriate) in carrying out one's
organizational Job or role; and it can provide reinforcment, by
rewarding correct behaviors and punishing incorrect ones. Both
functions can Increase a member's Job-relevant knowledge and
skill.
Yet another way a group can be helpful to an individual
in increasing his/her information about his/her role and
abilities is through the use of models. Kemper (1968) stated
that the need for models is very great especially for complex
tasks and roles, some of which may be impossible to learn
adequately in the absence of a concrete model.
Hackman cautioned that learning through "matching
behavior" is one way people use others in developing skills,
but it is not the only way. According to Bandura (as reported
in Hackman 1976), Individuals can acquire robust symbolic
representations of new activities by observing models, in
addition to the simple stimulus-response associations required
for matching behavior. This means the modeling that takes
place may be merely superficial and not really internalized as
a part of the person's behavior.


34
The more complex a job or role, Hackman explained, the
more likely an Individual Is to perform Inadequately If left to
his/her own devices, and the more likely he/she Is to need
direct instruction, feedback and model provision to learn the
job or role well. This, Hackman continued, makes the
individual heavily dependent upon the group in precisely those
cases when the risk of failure for him/her is the greatest.
One can conclude that the Influence a group has over an
individual will be maximized when the individual is trying to
obtain knowledge about how to perform a complex new Job or
role. This is also an opportune time for the group to
Influence the individual In other ways, such as behavioral or
attitudlnal conformity, even though these may not be
immediately relevant to the task at hand.
Effects of Discretionary Stimuli on Affective States
Hackman reported evidence suggesting that mere
membership in a given group is not sufficient for realizing
affective changes in a group member, even if the individual is
exposed to discretionary stimuli from that group on a
more-or-less continuous basis. He suggested three general
mechanisms which groups, over time, use to influence the
affective states of their members. Each of the mechanisms, to
be effective, requires the target member accept the group the stimuli provided by it) and each mechanism should be
considerably more potent over an extended period of group
membership than in the short term.


35
The first mechanism involved Influencing the behavior
of selected members, by making group-controlled rewards
contingent upon the member's engaging in the behavior deemed
desirable by the group, reinforcing the behavior over time, and
attitude change will follow.
The second mechanism was to change beliefs with
affective changes following. Fishbeln (1967), Rosenberg
<1956), Hackman.<1976) and others have noted that attitudes
tend to be based upon the beliefs Individuals hold about the
attitude object and the affect an Individual associates with
that object, and may be Influenced by changing the beliefs
he/she holds about it.
Hackman <1976) stated that for the second mechanism to
be effective, it was essential that group member be open to change by group supplied data, and the group be valued by the Individual and/or seen as a source
to trustworthy data about the environment. Thus, the second
mechanism is likely to be much more potent in Influencing the
attitudes and values of new or low status group members than
those who are more experienced or more self-confident.
In regard to the third mechanism, a substantial body of
literature available Indicating that attitudes responses of the Individual) can be classically conditioned In
a manner identical to the conditioning of other individual
responses.


36
Hackman stated that this process of affective change
has some similarities to the process of "Identification"
postulated by Kelman C1958). That Is, the person adopts the
attitude of another because that attitude is associated with a
desirable or satisfying Interpersonal relationship. Following
Kelman/s argument, the new attitude would be expected to
persist only so long as the relationship itself was maintained
and continued to be satisfying.
In conclusion, although the three mechanisms have been
presented separately, It Is likely that most often they operate
simultaneously. For each to be effective It is necessary for
the Individual to value what the group has to offer and, In
that sense to be dependent upon the group for satisfaction of
his own needs. Hackman concluded that a group member who Is
very much his/her own person or has plenty of alternative
groups where he/she can satisfy his/her needs is not likely to
find his/her preferences, attitudes, or values very much
Influenced by the group.
Norms
No mention has been made, as yet, of the concept of
norms which are often closely associated with socialization.
In the preceedlng paragraphs, examination has been made of how
group-supplied discretionary stimuli can Influence the
Informational and affective states of group members.
Behavioral changes in a group member were viewed as
consequences of changes occurring in the individuals


37
Informational and affective states. Hackman (1976) stated that
member behavior can be changed directly by the use of
discretionary stimuli at the command of the group.
Attempting behavioral change In this latter manner,
Hackman reported, can consume a great deal of time and energy
of group members and Is, therefore, not a very efficient means
of coordinating the activities of group members, especially if
the group Is moderately large. Therefore, most of the
regulating of the group member behavior typically takes place
through behavioral norms which are created and enforced by
group members. Norms, Hackman continued, are so pervasive and
powerful In groups that It Is only In our Imagination that we
can talk about a human group apart from norms.
Norms were examined In three aspects: (a) the
structural characteristics of norms, deviance, and (c) the conditions under which individuals are
and are not likely to comply with group norms.
Norms are structural characteristics of groups which
summarize and simplfy group influence processes. There Is
general agreement that a norm is a structural characteristic of
a group which summarizes and highlights those processes within
the group which are intended to regulate and standardize group
member behavior (Festinger, Schachter 8. Back, 1950; Homans,
1950; Rommetveilt, 1955; Bates & Cloyd, 1956; Thlbaut & Kelley,
1959; Golembiewski, 1962). Thus, whether stated or unstated,
written or unwritten, Hackman stated, norms represent an


38
important means of shortcutting the need to use discretionary
stimuli on a continuous basis to control the behavior of
individual group members. Norms, however, apply only to
behavior, not to private thoughts and feelings.
Norms generally are developed only for behaviors which
are viewed as important by most group members. As Thlbaut &
Kelley (1959) noted, norms generally develop only for behaviors
which otherwise would have to be controlled by direct and
continuous Influence.
Norms, according to Hackman, usually develop gradually,
but the process can be shortcutted if members desire to do so.
If for some reason group members decide that a particular norm
would be desirable or helpful, they may simply agree to
institute such a norm suddenly by declaring that "from now on"
the norm exists.
In Hackman's (1976) analysis, he cautions that not all
norms apply to everyone. For example, high status members
often have more freedom to deviate from the letter of the norm
than do other people.
In regard to deviance from the group norms, the group
will apply pressure on the would-be deviant until (a) he/she
complies with the norm(s) and ceases expressing his deviant
thoughts or exhibiting his deviant behavior; (b) is
psychologically or bodily rejected by the group or becomes
institutionalized by the group as the "house deviant"; or (c)
finally convinces the other group members of the rightness of


39
his/her thoughts or the appropriateness of his/her behavior
(Hackman,1976). The more the group has control of
discretionary stimuli which are Important to group members, the
more it can realize alternative (a) above.
Norms, then, can be viewed as normal or acceptable ways
of behaving in a group and carry with them very powerful
stimuli both ambient and discretionary, that can be brought to
bear quite heavily on an individual in the attempt to get
him/her to behave in a manner which is acceptable to the group.
They can be viewed as rules that are more entrenched in the
group process than are other expectations of the group, because
they are seen as being vital to the effective and efficient
functioning of the group.
The Induction Phase of New Teacher Socialization
The socialization of new teachers was a frequent
research topic in the 1960's. Perspectives from psychology and
sociology have produced alternative explanations of new teacher
socialization. Edgar and Warren (1969) studied the developing
values of beginning teachers. In presenting a view of
socialization which Involved.pressure placed on new teachers to
change in socially desirable ways, they examined how the values
of sanctioning colleagues affected a new teachers' values.
They observed that co-workers, with sanctioning and evaluative
power over new teachers, were likely to cause the new teachers
to drop previous patterns of behavior and accept new behavior


40
norms which were held by significant others in the work
setting.
Hoy's studies of student teachers <1967) and first and
second year teachers (1968, 1969) examined how the "pupil
control ideology" of beginning teachers was shaped. He was
concerned with the situation when an idealistic new teacher was
confronted with a relatively custodial or control orientation
as he/she became a part of an organization. Hoy argued the
importance of this concern since he found that in most school
subcultures, good discipline and good teaching were viewed as
one in the same. Hoy's findings support the general hypothesis
that interaction with colleagues socialized new teachers to
adopt a more custodial pupil control Ideology.
Haller <1967) demonstrated that Increased contact with
children changed certain aspects of teacher speech toward the
direction of more childlike, less adult patterns. It was
hypothesized and supported that primary and experienced
elementary teachers would show decreased speech complexity in
their adult interactions as length of teaching experience
increased. This study indicated that there was an operant
conditioning mechanism in teacher socialization.
Wright and Tuska <1966, 1967) studied the socialization
of new teachers from a psychoanalytical perspective. They
suggested and found that teacher behavior is affected to a
large extent by certain relationships with parents and
significant teachers during early childhood. They suggested


41
that an understanding of an individual teacher's personal
orientations should be incorporated into preservice and
Inservice training.
In a later study, Wright and Tuska (1968) reported that
at the close of their first year of teaching, beglning teachers
rated themselves as significantly less happy and less inspiring
and significantly higher on acting impulsively, controlling,
and blaming others for their problems than they were at the
beginning of the first year. Wright and Tuska interpreted
these findings in relation to the failure of the
student-teaching experience to correct the fantasy impressions
about teaching which underlie the decision to become a teacher.
In yet another study, Edgar and Warren Cl969) tested
the hypothesis that new teachers would change their attitudes
towards the views of a significant other who was a senior
colleague responsible for their evaluation. In addition they
hoped to discover conditions which increased or decreased this
effect. They found that; significant factor in professional socialization Cie. new
teachers do move towards the views of their evaluator), and (b)
that a positive personal relationship between a teacher and
his/her evaluator is a significant socialization variable and
it increases the likelihood of change in (a) above.
Hannon, Smyth and Stephenson (1976) reported that it
the 1970's, the first major concern of new teachers was
discipline of students. This was true, they indicated, because


42
new teachers were frequently given the most challenging
discipline classes to teach. New teachers found themselves
caught between two forces, the children who will resent them if
they were too soft and a staff group who viewed newcomers with
doubt and suspicion. This latter group of staff members was
able to apply a substantial amount of pressure on the new
teacher to achieve the neophytes' compliance to the groups
norms.
The second major concern new teachers experienced, was
their relatlonship(s) with other staff. Watching newcomers
with suspicion lest they do something to upset the balance
within the school, the established group makes strenuous
efforts to ensure that they conform to existing norms of the
school hierarchy or leave the school. Hannon's evidence
suggested the Institutionalization or socialization is swift
and is a major thrust of the induction phase of the
socialization process.
Two studies (Edgar 8. Brod, 1970; Mahan 8, Lacefield,
1976) Indicated that new teachers are strongly influenced by
people in the new school setting. It can be conjectured that
linking new teachers with the best professionals in the
organization may result in creating quality performance in new
teachers. Edgar and Brod concluded that teachers can be
unsystematically Influenced by teachers and administrators in
the schools where they begin practicing their teaching skills,


43
and at the same time, they can believe that they are abandoned
and helpless in the face of the coup 1 ex 111es of teaching.
Lacey (1977) has conducted a significant amount of
research on the topic of teacher socialization in Great
Brltlan. An analysis of his research Indicated that there are
two ways of viewing the socialization process. One perspective
he labels the functionalist model which stresses the notion
that socialization fits the individual to society. The second
perspective states that a human being is a relatively passive
entity always giving way to socializing forces. In either
case, the individual does not have much choice. He/she either
Joins or does not Join the group in question. If he/she Joins,
then he/she has to accept the norms and values of the group,
because society or the group within society was there first and
will be there after he/she has left. The attitudes of new
teachers, then, undergo dramatic change as they establish
themselves in the profession, away from the liberal ideas of
their student days towards the traditional pattern found in
many schools. During this dramatic change, the induction
phase, the individual Is exposed to a constant flow of choices
to be made.
Becker (1971) stated and Lacey (1977) agreed, that
institutions remain stable with change initiated from top
management and coherts are socialized to the changes through
the process of situational adjustment. Lacey indicated that
there are two varieties of situational adjustment or the way in


44
which an Individual transforms hlm/herself into the type of
person the situation demands. One was strategic compllance in
which the individual complied with the authority figure's
definition of the situation and the constraints of the
situation but retained private reservations about them. He/she
was merely seen to be effective.
The second was internalized adjustment in which the
Individual complied with the constraints and believed that the
constraints of the situation are for the best. He/she really
was effective.
Lacey also proposed a.view of the sequence through
which a new teacher is inducted (and socialized) into the
organization. The first stage he called the "honeymoon
period". This is a period of euphoria and heightened awareness
from the massive change in direction in student's career from
learner to teacher. He/she is optimistic about overcoming
future difficulties.
In the second stage, the new teacher makes the first
major shift from student to teacher. As emergence from the
honeymoon period takes place and classroom difficulties
increase in significance, the search for material becomes a
central concern. The teacher attempts to compensate for
his/her lack of control and lack of ability to improvise within
the classroom by elaborate preparation. The search for
material is the new teacher's behavioral response to the
problems posed by the classroom.


45
Lacey indicated that this problem ties him/her to the
classroom even though he/she is physically miles away from It
and Involves an' investment of Intellect and imagination that is
particularly personal. It is this personal Investment in the
solution to the problem of the classroom that makes failure or
even partial rejection so shattering. This leads to the next
stage, "crisis".
In this third stage, new teachers feel that they are
not in control of the situation, that they are not getting
through to their pupils and that they are failing to teach
them. This feeling can be momentary or a general state of
affairs. When this feeling occurs, there are two recognizable
directions toward which blame for this situation is usually
directed. It can be directed upward toward the system or it
can be directed downward toward the pupils, rarely is it
directed toward one's self. Most new teachers fluctuated in
one direction then the other.
There are limits to the extent that blame can be
displaced without bringing group use of discretionary stimuli
to bear on the new teacher. Using the information seeking
behavior described in an earlier section of this review by
Hackman (1976), the new teacher may seek to ascertain whether
this problem is shared by the group, thereby legitimizing the
displacement of blame or he/she can privatize the problem,
seeking information in a most guarded manner to avoid the group
stimuli or refusing to admit to any problem at all.


46
If one unburdens hlm/herself, Lacey stated, to the
person who has evaluative authority over him/her, he/she risks
revealing the true depth of his/her difficulties and admits
that he/she Is unable to perform or function thus leaving
him/herself open to dismissal. If he/she seeks help from the
group, he/she runs the risk of showing the group that he/she Is
not competent thus subjecting him/her to the group's use of
discretionary stimuli such as the granting of low status or the
withholding of rewards.
Lacey concluded by stating that the school appears to
be an area In which new teachers strive for two goals. The
first Is acceptance Into the existing structure of the school
and the second is to make the school more closely resemble the
sort of place In which the teacher would like to teach. This
second goal Is often In conflict with the established norms of
the school and causes the new teacher a great deal of
frustration and self doubt.
Hoy and Rees <1977) offered hypotheses regarding the
school bureaucracy and socialization. They stated that
bureaucratic organizations attempt to mold role ideology and
role performance of personnel through a variety of procedures
and mechanisms designed to make Individual beliefs, values and
norms correspond with those of the organization. This Is the
organization's attempt to induce consensus between newcomers
and the remainder of the organization.


47
They further stated that most public secondary schools
are bureaucratic structures; that Is, they have many of the
chacterlsties of the classic bureaucratic model: hierarchy of
authority, Impersonality, division of labor, formalized rules
and work regulations. When these characteristics occur
together, as they frequently do In secondary schools, they tend
to produce a distinctively bureaucratic climate In which
teachers are expected to be loyal to the school and
organization, behave consistently according to the rules and
regulations and defer to the authority of their superiors.
Teachers are expected to adopt an orientation consistent with
the climate, a bureaucratic orientation.
Hargreaves (1980) Indicated that the observation of
personality changes In new teachers will help to understand the
process of "occupational molding" (socialization). He stated
that we have been led to underestimate the significance of the
teachers' culture as a medium through which many Innovations
and reforms must pass. In that passage, these Innovations and
reforms frequently become shaped, transformed or resisted In
ways that were unintended and unanticipated. Equally Important
Is the relation between the teacher's culture and the
comprehensive organization.
He attempted to demonstrate that the culture of
teachers Involves far more than the dynamics of social
relations in the staffroom to which, he said, enthnographlc
studies tend to be restricted. He argued that the occupational


46
culture of teachers, especially in secondary schools, can be
conceived as ordered around three major themes, which represent
the abiding interests, concerns, problems and experiences of
teachers. These three themes are concerns with status,
competence, and social relationships. As demonstrated
previously, these themes can be viewed as rewards to be gained
from group membership and are subject to the ambient stimuli
inherent in groups and the discretionary stimuli over which the
group has control.
In a longitudinal study of 11 beginning secondary
teachers, Gehrke <1976, 1981).sought to generate concepts
regarding the way beginning teachers adapt the teacher role to
meet their own needs while being socialized to the role
demanded by others. Needs, perceptions, and behavior emerged
as interrelated categories of teacher personalization. With
regard to needs, four were most salient during early role
transition. These Included the needs for respect, liking,
belonging and the need for a sense of competence. These basic
needs affected the beginning teachers' perception of self,
role, and others, which in turn affected the behaviors they
chose in enacting the role of teacher. The three categories of
needs, perceptions and behaviors could be conceived of in a
hlerarchlal form. Teachers' needs formed the first level of
the model, teachers' perceptions the second, and teachers' role
personalizing behaviors the third level.


49
Griffin and Huski11 (1983) stressed the Importance of
each Individual's unique biographical history as a factor In
determining the strength and quality of socialization. They
stated that teachers do not simply react to all of the various
people and forces around them, but act back on these forces,
give shape to their roles and are active agents In their own
socialization. The process of becoming a teacher, Griffin and
Husk 111 believed, Is a riddle to be solved somewhat differently
In each instance.
Griffin (1985) stated one way of viewing the entry of
new teachers into the school Is to consider It from the
perspective of socialization Into the norms and standards of an
existing organization. Lacey (1977) used this approach and
found that new teachers are quick to respond positively to the
norms of the schools In which they find themselves and, In
fact, abandon the norms, standards and expectations of the
preservice teacher preparation programs from which they have
come. This study demonstrated the power of the school setting
to transform rather than to foster the use of the knowledge and
skills included in professional preparation courses of study.
Problems of New Teachers
Most people engaged In the Induction of new teachers,
acknowledge the uniqueness and significance of this period In
the professional and personal lives of new teachers. It Is
during this time, a time characterized by "...a variety of new
experiences and unfamiliar environments and challenges to


50
demonstrate and prove their competence as professionals to
students, peers and superiors" (Johnston, 1981) that many
problems, unique to new faculty members arise and are dealt
with, with varying degrees of success. Inherent in these
problems, Johnston continued, are varying degrees of tension,
self-doubt (l.e., How do others think I am doing? What do
others expect of me?), anxiety, conflict, and stress. Such
stress, Johnston believed, may adversely affect the physical
and mental well being of new faculty members. It may Interfere
with a beginner's effectiveness with students and colleagues
and, In severe cases, stress may Impair a new faculty member's
confidence or competence to the point that he/she leaves the
teaching profession.
Range of Problems
Most frequently mentioned by researchers such as
Ziechner (1979), Dropkin 8. Taylor (1963), Lortle (1966 & 1975),
Rivlin (1966), Rehage(1968), and Ellas, Fisher 8. Simon (1980)
who have supplied Information about the problems of new faculty
members were:
-Discipline and class control
-Finding and using appropriate materials
-Evaluation of the student's work
-Isolation and insecurity
Combs (1985) using interviews of 66 entry year
teachers, indicated that new faculty members experience
problems which could be classified under three main headings:


51
1. Work Socialization the ability to understand the work
situation and how to operate within the existing system
(Lortle, 1975).
2. Characteristics Individual concerns, such as the need
for support, the effects of teaching on self-concept and other
characteristics unique to an Individual.
3. Translating Knowledge Into Practice the ability to
use the information gathered from methods classes and student
teaching and apply that Information to the dally realities of
the classroom.
According to Adams (1982), "the most well known
research into teacher perceived problems has been conducted at
The Ohio State University utilizing the Teacher Problem
Checklist (Cruickshank, et al. 1975; Crulckshank, 1982)."
Findings from this study led to two conclusions. The first
conclusion was that teacher problems consisted of role-related
strivings which the teacher either never encountered previously
or was unprepared for. The second conclusion was that teacher
problems were not unlike problems Identified by people In
general, but may be interpreted differently because of
Internal 1 zed human "teacher" needs making goals more difficult
to obtain.
McDonald (1982) reported that new teachers face
essentially three tasks they should master before school
begins. "He or she must learn In detail what Is to be taught;
the school rules and policies both formal and Informal; and how


52
teachers and administrators work with each other. These tasks
cannot be fully mastered before school begins. They are the
sources of problems."
Fuller and Bown (in K. Ryan, 1975) viewed new teacher
problems as comprising three stages or concern clusters. The
first is survival: on one's adequacy and survival as a
teacher; about class control; about being liked by pupils;
about supervisors' opinions; about being observed, evaluated
and appraised and about fear of failure. The second stage is
the mastery stage: deals with concerns about mastering the
teaching tasks; lack of instructional materials and time
pressures. The focus of the third stage is impact: concerns
regarding recognizing social and emotional needs of pupils;
fairness and tailoring content to individual students.
Hall and Jones (1976), relying on Fuller's research,
postulated that concerns are often predictable. The sequence
through which teachers normally progress is from concerns about
self, to concerns about tasks, to final concerns about impact.
Badertscher (1978) reported that many problems
confronting new teachers related to their relationship with
students, competence as teachers, and relationships with
col leagues.
From a study conducted by Wallace (1948), which
Included 136 teachers already in teaching positions, a ranking
of their most pressing concerns as first year teachers was
developed. The first ten Included:


53
1. Learning administrative routines, reports and procedures.
2. Gaining an understanding of the school's system of
evaluating pupl1 achievement.
3. Dlsclpllnary problems
4. Conditions of work such as Inadequate materials.
5. Gaining a clear and workable understanding of the
school's philosophy and objectives.
6. Establishing good student-teacher relationships
7. Problems of professional adjustment to other teaching
personnel.
8. Conditions of work such as Inadequate building
facl1itles
9. Teacher-class loads
10. Demands for teacher's time and energy after school.
Problems 1,2,5,7 and 10 can be summarized under the
heading "induction" problems, while problems 3 and 6 can be
summarized as disciplinary problems, and the remaining problems
4,8, and 9 can be summarized as problems arising from the
reallty of teaching.
Problems of Isolation
Complicating the previously identified problems of new
teachers, Johnston and Ryan (1983) reported that the
circumstances of new teachers were further complicated by
administrator's and colleague's lack of knowledge of the
beginners' competence. They further stated that they are often
viewed as aliens in a strange world a world that was both


54
known and unknown to them. It is known to them from the
standpoint of having been In the role of student for thousands
of hours but, It Is unknown to them from the role of teacher.
They are not familiar with the rules and regulations which
govern the internal operation of the school community and the
large system in which they are teaching. Corcoran <1901) added
that what complicates this inevitable shock of not knowing is
the addltonal lack of knowledge of whom to turn to or where to
begin to look for help, for the new teacher there is the need
to appear competent and confident. Corcoran also added that
implicit in the role of teacher is the notion of being
knowledgeable, a notion that contradicts the very essence of
being a beginner. To admit to not knowing is to risk
vulnerability; to pretend to know is to risk error. Thus the
beginning teacher is trapped in a paradox that leads to
paralysis.
Johnston 8, Ryan (1983) stated there is brief
opportunity for new teachers to learn the role of the teacher
before entering the professional work world. The socialization
process is made more difficult since they are typically
Isolated from more experienced teachers when they begin
teaching. Even more difficult to comprehend are the informal
routines and customs of the school. Perhaps more important,
new teachers do not know the other people in their work
setting.


55
McDonald (1982) supported this Idea stating that new
teachers most likely did not know any of the staff of the
school In which they began teaching and they may also have been
new to the community. The social isolation makes adaptation to
a new job more difficult. The new teacher has no one to turn
to for advice or consolation except other teachers whom he or
she does not know well at all.
McDonald went on to point out that new teachers are
afraid to reveal their weaknesses In teaching. If a teacher,
beginner or experienced, Is having difficulties managing a
class, the teacher does not want other teachers or the
administration to know it. This fear of talking to others
heightens the sense of isolation and obviously deprives
teachers of help which they might obtain. This fear Is due to
the fact that administrators are viewed by new teachers as
being formal evaluators, and peers as being informal
evaluators, both of whom have rewards and punishments at their
disposal to administer.
The Isolation one new teacher experienced is related by
Linda Corman, a first-year teacher, In Ryan (1970). Commenting
on the Infrequent communication between members of a
department, she realized that though the teachers were friends
In a social context, each preferred to close the classroom door
to the rest of the world. She experienced confusion when she
asked a peer about his classroom activities and was rudely
rebuffed. Finally, she learned to operate in that milieu by


56
closing her door and her mouth for the rest of the year. When
she did meet some faculty members who might have made a
difference to her, it was too late. Linda Corman decided not
to return to teaching the next year.
Lortie (1966), as reported in Newberry (1977), stated
that evidence also exists that new teachers learn how to teach
during their first year largely alone, through trial and error
and In the isolation of their own classrooms. Stephens (1967)
stated that his/her teaching ability is based upon his/her own
human tendency to teach others. Lortie (1975) added that new
teachers frequently draw upon.mode Is of teaching which were
internalized during pupllhood.
In yet another study by Hoy (1968), the conditions
affecting the new teacher's ability to control a class and
establish discipline were examined. Hoy felt it was likely new
teachers experienced a conflict between the school's
socialization pattern and his/her own desires to be more
humanitarian. The results were attributed to the effect that
the new teacher's colleagues had upon the neophytes. It was
found that new teachers who were viewed as weak on pupil
control, had marginal status among their colleagues and other
employees within the school.
The uncertainties about the competence of the teacher
and the discretionary use of punishments, (l.e. the granting of
low status), cloud the new teacher's relationships with others
and further enhance the isolation a new teacher feels and


57
cannot but negatively impact the teacher's self-concept and
confidence. This Impact on the new teacher is perhaps best
described by Applegate, et al. (1977). "It has been recognized
that a large part of the lifespace of a new teacher involves
human Interaction. Others enter the teacher's lifespace,
Interact with the teacher and contribute to the teacher's
perceptions of the relationship. Many view these interactions
as crucial to the new teacher's feelings of success or
failurecrucial because it is through a teacher's interaction
with others that he or she tests expectations and constructs a
concept of self-as-teacher." Applegate continued "...the
literature suggests that one's perceptions of self are
influenced greatly by relationships with other people."
Bennis, Berlew, Schein and Steele (1973) noted that any
interpersonal contact an individual has will either reinforce
his/her feelings about him/herself or dlsconfirm them.
Support Systems
What can be done to assist a new teacher in coping with
his/her problems? The obvious answer is to reduce or remove
the feelings of isolation that new teachers experience.
McDonald believed that solutions to the new teacher's problems
take three different forms. One form is the traditional
teacher preparation program prior to entrance into teaching. A
second is to conduct the preparation of the teacher
simultaneously with the transition into teaching. The third is
to prepare the teacher prior to the transition and to provide


58
support, guidance and instruction during the transition period.
McDonald (1982) added that of these three forms, the
first was the most common. The second was the internship. The
third form was a program in which the new teacher is assigned
to an experienced teacher who is available for advice and
guidance.
Taylor and Dale (1971) agreed on the importance of this
support system;, "We expect that whether or not the new teacher
has supportive help available will Influence the development of
the teacher."
This position was also supported by Combs <1985).
"Specific problems are considered minor and manageable by the
new teacher if he/she has someone who can provide support for
him/her. Problems that receive quick attention seldom become
major Issues that threaten the success of the Individual's
teaching career."
Additional support was given by Combs. "The isolation
of the classroom teacher and the problems brought on by such
isolation can be overcome given a system in which reaching-out
is allowed, in fact encouraged."
Who should provide this support relationship?
According to Combs (1985) a support person is someone who will
listen to the new teacher and confirm or correct the
conceptualizations he/she holds as well as provide alternative
ideas for consideration.


59
Traditionally, this role had fallen on the shoulders of
an administrator, usually the principal. The support
relationship in which the principal was a part has been less
than successful. According to Griffin (1985) there was very
little evidence of direct support being provided to beginners
by supervisors over and above the ritual of new teacher
orientation sessions held at the start of the school year.
Griffin <1985) went on to report that generally, he
found in his study, there was very little direct and close
supervision of new teachers by their principals. Although, all'
the principals had very clear expectations for what the
teachers were supposed to teach and how they should manage
their classrooms, there was very little effort on the part of
principals to attempt to personally ensure teacher compliance.
As reported earlier, teachers are reluctant to discuss
their problems with other teachers for fear that they will be viewed as less than competent and be
subject to group sanctions such as the granting of low status.
This reluctance to discuss problems with peers is increased
many times when the support person is the principal, because to
expose oneself as being anything less than competent to the
person who holds the ultimate sanctioning powers, is seen by
the new teacher as harmful. "When teachers do report asking
for assistance (Ryan, 1978; Newberry, 1977; Shelly, 1978;) it
is when they are certain their competence will not be
questioned or when they perceive no alternative for survival."


60
If the principal doesn't adequately fill the role of
support person for the new teacher, who remains to fill the
support role? According to Patanlczek and Isaacson (1981) when
assistance is needed, the new teacher usually turns to trusted
colleagues, not to superiors. But, it has already been
established that experienced teachers are skeptical of a new
teacher's competence and frequently are reluctant to discuss
their classroom.procedures with novices.
Describing Great Britlan's experience in the "support
relationship" McDonald C1982) reported that Great Britlan had
experimented with several different models of support systems
for new teachers. The essence of these arrangements was an
experienced teacher working with or helping a new teacher. One
form of such help Involves the experienced teacher periodically
observing the new teacher and making suggestions on how to
improve. Another form is for the new teacher to seek out the
experienced teacher whenever he or she needs help. A third
arrangement Involves regular advisory sessions on teaching for
new teachers which are conducted by experienced teachers.
The answer to the question of who should be the support
person seems conclusive. It should be an experienced teacher.
This stems from the fact that the experienced teacher has
already encountered the dilemmas facing the new teacher.
According to McDonald (1982) it should be cautioned that this
support relationship cannot be left to chance to occur, it must
be purposefully planned. In addition, the established support


61
system should not place the experienced teacher, who from now
on, will be referred to as the "mentor", in the position of
evaluating the new teacher. For If this occurs, the barriers
to free Interchange between the mentor and new teacher will
once again arise as they do when the principal was the support
person and the new teacher will retreat Into Isolation.
New Faculty Induction Programs
What do.we know about the impact of specific forms of
interventions during the induction period? According to
Griffin (1983), there have been three attempts to synthesize
the evaluation literature generated by the relatively few
school-based Induction programs and Intern programs Implemented
to date (Ellas, et al., 1980; Johnston, 1980; Zelchner, 1979).
There were several conclusions all three studies had drawn
concerning the existing knowledge of the impact of planned and
sustained Induction programs. First, It Is clear from an
examination of this literature that only a handful of Induction
programs have been evaluated and reported. The Induction
literature contains many descriptions of induction programs and
practices for which no evaluation or assessment was reported.
Second, the evaluation data which did exist did little to
Illuminate the nature of the impact of specific Induction
practices on either the immediate or long-term development of
teachers. Despite much commonality In the kinds of specific
practices which are advocated and despite the fact that
beginning teachers who participated In these programs were


62
highly satisfied with the support received, very little is
known about the relationships between specific induction
practices (e.g. reduced workloads, buddy systems) and such
things as teaching effectiveness, teacher morale, pupil
achievement and teacher longevity in the profession. Clearly
there is much that remains to be done both in terms of
developing new models for teacher induction and in monitoring
and evaluating the Impact of these efforts on teachers, pupils
and the institutions in which they live and work.
Beginning teachers generally are left to their own
devices in a "sea of Isolation" to learn the profession we call
teaching (Howey, 1979). They do not enter the profession,
however, with this expectation. Howey stated, "they expected
the school's experienced teachers to welcome them with warmth,
if not open arms". He further observed, many experienced
teachers welcome newcomers and indicate their availability for
help which is very encouraging. Then unexpectedly, the
experienced teachers seem to disappear, to step back. It is as
if they retreated to the privacy of their classrooms and
already established lunch groups. From these sanctuaries, they
appear to watch and see if the new teachers measure up, to see
if they are "one of us." Perhaps there is a subtle sense that
the newcomers may steal some of their status or upset the
school's delicate balance or prestige. Perhaps they are aware
that the newcomer is going through his/her rite of passage.
Just as they had to and they know the experience must be gone


63
through. But does it have to be experienced alone, without the
support of experienced teachers?
Human support systems are essential If the beginning
teacher is to survive. He/she cannot remain isolated from
experienced adults. He/she needs their expertise and advice.
He/she needs the human contact and the encouragement that
experienced adults can provide (Howey, 1979). We need
therefore, to arrange structures within the school so that new
teachers have more contacts with more experienced teachers.
One possible way (Howey, 1979) of breaking into this isolated
situation, would be to appoint a buddy teacher to work with the
beginner.
Gage (1972) reported that other professions and crafts
give their beginning practitioners whole arrays of techniques,
instruments, tools, devices, formulas, strategies, tactics,
algorithms and tricks of the trade. But in teaching,
relatively few ways of making complex tasks more manageable are
available. Teachers are expected to rediscover for themselves
the formulas that experienced and ingenious teachers have
acquired over the years. Too little of the wisdom of the
profession gets saved and passed along for the benefit of the
novice.
Lortle (1965) expressed the same concern, ...although
hundreds of thousands of teachers have worked in schools and in
the course of that work have learned much about teaching, the
vast proportion of their learning is not available to learners


64
today. No regular arrangements have been developed to catch
and record the many solutions which, were they available, might
prove useful to succeeding generations of beginners."
Lack of support has other consequences. By working
alone, (Feiman-Nemser, 1982) beginning teachers may come to
believe that good teaching Is something you figure out for
yourself by trying one technique after another. Such beliefs
work against a'commitment to keep on learning and to hold high
standards of effective practice that make such learning
possible.
While survival may be the paramount goal of beginning
teachers, how they survive will have consequences for the kind
of teacher they will become (McDonald, 1980). He argued the
strategies a teacher uses to cope with first year problems
become the basis for a style that endures. No matter how good
nor how poor the strategies developed to cope with their
problems are, beginning teachers Internalize them and become a
part of the teachers style. Future professional growth can be
limited by the teachers reluctance to give up the very
practices which helped them get through the initial experience.
The concept of assigning an experienced teacher, a
support person, a buddy, a cooperating or master teacher to the
novice, is common in the literature concerning the induction of
beginning teachers. The design of the Nalonal Association of
Secondary School Principal's project (Hunt, 1968; Swanson,
1968) incorporated a cooperating teacher" as one element


65
common to all the project variations. Swanson reported the
support teacher should advise and counsel beginning teachers.
Hunt believed the'use of a cooperating teacher was effective In
helping the beginning teacher to adjust to the new setting.
Noda (1968) described a beginning teacher development
program which employed an experienced teacher in a supervisory
role. The supervisor was charged with the development of the
beginning teachers' abilities. This program, even though it
was rated as "good" in achieving its goal of assisting the
beginning teacher with his/her overall growth, had a severe
limitation in its overall effectiveness. Noda reported the
supervisor was to provide to the principal, the Information to
be used for retention or dismissal and for salary Increments.
The problem is similar to that described earlier when
the principal is in the role of "helper". Howey (1979)
reported that while this division between helper and evaluator
can be divided conceptually, in the daily flux and flow of life
in the schools, the teacher was never sure if he/she was
dealing with the principal as helper or evaluator. This fact
of wearing two hats would seem to inhibit both roles, helper
and evaluator.
Griffin (1983) pointed out that many informal buddy
arrangements have been functioning for decades but they have
been informal arrangements and serve to minimally Inform new
teachers about simple procedures and logistics. He went on to
state that these Informal arrangements did not generally result


66
In the sharing of comprehensive information, nor did they serve
to lead to consideration of the more substantive Issues of
teaching and schooling. He noted that from studies he had
conducted, the interventions which reduced new teachers'
isolation in a non-threatening, supportive manner such as
participant observation or non-evaluatlve peer teacher
consultation seemed to have positive results.
What things should a support person, coach, or mentor,
do to make the relationship meaningful and what should the
mentor be like? Eddy (1969), in "Becoming a Teacher," stated
that supporting colleagues help beginning teachers in coping
with the demands made upon them by their supervisor and
subordinates in several ways. These include the provision of
educational tools, assistance in establlshlng work routines,
preparing classroom displays lesson planning and/or completing
student records.
Newberry (1977), in a study of 23 first year teachers,
where no mentor relationship was formally established, found
only six of the 23 first year teachers developed significant
professional relationships with experienced teachers and then
only under two conditions: (1) the teachers taught at the same
grade level; (2) the teachers taught like the beginners wanted
to teach. Most of the influences on the first year teachers
were informal and learned without asking. Newberry went on to
report that focused conversation between beginning and
experienced teachers on teaching practices was minimal and the


67
opportunity to observe other teachers at work did not exist.
What little knowledge was acquired was gained Informally from
comments In the staff room, by viewing materials around the
duplicating machine and by looking through open classroom doors
before and after school.
Compton (1979) suggested a model program or orientation
for new teachers which included a quasi-mentor. According to
Compton, the principal should appoint a compatible colleague
for the beginner; the mentor should receive modest
remuneration and/or be freed an extra period each day to work
with the beginner; the mentor should be a proven veteran who
has a similar teaching assignment and common planning period
and initial contacts between the beginner and experienced
teacher should take place well before the planned program
begins.
Induction or Internship programs which Incorporate a
"cooperating teacher", "teacher mentor" or "teacher tutor", by
whatever name, In a formal manner, would appear to be one
approach to improving the transfer of experiences and skills
from veteran professional to novice (Howey, 1979). In
addition, Howey stated that the mentor-beginning teacher
relationship should include learning about the school and Its
pupils. This area of learning, Howey believed, Is very complex
and requires knowledge and understanding of the particular
school and community to which the new teacher is assigned, the
norms and values of that setting, administrative policy,


68
interaction with parents, awareness of the role of teacher
organizations, procedures for staff interaction and a variety
of other Issues relative to the school as a social setting
within a larger social setting.
Johnston (1981), in a paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education, stated that in the first year teacher/experienced
teacher relationship, it was helpful if beginning teachers
could work with specially selected and trained experienced
teachers and that both be given time from their normal teaching
responsibi1lties.
In a paper presented at the spring convention of the
National Council of Teachers of English, Armstrong (1983)
stated that there needed to be a systematic process to
Introduce new teachers to the nature of the school system and
especially to the nature of the decision-making process. The
new teachers should be made to understand how their views can
be incorporated into the decision-making process, because this
will lead them to feel better about themselves and this, in
turn, will make them more inclined to commit to education on a
long term basis. He continued, "The program ought to provide
continued support in the instructional area but also ought to
Induct the newcomer Into the general operational and social
milieu of the individual school. Schemes that call for such
practices as experienced teacher mentoring merit serious
consideration.


69
Griffin (1983) believed the role of the peer teacher
(mentor) was five fold. First, the peer teacher should provide
a direct link to the present teaching force in terms of values
and beliefs about teaching. Second, the peer teacher should
initiate the new teacher into those values and beliefs. Third,
he/she should make available "expert" advice about pedagogical
and curriculum requirements and practices. Fourth, it should
be in the role of the peer teacher to provide advice and
counsel that might be perceived as less threatening than if it
came from an administrator. Last, the peer teacher should
create expectations for quality teaching across the teachng
force.
The idea that a common planning period was beneficial
to the support teacher/first year teacher relationship was
supported by Hullng-Austln (1985). The principal should also
make his/her expectations related to the role, clear to both
the first year teacher and the support teacher. It may also be
necessary to provide support teachers with special training
and/or support related to this role.
Before establishing a mentor system (Driscoll, Peterson
8. Kauchak, 1985), it is important to clarify what the system
can and cannot do. Mentors should not be expected to satisfy
beginning teachers' every need. For example, orientations to
district goals and procedures are best done at the district or
school level. In general, when the information pertains to
everyone, then all beginning teachers should receive it without


70
burdening each Individual mentor with this task. They went on
to state that when they asked the 93 beginning teachers to rate
the various functions that mentors performed, they responded
that the most Important assistance was in the area of classroom
performance. Less important to them were more passive
functions such as listening to new teacher's concerns and
general information about the district. This same group of
beginning teachers were asked to list ways in which their
mentors were most helpful to them. Mentors were most valued
"as a source of ideas" (38% of respondents), "for being
accessible and understanding" (19%), and for "offering
assistance on classroom management" (16%). Beginning teachers
need knowledgeable mentors who provide concrete assistance.
These descriptions of the roles of mentors provide a general
picture of the variety of roles mentors may be expected to
perform.
What characteristics are essential to be an effective
mentor? Daloz (1983), in his article "Mentors: Teachers Who
Make a Difference", offered a number of insights into the type
of person a mentor should be and what he/she should be able to
offer to beginners. He stated that mentors offer both material
and emotional assistance; they assisted beginners in
confronting and moving through their fears thus helping to
create an environment in which it was safe to grow; in place of
certainties, mentors proded, cajoled, and urged; mentors led
beginners among strange and frightening ideas, offering


71
protection of a carefully limited sort. The mentor should be
aware, Daloz maintained, that change can more readily take
place in some environments than others. The trick for the
mentor then became, as Robert Kegan claimed (in Daloz, 1983),
to recognize the agenda on which the learner was already
embarked and which the mentor could only facilitate or thwart,
but not himself invent.
Daloz concluded by stressing that, as mentors, the art
was to see more clearly our learners' agendas and the movement
of their lives, in order that we may more fully accompany them."
By helping to create the sort of environment in which they can
feel both secure and uncomfortable, they will be both able and
impel led to move.
Huling-Austln (1985) reported that recent research
indicated that specific criteria should be considered in the
selection of a mentor. In addition to being a successful
teacher who is willing to take on the responbslbl1ity of
assisting a first year teacher, it was helpful if the support
teacher, teaches the same subject and grade level as the first
year teacher, has a contiguous or nearby classroom and has a
compatible teaching ideology with the first year teacher
(Newberry, 1977; Huling-Austln, Barnes 8. Smith, 1985).
The essential personality characteristics of effective
mentors, according to Driscoll, Peterson and Kauchak (1985)
from their study of 93 first year teachers, were found to be
congeniality, helpfulness and concern. Least mentioned were


72
confidence, ability to be articulate, the use of reinforcement,
creativity, high energy level, kindness, sincerity and
organization. The ideal mentor was seen as a source of
positive feelings, but was not viewed as an ideal person.
Additional comments from this group of beginning teachers
indicated that the ideal mentor was a teacher who was not only
successful, but who was also willing and able to help beginners
attain the same feeling and status for themselves.
When asked to rate the important factors to consider in
the selection of mentors, these beginning teachers stressed the
match between themselves and the mentor in grade level and/or
subjects taught. They did not place a high value on congruence
in teaching styles or educational philosophy. These beginning
teachers characterized successful mentors as first, being a
good teacher in their own classroom, and second, knowing what
the first year teacher was experiencing. The beginning
teachers said that experienced teachers vary considerably in
their empathy, ranging from sympathy to hostility. An
additional requirement was that the mentor communicate well and
comfortably. They also stated that familiarity with their
actual classroom was a desirable but not crucial factor, so
mentors might be assigned from another school.
In summary, these beginning teachers suggested the
following criteria screening of prospective mentors:


73
1. time available.
2. concern for beginning teachers.
3. a communicative-supportive personality,
4. professional competence.
Least mentioned were professionalism and teaching style.
Beginning teachers were not Interested in abstract
qualifications, but rather those that lead to specific,
solution-oriented interactions.
Finally, what are the arguments for Institutionalizing
a formal mentor system? The arguments have been best
summarized by Driscoll, Peterson and Kauchak (1985). They
stated that the arguments can be made from at least three
perspectives. From the beginning teacher's perspective, mentor
programs provided valued support during the transitional year
from the teacher training institution to the classroom.
Research has indicated that during this Induction phase,
teachers experienced a number of psychological shocks,
Including frustration and feelings of isolation (Kurtz, 1983)
lowered self concept, lowered aspiration for one's self in the
teacher role, and lowered expectations of pupils (Gelton, 1980;
Zlechner & Tabachnik, 1981; Veenman, 1984). Mentor programs
offer a means of providing beginning teachers with not only
criticism and feedback, but also with help and encouragement.
From a district perspective, a mentor system provides
a means of increasing beginning teacher's productivity and
commitment, thus preventing attrition. Driscoll et al. (1985)


74
believed that what separated new teachers from experienced
professionals was not only years of experience but also the
knowledge and skills that had developed over those years. They
viewed mentoring systems as a way of providing a systematic
process for passing on this knowledge, resulting In new
teachers becoming more effective in their classrooms and more
satisfied with their professional performance. Fagan and
Walter (1982) found a significant relationship between Job
satisfaction and the presence of a mentor during early teaching
years.
The third argument is from the staff-development
perspective. This argument stresses the benefits that mentors
receive from the beginner-mentor relationship. They argue that
teachers grow professionally through their professional role.
Mentoring encourages teachers to reexamine their practices and
beliefs. A teacher in a peer assistance program described this
professional growth. "I think every teacher should do this,
Just for the fact that It stimulates your teaching much more,
and makes you much more aware of the way you teach" (Benzley,
Kauchak 8. Peterson, 1985). Through the process of helping
other teachers improve their skills, experienced teachers can
gain new insights into their own teaching.
Chapter Summary
Three major themes were examined in this review of
literature. In regard to the first theme, the ways groups
influence the behavior of individual members, it was determined


75
that a group attempts to manipulate the behavioral and
affective states of individual members for the purpose of
keeping the group intact and efficiently functioning as a unit.
The means the group employs to accomplish these ends is the
discretionary administration of rewards and punishments to
individual group members. To avoid the punishments and acquire
the rewards of the group, Individual group members seek
information about the external reality in which they work. The
desired information takes three forms, information about the
written rules of the group, information about the unwritten
rules of the group, and feedback information on how the
individual is viewed and accepted by the group. When the group
uses its discretionary power to administer punishments to
individual members, feelings of anxiety and self-doubt
frequently develop in the individual's mind. Conversely, when
rewards are forthcoming, feelings of well-being and
self-confidence frequently result. The condition of an
individual's affective state impacts his/her Job performance.
The withholding and provision of Information regarding
the written and unwritten rules of the group are ways the group
punishes or rewards the individual and impacts his/her
affective state. Providing or failing to provide emotional
support for individual group members also Impacts member's
emotional states. Sometimes group members bring to the group
emotional baggage related to experiences they had prior to
becoming a member of the current group. Whatever the source of


76
emotional arousal, when It takes the form of discomfort for the
individual, the individual attempts to use the group to
alleviate the discomfort.
Examination of the second major theme, the induction
phase of new faculty member's socialization to the school
group, confirmed that the school group employs the
discretionary rewards and punishments to control the affective
and behavioralstate of new faculty members.
An analysis of information related to the third theme,
the problems of new teachers, led to the conclusion that the
identified problems could be categorized into the three
informational areas described in the first theme, information
about written rules, information about unwritten rules and
feedback information or into problems related to discomfort in
the Individual's affective state. Those Individuals who
reported success in overcoming their school related problems,
identified a key member of the established school group as
being significant in assisting in the resolution of their
problem(s). Many new faculty members referred to this person
as a mentor. The mentor concept was examined, and it was
determined that when significant, key members of the
established group provided the information the new member
sought in his/her attempt to acquire the group's rewards and
avoid its punishments. Hence, the affective state of the new
member was Impacted, the individual felt accepted by the group,
and the quality of his/her job performance increased.


77
From this review of literature grew the problem this
dissertation addressed. This study sought to analyze,
utilizing J.R. Hackman's description of group Influences on
individuals, the collegial relationship that developed between
the new faculty member and the person who was most instrumental
in assisting the induction of the new faculty member to the
culture of the school.


CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study sought to analyze, utilizing J.R. Hackman/s
description of group Influences on individuals, the collegial
relationship that developed between the new faculty member and'
the person who was most Instrumental in assisting the induction
of the new faculty member to the culture of the school. The
relationship was examined in terms of three sets of variables:
those related to the interactions that Impacted the
informational state of the new faculty member, those related to
the interactions that impacted the affective state of the new
faculty member, and those related to the demographics of the
relationship.
Subjects
The population of this descriptive study Includes
elementary and secondary teachers in the Cherry Creek School
District who were new to a school within the district at the
beginning of the traditional calendar of the 1988-89 school
year. Excluded from the population were teachers of one school
which had not been in operation for at least one year (see
assumptions). In this study the population was referred to as


79
"new faculty members" (NFMs) and included elementary and
secondary teachers who were novices to teaching, experienced
teachers who were' new to the school district, and teachers who
had transferred to a new building within the school district.
Procedure
Selection of Subjects
In September of 1988 (the start of the traditional
school calendar), the Personnel Office of the Cherry Creek
School District constructed a list of teacher names and school
assignments of those teachers who met the criteria of "new
faculty member" as defined In this study. This list contained
145 teachers.
This list was subdivided Into six subgroups, elementary
teaching experience beyond student teaching, elementary (n=35>
and secondary teachers (n=14> who had previous contracted
experience beyond student teaching but who were new to the
Cherry Creek School District and elementary (n=35) and
secondary teachers (n=8) who transferred to a new school within
the school district.
Data Collection
In March, 1989, the list of new faculty members was
validated prior to its use in the formal data collection. As a
result of this validation process, the population to be studied
was reduced from 145 to 134. The reasons for the reduction
were misldentlfIcatlon by the personnel office, retirements and


resignations. These reductions impacted five of the six
subgroups of the population. The novice elementary group
changed from 33'to 32 while the novice secondary group declined
from 20 to 18. The experienced elementary group was reduced
from 35 to 33 but the experienced secondary group remained
unchanged at 14. The transferred elementary group declined
from 35 to 28 and the transferred secondary also declined from
nine to eight.'
Late in April, 1989, each of the 134 new faculty
members was sent, through District mail, a letter explaining
the study, a statement explaining the procedure for insuring
anonymity, a pre-addressed post card for tracking those
teachers who returned a survey, a copy of the survey and a
pre-addressed envelope for the return of the survey (see
appendix for copies of these items).
Each teacher was asked to return the survey within a
two week time period. Due to the high rate of return during
this period, non-respondents were contacted by telephone.
After an additional 10 day period, a second mailing was sent to
those who remained as non-respondents. This procedure resulted
in surveys being returned from 132 of the 134 subjects.
Identification of a Significant Other
On the cover page of each survey, teachers were asked
if they coould identify a "significant other"- one person who,
more than any other, had been especially helpful in providing
information about the written and/or unwritten rules of the


81
school and/or by assisting the clarification of the attitudes
and beliefs they held about their assigned school.
Those teachers who were able to Identify one
significant other were asked to complete the remaining portions
of the survey. Teachers who were unable to Identify one
significant other were asked to stop without completing the
remaining parts of the survey and return it through the
District mall.' A list of respondents who were unable to
identify a significant other was created and each was assigned
a number. Using a random numbers table, a 50% sample was drawn
ascertain the reason(s) for his/her inability to identify one
significant other. Each person was given the opportunity to
refuse to respond as an anonymity procedure.
Instrument Development
Research Design
The survey method of inquiry was used to obtain the
information needed for this study. This was the most efficient
means of obtaining the necessary information, as the amount of
time used to collect the data and the expense of its collection
was minimized (Hillway, 1964).
The limitations, which exist by the use of the
questionnaire as a survey tool, were analyzed and procedures
were developed to minimize their impact. The closed form of
questionnaire was used to avoid any misinterpretation which
might occur in asking respondents for lengthy answers which


82
they must put Into their personal words. By listing the
possible choices and categories of answers for the respondent
to circle, as they apply to his/her situation, more
comprehensive and accurate responses should have been produced.
Standardizing answers through this method also made the
necessary comparisons possible. Where applicable, the
respondent has been given a non-llsted choice option to avoid
the problem of forcing the individual to make Inaccurate
choices.
Any personal or confidential information that was asked
of respondents had an anonymity procedure applied to It.
Selection of Questions
The survey instrument upon which this descriptive study
was based, had four sections. Initially, the new faculty
member was asked to identify the one person who was especially
helpful to him/her, by providing information about the written
and/or unwritten rules of the school and/or by assisting the
clarification of the attitudes and beliefs he/she initially
held about the school. This person is referred to as the
"significant other". The definition of "significant other" was
based upon the definitions of informational state and affective
state as determined by J.R. Hackman <1976) in his discussion of
group influences on Individuals.
In the second section, Information which was
descriptive of the demographics of the relationship between the
new faculty member and his/her identified significant other was


83
sought. The demographic data components including age,
education, teaching experience and school residency
differentials, and gender were determined to be potentially
Important in studies that were conducted by Newberry (1977),
Levinson (1978), Klopf and Harrison (1981), Hunt and Michael
(1983) , Kram (1983), Varah (1986) and Ryan (1986).
Hackman (1976) Identified three areas of group
influences on Individuals. Sections three and four of this
survey addressed these areas of influence. The third section
of this survey, "Informational data", sought to gather data
regarding the significant other's role In providing the new
faculty member with Information about the written and unwritten
rules of the school, and other faculty members perceptions of
the new faculty member's competence. The specific written and
unwritten rules components were determined from studies
conducted by Edgar and Brod (1970), Johnston (1981), McDonald
(1982), Odell (1986), Ward (1986), and Schulman and C&lbert
(1987).
The final section of this survey, "affective data",
sought to gather data regarding the significant other's role in
impacting the affective or emotional state of the new faculty
member during his/her induction to the group. Components of
this section were determined from studies conducted by Fuller
(1969), Badertscher (1978), Johnston (1981), Bova and Phillips
(1984) , Odell (1986), and Ward (1986).


84
Validity Check
The validity of this questionnaire was checked by
having a jury made up of the administrative staff of the Office
of Research and Evaluation of the Cherry Creek School District
examine the questionnaire. The readers were asked to check the
questions and information solicited on the questionnaire
against the subproblems of the study to determine whether or
not the data received from the questionalre would answer the
questions asked in the study. The jury members were also asked
to determine if the questions asked were clearly stated.
Pilot Study
Following the validation process, the questionnaire was
piloted by a group of 10 respondents from within the Cherry
Creek School District. The piloting group was composed of
people who were new faculty members within the last four years.
Analysis of Data
Demographic, informational, and affective data were
compiled for each of the six subgroups of the population of new
faculty members. The data were processed by computer using the
SPSS program (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).
Descriptive statistics were used to interpret the data in terms
of percentages and frequency distributions.
Most of the data were non-parametric in nature and were
subjected to a chi-square analysis. When possible, the data
were analyzed using ANOVA (analysis of variance). Because of
the small number of respondents in the subgroup transferred


85
teachers, it was often necessary to collapse data across
categories to increase the power of the statistical test used.
One way of collapsing groups was to place together novice
elementary with novice secondary teachers, experienced
elementary with experienced secondary teachers, and transferred
elementary with transferred secondary teachers thus creating
three subgroups. Another way the data were collapsed was to
group together'all elementary and all secondary teachers thus
creating two subgroups. The third way the data were collapsed
was to view the population of new faculty members as a group.


Full Text

PAGE 1

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY, BASED UPON J.R. HACKMAN'S ANALYSIS OF GROUP INFLUENCES ON INDIVIDUALS, THAT EXAMINES THE NEW FACULTY -SIGNIFICANT OTHER -COLLEGIAL RELATIONSHIP THAT EXISTED IN THE CHERRY CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT, WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CHERRY CREEK NEW FACULTY INDUCTION PRACTICES by Thomas L. Johnson A.A., University of Minnesota, 1966 B.S., Mankato State University, 1968 University of Colorado, 1975 A thesis submitted to the Facu l_ty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in.partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education School of Education 1989

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Doctor of Education degree by Thomas L. Johnson has been approved for the School of Education by

PAGE 3

Johnson, Thomas L. A Descriptive Study, Based Upon J.R. Hackman/s Analysis of Group Influences on Individuals, that Examines the New Faculty -Significant Other Collegial Relationship that Existed in the Cherry Creek School District, with Implications for the Cherry Creek New Faculty Induction Practices Thesis directed by Professor Bob L. Taylor This study sought to analyze, utilizing J.R. Hackman/s description of group i"nfluences on individuals, the collegial relationship that developed between the new faculty member and the person who was most instrumental in assisting in the induction of the new faculty member to the culture of the school. New faculty members in the Cherry Creek School District were surveyed to find out if they developed such a relationship and if so, the relationship was examined to ascertain the areas of information that were provided and how the emotional state of the new faculty member was affected. In addition, the demographics of the new faculty member -significant other relationship were examined. Key attributes of the relationship in terms of demographics, information provided, and impact on the affective state of the new faculty member were determined. Profiles of the significant other for each of the six subgroups of new faculty

PAGE 4

members were constructed. These groups included novice elementary, novice secondary, experienced elementary, experienced secondary, transfer elementary, and transfer secondary. Data were collapsed into smatler groups and were analyzed, and profiles of these groups were built. The developed profiles were found to include many identical attributes but each of the six subgroups contained unique attributes. While very few of the attributes were statistically significant, the profiles that were developed could be extremely useful when the new teacher induction practices of the District, especially the new teacher mentor program, are exami'ned. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. S.lgned lv

PAGE 5

Johnson, Thomas L. A Descriptive Study, Based Upon J.R. Hackman's Analysis of Group Influences on Individuals, that Examines the New Faculty -Significant Other Collegial Relationship that Existed in the Cherry Creek School District, with Implications for the Cherry Creek New Faculty Induction Practices Thesis directed by Professor Bob L. Taylor This study sought to analyze, utilizing J.R. Hackman's description of group influences on individuals, the collegial relationship that developed between the new faculty member and the person Cthe significant other> who was most instrumental in, assisting in the induction of the new faculty member to the culture of the school. New faculty members in the Cherry Creek School District were surveyed to. find out if they developed such a collegial relationship and if so, the relationship was examined to ascertain the areas of information that were provided andhow the emotional state of the new faculty member was affected. In addition, the demographics of the new faculty member -s 1 gn if i cant o.ther reI at i onsh i p were examined. Key attributes of the relationship in terms of demographics, information provided, and impact on the affective state of the new faculty member were determined. of the significant other for each of the six subgroups of new acuity

PAGE 6

members were constructed. These groups included novice elementary, novice secondary, experienced elementary, experienced secondary, transfer elementary, and transfer secondary. Data were collapsed into smaller groups and were analyzed, and profiles of these groups were built. The developed profiles were found to include many identical attributes but each of the six subgroups contained unique attributes. While very few of the attributes were statistically significant, the profiles that were developed could be extremely useful when the new teacher induction practices of the District, especially the new teacher mentor program, are examined. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Signed lv

PAGE 7

CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.................................... 1 Setting of the Study.......................... 1 Background of the Prob I em. . . . . . . . . . 1 of the Study.......................... 3 Problem Statement............................. 5 Introduction................................ 5 The Prob I em.. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Subprob 1 ems 9 De l 1m 1 tat 1 on s. . . 12 Llml tat Ions................................... 12 Assump t 1 on s . . 13 Definition of Terms........................... 14 Organization of the Study..................... 16 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17 Introduction.................................. 17 Group Influences on Individuals............... 18 of J.R. Hackman's Group Influences on Individuals................. 19 Ambient Stlmull............................. 22 Discretionary Stimuli....................... 23 Effects of Discretionary Stlmull on Informational States................... 26

PAGE 8

Y} Effects of Discretionary Stimuli on Affective States ... 34 Norms ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 The Induction Phase of New Teacher Socialization...................... 39 Problems of New Teachers..................... 49 Range of Prob J ems. . . . . . . . . . 50 Problems of Isolation...................... 53 SuPport Systems............................ 57 New Faculty" Induction Programs............... 61 Chapter' SUDJDary.. . . . . . . . . . . . 74 I I I METHODOLOGY . 78 Introduction................................. 78 Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Selection of SubJects...................... 79 Data Collection............................ 79 Identification of a Significant Other...... 80 Instrument Development....................... 81 Reseat"ch Design............................ 81 Selection of Questions..................... 82 Validity Check............................. 84 P 1 1 ot Study . . . . 84 Analysis of Data............................. 84 IV. DATA ANALYSIS.................................. 86 Organization of Chapter IV................... 86

PAGE 9

v j j In t roduc t 1 on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Respondents Unable to Identify Sl"gnlficant Other................... 88 Demographic Data............................ 88 Chi-square and ANOVA Analysis............. 88 Informational Data ................ 92 Chi-square Analysis of Formal Wr lt ten Ru 1 es Data...... .. .. .. .. 92 . Analysis of Information Regarding Unwritten Rules............... 94 Chi-square Analysis of Feedback Information ....... 95 Af feet 1 ve Data ...... _. . . . . . . . . . . 95 Overall Provision of Information ... 97 Profiles of Significant Others ..... 99 99 Profiles of Six Subgroups ........ 100 Novice Elementary Teachers 100 Novice Secondary Teachers ..... 101 Experienced Elementary Teachers .. 103 Experienced Secondary Teachers .. 105 Elementary Transfer Teachers .... 107 Secondary Transfer Teachers ............ 109 Differences Between the Six Groups . 110 Demographic Attributes ..... 110 Informational Attributes 114 Affective Attributes ............... 119

PAGE 10

Yj_Jj of Collapsed ........ 121 Novice Teachers .......................... 121 Teachers .................. 122 124 Between the ..... 126 of Two Collapsed ........... 137 ................... 137 . . . . . . . . . 138 Between the Two ..... 140 of the Population .................. 150 Analysis of ............ 158 Data........................ 158 Data: tten Rules......................... 161 Data: Rules.... 163 Data: Feedback........... 169 Affective Data.......................... 172 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................... 176 of Methodology ............... 177 of Findings .......................... 180 Cone I usi ons. . . . . . . . 201 RecOIIIDendat 1 ons. . . 203 REFERENCES 20 7 APPENDIX A. COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRES ........ 216

PAGE 11

lx B. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA GROUPED BY SIX GROUPS: TABLES B-1 THROUGH B-1 0 ................ 232 c. INFORMATIONAL DATA GROUPED BY SIX GROUPS: TABLES C-1 THROUGH C-30 ........... 242 D. AFFECTIVE DATA GROUPED BY SIX GROUPS: TABLES D-1 THROUGH D-1 0 ............. 258 E. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION GROUPED BY NOVICE, EXPERIENCED, AND TRANSFER TEACHERS: TABLES E-1 THROUGH E-10 ......... 264 F. INFORMATIONAL DATA GROUPED BY NOVICE, EXPERIENCED, AND TRANSFER TEACHERS: TABLES F-1 THROUGH F-30 ................ 275 G. AFFECTIVE DATA GROUPED BY NOVICE, EXPERIENCED, AND TRANSFER TEACHERS: TABLES G-1 THROUGH G-10 ......... 291 H. DEMOGRAHPIC INFORMATION GROUPED BY ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS: TABLES H-1 THROUGH H-1 0 ................. 297 I. INFORMATIONAL DATA GROUPED BY ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS: TABLESI-1 THROUGH I-30 ........ 308 J. AFFECTIVE DATA GROUPED BY ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS: TABLES J-1 THROUGH J-10 .... 327

PAGE 12

TABLES Table 1. Group Means and ANOVA Summary Table: Six Groups and Education Experience Differential .. 91 2. Group Means and ANOVA Summary Table: Six Groups and Years of at School 92 3. Group Means and ANOVA Summary Table for Elementary I vs Secondary Teachers Regarding Written In for-mat Ion Gl Yen ..................... .... 98 4. Group Means and ANOVA Summary Table for Elementary vs Secondary Teachers Regarding Total Information Glven . J 98 5. Demographic Prof lies for Six Groups .. 1 112 6. Informational Attributes Profile of Six Groups: Formal Written Rules ....... 115 I 7. Informational Attributes Profile of Six I Groups: Unwr 1 t ten Ru 1 es .. !. . 117 8. Informational Attributes Profile of Slx : Feedback ...................... i. 118 9. Affective Attributes Profile of Six Groups . 1 120 10. Demographic Profiles for Three Collapsed Groups.:... 128 11. Informational Attributes Profile of Three Collapsed Groups: Formal Written Rules .... 131 12. Informational Attributes Profile of Three Co I I apsed Groups: Unwr 1 t ten Ru I es ....... !. 133 I 13. Informational Attributes Profile of Three Co I I apsed Groups: Feedback ..... i. 134 I 14. Affective Attributes Profile of Three Co I I apsed Groups ......... !. 136 I 15. Demographic Prof 11 es for Two Co I I apsed Groups i. 142

PAGE 13

xi 16. Informational Attributes Profile of Two Collapsed Groups: Formal Written Rules ... 145 17. Attributes Profile of Two Collapsed Groups: Unwritten Rules ........ 147 18. Informational Attributes Profile of Two Collapsed Groups: Feedback ....... 149 19. Demographic Profile for the Population ............ 151 20. Informational Attributes Profile of the Population: Formal Written Rules .............. 153 21. Informatl.ona 1 Attributes Profile of the Popu 1 at 1 on : Unwr i t ten Ru I es. . . . . . 155 22. Affective Attributes Profile of the Population .. 23. Demographic Profiles for All Groups .... 188 24. Informational Attributes Profile of All Groups: Forma I Writ ten Ru I es. . . . . . . . 192 25. Informational Attributes Profile of All Groups: Unwritten Ru I es. . . 194 26. Informational Attributes Profile of A 1 1 Groups: Feedback . . . . . . . . 197 27. Affective Attributes Profile of All Groups 200

PAGE 14

FIGURES Figure 1. Gender Match by Group and Population: Significant Other and TeacherSame Gender ..... 158 2. Comparison of Level of Education Between Significant Other and Teacher ....... 159 3. Comparison of Education (Teaching> Experience Between Significant Other and Teacher ..... 160 4. Formal Written Rules: Significant Other Providing Information Regarding Procedures for Checking Out Equipment ......... 161 5. Formal Written Rules: Significant Other Providing Innformation Regarding Required and Voluntary Committee Meetings ... 162 6. Informal Rules: Significant Other Providing Information Regarding Required and Voluntary Committee Meetings .... 163 7. Informal Written Rules: Significant Other Providing Information Regarding Par' en t . . . . . . . . . . . 164 8. Informal Written Rules: Significant Other Providing Information Regarding Working Relations Among Staff ........ 165 9. Informal Written Rules: Significant Other Providing Information Regarding Social Activities Among Staff ....... 166 10. Informal Written Rules: Significant Other Providing Information Regarding Rewards and Punishments Associated with the Unwritten Rules of the School .. 168 11. Informal Written Rules: Significant Other Providing Information Regarding Who to Be on Guard for at the School ....... 168

PAGE 15

xi li 12. Significant Other Providing Feedback I'nformatlon Regarding the Staff's Perception of the Teacher's Effect 1 veness .......... ..... 169 13. Significant Other Providing Feedback Information Regarding the Staff's Perception of the Teacher's Ablll ties ................... 170 14. Significant Other Providing Feedback Information Regarding the Staff's Perception of the Teacher's Classroom Dlsclpllne ........ 171 15. Significant Other Impacting the Affective State the.Teacher by: Collecting and Locating Materials ................... 172 16. Significant Other Impacting the Affective State of the Teacher by: Assisting the Arrangment/Organization of the Classroom .. 173 17. Significant Other Impacting the Affective State of the Teacher by: Prov ldlng Feedback on Other Staff Member's Perceptions of the Teacher ........ 174 18. Significant Other Impacting the Affective State of the Teacher by: Providing the Teacher with Opportunities to Observe the Significant Other's Classes In Session ........ 175

PAGE 16

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Setting of the Study The Cherry Creek School District was incorporated in 1950. It encompasses 110 square miles of the suburban southeast metropolitan Denver area, providing an educational program for more than 26,000 students, kindergarten through grade twelve. The program is delivered through 27 elementary schools, five mlddle schools and four high schools. Background of the Problem In 1986 the Cherry Creek School Dlstrlct lnstltuted a Department of Staff Development. One of the initial programs this department Implemented was a mentor program for teachers who were new to teaching and the school district. Each bulldlng principal, who wlll have a flrst year teacher as employee, is asked to select an experienced member of his/her faculty to serve as a mentor. Experienced teachers who have taught ln other school districts, but who are about to begin their first year of teaching in Cherry Creek, may elect to have

PAGE 17

2 a mentor teacher. The Office of Staff Development supplies a list of characteristics it believes are desireable in a mentor to help guide the Principal's selection, but no follow-up is done to ensure these suggested criteria were followed. The mentor program, as lt is practiced ln the Cherry Creek system, attempts to positively impact the induction of teachers new to the system in two major areas. These are the induction to as a career and the induction to the culture of the school. A positive impact occurs when the normal length of time that it takes a new teacher to overcome the stresses of being a novice teacher and the stresses associated with learning and becoming an accepted member of a school culture, both of which adversly impact the new teacher's effectiveness in the classroom, are shortened. Data gathered by the Staff Development Office indicated that assigned mentor relationships were not always successful in achieving the desired goals. Some new teachers find that their assigned mentor doesn't fulfill their needs and seek out another person, on their own, and develop with this person a relationship closely related to that intended by the assigned mentor program. It is not the purpose of this study to evaluate the mentor program in the Cherry Creek School District, but to explore the relationships that new faculty members establish with existing staff members, in relation to the induction of the new staff members to the culture of the school to which they are assigned.

PAGE 18

3 The current mentor program in Cherry Creek seeks to impact the teaching effectiveness of all novice teachers and those experienced teachers new to the District who volunteer to have a mentor. Experienced teachers who do not volunteer for a mentor and teachers who transfer to another building within the school district, are subJect to the same stresses as novice teachers when it comes to the understanding of the culture of each school. N9 support is currently given to these groups, and it was a purpose of this study to determine if these teachers sought out someone to assist their induction to the culture of the school and if the nature of the support that was given. It was also a goal to determine if there were any differences in the types of support given to novice, experienced and transferred new faculty members. Further, the study sought to determine if the mentor program should be extended in some way to assist these groups. Purpose of the Study This study attempted to derive, from J.R. Hackman/s C1976) analysis of group influences on individuals, implications which may be applied to new faculty induction practices in the Cherry Creek School District. In his analysis, Hackman developed a set of postulates which, in part, were basic assumptions of this study. The first assumption was that groups have a pervasive and

PAGE 19

4 substantial impact on the behavior of the individuals in those groups. This impact is in the form of control over the individual through the use of stimuli which are desirable to the group member. These stimuli are of two types, those that are inherent in the nature of groups (ambient stimuli> and those over which the group exercises direct control , Howey <1979), Griffin <1983>, and others, substantiated the fourth maJor assumption of this study. Individuals who are actively seeking information about the group and themselves relative to the group, form and develop a collegial

PAGE 20

5 relationship with established members of the group in which they are seeking full membership. Specifica.lly, this study analyzed the collegial relationship between the new faculty member and his/her identified significant other, that was established during the induction phase of the socialization of the new faculty member. This relationship was analyzed in regard to the information seeking and to. the affective states of the new faculty member as well as to the demographics of this collegial relationship. Problem Statement Introduction Hackman (1976) indicated that the other people with whom an lndlvldual interacts can affect profoundly how that person thinks, feels and acts. When a person seeks to become a member of an established group, that group can affect the individual's behavior Indirectly by influencing the informational and affective states of group members and directly through the development and enforcement of group norms. The means used to affect individual behavior involves the groups ability to control many of the stimuli that people seek when they become group members. This ability to control the desired stimuli can greatly impact the behavror of all group members but especially those members who new to the organization-they who have not been accepted full members

PAGE 21

. 6 of the group. Hackman has grouped these controlling stimuli into two types. One type he refered to as ambient stlmull whlch are inherent with any group membership. However, the group has no dlrect control over these stlmull nor does the group member have any choice in being exposed to them. The group exercises a great deal of control over the second type of stimuli which are referred to as discretionary stimuli. It is this category of stimuli, discretionary stimuli, that this study, examined. Discretionary stimuli are transmitted to individual group members differently and.selectively at the direction of the group. These stimuli can include messages of approval and disapproval, instructions about, models of and/or information on appropriate group behavior. Research on problems faced by new school faculty members Indicated that new faculty members CNFMs> often work in isolation without the benefit of knowing the norms of the school's culture nor what is considered to be appropriate, competent behavior. Applegate (1977) stated that this isolation is likely to adversely impact the NFM's self-concept, confidence and job performance. The NFM is frequently left alone to learn the norms of the school's culture and to react to the discretionary stimuli the group may choose to impose.

PAGE 22

7 Recent research
PAGE 23

8 culture of the school, the term "significant other" was applied to them. There were no assurances that each NFM will, of his/her own accord, seek out, or find a 11Slgnificant other11 to aid him/her in the process oJ learning the school's culture. Not even in situations where a colleague had been assigned as a mentor for a NFM had the relationship developed to a point where induction to the school's culture had been aided. Preliminary data from mentor programs such as the one employed in the Cherry Creek School District seemed to indicate that alf assigned mentor relationships did not achieve their desired goals and, in fact, a number of new teachers developed a support relationship with someone other than the assigned mentor. It was the purpose of this study to begin to identify some of the demographic and Interactional characteristics of the support relationships NFMs developed which assisted them in learning about and/or being accepted as a part of the culture of the school in which they were employed. By identifying the significant variables, support relationships can be structured and manipulated in such a way that the induction to the culture of the school can be accomplished more systematically. As indicated earlier, if this type of support relationship is developed other NFM problems are likely to be considered minor and manageable or in the case of those teachers who are not successful as teachers, they will be provided with legitimate data upon which they can seek an alternative career.

PAGE 24

9 The Problem This study sought to analyze, utilizing J.R. Hackman's description of group influences on individuals, the collegial relationship that developed between the new faculty member and the person who was most instrumental in assisting the induction of the new faculty member to the culture of the school. The relationship was examined in terms of three sets of variables: those related to the interactions that Impacted the Informational state of the new faculty member, those related to the Interactions impacting the affective state of the new faculty member, and those related to the demographics of the relationship. Subproblems 1. To identify the person . from within the school setting, who was most instrumental in the induction of the new faculty member CNFM>. 2. To determine why some NFMs were unable to identify one person as a significant other. 3. To identify the membership of six groups of NFMs: NFMs who were novices to teaching at the elementary and secondary levels; non-novice NFMs who were new to a school at the elementary and secondary levels; and non-novice NFMs who were new by virtue of transfer between schools within the school district at the elementary and secondary levels. 4. To identify the key attributes of the new faculty member -significant other relationship for each of the six defined

PAGE 25

groups using sets of selected variables relating to the informational and affective states of the NFM and sets of variables relatfng to the demographics of the new faculty member -significant other relationship. 10 5. To determine the variance of the key informational, affective, and demographic variables between the slx identified groups of NFMs. 6. To identify the key attributes of the new faculty member -significant other rerationship for the three collapsed groups of novice teachers, experienced teachers and transferred teachers using sets of variables relating to the informational and affective states of the NFM and sets of variables relating to the demographics of the new faculty member -significant other relationship. 7. To determine the variance of the key informational, affective and demograhic variables between the three collapsed groups of novice, experienced, and transferred NFMs. 8. To identify the key attributes of the new faculty member -significant other relationship for the two collapsed groups of elementary and secondary NFMs using sets of selected variables relating to the )nformational and affective states of the NFM and sets of variables relating to the demographics of the new faculty member -significant other relationship. 9. To determine the variance of the key informational, affective and demographic variables between the two collapsed groups of elementary and secondary NFMs.

PAGE 26

11 10. To identify the key attributes of the new faculty membersignificant other relationship for the entire population of NFMs using setsor selected variables relating to the informational and affective states of the NFM and sets of variables relating to the demographics of the new faculty member -significant other relationship. 11. To create a profile of the significant other, in terms of key affective and demographic variables,for each of the six identified groups of NFMs. 12. To determine the differences, if any, betweeen the six profiles developed above. 13. To create a profile of the significant other, in terms of key informational, affective and demographic variables, for each of the three collapsed groups of novice, experienced, and transferred NFMs. 14. To determine the differences, if any, between the profiles of the three collapsed groups above. 15. To create a profile of the significant other, in terms of key informational, affective and demographic variables, for each of the two col lapsed groups of elementary and secondary NFMs. 16. To determine the differences, if any, between the profiles of two collapsed groups above. 17. To create a profile of the significant other, in terms of key informational, affective and demographic varialbes, for the entire population of NFMs.

PAGE 27

12 18. To not the existing in the School District should be modified so as to Include all exper.Ienced teachers who are new to the Cherry Creek School District and to all teachers who are new to a building within the school district due to transfer, and lf it be modified to include these groups, what form the mentor program should take. Delimitations For the purpose of study the following delimitations were made: 1. The study was confined to the teachers who new faculty members in schools ln the Cherry Creek School District. 2. The study was further confined to those schools in the Cherry Creek School District that had been in existence for at least one year prior to the inception of this study. Limitations For the purposes of this study the following limitations existed: 1. When conducting survey research, the statements made are only as valid as the respondents memory and perceptions and the respondents willingness to state hls/her opinions honestly CBorg, 1963; Best, 1977>.

PAGE 28

2. No experimental manipulations were used. Any inferences made from the data were only associative, not causal. 13 3. This study was a descriptive study. Any conclusions drawn from the data do not necessarily generalize to other school districts. Assumptions In conducting this study the following assumptions have been made: 1. A school must be in existence for at least one year before it develops an unique and identifiable culture and set of norms of its own. 2. Each school has its own unique set of norms and seeks to gain compliance to its norms through the use of discretionary rewards and punishments. 3. People who choose to remain as part of a group such as a school go through an induction process and are usually accepted by the group. 4. People who have been accepted by the group can identify a person in the group who played a significant supporting role in helping them learn the groups norms, avoiding its punishments and achieving its rewards. 5. Some new faculty members in this study will not be able to identify one significant other.

PAGE 29

14 Definition of Terms InductionThe process of introducing or initiating a person to a group, CWebster/s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983). New Teacher A person who has no previous contracted teaching experience. NoviceTeacher -(same as new teacher> New Faculty Member -A person, hired as a teacher, who is new to a school regardless of the site or amount of previous teaching experience. He/she is a member of one of six subgroups that this study addresses including elementary teachers having no previous contracted teaching experience; secondary teachers having no previous contracted teaching experience; elementary teachers who are new to a school within the school district being studied, but who have previous contracted teaching experience outside the school district being studied; secondary teachers who are new to a school within the school district being studied, but who have previous contracted teaching experience outside the school district being studied; elementary teachers who are new to a school within the school district being studied, but who have previous contracted experience within the school district being studied; and secondary teachers who are new to a school within the school district being studied, but who have previous contracted experience within the school district being studied.

PAGE 30

15 Elementary Teacher A person who is assigned to teach in grades K-6. Secondary Teacher A person who is assigned to teach in grades 7-12. Significant Other -The person identified by the new faculty member who he/she has determined to have had a noticeable or measureable effect on his/her informational and affective states during his/her induction to the culture of the school group. Informational State -The new faculty member's current beliefs about the organization, about himself/herself, and about how to perform the activites required of the Job-those behaviors which pay-off in the larger organization, . Demographics -The statistical characteristics of human populations Ci.e., age and gender>, .

PAGE 31

16 Organization of the Study Chapter I Includes an introduction, purpose of the study, problem statement and limitations of the study. Chapter II contains a review of literature pertaining to J.R. Hackman's view of group influences on individuals, the problems of new teachers and new faculty induction programs. Chapter III . presents the research methodology. Chapter IV displays the results of the study." Chapter V discusses the findings, generates conclusions and makes recommendations.

PAGE 32

17 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The conceptual thrust of this dissertation was to examine how the school group impacted and assisted the new faculty member in overcoming induction related problems. These problems affected the new faculty member's classroom performance and acceptance by the school group. The review of literature that follows, traces and interrelates three maJor themes which are inherent in this concept. The first theme examines the ways groups influence the behavior of individual members. The second theme explores the induction phase of the new faculty member's socialization to the culture of the school. The third and final theme centers on school related problems which are unique to new faculty members and examines a potentially promising solution to many of these problems, the mentor system.

PAGE 33

18 Group Influences on Individuals Merton (1957> defined socialization as the process by which people selectively acquire the attitudes, interests, skills, and knowledge which are current In the groups to which they are, or seek to become, a member. Lacey <1977> added that socialization also includes the process of . developing a teacher perspective in which situations are both seen and interpreted-in a new way. To become a teacher is to become creatively involved wlth tasks and situations common only to teachers. It also involves being concerned with particular constraints to which others do not have to subJect themselves. Lacey believes no other profession or occupation experiences exactly similar constraints. These shared experiences and common problems give rise to a common set of interests, to certain ways of looking at the world, of interpreting the world, and obtaining a world view or a teacher perspective. Veenman <1984> expressed a similar definition of socialization when he stated that the socialization approach to the process of becoming a teacher examines the changes in the social person. It is focused on the interplay between individuals/ needs, capabllltles, intentions, and Institutional constraints. It was the intention of this dissertation to focus on the initial stage of the socialization process, the induction

PAGE 34

19 of the new group member. Initially, J. Richard Hackman's (1976> review of the effects of groups on individuals ln organizations was examined with special emphasis on the ways groups affect individual member's behavior both indirectly, by influencing the informational and the affective states of group members and directly, through the development and enforcement of group norms. Review of J.R. Hackman's Group Influences on Individuals Hackman C1976> posed the question, why is it that groups seem to have such a pervasive and substantial Impact on the behavior of individuals organizations? One way of vlewlng this phenomena Is to note that groups control many of the stimuli to which an individual Is exposed in the course of hls/her organizational actlvitles. He defined stlmull as those aspects of an Individual's environment which potentially can be attended to by him/her, and which can affect his/her behavior. These stimuli Include people, verbal and overt behaviors displayed by other people, written materials, obJects, aspects of the physical surroundings, and money. Hackman's views on the impact of group supplied stimuli on group members can be examined from two perspectives: Ca> the circumstances under which the stimuli are available to group members: and (b) the type of impact the stimuli have on group members. Ambient stimuli, Hackman defined as those stimuli which are potentially available to all group members, that is, those

PAGE 35

20 stimuli whose availability are contingent upon group membership. These stimuli are inherent and active parts of groups and their: environment and group members are constantly exposed to them as a regular part of their group-related actlvltes. Each member has little choice about being exposed to them. The most prominent and potent ambient stlmull are the other people in the group, materials in the task the group ls working on, and aspects of the workplace of the group. There is a second type of stimuli that are transmitted to individual members of a given group, differently and selectively, at the discretion of the group members. These stlmull Hackman refered to as discretionary stimuli. These can include direct messages of approval or disapproval, physical obJects, money, Instructions about (or models of) appropriate behavior and so on. The contents of both ambient and discretionary stimuli can be the same, the difference ls that discretionay stimuli are under the direct control of the group and ambient are not. It is important to emphasize, as Hackman dld, which discretionary stimuli an individual will be exposed to depends Jointly upon the attributes of the lndlvldual Including his/her behavior, and the characteristics of the group including which stimuli the group actually has discretionary control over, what the stimuli are about, and the Intentions of group members about what member behaviors should be encouraged or discouraged. The behavior of individuals can be greatly

PAGE 36

21 affected by his/her peers' decisions about the application, or lack thereof, of discretionary stimuli and the impact of these decisions will be different from one individual to another. The question is, how can these stimuli, ambient and discretionary affect an individual? According to Hackman, these stimuli can affect a person's informational state, (b) his/her affective state, and . Cc> his/her behavior. An individual's informational state includes both his/her current beliefs about the organization or about him/herself and his/her accumulated knowledge about how to perform the activities required as part of his/her job. The work group can serve as a maJor source of Information for its members. For example, which behaviors 11pay of11 in the larger organization and how the individual can behave so as to more effectively perform his organizational task. An individual's affective state includes his/her attitudes including likes and dislikes about the organization, his/her current level of psychological or emotional arousal, and his/her personal values regarding what kinds of personal and organizational outcomes ultimately are desirable. The group can influence the affective state of a member by providing access to valued stimuli external to the group, or even by encouraging a member to explore and possibly change his basic values. Stimuli encountered in the group-setting can affect behavior in two ways: (a) directly, as when the stimuli

PAGE 37

22 received by the individual serve to reward or punish certain of his/her behaviors, or (b) lndlrectly, through their effects on the member's informational and affective states, that ls, what he/she thinks or believes, and what he/she likes or feels. According to Weick C1969), in general, individuals are quite limited in their capabilities to accept and process information, therefore, those stimuli provided by the immediate work group often have a pronounced Impact on member's attitudes and behaviors. Ambient Stimuli Slnce Hackman stated that little ls presently known about the impact of ambient stimuli ln organizational settings, it is impossible to estimate the extent of their impact on individuals. Therefore, thls study omitted the topic of ambient stimuli, noting that they do have an impact on the individual as a member of a work group. Ambient stimuli contribute powerfully to resistance to change in groups that have been functioning for a time. Hackman believes there are at least three ways ln which ambient stimuli contribute to this SQclal inertia: 1. Ambient'stiniuli influence behavior ln groups, but only rarely are noticed. 2. The diversity of ambient stimuli which impinge on a group tends to become narrowed and restricted over time. 3. Group members tend not to examine publicly the private inferences they generate from ambient stimuli.

PAGE 38

23 The resistance to change that new teachers experience when they enter a school can probably be explained by the resistance effect generated by ambient stimuli. The longer the group has been intact, the more resistant it is to change. The attention of this review will now be directed, to discretionary stimuli. Discretionary Stimuli Discretionary stimuli are under the direct control of the group and can be made available to specific group members on a strict contingency basts. That ls, the stimuli depend upon the behavior a member exhibits or the opinions he/she expresses. With that in mind, why do groups initiate discretionary stimuli? Hackman indicated that it happens for one or more of the following reasons:
to educate and socialize; Cb) to produce uniformity; and Cc> to produce diversity. Hackman added, groups primarily oriented toward the education or socialization of their members rely heavily upon discretionary stimuli to bring about desired changes. Such stimuli typically are dispensed quite selectively, contingent upon the current level of progress of each group member and may provide the members with information, with rewards for Correct11 ideas or behavior, or with punishment for being incorrect. Even when socialization is not a maJor purpose, there are many other times that groups will mete out discretionary stimuli to members. According to Festinger (1950), group

PAGE 39

24 members often believe that a high level of uniformity among members is necessary or appropriate for group goal attainment and use their control of discretionary stimuli to achieve such uniformity. This uniformity can serve the function of efficient operation of the group and predictability of the group and its members or it may be for purely 11maintainance of the group" reasons. Cartwright and Zander <1968> proposed that the reason may be to keep the group intact and functioning as a unit, independent of task-related activities. Too much individualistic or idiosyncratic behavior on the part of a few members can threaten the very survival of the group. So can unresolved disputes among members regarding the goals and means to achieve the goals which the group seeks. In contrast to pressuring toward uniformity, the group sometimes deems it necessary to use discretionary stimuli to create and maintain diversity among members. According to Hackman, a number of different member roles emerge in most groups, and these roles may become organized into a fairly complex and well-differentiated structure. Hackman used Bate's <1956> definition of role which refers to expectations shared by group members regarding who is to carry out what types of activities and under what circumstances. Group members are not only reactive to group initiated discretionary stimuli, but they frequently are pro-active and seek out discretionary stimuli.

PAGE 40

25 Why do individuals seek out discretionary stimuli? It was proposed by Hackman, that they do this for two reasons: (a) to obtain information and (b) to obtain group controlled rewards. Groups are heavily used as sources of data about the nature of reality. According to Festinger <1950), the degree to which an individual turns to a group to validate an opinion or belle or to obtain a social 11definition11 of a situation is inversely proportion a I to the degree to wh lch the reI evant data are already available in physical reality. Individuals use the group for information not only about external reality, but for data about themselves as well. Hackman postulated that socially obtained information has been central in many theories of how one's self-concept is developed and maintained. This is exemplified in Cooley's <1922> term HJooking-glass-sel11 in which he examined the importance of the self-knowledge gained from the actions and reactions of others towards oneself. Likewise Berkowitz <1969) spoke of the 11reference group11 as one which an individual could use as a sounding board to gain more information about himself. Festinger (1954) demonstrated how individuals used relevant others to validate their opinions of themselves. Merton and Kitt <1950) demonstrated how individuals used others to test the appropriateness of their level of satisfaction with the rewards and costs they were experiencing while Schachter <1964) demonstrated how Individuals used others to appropriately label the emotions they were experiencing.

PAGE 41

26 In addition to controlling Information needed by the individual in his pursuit of extrinsic rewards, groups also control stimuli which are directly satisfying to members, Hackman C1976> reported. He further stated, that some such stimuli can contribute directly to the psychological well-being of a member, for example, those which enhance hls feelings of self-esteem and social acceptance, those which help a member adapt to high psychological stress from the external environment and so on. Other stimuli such as physical safety and comfort, and financial gain may be more relevant to the member's physical or material _well-being. Hackman stated the control over positive stimuli, whether directly sought out or not, resided with the group, and the individual who aspired to receiving them must behave ln such a way as to convince his/her fellow group members that he/she was deserving. The same principle applied to stimuli that are viewed as unpleasant by group members. Because of these principles, the group can have a great deal of impact on a member's behavior and expressed attitudes. Effects of Discretionary Stimuli on Informational States Since individuals seek out information about their environment from the group and the group wishes to Impart information to the group member so as to maintain uniformity among groups members, the attention of this review will now be focused upon the effects of discretionary stimuli on member Informational states. Hackman C1976> viewed the effects on

PAGE 42

27 three levels: Ca> on the beliefs a member holds about the group and its environment; (b) on the beliefs a member holds about h im/herse If; and ( c > on the know I edge and skills a member has relevant to the activities required by his/her organizational role or job. By relying only on their own senses and experiences, individuals never achieve a very clear or accurate view of their environment. They are very dependent on their group to supply the needed information, a task that many groups are more than willing to fulfill. If the group members hold a similar view of the environment, is fine, but if disagreements occur, most groups are not very competent in handling these disagreements . In an attempt to move away from any appearance of disagreement and interpersonal discomfort, many groups tend to generate substantial pressure of uniformity of belief among members. This is especially true when new members Join the group (e.g., first year teachers> since the perceptions and beliefs of these new members may turn out to be divergent from the existing views of veteran group members. Hackman recounted that he personally viewed this phenomena. A new group member was present during a conversation between two veteran members of the work group. The main topic of the conversation was the frustrations the veterans had experienced recently at the hands of management. The conversation ran its course without either participant

PAGE 43

28 appearing to notice the presence of the new employee. Questioned later, one of the veterans admitted that the conversation had been informally staged and that its main purpose was to help the newcomer learn that it was 11useless to suggest any changes in how things are done here, because management never pays any attention,11 . Hackman indicated that . this interaction probably had a substantial impact on the beliefs of the new member, simply because his lack of personal experience in the organization made him heavily dependent upon his work group for information about the organization. The information sought from group members, though not quite this subtle, centers around two general issues: (a) What rewards and costs are present in the environment, and who controls them and (b) what behaviors by group members lead to the acquistion of the rewards and avoidance of the costs. Group members can also gain information about reality by directly observing other group members, seeing the results of their actions and on the basis of these observations draw inferences about the real nature of the group and its environment. Hackman cautioned that there are traps to be aware of when one relies on personal observations of the group as a strategy for learning about the reality of the environment. One trap is that what works for some group members (e.g., those with high status> may backfire when attempted by a new member . A member

PAGE 44

29 who bases his/her behavior on beliefs about reality gleaned solely from observational data, therefore, runs a hlgh rlsk of behaving in a personally maladaptive way. The degree to which group members accept stimuli from the group in formulating their own views of the nature of reality, varies considerably in different circumstances. In general, evidence suggested, according to Hackman, that member acceptance of group-supplied data about reality is a function of the following three interrelated factors: 1. Characteristics of the environment. According to Asch (1951) and Wiener <1958)
PAGE 45

' 30 time, so to will the degree of influence of the group on member beliefs about the environment. 3. Characteristics of the Group. Rosenberg (1961) and Kelman (1950> Cas reported in Hackman 1976> reported that if member self-confidence ls held constant, a group member will tend to accept group-supplied data about the reality to the extent he perceives the group as being a credible, competent, successful, source of Information. In addition, Allen and Levine (1971> noted that the greater the unanimity of views of group members, the more an individual will accept informQtion provided by the group, probably at least ln part, because unanimity Increases the credibility of the group in the eyes of the member. Hackman (1976) stated that Just as the group can significantly affect a member's perceptions of the environment, so can it influence the beliefs he/she holds about him/herself. In analyzing the influence of group on the individual, Jones and Gerard (1967) made a distinction between 11comparative appraisal11 and 11reflected appraisal11 when analyzing the groups effect on and individual's beliefs about him/herself. In comparative appraisal, the individual determines his/her relative standing by means of others on some attribute simply by observng the relevant others; no explicit action by them towards him/her is required. To assess one's skill on a task being performed at the same time by other group members, an individual might watch the performance of others making

PAGE 46

31 comparisons and references to him/herself to see if he/she were doing better or poorer than his/her peers. In reflective appraisal, an individual obtains information about him/herself by observing and interpreting the actual behaviors of other individuals toward him/her. As referred to earlier, in Cooley's "looking glass self," an individual comes to gain self understanding by inferring what he/she "must be_like,11 given the way others behave towards him/her. Once again, ln both types of appraisal an individual is actively seeking information, _but in this case it is information about him/herself, not the environment. He/she uses that information to make inferences and attributions about him/herself. Groups often take direct action to influence the beliefs of a member about him/herself, by actually providing him/her with explicit personal evaluations or characterizations. The strength of these appraisals can be seen when a threatening new member who is obviously more task-competent than the current members, for example, is convinced by the group that he/she is not so capable as he/she might have thought. It is important to make a distinction between "learning that11 and 11learning how11 CRyle, 1949) in securing information from the group. Ryle argued that acquiring information, Clearning that) can be directly imparted by others, whereas improving skills and response capabilities Clearning how) can

PAGE 47

only be inculcated gradually, through coaching, practice and example. 32 Hackman -c1976) stated that the group was of considerable importance in 11learning how, .. for several reasons. Personal trial-and-error ln learning a new skill or behavior pattern ls, ln many cases, very lnefflclent. The help of other group members often permits an lndlvldual to shortcut his/her learning process and to lessen the personal risks involved ln the learning. As reported earlier, lf a person ls forced or: allowed to learn on hls/her own, through trial and error learning, whatever way the person learns to survive will become a maJor part of hls/her behavior wlth no regard to the correctness or effectiveness of it. In general, Hackman continued, the group can assist members ln developing Job-relevant knowledge and skills in three ways: (a) by direct Instruction, (b) by providing feedback about behavior, and Cc) by serving as 11models11 of correct or appropriate behavior. By itself, direct Instruction ls probably useful only for the most simple skills and behaviors. Simply belng told, for example, how to drive a car or how to perform an appendectomy is not sufficient to master such skills. However, while direct Instruction ls not sufficient for an lndlvldual to develop needed skills and behavior patterns, lt often ls a necessary part of such learning and represents an Important

PAGE 48

33 resource, (discretionary stimuli) held by the group and may be provided or withheld at the group/s discretion. Feedback, Hackman C1976> reported, can serve two maJor functions for a group member: It can provide him/her with information about what behaviors are 11right11 Cor appropriate> and 11Wrong11 in carrying out one/s organizational Job or role: and it can provide reinforcment, by rewarding correct behaviors and punishing incorrect ones. Both functions can increase a member/s Job-relevant knowledge and skill. Yet another way a group can be helpful to an individual in increasing hls/her information about his/her role and abilities ls through the use of models. Kemper <1968> stated that the need for models ls very great especially for complex tasks and roles, some of which may be impossible to learn adequately ln the absence of a concrete model. Hackman cautioned that learning through 11matching behavior11 is one way people use others in developing skills, but it is not the only way. According to Bandura Cas reported in Hackman 1976?, individuals can acquire robust symbolic representations of new activities by observing models, in addition to the simple stimulus-response associations required for matching This means the modeling that takes place may be merely superficial and not really internalized as a part of the person/s behavior.

PAGE 49

34 The more complex a job or role, Hackman explained, the more likely an individual is to perform inadequatel.y if left to his/her own devices, and the more likely he/she ls to need direct instruction, feedback and model provision to learn the job or role well. This, Hackman continued, makes the individual heavily dependent upon the group in precisely those cases when the risk of failure for him/her is the greatest. One can conclude that the influence a group has over an individual will be maximized when the individual is trying to obtain knowledge about how to perform a complex new Job or role. This is also an opportune time for the group to influence the individual in other ways, such as behavioral or attitudinal conformity, even though these may not be immediately relevant to the task at hand. Effects of Discretionary Stimuli on Affective States Hackman reported evidence suggesting that mere membership in a given group is not sufficient for realizing affective changes ln a group member, even if the individual is exposed to discretionary stimuli from that group on a more-or-less continuous basis. He suggested three general mechanisms which groups, over time, use to influence the affective states of their members. Each of the mechanisms, to be effective, requires the target member accept the group
PAGE 50

35 The first mechanism involved Influencing the behavior of selected members, by making group-controlled rewards contingent upon the member's engaging ln the behavior deemed desirable .bY the group, reinforcing the behavior over time, and attitude change will follow. The second mechanism was to change beliefs with affective changes following. Fishbein <1967), Rosenberg (1956), Hackman.<1976) and others have noted that attitudes tend to be based upon the beliefs individuals hold about the attitude obJect and the affect an individual associates with that object, and may be influenced by changing the beliefs he/she holds about it. Hackman <1976> stated that for the second mechanism to be effective, it was essential that
the beliefs of the group member be open to change by group supplied data, and (b) the group be valued by the individual and/or seen as a source to trustworthy data about the environment. Thus, the second mechanism is likely to be much more potent in influencing the attitudes and values of new or low status group members than those who are more experienced or more self-confident. In regard to the third mechanism, a substantial body of literature can be classically conditioned in a manner identical to the conditioning of other individual responses.

PAGE 51

36 Hackman stated that this process of affective change has some similarities to the process of 11identification11 postulated by Kelman <1958). That is, the person adopts the attitude of another because that attitude is associated with a desirable or satisfying Interpersonal relationship. Following Kelman/s argument, the new attitude would be expected to persist only so long as the relationship itself was maintained . and continued to be satisfying. In conclusion, although the three mechanisms have been presented separately, it is likely that most often they operate simultaneously. For each to be effective lt Is necessary for the individual to value what the group has to offer and, in that sense to be dependent upon the group for satisfaction of his own needs. Hackman concluded that a group member who is very much his/her own person or has plenty of alternative groups where he/she can satisfy his/her needs is not likely to find his/her preferences, attitudes, or values very much influenced by the group. Norms No mention has been made, as yet, of the concept of norms which are often closely associated with socialization. In the preceeding paragraphs, examination has been made of how group-supplied discretionary stimuli can influence the Informational and affective states of group members. Behavioral changes in a group member were viewed as consequences of changes occurring in the lndividual/s

PAGE 52

37 informational and affective states. Hackman <1976) stated that member behavior can be changed directly by the use of discretionary stimuli at the command of the group. Attempting behavioral change In this latter manner, Hackman reported, can consume a great deal of time and energy of group members and is, therefore, not a very efficient means of coordinating the activities of group members, especially if the group is moderately large. Therefore, most of the regulating of the group member behavior typically takes place through behavioral norms which are created and enforced by group members. Norms, Hackman continued, are so pervasive and powerful In groups that It is only ln our Imagination that we can talk about a human group apart from norms. Norms were examined in three aspects: (a) the structural characteristics of norms, (b) the consequences of deviance, and the conditions under which individuals are and are not likely to comply with group norms. Norms are structural characteristics of groups which summarize and simplfy group influence processes. There is general agreement that a norm is a structural characteristic of a group which summarizes and highlights those processes within the group which are intended to regulate and standardize group member behavior . Thus, whether stated or unstated, written or unwritten, Hackman stated, norms represent an

PAGE 53

38 important means of shortcutting the need to use discretionary stimuli on a continuous basis to control the behavior of individual group members. Norms, however, apply only to behavior, not to private thoughts and feelings. Norms generally are developed only for behaviors which are viewed as important by most group members. As Thlbaut & Kelley <1959> noted, norms generally develop only for behaviors which otherwise would have to be controlled by direct and continuous influence: Norms, according to Hackman, usually develop gradually, but the process can be lf members desire to do so. If for some reason group members decide that a particular norm would be desirable or helpful, they may simply agree to institute such a norm suddenly by declaring that 11from now on11 the norm exists. In Hackman's <1976) analysis, he cautions that not all norms apply to everyone. For example, high status members often have more freedom to deviate from the letter of the norm than do other people. In regard to deviance from the group norms, the group will apply pressure on the would-be deviant until
he/she complies with the norm and ceases expressing his deviant thoughts or exhibiting his deviant behavior; is psychologically or bodily reJected by the group or becomes institutionalized by the group as the 11house deviant11; or (c) finally convinces the other group members of the rightness of

PAGE 54

39 his/her thoughts or the appropriateness of his/her behavior (Hackman,1976). The more the group has control of discretionary stimuli which are important to group members, the more it can realize alternative (a) above. Norms, then, can be viewed as normal or acceptable ways of behaving in a group and carry with them very powerful stimuli both ambient and discretionary, that can be brought to bear quite heavily on an Individual in the attempt to get him/her to behave in a manner which is acceptable to the group. They can be viewed as rules that are more entrenched in the group process than are other expectations of the group, because they are seen as being vital to the effective and efficient functioning of the group. The Induction Phase of New Teacher Socialization The socialization of new teachers was a frequent research topic in the 1960's. Perspectives from psychology and sociology have produced alternative explanations of new teacher socialization. Edgar and Warren (1969> studied the developing values of beginning teachers. In presenting a view of socialization which involved.pressure placed on new teachers to change in soci:al)y desirable ways, they examined how the values of sanctioning colleagues affected a new teachers' values. They observed that co-workers, with sanctioning and evaluative power over new teachers, were likely to cause the new teachers to drop previous patterns of behavior and accept new behavior

PAGE 55

norms which were held by significant others in the work setting. 40 Hoy's studies of student teachers (1967) and first and second year teachers (1968, 1969) examined how the 11pupil control ideologyn of beginning teachers was shaped. He was concerned with the situation when an idealistic new teacher was confronted with a relatively custodial or control orientation as he/she a part of an organization. Hoy argued the importance of this concern since he found that in most school subcultures, good discipline and good teaching were viewed as one in the same. Hoy's findings support the general hypothesis that interaction wlth colleagues socialized new teachers to adopt a more custodial pupil control ideology. Haller (1967) demonstrated that increased contact with children changed certain aspects of teacher speech toward the direction of more childlike, less adult patterns. It was hypothesized and supported that primary and experienced elementary teachers would show decreased speech complexity in their adult interactions as length of teaching experience increased. This study indicated that there was an operant conditioning mechanism in teacher socialization. Wright and Tuska (1966, 1967) studied the socialization of new teachers from a psychoanalytical perspective. They suggested and found that teacher behavior is affected to a large extent by certain relationships with parents and significant teachers during early childhood. They suggested

PAGE 56

that an understanding of an individual teacher's personal orientations should be incorporated into preservice and inservice training. 41 In a later study, Wright and Tuska <1968> reported that at the close of their first year of teaching, begining teachers rated themselves as significantly less happy and less inspiring and significantly higher on acting impulsively, controlling, and blaming others for their problems than they were at the beginning of the firSt year. Wright and Tuska interpreted these findings in relation to the failure of the student-teaching experience to correct the fantasy impressions about teaching which underlie the decision to become a teacher. In yet another study, Edgar and Warren (1969) tested the hypothesis that new teachers would change their attitudes towards the views of a significant other who was a senior colleague responsible for their evaluation. In addition they hoped to discover conditions which increased or decreased this effect. They found that; (a) organizational evaluation is a significant factor in professional socialization , and that a positive personal relationship between a teacher and his/her evaluator is a significant socialization variable and it increases the likelihood of change in
above. Hannon, Smyth and Stephenson <1976> reported that it the 1970's, the first major concern of new teachers was discipline of students. This was true, they indicated, because

PAGE 57

42 new teachers were frequently given the most chal lenglng discipline classes to teach. New teachers found themselves caught between two forces, the children who will resent them lf they were too soft and a staff group who viewed newcomers with doubt and suspicion. This latter group of staff members was able to apply a substantial amount of pressure on the new teacher to achieve the neophytes/ compliance to the groups norms. The second maJor concern new teachers experienced, was their relationship(s) with other staff. Watching newcomers with suspicion lest they do something to upset the balance within the school, the established group makes strenuous efforts to ensure that they conform to existing norms of the school hierarchy or leave the school. Hannon/s evidence suggested the lnstitutlonallzatlon or socialization is swift and is a major thrust of the induction phase of the socialization process. Two studies
PAGE 58

43 and at the same they can believe that they are abandoned and helpless ln the face of the complexities of teaching. Lacey (1977) has conducted a significant amount of research on the topic of teacher socialization in Great Britian. An analysis of his research indicated that there are two ways of viewing the socialization process. One perspective he labels the functionalist model which stresses the notion that socialization fits the individual to society. The second perspective states that a human being is a relatively passive entity always giving way to socializing forces. case, the individual does not.have much choice. Joins or does not Join the group ln question. In either He/she either If he/she Joins, then he/she has to accept the norms and values of the group, because society or the group within society was there first and will be there after he/she has left. The attitudes of new teachers, then, undergo dramatic change as they establish themselves in the profession, away from the liberal ideas of their student days towards the traditional pattern found in many schools. During this dramatic change, the induction phase, the individual is exposed to a constant flow of choices to be made. Becker (1971) stated and Lacey C1977) agreed, that institutions remain stable with change initiated from top management and coherts are socialized to the changes through the process of situational adjustment. Lacey indicated that there are two varieties of situational adJustment or the way in

PAGE 59

44 which an individual transforms him/herself into the type of person the situation demands. One was strategic compliance in which the individual complied with the authority figure/s definition of the situation and the constraints of the situation but retained private reservations about them. He/she was merely seen to be effective. The second was internalized adJustment in which the Individual compiled with the constraints and believed that the constraints of the sftuatlon are for the best. He/she really was effective. Lacey also proposed a.view of the sequence through which a new teacher is inducted Cand socialized) into the organization. The first stage he called the 11honeymoon period11 This is a period of euphoria and heightened awareness from the massive change in direction in student's career from learner to teacher. He/she is optimistic about overcoming future difficulties. In the second stage, the new teacher makes the first major shift from student to teacher. As emergence from the honeymoon period takes place and classroom difficulties increase ln significance, the search for material becomes a central concern. The teacher attempts to compensate for his/her lack of control and lack of ability to improvise within the classroom by elaborate preparation. The search for material is the new teacher's behavioral response to the problems posed by the classroom.

PAGE 60

45 Lacey indicated that this problem ties him/her to the classroom even though he/she is physically miles away from it and involves aninvestment of intellect and imagination that is particularly personal. It is this personal investment in the solution to the problem of the classroom that makes failure or even partial reJection so shattering. This leads to the next stage, "crisis". In thls_third stage, new teachers feel that they are not in control of the situation, that they are not getting through to their pupils and that they are falling to teach them. This feeling can be or a general state of affairs. When this feeling occurs, there are two recognizable directions toward which blame for this situation is usually directed. It can be directed upward toward the system or it can be directed downward toward the pupils, rarely is it directed toward one's se.lf. Most new teachers fluctuated in one direction then the other. There are limits to the extent that blame can be displaced without bringing group use of discretionary stimuli to bear on the. new teacher .. Using the information seeking behavior described in an earlier section of this review by Hackman (1976), the new teacher may seek to ascertain whether this problem is shared by the group, thereby legitimizing the displacement of blame or he/she can privatize the problem, seeking information in a most guarded manner to avoid the group stimuli or refusing to admit to any problem at all.

PAGE 61

46 If one unburdens him/herself, Lacey stated, to the person who has evaluative authority over him/her, he/she risks revealing the true depth of his/her difficulties and admits that he/she is unable to perform or function thus leaving him/herself open to dismissal. If he/she seeks help from the group, he/she runs the risk of showing the group that he/she ls not competent thus subjecting him/her to the group1s use of discretionary stimuli such as the granting of low status or the withholding of rewards. Lacey concluded by stating that the school appears to be an area in which new teachers strive for two goals. The first is acceptance into the existing structure of the school and the second is to make the school more closely resemble the sort of place in which the teacher would like to teach. This second goal is often in conflict with the established norms of the school and causes the new teacher a great deal of frustration and self doubt. Hoy and Rees <1977> offered hypotheses regarding the school bureaucracy and socialization. They stated that bureaucratic organizations attempt to mold role ideology and role performance of personnel through a variety of procedures and mechanisms designed to make individual beliefs, values and norms correspond with those of the organization. This is the organization1s attempt to induce consensus between newcomers and the remainder of the organization.

PAGE 62

47 They further stated that most public secondary schools are bureaucratic structures; that ls, they have many of the chacteristlcs of the classic bureaucratic model: hierarchy of authority, impersonality, division of labor, formalized rules and work regulations. When these characteristics occur together, as they frequently do ln secondary schools, they tend produce a distinctively bureaucratic climate ln which teachers are expected to be loyal to the school and organization, behave consistently according to the rules and regulations and defer to the authority of their superiors. Teachers are expected to adopt an orientation consistent with the climate, a bureaucratic orientation. Hargreaves <1980) indicated that the observation of personality changes in new teachers will help to understand the process of 110ccupational moldlngn
PAGE 63

48 culture of teachers, especially in secondary schools, can be conceived as ordered around three maJor themes, which represent the abiding interests, concerns, problems and experiences of teachers. These three themes are concerns with status, competence, and social relationships. As demonstrated previously, these themes can be viewed as rewards to be gained from group membership and are subject to the ambient stimuli _inherent in groups and the discretionary stimuli over which the group has control. In a longitudinal study of 11 beginning secondary teachers, Gehrke (1976, 1981>-sought to generate concepts regarding the way beginning teachers adapt the teacher role to meet their own needs while being socialized to the role demanded by others. Needs, perceptions, and behavior emerged as interrelated categories of teacher personalization. With regard to needs, four were most salient during early role transition. These included the needs for respect, liking, belonging and the need for a sense of competence. These basic needs affected the beginning teachers/ perception of self, role, and others, which in turn affected the behaviors they chose in enacting the role of teacher. The three categories of needs, perceptions and behaviors could be conceived of in a hierarchial form. Teachers/ needs formed the first level of the model, teachers/ perceptions the second, and teachers/ role personalizing behaviors the third level.

PAGE 64

49 Griffin and Huskill C1983) stressed the importance of each 1ndiv1dual's unique biographical history as a factor 1n determining the strength and quality of socialization. They stated that teachers do not simply react to all of the various people and forces around them, but act back on these forces, give shape to their roles and are active agents in their own socialization. The process of becoming a teacher, Griffin and Huskill believed, is a riddle to be solved somewhat differently in each instance. Griffin <1985> stated one way of viewing the entry of new teachers into the school is to consider it from the perspective of socialization into the norms and standards of an existing organization. Lacey <1977> used this approach and found that new teachers are quick to respond positively to the norms of the schools in which they find themselves and, in fact, abandon the norms, standards and expectations of the preservice teacher preparation programs from which they have come. This study demonstrated the power of the school setting to transform rather than to foster the use of the knowledge and skills included in professional preparation courses of study. Problems of New Teachers Most people engaged in the induction of new teachers, acknowledge the uniqueness and significance of this period in the professional and personal lives of new teachers. It is during this time, a time characterized by 11 a variety of new experiences and unfamiliar environments and challenges to

PAGE 65

50 demonstrate and prove their competence as professionals to students, peers and superiors" that many problems, unique to new faculty members arise and are dealt with, with varying degrees of success. Inherent in these problems, Johnston continued, are varying degrees of tension, self-doubt Cl.e., How do others think I am doing? What do others expect of me?>, anxiety, conflict, and stress. Such stress, Johnston be.lleved, may adversely affect the physical and mental well being of new faculty members. It may interfere with a beginner/s effectiveness with students and colleagues and, in severe cases, stress impair a new faculty member's confidence or competence to the point that he/she leaves the teaching profession. Range of Problems Most frequently mentioned by researchers such as Ziechner <1979), Dropkin & Taylor (1963), Lortie C1966 & 1975>, Rivlin <1966>, RehageC1968>, and Elias, Fisher & Simon <1980) who have supplied information about the problems of new faculty members were: -Discipline and class control -Finding and using appropriate materials -Evaluation of the student's work -Isolation and insecurity Combs (1985> using interviews of 66 entry year teachers, indicated that new faculty members experience problems which could be classified under three main headings:

PAGE 66

51 1. Work Socialization-the ability to understand the work situation and how to operate within the existing system
PAGE 67

52 teachers and administrators work with each other. These tasks cannot be fully mastered before school begins. They are the sources of problems." Fuller and Bown Cln K. Ryan, 1975) viewed new teacher problems as comprising three stages or concern clusters. The first is survival: on one1s adequacy and survival as a teacher; about class control; about being liked by pupils; about supervisors/ opinions; about being observed, evaluated and appraised and about fear of failure. The second stage is the mastery stage: deals with concerns about mastering the teaching tasks; lack of instructional materials and time pressures. The focus of the third stage is impact: concerns regarding recognizing social and emotional needs of pupils; fairness and tailoring content to individual students. Hall and Jones C1976), relying on Fuller1s research, postulated that concerns are often predictable. The sequence through which teachers normally progress is from concerns about self, to concerns about tasks, to final concerns about impact. Badertscher <1978> reported that many problems confronting new teachers related to their relationship with students, competence as teachers, and relationships with colleagues. From a study conducted by Wallace C1948), which included 136 teachers already in teaching positions, a ranking of their most pressing concerns as first year teachers was developed. The first ten included:

PAGE 68

53 1. Learning administrative routines, reports and procedures. 2. Gaining an understanding of the school's system of evaluating pupil achievement. 3. Disciplinary problems 4. Conditions of work such as inadequate materials. 5. Gaining a clear and workable understanding of the school's philosophy and obJectives. 6. good student-teacher relationships 7. Problems of professional adJustment to other teaching personnel. 8. Conditions of work such as inadequate building facilities 9. Teacher-class loads 10. Demands for teacher's time and energy after school. Problems 1,2,5,7 and 10 can be summarized under the heading 11induction11 problems, while problems 3 and 6 can be summarized as disciplinary problems, and the remaining problems 4,8, and 9 can be summarized as problems arising from the reality of teaching. Problems of Isolation Complicating the previously identified problems of new teachers, Johnston and Ryan <1983) reported that the circumstances of new teachers were further complicated by administrator's and colleague's lack of knowledge of the beginners' competence. They further stated that they are often viewed as aliens ln a strange world-a world that was both

PAGE 69

54 known and unknown to them. It is known to them from the standpoint of having been in the role of student for thousands of hours but, it is unknown to them from the role of teacher. They are not familiar with the rules and regulations which govern the internal operation of the school community and the large system in which they are teaching. Corcoran <1981) added that what complicates this inevitable shock of not knowing is the additonal of knowledge of whom to turn to or where to begin to look for help, for the new teacher there is the need to appear competent and confident. Corcoran also added that implicit in the role of is the notion of being knowledgeable, a notion that contradicts the very essence of being a beginner. To admit to not knowing is to risk vulnerability; to pretend to know is to risk error. Thus the beginning teacher is trapped in a paradox that leads to paralysis. Johnston & Ryan C1983) stated there is brief opportunity for new teachers to learn the role of the teacher before entering the professional work world. The socialization process is made more difficult since they are typically isolated from more experienced teachers when they begin teaching. Even more difficult to comprehend are the informal routines and customs of the school. Perhaps more important, new teachers do not know the other people in their work setting.

PAGE 70

55 McDonald <1982> supported this idea stating that new teachers most likely did not know any of the staff of the school in which they began teaching and they may also have been new to the community. The social isolation makes adaptation to a new job more difficult. The new teacher has no one to turn to for advice or consolation except other teachers whom he or she does not know well at all. . McDonald went on to point out that new teachers are afraid to reveal their weaknesses in teaching. If a teacher, beginner or experienced, is having difficulties managing a class, the teacher does not want other teachers or the administration to know it. This fear of .talking to others heightens the sense of isolation and obviously deprives teachers of help which they might obtain. This fear is due to the fact that administr.ators are viewed by new teachers as being formal evaluators, and peers as being informal evaluators, both of whom have rewards and punishments at their disposal to administer. The Isolation one new teacher experienced ls related by Linda Corman, a first-year teacher, ln Ryan <1970>. Commenting on the Infrequent communication between members of a department, she realized that though the teachers were friends in a social context, each preferred to close the classroom door to the rest of the world. She experienced confusion when she asked a peer about his classroom activities and was rudely rebuffed. Finally, she learned to operate in that milieu by

PAGE 71

56 closing her door and her mouth for the rest of the year. When she did meet some faculty members who might have made a difference to her, it was too late. Linda Corman decided not to return to teaching the next year. Lortie (1966), as reported ln Newberry <1977>, stated that evidence also exists that new teachers Jearn how to teach during their first year largely alone, through trial and error and in the isolation of their own classrooms. Stephens <1967> stated that hls/her teaching ablllty is based upon his/her own human tendency to teach others. Lortie <1975> added that new teachers frequently draw upon.models of teaching which were internalized during pupilhood. In yet another study by Hoy <1968>, the conditions affecting the new teacher's ability to control a class and establish discipline were examined. Hoy felt it was likely new teachers experienced a conflict between the school's socialization pattern and his/her own desires to be more humanitarian. The results were attributed to the effect that the new teacher's colleagues had upon the neophytes. It was found that new teachers who were viewed as weak on pupil control, had marginal status among their colleagues and other employees within the school. The uncertaintities about the competence of the teacher and the discretionary use of punishments, , cloud the new teacher's relationships with others and further enhance the isolation a new teacher feels and

PAGE 72

57 cannot but negatively impact the teacher's self-concept and confidence. Thls impact on the new teacher ls perhaps best described by Applegate, et al. (1977>. "It has been recognized that a large part of the llfespace of a new teacher involves human Interaction. Others enter the teacher's llfespace, interact with the teacher and contribute to the teacher's perceptions of the relationship. Many view these interactions as crucial to the new teacher's feelings of success or failure--crucial because it is through a teacher's interaction with others that he or she tests expectations and constructs a concept of self-as-teacher." -Applegate continued ... the literature suggests that one's perceptions of self are influenced greatly by relationships with other people." Bennis, Berlew, Schein and Steele (1973> noted that any interpersonal contact an individual has will either reinforce his/her feelings about him/herself or disconfirm them. Support Systems What can be done to assist a new teacher in coping with his/her problems? The obvious answer is to reduce or remove the feelings of, isolation that new teachers experience. McDonald believed that solutions to the new teacher's problems take three different forms. One form ls the traditional teacher preparation program prior to entrance into teaching. A second is to conduct the preparation of the teacher simultaneously with the transition into teaching. The third is to prepare the teacher prior to the transition and to provide

PAGE 73

58 support, guidance and instruction during the transition period. McDonald <1982> added that of these three forms, the first was the most common. The second was the internship. The third form was a program in which the new teacher is assigned to an experienced teacher who is available for advice and guidance. Taylor and Dale <1971> agreed on the importance of this support 11We expect that whether or not the new teacher has supportive help available will influence the development of the teacher.11 This position was also supported by Combs <1985>. 11Speclfic problems are considered minor and manageable by the new teacher if he/she has someone who can provide support for him/her. Problems that receive quick attention seldom.become major issues that threaten the success of the individual's teaching career.11 Additional support was given by Combs. 0The isolation of the classroom teacher and the problems brought on by such isolation can be overcome given a system in which reaching-out is allowed, in fact encouraged.'' Who should provide this support relationship? According to Combs <1985> a support person is someone who will listen to the new teacher and confirm or correct the conceptualizations he/she holds as well as provide alternative ideas for consideration.

PAGE 74

59 Traditionally, this role had fallen on the shoulders of an administrator, usually the principal. The support relationship In which the principal was a part has been less than successful. According to Griffin (1985) there was very little evidence of direct support being provided to beginners by supervisors over and above the ritual of new teacher orientation sessions held at the start of the school year. Griffin (1985) went on to report that generally, he found In his study, there was very little direct and close supervision of new teachers by their principals. Although, air the principals had very clear expectations for what the teachers were supposed to teach and how they should manage their classrooms, there was very little effort on the part of principals to attempt to personally ensure teacher compliance. As reported earlier, teachers are reluctant to discuss their problems with other teachers Ci.e. classroom discipline> for fear that they will be viewed as less than competent and be subject to group sanctions such as the granting of low status. This reluctance to discuss problems with peers is Increased many times when the support person is the principal, because to expose oneself as being anything less than competent to the person who holds the ultimate sanctioning powers, is seen by the new teacher as harmful. "When teachers do report asking for assistance CRyan, 1978; Newberry, 1977; Shelly, 1978;) lt ls when they are certain their competence will not be questioned or when they perceive no alternative for survival."

PAGE 75

60 If the principal doesn't adequately fill the role of support person for the new teacher, who remains to fill the support role? According to Pataniczek and Isaacson (1981) when assistance is needed, the new teacher usually turns to trusted colleagues, not to superiors. But, it has already been established that experienced teachers are skeptical of a new teacher's competence and frequently are reluctant to discuss their classroom.procedures with novices. Describing Great Brittan's experience ln the 11Support relationshlp11 McDonald C1982> reported that Great Britian had experimented with several different models of support systems for new teachers. The essence of these arrangements was an experienced teacher working with or helping a new teacher. One form of such help involves the experienced teacher periodically observing the new teacher and making suggestions on how to improve. Another form is for the new teacher to seek out the experienced teacher whenever he or she needs help. A third arrangement involves regular advisory sessions on teaching for new teachers which are conducted by experienced teachers. The answer to the question of who should be the support person seems conclusive. It should be an experienced teacher. This stems from the fact that the experienced teacher has already encountered the dilemmas facing the new teacher. According to McDonald (1982) it should be cautioned that this support relationship cannot be left to chance to occur, it must be purposefully planned. In addition, the established support

PAGE 76

. 61 system should not place the experienced teacher, who from now on, will be referred to as the "mentor", in the position of evaluating the riew teacher. For if this occurs, the barriers to free interchange between the mentor and new teacher will once again arise as they do when the principal was the support person and the new teacher will retreat into isolation. New Faculty Induction Programs . What do.we know about the impact of specific forms of interventions during the induction period? According to Griffin <1983>, there have been three attempts to synthesize the evaluation literature generated by the relatively few school-based induction programs and intern programs implemented to date . There were several conclusions all three studies had drawn concerning the existing knowledge of the impact of planned and sustained induction programs. First, it is clear from an examination of this literature that only a handful of induction programs have been evaluated and reported. The induction literature contains many descriptions of induction programs and practices for which no evaluation or assessment was reported. Second, the evaluation data which did exist did little to illuminate the nature of the impact of specific induction practices on either the immediate or long-term development of teachers. Despite much commonality in the kinds of specific practices which are advocated and despite the fact that beginning teachers who participated in these programs were

PAGE 77

62 highly satisfied with the support received, very little is known about the relationships between specific induction practices Ce.g. reduced workloads, buddy systems) and such things as teaching effectiveness, teacher morale, pupil achievement and teacher longevity in the profession. Clearly there is much that remains to be done both in terms of developing new models for teacher induction and ln monitoring and evaluating the "Impact of these efforts on teachers, pupils and the institutions in which they live and work. Beginning teachers generally are left to their own devices in a 11sea of isolation11 to learn the profession we call teaching (Howey, 1979). They do not enter the profession, however, with this expectation. Howey stated, 11they expected the school's experienced teachers to welcome them with warmth, if not open arms11 He further observed, many experienced teachers welcome newcomers and indicate their availability for help which is very encouraging. Then unexpectedly, the experienced teachers seem to disappear, to step back. It is as if they retreated to the privacy of their classrooms and already established lunch groups. From these sanctuaries, they appear to watch and see if the new teachers measure up, to see if they are 11one of us.11 Perhaps there is a subtle sense that the newcomers may steal some of their status or upset the school's delicate balance or prestige. Perhaps they are aware that the newcomer is going through his/her rite of passage, Just as they had to and they know the experience must be gone

PAGE 78

63 through. But does it have to be experienced alone, without the support of experienced teachers? Human support systems are essential if the beginning teacher is to survive. He/she cannot remain isolated from experienced adults. He/she needs their expertise and advice. He/she needs the human contact and the encouragement that experienced adults can provide . We need therefore, to arrange structures within the school so that new teachers have more contacts with more experienced teachers. One possible way of breaking into this isolated situation, would be to appoint a buddy teacher to work with the beginner. Gage <1972> reported that other professions and crafts give their beginning practitioners whole arrays of techniques, instruments, tools, devices, formulas, strategies, tactics, algorithms and tricks of the trade. But ln teaching, relatively few ways of making complex tasks more manageable are available. Teachers are expected to rediscover for themselves the formulas that experienced and ingenious teachers have acquired over .the years. Too little of the wisdom of the profession gets and passed along for the benefit of the novice. Lortie < 1965) expressed the same concern a 1 though hundreds of thousands of teachers have worked in schools and in the course of that work have learned much about teaching, the vast proportion of their learning is not available to learners

PAGE 79

64 today. No regular arrangements have been developed to catch and record the many solutions which, were they available, might prove useful tosucceedlng generations of beglnners.11 Lack of support has other consequences. By working alone, CFeiman-Nemser, 1982> beginning teachers may come to believe that good teaching is something you figure out for yourself by trying one technique after another. Such beliefs work against a commi tmen t to keep on I earn 1 ng and to ho 1 d h 1 gh standards of effective practice that make such learning possible. While survival may be_the paramount goal of beginning teachers, how they survive will have consequences for the kind of teacher they will become (McDonald, 1980). He argued the strategies a teacher uses to cope with first year problems become the basis for a style that endures. No matter how good nor how poor the strategies developed to cope with their problems are, beginning teachers internalize them and become a part of the teachers style. Future professional growth can be limited by the teachers reluctance to give up the very practices which helped them get through the initial experience. The concept of assigning an experienced teacher, a support person, a buddy, a cooperating or master teacher to the novice, is common in the literature concerning the Induction of beginning teachers. The design of the Nalonal Association of Secondary School PrJncipal1s project CHunt, 1968; Swanson, 1968) Incorporated a Cooperating teacher11 as one element

PAGE 80

65 common to all the project variations. Swanson reported the support teacher should advise and counsel beginning teachers. Hunt believed the use of a cooperating teacher was effective in helping the beginning teacher to adjust to the new setting. Noda C1968) described a beginning teacher development program which employed an experienced teacher in a supervisory role. The supervisor was charged with the development of the beginning teachers' abilities. This program, even though lt was rated as 11good11 l"n achieving its goal of assisting the beginning teacher with hiSI'her overall growth, had a severe limitation in its overall effectiveness. Noda reported the supervisor was to provide to the principal, the information to be used for retention or dismissal and for salary increments. The problem is similar to that described earlier when the principal ls in the role of 11helpern. Howey C1979> reported that while this division between helper and evaluator can be divided conceptually, ln the dally flux and flow of life in the schools, the teacher was never sure if he/she was dealing with the principal as helper or evaluator. This fact of wearing two hats would seem to inhibit both roles, helper and evaluator. Griffin C1983) pointed out that many informal buddy arrangements have been functioning for decades but they have been informal arrangements and serve to minimally inform new teachers about simple procedures and logistics. He went on to state that these informal arrangements did not generally result

PAGE 81

66 in the sharing of comprehensive information, nor did they serve to lead to consideration of the more substantive issues of teaching and schooling. He noted that from studies he had conducted, the interventions which reduced new teachers/ isolation in a non-threatening, supportive manner such as participant observation or non-evaluative peer teacher consultation seemed to have positive results. What things should a support person, coach, or mentor, do to make the relationship meaningful and what should the mentor be .like? Eddy (1969), in 11Becoming a Teacher,11 stated that supporting colleagues help beginning teachers in coping with the demands made upon them by their supervisor and subordinates in several ways. These include the provision of educational tools, assistance in establishing work routines, preparing classroom displays lesson planning and/or completing student records. Newberry (1977), in a study of 23 first year teachers, where no mentor relationship was formally established, found only six of the 23 first year teachers developed significant professional relationships with experienced teachers and then only under two conditions: (1) the teachers taught at the same grade level: C2) the teachers taught like the beginners wanted to teach. Most of the influences on the first year teachers were informal and learned without asking. Newberry went on to report that focused conversation between beginning and experienced teachers on teaching practices was minimal and the

PAGE 82

67 opportunity to observe other teachers at work did not exist. What little knowledge was acquired was gained informally from comments in thestaff room, by viewing materials around the duplicating machine and by looking through open classroom doors before and after school. Compton C1979) suggested a model program or orientation for new teachers which included a quasi-mentor. According to Compton, the principal should appoint a compatible colleague for the beginner: the mentor should receive modest remuneration and/or be freed an extra period each day to work with the beginner: the mentor should be a proven veteran who has a similar teaching assignment and common planning period and initial contacts between the beginner and experienced teacher should take place well before the planned program begins. Induction or internship programs which incorporate a 0cooperating teacher11, 11teacher mentor11 or "teacher tutor11, by whatever name, in a formal manner, would appear to be one approach to improving the transfer of experiences and skills from veteran professional to novice CHowey, 1979). In addition, Howey stated that the mentor-beginning teacher relationship should include learning about the school and its pupils. This area of learning, Howey believed, is very complex and requires knowledge and understanding of the particular school and community to which the new teacher is assigned, the norms and values of that setting, administrative policy,

PAGE 83

68 interaction with parents, awareness of the role of teacher organizations, procedures for staff interaction and a variety of other to the school as a social setting. within a larger social setting. Johnston (1981), in a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, stated that in the first year teacher/experienced teacher relationship, it was helpful if beginning teachers cou 1 d work with spec 1-a 11 y se 1 ected and trained experienced teachers and that both be given time from their normal teaching responsibilities. In a paper presented at the spring convention of the National Council of Teachers of English, Armstrong (1983) stated that there needed to be a systematic process to introduce new teachers to the nature of the school system and especially to the nature of the decision-making process. The new teachers should be made to understand how their views can be incorporated into the decision-making process, because this will lead them to feel better about themselves and this, in turn, will make them more inclined to commit to education on a long term basis. He continued, 11The program ought to provide continued support in the instructional area but also ought to induct the newcomer into the general operational and social milieu of the individual school. Schemes that call for such practices as experienced teacher mentoring merit serious

PAGE 84

69 Griffin <1983) believed the role of the peer teacher
PAGE 85

70 burdening each individual mentor with this task. They went on to state that when they asked the 93 beginning teachers to rate the various funct.ions that mentors performed, they responded that the most important assistance was in the area of classroom performance. Less important to them were more passive functions such as listening to new teacher1s concerns and general information about the district. This same group of beginning teachers were asked to Jist ways in which their mentors were most hel"pful to them. Mentors were most valued "as a source of ideas" C38% of respondents>, "for being accessible and understanding" .<19%), and for "offering assistance on classroom management" C16%). Beginning teachers need knowledgeable mentors who provide concrete assistance. These descriptions of the roles of mentors provide a general picture of the variety of roles mentors may be expected to perform. What characteristics are essential to be an effective mentor? Daloz (1983), in his article "Mentors: Teachers Who Make a Difference", offered a number of insights into the type of person a mentor should be and what he/she should be able to offer to beginners. He stated that mentors offer both material and emotional assistance; they assisted beginners in confronting and moving through their fears thus helping to create an environment in which it was safe to grow; ln place of certainties, mentors proded, cajoled, and urged; mentors led beginners among strange and frightening ideas, offering

PAGE 86

71 protection of a carefully limited sort. The mentor should be aware, Daloz maintained, that change can more readily take place ln some env'ironments than others. The trick for the mentor then became, as Robert Kegan claimed reported that recent research indicated that specific criteria should be considered in the selection of a mentor. In addition to being a successful teacher who is wililng to take on the responbsiblllty of assisting a first year teacher, it was helpful If the support teacher, teaches the same subject and grade level as the first year teacher, has a contiguous or nearby classroom and has a compatible teaching ideology with the first year teacher from their study of 93 first year teachers, were found to be congeniality, helpfulness and concern. Least mentioned were

PAGE 87

72 confidence, ability to be articulate, the use of reinforcement, creativity, high energy level, kindness, sincerity and organization. The ideal mentor was seen as a source of positive feelings, but was not viewed as an ideal person. Additional comments from this group of beginning teachers indicated that the ideal mentor was a teacher who was only successful, but who was also willing and able to help beginners attain the same_fee.llng and status for themselves. When asked to rate the important factors to consider in the selection of mentors, these beginning teachers stressed the match between themselves and the mentor in grade level and/or subJects taught. They did not place a high value on congruence in teaching styles or educational philosophy. These beginning teachers characterized successful mentors as first, being a good teacher in their own classroom, and second, knowing what the first year teacher was experiencing. The beginning teachers said that experienced teachers vary considerably in their empathy, ranging from sympathy to hostility. An additional requirement was that the mentor communicate well and comfortably. They also stated that familiarity with their actual classroom was a desirable but not crucial factor, so mentors might be assigned from another school. In summary, these beginning teachers suggested the following criteria Cin order of importance) be used for the screening of prospective mentors:

PAGE 88

1. time available. 2. concern for beginning teachers. 3. a communlcative-supportlve personality, 4. professional competence. Least mentioned were professionalism and teaching style. Beginning teachers were not interested in abstract qualifications, but rather those that lead to specific, solution-oriented interactions. 73 Finally, what are the arguments for institutionalizing a formal mentor system? The arguments have been best summarized by Driscoll, Peterson and Kauchak <1985). They stated that the arguments can be made from at least three perspectives. From the beginning teacher's perspective, mentor programs provided valued support during the transitional year from the teacher training institution to the classroom. Research has indicated that during this induction phase, teachers experienced a number of psychological shocks, Including frustration and feelings of isolation . Mentor programs offer a means of providing beginning teachers with not only criticism and feedback, but also with help and encouragement. From a district perspective, a mentor system provides a means of increasing beginning teacher's productivity and commitment, thus preventing attrition. Driscoll et al. <1985)

PAGE 89

74 believed that what separated new teachers from experienced professionals was not only years of experience but also the knowledge and skn Is that had developed over those years. They viewed mentoring systems as a way of providing a systematic process for passing on this knowledge, resulting ln new teachers becoming more effective in their classrooms and more satisfied with their professional performance. Fagan and Walter (1982) found a significant relationship between Job satisfaction and the presence of a mentor during early teaching years. The third argument is from the staff-development perspective. This argument stresses the benefits that mentors receive from the beginner-mentor relationship. They argue that teachers grow professionally through their professional role. Mentorlng encourages teachers to reexamine their practices and beliefs. A teacher in a peer assistance program described this professional growth. 11I think every teacher should do this, just for the fact that lt stimulates your teaching much more, and makes you much more aware of the way you teach11 CBenzley, Kauchak & Peterson, 1985>. Through the process of helping other teachers improve their skills, experienced teachers can gain new insights into their own teaching. Chapter Sununary Three major themes were examined in this review of literature. In regard to the first theme, the ways groups influence the behavior of individual members, it was determined

PAGE 90

75 that a group attempts to manipulate the behavioral and affective states of lndlvldual members for the purpose of keeping the group Intact and efflclently functlonlng as a unit. The means the group employs to accomplish these ends is the discretionary admininstration of rewards and punishments to individual group members. To avoid the punishments and acquire the rewards of the group, individual group members seek information about the external reality in which they work. The desired information takes three forms, information about the written rules of the group, information about the unwritten rules of the group, and feedback information on how the individual is viewed and accepted by the group. When the group uses its discretionary power to administer punishments to individual members, feelings of anxiety and self-doubt frequently develop in the individual's mind. Conversely, when rewards are forthcoming, feelings of well-being and self-confidence frequently result. The condition of an individual's affective state impacts his/her Job performance. The withholding and provision of information regarding the written and unwritten rules of the group are ways the group punishes or rewards the individual and impacts his/her affective state. Providing or falling to provide emotional support for individual group members also impacts member's emotional states. Sometimes group members bring to the group emotional baggage related to experiences they had prior to becoming a member of the current group. Whatever the source of

PAGE 91

76 emotional arousal, when it takes the form of discomfort for the individual, the individual attempts to use the group to alleviate the discomfort. Examination of the second major theme, the induction phase of new faculty member's socialization to the school group, confirmed that the school group employs the discretionary rewards and punishments to control the affective and behavioralstate of new faculty members. An analysis of information related to the third theme, the problems of new teachers, led to the conclusion that the identified problems could be categorized into the three informational areas described in the first theme, information about written rules, information about unwritten rules and feedback Information or into problems related to discomfort ln the individual's affective state. Those Individuals who reported success in overcoming their school related problems, identified a key member of the established school group as being significant in assisting in the resolution of their problemCs>. Many new faculty members referred to this person as a mentor. The mentor concept was examined, and it was determined that when significant, key members of the established group provided the Information the new member sought in his/her attempt to acquire the group's rewards and avoid its punishments. Hence, the affective state of the new member was impacted, the Individual felt accepted by the group, and the quality of his/her job performance Increased.

PAGE 92

77 From this review of literature grew the problem this dissertation addressed. This study sought to analyze, utilizing J.R. Hackman's description of group influences on individuals, the collegial relatlonshlp that developed between the new faculty member and the person who was most instrumental ln assisting the lnductlon of the new faculty member to the culture of the school.

PAGE 93

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction This study sought to analyze, utlllzlng J.R. Hackman's description of group Influences on individuals, the collegial relationship that developed between the new faculty member and the person who was most Instrumental in assisting the Induction of the new faculty member to the culture of the school. The relationship was examined in terms of three sets of variables: those related to the interactions that Impacted the Informational state of the new faculty member, those related to the interactions that impacted the affective state of the new faculty member, and those related to the demographics of the relationship. Subjects The population of this descriptive study Includes elementary and secondary teachers ln the Cherry Creek School District who were new to a school within the district at the beginning of the traditional calendar of the 1988-89 school year. Excluded from the population were teachers of one school which had not been ln operation for at least one year Csee assumptions>. In this study the population was referred to as

PAGE 94

79 "new faculty members" who transferred to a new school within the school district. Data Collection In March, 1989, the list of new faculty members was validated prior to its use in the formal data collection. As a result of this validation process, the population to be studied was reduced from 145 to 134. The reasons for the reduction were misidentification by the personnel office, retirements and

PAGE 95

eo resignations. These reductions impacted five of the six subgroups of the population. The novice elementary group changed from 33.to 32 while the novice secondary group declined from 20 to 18. The experienced elementary group was reduced from 35 to 33 but the experienced secondary group remained unchanged at 14. The transferred elementary group declined from 35 to 28 and the transferred secondary also declined from nine to eight. Late in April, 1989, each of the 134 new faculty members was sent, through District mall, a letter explaining the study, a statement explaining the procedure for insuring anonymity, a pre-addressed post card for tracking those teachers who returned a survey, a copy of the survey and a pre-addressed envelope for the return of the survey (see appendix for copies of these items>. Each teacher was asked to return the survey within a two week time period. Due to the high rate of return during this period, non-respondents were contacted by telephone. After an additional 10 day period, a second mailing was sent to those who remained as non-respondents. This procedure resulted in surveys being returned from 132 of the 134 subJects. Identification of a Significant Other On the cover page of each survey, teachers were asked lf they coould identify a 11Significant other11one person who, more than any other, had been especially helpful in providing information about the written and/or unwritten rules of the

PAGE 96

81 school and/or by assisting the clarification of the attitudes and beliefs they held about their assigned school. Those teachers who were able to identify one significant other were asked to complete the remaining portions of the survey. Teachers who were unable to Identify one significant other were asked to stop without completing the remaining parts of the survey and return it through the District mall. A nst of respondents who were unable to identify a significant other was created and each was assigned a number. Using a random numbers table, a 50% sample was drawn
PAGE 97

82 they must put into their personal words. By listing the possible choices and categories of answers for the respondent to circle, as tney apply to his/her situation, more { comprehensive and accurate responses should have been produced. Standardizing answers through this method also made the necessary comparisons possible. Where applicable, the respondent has been given a non-listed choice option to avoid the problem the individual to make inaccurate choices. Any personal or confidential information that was asked of respondents had an anonymity procedure applied to lt. Selection of Questions The survey instrument upon which this descriptive study was based, had four sections. Initially, the new faculty member was asked to identify the one person who was especially helpful to him/her, by providing information about the written and/or unwritten rules of the school and/or by assisting the clarification of the attitudes and beliefs he/she initially held about the school. This person is referred to as the "significant other". The definition of "significant other" was based upon the definitions of informational state and affective state as determined by J.R. Hackman (1976> in his discussion of group influences on individuals. In the second section, information which was descriptive of the demographics of the relationship between the new faculty member and his/her identified significant other was

PAGE 98

sought. The demographic data components including age, education, teaching experience and school residency differentials, and gender were determined to be potentially important in studies that were conducted by Newberry <1977>, Levinson <1978>, Klopf and Harrison (1981>, Hunt and Michael <1983>, Kram (1983>, Varah <1986> and Ryan (1986>. 83 Hackman C1976> identified three areas of group influences on lndlv1duals. Sections three and four of this survey addressed these areas of influence. The third section of this survey, ''informational data", sought to gather data regarding the significant other's role in providing the new faculty member with information about the written and unwritten rules of the school, and other faculty members perceptions of the new faculty member's competence. The specific written and unwritten rules components were determined from studies conducted by Edgar and Brod (1970>, Johnston (1981), McDonald C1982>, Odell (1986>, Ward <1986>, and Schulman and Colbert (1987). The final section of this survey, "affective data", sought to gather data regarding the significant other's role in impacting the affective or emotional state of the new faculty member during his/her induction to the group. Components of this section were determined from studies conducted by Fuller <1969>, Badertscher (1978), Johnston (1981>, Bova and Phillips (1984), Odell <1986>, and Ward <1986>.

PAGE 99

84 Validity Check The validity of this questionnaire was checked by having a jury made up of the administrative staff of the Office of Research and Evaluation of the Cherry Creek School District examine the questionnaire. The readers were asked to check the questions and information solicited on the questionnaire against the subproblems of the study to determine whether or not the data received from the questionaire would answer.the questions asked in the study. The jury members were also asked to determine if the questions asked were clearly stated. Pilot Study Following the validation process, the questionnaire was piloted by a group of 10 respondents from within the Cherry Creek School District. The piloting group was composed of people who were new faculty members within the last four years. Analysis of Data Demographic, informational, and affective data were compiled for each of the six subgroups of the population of new faculty members. The data were processed by computer using the SPSS program . Descriptive statistics were used to interpret the data in terms of percentages and frequency distributions. Most of the data were non-parametric in nature and were subjected to a chi-square analysis. When possible, the data were analyzed using ANOVA . Because of the small number of respondents In the subgroup-transferred

PAGE 100

85 teachers, it was often necessary to collapse data across categories to Increase the power of the statistical test used. One way of collapsing groups was to place together novice elementary with novice secondary teachers, experienced elementary with experienced secondary teachers, and transferred elementary with transferred secondary teachers thus creating three subgroups. Another way the data were collapsed was to group togetherall elementary and all secondary teachers thus creating two subgroups. The third way the data were collapsed was to view the population of new faculty members as a group.

PAGE 101

86 CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS Organization of Chapter IV an introduction, the results from a stat 1st 1 ca 1 ana 1 ysi s _of the data generated from th 1 s study is presented. This analysis is presented in several sections. First, the resu 1 ts from a ch i-square and ANOVA ana 1 ysi s of the demographic data is presented. This is followed by a chi-square analysis of .the informational data including informational data regarding written rules of the school, unwritten rules of the school, and feedback on the perceptions of the new faculty member. A chi-square analysis of the affective data is described. ANOVA is used to determine whether or not one of the various groups received more Information than others. The second maJor section of this chapter shall examine, although not statistically significant, unusual response patterns between the groups. The final section of this chapter examines the profile of the significant other generated for each of the groups of new faculty members of the study.

PAGE 102

87 Introduction The population of this descriptive study included 134 new faculty meffiQers CNFMs> ln the Cherry Creek School District. Of the 134 NFMs, 132 (98.5%) returned a survey instrument. Of the 132 NFMs, 95 C72%> were able to identify one significant other. Of the 132 NFMs, 36 C27.3%) were unable to identify one significant other and one NFM (.7%> officially declined to take part ln the study. Descriptive ln the form of frequency dlstrlbutlons and chi-square statistics, are depleted for each of the questions asked ln the survey. These data are located ln the appendix section of this study. Analysis of variance CANOVA> data was depleted for those items where this type of analysis was possible and was shown ln this chapter. Data was presented in the same order as the questions were asked ln the survey. The survey was divided into three sections demographic, informational and affective. These headings were also used in the appendixes. Informational data was divided Into the three subgroups of written data pertaining to the formal and informal rules of the school, unwritten data pertaining to the formal and Informal rules of the school and information feedback. Each question in the survey addressed a variable ln this study and had been given a title (abbreviated because of space limitations>, which depleted the main idea of the variable.

PAGE 103

88 Respondents Unable to Identify One Slgnlflcant Other A 50% random sample of those NFMs who were unable to identify one slgnJflcant other was selected . These lndlvlduals were contacted and asked why they were unable to Identify one slgnlflcant other as lt was defined ln this study. Of the 18 NFMs, 16 (89%) indicated that for each of them, many people participated In the role of slgnlflcant other and it was Impossible to identify one as being more Important than another. Two of the _18 <11%> NFMs Indicated that no one flt the role of slgnlflcant other as defined ln this study. One of these NFMs added that he had to figure things out for himself and the other felt that because no one assisted her, she was not offered a contract renewal. Demographic Data Chi-square and ANOVA Analysis Chi-square analysis was made of the slx groups of elementary and secondary novice teachers, elementary and secondary experienced teachers, and elementary and secondary transfer teachers across the selected demographic variables of this study. The analysis lnltlally revealed that five of the variables were statistically slgnlflcant, p=.10. Further analysts, however, indicated that these results were unreliable due to the small number of subjects in all groups. In an attempt to overcome this problem, the slx groups were first collapsed Into three: novice teachers, experienced teachers, and transfer teachers.

PAGE 104

89 When chi-square analysis was applied to these groups, lt was found that transfer teachers were more likely to have the same or greater amount of education than did their significant other, while novice teachers had the same or less education than did their significant other, x2C4>=18.257, p=.001 =17.075, p=.002 (see Appendix. E, Table E-6>. A second technique of collapsing the six groups to overcome the problem of unreliability due to small group size, was to group the respondents Into two groups, elementary and secondary new faculty members. Chi-square analysis Indicated that the gender of the significant other and the teacher was likely to be the same for both elementary and secondary groups, but more likely for elementary than secondary teachers, x2 <3>=19.188, p=.0003 (see Appendix H, Table H-3). Results also indicated that the significant other of the secondary teacher had more education compared to the secondary teacher, than did the significant other of the elementary teacher compared to the elementary teacher, x2C2>=7.614, p=.02, (see Appendix H, Table H-4>. In addltlon, secondary teachers and their significant other were more likely to share a classroom and/or office than

PAGE 105

90 elementary teachers and their significant other. However, the classroom and/or office of elementary teachers and their signlfcant was more likely to be located ln close proximity to each other than the office and/or classroom of secondary teachers and their significant other, x2C3>=6.971, p=.073 =10.841, p=.013 . Despite the small number of subjects who were transfer teachers, either at the elementary or secondary level, ANOVA revealed some significant differences between the groups for those questions which lent themselves to that type of analysis. It was possible to use ANOVA ln an attempt to discover whether or not significant relationships existed between group membership and the age differential among respondents and their sJgnlflcant other; the experience differential among respondents and their sJgnJfJcant other; and the length of time of time the significant other had been employed at the school. ANOVA no significant differences between groups regarding age differential of respondents and their significant other, p>.45. Table 1 shows there was a slgnlflcant difference between group membership and educational experience differential, FC5,76)=2.363, p=.048. When post-hoc tests were

PAGE 106

91 made to find where the differences occurred, it was found that a significant difference in educational experience occurred between novice elementary teachers and novice secondary teachers with the significant others of novice secondary teachers having less experience. Table 1 Group Means and ANOVA Summary Table: Six Groups and Education Experience Differential ELEM NOV SEC NOV ELEM EXP Group SEC EXP ELEM TRAN SEC TRAN MEANS 2.52 1.57 2.29 2.00 1.57 2.00 Cn=7> Source Group Residual Total Analysis of Variance Summary Table df 5 76 81 ss 12.35 79.45 91.80 MS 2.47 1.04 F prob F 2.36 .0477 One-way ANOVA also indicated, as shown in Table 2, that there was a significant difference between groups and the number of years the significant other had worked at the school, FC5,88>=6.00, p=.0001. Post-hoc tests indicated that the significant others for the novice teachers Cboth elementary and secondary) and elementary transfer teachers had worked at the school much less than had the significant others for the other groups.

PAGE 107

92 Table 2 Group Means and ANOVA Summary Table: Six Groups and Years in Residence at School Group ELEM SEC ELEM SEC ELEM SEC NOV NOV EXP EXP TRAN TRAN MEANS 1.13 1.30 1.80 1.85 1.42 2.29 Cn=7> Anal ysi s of Variance Summary Table Source df ss MS F prob F Group 5 11.57 2.31 6.00 .0001 Residual 88 33.93 .39 Total 93 45.50 Informational Data Chi-square Analysis of Formal, Written Rules Data Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not their significant other had provided them with information regarding the formal, written rules on a variety of subjects. Data that were grouped by the six groups of this study were subJected to chi-square analysis and due to group size problems was found to be unreliable. When the groups were collapsed into novice, experienced, and transfer teachers, it was found that transfer teachers were significantly Jess likely to receive information regarding the formal written rules on required and voluntary

PAGE 108

93 meetings than were novice or experienced teachers, x2<2>=5.427, p=.066 =6.835, p=.009 . In regard to the groups receiving this information, 77.6% of the elementary teachers received it while 51.4% of the secondary teachers received it. Secondary teachers were significantly less likely to get information on the formal written rules regarding lesson plans than were elementary teachers, x2<1>=4.390, p=.036, with 20.6% of the secondary teachers receiving lt while 42.1% of the elementary teachers received it. Elementary teachers were more likely to get information regarding the formal written rules on operating and checking out equipment than were secondary teachers, x2<1>=2.919, p=.088 , 61% of the elementary teachers receiving this information, while only 42.9% of the secondary teachers received this written information.

PAGE 109

94 Chi-square Analysis of Information Regarding Unwritten Rules As indicated in the chi-square analysis of data on the provision of information, analysis of data on unwritten rules grouped by the six groups of this study provided unreliable information due to small group sizes. Data were, therefore, regrouped in the same manner as were demographic and written rules information. revealed that novice teachers received less information regarding unwritten rules about working relationships among the staff than was expected, while I transfer teachers received more information than expected, x2 <2>=7.745, p=.021 . Only 70% of the novice teachers received such information while all the transfer teachers received this information from their significant other.s. Additionally, fewer novices received information regarding unwritten rules about social activities than was expected, x2<2>=5.322, p=.07 . Social activities information was received by 53.4% of the novices, while 75% of the experienced and 78.9% of the transfer teachers received such information. Fewer novices received information about both unwritten rules associated with rewards and punishments and who to be on guard for at their school, x2<2>=6.976, p=.031
PAGE 110

Table F-25> and x2C2>=5.271, p=.072 (see Appendix F, Table F-26), respectively. In both cases approximately 30% of the novice teachers -received this information. 95 When the respondents were divided Into two groups, elementary and secondary teachers, only two significant differences emerged. Fewer secondary teachers received information regarding the unwritten rules about administrative routines than was expected, x2C1>=3.716, p=.054 (see Appendix I, Table I-11), with -16.1% of the secondary teachers receiving such information while 36% of the elementary teachers received thls Information from their significant others. Secondary teachers also received significantly less Information regarding the unwritten rules about parent conferences, x2C1>=3.288, p=.07 Csee Appendix I, Table I-14), with 31% of the elementary teachers receiving this information while only 13% of the secondary teachers had received lt. Chi-square Analysis of Feedback Information There were no significant differences ln terms of the provision of feedback across the six groups of this study, neither when the six groups were regrouped Into three, , nor when they were regrouped into two,
PAGE 111

isolation, and/or conflict when they of small size also made statistically significant affective data the six groups of thls study. 96 When data were collapsed Into groups, the problem was solved and analysis Indicated that novice teachers had more opportunities to their others teaching than dld experienced or transfer x2<2>=5.012, p=.082 (see Appendix G, Table G-9), with 65% of the novice reporting that their significant other had provided them with to observe themselves teaching. Only 45.7% of the teachers and 36.8% of the transfer teachers had received such an When data were collapsed Into two It was found that significantly assistance than expected from thelr slgnlflcant other Jn collecting and locating x2<1>=7.287, p=.007 Csee Appendix J, Table J-2>, with 82.8% of the elementary receiving assistance while only 57.1% of the secondary received 1 t. Slml I ar 1 l y e) ementary teachers were sign if 1 cant 1 y likely than expected to assistance in arranging, and analyzing the physical setting of x2C1>=3.494, p=.062 Csee Appendix J, Table J-4>, with 45% of the elementary teachers receiving this ald while only 25.7% of the teachers it.

PAGE 112

97 Overall Provision of Information In an attempt to discover whether or not one of the various groups received more information than others, several measures of total information were computed. First, each subJect received a score which represented the total amount of information regarding the written rules which he/she received from his/her significant other. Second, each subject received a score which iepresented the total amount of information regarding the unwritten rules of the school which he/she received from his/her significant other. Third, these two scores were combined into one .measure of total information received. Fourth, each subject received a score on the amount of feedback he/she received and fifth, a score which represented the total amount of affective support he/she received from his/her significant other. One-way analysis of variance indicated there were no significant differences between the six groups for any of these scores, p>.20. When the groups were collapsed into sub-categories, of novice, experienced, and transfer teachers, again, no significant differences between the groups emerged. As depicted in Table 3, it was only when the groups were collapsed into elementary and secondary teachers that any significant difference emerged. Elementary teachers received more information regarding the written rules of the school than did secondary teachers, FC1,93>=3.69, p=.0577. Similarly, in Table 4, elementary teachers received more information about

PAGE 113

98 both the written and unwritten rules of the school than dld secondary teachers, FC1,93>=4.0866, p=.0461. Table 3 Group Means and ANOVA Summary Table for Elementary vs Secondary Teachers Regarding Written Information Given Group ELEMENTARY SECONDARY MEANS 6.533" 5.428 Cn=60> Cn=35> Analysis of Variance Sunmary Table Source df ss MS F prob F Group 1 26.98 26.98 3.69 .0577 Residual 93 679.50 7.31 Total 94 706.48 Table 4 Group Means and ANOVA Summary Table for Elementary vs Secondary Teachers Regarding Total Information Given Group ELEMENTARY SECONDARY MEANS 11.68 9.60 Cn=60> Cn=35> Analysis of Variance Summary Table Source df ss MS F prob F Group 1 95.94 95.94 4.09 .0461 Residual 93 2183.38 23.48 Total 94 2279.32

PAGE 114

99 Profiles of Significant Others Introduction The of the study's data indicated that an extremely small number of the 50 attributes measured were statistically significant. A profile of the significant other for each group was, therefore, not built, solely on statistically significant data. Instead, descriptive profiles were constructed from teacher responses to the New Faculty Member Survey (see Appendix A>. Included in the appendix of this study are the frequency distributions which were developed from teacher responses to the New Faculty Member Survey. From these frequency distributions, a profile of the key attributes of the significant other was developed for each of the six subgroups of this study. Additionally, data were collapsed into the three groups of novice, experienced and transfer teachers and key attribute profiles were developed. Data were also collapsed into the two groups of elementary versus secondary teachers and profiles were developed. a profile of the key attributes of the significant other for the entire population of respondents was developed. The profiles developed are composed of the key demographic, informational, and affective attributes of the significant other. Attributes were defined as being key when the frequency of response of the members of a subgroup was greater than 50% on an individual attribute.

PAGE 115

100 of Six Subgroups Novice The significant this to be (68%> than the by 1-10 years <81%), of the same gender as the teacher C84%>, have the same level of education as the (54.2%), was also a C100%), had a amount of teaching C100%) by 1-10 (60.9%), and had been in at school 1-5 years (91.7%>. In addition, the office of the significant was in close C68%) to that of the The significant and the of thls subgroup taught the same subJect and level C72%> Csee Appendix B, Tables B-1 B-10). Information the rules of the school was provided by the significant on the topics of the administrative that must be followed <76%>, the and evaluating of pupil achievement C84%), the philosophy and obJectives (76%), parent conference responsibilities <84%>, the procedures for acquiring supplies and materials (72%), the rules regarding required and voluntary committee meetings <68%>, procedures for checking out and operating equipment C72%>, rules about arrival and departure times C56%>, and C64%> Csee Appendix C, Tables C-1 through C-10). The significant other also information the unwritten prevalent in a group in regard to working relations among staff members C80%>, social activities

PAGE 116

among staff members (62.5%), and the demands on a teacher's tlme and energy outside the normal school day C56%) , and acceptance as a member of the staff (64%) Csee Appendix C, Tables C-27 through.C-30). The signlfica.nt other helped to alleviate the novice elementary teacher's feelings of self-doubt, anxiety, frustration, isolation and/or conflict by offering support through empathetic listening and experience sharing (100%), by collecting or locating materials and resources <88%), by giving guidance and ideas regarding discipline, scheduling and planning (83.3%>, by providing and/or clarifying the formal, written C68%) and informal, unwritten <80%) rules of the school, by providing feedback on how others perceived his/her teaching abilities and performance as a teacher C60%), by providing the novice teacher with opportunities to observe the significant other's classes in session C72%>, and by playing a significant role in clarifying the attitudes and beliefs the novice teacher held when he/she began teaching at his/her school C84%) Csee Appendix D, Tables D-1 through D-10). Novice Secondary Teacher. The demographic profile of the significant other of this category of teacher was similar to that of the novice elementary teacher. The significant

PAGE 117

102 other was older (52.2%> by 1-10 years <84.2%>, was of the same gender as the teacher (82.6%>, had the same education level as the teacher <61 .. 9%) was also a teacher <87%>, had a greater amount of educational experience C52.4%) by 1-5 years <61.9%>, had been in residence at hls/her school from 1-5 years <73.9%>, had a classroom or office that was In close proximity C52.2%> to the classroom or office of the teacher, and taught the same subject and grade level <60%> as the novice secondary teacher . A 1 though the percentages varied sll ght 1 y, in regard to the information the significant other provided relative to the formal, written rules of the school, the types of Information provided were Identical to those that the significant other of the novice elementary teacher provided. These Include information about administrative routines <69.6%), pupil achievement <78.3%>, the.school's philosophy and objectives <72.7%>, parent conference responslbllltles <71.4%>, procedures for acquiring supplies and materials <73.9%), voluntary and required committee meetings (65.2%>, procedures for checking out equipment, <60.9%), arrival and departure times <56.5%) and appraisal proc_edures (69.6%) Csee Appendix C, Tables C-1 through C-10>. Unwritten rules Information that was provided was similar to that given novice elementary teachers. Information on work relations among staff members <82.6%), social activities among staff members (78.3%), and time demands

PAGE 118

103 outside the school day (65.2%) were provided, but in addition information was given relative to who a person has to be on guard for at school (52.5%> . None of the feedback attributes Identified in this study met the criteria of being key for this group of teachers (see Appendix C, Tables C-27 through C-30>. The key affective attributes of the significant other of this group were similar but not as extensive as those Identified with the significant other of the novice elementary. teacher. They Include empathetic listening and experience sharing (100%), collecting materials and providing resources <72.7%>, guidance on discipline and scheduling (69.6%>, providing and/or clarifying formal, written (65.2%> and informal, unwritten <77.3%> rules of the school and by playing a significant role in clarifying the beliefs the teacher lnltially held when he/she began teaching at his/her school (95.5%) , had worked at his/her school 6-10 years (53.3%), shared with the teacher an office or

PAGE 119

104 classroom <53.3%>, but when It came to subJect and grade level assignment there was no definitive pattern . Information regarding the formal, written rules was provided in the areas of administrative routines C53.3%>, pupil achievement (80%>, the school1s philosophy and obJectives (60%), parent conference responsibilities (53.3%>, procedures for acquiring and materials C53.3%> and appraisal procedures (73.3%> Csee Appendix C, Tables C-1 through C-10>. Information regarding the informal, unwritten rules was provided in the areas of working relations among staff members (53.3%), time demands outside the school day (53.3%> and appraisal procedures <73.3%> . Feedback on how other staff members perceived the teacher1s classroom discipline (53.3%> was also provided Csee Appendix C, Tables C-27 through C-30>. Empathetic listening (93.3%) and playing a significant role in clarifying the teacher1s Initial attitudes and beliefs about the school (93.3%> were behaviors identified as being key in the significant other profile when the experienced elementary teacher had feelings of self-doubt, anxiety, frustration, etc. In addition, teachers Identified as being key behaviors, the collecting of materials C66.7%>, guidance on discipline and scheduling <73.3%>, the provision and clarification of formal, written (53.3%> and Informal,

PAGE 120

105 unwritten (60%) rules, and the opportunity to observe the significant other's classroom (53.3%) . The educational level of the significant other was determined not to be key in this profile. The significant other was a teacher (53.8%), had a higher amount of educational experience (91.7%> by 1-10 years <80%> than the teacher and had been in residence at hlslher school from 6-10 years (53.8%). The teacher and the significant other taught the same grade level (80%) but the proximity of the significant other's classroom or office relative to classroom and/or office of the teacher was not determined to be key Csee Appendix B, Tables B-1 through B-10). The significant other of the experienced secondary teacher shared all the attributes of the significant other of the experienced elementary teacher in regard to the information provided relative to the formal, written rules of the school. These included the rules regarding administrative routines <76.9%), pupil achievement (76.9%>, the school's philosophy and obJectives <53.8%), parent conference responsibilltes (53.8%>,

PAGE 121

106 the acquistion of materials <76.9%), and appraisal procedures <69.2%>. In contrast, the significant other of the experienced secondary Information regarding the formal, written rules about required and voluntary committee meetings <76.9%>, procedures for checking out equipment <61.5%), and arrival and departure times <53.8%) . The profile of the experienced secondary significant other was different from the profile of the experienced elementary significant other when it came to giving about the Informal, unwritten rules of the school and the providing of feedback on other staff member's perceptions of the teacher. Information about the unwritten rules was given in the areas of working relations among staff members <84.6%>, social actlvltles among staff members <69.2%>, and about who one has to on guard for at the school <61.5%> . Feedback was given relative to other staff members' perceptions of the teacher's teaching effectiveness <75%>, teaching ability <75%>, classroom discipline <58.3%>, and acceptance by the group <58.3%>
PAGE 122

107 listening and experience sharing <100%>, collecting materials (53.8%>, providing guidance on discipline and scheduling (84.6%), provisl_on and/or clarification of formal, written <66.7%> and Informal, unwritten (83.3%) rules of the school, clarifying the beliefs initially held by the teacher (100%), and by providing opportunities to be observed by the teacher (53.8%>. In addition the teacher in this group was provided with feedback about-how other staff members perceived his/her teaching abilities performance (76.9%> , was also a teacher <66.7%), had been in residence at his/her school from 1-5 years <75%>, shared a classroom or office with the teacher <58.3%> and was assigned the same grade level and subject matter to teach as the teacher <55.6%). According to the definition of a key attribute, neither the educational experience level differential nor education level of the significant other could be determined Csee Appendix B, Tables B-1 through B-10>. The significant other for the teacher of this group provided the teacher with information about the formal written rules of the school in regard to administrative routines C58.3%>, pupil achievment <75%>, the philosophy and obJectives

PAGE 123

108 of the school C75%>, parent conference responsibilities C75%>, procedures for acquiring materials (83.3%), and rules regarding appraisal procedures <58.3%> . Information regarding the informal, unwritten rules of the school was provided by the significant other of this group to the teacher, in the areas of working relations among staff members (100%>, soclal activities among staff members (83.3%>, time demands outside of the school day (58.3%>, the rewards and punishments that are associated with the unwritten rules of the school <72.7%>, and who one has to be on guard for at his/her school (75%> Csee Appendix C, Tables C-11 through C-26>. Feedback attributes were not key for this group Csee Appendix C, Tables C-27 through C-30>. The significant other helped to alleviate feelings of self-doubt, anxiety, frustration, isolation and/or conflict in the mind of the teacher by offering support through empathetic listening and experience sharing (100%>, by collecting or locating materials (90.9%>, by giving guidance and Ideas on discipline and scheduling (63.6%), by assisting in arranging and organizing the teacher's classroom C75%>, by providing and/or clarifying the formal, written C66.7%> and informal, unwritten(83.3%) rules of the school and by being significant in helping to clarify the beliefs and attitudes about the school that the new teacher held when he/she began teaching at

PAGE 124

his/her school (83.3%) , was also a teacher <100%), had more educational experience than the teacher <71.4%) by 1-10 years <71.5%). He/she had been in residence at his/her school from 6-15 years C85.5%>, and had his/her classroom and/or office in close proximity to that of the teacher <71.4%>. Key attributes regarding the education level and grade level and subJect matter teaching assignments of the significant other as compared to the teacher could not be determined , procedures for acquiring materials <71.4%), and rules about appraisal procedures C71.4%> Csee Appendix C, Tables C-1 through C-10>. Information regarding the Informal, unwritten rules of the school was provided the teacher ln regard to working relations among staff members (100%), social acitlvities among staff members <71.4%), tlme demands on the teacher outside the

PAGE 125

110 school day <57.1%>, and the and punishments that associated with the of the school <57.1%> In of the key affective of the significant of this group, the significant assisted the when the feelings of self-doubt, anxiety, isolation, conflict empathetic listening and (85.7%), by giving guidance and ideas on discipline and scheduling <57.1%), by the written <57.1%> and (85.7%> of the school, and by helping to the attitudes and beliefs the held when he/she began teaching at school . Between the Six Demographic As shown in Table 5, in five of six the significant was than the but the age group to with most falling in the 1-10 and the significant the same as the with the significant being the exception. In addition, the significant of all groups was a Although distinct

PAGE 126

111 between groups in regard to the educational level of the slgnlflcant other as compared to the teacher, the significant others of a I I s i.x. groups, genera I I y, had more years of contracted educational experience than the teacher by 1-10 years. The significant other of four of the six groups, generally, had been in residence at his/her school from 6-10 years and the remaining two groups, from 1-5 years. The majority of teqchers ln all groups reported that the slgnlflcant other shared or was ln close proximity when it came to the location of hlslher classroom and/or office. The significant other of three groups, generally, taught the same subject and grade level as the teacher, but ln two groups only the same grade level and ln the third there was not a recognizable pattern.

PAGE 127

Table 5 Demographic Profiles for Six Groups ATTRIBUTE AGE same s.o. older AGE DIFFERENT"IfaL 1-5 1-10 6-15 GENDER same different EDUCATION LEVEL same s.o. higher ROLE Teacher CONTRACTED EDUC. EXPERIENCE s.o. greater GROUP ELEM SEC ELEM SEC ELEM SEC NOV NOV EXP EXP TRAN TRAN X X X X X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I )( I I I I X l X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X 112 I I

PAGE 128

CONTRACTED EDOc; EXPERIENCE DIFF. Cin years> 1-5 1-10 RESIDENCE Un years> 1-5 6-10 6-15 CLASS/OFFICE LOCATION share close ASSIGNMENT same subJect & grade level same grade level& dlff. subject 113 CTable 5 cont.> ELEM SEC ELEM SEC ELEM SEC NOV NOV EXP EXP TRAN TRAN X X X X X X X X X X X = KEY ATTRIBUTE

PAGE 129

114 Informational Attributes. As shown in Table 6, in regard to the information the significant other provided the teacher relative to the formal, written rules of the school, the significant other of all six groups, generally, provided information on pupil achievement, the school/s philosophy and objectives, procedures for acquiring supplies and materials, and on rules regarding appraisal procedures. Five of the six group profiles. included information regarding admininstrative routines, and parent conference procedures. Three of the six groups included Information about required and voluntary committee meetings, arrival and departure times, and procedures for checking out equipment.

PAGE 130

115 Table 6 Informational Attributes Profile of Six Groups: Formal Written RUles ATTRIBUTE Administrative Routines Pupil Achievement School's Philosophy Parent Conferences Acquisition of Materials Lesson Plans Committee Meetings Checking Out Equipment Arrival and Depature Times Appraisal GROUP ELEM SEC ELEM SEC ELEM SEC NOV NOV EXP EX P TRAN TRAN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X = KEY ATTRIBUTE

PAGE 131

116 In all six groups, as shown in Table 7, the significant other, generally, provided the teacher with information about the in forma I un_wr 1 tten ru 1 es of the schoo I 1 n regard to working relations among staff members. In five of the slx groups, Information was generally provided on unwritten rules about social activities among staff members and on the time demands on the teacher outside the school day. In three of the slx groups, Information about who a person had to be on guard for at the school was_ genera 11 y provide d. In addl t !on, in two of the slx groups, Information was generally provided on the rewards and punishments that accompanied the unwritten rules of the school. Information regarding the unwritten rules accompanying appraisal procedures was generally provided to only one group of teachers.

PAGE 132

117 Table 7 Informational Attributes Profile of Slx Groups: Unwritten Rules ATI'RIBUTE Aaninistrative Routines Pupil Achievement School's Parent Conferences Acquisition of Materials Lesson Plans Committee Meetings Checking OUt Equipment Arrival and Depature Times Appraisal Working Relations Among Staff Social Activities Among Staff Teacher Behavior Time Demands Rewards and Punishments Who to Be On Guard For GROUP ELEM SEC ELEM SEC NOV NOV EXP EXP X X X X X X X '.X X X X X X X :: I
PAGE 133

118 In only three groups, as shown in Table 8, were feedback attributes included ln the profile of the significant other. In two of .. these groups, exper 1 enced e I ementary and experienced secondary teachers, the teacher, generally, was provided by the significant other with feedback regarding how other staff members perceived the teacher's teaching effectiveness and teaching abilltles, and on how well he/she was being other staff members. Table 8 Informational Attributes Profile of Six Groups: Feedback GROUP ELEM SEC ELEM SEC ELEM SEC AT TRIBUTE NOV NOV EXP EXP TRAN TRAN Teaching Effectiveness X X Teaching Abilities X X Classroom Discipline X X Acceptance X X X : KEY ATTRIBUTE

PAGE 134

119 Affective Attributes. As depleted in Table 9, the significant other in all six groups helped to alleviate the feelings of self-doubt, anxiety, frustration, isolation and/or conflict that the new faculty member may have experienced by providing empathetic listening and experience sharing, by giving guidance and ideas related to discipline, scheduling and planning, by providing and/or clarifying the formal, written and informal, unwritten rules of the school, and by helping the new faculty member l.n clarifying the attitudes and beliefs he/she held when he/she began teaching at his/her school. In five of the six groups, the significant other also assisted by collecting materials and resources for the new faculty member. In three groups the significant other provided the new faculty member with opportunites to observe his/her classroom. In two groups, the significant other, additionally, assisted the teacher in the resolution of the aforementioned feelings by providing feedback on how other staff members perceived the teacher's abilities and performance as a teacher. Only one group, transfer elementary teachers, added assistance ln arranging, organizing, and analyzing the physical setting of the teacher1s classroom.

PAGE 135

Table 9 Affective Attributes Profile of Six Groups A'ITRIBUTE Empathetic Llstenlng Materials Collection Discipline Guidance . Classroom Analysts Observe Parent Conf. Clarify Formal Rules Clarify Informal Rules Feedback on Others Perceptions Opportunities to Observe Clarify Initial Attitudes and Beliefs X = KEY ATTRIBUTE GROUPS ELEM NOV X X X X x X X )( SEC ELEM NOV EXP X X X X X X X X X X X X X 120 SEC ELEM SEC EXP TRAN TRAN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

PAGE 136

121 Profiles of Three Collapsed Groups Novice Teachers. The significant other of the novice teacher was generally older <70%> than the teacher by 1-10 years <71.4%>. He/she was generally the same gender <75%> as the teacher, workd in the role of teacher <95%> and had, as would be expected, more contracted educational experience <100%> by 6-15 years (64.8%>. The significant other had generally been -in_residence at his/her school 1-5 years (69.2%>, taught the same grade and subject as the teacher <59.5%>, and had his/her classroom or office located in close proximity <52.5%) to that of the teacher. The education level of the significant other was not a key attribute of this group . Informational data related to the formal, written rules of the school were provided by the significant other ln the areas of administrative routines (67.5%>, pupil achievement <82.5%>, the school's philosophy and objectives <70%), parent conference responsibilities <72.5%>, procedures for acquiring supplies and materials (65%>, required and voluntary committee meetings <57.5%), proceedures for checking out equipment <55%> and appraisal procedures <67.5%) . The significant other generally provided the teacher of this group wlth information on the informal, unwritten rules of the school in the areas of appraisal procedures <51.4%>, work relations among staff members (70%>, social activities among

PAGE 137

122 staff members <53.8%>, and time demands on the teacher outside the normal school day <55%> , collected materials and resources <80%>, gave guidance related to discipline and planning (79.5%>, provided and/or clarified the formal, written <62.5%> and informal, unwritten <72.5%) rules of the school, gave the teacher opportunities to observe the significant other's classroom C65%>, and played a significant role ln clarifying the attitudes and beliefs the novice teacher held when he/she began teaching at his/ her school C87.5%> Csee Appendix G, Tables G-1 through G-10>. Experienced Teachers. The significant other of the experienced teacher was generally older <61.1%> than the teacher by 1-10 years <72.4%>. The gender of the teacher and his/her significant other was generally the same <83.4%>, they generally had the same level of education <52.9%>, and most of the significant others were also teachers C75%>. The

PAGE 138

123 significant other generally had more contracted eduational experience C66.7%> than the teacher by 1-5 years C51.6%> and had been in resfdence at his/her school 1-5 years C58.3%>. The location of the significant other's classroom and/or office relative to that of the teacher and the subject and grade level teaching assignment of the significant other were not key in this profile (see Appendix E, Tables E-1 through E-10>. . Administrative routines (72.2%>, pupil achievement (77.8%>, the school's. philosophy and objectives C65.7%>, parent conference responsibilities (64.7%>, procedures for acquiring supplies and materials C75%>, .required and voluntary conuni ttee meetings C69.4%), arrival and departure times (55.6%>, procedures for checking out equipment C61.1%), and appraisal procedures C69.4%> were the areas of formal, written information that the significant other of this group generally provided the experienced teacher Csee Appendix F, Tables F-1 through F-1 0 > Four areas of information regarding the informal, unwritten rules of the school were generally provided to the teacher by the significant other of this group. They included the working relations among staff members C83.3%>, social activities among.staff members C75%>, the time demands on the teacher outside the normal school day C58.3%> and who one has to be on the guard for at his/her school C55.6%> Csee Appendix F, Tables F-11 .through F-26>.

PAGE 139

124 One area of feedback information was included in this profile. The significant other generally provided the teacher with feedback how other staff members perceived the teachers effectiveness <51.4%> . By offering support through empathetic listening and experience sharing (100%), collecting or locating materials and resources giving guidance and ideas related to -discipline and planning (75%>, providing and/or clarifying the formal, written <65.7%> and informal, unwritten <79.4%> rules. of the school, providing feedback on how other staff members perceived the new teacher/s abilities and performance as a teacher <52.8%> and by playing a significant role in clarifying the attitudes and beliefs the new teacher held when he/she began teaching at his/her school <97.1%), the significant other generally helped the new experienced teacher when he/she experienced feelings of self-doubt, anxiety, frustration, isolation, and/or isolation
PAGE 140

' 125 attributes of the profile of the significant other of this group generally included the gender of the teacher and significant other-to be the same (73.7%), the role of teacher was the role of the significant other (78.9%>, and the conttacted experience level to be greater than that of the teacher C60%> by 1-10 years C85.8%>. In addition, the significant other generally was in residence at his/her school 1-5 years (52.6%) and had hls/her classroom or office located close (63.2%> to that. of the teacher (see Appendix E, Tables E-1 through E-10>. The significant other of this group generally provided the teacher with information regarding the formal, written rules of the school in the areas of administrative routines (52.6%), pupil achievement (73.7%>, the school's philosophy and obJectives C78.9%>, parent conference responsibilities (63.2%), procedures for acquiring.supplies and materials C78.9%> and appraisal procedures C63.2%> Csee Appendix F, Tables F-1 through F-10). Information on the informal, unwritten rules of the school was provided to the teacher by the significant other in the areas of _working relations among staff members (100%), social activities among staff members <78.9%>, time demands on the teacher outside the normal school day <57.9%>, the rewards and punishments associated with the informal, unwritten rules of the school <66.7%>, and on who one has to be on guard for at the school (63.2%> .

PAGE 141

126 No feedback information was determined to be a key attribute of the profile of the significant other of this group , by collecting or locating materials and resources <72.2%>, by glvlng guidance and ideas regarding discipline and planning <61.1%>, by assisting in the arranging and organizing of the teacher's classroom <57.9%>, by providing and clarifying information regarding the formal, written C63.2%> and the Informal, unwritten C84.2%> rules of the school and by playing a significant role in clarifying the attitudes and beliefs the transfered teacher held when he/she began teaching at his/her school C78.9%> Csee Appendix G, Tables G-1 through G-10>. Differences Between the Three Groups. The demographic profile of each group, as shown In Table 10, indicated that the significant other, generally, was the same gender as the teacher, was a teacher, had more contracted educational experience than the teacher and had been in residence at his/her school 1-5 years. Differences between groups occurred in regard to the age and age differential of the significant other and the teacher. Two groups indicated that the significant other was older than the teacher by 1-10 years. The education level of the significant other, as compared to the teacher, was only key in one group, the experienced teacher

PAGE 142

127 group. Two groups indicated that the classroom and/or office of the significant other was located close to that of the teacher. Classroom/office location was not key in the third group. The educational experience differential of the significant other teacher relationship varied between groups with one describing It as 1-5 years, another as 1-10 years, and the third as 6-15 years. The subJect matter and grade level assignment of the significant other as compared to the teacher was only key in one group, novice teachers.

PAGE 143

Table 10 Demographic Profiles for Three Collapsed Groups GROUP ATTRIBUTE AGE ... I NOV I EXP ITRAN I same s.o. older AGE DIFFERENT-IAL Cln years> 1-5 1-10 6-15 GENDER same different EDUCATION L!YEL same ROLE Teacher CONTRACTED EDUC. s.o. greater X X X X X X I X X X 128

PAGE 144

CONTRACTED EDUC. EXPERIENCE DIFF. ( ln .years> 1-5 1-10 6-15 RESIDENCE Cln years> 1-5 6-10 6-15 CLASS/OFFICE LOCATION share close ASSIGNMENT same subJect & grade level same grade level& dlff. subject CTable 10 cont.) 1 NOV 1 EXP rRAN 1 X X X X X X X X = KEY ATTRIBUTE 129

PAGE 145

130 As shown in Table 11, the profile of the significant other that was generated from the novice teacher group and the profile from the_ teacher group were nearly identical in regard to the information the teacher received on the formal, written rules of the school. Each profile included the areas of administrative routines, pupil achievement, the school's philosophy and objectives, parent conference acquisition of supplies and materials, required and voluntary committee meetings, the checking out of equipment and appraisal procedures. One additional area of Information, rules about arrival and departure times was present ln the profile of the experienced teacher significant other profile. The profile of the significant other of the transfered teacher group was less extensive in regard to this type of information than that of the previously mentioned groups. This group's slgnlflcant other profile included all of the attributes of the significant other profile of the experienced teacher group except in the areas of required and voluntary committee meetings, and procedures for checking out equipment.

PAGE 146

Table 11 Informational Attributes Profile of Three Collapsed Groups: Formal Written Rules ATTRIBUTE Aaninistrative Routines Pupil Achievement School's Phi iQsophy Parent Conferences Acquisition of Materials Lesson Plans Committee Meetings Checking Out Equipment Arrival and Depature Times Appraisal X = KEY ATTRIBUTE NOV X X X X X X X X GROUP EXP TRAN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 131

PAGE 147

132 Information related to the informal, unwritten rules of the school as shown ln Table 12, in the areas of the working relations among _stat" members, social actlvltles among staff members, and time demands on the teacher outside the normal school day, were Included ln the slgnlflcant other profile of all three groups. Differences appeared with the addition of Information on appraisal procedures to the novice teacher group, the addltlon-of Information on who to be on guard for at the school to the experienced teacher group, and the addition of information on who to be on guard for at the school and the rewards and punishments associated with the unwritten rules of the school to the transfered teacher group.

PAGE 148

Table 12 Informational Attributes Profile of Three Collapsed Groups: Unwritten Rules ATTRIBUTE Acininistrative Routines Pupil Achievement School's PhUosophy Parent Conferences Acquisition of Materials Lesson Plans Committee Meetings Checking Out Equipment Arrival and Depature Times Appraisal Working Relations Among Staff Social Activities Among Staff Teacher Behavior Time Demands Rewards and Punishments Who to Be On Guard For X = KEY ATTRIBUTE NOV X X X X GROUP EXP TRAN X X X X X X X X X 133

PAGE 149

134 Feedback attributes, as shown ln Table 13, were key only in the significant other profile of two groups, novice and experienced elementary teachers and each only contained one area of feedback. The significant other profile of the novice group contained feedback information on how other staff members perceived the new faculty member's teaching ability and performance and the significant other profile of the experienced teacher group Included feedback information on how well the new teacher was being accepted by the staff. -Table 13 Informational Attributes Profile of Three Collapsed Groups: Feedbac::k GROUP NOV EXP TRAN AT TRIBUTE Teac::hing Effectiveness X Teac::hing Abilities Classroom Disc::ipline Ac::c::eptanc::e )( X = KEY ATTRIBUTE

PAGE 150

. 135 As depleted in Table 14, the significant other profiles of the three groups included slx common attributes which were related to the ways the significant other helped the new faculty member alleviate feelings of self-doubt and anxiety. These included the significant other's behaviors of offering support through empathetic listening and experience sharing, collection or location of materials and resources, the giving of guidance and,ldeas on discipline and planning, the provision and clarification of 'information on the formal, written and informal, unwritten rules of the school, and playing a significant role in clarifying the beliefs and attitudes the new faculty member held when he/she began teaching at his/her school. Each group included one additional significant other behavior. The novice elementary group included the opportunity for the new faculty member to observe the significant others' classroom in session. The experienced teacher group included the significant other's behavior of providing feedback on how other staff members perceived the new faculty member's ability and performance as a teacher. The transfered teacher group included the behavior of assisting the new faculty member ln arranging, organizing, and analyzing the physical setting of his/her classroom in Its profile.

PAGE 151

Table 14 Affective Attributes Profile of Three Collapsed Groups ATTRIBUTE Empathetic Listening Materials Collection Discipline Guidance Classroom ArraJlgement Analysis Observe Parent Conf. Clarify Formal RuJes Clarify Informal Rules Feedback on Others Perceptions Opportunities to Observe Clarify Initial Attitudes and Beliefs X = KEY ATTRIBUTE GROUPS NOV )( X X X X X X EXP TRAN X X X X X X )( X X X X X X X 136

PAGE 152

137 Profiles of Two Collapsed Groups Elementary Teachers. The significant other of the elementary group_ ten.ded to be older <56. 7%) than the teacher by 1-10 years <83.7%>, was the same gender as the teacher <65.7%>, had the same level of education <56.1%> and was also a teacher <88.3%>. He/she had more contracted educational experience (73.6%> than the teacher by 1-10 years (76.5%>, had been in residence at his/her school 1-5 years <81.4%>, had his/her classroom and/or office located close (60%> to that of the teacher and had the same subJect matter and grade level teaching assignment <60.%) as the teacher Csee Appendix H, Tables H-1 through H-10>. The elementary teacher significant other provided information about the formal, written rules of the school in the areas of administrative routines C70%>, pupil achievement (80%), the school's philosophy and obJectives <74.6%>, parent conference responsibilities <77.6%>, procedures for acquiring materials (75%), required and voluntary cormnlttee meetings <61.7%>, rules for checking out equipment <61%>, arrival and departure times <54.2%>, and appraisal procedures (65%) . Working relations among staff members (85%>, soclal activities-among staff members (72.9%), time demands on teachers outside the normal school day C60%>, and who one has to be on guard for at the school <51.7%> were areas of information that the significant other of the elementary

PAGE 153

138 teacher provided in regard to the informal, unwritten rules of the school Csee Appendix I, Tables I-11 through I-26>. No feedback attributes were included in the profile of the significant other of the elementary teacher . The significant other of the elementary teacher helped to alleviate the new elementary faculty member's feelings of self-doubt and.anxiety by offering support through empathetic listening and experience sharing, (100%), the collection of materials and resources <82.8%), the giving of guidance and ideas on discipline and planning (74.1%>, the provision and clarification of the formal, written C66.7%> and informal, unwritten C79.7%> rules of the school, the provision of opportunities for the teacher to observe the significant other's classes in session C54.2%>, and the playing of a significant role in the clarification of the attitudes and beliefs the new elementary held when he/she began teaching at his/her school C88.1%> (see Appendix J, Tables J-1 through J-10). Secondary Teachers. The significant other of the secondary teacher was older <71.4%> than the new secondary teacher by 1-10 years C53.4%), was the same gender as the teacher <65.7%>, and served in the role of teacher <77.1%). The education level of the significant other compared to the teacher, the location of the significant other's classroom in relation to that of the teacher, and the subJect matter and

PAGE 154

139 grade level teaching assignment of the significant other were not key attributes of this profile. The significant other had more contracted experience (90.9%> than the teacher by 1-10 years <70.9%> and had been in residence at his/her school from 6-10 years <51.4%> Csee Appendix H, Tables H-1 through H-10>. Admlnlstratlve routines (60%>, pupil achievement C77.1%>, the philosophy and objectives C62.9%> and parent conference responsibilities <51.4%> were some of the areas that were Included ln the profile of the secondary slgnlflcant other in regard to the Information the significant other provided the teacher relative to the formal, written rules of the school. Other areas of Inclusion were the acquisition of materials (65.7%), required and voluntary committee meetings <51.4%>, and appraisal procedures <71.4%> Csee Appendix I, Tables I-1 through I-10>. Three areas were Included ln the profile of the secondary teacher significant other in regard to the provision of Information about the Informal, unwritten rules of the school. These were the working relations among staff members <74.3%>, social activities among staff members <57.1%>, and time demands on the teacher outside the normal school day (51.4%> . No information feedback attributes were included in the profile of the secondary teacher significant other (see Appendix I, Tables I-27 through I-30>.

PAGE 155

140 The significant other of the secondary teacher helped the new faculty member to alleviate the feelings of self-doubt and anxiety by qffer-lng support through empathetic listening and experience sharing <94.3%>, collecting or locating materials and resources (57.1%>, giving advice and Ideas related to discipline and planning <74.3%), providing and/or clarifying the formal written (58.8%) and informal, unwritten <73.5%> rules of the school and by playing a significant role In clarifying the bel_lefs and attitudes the new faculty member held when he/she began teaching at his/her school <91.4%>
PAGE 156

141 member. The number of years the significant other was in residence at his/her school was different for each group. The elementary teachet's significant other was in residence, generally, 1-5 years while the secondary teacher's significant other was in residence 6-10 years.

PAGE 157

Table 15 Demographic Profiles for Six Groups ATTRIBUTE AGE same s.o. older AGE DIFFERENTIAL 1-5 1-10 6-10 GENDER same dl fferent EDUCATION LEVEL same ROLE Teacher CONTRACTED EDUC. EXPERIENCE s.o. greater GROUP X X a X I X X X X 142

PAGE 158

CONTRACTED EDUC. EXPERIENCE DIFF. Cln year-s> 1-5 1-10 RESIDENCE Cln year-s> 1-5 6-10 6-15 CLASS/OFFICE LOCATION shar-e close ASSIGNMENT same subJect & gr-ade level same QI'ade level& dlff. subject CTable 15 cont.) I.ELEM I SEC X X X X )( X = KEY ATTRIBUTE 143

PAGE 159

144 As shown ln Table 16, seven key to the the significant the new faculty memb.er in to the of the school included by each of the two These included about pupil achievement, the school's philosophy and obJectives, supplies and and committee meetings, and The also included about the the checking out of equipment, and and times.

PAGE 160

Table 16 Informational Attributes Profile of Two Collapsed Groups: Formal Written Rules ATTRIBUTE Acininlstrative Routines Pupil Achievement School's Philosophy Parent Conferences Acquisition of Materials Lesson Plans Committee Meetings Checking Out Equipment Arrival and Depature Times Appraisal X = KEY ATTRIBUTE GROUP ELEM SEC X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 145

PAGE 161

146 Information regarding the informal, unwritten rules of the school as shown in Table 17, was generally provided by the sign 1 f 1 cant othe.r. ot" each group in the areas of working relations among staff members, social activities among staff members and time demands on teacher outside the normal school day. Elementary teachers were also provided with information on who to be on guard for at his/her school. Neither group included feedback information as a key attribute ln the prof_ile of its significant other.

PAGE 162

Table 17 Informational Attributes Profile of Two Collapsed Groups: Unwritten Rules ATTRIBUTE AdninJstrative Routines Pupil Achievement Schoo 1 's Ph ilosophy Parent Conferences Acquisition of Materials Lesson Plans Committee Meetings Checking Out Equipment Arrival and Depature Times Appraisal Working Relations Among Staff Social Activities Among Staff Teacher Behavior Time Demands Rewards and Punishments Who to Be On Guard For X : KEY ATTRIBUTE GROUP ELEM SEC X X X X X X X 147

PAGE 163

148 As depleted ln Table 18, the significant other of each group, generally, helped to alleviate the new faculty member/s feelings of sel _-doubt and anxiety through empathetic listening and experience sharing, collection or location of materials and resources, the giving of guidance and ideas related to discipline and planning, the provision and clarification of information regarding the formal, written and informal, unwritten rules of the school and playing a significant role in clarifying the and beliefs the new faculty member held when he/she began teaching at his/her school. Elementary_ teachers were also aided affectlvely by being given the opportunity to observe the slgnlflcant other/s classes ln session.

PAGE 164

Table 18 Affective Attributes Profile of Two Collapsed Groups A'ITRIBUTE Empathetic Listening Materials Collection Dlsclpllne Guidance Classroom Arrangement Analysis Observe Parent Conf. Clarify Formal Rules Clarify Informal Rules Feedback on Others Perceptions Opportunities to Observe Clarify Initial Attitudes and Beliefs X = KEY ATTRIBUTE GROUPS ELEM SEC X X X X X X X X X X X X X 149

PAGE 165

150 Profile of the Population When the entire population of new faculty members Cn=95) was examl.ned, a profile of the significant other emerged. As shown in Table 19, the significant other of the population was generally, older than the new faculty member (62.1%> by 1-10 years (72.2%>, the same gender as the new faculty member <77.9%), and in residence at his/her school from 1-5 years (61.7%). The significant other had a greater amount of contracted educational experience than the new faculty member (80.2%> by 1-10 years <74.4%>. He/she had his/her classroom or office located close (52.6%> to that of the new faculty member <52.6%) and had the same grade level and subject matter teaching assignment as the new faculty member (54.3%>. The difference between the education level of the significant other and the new faculty member was not a key attribute of this profile (see Appendix H, Tables H-1 through H-10>.

PAGE 166

Table 19 Demographic Profiles for Six Groups ATTRIBUTE AGE same s.o. older AGE DIFFERENTIAL Cln years> 1-5 1-10 6-10 GENDER same different EDUCATION LEVEL same ROLE Teacher CONTRACTED EDUC. EXPERIENCE s.o. greater I X D GROUP 151

PAGE 167

CONTRACTED EDUC: EXPERIENCE DIFF. Cin years> 1-5 1-10 RESIDENCE Cln years> 1-5 6-10 6-15 CLASS/OFFICE LOCATION share close ASSIGNMENT same subJect X & grade 1 eve I X same grade level& dlff. subJect X = KEY ATTRIBUTE 152

PAGE 168

153 As shown ln Table 20, the slgnlflcant other of the population provided the new faculty member with information on the formal, written-rules of the school in the areas of administrative routines C66.3%), pupil achievement C78.9%), the school's philosophy and objectives C70.2%>, parent conference responsibilities C67.7%>, the acquisition of materials C71.6%>, required and voluntary committee meetings C57.9%>, procedures for checking e9Ulpment C54.3%> and appraisal procedures C67.4%> Csee Appendix I, Tables I-1 through I-10>. Table 20 Informational Attributes Profile of the Population: Formal Written Rules ATTRIBUTE Acininistrative Routines Pupil Achievement School's Philosophy Parent Conferences Acquisition of Materials Lesson Plans Committee Meetings Checking Out Equipment Arrival and Depature Times Appraisal X = KEY ATTRIBUTE GROUP POP X )( X X X X X X

PAGE 169

154 Information on the unwritten rules of the school, as shown ln Table 21, was provided ln regard to working relations among staff members (81.1%), social activities among staff members (67%> and time demands on teachers outside the normal school day (56.8%) Csee Appendix I, Tables I-11 through I-26). None of the feedback attributes Included in this study were determined to be key in the profile of the significant other in relation to the population of new faculty members
PAGE 170

155 Table 21 lnformatlonal Attributes Profile of The Population: Unwritten Rules ATTRIBUTE Acininistrative Routines Pupil Achievement Schoo I' s Phi rosophy Parent Conferences Acqulslt ion of Materials Lesson Plans Committee Meetings Checking Out Equipment Arrival and Depature Times Appraisal Working Relations Among Staff Social Activities Among Staff Teacher Behav lor Time Demands Rewards and Punishments Who to Be On Guard For X = KEY ATTRIBUTE GROUP POP X X X

PAGE 171

156 Finally, as shown in Table 22, the significant other helped to alleviate the new faculty member's feelings of self-doubt, anxi.ety, frustration, isolation, and/or conflict by offering support through empathetic listening and experience sharing (97.9%), the collecting or locating of materials and resources (73.1%), by giving advice and ideas related to discipline, scheduling, planning and/or organizing the school day <74.2%), by providing and/or clarifying the formal, written (63.8%> and informal,. unwritten <77.4%) rules of the school, by providing the new faculty member with opportunities to observe the significant other's classes in session (.52.1%> and by playing a significant role in clarifying the attitudes and beliefs the new faculty member held when he/she began teaching at his/her school (89.4%>
PAGE 172

Table 22 Affective Attributes Profile of the Population ATTRIBUTE Empathetic Listening Materials Collection Discipline Guidance Classroom Arrangement Analysis Observe Parent Conf. Clarify Formal Rules Clarify Informal Rules Feedback on Others Perceptions Opportunities to Observe Clarify Initial Attitudes and Bel lefs GROUPS POP. X X X X X X X X = KEY ATTRIBUTE 157

PAGE 173

158 Analysis of Response Patterns During the chi-square and ANOVA analysis of the data of this study, several non-statistically significant, unusual response patterns were found. Demogr-aphic Data As portrayed ln Figure 1, experienced elementary teachers and secondary transfer teachers reported that their significant less likely to be someone of the same -gender than did the other groups. This response pattern was unusual because one would expect all groups to act in a manner and because most elementary education teachers are female. Figure 1 Sender Match by &roup and Population: Significant Other and Teacher Same Gender I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 50.001 0.001 84.0 NOV ELEM 82.6 -NOV SEC 60.0 -EXP ELEM 84. 6 -EXP SEC GROUP 91 7 .....TRAN ELEM 42.9 -TRAN SEC 77.9 POP

PAGE 174

159 most of the as shown 1n 2, the educat 1 on a 1 1 eve 1 of the s1 gn lf 1 cant and the -teacher was equal or the other had more education than did the teacher. However, a large portion of transfer teachers, both at the elementary and secondary level, as well as novice secondary teachers reported that they had more education than did their significant other. One would not expect this to be the case. Figure 2 of Level of Education Between Significant Other and Teacher I of Group responding Yes 100.001 50.001 0.001 54.2 NOV a EM lt.B NOV SEC ai.D EXP a EM EXP SEC GROUP c::=:J S.D. -Teacher Equal S.D. Lower than Teacher S.D. Higher than Teacher 5D.D t.7 G.9

PAGE 175

160 As shown in Figure 3, it was also interesting to note the high percentage of teachers in the secondary novice and elementary .groups that reported that they had more contracted educational experience than their significant other. Figure 3 . Coaparison of Education (Teaching) Experience Between Significant Other and Teacher I of Group responding Yes 100.001 50.001 0. 001 '--...:.;0';.;;..0 NOV ELEM NOV SEC EXP ELEM EXP SEC GROUP r::::J S.D. -Teacher Equal S.D. Less than Teacher S.D. Greater than Teacher TRAN ELEM TRAN SEC POP

PAGE 176

161 Informational Data: Formal, Written Rules An analysis of the response patterns across the formal, written rules revealed very few differences between groups. There were, however, some interesting exceptions. Figure 4 shows that novice elementary and both novice and experienced secondary teachers were more likely to have received information regarding the formal, written rules about procedures checking-out equipment than were other groups. Figure 4 Formal Written Rules: Significant Other Providing Information Regarding Procedures for Checking Out Equipment I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 50.001 0.001 72.0 NOV ELEM 60.9 NOV SEC 26.7 EXP ELEM 61.5 EXP SEC GROUP 36.4 TRAN ELEM 42.9 TRAN SEC 54.3 POP

PAGE 177

162 As depleted ln Figure 5, these same three groups were more likely to have received information regarding formal written rules regarding required and voluntary committee meetings than were the other groups. Figure 5 For1al Written Rules: Significant Other Providing Information Regarding Required and Voluntary Committee Meetings I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 50.001 0.001 68.0 ,....--NOV ELEM 65.2 NOV SEC 40.0 EXP ELEM 76.9 ,....-EXP SEC SAO UP 41.7 ,....-TRAN ELEM 28.6 r-TRAN SEC 57.9 POP

PAGE 178

163 Informational Data: Unwritten Rules Unusual response patterns also occurred in regard to provision of on the unwritten rules of the school. Figure 6 shows that more novice elementary teachers received information regarding the unwritten rules about voluntary and required committee meetings from their significant others than did other teachers. Figure 6 Infor1al Written Rules: Significant Other Providing Inforation Regarding Required and Voluntary Committee Meetings I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 50.001 0.001 47.6 NOV ELEM 22.2 14.3 NOV EXP SEC ELEM 36.4 36.4 00.0 EXP TRAN TRAN SEC ELEM SEC &ROUP 29.6 POP

PAGE 179

164 Similarly, Figure 7 shows that more of this group's members received Information on parent conferences than did the members of .groups. Figure 7 Infor1al Written Rules: Significant Other Providing Infor1ation Regarding Parent Conferences I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 50.001 0.001 42.9 NOV ELEM 23.5 NOV EXP SEC ELEM 18.2 18.2 00.0 EXP TRAN TRAN SEC ELEM SEC GROUP 23.8 POP

PAGE 180

165 Figure 8 demonstrates yet another unusual response pattern. Experienced elementary teachers were Jess likely than were other teachers.to receive information regarding the unwritten rules about working relations among staff members. Figure 8 . Inforal Written Rules: Significant other Providing Jnfor1ation Regarding Working Relations Among Staff I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 50.001 0.001 80.0 NOV ELEM 82.6 r----NOV SEC 53.3 r-EXP ELEM 84.6 r-EXP SEC &ROUP 100.0 r-TRAN ELEM 100.0 r---TRAN SEC 81.1 r--POP

PAGE 181

166 Likewise, Figure 9 Indicates they were also less likely to receive information on social activities among staff members than were the in other groups. Figure 9 Inforal Written Rules: Significant Other Providing Information Regarding Social Activities Among Staff I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 50.001 0.001 62.5 NOV ELEM 78.3 r---NOV SEC 40.0 EXP ELEM 69.2 EXP SEC GROUP 83.3 r--TRAN ELEM 71.4 r--TRAN SEC 67.0 -POP

PAGE 182

167 ----. 10 and 11 also unusual As shown in 10, the le.ss nkely to receive information regarding the rewards and punishments that were associated with the unwritten rules of the school than were other teachers. Figure 11 shows that this same group was also Jess likely to receive information about who to be on guard for at his/her school than were other teachers.

PAGE 183

Figure 10 Infor11al lilriiten Rules: significant Other Providing Information Regarding Rewards and Punishments Associated with the Unwritten Rules of the School I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 50.001 50.0 36.0 20.0 168 72.7 57.1 38.5 43.0 O. OOI ..1...----"-TR_A_N L-___._T_RA_N-L......;--1-P-OP--'---ELEM SEC ELEM SEC ELEM SEC Figure H Informal Nritten Rules: Significant Other Providing Information Regarding lilho to be on Guard for at the School I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 50.001 0.001 40.0 NOV ELEM 52.2 r--NOV SEC 26.7 r-EXP ELEM GROUP 61.5 .--EXP SEC GROUP 75.0 r-TRAN ELEM 42.9 r-TRAN SEC 48.4 POP

PAGE 184

169 Informational Data: Feedback As shown 1 n Figure 12, lt was interesting to note the low percentage Q_f.. transfer secondary teachers and the high percentage of experienced secondary teachers that received feedback regarding the other staff member's perception of their teaching effectiveness. Figure 12 Significant Other Providing Feedback Infor1ation Regarding the Staff's Perception of the Teacher's Effectiveness I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 75.0 60.0 50.001 50.0 39.1 33.3 0.001 NOV NOV EXP EXP TRAN ELEM SEC ELEM SEC ELEM GROUP 14.3 TRAN SEC 47.9 POP

PAGE 185

170 This pattern of response was also apparent regarding feedback on other staff member's perception of the new teacher's teachll)g abilities. Shown in Figure 13, an unusually low number of transfer secondary teachers and an unusually high number of experienced secondary teachers received feedback about their perceived teaching abilities. Figure 13 Significant Other Providing Feedback InforMation Regarding the Staff's Perception of the Teacher's Abilities I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 75.0 60.0 50.001 50.0 33.3 26.1 0.001 NOV NOV EXP EXP TRAN ELEM SEC ELEM SEC ELEM &ROUP 14.3 TRAN SEC 44.7 POP

PAGE 186

171 As seen ln 14, lt was unusual that such a low of and novice feedback. their percleved classroom discipline when over 50% of the experienced secondary teachers received such information . Figure 14 Significant other Providing Feedback Infor1ation Regarding the Staff's Perception of. the Teacher's Classroom Discipline I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 50.001 0.001 44.0 17.4 NOV NOV ELEM SEC 53.3 58.3 33.3 EXP EXP TRAN ELEM SEC ELEM &ROUP 16.7 TRAN SEC 37.6 POP

PAGE 187

172 Affective Data Figure 15 shows yet another unusual response pattern. Experienced and transfer secondary teachers were Jess likely to receive aid in collecting and locating materials than were other teachers. Figure 15 Significant Other the Afective State of the Teacher by: Collecting and Locating Materials I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 50.001 0.001 BB.O NOV B. EM 72.7 NOV SEC 66.7 -EXP ELEM 53.8 -EXP SEC GROUP 90.9 TRAN ELEM TRAN SEC 73.1 ,.....-... POP

PAGE 188

173 Figure 16 shows that experienced elementary and transfer secondary teachers were less likely than may be expected to recleye assistance in analyzing the arrangment of the physical setting of the classroom. Figure 16 Significant other Iapacting the Affective State of the Teacher by: Assisting the of the Classroom I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 50.001 0.001 44.0 NOV El.EM 30.4 13.3 NOV EXP SEC El.EM 75.0 38.5 28.6 EXP TRAN TRAN SEC El.EM SEC &ROUP 37.9 POP

PAGE 189

174 As shown in Figure 17, experienced elementary teachers were less likey than one might expect to receive feedback on other staff member's. perceptions of their abilities and performance as a teacher. Figure 17 Significant Other .IIPICling the Affective .State of the Teacher by: Providing Feedback on Other Staff Member's Perceptions of the Teacher I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 50.001 60.0 76.9 39.1 20.0 50.0 33.3 47.9 0. 001 L.J...-..I.--L--.......L-....L....-.L...----L-.....L..-..L..-----l'----L.-....a.....-L...-.......a..-NOV EL.EM NOV SEC EXP EL.EM EXP SEC &ROUP TRAN EL.EM TRAN SEC POP

PAGE 190

Finally, in Figure 18, novice elementary teachers compared to novice secondary teachers, received more opportunities one might expect to observe their significant others teach. Figure 18 Significant Other Impacting the Affective State of the Teacher by: Providing the Teacher ._With Opportunities .to Observe the Significant Other's Classes in Session I of Group Responding Yes 100.001 72.0 53.3 50.001 40.9 53.8 41.7 175 52.1 28.6 0. 001 NOV ELEM NOV SEC EXP ELEM EXP SEC &ROUP TRAN ELEM TRAN SEC POP

PAGE 191

CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study sought to analyze, utilizing J.R. Hackman's description of .group influences on individuals, the collegial relationship that developed between the new faculty member and the person who was most instrumental ln asslstlng in the induction of the new faculty member to the culture of the school. The relationship was examined In terms of three sets of variables: those related to the interactions that impacted the informational state of the new faculty member, those related to the Interactions that impacted the affective state of the new faculty member and those related to the demographics of the relationship. The maJor research questions were: What is the profile of the new faculty member's significant other for each of six subgroups of new faculty members , ln terms of key lnformatlonal, affective and demographic attributes? What is the profile of the new faculty member's significant other for each of the three subgroups of new faculty members (novice, experienced, and transfered teachers>, In terms of key Informational, affective, and demographic attributes? What is

PAGE 192

177 the profile of the new faculty member's significant other for the two subgroups of new faculty members , in terms of the key informational, affective, and demographic attributes? What is the profile of the new faculty member's significant other for the entire population of new faculty members in terms of key informational, affective, and demographic attributes? Are any of the informational, affective, and/or demographic attributes statistically significant? What are the differences between the significant other profiles of the slx subgroups above? What are the differences between the significant other profiles of the three subgroups above. What are the differences between the significant other profiles of the two subgroups above? Summary of Methodology The population of this study was made up of elementary and secondary teachers in the Cherry Creek School District who were new to a school within the school district at the start of the 1988-89 school year. A list of new faculty members was provided by the Personnel Office of the Cherry Creek School District and after verification of the names and school assignments was completed, the population of the study numbered 134 teachers. Data were collected by mailed survey. The instrument used to collect data was researcher developed and contained four sections. In the first section, the new faculty member was asked if he/she could identify one person who was

PAGE 193

178 especially helpful to him/her by providing information about the written and/or unwritten rules of the school and/or by assisting the cLarlt"lcatlon of the attitudes and beliefs he/she initially held about the school. In the second section, information which was descriptive of the relationship between the new faculty member and his/her identified significant other was sought. Components of this section including age, education, teaching experience, gender, and school residency differentials were determined to be potentially important in studies that were conducted by Newberry (1977>, Levinson <1978), Klopf and Harrison (1981>, Hunt and Michael <1983>, Kram <1983), Varah <1986> and Ryan ( 1986). Hackman <1976> identified two areas of group influences on individuals. Sections three and four of the survey addressed these areas of influence. The third section of this survey, 11informational data11, sought to gather data regarding the significant role in providing the new faculty member with information about the written and unwritten rules of the school, and with feedback on how other staff perceived the new performance and abilities. The 16 specific written and unwritten rules and four feedback components were determined from studies conducted by Edgar and Brod (1970>, Johnston <1981>, McDonald (1982>, Odell <1986>, Ward (1986), and Schulman and Colbert <1987>.

PAGE 194

179 The fourth section of the survey, "affective data,u sought to gather data regarding the significant other's role ln impacting the affective or emotional state of the new faculty member. The 10 components of this section were determined from studies conducted by Fuller (1969>, Badertscher (1978>, Johnston (1981>, Bova and Phelps (1984>, Odell (1986, and Ward (1986). The validity of the survey was subJected to a review of knowledgeable persons prior to its piloting. This group consisted of a of 10 people who were, in the last three years, new faculty members. Demographic, informational, and affective data were compiled for each of the slx subgroups of the population. The data were processed by computer using the SPSS program. Descriptive statistics were used to interpret the data in terms of percentages and frequency distributions. Most of the data were non-parametric in nature and were subJected to a chi-square analysis. When possible, the data were analyzed using ANOVA. Because of a problem of cell size in some subgroups, data were collapsed across categories to increase the.power of the statistical test used. Groups were collapsed lnto three larger ones, novice, experienced, and transfer teachers; Into two larger groups, elementary and secondary teachers; and into one large group, the entire population of new faculty members. Statistical tests were used to identify the statistically significant demographic,

PAGE 195

informational, and affective components (attributes> in each grouping. Descriptive statistics (frequency distributions> were used to bul.ld the significant other profile for each subgroup. Summary of Findings 180 The population of this descriptive study included 134 new faculty members in the Cherry Creek School District. Of the 134 new faculty-members, 132 returned a survey Instrument. Of the 132 new faculty members who returned a survey, 95 were able to Identify one significant other. The remaining 36 of the 132 new faculty members were unable to ldentlfy one significant other and one new faculty member declined to take part in the study. A 50% random sample of the group of new faculty members who were unable to identify one significant other were further surveyed to ascertain why he/she was unable to identify one significant other. Of the 18 new faculty members surveyed, 16 indicated that many people served in the role of significant other and that one could not be singled out above all others. When the demographic data were examined for the slx subgroups, lt was found that there was a significant difference between group membership and educational experience differential and between group membership and the number of years the slgniflcant other had worked at his/her school. Although other demographic responses were not statistically significant, lt was found that the significant other of novice

PAGE 196

181 elementary and secondary transfer teachers was less likely to be someone of the same gender than for other groups, that a large percentage of transfer teachers (both elementary and secondary> as well as novice secondary teachers, reported they had more education than did the significant other and that a high percentage of secondary transfer and novice secondary teachers had more experience than their significant other. When the six groups were collapsed into three groups, chi-square analysis revealed that transfer teachers were more likely to have more education than expected as compared to their significant other, while for secondary teachers, the reverse was true. When the six groups were collapsed into two , chi-square analysis indicated that for elementary teachers, the significant other had more education than did the teacher, while for secondary teachers, the reverse was true. Results also indicated the significant other for elementary teachers had more experience than did the teacher, while for the secondary teacher, the reverse was true. In regard to the information the new faculty member received from the significant other, in terms of the formal, written rules of the school, there were very few differences between the groups in terms of whether or not he/she received such information. Novice elementary and both novice and experienced secondary teachers were more likely to have received information regarding the procedures for checking out

PAGE 197

equipment and information regarding voluntary and required commit"tee meetings than were other groups. 182 When six groups were collapsed into three, transfer teachers were significantly less likely to receive information about the written rules regarding required and voluntary committee meetings than were novice or experienced teachers. When the six groups were collapsed into two, chi-square analysis Indicated that elementary teachers were more likely to get information regarding the formal, written rules on parent conference responsibilities than were secondary teachers. In addition, secondary teachers were significantly less likely to get information on the formal, written rules regarding lesson plans than were elementary teachers. There was also a trend that elementary teachers were more likely to get information on operating and checking out equipment than were secondary teachers. A breakdown of the provision of information on the informal, unwritten rules of the school indicated that novice elementary received more information about required and voluntary committee meetings than did other teachers. They also received more information on parent conference responsibilites. Experienced elementary teachers were less likely than other groups to receive information regarding the unwritten rules about working relations among staff members and less likely to receive information on social activities among staff members than were other groups. Elementary experienced

PAGE 198

183 less likely than expected to the and punishments that associated with the of the school and less likely to get about "who to be on forn at hlslher school than groups. When the six groups collapsed lnto three, analysis indicated that novice received Jess Information regarding the unwritten rules about working relations among staff. members than was expected, while transfer teachers received more Information than expected. Additionally, novices received Information regarding unwritten about social activities among staff members, about the and punishments associated with the unwritten rules of the school, and about who to be on guard for at school than was expected. When the respondents were divided into two groups, only two significant differences Fewer secondary received Information regarding the unwritten rules about administrative routines than was expected and teachers received significantly less information than elementary teachers regarding the rules about parent conference responsibilities. More secondary teachers and fewer novice secondary and secondary transfer teachers, feedback regarding their perceived teaching ability and performance than was expected. Fewer novice secondary and

PAGE 199

teachers had received feedback about perceptions of their classroom discipline than was expected. 184 New faculty members were also asked whether or not their significant other did any of a selected number of behaviors designed to help relieve the new faculty member/s feelings of self-doubt, anxiety, frustration, and/or conflict when they occurred. There were very few differences between the six groups.in terms of whether or not they received the various types of support. Results indicated that experienced secondary and secondary transfer teachers were less likely to receive aid in collecting and locating materials than were other teacher groups. Experienced elementary and secondary transfer teachers were less likely than expected to receive assistance in arranging the physical setting of the classroom. Experienced elementary teachers were less likely than expected to receive feedback on other staff member/s perceptions of their abilities and performance as a teacher. Novice elementary teachers, on the other hand, received more opportunites than expected to observe their significant others teach. When grouped into three groups, chi-square analysis indicated novice teachers had more opportunities to observe their significant others teaching. Elementary teachers received significantly more assistance than expected from their significant others ln collecting and locating materials, and in

PAGE 200

arranging, organizing, and analyzing the physical setting of their classroom. 185 In an attempt to discover whether or not one of the various groups received more information than another, measures of total information were computed. One-way analysis of variance indicated there were no significant differences between the six groups of this study and when data were collapsed into-three groups no significant differences emerged. It was only when the groups were collapsed into elementary and secondary teachers that any significant differences appeared. Elementary teachers received more information regarding the written rules of the school than the secondary teachers. Similarly, elementary teachers received more information about both the written and unwritten rules of the school than did secondary teachers. A descriptive profile of the significant other for each of the 11 groupings of new faculty members ln this study was constructed using the frequency of response on each measured attribute of the significant other-new teacher relationship. To be considered a key attribute and thereby included in the prof 11 e, .than 50% of the new facu I ty members of a group must have ldentlfled the attribute as being descriptive of his/her relationship with his/her significant other. The 11 groups included the groups of novice elementry, novice secondary, experienced elementary, experienced secondary, transfer elementary, and transfer secondary teachers; the

PAGE 201

186 combined groups of novice, experienced, and transfer teachers; and the combined groups of elementary and secondary teachers. In the demographic attributes of the significant other new faculty member relationship as depleted in Table 23, the significant other was older than the teacher in nine of the 11 groups . In 10 of the 11 groups, the teacher and significant other. were the same gender, the secondary teacher group being the exception. The education level of the significant other compared to that of the teacher was the same in the novice elementary, novice secondary, experienced, and elementary groups, was greater for the significant other in the experienced elementary group and not key in the remaining groups. All groups reported that the significant other was generally a teacher. The significant other had more educational experience than the teacher in all groups except the elementary transfer group and the experience differential was 1-10 years for these groups. In all groups the significant other had been in residence at his/her school 1-10 years. The location of the significant other's office and/or classroom compared to that of the teacher was reported to be shared by the experienced elementary group, located close by in seven groups, and not a key attribute in the experienced elementary, and experienced secondary groups and the secondary and experienced teacher groups. The grade level and subJect matter

PAGE 202

187 assignment of the teacher compared to that of the significant other was identical in both regards with the novice elementary, novice secondary.,elementary transfer and the. collapsed groups, novice and elementary teachers, while the assignment was not key in the remaining groups.

PAGE 203

Table 23 Demographic Profiles for All Groups ATTRIBUTE AGE same s.o. older AGE DIFFERENTIAL 1-5 1-10 6-15 GENDER same dlfferent EDUCATION LEVEL same s.o. higher ROLE Teacher GROUP IELEMI SEC IELEM SEC ELEM SEC NOV EXP TRAN ELEM SEC POP NOV NOV EXP EXP TRAN TRAN ----I x I x I x I x I I x -T x I I T x lx I x I X X X X X X X X X X ------L... '------lx I xI xI xI xI xI xI xI xI xI xI xI I X I X I X I I I I -J X I -1 X I I I [xI x 1 xI xI xI xI xI xI x I xI xI xI (I) (I)

PAGE 204

CONTRACTED EDUC. EXPERIENCE s.o. greater CONTRACTED EDUC. EXPERIENCE DI FF. 1-5 1-10 6-15 RESIDENCE 1-5 6-10 6-15
I SEC ELEM SEC ELEM SEC NOV EXP TRAN ELEM SEC POP NOV NOV EXP EXP TRAN TRAN I I x I x I x I x I I x I x I x I x I x 1!-[.xJ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ---Cl) -o

PAGE 205

CLASS/OFFICE LOCATION CTable 23 cont.> share close I x I x I x 1--p] [ I x I I x I ASSIGNMENT same subJect & level same grade I eve I& dlff. subject X = KEY ATTRIBUTE X X X .X X X X .... -o 0

PAGE 206

191 In to the the to the of the school as shown in Table 24, all 11 they about pupil evaluation and of pupil the schoo11s philosophy and obJectives, supplies and and The was the only not the of on and as being key of its significant about and committee meetings was key ln the novice novice novice, and about checking out equipment was key to the significant of the novice novice and about the about and times was key in the of novice novice and Explanation of the about lesson plans was not key ln any of the 11

PAGE 207

Table 24 Informational Attributes Profile of All Groups: Formal Written Rules -ATTRIBUTE Adnlnlstratlve Rout.lnes Pupil Achievement School's Philosophy Parent Conferences Acquisi tlon of Materials Lesson Plans Committee Meetings Checking Out Equipment Arrival and Depature Times Appraisal X = KEY ATTRIBUTE ELEM NOV X X X X X X X X X GROUP SEC NOV X X X X X X X X X ELEM SEC ELEM SEC NOV EXP EXP TRAN TRAN X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EXP TR.AN ELEM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SEC X X X X X X X POP X X X X X X X X .... -o N

PAGE 208

193 As shown in Table 25 the significant other provided the new faculty member with information regarding the informal, unwritten rules .of the school in the area of the working relations among staff members and social activities among staff members in all 11 groups of this study. Information regarding the time demands on the teacher outside the normal school day was a key attribute of all groups except the experienced secondary group of teachers. Information regarding the rewards and punishments associated with the unwritten rules of the school is a key attribute only in the significant other profiles of elementary transfer, secondary transfer, and transfer teachers. Six groups included information about who to be on guard for at the school ln their significant other profiles. These groups were the novice secondary, experienced secondary, experienced transfer, experienced, transfer, and elementary teachers. Ten areas of information regarding the informal, unwritten rules of the school were not determined to be key attributes of the significant other profile of each of the 11 groups. They include information about administrative routines, pupil evaluation, parent conference procedures, the acquistion of materials, lesson plans, required and voluntary committee meetings, the checking out of equipment, arrival and departure times, and new teacher behavior during staff meetings.

PAGE 209

Table 25 Informational Attributes Profile of All Groups: Unwritten Rules ATTRIBUTE Admlnlstratlve Routines Pupll Achievement School's Philosophy Parent Conferences Acqulsl tlon of Materials Lesson Plans Committee Meetings Checking Out Equipment Arrival and Depature Times Appraisal X = KEY ATTRIBUTE GROUP ELEM SEC NOV NOV ELEM SEC ELEM SEC NOV EXP EXP TRAN TRAN X X I EXP TRAN ELEM SEC POP I l -.() ,b.

PAGE 210

Relations Among Staff Social Activities Among Staff Time Demands and Punishments Who to Be On For X = KEY AT'JRIBUTE -

PAGE 211

196 As shown in Table 26, ln regard to the types of feedback information that were determined to be key attributes of the significant other profile of each group, feedback on how other staff members perceived the new faculty member's teaching effectiveness, were included in the profiles of the novice elementary, experienced secondary and experienced teacher groups. Feedback information on how the new faculty member's teaching abilities were perceived by others on the staff was included in the significant other profiles of the novice elementary and experienced secondary teacher groups. Included ln the significant other profile of the experienced elementary and secondary teacher groups was feedback information on how other staff members perceived the new faculty member's classroom discipline. Feedback information on how well the new faculty member was fitting-in as a member of the staff was a key attribute of the significant other profiles of the novice elementary, experienced secondary, and novice teacher groups.

PAGE 212

Table 26 Informational Attributes Profile of All Groups: Feedback GROUPS ELEM SEC ELEM SEC ELEM ATTRIBUTE NOV NOV EXP EXP TRAN Effectiveness X X Teaching Abilities X X Classroom Discipline X X Acceptance X X X = KEY ATTRIBUTE SEC NOV EXP TRAN TRAN X' X ELEM SEC : : POP ,_ -.() ......

PAGE 213

198 What did the significant other do when the new faculty member experienced any of the feelings of self-doubt, anxiety, frustration, Isolation, and/or conflict? As shown In Table 27, included as key attributes in the significant other profiles of all 11 groups of new faculty members were empathetic listening and experience sharing by the significant other, and giving guidance and ideas regarding discipline, scheduling, and .planning. Also-included were the provision and clarification of the formal, written and informal, unwritten rules of the school, and the playing of a significant role in clarifying the attitudes and beliefs held when the new faculty member began teaching at his/her school. Assisting in collecting materials and locating resources by the significant other was a key affective attribute in the profiles of all groups except secondary transfer teachers. The only groups incuding the significant other behavior of assisting the new faculty member in arranging, organizing, or analyzing the physical setting of his/her classroom were the experienced secondary teacher group and the transfer group. Three groups included the significant other behavior Qf providing feedback on other staff member's perceptions of the new faculty member as a way of impacting the new faculty member's affective state. These groups were the novice elementary, experienced secondary, and experienced teacher groups. New faculty members reported that having the opportunity to observe the significant other's classes in session impacted their affective state and was included as a

PAGE 214

199 key attribute of the slgnlflcant other profile of the novice elementary, experienced elementary, experienced secondary, novice, and elementary groups. Not Included in any of the other profiles was the opportunity to have the significant other observe the new faculty member's parent and student conferences.

PAGE 215

Table 27 Affective Attributes Profile of All Groups ATTRIBUTE Empathetic Listening Materials Collection Disclpllne Guidance Classroom Arrangement Analysis Observe Parent Conf. Clarify Formal Rules Clarify Informal Rules Feedback on Others Perceptions Opportunities to Observe Clarify Initial Attitudes and Beliefs X = KEY ATTRIBUTE GROUPS ELEM NOV X X X X X X X X SEC ELEM NOV EXP X X X X X X X X X X X X X SEC ELEM EXP TRAN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SEC NOV EXP TRAN ELEM SEC POP TRAN X X .x X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X )( X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I X I X X X X X X X X X X ----0

PAGE 216

201 Conclusions Several conclusions can be drawn from the collected and analyzed data of" this study. First, individuals use the group to obtain information about the external reality in which the group operates and to obtain information about themselves in relation to the perceptions of the group, for the purpose of acquiring the group/s rewards. These rewards are directly satisfying to the individual and can contribute directly to his/her psychological well being. This was a postulate of Hackman (1976>. Second, Individuals who are actively seeking Information about the group and themselves, relative to the groups perceptions, form and develop a collegial relationship with established members of the group in which they are seeking full membership. This was supported by the work of Lortie <1965>, Hunt (1968), Howey (1979>, and Griffin (1983>. Third, the information the individual seeks Is of three types, information about the formal, written rules of the group, information about the informal, unwritten rules of the group, and feedback information regarding the other group member/s perceptions of the new group member/s skills and knowledge. Hackman/a <1976> work also reported this to be true. The survey instrument used in this study addressed each of these three informational categories. The specific Items included, in each of these three categories, of the Instrument were determined from studies conducted by Edgar and Brod

PAGE 217

202 C1970>, Johnston (1981>, Mconald (1982>, Odell C1986>, Ward (1986) and Schulman and Colbert (1987>. All of the attributes included in this study were important items to be measured. Fourth, members of the group can contribute directly to the psychological well being of the group member. This is supported by the work of Hackman C1976), Combs (1985>, and McDonald <1982). The survey instrument examined the -significant other's contributionCs> to the psychological well being Caffectlve state> of the individual Cnew faculty member>. Specific items in thls section of the instrument were determined from studies conducted by Fuller (1969>, Badertscher (1978>, Johnston (1981>, Bova and Phillips (1984>, Odell <1986>, and Ward (1986>. All the attributes measured in this section of the study were important items to be measured. Fifth, the demographic profiles should be examined and used as criteria in the selection of a mentor for any of the identified groupings of new faculty members. These demographic profiles were developed of the significant other-new faculty member relationship in an attempt to describe the significant other compared to the new faculty member ln terms of age, level of education, experience, and gender, for each of the groupings of new faculty members in this study. The specific items in this section of the survey instrument were determined to be important in studies that were conducted by Newberry C1977>, Levinson (1978>, Klopf and Harrison C1981>, Hunt and Michael (1983>, Kram <1983>, Varah <1986), and Ryan (1986>.

PAGE 218

203 Sixth, slgnlflcant of assist new faculty in the system in ways. The data in ways and built each ln an attempt to identify key of the significant new faculty It was found that when the slight in the among the but many -found to be in common. Seventh, is no need to extend the to of new faculty than novice as all being Impacted ln a highly by the significant As indicated in I of this study, novice ln the School assigned who had two The this study was the assistance of the novice induction to the of the school. No attempts made in this study to if the assigned and the identified significant the same the of what the significant the novice and how he/she impacted the affective state of. the novice did not the of the not having an assigned Recommendations the data. a of the and affective Items that

PAGE 219

204 were not included in any or most of the profiles developed, should be examined. If any of those items are considered to be important attributes, actions should be taken to ensure that they are being provided in the existing mentor program or through some means to the groups that are and are not part of the established mentor program. Second, the significant other profiles that were .developed for the novice groups, in the area of demographics, should be examined. The criteria, in terms of demographics, that are used in the selection of mentors for the members of these groups should be compared to the developed profiles. If any differences appear, careful thought should be glven to the current selection criteria, and adjustments to the selection criteria should be made. Third, the frequency tables Included ln the appendix of this study should be throughly examined by the Cherry Creek Office of Staff Development. Nearly all Informational and affective attributes were reported to be part of the significant other/s role (regardless of their inclusion in a profile>, at least to some degree. When mentors are instructed on what information ls Important to provide hls/her new faculty member, all the Informational and affective attributes included ln this study should be addressed. Finally, several questions remain unanswered and should be addressed in further studies. First, new faculty members were asked to report what items of information his/her

PAGE 220

205 significant other provided him/her. Did the new faculty member receive information on a given topic from someone other than his/her significant other? Is this the reason why some topics dldn/t receive a higher frequency of response than they did? Second, lf the information was received from someone other than the significant other, who was this person and what information was provided? Third, how much time and effort was expended by .the new faculty member in seeking the information he/she required? Fourth, are there other demographic, informational, and/or affective attributes that should be examined and Included in significant other profiles that weren't addressed in this study? Fifth, is the non-novice teacher more able to seek out answers to his/her questions because of previous experience at other schools than is the novice teacher? Is this a valid argument for Including a mentor program for only novice teachers? much smaller number of attributes than expected, in the -area of information about the unwritten rules of the school, appeared in the developed profiles. Was this a fault ln the Instrument or hadn't the group been together long enough to develop a strong unwritten set of norms? Last, will the profiles developed of significant others ln the Cherry Creek School System, stand the test of

PAGE 221

206 replication in later years? In other words, were the profiles developed of only the 1988-89 group of new faculty members?

PAGE 222

REFERENCES Adams, R.D. (1982>. Teacher development: A look at changes in teacher percep.t i ons across time. New York: A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. CERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 214 926> Allen, V.L., & Levin, J.M. (1971>. Social support and conformity: The role of independent assessment of reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 48-58. -Applegate, J.H., Flora, V.R., Johnston, J.M., Lasley, T.J., Mager, G.M., .Newman, K.K., & Ryan, K. C1977>. The first-year teacher study.-Columbus, Ohio. CERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 135 766> Armstrong, D.G. (1983>. Evaluating teacher induction processes associated with the conditions of practice. Seattle, Washington: A paper presented at the spring convention of the National Council of Teachers of English. CERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 231 799> Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of Judgements. In H. Guetzkow CEd.>, Groups, Leadership and Men. New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers University Press. Badertscher, J.A. C1978>. Inducting newly placed teachers: Orientation responsibilities of the school administrator. Oregon School Study Council Bulletin, 21, 10. Bandura, A. (1971>. A social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press. Bates, A.P., & Cloyd, J.S. (1956>. Toward the development of operations for defining group norms and member roles. Sociometry, 19, 26-39. Bates, F.L. (1956>. Position, role and status: A reformulation of concepts. Social Forces, 34, 313-321. Bensley, J., Kauchak, D., & K. Peterson, K. C1985). Peer! evaluation: An interview study of teachers evaluating teachers. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Ill. Berkowitz, L. (1969>. Social motivation. In G. Llndzey and E. Aronson CEds.>, The Handbook of Social Psychology C2nd ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

PAGE 223

208 Bova, B.M., & Phillips, R.R. <1984). Mentorlng as a learning experience for adults. Journal of Teacher Education, 35<3>, 16-20. -Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory C3rd ed.>. New York: Harper and Row. Cooley, C.H. C1922>. Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribners. Combs, M. <1985>. Implications for H.B. 1706. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Education Research Symposium II. Stillwater, Oklahoma . Compton, R. S. C 1979>. The beginning h 1 gh schoo 1 teachers ... apprentice or professional? American Secondary 23-29. Corcoran, E. C1981>. Transition shock: The beginning teacher's paradox. Journal of Teacher Education, 32<3>, 19-23. Cruickshank, D.R., Kennedy, J.J., & Myers, B. <1974>. Perceived problems of secondary school teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 68, 154-159. Cruickshank, D.R. (1982>. Five areas of teacher concern. Phi Delta Kappan, 460. Daloz, L.A. <1983>. Mentors: Teachers who make a difference. Change, 15<6>, 24-27. Davis, K. (1950>. Human society. New York: Macmillan. Driscoll, A., Peterson, K., & Kauchak, D., C1985>. Designing a mentor system for beginning teachers. The Journal of Staff Development, 6, 2. Dropkin, S., & Taylor, M. C1963). Perceived problems of beginning teachers and related factors. Journal of Teacher Education, 14, 384-390. Eddy, E.M. C1969>. Becoming a teacher: The passage to professional status. New York: Teachers College Press. Edgar, D.E., & Bred, R.L. C1970>. Professional socialization and teacher autonomy. Stanford, California: Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching. Edgar, D., & Warren, R. <1969). Power and autonomy in teacher socialization. Sociology of Education, 42, 386-399.

PAGE 224

209 Elias, P., M.L., & Simon, R. <1980>. Helping beginning the N.J.: Educational festing Fagan, M.M., & G. <1982>. among of Educational 76<2>, 113-117. S. <1982). Staff development and to teach. A at the annual meeting of the National Council of Staff Development. MI. L. (1954>. A of social Human Relations, 7, 117-140. L. <1950). social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282. L., S., & Back, K. <1950). Social in Fishbein, M. <1967>. A approach to the between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward the object. In M. Fishbein . of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226. F.F., & Bown, 0. <1975>. Becoming a In K. Ryan Teacher Education: The Yearbook of the National Society the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. N.J. <1981>. A study of beginning role Journal of Teacher Education, 32<6>, 34-38. Gehrke, N.J. <1976>. The role personalization of beginning teachers: A theory study . University No. 76-19821. Gelton, V. (1980>. Role conflict of student teachers. College Student Journal, 13, 92-99. Golembiewski, R.T. <1962>. The small Chicago: of Chicago

PAGE 225

210 Griffin, G.A., Hukill, H., Barnes, S., Defino, M., Edwards, S., Hoffman, J., & O'Neal, S. (1983>. Teacher induction: Research design for a descriptive study. Austin, Texas: The University of -Texas at Austin, Research and Deve 1 opment Center for Teacher Education. Griffin G.A. (1985>. Teacher induction: The missing link. Journal of Teacher Education, 42-46. Griffin, P.E. (1983>. The developing confidence of new teachers: Effects of experience during the transition period from student to teacher. Journal of Education For Teaching, 1 113-122 . Hackman, J.R. <1-976>. Group influences on individuals. In M. Dunnette CEd.>, Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, Ill.: Rand McNally, 1455-1525. Hall, G.G. & Jones H.L. (1976>. Competency-based education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Haller, E.J. (1967>. Pupils' influences in teacher socialization: A sociolinguistic study. Sociology of Education, 40, 316-333. Hannam, C., Smyth, P., & Stephenson, N. (1976>. Don't smile until Christmas. The Times Educational Supplement, 3169, 22-23. Hargreaves, D.H. (1980). The occupational culture of teachers. In P. Woods CEd.>, Teacher strategies: Explorations in the sociology of the school. Guilford, Surrey, London, England: Biddl es Ltd. Hlllway, T. (1964>. Introduction to research. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co. Homans, G.C. (1950>. The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Howey, K., & Bents, R. CEds.>.C1979>. Toward meeting the needs of beginning teachers. Minneapolis, Minn.: Midwest Teacher Corps Network Hoy, W. (1967). Organizational socialization: The student teacher and pupil control ideology. Journal of Educational Research, 61, 153-155. Hoy, W. (1969). Pupil control ideology and organizational socialization. School Review, 77, 257-265.

PAGE 226

211 Hoy, W. (1968>. The influence of experience on the beginning teacher. School Review, 76, 312-323. Hoy, W., & Rees,_ R. (1977>. The bureaucratic socialization of student teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 28<1>, 23-26. Huling-Austin, L., Barnes, S., & Smith, J. <1985>. A research-based staff development program for beginning teachers. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Ill. Hunt, D.W. (1968). Teacher induction: An opportunity and a responsibility. The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 52<330), 130-135. Hunt, D.W., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of Management Review, 475-485. Johnston, J.M. (1981>. First year teachers: Perceptions of changes. Milwaukee, Wisconsi-n: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Johnston, J., & Ryan, K. (1983). Research on the beginning teacher. InK. Howey & W. Gardner (Eds.>, The education of teachers: A look ahead. New York: Longman. Jones, F.E., & Gerard H.B. (1967>. Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley. Kelley, H.H., & Lamb T.W. (1957). Certainty of judgement and resistance to social influences. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 137-139. Kelman, H.C. <1958>. Compliance, identification and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict 50-60. Kelman, H.C. <1950>. Effects of success and failure on suggestibirt:ty.in the autokinetic situation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45, 267-285. Kemper, T.D. (1968>. Reference groups, socialization and achievement. American Sociological Review, 33, 31-45. Klopf, G., & Harrison, J. <1981). Moving up the career ladder: A case for mentors. Principal, 61, 41-43.

PAGE 227

Kurtz (1983). How the principal can help beginning teachers. The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 42-45. Lacey, C. (1977). The socialization of teachers. London: Methuen and Co. 212 League, B.J., & Jackson, D.N. C1964). Conformity, verdicallty and self-esteem . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 113-115. Levinson, D.J. (1978). Seasons of a man's life. New York: Knopf. -Lortie, D.C. C1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. Lortie, D.C. (1966). Teacher socialization: The Robinson Crusoe model. In the real world of the beginning teacher. Report of the 19th National TEPS Conference. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association. CERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 030 616). Lett, B.E. C1955). Attitude formation: The development of a color-preference response through mediated generalization. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 321-326. McDonald, F.J. (1982). Study of induction programs for beginning teachers: Executive Summary. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service. McDonald, F.J. (1980). The problems of beginning teachers: A crisis in training. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service. Mahan, J.M., & Lacefield, W.E. <1978). Educational attitude changes during year-long student teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 46(3), 4-15. Merton, R.K. C1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. Merton, R.K., & Kitt, A.S. (1950>. Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior. In R.K. Merton and P.F. Lazarsfeld CEds.), Continuities In social research: Studies ln the scope and method of the American soldier. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.

PAGE 228

Myers, Paul E. (1981, April>. A crucial challenge: The principal and the beginning teacher. The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 65, 70-75. Newberry, J.M. <1977>. The first year of experience: 213 Influences on beginning teachers. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Noda, D.S. <1968>. Beginning teacher development In Hawaii. The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 52<330), 62-72 Odell, S.J. (1986>. Induction support of new teachers: A functional approach . Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 30-34. Pataniczek, D., & Isaacson, N.S. <1981). The relationship of socialization and concerns of beginning secondary teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 32<3>, 15-17. Rehage, K.J. (1968). Induction: When student becomes teacher. The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 52, 144-155. Rivlin, H.N. (1966>. A new pattern for urban teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 17, 177-184. Rommetveit, R. (1955>. Social norms and roles. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rosenberg, M.J. <1956>. Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 367-372. Rosenberg, M.J. (1961>. Group size, prior experience and conformity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 436-437. Ryan, K. (1970). Don't smile until Christmas: Accounts of the first year of teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ryan, K. (1986). The induction of new teachers. Phi Delta Kappan Fastback No. 237, Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation. Ryle, G. <1949>. The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.

PAGE 229

Schachter, S. (1964>. The interaction of cognitive and physiological determinants of emotional state. In L. Berkowitz CEd. >., Advances in Exper !mental Social Psychology, Vol; 1. New York: Academic Press. Schulman, J.H., & Colbert, J.A. CEds.> (1987>. The mentor teacher casebook. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, Eugene, Oregon. 214 Shelley, K. (1978>. Crying time: A study of the first three months of teaching. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon, (University Microfilms International No. 79-12586). Staats, A.W., & Staats, C.K., (1958). Attitudes established by classical conditioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57, 37-40. Swanson, P. (1968). A time to teach and a time to learn. The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School 52(330>, 74-84. Taylor, J.K., & Dale, I.R. (1971>. A survey of teachers ln their first year of service. Bristol: University of Bristol, Institute of Education. Thibault, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959>. The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Varah, J., Theune, W.S., & Parker, L. C1986>. Beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 143-178. Veenman, S. (1984>. Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54C2>, 143-178. Ward, B.A. C1986). State and district structures to support initial year of teaching programs. In G.A. Griffin and S. Millles CEds.>, The first years of teaching: Background papers and a proposal Cpp. 35-64>. Chicago: University of Illinois State Board of Education, 35-64. Weick, K.E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Wendt, J.C., & Bain, L.L. (1985, February>. Surviving the transition: Concerns of the beginning teacher. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 56, 24-25. Wiener, M. (1958>. Certainty of Judgement as a variable ln conformity behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 257-263.

PAGE 230

. 215 Wright, B.D., & Tuska, S.A. C1968). From dream to life ln the psychology of becoming a teacher. School Review, 76, 253-293. Wright, B.D. & Tuska, S.A. (1966>. Student and first-year teachers' attitudes toward self and others. Cooperative Research ProJect #1503, Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago. Wright, B.D., & Tuska, S.A. (1967>. The childhood romance theory of teacher development. School Review, 75, 123-154. Zeichner, K. (1979>. Teacher induction programs in the U.S. and Great Brltian. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco . Zeichner, K., &Tabachinlck, B. (1981). Are the effects of university education washed out by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 7-11.

PAGE 231

. APPENDIX A COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRES

PAGE 232

217, April 20, 1989 Dear Fellow Teacher: You have been identified as an invaluable source of infonnation for a study that will attempt to analyze the suppon relationship that frequently develops between a new faculty member and an established member of the school's staff. Of particular interest, is the relationship that is created and utilized during the new faculty member's induction to the culture of his/her new school. As a new member of your school's faculty, you may have come to realize that each school has its own unique of wri.tten and unwritten expectations that staff members are expected to be familiar with and follow. Some of these expectations may have been communicated to you, formally, through a faculty handbook or an orientation meeting(s). Other expectations, however, may not have been formally communicated, being left to you to learn through your own resourcefulness. These unwritten, infonnal expectations, once you come to be.aware of them, may conflict with previously learned, formal, written expectations. Unwritten and conflicting expectations are common problems facing a new faculty member during his/her induction to a new school culture. Many new faculty members seek solutions to these problems by enlisting the aid of an already established member of the school's staff (a secretary, an administrator, another teacher, etc.). This is accomplished through the development with one or more people, (primarily one person), a collegial, nonevaluative, support relationship. It is the foeus of this study to analyze potentially key facets of this collegial relationship No overly personal questions will be asked of you, and to ensure anonymity, please i:>o NOT sign your name to the smvey NOR place the names of any other people on the survey. I reguest that you fill out the enclosed post Card and place it in the District mail. SCJ)arJte fmm the envelqpe containine your completed survey. This will enable me to know who returned surveys, but not enable me to identify the source of an individual survey. YOUR ASSISTANCE IN GA1HERING nilS DATA IS VERY IMPORTANT. PLEASE COMPLETE TiiE SURVEY AND POST CARD AND RETURN 1HEM 10 ME IN 1HE DISlRicr MAD.. BY FRIDAY, MAY 5, 1989. If you have and questions or concerns regarding this smvey, please feel free to call me, TOM JOHNSON, at Laredo Middle School, 693-1500 ext. 5280. Thank you for your assistance,

PAGE 233

218 NEW FACUL TV MEMBER SURVEY Since you have been employed at your current school, as a first year elementary teacher, has one person more than any other, been especially helpful to you by providing you information about the written and/or unwritten rules of the school and/or by assisting the clarification of the attitudes and beliefs you initially held about this school? Circle one. 1. YES 2.NO If you answered NO to the question above, please place this survey in the enclosed envelope and return it immediately through District mail. If you answered YES to the question above, the person you have identified will be referred to as your "significant other" in the remainder of the survey. OVERVIEW OF THIS SURVEY The survey questions that follow will explore your relationship with your identified significant other. The survey will be divided into three sections. In section one, you will be asked to supply demographic information about yourself and your significant other. In section two, you 'will be asked to identify the types of information your significant other provided you regarding the school in which your are teaching. In the third section, you will be asked to identify how your significant other affected your attitudes and beliefs about the school. The responses you make will be totally anonymous. Anonymity will be maintained by asking tor no names on this survey. Please do not sign this survey. I request that when you return the survey that you mail the enclosed post card through District mail separately from the survey.

PAGE 234

219 NEW FACUL TV MEMBER SURVEY Since you have been employed at your current school, as a first year secondary teacher, has one person more than any other, been especially helpful to you by providing you information about the written and/or unwritten rules of the school and/or by assisting the clarification of the attitudes and beliefs you initially held about this school? Circle one. 1. YES 2.NO If you answered NO to the question above. please place this survey in the enclosed envelope and return It immediately through District mail. If you answered YES to the question above, 'the person you have identified will be referred to as your "significant other" in the remainder of the survey. OVERVIEW OF THIS SURVEY The survey questions that follow will explore your relationship with your identified significant other. The survey will be divided into three sections. In section one, you will be asked to supply demographic information about yourself and your significant other. In section two, you will be asked to identify the types of information your significant other provided you regarding the school in which your are teaching. In the third you will be asked to identify how your significant other affected your attitudes and beliefs about the school. The responses you make will be totally anonymous. Anonymity will be maintained by asking for no names on this survey. Please do not sign this survey. I request that when you return the survey that you mail the enclosed post card through District mail separately from the survey.

PAGE 235

220 NEW FACULTY MEMBER SURVEY Since you have been employed at your current school, as an experienced elementary teacher, has one person more than any other, been especially helpful to you by providing you information about the written and/or unwritten rules of the school and/or by assisting the clarification of the attitudes and beliefs you initially held about this school? Circle one. 1. YES 2.NO If you answered NO to the question above, please place this survey in the enclosed envelope and return It immediately through District mail. If you answered YES to the question above, the person you have identified will be referred to as your "significant other" in the remainder of the survey. OVERVIEW OF THIS SURVEY The survey questions that follow will explore your relationship with your identified significant other. The survey will be divided into three sections. In section one, you will be asked to supply demographic information about yourself and your significant other. In section two, you will be asked to identify the types of information your significant other provided you regarding the school in which your are teaching. In the third section, you will be asked to identify how your significant other affected your attitudes and beliefs about the school. The responses you make will be totally anonymous. Anonymity will be maintained by asking for no names on this survey. Please do not sign this survey. I request that when you return the survey that you mail the enclosed post card through District mail separately from the survey.

PAGE 236

221 NEW FACULTY MEMBER SURVEY :Since you have been employed at your current school, as an experienced secondary teacher, has one person more than any other, been especially helpful to you by providing you information about the written and/or unwritten rules of the school and/or by assisting the clarification of the attitudes and beliefs you initially held about this school? Circle one. 1. YES 2.NO If you answered NO to the question above, please place this survey in the enclosed envelope and return It Immediately through District mail. If you answered YES to the question above, the person you have identified will be referred to as your "significant other" in the remainder of the survey. OVERVIEW OF THIS SURVEY The survey questions that follow will explore your relationship with your identified significant other. The survey will be divided into three sections. In section one, you will be asked to supply demographic information about yourself and your significant other. In section two, you will be asked to identify the types of information your significant other provided you regarding the school in which your are teaching. In the third section, you will be asked to identify how your significant other affected your attitudes and beliefs about the school. The responses you make will be totally anonymous. Anonymity will be maintained by asking for no names on this survey. Please do not sign this survey. I request that when you return the survey that you mail the enclosed post card through District mail separately from the survey.

PAGE 237

222 NEW FACUL TV MEMBER SURVEY Since you have been employed at your current school, as a transferred elementary teacher, has one person more than any other, been especially helpful to you by providing you information about the written and/or unwritten rules of the school and/or by assisting the clarification of the attitudes and beliefs you initially held about this school? Circle one. . 1. YES 2.NO If you answered NO to the question above, please place this survey in the enclosed envelope and return it Immediately through District mail. If you answered YES to the question above, the person you have identified will be referred to as your "significant other" in the remainder of the survey. OVERVIEW OF THIS SURVEY The survey questions that follow will explore your relationship with your identified significant other. The survey will be divided into three sections. In section one, you will be asked to supply demographic information about yourself and your significant other. In section two, you will be asked to identify the types of information your significant other provided you regarding the school in which your are teaching. In the third section, you will be asked to identify how your significant other affected your attitudes and beliefs about the school. The responses you make will be totally anonymous. Anonymity will be maintained by asking for no names on this survey. Please do not sign this survey. I request that when you return the survey that you mail the enclosed post card through District mail separately from the survey.

PAGE 238

223 NEW FACULTY MEMBER SURVEY Since you have been employed at your current school, as a transferred secondary teacher, has one person more than any other, been especially helpful to you by providing you information about the written and/or unwritten rules of the school and/or by assisting the clarification of the attitudes and beliefs you initially held about this school? Circle one. 1. YES 2.NO If you answered NO to the question above, please place this survey in the enclosed envelope and return it immediately through District mail. If you answered YES to the question above, the person you have identified will be referred to as your "significant other" in the remainder of the survey. OVERVIEW OF THIS SURVEY The survey questions that follow will explore your relationship with your identified significant other. The survey will be divided into three sections. In section one, you will be asked to supply demographic information about yourself and your significant other. In section two, you will be asked to identify the types of information your significant other provided you regarding the school in which your are teaching. In the third section, you will be asked to identify how your significant other affected your attitudes and beliefs about the school. The responses you make will be totally anonymous. Anonymity will be maintained by asking for no names on this survey. Please do not sign this survey. I request that when you return the survey that you mail the enclosed post card through District mail separately from the survey.

PAGE 239

224 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Directions: Please circle one answer for each question. 1. Compare your.age.to that of your identified significant other: A. We are the same age B. I am older than my significant other C. I am younger than my significant other If you answered A above, proceed to question 3. If you answered B or C above, which of the following is your age differential? A. 1-5 years B. 6-1 0 years C. 11-15 years D. 16-20 years E. more than 20 years 3. Compare your gender with that of your significant other. A. We are both male B. We are both female C. I am male, my S.O. is female D. I am female, my S.O. is male 4. Compare your level of education with that of your significant other. A. Our education level is approximately equal (i.e. we both have bchelors, masters, or doctorate degrees) B. I have a higher level of education than my significant other C. My significant other has a higher level of education than I do

PAGE 240

225 5. Is your other a(n) A. Teacher B. Administrator C. School counselor D. Secretary E. Other (list) _____________ If you answered D or E to question 5, omit question 6 and 7 and proceed to question 8. 6. If you answered A or B or C to question 5, compare your total years of contracted educational experience with that of your significant other. Do not count this year. A. We have an equal amount B. I have more C. My S.O. has more than I do 7. If you answered B or C to question 6, what is your experience differential? A. 1-5 years B. 6-10 years C. 11-15 years D. 16-20 years E. over 20 years

PAGE 241

226 8. How many years has your significant other worked at this school? A. 1-5 years B. 6-1 0 years C. 11-15 years . D. 16-20 years E. over 20 years 9. Where is the classroom or office of your significant other located relative to your classroom or office? Use the location that afforded you the most contact with your significant other. A. We share an office or classroom B. We are located next door or in the same hallway C. We are located a substantial distance from each other D. Other (specify)--------------Omit question 10 if your significant other is not a teacher. 1 0. My significant other and I A. teach the same subject and grade level B. teach different subjects and grade levels C. teach different subjects but the same grade level D. teach the same subject but different grade levels.

PAGE 242

227 INFORMATIONAL DATA Directions: Each item that follows contains a subject about which your significant other may have provided you with information. If your significant other DID provide you with information relative to this subject, circle YES, if Not circle NO. 1. Did your significant other provide you with information regarding the FORMAL WRITTEN RULES about: A. administrative routines including reports you must provide and procedures you must follow? YES NO B. the reporting and evaluating of pupil achievement? YES NO C. the school's general philosophy and objectives? YES NO D. parent conference responsibilities? YES NO E. procedures for acquiring supplies and materials? YES NO F. rules regarding lesson plans? YES NO G. required and voluntary committee meetings? YES NO H. procedures for checking out and operating equipment? YES NO I. arrival and departure times? YES NO J. appraisal procedures? YES NO In addition to the formal, written rules a group shares with its members, there is a set of UNWRITTEN RULES, (some of which are in direct conflict with the written rules), under which the group operates. 2. Did your significant other share with you any UNWRITTEN RULES that may be related to or in conflict with the formal, written rules listed A-J in question one above. If so, list the letters of of the items in the space provided. If none were shared, write NONE in the space provided.

PAGE 243

228 3. In addition, did your significant other provide you with information regarding UNWRITTEN RULES about: A. Working relations among staff members? YES NO B. Social activities among staff members? YES NO C. New teacher behavior during staff meetings? YES NO D. The demands on a teacher's time and energy outside the normal school day? YES NO 4. Did your significant other proyide you with feed back about how other staff members perceive your: A. teaching effectiveness? YES NO B. teaching abilities ? YES NO C. classroom discipline? YES NO D. fitting-in as a member of the staff? YES NO 5. Did your significant other provide you with information regarding: A. the rewards and punishments that are associated with the UNWRITIEN RULES of the school? YES NO B. who a person has to be on guard for at your school; who really controls the rewards and punishments related to the unwritten rules of the school? YES NO

PAGE 244

AFFECTIVE DATA Directions: Circle YES for each item that applies to your relationship with your significant other, circle NO for those that don't. 1. When your role as a new faculty member caused you to experience any of the feelings of self doubt, anxiety, frustration, isolation and/or did your significant other help to alleviate these feelings by: A. offering support through empathetic listening and experience' sharing? YES NO B. collecting or locating materials and resources for you? YESNO C. giving you guidance and .ideas related to discipline, scheduling, planning and/or organizing your school day? YES NO D. assisting you in arranging, organizing or analyzing the physical setting of your classroom? YES NO E. observing your parent and student conferences? YES NO F. providing and/or clarifying the FORMAL, WRITIEN RULES of the school? YES NO G. providing and/or clarifying the INFORMAL, UNWRITIEN RULES of the school? YES NO H. providing you with on how other staff members perceive your abilities and performance as a teacher? YES NO I. providing you with opportunities to observe himself/herself teaching? YES NO 2. Do you feel that your significant other played a significant role in clarifying the attitudes and beliefs you held when you began teaching at this school? YES NO PLEASE READ IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS ON THE NEXT PAGE.

PAGE 245

230 PLEASE PLACE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE SUPPLIED ENVELOPE AND RETURN IT THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAIL BY THE DATE INDICATED IN THE COVER LETTER. PLEASE COMPLETE THE ENCLOSED POST CARD AND PLACE IT IN THE DISTRICT MAIL, SEPARATE FROM THE SURVEY. I NEED TO KEEP TRACK OF RE;TURNED SURVEYS, NOT WHICH SURVEY BELONGS .TOWHOM. THANKYOU FOR GIVING UP A PORTION OF YOUR VALUABLE-TIME TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY.

PAGE 246

. APPENDIX B DEMOGRAPHIC DATA GROUPED BY SIX GROUPS TABLES B-1 THROUGH B-10

PAGE 247

232 Table B-1 Demographic Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: AGE NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 5 1 3 2 4 1 16 SAME 20.0 6.7 13.0 15.4 33.3 14.3 16.8 3 3 8 1 3 2 20 OLDER 12.0 2Q.O 34.8 7.7 25.0 28.6 21.1 17 11 12 10 5 4 59 YOUNGER 68.0 73.3 52.5 76.9 41.7 57.1 62.1 Column 25 15 23 13 12 7 95 Total 26.3 15.8 24.2 13.7 12.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 9.77222 10 .46070 Likelihood Ratio 9.87267 10 .45174 Mantel-Haenszel .99351 1 .31889 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.179 Number of Missing Observations: 0

PAGE 248

233 Table B-2 Demographic Data Grouped by, Slx Subgroups: AGE DIFFERENTIAL NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row .ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 8 6 6 2 5 27 1-5 38.1 42.9 31.6 20.0 55.6 34.2 9 2 10 3 3 3 30 6-10 42.9 14.3 52.6 30.0 33.3 50.0 38.0 1 2 2 1 3 9 11-15 4.8 14.3 10.5 11.1 50.0 11.4 3 1 3 7 16-20 21.4 5.3 30.0 8.9 3 1 2 6 20+ 14.3 7.1 20.0 7.6 Column 21 14 19 10 9 6 79 Total 26.6 17.7 24.1 12.7 11.4 7.6 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 34.77731 20 .02132 Likelihood Ratio 37.25082 20 .01092 Mantei-Haenszel .04884 1 .82510 Minimum Expected Frequency -.456 Number of Mlsslng Observations: 16

PAGE 249

234 Table B-3 Demographic Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: GENDER DIFFERENCE NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 1 4 2 1 8 M -M 4.0 26.7 15.4 14.3 8.4 20 5 19 9 11 2 66 F -F 80.0 33.3 82.6 69.2 91.7 28.6 69.5 4 2 1 1 8 M -F 16.0 13.3 4.3 7.7 8.4 4 3 1 1 4 13 F -M 26.7 13.0 7.7 8.3 57.1 13.7 Column 25 15 23 13 12 7 95 Total 26.3 15.8 24.2 13.7 12.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 36.54363 15 .00147 Likelihood Ratio 38.37110 15 .00080 Mantel-Haenszel 1.63991 1 .20034 Minimum Expected Frequency .589 Number of Missing Observations: 0

PAGE 250

235 Table B-4 Demographic Data Grouped by, Slx Subgroups: EDUCATION DIFFERENCE NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 13 6 13 5 6 2 45 SAME 54.2 40.0 61.9 38.5 50.0 28.6 48.9 1 7 2 6 2 18 S.O.< 4.2. 33.3 15.4 41.7 42.9 19.6 10 9 1 6 1 2 29 S.O.> 41.7 60.0 4.8 46.2 8.3 28.6 31.5 Column 24 15 21 13 12 7 92 Total 26.1 16.3 22.8 14.1 13.0 7.6 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 27.28301 10 .00235 Likelihood Ratio 32.64911 10 .00031 Mantei-Haenszel .25689 1 .61226 Minimum Expected Frequency 1.370 Number of Missing Observations: 3

PAGE 251

236 Table B-5 Demographic Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: ROLE NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 25 13 20 7 8 7 80 TEACH 100.0 86.7 87.0 53.8 66.7 100.0 84.2 1 1 2 4 ADMIN 6.7 4.3 15.4 33.3 50.0 4.2 1 1 COUNS 7.7 1.1 1 8.3 SEC 8.3 1.1 1 2 3 3 9 OTHER 6.7 8.7 23.1 25.0 9.5 Column 25 15 23 13 12 7 95 Total 26.3 15.8 24.2 13.7 12.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 30.75244 20 .05854 Likelihood Ratio 27.43157 20 .12355 Mantel-Haenszel 5.54163 1 .01857 Minimum Expected Frequency .074 Number of Missing Observations: 0

PAGE 252

237 Table B-6 Demographic Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: EDUCATION DIFFERENTIAL NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 1 1 1 3 SAME 4.8 8.3 12.5 3.5 9 3 2 14 S.O.< 42.9 37.5 28.6 16.3 24 14 11 11 4 5 69 S.O.> 100.0 100.0 52.4 91.7 50.0 71.4 80.2 Column 24 14 21 12 8 7 86 Total 27.9 16.3 24.4 14.0 9.3 8.1 100.0 Chi-Square Value OF Significance Pearson 29.50765 10 .00103 Likelihood Ratio 34.94068 10 .00013 Mantel-Haenszel 8.18344 1 .00423 Minimum Expected Frequency .244 Number of Missing Observations: 9

PAGE 253

238 Table B-7 Demographic Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: EXPERIENCE DIFFERENTIAL NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 4 3 13 3 3 3 29 1-5 17.4 21.4 61.9 30.0 42.9 42.9 35.4 10 6 5 5 4 2 32 6-10 43.5 42.9 23.8 50.0 57.1 28.6 39.0 5 3 2 1 1 12 11-15 21.7 21.4 9.5 10.0 14.3 14.6 1 2 1 1 1 6 16-20 4.3 14.3 4.8 10.0 14.3 7.3 3 3 20+ 13.0 3.7 Column 23 14 21 10 7 7 82 Total 28.0 17.1 25.6 12.2 8.5 8.5 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 22.81068 20 .29819 Likelihood Ratio 23.90084 20 .24675 Mantel-Haenszel 4.78085 1 .02878 Minimum Expected Frequency .256 Number of Missing Observations: 13

PAGE 254

. 239 Table B-8 Demographic Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: RESIDENCE NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 22 5 17 4 9 1 58 1-5 91.7 33.3 73.9 30.8 75.0 14.3 61.7 1 8 5 7 1 3 25 6-10 4.2 53.3 21.7 53.8 8.3 42.9 26.6 1 2 1 2 2 3 11 11-15 4.2 13.3 4.3 15.4 16.7 42.9 11.7 Column 24 15 23 13 12 7 94 Total 25.5 16.0 24.5 13.8 12.8 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 33.99273 10 .00019 Likelihood Ratio 35.01973 10 .00012 Mantei-Haenszel 9.19734 1 .00242 Minimum Expected Frequency .819 Number of Missing Observations: 1

PAGE 255

240 Table B-9 Demographic Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: LOCATION NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 3 8 4 6 4 1 26 SHARE 12.0 53.3 17.4 46.2 33.3 14.3 27.4 17 4 12 5 7 5 50 CLOSE 68.0 26.7 52.2 38.5 58.3 71.4 52.6 4 2 6 2 14 DIST 16.0 13.3 26.1 15.4 15.4 1 1 1 1 1 5 OTHER 4.0 6.7 4.3 8.3 14.3 5.3 Column 25 15 23 13 12 7 95 Total 26.3 15.8 24.2 13.7 12.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 20.05505 15 .16983 Likelihood Ratio 22.80817 15 .08830 Mantel-Haenszel .33583 1 .56225 Minimum Expected Frequency .368 Number of Missing Observations: 0

PAGE 256

241 Table B-10 Demographic Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: SUBJECT/GRADE ASSIGNMENT NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total SAME S 18 4 12 3 5 2 44 & G 72.0 33.3 60.0 30.0 55.6 40.0 54.3 DIFF S 3 3 1 1 1 1 10 & G 12.0 25.0 5.0 10.0 11.1 20.0 12.3 SAME G 1 3 3 5 2 2 16 DIFF S 4.0 25.0 15.0 50.0 22.2 40.0 19.8 SAME S 3 2 4 1 1 11 DIFF G 12.0 16.7 20.0 10.0 11.1 13.6 Column 25 12 20 10 9 5 81 Total 30.9 14.8 24.7 12.3 11.1 6.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 17.32111 15 .30003 Likelihood Ratio 17.95788 15 .26489 Mantel-Haenszel 1.49364 1 .22165 Minimum Expected Frequency .617 Number of Missing Observations: 14

PAGE 257

APPENDIX C INFORMATIONAL DATA GROUPED BY SIX GROUPS TABLES C-1 THROUGH C-30

PAGE 258

243 Table C-1 Formal Written Informational Data Six Subgroups: ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTINES NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 19 8 16 10 7 3 63 YES 76.0 53.3 69.6 76.9 58.3 42.9 66.3 6 7 7 3 5 4 32 NO 24.0 4f;).7 30.4 23.1 41.7 57.1 .33. 7 Column 25 15 23 13 12 7 95 Total 26.3 15.8 24.2 13.7 12.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 5.01169 5 .41445 Likelihood Ratio 4.93903 5 .42337 Mantel-Haenszel 1.29746 1 .25468 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.358 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Table C-2 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: PUPIL EVALUATION NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 21 12 18 10 9 5 75 YES 84.0 80.0 78.3 76.9 75.0 71.4 78.9 4 3 5. 3 3 2 20 NO 16.0. 20.0 21.7 23.1 25.0 28.6 21.1 Column 25 15 23 13 12 7 95 Total 26.3 15.8 24.2 13.7 12.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson .78317 5 .97809 Likelihood Ratio .78644 5 .97789 Mantel-Haenszel .74793 1 .38713 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.474 Number of Missing Observations: 0

PAGE 259

244 Table C-3 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: SCHOOL/S PHILOSOPHY NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 19 9 16 7 9 6 66 YES 76.0 60.0 72.7 53.8 75.0 85.7 70.2 6 6 6 6 3 1 28 NO 24.0 40.0 27.3 46.2 25.0 14.3 29.8 Column 25 15 22 13 12 7 94 Total 26.6 16.0 23.4 13.8 12.8 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 3.81567. 5 .57625 Likelihood Ratio 3.79277 5 .57962 Mantel-Haenszel .01660 1 .89747 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.085 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table C-4 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: PARENT CONFERENCES NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 21 a 15 7 9 3 63 YES 84.0 53.3 71.4 53.8 75.0 42.9 67.7 4 7 6 6 3 4 30 NO 16.0 46.7 28.6 46.2 25.0 57.1 32.3 Column 25 15 21 13 12 7 93 Total 26.9 16.1 22.6 14.0 12.9 7.5 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 8.00137 5 .15616 Likelihood Ratio 8.11659 5 .14993 .Mantel-Haenszel 2.40601 1 .12087 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.258 Number of Missing Observations: 2

PAGE 260

' 245 Table C-5 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: -ACQUISITION OF MATERIALS NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 18 8 17 10 10 5 68 YES 72.0 53.3 73.9 76.9 83.3 71.4 71.6 7 7 6 3 2 2 27 NO 28.0 46.7 26.1 23.1 16.7 28.6 28.4 Column 25 15 23 13 12 7 95 Total 26.3 15.8 24.2 13.7 12.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 3.51596. 5 .62097 Likelihood Ratio 3.39609 5 .63917 Mantel-Haenszel .73679 1 .39069 Minimum Expected Frequency 1.989 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Table C-6 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: LESSON PLANS NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 11 1 8 5 5 1 31 YES 45.8 7.1 36.4 38.5 45.5 14.3 34.1 13 13 14 8 6 6 60 NO 54.2 92.9 63.6 61.5 54.5 85.7 65.9 Column 24 14 22 13 11 7 91 Total 26.4 15.4 24.2 14.3 12.1 7.7 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 8.01569 5 .15537 Likelihood Ratio 9.37448 5 .09503 Mantel-Haenszel .16758 1 .68227 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.385 Number of Missing Observations: 4

PAGE 261

246 Table C-7 Fof'ma I 'tif' it ten Infof'mational Data Gf'ouped by, Six Subgroups: REQUIRED & VOLUNTARY COMMITTEE MEETINGS NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 17 6 15 10 5 2 55 YES 68.0 40.0 65.2 76.9 41.7 28.6 57.9 8 9 8 3 7 5 40 NO 32.0 60.0 34.8 23.1 58.3 71.4 42.1 Column 25 15 23 13 12 7 95 Total 26.3 15.8 24.2 13.7 12.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Peaf'son 9.22016. 5 .10060 Likelihood Ratio 9.34389 5 .09611 Mantel-Haenszel 1.68417 1 .19437 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.947 Numbef' of Missing Observations: 0 Table C-8 Formal Written Infof'mational Data Gf'ouped by, Six Subgroups: CHECKING OUT EQUIPMENT NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 18 4 14 8 4 3 51 YES 72.0 26.7 60.9 61.5 36.4 42.9 54.3 7 11 9 5 7 4 43 NO 28.0 73.3 39.1 38.5 63.6 57.1 45.7 Column 25 15 23 13 11 7 94 Total 26.6 16.0 24.5 13.8 11.7 7.4 100.0 Chi-Squaf'e Value DF Significance Peaf'son 10.24029 5 .06871 Likelihood Ratio 10.49124 5 .06245 Mantei-Haenszel 1. 74263 1 .18681 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.202 Number of Missing Observations: 1

PAGE 262

Table C-9 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: ARRIVAL & DEPATURE TIMES NOV EXP ELEM ELEM NOV SEC EXP SEC 5 13 7 YES 14 56.0 33.3 56.5 53.8 NO 11 44.0 Column 25 Total 26.6 10 10 6 66.7 43.5 46.2 15 23 13 16.0 24.5 13.8 ELEM TRAN 5 45.5 6 54.5 11 11.7 SEC TRAN 2 28.6 5 71.4 7 7.4 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 3.83070 5 Likelihood Ratio 3.90605 5 Mantel-Haenszel .52949 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.426 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table C-10 .57404 .56302 .46682 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: APPRAISAL PROCEDURES NOV EXP ELEM ELEM NOV SEC EXP SEC 11 16 9 YES 16 64.0 73.3 69.6 69.2 NO 9 36.0 Column 25 Total 26.3 4 7 4 26.7 30.4 30.8 15 23 13 15.8 24.2 13.7 ELEM TRAN 7 58.3 5 41.7 12 12.6 SEC TRAN 5 71.4 2 28.6 7 7.4 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 94091 5 Likelihood Ratio .93216 5 Mantel-Haenszel .00152 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.284 Number of Missing Observations: 0 .96719 .96785 .96885 247 Row Total 46 48.9 48 51.1 94 100.0 Row Total 64 67.4 31 32.6 95 100.0

PAGE 263

248 Table C-11 Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTINES NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 9 1 5 3 4 1 23 YES 42.9 7.1 27.8 27.3 36.4 16.7 28.4 12 13 13 8 7 5 58 NO 57.1 92.9 72.2 72.7 63.6 83.3 71.6 Column 21 14 18 11 11 6 81 Total 25.9 17.3 22.2 13.6 13.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 6.02978' 5 .30333 Likelihood Ratio 6.78096 5 .23745 Mantel-Haenszel .30125 1 .58310 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.704 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Table C-12 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: PUPIL EVALUATION NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 7 4 3 3 3 1 21 YES 33.3 28.6 16.7 27.3 27.3 16.7 25.9 14 10 15 8 8 5 60 NO 66.7 71.4 83.3 72.7 72.7 83.3 74.1 Column 21 14 18 11 11 6 81 Total 25.9 17.3 22.2 13.6 13.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 1.74323 5 .88341 Likelihood Ratio 1.81548 5 .87404 Mantel-Haenszel .55051 1 .45811 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.556 Number of Missing Observations: 14

PAGE 264

249 Table C-13 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: SCHOOL/S PHILOSOPHY NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 9 7 7 4 5 3 35 YES 42.9 50.0 38.9 36.4 45.5 50.0 43.2 12 7 11 7 6 3 46 NO 57.1 5Q.O 61.1 63.6 54.5 50.0 .56.8 Column 21 14 18 11 11 6 81 Total 25.9 17.3 22.2 13.6 13.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson .74649 5 .98032 Likelihood Ratio .74762 5 .98025 Mantei-Haenszel .00050 1 .98213 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.593 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Table C-14 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: PARENT CONFERENCES NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 9 2 4 2 2 19 YES 42.9 14.3 23.5 18.2 18.2 23.8 12 12 13. 9 9 6 61 NO 57.1 85.7 76.5 81.8 81.8 100.0 76.3 Column 21 14 17 11 11 6 80 Total 26.3 17.5 21.3 13.8 13.8 7.5 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 7.17201 5 .20816 Likelihood Ratio 8.13123 5 .14915 Mantel-Haenszel 4.33099 1 .03742 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.425 Number of Missing Observations: 15

PAGE 265

250 Table C-15 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: ACQUISITION OF MATERIALS NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 5 2 3 2 3 15 YES 23.8 14.3 16.7 18.2 27.3 18.5 16 12 15 9 8 6 66 NO 76.2 85.7 83.3 81.8 72.7 100.0 81.5 Column 21 14 18 11 11 6 81 Total 25.9 17.3 22.2 13.6 13.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 2.51989. 5 .77350 Like! !hood Ratio 3.54663 5 .61634 Mantei-Haenszel .29926 1 .58435 Minimum Expected Frequency 1.111 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Table C-16 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: LESSON PLANS NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 5 1 1 1 3 11 YES 23.8 7.1 5.6 9.1 27.3 13.6 16 13 17 10 8 6 70 NO 76.2 92.9 94.4 90.9 72.7 100.0 86.4 Column 21 14 18 11 11 6 81 Total 25.9 17.3 22.2 13.6 13.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 6.24338 5 .28325 Likelihood Ratio 6.78301 5 .23728 Mantei-Haenszel .44905 1 .50279 Minimum Expected Frequency .815 Number of Missing Observations: 14

PAGE 266

Table C-17 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: REQUIRED & VOLUNTARY COMMITTEE MEETINGS NOV EXP ELEM ELEM NOV SEC EXP SEC 2 4 4 YES 10 47.6 14.3 22.2 36.4 NO 11 52.4 Column 21 Total 25.9 12 12 7 85.7 77.8 63.6 14 18 11 17.3 22.2 13.6 ELEM TRAN 4 36.4 SEC TRAN 7 6 63.6 100.0 11 13.6 6 7.4 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 8.31869. 5 Likelihood Ratio 9.98791 5 Mantei-Haenszel 1.66301 1 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.778 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Table C-18 .13952 .07558 .19720 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: YES CHECKING OUT EQUIPMENT NOV EXP ELEM ELEM 4 19.0 NOV SEC EXP SEC 2 18.2 ELEM TRAN 2 18.2 SEC TRAN 17 81.0 14 18 9 9 6 NO Column 21 Total 25.9 100.0 100.0 81.8 14 18 11 17.3 22.2 13.6 81.8 100.0 11 13.6 6 7.4 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 7.85359 5 Likelihood Ratio 10.91016 5 Mantel-Haenszel .12178 1 Minimum Expected Frequency .593 Number of Missing Observations: 14 .16449 .05319 .72711 251 Row Total 24 29.6 57 70.4 81 100.0 Row Total 8 9.9 73 90.1 81 100.0

PAGE 267

252 Table C-19 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Slx Subgroups: ARRIVAL & DEPARTURE TIMES NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 6 3 2 5 3 2 21 YES 28.6 21.4 11.1 45.5 27.3 33.3 25.9 15 11 16 6 8 4 60 NO 71.4 78.6 88.9 54.5 72.7 66.7 74.1 Column 21 14 18 11 11 6 81 Total 25.9 17.3 22.2 13.6 13.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 4.64736. 5 .46041 Likelihood Ratio 4.78863 5 .44222 Mantel-Haenszel .27036 1 .60309 Mlnlmum Expected Frequency 1.556 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Table C-20 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: APPRAISAL PROCEDURES NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 10 8 6 3 4 2 33 YES 47.6 57.1 33.3 27.3 36.4 33.3 40.7 11 6 12 8 7 4 48 NO 52.4 42.9 66.7 72.7 63.6 66.7 59.3 Column 21 14 18 11 11 6 81 Total 25.9 17.3 22.2 13.6 13.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 3.43078 5 .63389 Likelihood Ratio 3.44576 5 .63161 Mantel-Haenszel 1.59001 1 .20732 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.444 Number of Missing Observations: 14

PAGE 268

Table C-21 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: WORKING RELATIONS AMONG STAFF NOV EXP ELEM ELEM NOV SEC EXP SEC ELEM TRAN 8 19 11 12 YES 20 80.0 53.3 82.6 84.6 100.0 NO 5 20.0 Column 25 Total 26.3 7 4 2 46.7 17.4 15.4 15 23 13 15.8 24.2 13.7 12 12.6 SEC TRAN 7 100.0 7 7.4 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 12.10812 5 Likelihood Ratio 14.07327 5 Mantel-Haenszel 5.05126 1 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.326 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Table C-22 .03334 .01515 .02461 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: SOCIAL ACTIVITIES AMONG STAFF NOV EXP ELEM ELEM NOV SEC EXP SEC 6 18 9 YES 15 62.5 40.0 78.3 69.2 NO 9 37.5 Column 24 Total 25.5 9 5 4 60.0 21.7 30.8 15 23 13 16.0 24.5 13.8 ELEM TRAN 10 83.3 2 16.7 12 12.8 SEC TRAN 5 71.4 2 28.6 7 7.4 Chi-Squar'e Value DF Slgnlf lcance Pearson 8.02652 5 Likelihood Ratio 7.92935 5 Mantel-Haenszel 2.45700 1 Minimum Expected Fr'equency 2.309 Number of Missing Observations: 1 .15478 .16017 .11700 253 Row Total 77 81.1 18 18.9 95 100.0 Row Total 63 67.0 31 33.0 94 100.0

PAGE 269

Table C-23 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: NOV EXP ELEM ELEM TEACHER BEHAVIOR NOV SEC EXP SEC 2 4 2 YES 7 28.0 13.3 17.4 15.4 NO 18 72.0 Column 25 Total 26.6 13 19 11 82.6 84.6 15 23 13 16.0 24.5 13.8 ELEM TRAN 3 25.0 9 75.0 12 12.8 SEC TRAN 1 16.7 5 83.3 6 6.4 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 1.89898 5 Likelihood Ratio 1.88075 5 Mantel-Haenszel .23776 1 Minimum Expected Frequency1.213 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table C-24 .86294 .86539 .62583 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: NOV EXP ELEM ELEM TIME DEMANDS NOV SEC EXP SEC 8 15 6 YES 14 56.0 53.3 65.2 46.2 NO 11 44.0 Column 25 Total 26.3 7 8 7 46.7 34.8 53.8 15 23 13 15.8 24.2 13.7 ELEM TRAN 7 58.3 5 41.7 12 12.6 SEC fRAN 4 57.1 3 42.9 7 7.4 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 1.35667 5 Likelihood Ratio 1.36289 5 Mantel-Haenszel .00001 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.021 Number of Missing Observations: 0 .92899 .92833 .99782 Row Total 19 20.2 75 79.8 94 100.0 Row Total 54 56.8 41 43.2 95 100.0 254

PAGE 270

255 Table C-25 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: REWARDS & PUNISHMENTS NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 9 3 11 5 8 4 40 YES 36.0 20.0 50.0 38.5 72.7 57.1 43.0 16 12 11 8 3 3 53 NO 64.0 80.0 50.0 61.5 27.3 42.9 .0 Column 25 1S 22 13 11 7 93 Total 26.9 16.1 23.7 14.0 11.8 7.5 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 8.82309. 5 .11633 Likelihood Ratio 9.14584 5 .10339 Mantel-Haenszel 4.34197 1 .03718 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.011 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Table C-26 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: WHO TO BE ON GUARD FOR NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 10 4 12 8 9 3 46 YES 40.0 26.7 52.2 61.5 75.0 42.9 48.4 15 11 11 5 3 4 49 NO 60.0. 73.3 47.8 38.5 25.0 57.1 51.6 Column 25 15 23 13 12 7 95 Total 26.3 15.8 24.2 13.7 12.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 8.05861 5 .15303 Likelihood Ratio 8.33390 5 .13877 Mantel-Haenszel 3.43976 1 .06365 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.389 Number of Observations: 0

PAGE 271

Table C-27 Feedback Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS NOV EXP NOV SEC EXP SEC ELEM ELEM YES NO 15 60.0 10 40.0 Column 25 Total 26.6 5 9 9 33.3 39.1 75.0 10 14 3 66.7 60.9 25.0 15 23 12 16.0 24.5 12.8 ELEM TRAN 6 50.0 6 50.0 12 12.8 SEC TRAN 1 14.3 6 85.7 7 7.4 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 10.17326 5 Likelihood Ratio 10.73311 5 Mantel-Haenszel .85888 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.351 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table C-28 .07047 .05694 .35405 Feedback Informational Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: TEACHING ABILITIES NOV EXP ELEM ELEM NOV SEC EXP SEC 5 6 9 YES 15 60.0 33.3 26.1 75.0 NO 10 40.0 Column 25 Total 26.6 10 17 3 66.7 73.9 25.0 15 23 12 16.0 24.5 12.8 ELEM TRAN 6 50.0 6 50.0 12 12.8 SEC TRAN 1 14.3 6 85.7 7 7.4 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 13.58893 5 Likelihood Ratio 14.22425 5 Mantel-Haenszel .92999 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.128 Number of Missing Observations: 1 .01844 .01425 .33486 256 Row Total 45 47.9 49 52.1 94 100.0 Row Total 42 44.7 52 55.3 94 100.0

PAGE 272

Table C-29 Feedback In format! onal Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: CLASSROOM DISCIPLINE NOV EXP ELEM ELEM NOV SEC EXP SEC B 4 7 YES 11 44.0 53.3 17.4 58.3 NO 14 56.0 Column 25 Total 26.9 7 19 5 46.7 82.6 41.7 15 23 12 16 .. 1 24 7 12 9 ELEM TRAN 4 33.3 B 66.7 12 12.9 SEC TRAN 1 16.7 5 83.3 6 6.5 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 9.43128. 5 Likelihood Ratio 9.91615 5 Mantel-Haenszel 1.14362 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.258 Number of Mlsslng Observations: 2 Table C-30 .09305 .07765 .28489 Feedback Informational Data Grouped by, Slx Subgroups: ACCEPTANCE NOV EXP NOV SEC EXP SEC ELEM ELEM 16 YES 64.0 9 NO 36.0 Column 25 Total 26.6 7 10 7 46.7 43.5 58.3 B 13 5 53.3 56.5 41.7 15 23 12 16.0 24.5 12.8 ELEM TRAN 4 33.3 B 66.7 12 12.8 SEC TRAN 3 42.9 4 57.1 7 7.4 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 4.22749 5 Likelihood Ratio 4.28302 5 Mantel-Haenszel 2.01775 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.500 Number of Missing Observations: 1 .51715 .50943 .15547 257 Row Total 35 37.6 58 62.4 93 100.0 Row Total 47 50.0 47 50.0 94 100.0

PAGE 273

APPENDIX D AFFECTIVE DATA GROUPED BY SIX GROUPS TABLES D-1 THROUGH D-10

PAGE 274

Table D-1 Affective Data by, Six NOV EXP ELEM ELEM NOV SEC EMPATHY EXP SEC ELEM TRAN 25 100.0 14 23 13 12 YES NO Column 25 Total 26.3 93.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 6.7 15 23 13 15.8 24.2 13.7 12 12.6 SEC TRAN 6 85.7 1 14.3 7 7.4 Value DF Significance 8.12340. 5 Likelihood Ratio 6.31098 5 Mantel-Haenszel .92831 1 Minimum Expected .147 of Missing 0 Table D-2 Affective Data by, Six .14956 .27712 .33530 COLLECTING MATERIALS NOV EXP ELEM ELEM NOV SEC EXP SEC 10 16 7 YES 22 88.0 66.7 72.7 53.8 NO 3 12.0 Column 25 Total 26.9 5 6 6 33.3 27.3 46.2 15 22 13 16.1 23.7 14.0 ELEM TRAN 10 90.9 1 9.1 11 11.8 SEC TRAN 3 42.9 4 57.1 7 7.5 Value DF Significance 10.62532 5 Likelihood Ratio 10.83554 5 Mantel-Haenszel 2.80317 1 Minimum Expected 1.882 of Missing Observations: 2 .05934 .05474 .09408 259 Row Total 93 97.9 2 2.1 95 100.0 Row Total 68 73.1 25 26.9 93 100.0

PAGE 275

260 Table D-3 Affective Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: -DISCIPLINE & SCHEDULING NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 20 11 16 11 7 4 69 YES 83.3 73.3 69.6 84.6 63.6 57.1 74.2 4 4 7 2 4 3 24 NO 16.7 26.7 30.4 15.4 36.4 42.9 25.8 Column 24 15 23 13 11 7 93 Total 25.8 16 .1 24.7 14.0 11.8 7.5 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 3.75089 5 .58581 Likelihood Ratio 3. 77497-5 .58225 Mantel-Haenszel 1.73857 1 .18732 Minimum Expected Frequency 1.806 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Table D-4 Affective Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: CLASSROOM ARRANGEMENT NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM' ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 11 2 7 5 9 2 36 YES 44.0 13.3 30.4 38.5 75.0 28.6 37.9 14 13 16 8 3 5 59 NO 56.0 86.7 69.6 61.5 25.0 71.4 62.1 Column 25 15 23 13 12 7 95 Total 26.3 15.8 24.2 13.7 12.6 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 12.06521 5 .03391 Likelihood Ratio 12.53489 5 .02815 Mantel-Haenszel 1.03243 1 .30959 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.653 Number of Missing Observations: 0

PAGE 276

261 Table D-5 Affective Data Grouped-by, Six Subgroups: CONFERENCE OBSERVATION NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 3 2 2 3 3 13 YES 12.5 13.3 8.7 25.0 25.0 14.0 21 13 21 9 9 7 80 NO 87.5 86.7 91.3 75.0 75.0 100.0 86.0 Column 24 15 23 12 12 7 93 Total 25.8 16.1 24.7 12.9 12.9 7.5 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 4.14466. 5 .52878 Likelihood Ratio 4.80307 5 .44038 Mantel-Haenszel .11906 1 .73006 Minimum Expected Frequency .978 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Table D-6 Affective Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: CLARIFICATION OF FORMAL RULES NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 17 8 15 8 8 4 60 YES 68.0 53.3 65.2 66.7 66.7 57.1 63.8 8 7 8 4 4 3 34 NO 32.0 46.7 34.8 33.3 33.3 42.9 36.2 Column 25 15 23 12 12 7 94 Total 26.6 16.0 24.5 12.8 12.8 7.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 1.14255 5 .95027 Likelihood Ratio 1.12083 5 .95224 Mantel-Haenszel .01442 1 .90442 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.532 Number of Missing Observations: 1

PAGE 277

262 Table D-7 Affective Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: CLARIFICATION OF INFORMAL RULES NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 20 9 17 10 10 6 72 YES 80.0 60.0 77.3 83.3 83.3 85.7 77.4 5 6 5 2 2 1 21 NO 20.0 40.0 23.7 16.7 16.7 14.3 .6 Column 25 15 22 12 12 7 93 Total 26.9 16.1 23.7 12.9 12.9 7.5 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 3.45475. 5 .63025 Likelihood Ratio 3.19237 5 .67036 Mantel-Haenszel .64317 1 .42256 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.581 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Table D-8 Affective Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: PROVISION OF FEEDBACK NOV EXP NOV EXP ELEM SEC Row ELEM ELEM SEC SEC TRAN TRAN Total 15 3 9 10 6 2 45 YES 60.0 20.0 39.1 76.9 50.0 33.3 47.9 10 12 14. 3 6 4 49 NO 40.0. 80.0 60.9 23.1 50.0 66.7 52.1 Column 25 15 23 13 12 6 94 Total 26.6 16.0 24.5 13.8 12.8 6.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 11.77396 5 .03802 Likelihood Ratio 12.37065 5 .03005 Mantel-Haenszel .00078 1 .97766 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.872 Number of Missing Observations: 1

PAGE 278

Table D-9 Affective Data Grouped by, Slx Subgroups: OBSERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT OTHER NOV EXP NOV SEC EXP SEC ELEM ELEM 18 YES 72.0 7 NO 28.0 Column 25 Total 26.6 8 9 7 53.3 40.9 53.8 7 13 6 46.7 59.1 46.2 15 22 13 16.0 23.4 13.8 ELEM TRAN 5 41.7 7 58.3 12 12.8 SEC TRAN 2 28.6 5 71.4 7 7.4 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 7.17269 5 Llkellhood Ratio 7.37766 5 Mantel-Haenszel 5.00501 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.351 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table D-10 Affective Data Grouped by, Six Subgroups: CLARIFY BELIEFS NOV EXP ELEM ELEM NOV SEC EXP SEC 14 21 13 YES 21 84.0 93.3 95.5 100.0 NO 4 16.0 Column 25 Total 26.6 1 1 6.7 4.5 15 22 13 16.0 23.4 13.8 .20811 .19403 .02527 ELEM TRAN 10 83.3 2 16.7 12 12.8 SEC TRAN 5 71.4 2 28.6 7 7.4 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 6.23836 5 Likelihood Ratio 7.05393 5 Mantel-Haenszel .13284 1 Minimum Expected Frequency-.745 Number of Missing Observations: 1 .28371 .21666 .71551 263 Row Total 49 52.1 45 47.9 94 100.0 Row Total 84 89.4 10 10.6 94 100.0

PAGE 279

APPENDIX E DEMOGRAPHIC DATA GROUPED BY NOVICE, EXPERIENCED, AND TRANSFER TEACHERS TABLES E-1 THROUGH E-10

PAGE 280

265 Table E-1 _Demographic Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced & Transfer Teachers: AGE NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 6 5 5 16 SAME 15.0 13.9 26.3 16.8 6 9 5 20 OLDER 15.0 25.0 26.3 21.1 28 22 9 59 YOUNGER 70.0 61.1 47.4 62.1 Column 40 36 9 59 Total 42.1 37.9 20.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 3.56358 4 .46828 Likelihood Ratio 3.51743 4 .47423 Mantel-Haenszel 2.24690 1 .13388 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.200 Number of Missing Observations: 0

PAGE 281

Table E-2 Demographic Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced & Transfer Teachers: ASSIGNMENT NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 14 8 5 27 1-5 40.0 27.6 33.3 34.2 11 13 6 30 6-10 31.4 44.8 40.0 38.0 3 2 4 9 11-15 8.6 6.9 26.7 11.4 3 4 7 16-20 8.6 13.8 8.9 4 2 6 20+ 11.4 6.9 7.6 Column 35 29 15 79 Total 44.3 36.7 19.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 9.28335 8 .31896 Likelihood Ratio 10.81493 8 .21241 Mantel-Haenszel .29831 1 .58494 Minimum Expected Frequency 1.139 Number of Missing Observations: 16

PAGE 282

. 267 Table E-3 Demographic Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced & Transfer Teachers: GENDER DIFFERENCE NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 5 2 1 8 M-M 12.5 5.6 5.3 8.4 25 28 13 66 F-F 62.5 77.8 68.4 69.5 6 2 8 M-F 15.0 5.6 8.4 4 4 5 13 F-F 10.0 11.1 26.3 13.7 Column 40 36 19 95 Total 42.1 37.9 20.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 8.79995 6 .18515 Likelihood Ratio 9.61066 6 .14203 Mantel-Haenszel .93821 1 .33274 Minimum Expected Frequency1.600 Number of Missing Observations: 0

PAGE 283

Table E-4 Demographic Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced & Transfer Teachers: EDUCl\TION NOV EXP TRl\N 19 18 8 Sl\ME 48.7 52.9 42.1 1 9 8 S.O.< 2.6 26.5 42.1 19 7 3 S.O.> 48.7 20.6 15.8 Column 39 34 19 Total 42.4 37.0 20.7 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 18.25691 4 Likelihood Ratio 20.37127 4 Mantel-Haenszel 1.71191 1 Minimum Expected Frequency-3.717 Number of Missing Observations: 3 Row Total 45 48.9 18 19.6 29 31.5 92 100.0 Significance .00110 .00042 .19074 268

PAGE 284

Table E-5 Demographic Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced & Transfer Teachers: ROLE NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 38 27 15 80 TEACHER 95.0 75.0 78.9 84.2 1 3 4 ADMIN 2.5 8.3 4.2 1 1 COUNS 2.8 1.1 1 1 SEC 5.3 1.1 1 5 3 9 OTHER 2.5 13.9 15.8 9.5 Column 40 36 19 95 Total 42.1 37.9 20.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 12.74240 8 .12103 Likelihood Ratio 13.41052 8 .09848 Mantel-Haenszel 4.92594 1 .02646 Minimum Expected Frequency .200 Number of Missing Observations: 0

PAGE 285

Table E-6 Demographic Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced Transfer Teachers: EDUCATION DIFFERENCE NOV EXP TRAN 2 1 SAME 6.1 6.7 9 5 S.O.< 27.3 33.3 38 22 9 S.O.> 100.0 66 .7 60.0 Column 38 33 15 Total 44.2 38.4 17.4 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 17.07482 Likelihood Ratio 23.31767 Mantei-Haenszel 12.95979 Minimum Expected Frequency .523 Number of Missing Observations: 9 4 4 1 Row Total 3 3.5 14 16.3 69 80.2 86 100.0 Significance .00187 .00011 .00032 270

PAGE 286

271 Table E-7 Demographic Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced & Transfer Teachers: EXPERIENCE DIFFERENTIAL NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 7 16 6 29 1-5 18.9 51.6 42.9 35.4 16 10 6 32 6-10 43.2 32.3 42.9 39.0 8 3 1 12 11-15 21.6 9.7 7.1 14.6 3 2 1 6 16-20 8.1 6.5 7.1 7.3 3 3 20+ 8.1 3.7 Column 37 31 14 82 Total 45.1 37.8 17.1 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 11.95550 8 .15320 Likelihood Ratio 13.41344 8 .09839 Mantei-Haenszel 6.33029 1 .01187 Minimum Expected Frequency .512 Number of Missing Observations: 13

PAGE 287

Table E-8 Demographic Data by, Novice, RESIDENCE NOV EXP TRAN 27 21 10 1-5 69.2 58.3 52.6 9 12 4 6-10 23.1 33.3 21.1 3 3 5 11-15 7.7 8.3 26.3 Column 39 36 19 Total 41.5 38.3 20.2 Value DF 6.04578 4 Likelihood Ratio 5.22341 4 Mantel-Haenszel 3.08050 1 Minimum Expected 2.223 of Mlsslng 1 Row Total 58 61.7 25 26.6 11 11.7 94 100.0 Significance .19576 .26513 .07924

PAGE 288

273 Table E-9 Demographic Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced & Transfer Teachers: OFFICE/CLASSROOM LOCATION NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 11 10 5 26 SHARE 27.5 27.8 26.3 27.4 21 17 12 50 CLOSE 52.5 47.2 63.2 52.6 6 8 14 DISTANT 15.0 22.2 14.7 2 1 2 5 OTHER 5.0 2.8 10.5 5.3 Column 40 36 19 95 Total 42.1 37.9 20.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 6.20884 6 .40021 Likelihood Ratio 8.66700 6 .19319 Mantel-Haenszel .00564 1 .94015 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.000 Number of Missing Observations: 0

PAGE 289

274. Table E-10 Demographic Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced & Transfer Teachers: ASSIGNMENT NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 22 15 7 44 SAME S&G 59.5 50.0 50.0 54.3 6 2 2 10 DIFF S&G 16.2 6.7 14.3 12.3 4 8 4 16 DIFF S, SAME G 10.8 26.7 28.6 19.8 5 5 1 11 SAME S, DIFF G 13.5 16.7 7.113.6 Column 37 30 14 81 Total 45.7 37.0 17.3 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 5.01912 6 .54136 Likelihood Ratio 5.36740 6 .49763 Mantel-Haenszel .48731 1 .48513 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.728 Number of Missing Observations: 14

PAGE 290

APPENDIX F INFORMATIONAL DATA GROUPED BY NOVICE, EXPERIENCED, AND TRANSFER TEACHERS TABLES F-1 THROUGH F-30

PAGE 291

Table F-1 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTINES NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 27 26 10 63 YES 67.5 72.2 52.6 66.3 13 10 9 32 NO 32.5. 27.8 47.4 33.7 Column 40 19 95 Total 42.1 37.9 20.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 2.18009 .2 .33620 Likelihood Ratio 2.12048 2 .34637 Mantel-Haenszel .76987 1 .38026 Minimum Expected Frequency 6.400 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Table F-2 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: PUPIL EVALUATION NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 33 28 14 75 YES 82.5 77.8 73.3 78.9 7 8 5 20 NO 17.5 22.2 26.3 21.1 Column 40 36 19 95 Total 42.1 37.9 20.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson .65005 2 .72251 Likelihood Ratio .64644 2 .72382 Mantei-Haenszel .64196 1 .42300 Minimum Expected Frequency 4.000 Number of Missing Observations: 0 276_

PAGE 292

Table F-3 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: SCHOOL'S PHILOSOPHY NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 28 23 15 66 YES 70.0 65.7 78.9 70.2 12 12 4 28 NO 30.0 34.3 21.1 29.8 Column 40 35 19 94 Total 42.6 37.2 20.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Sl gnlf i cance Pearson 1.03261 2 .59672 Likelihood Ratio 1.07171 .2 .58517 Mantel-Haenszel .26514 1 .60661 Minimum Expected Frequency 5.660 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table F-4 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: PARENT CONFERENCES NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 29 22 12 63 YES 72.5 64.7 63.2 67.7 11 12 7 30 NO 27.5 35.3 36.8 32.3 Column 40 34 19 93 Total 43.0 36.6 20.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 74053 2 69055 Likelihood Ratio .74612 2 .68862 ManteJ-Haenszel .64212 1 .42294 Minimum Expected Frequency 6.129 Number of Missing Observations: 2 277

PAGE 293

Table F-5 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: ACQUISITION OF MATERIALS NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 26 27 15 68 YES 65.0 75.0 78.9 71.6 14 9 4 27 NO 35.0 25.0 21.1 28.4 Column 40 36 19 95 Total 42.1 37.9 20.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 1.56522 2 .45721 Likelihood Ratio 1.56769 .2 .4543A Mantel-Haenszel 1.45434 1 .22783 Minimum Expected Frequency 5.400 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Table F-6 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Nov lee, Experienced, & Transfer: LESSON PLANS NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 12 13 6 31 YES 31.6 37.1 33.3 34.1 26 22 12 60 NO 68.4 62.9 66.7 65.9 Column 38 35 12 91 Total 41.8 38.5 19.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson .25647 2 .87965 Likelihood Ratio .25578 2 .87995 Mantel-Haenszel .05642 1 .81224 Minimum Expected Frequency 6.132 Number of Missing Observations: 4 278

PAGE 294

Table F-7 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: REQUIRED AND VOLUNTARY COMMITTEE MEETINGS NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 23 25 7 55 YES 57.5 69.4 36.8 57.9 17 11 12 40 NO 42.5 30.6 63.2 42.1 Column 40. "36 19 95 Total 42.1 37.9 20.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 5.42711 2 .06630 Likelihood Ratio 5.44718 2 .06564 Mantei-Haenszel 1.10231 1 .293715 Minimum Expected Frequency 8.000 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Table F-8 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: CHECKING OUT EQUIPMENT NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 22 22 7 51 YES 55.0 61.1 38.9 54.3 18 14 11 43 NO 45.0 38.9 61.1 45.7 Column 40 36 18 94 Total 42.-6 38.3 19.1 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 2.40322 2 .30071 Likelihood Ratio 2.40805 2 .29998 Mantel-Haenszel .70802 1 .40010 Minimum Expected Frequency 8.234 Number of Missing Observations: 1 279

PAGE 295

Table F-9 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: ARRIVAL. & DEPARTURE TIMES NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 19 20 7 46 YES 47.5 55.6 38.9 48.9 21 16 11 48 NO 52.5 44.4 61.1 51.1 Column 40. 36 18 94 Total 42.6 38.3 19.1 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 1.39141 2 .49872 Likelihood Ratio 1.39920 2 .49678 Mantel-Haenszel .11408 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 8.809 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table F-10 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: APPRAISAL PROCEDURES NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 27 25 12 64 YES 67.5 69.4 63.2 67.4 13 11 7 31 NO 32.5 30.6 36.8 32.6 Column 40 36 19 95 Total 42.1 37.9 20.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson .22412 2 .89399 Likelihood Ratio .22183 2 .89502 Mantei-Haenszel .06020 1 .80619 Minimum Expected Frequency 6.200 Number of Missing Observations: 0 280

PAGE 296

Table F-11 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTINES NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 10 8 5 23 YES 28.6 27.6 29.4 28.4 25 21 12 58 NO 71.4 72.4 70.6 71.6 Column 35 29 17 81 Total 43.2 35.8 21.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson .01851 2 Likelihood Ratio .01850 -2 Mantel-Haenszel .00125 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 4.827 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Table F-12 .99079 .99079 .97180 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: PUPIL EVALUATION NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 11 6 4 21 YES 31.4 20.7 23.5 25.9 24 23 13 60 NO 68.6 79.3 76.5 74.1 Column 35 29 17 81 Total 43.2 35.8 21.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 1.01672 2 .60148 Likelihood Ratio 1.01586 2 .60174 Mantel-Haenszel .58333 1 .44501 Minimum Expected Frequency 4.407 Number of Missing Observations: 14 281

PAGE 297

Table F-13 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: SCHOOL/S PHILOSOPHY NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 16 11 8 35 YES 45.7 37.9 47.1 43.2 19 18 9 46 NO 54.3 62.1 52.9 56.8 Column 35. "29 17 81 Total 43.2 35.8 21.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson .52141 2 .77051 Likelihood Ratio .52432 2 .76939 Mantel-Haenszel .00414 :94869 Minimum Expected Frequency-7.346 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Table F-14 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: PARENT CONFERENCES NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 11 6 2 19 YES 31.4 21.4 11.8 23.8 24 22 15 61 NO 68.6 78.6 88.2 76.3 Column 35 28 17 80 Total 43.8 35.0 21.3 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 2.57133 2 .27647 Likelihood Ratio 2.72326 2 .25624 Mantel-Haenszel 2.53892 1 .11107 Minimum Expected Frequency 4.037 Number of Missing Observations: 15 282

PAGE 298

Table F-15 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: ACQUISITION OF MATERIALS NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 7 5 3 15 YES 20.0 17.2 17.6 18.5 28 24 14 66 NO 80.0 82.8 82.4 81.5 Column 35 29 17 81 Total 43.2 35.8 21.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson .09081 2 Likelihood Ratio .09049 .2 Mantei-Haenszel .06061 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.148 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Table F-16 .95561 .95576 .80554 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transler: LESSON PLANS NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 6 2 3 11 YES 17.1 6.9 17.6 13.6 29 27 14 70 NO 82.9 93.1 82.4 86.4 Column 35 29 17 81 Total 43.2 35.8 21.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 1.72194 2 .42275 Likelihood Ratio 1.88829 2 .38901 Mante 1-Haensze 1 05411 1 81606 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.309 Number of Missing Observations: 14 283

PAGE 299

Table F-17 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: REQUIRED AND VOLUNTARY COMMITTEE MEETINGS NOV 12 YES 34.3 23 NO 65.7 Column 35 Total 43.2 EXP TRAN 8 4 27.6 23.5 21 13 72.4 76.5 29 17 35.8 21.0 Row Total 24 29.6 57 70.4 81 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 72539 2 .69580 Likelihood Ratio .73010 .2 .69416 Mantel-Haenszel .70175 1 .40220 Minimum Expected Frequency 5.037 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Table F-18 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: CHECKING OUT EQUIPMENT NOV 4 YES 11.4 31 NO 88.6 Column 35 Total 43.2 EXP TRAN 2 2 6.9 11.8 27 15 93.1 88.2 29 17 35.8 21.0 Row Total 8 9.9 73 90.1 81 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson .45213 2 .79767 Likelihood Ratio .47528 2 .78849 Mantel-Haenszel .01142 1 .91491 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.679 Number of Missing Observations: 14 284

PAGE 300

Table F-19 Unwritten Informational Data GrouEed Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: ARRIVAL & DEPARTURE TIMES NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 9 7 5 21 YES 25.7 24.1 29.4 25.9 26 22 12 60 NO 74.3 75.9 70.6 74.1 Column 35 29 17 81 Total 43.2 35.8 21.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Sl gnif lcance Pearson .15666 2 .92466 Ratio .15451 .2 .92565 Mantei-Haenszel .04762 1 .82726 Minimum Expected Frequency 4.407 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Table F-20 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: APPRAISAL PROCEDURES NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 18 9 6 33 YES 51.4 31.0 35.3 40.7 17 20 11 48 NO 48.6 69.0 64.7 59.3 Column 35 29 17 81 Total 43.. 35.8 21.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 2.99656 2 .22351 Likelihood Ratio 3.00598 2 .22246 Mantel-Haenszel 1.85606 1 .17308 Minimum Expected Frequency 6.926 Number of Missing Observations: 14 285

PAGE 301

Table F-21 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: WORKING RELATIONS AMONG STAFF NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 28 30 19 77 YES 70.0 83.3 100.0 81.1 12 6 18 NO 30.0 16.7 18.9 Column 40 36 19 95 Total 42.1 37.9 20.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 7.74531 2 .02080 Likelihood Ratio 10.92765 .2 .00424 Mantel-Haenszel 7.62585 1 .00575 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.600 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Table F-22 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: SOCIAL ACTIVITIES AMONG STAFF NOV EXP TRAN 21 27 15 YES 53.8 75.0 78.9 18 9 4 NO 46.2 25.0 21.1 Column 39 36 19 Total 41.5 38.3 20.2 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 5.32238 2 Likelihood Ratio 5.31781 2 Mantel-Haenszel 4.56600 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 6.266 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Row Total 63 67.0 31 33.0 94 100.0 Significance .06986 .07002 .03261 286

PAGE 302

Table F-23 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: TEACHER BEHAVIOR NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 9 6 4 19 YES 22.5 16.7 22.2 20.2 31 30 14 75 NO 77.5 83.3 77.8 79.8 Column 40 36 18 94 Total 42.6 38.3 19.1 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 45552 2 79631 Likelihood Ratio .46458 .2 .79272 Mantel-Haenszel .03552 1 .85051 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.638 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table F-24 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: TIME DEMANDS NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 22 21 11 54 YES 55.0 58.3 57.9 56.8 18 15 8 41 NO 45.0 41.7 42.1 43.2 Column 40 36 19 95 Total 42.1 37.9 19.1 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 09654 2 95287 Likelihood Ratio .09648 2 .95290 Mantel-Haenszel .06512 1 .79857 Minimum Expected Frequency 8.200 Number of Missing Observations: 0

PAGE 303

Table F-25 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: REWARDS & PUNISHMENTS NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 12 16 12 40 YES 30.0 45.7 66.7 43.0 28 19 6 53 NO 70.0 54.3 33.3 57.0 Column 40 35 18 93 Total 43.0 37.6 19.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 6.97625 2 .03056 Likelihood Ratio 7.05571 .2 .02937 Mantel-Haenszel 6.84441 1 .00889 Minimum Expected Frequency-7.742 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Table F-26 Unwritten Informational Data Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: WHO TO BE ON GUARD FOR NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 14 20 12 54 YES 35.0 55.6 63.2 48.4 26 16 7 49 NO 65.0 44.7 36.8 51.6 Column 40 36 19 95 Total 42.1 37.9 20.0 100.0 Chi-Squar'e Value DF Significance Pear'son 5.27075 2 .07169 Likelihood Ratio 5.33807 2 .06932 Mantel-Haenszel 4.86308 1 .02744 Minimum Expected Fr'equency 9.200 Number' of Mlsslng Observations: 0 288

PAGE 304

Table F-27 Informational Feedback Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 20 18 7 45 YES 50.0 51.4 36.8 47.9 20 17 12 49 NO 50.0 48.6 63.2 52.1 Column 40 35 19 94 Total 42.6 37.2 20.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 1.17628 2 .55536 Likelihood Ratio 1.18972 .2 .55164 Mantel-Haenszel .63393 1 .42592 Minimum Expected Frequency 9.096 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table F-28 Informational Feedback Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: TEACHING ABILITIES NOV EXP TRAN 20 15 7 YES 50.0 42.9 36.8 20 20 12 NO 50.0 57.1 63.2 Column 40 35 19 Total 42.6 37.2 20.2 Chi-Square Value DF Row Total 42 44.7 52 55.3 94 100.0 Significance Pearson 97731 2 61345 Likelihood Ratio .98230 2 .61192 Mantel-Haenszel .96426 1 .32612 Minimum Expected Frequency 8.489 Number of Missing Observations: 1 289

PAGE 305

Table F-29 Informational Feedback Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: CLASSROOM DISCIPLINE NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 19 11 5 35 YES 47.5 31.4 27.8 37.6 21 24 1'3 58 NO 52.5 68.6 72.2 62.4 Column 40 35 18 93 Total 43.0 37.6 19.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 2.97810 2 .22559 Likelihood Ratio 2.98161 .2 .22519 Mantel-Haenszel 2.61236 1 .10603 Minimum Expected Frequency-6.774 Number of Missing Observations: 2 .Table F-30 Informational Feedback Novice, Experienced, &.Transfer: ACCEPTANCE NOV EXP TRAN 23 17 7 YES 57.5 48.6 36.8 17 18 12 NO 42.5 51.4 63.2 Column 40 35 19 Total 42.6 37.2 20.2 Chi-Square Value DF Row Total 47 50.0 47 50.0 94 100.0 Significance Pearson 2.24436 2 .32557 Likelihood Ratio 2.26340 2 .32249 Mantel-Haenszel 2.20431 1 .13763 Minimum Expected Frequency 9.500 Number of Missing Observations: 1 290

PAGE 306

APPENDIX G AFFECTIVE DATA GROUPED BY NOVICE, EXPERIENCED, AND TRANSFER TEACHERS TABLES G-1 THROUGH G-10

PAGE 307

Table G-1 Affective Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: EMPATHY NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 39 36 18 93 YES 97.5 100.0 94.7 97.9 1 1 2 NO 2.5 5.3 2.1 Column 40. "36 19 95 Total 42.1 37.9 20.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 1. 72379 2 .42236 Likelihood Ratio 2.21268 2 .33077 Mantei-Haenszel .17263 "1 .67778 Mlnlmum Expected Frequency .400 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Table G-2 Affective Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: COLLECT MATERIALS NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 32 23 13 68 YES 80.0 65.7 72.2 73.1 8 12 5 25 NO 20.0 34.3 27.8 26.9 Column 40 35 18 93 Total 43.0 37.6 19.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 1.94727 2 .37771 Likelihood Ratio 1.96028 2 .37526 Mantel-Haenszel .80946 1 .36828 Minimum Expected Frequency 4.839 Number of Missing Observations: 2 292

PAGE 308

Table G-3 Affective Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: DISCIPLINE & SCHEDULING NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 31 27 11 69 YES 79.5 75.0 61.1 74.2 8 9 7 24 NO 20.5 25.0 38.9 25.8 Column 39 36 18 93 Total 41.9 38.7 19.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Sl gn lf i cance Pearson 2.19202 2 .33420 Likelihood Ratio 2.08561 2 .35246 Mantei-Haenszel 1.93097 .16465 Minimum Expected Frequency 4.645 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Table G-4 Affective Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: CLASSROOM ARRANGEMENT NOV EXP TRAN 13 11 YES 32.5 33.3 57.9 27 24 8 NO 67.5 66.7 42.1 Column 40 36 19 Total 42.1 37.9 20.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 4.04220 2 Likelihood Ratio 3.93440 2 Mantei-Haenszel 2.74549 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 7.200 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Row Total 36 37.9 59 62.1 95 100.0 Significance .13251 .13985 .09753 293

PAGE 309

Table G-5 Affective Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: OBSERVE CONFERENCES NOV EXP 5 5 YES 12.8 14.3 34 30 NO 87.2 85.7 Column 39 Total 41.9 37.6 TRAN 3 15.8 16 84.2 19 20.4 Row Total 13 14.0 eo 86.0 93 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pear-son .09806 2 .95215 Likelihood Ratio .09734 2 .95250 Mantel-Haenszel .09700 .75546 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.656 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Table G-6 Affective Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: CLARIFY FORMAL RULES NOV 25 YES 62.5 15 NO 37.5 Column 40 Total 42.6 EXP 23 65.7 12 34.3 35 37.2 TRAN 12 63.2 7 36.8 19 20.2 Row Total 60 63.8 34 36.2 94 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Si gnlf lcance Pearson .08819 2 Likelihood Ratio .08845 2 Mantel-Haenszel .01290 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 6.872 Number of Missing Observations: 1 .95686 .95674 .90959 294

PAGE 310

Table G-7 Affective Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: CLARI-FY INFORMAL RULES NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 29 27 16 72 YES 72.5 79.4 84.2 77.4 11 7 3 21 NO 27.5 20.6 15.8 22.6 Column 40. "34 19 93 Total 43.0 36.6 20.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 1.13218 2 .56774 Likelihood Ratio 1.15139 2 .56231 Mantel-Haenszel -1.10707 .29272 Minimum Expected Frequency 4.290 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Table G-8 Affective Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: PROVIDE FEEDBACK NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 18 19 8 45 YES 45.0 52.8 44.4 47.9 22 17 10 49 NO 55.0 47.2 55.6 52.1 Column 40 36 18 94 Total 42.6 38.3 19.1 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson .56414 2 .75422 Likelihood Ratio .56425 2 .75418 Mantel-Haenszel .02122 1 .88417 Minimum Expected Frequency 8.617 Number of Missing Observations: 1 295

PAGE 311

Table G-9 Affective Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: OBSERVE SELF NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 26 16 7 49 YES 65.0 45.7 36.8 52.1 14 19 12 45 NO 35.0 54.3 63.2 47.9 Column 40. 19 94 Total 42.6 37.2 20.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Sign lf 1 cance Pearson 5.01179 2 .08160 Likelihood Ratio 5.07465 2 .07908 Mantel-Haenszel 4.73446 .02956 Minimum Expected Frequency 9.096. Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table G-10 Affective Data Grouped by, Novice, Experienced, & Transfer: CLARIFY BELIEFS NOV EXP TRAN Row Total 35 34 15 84 YES 87.5 97.1 78.9 89.4 5 1 4 10 NO 12.5 2.9 21.1 10.6 Column 40 35 19 94 Total 42.6 37.2 20.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 4.54262 2 .10318 Likelihood Ratio 4.93021 2 .08500 Mantel-Haenszel .29183 1 .58905 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.021 Number of Missing Observations: 1 296

PAGE 312

APPENDIX H DEMOGRAPHIC DATA GROUPED BY ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS TABLES H-1 THROUGH H-10

PAGE 313

Table H-1 Demographic Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: ELEM SEC Row Total 12 4 16 SAME 20.0 11.4 16.8 14 6 20 OLDER 23.3 17.1 21.1 34 25 59 YOUNGER 56.7 71.4 62.1 Column 60 35 95 Total 63.2 36.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 2.14229 2 Likelihood Ratio 2.19849 2 Mantei-Haenszel 2.03702 1 Mlnlmum Expected Frequency 5.895 Number of Missing Observations: 0 .34262 .33312 .15351 298

PAGE 314

299 Table H-2 Demographic Data Grouped by, Elementary and Secondary Teachers: AGE DIFFERENCE ELEM SEC Row Total 19 8 27 1-5 38.8 26.7 34.2 22 8 30 6-10 44.9 26.7 38.0 4 5 9 11-15 8.2 16.7 11.4 1 6 7 16-20 2.0 20.0 8.9 3 3 6 20+ 6.1 10.0 7.6 Column 49 30 79 Total 62.0 38.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value OF significance Pearson 10.74952 4 .02953 Likelihood Ratio 10.86747 4 .02809 Mantei-Haenszel 5.83757 1 .01569 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.278 Number of Missing Observations: 16

PAGE 315

Table H-3 Demographic Data Grouped by, Elementary and Secondary Teachers: -GENDER DIFFERENCE ELEM SEC Row Total 1 7 8 M-M 1.7 20.0 8.4 50 16 66 F-F 83.3 45.7 69.5 5 3 8 M-F 8.3 8.6 8.4 4 9 13 F-M 6.7 25.7 13.7 Column 60 35 95 Total 63.2 36.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 19.18810 3 Likelihood Ratio 19.26999 s Mantel-Haenszel 1.36515 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 2.947 Number of Missing Observations: 0 300 Significance .00025 .00024 .24265

PAGE 316

Table H-4 Demographic Data Grouped by, Elementary and Secondary Teachers: EDUCATION ELEM SEC Row Total 32 13 45 SAME 56.1 37.1 48.9 13 5 18 S.O.< 22.8 14.3 19.6 12 "17 29 S.O.> 21.1 48.6 31.5 Column 57 35 92 Total 62.0 38.0 100.0 Chi-Square Value OF Pearson 7.61439 2 Likelihood Ratio 7.51658 2 Mantel-Haenszel 5.99543 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 6.848 Number of Missing Observations: 3 301 Significance .02221 .02332 .01434

PAGE 317

302 Table H-5 Qemographic Data Grouped by, Elementary and Secondary Teachers: ROLE ELEM SEC Row Total 53 27 eo TEACHER 88.3 77.1 84.2 1 3 4 ADMIN 1.7 8.6 4.2 1 1 COUNS 2.9 1.1 1 1 SEC 1.7 1.1 5 4 9 OTHER 8.3 11.4 9.5 Column 60 35 95 Total 63.2 36.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 5.35286 4 .25297 Likelihood Ratio 5.87878 4 .20839 Mantel-Haenszel .59503 1 .44048 Minimum Expected Frequency .368 Number of Missing Observations: 0

PAGE 318

Table H-6 Demographic Data Grouped by, Elementary and Secondary Teachers: EDUCATION DIFFERENCE ELEM SEC Row Total 2 1 3 SAME 3.8 3.0 3.5 12 2 14 S.O.< 22.6 6.1 16.3 39 so 69 S.O.> 73.6 90.9 80.2 Column 53 33 86 Total 61.6 38.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 4.22758 2 Likelihood Ratlo 4.74791 2 Mantel-Haenszel 2.64320 1 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.151 Number of MJssJng Observations: 9 303 Significance .12078 .09311 .10399

PAGE 319

304 Table H-7 Demographic Data Grouped by, Elementary and Seconaary Teachers: EXPERIENCE DIFFERENTIAL ELEM SEC Row Total 20 9 29 1-5 39.2 29.0 35.4 19 13 32 6-10 37.3 41.9 39.0 7 5 12 11-15 13.7 16.1 14.6 2 4 6 16-20 3.9 12.9 7.3 3 3 20+ 5.9 3.7 Column 51 31 82 Total 62.2 37.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Sl gn 1 l cance Pearson 4.69889 4 .31961 Likelihood Ratto 5.65617 4 .22634 Mantei-Haenszel .28323 1 .59459 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.134 Number of Missing Observations: 13

PAGE 320

Table H-8 Demographic Data Grouped by, Elementary and Secondary Teachers: RESIDENCE ELEM SEC Row Total 48 10 58 1-5 81.4 28.6 61.7 7 18 25 6-10 11.9 51.4 26.6 4 7 11 -15 6.8 20.0 11.7 Column 59 35 94 Total 62.8 37.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 26.13046 2 Likelihood Ratio 26.72298 2 Mantel-Haenszel 19.56209 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 4.096 Number of Missing Observations: 1 305 Sign lf 1 cance .00000 .00000 .00001

PAGE 321

306 Table H-9 Demographic Data Grouped by, Elementary and Seconaary Teachers: OFFICE/CLASSROOM LOCATION ELEM SEC Row Total 11 15 26 SHARE 18.3 42.9 27.4 36 14 50 CLOSE 60.0 40.0 52.6 10. 4 14 DISTANT 16.7 11.4 14.7 3 2 5 OTHER 5.0 5.7 5.3 Column 60 35 95 Total 63.2 36.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 6.97059 3 .07284 Likelihood Ratio 6.83808 3 .07724 Mantel-Haenszel 2.78210 1 .09532 Minimum Expected Frequency-1.842 Number of Missing Observations: 0

PAGE 322

307 Table H-10 Demographic Data Grouped by, Elementary and Secondary Teachers: ASSIGNMENT ELEM SEC Row Total 35 9 44 SAME S&G 64.8 33.3 54.3 5 5 10 DIFF S&G 9.3 18.5 12.3 6 "10 16 DIFF S, SAME G 11.1 37.0 19.8 8 3 11 SAME S, DIFF G 14.8 11.1 13.6 Column 54 27 81 Total 66.7 33.3 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Sign lf lcance Pearson 10.84091 3 .01262 Likelihood Ratio 10.60709 3 .01405 Mantei-Haenszel 3.47639 1 .06225 Minimum Expected Frequency 3.333 Number of Missing Observations: 14

PAGE 323

APPENDIX I INFORMATIONAL DATA GROUPED BY ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS TABLES I-1 THROUGH 1-30

PAGE 324

Table I-1 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTINES ELEM SEC Row Total 42 21 54 YES 70.0 60.0 66.3 18 14 32 NO 30.0 40.0 33.7 Column 60. "35 95 Total 63.2 36.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .98958 1 Continuity Correction .59254 1 Likelihood Ratio .98001 1 Mantel-Haenszel .97917 1 Minimum Expected Frequency-11.789 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Table 1-2 Significance .31984 .44144 .44144 .32240 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: PUPIL EVALUATION ELEM SEC Row Total 48 27 75 YES 80.0 77.1 78.9 12 8 20 NO 20.0 22.9 21.1 Column 60 35 95 Total 63.2 36.8 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .10857 1 Continuity Correction .00471 1 Likelihood Ratio .10770 1 Mantel-Haenszel .10743 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 7.368 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Significance .74178 .94527 .74278 .74309 309

PAGE 325

Table I-3 Written Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: SCHOOL/S PHILOSOPHY ELEM SEC Row Total 44 22 66 YES 74.6 62.9 70.2 15 13 28 NO 25.4 37.1 29.8 Column 59 "35 94 Total 62.8 37.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 1.44257 1 Continuity Correction .93665 1 Likelihood Ratio 1.42250 1 Mantei-Haenszel 1.42722 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 10.426 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table l-4 Significance .22972 .33314 .23299 .23222 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: PARENT CONFERENCES ELEM SEC Row Total 45 18 63 YES 77.6" 51.4 67.7 13 17 30 NO 22.4 48.6 32.3 Column 58 35 93 Total 62.4 37.6 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 6.83462 1 Continuity Correction 5.69001 1 Likelihood Ratio 6.74188 1 Mantei-Haenszel 6.76113 1 Minimum Expected Frequency11.290 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Significance .00894 .01706 .00942 .00932 310

PAGE 326

Table I-5 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: ACQUISITION OF MATERIALS ELEM SEC Row Total 45 23 68 YES 75.0 65.7 71.6 15 12 27 NO 25.0 34.3 28.4 Column 60 35 95 Total 63.3. 36.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .93692 1 Continuity Correction .53606 1 Likelihood Ratio .92428 1 Mantel-Haenszel .927051 Minimum Expected Frequency -9.947 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Table I-6 Significance .33307 .46407 .33635 .33563 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: LESSON PLANS ELEM SEC Row Total 24 7 31 YES 42.1 20.6 34.1 33 27 60 NO 57.9 79.4 65.9 Column 57 34 91 Total 62.6 37.4 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 4.38982 1 Continuity Correction 3.48411 1 Likelihood Ratio 4.58154 1 Mantel-Haenszel 4.34158 1 Minimum Expected Frequency-11.582 Number of Missing Observations: 4 Sign if lcance .03615 .06196 .03232 .03719 311

PAGE 327

Table I-7 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: REQUIRED & VOLUNTARY COMMITTEE MEETINGS ELEM SEC Row Total 37 18 55 YES 61.7 51.4 57.9 23 17 40 NO 38.3 48.6 42.1 Column 60 35 95 Total 63.2. 36.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .95051 1 Continuity Correction .57691 1 Likelihood Ratio .94718 1 Mantei-Haenszel .94051 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 14.737 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Table I-8 Significance .32959 .44752 .33044 .33215 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: CHECKING OUT EQUIPMENT ELEM SEC Row Total 36 15 51 YES 61.0 42.9 54.3 23 20 43 NO 39.0 57.1 45.7 Column 59 35 94 Total 62.8 37.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 2.91898 1 Continuity Correction 2.23314 1 Likelihood Ratio 2.92310 1 Mantel-Haenszel 2.88793 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 16.011 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Significance . 08754 .13508 08732 . 08925 312

PAGE 328

Table 1-9 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: ARRIVAL & DEPARTURE TIMES ELEM SEC Row Total 32 14 46 YES 54.2 40.0 48.9 27 21 48 NO 45.8 60.0 51.1 Column 59 35 94 Total 62.8. 37.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 1.78198 1 Continuity Correction 1.25777 1 Likelihood Ratio 1.79117 1 Mantel-Haenszel 1.76303. 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 17.128 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table I-10 Significance .18191 .26207 .18078 .18425 Formal Written Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: APPRAISAL PROCEDURES ELEM SEC Row Total 39 25 64 YES 65.0 71.4 67.4 21 10 31 NO 35.0 28.6 32.6 Column 60 35 95 Total 63.3 36.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .41556 1 Continuity Correction .17457 1 Likelihood Ratio .41991 1 Mantel-Haenszel .41118 1 Minimum Expected Frequency-11.421 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Significance .51916 .67608 .51698 .52137 313

PAGE 329

Table I-11 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTINES ELEM SEC Row Total 18 5 23 YES 36.0 16.1 28.4 32 26 58 NO 64.0 83.9 71.6 Column 50 31 81 Total 61.7. 38.3 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 3.71620 1 Continuity Correction 2.80314 1 Likelihood Ratio 3.92302 1 Mantel-Haenszel 3.67032. 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 8.802 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Table I-12 Significance .05389 .09408 .04763 .05539 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: PUPIL EVALUATION ELEM SEC Row Total 13 8 21 YES 26.0 25.8 25.9 37 23 60 NO 74.0 74.2 74.1 Column 50 31 81 Total 61.7 38.3 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .00037 1 Continuity Correction .00000 1 Likelihood Ratio .00037 1 Hantel-Haenszel .98468 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 8.037 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Significance .98459 1.00000 .98459 .00037 314

PAGE 330

Table I-13 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: SCHOOL'S PHILOSOPHY ELEM SEC 21 14 YES 42.0 45.2 29 17 NO 58.0 54.8 Column 50 31 Total 61.7 38.3 Chi-Square Pearson Continuity Correction LIke II hood Rat 1 o Mantel-Haenszel Row Total 35 43.2 46 56.8 81 100.0 Value .07793 .00235 .07785 .07697. DF 1 1 1 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 13.395 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Significance .78012 .96138 .78024 .78145 315

PAGE 331

Table I-14 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: PARENT CONFERENCES ELEM SEC Row Total 15 4 19 YES 30.6 12.9 23.8 34 27 61 NO 69.4 87.1 76.3 Column 49 31 80 Total 61.3 3e.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 3.28816 1 .06978 Contlnulty Correction 2.38298 1 .12266 Likelihood Ratio 3.50294 1 .06126 Mantel-Haenszel 3.24706. 1 .07155 Fisher's Exact Test: One-Tal I .05869 Two-Tai 1 .10507 Mlnlmum Expected Frequency -7.363 Number of Missing Observations: 15 316

PAGE 332

Table 1-15 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: ACQUISITION OF MATERIALS ELEM SEC Row Total 11 4 15 YES 22.0 12.9 18.5 39 27 66 NO 78.0 87.1 81.5 Column 50 31 81 Total 61.7 38.3 100.0 Chl.-Square Value DF Si gnlf icance Pearson 1.04944 1 .30564 Continuity Correction .53315. 1 .46529 Likelihood Ratio 1.09237 1 .29595 Mantel-Haenszel 1.03648 1 .30864 Fisher's Exact Test: One-Tall .23543 Two-Tall .38583 Minimum Expected Frequency-5.741 Number of Missing Observations: 14 317

PAGE 333

Table I-16 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: LESSON PLANS ELEM SEC Row Total 9 2 11 YES 18.0 6.5 13.6 41 29 70 NO 82.0 93.5 86.4 Column 50 31 81 Total 61.7 38.3 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 2.17455 1 Continuity Correction 1.301851 Likelihood Ratio 2.38693 1 Mantel-Haenszel 2.14770 1 Fisher's Exact Test: One-Tai I Two-Tall Minimum Expected Frequency 4.210 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Significance .14031 .25387 .12235 .14278 .12544 .19037 318

PAGE 334

Table I-17 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary &Secondary Teachers: REQUIRED & VOLUNTARY COMMITTEE MEETINGS ELEM SEC Row Total 18 6 24 YES 36.0 19.4 29.6 32 25 57 NO 64.0 80.6 70.4 Column 50 31 81 Total 61.7 38.3 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 2.54277 1 .11080 Continuity Correction 1.80711 1 .17885 Likelihood Ratio 2.64221 1 .10406 Mantel-Haenszel 2.51138 1 .11303 Minimum Expected Frequency 9.185 Number of Missing Observations: 14 319

PAGE 335

Table I-18 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: CHECKING OUT EQUIPMENT ELEM SEC Row Total 6 2 8 YES 12.0 6.5 9.9 44 29 73 NO 88.0 93.5 90.1 Column 50 31 81 Total 61.7 38._3 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .66182 1 Continuity Correction .185251 Likelihood Ratio .69866 1 Mantel-Haenszel .65365 1 Fisher's Exact Test: One-Tall Two-Tall Minimum Expected Frequency 3.062 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Significance .41592 .66690 .40324 .41881 .34269 .70390 320

PAGE 336

Table 1-19 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: ARRIVAL & DEPARTURE TIMES ELEM SEC Row Total 11 10 21 YES 22.0 32.3 25.9 39 25 57 NO 78.0 67.7 74.1 Column 50 31 81 Total 61.7 38.3 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 1.04852 1 Continuity Correction .58240 1 Likelihood Ratio 1.03311 1 Mantel-Haenszel 1.03558 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 8.037 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Table I-20 Significance .30585 .44537 .30943 .30885 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: APPRAISAL PROCEDURES ELEM SEC Row Total 20 13 33 YES 40.0 41.9 40.7 30 18 48 NO 60.0 58.1 59.3 Column 50 31 81 Total 61.7 38.3 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .02969 1 Continuity Correction .00000 1 Likelihood Ratio .02966 1 Mantel-Haenszel .02933 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 12.630 Number of Missing Observations: 14 Significance .86319 1.00000 .86327 .86403 321

PAGE 337

Table I-21 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: WORKING RELATIONS AMONG STAFF ELEM SEC Row Total 51 26 77 YES 85.0 74.3 81.1 9 9 18 NO 15.0 25.7 18.9 Column 60 35 95 Total 63.2 36.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 1.65237 1 Continuity Correction 1.02834 1 Likelihood Ratio 1.60880 1 Mantel-Haenszel 1.63497 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 6.632 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Table I-22 Significance .19864 .31055 .20466 .20102 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: SOCIAL ACTIVITIES AMONG STAFF ELEM SEC Row Total 43 20 63 YES 72.9 57.1 67.0 16 15 31 NO 27.1 42.9 33.0 Column 59 35 94 Total 62.8 37.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 2.46191 1 Continuity Correction 1.80134 1 Likelihood Ratio 2.43030 1 Mantel-Haenszel 2.43572 1 Minimum Expected Frequency-11.543 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Significance .11664 .17955 .11901 .11860 322

PAGE 338

Table I-23 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: TEACHER BEHAVIOR ELEM SEC Row Total 14 5 19 YES 23.3 14.7 20.2 46 29 75 NO 76.7 85.3 79.8 Column 60 34 94 Total 63.8 36.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 1.00163 1 Continuity Correction .53810 1 Likelihood Ratio 1.03981 1 Mantel-Haenszel .99098 1 Mlnlmum Expected Frequency 6.872 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table I-24 Significance .31692 .46322 . 30787 .31950 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: TIME DEMANDS ELEM SEC Row Total 36 18 54 YES 60.0 51.4 56.8 24 17 41 NO 40.0 48.6 43.2 Column 60 35 95 Total 63.2 36.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .66202 1 Continuity Correction .35872 1 Likelihood Ratio .66030 1 Mantel-Haenszel .65505 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 15.105 Number of Mlsslng Observations: 0 Significance .41585 .54922 .41645 .41831 323

PAGE 339

Table I-25 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: REWARDS & PUNISHMENTS ELEM SEC Row Total 28 12 40 YES 48.3 34.3 43.0 30 23 53 NO 51.7 65.7 57.0 Column 58 35 93 Total 62.4 37.6 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 1.74296 1 Continuity Correction 1.21893 1 Likelihood Ratio 1.76225 1 Mantel-Haenszel 1.72422 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 15.054 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Table I-26 Significance .18676 .26957 .18434 .18915 Unwritten Informational Data Grouped by, Elementary & Teachers: WHO TO BE ON GUARD FOR ELEM SEC Row Total 31 15 46 YES 51.7 42.9 48.4 29 20 49 NO 48.3 57.1 51.-6 Column 60 35 95 Total 63.2 36.8 100.0 Ch !-Square Value DF Pearson 68690 1 Continuity Correction .37945 1 Likelihood Ratio .68866 1 Mantel-Haenszel .67967 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 16.947 Number of Missing Observations: 0 S 1 gn lf 1 cance .40722 .53790 .40662 .40970 324

PAGE 340

Table I-27 Informational Feedback Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: TEACHlNG EFFECTIVENESS ELEM SEC Row Total 30 15 45 YES 50.0 44.1 47.9 30 19 49 NO 50.0 55.9 52.1 Column 60 34 94 Total 63.8 36.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .30092 1 Continuity Correction .11136 1 Likelihood Ratio .30142 1 Mantei-Haenszel .29772 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 16.277 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table I-28 Informational Feedback Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: TEACHING ABILITIES ELEM SEC Row Total 27 15 42 YES 45.0 44.1 44.7 33 19 52 NO 55.0 55.9 55.3 Column 60 34 94 Total 63.8 36.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .00684 1 Continuity Correction .00000 1 Likelihood Ratio .00684 1 Mantei-Haenszel .00676 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 15.191 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Significance .58331 .73860 .58299 .58532 Significance .93411 1.00000 .93407 .93446

PAGE 341

Table 1-29 Informational Feedback Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: CLASSROOM DISCIPLINE ELEM SEC Row Total 19 16 35 YES 31.7 48.5 37.6 41 17 58 NO 68.3 51.5 62.4 Column 60 33 93 Total 64.5 35.5 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 2.56573 1 Continuity Correction 1.89920. 1 Likelihood Ratio 2.54059 1 Mantei-Haenszel 2.53814 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 12.419 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Table 1-30 Informational Feedback Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: ACCEPTANCE ELEM SEC Row Total 30 17 47 YES 50.0 50.0 50.0 30 17 47 NO 50.0 50.0 50.0 Column 60 34 94 Total 63.8 36.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .00000 1 Continuity Correction .00000 1 Likelihood Ratio .00000 1 Mantei-Haenszel .00000 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 17.000 Number of Mlsslng Observations: 1 Significance .10920 .16817 .11095 .11113 Significance 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 326

PAGE 342

APPENDIX J AFFECTIVE DATA GROUPED BY ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS TABLES J-1 THROUGH J-10

PAGE 343

Table J-1 Affective Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: EMPATHY ELEM SEC Row Total 60 33 93 YES 100.0 94.3 97.9 2 2 NO 5.7 2.1 Column 60 35 95 Total 63.2 36 .. 8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Significance Pearson 3.50230 Continuity Correction 1.27840 Likelihood Ratio 4.06824 Mantel-Haenszel 3.46544 Flsher/s Exact Test: One-Tal I Two-Tal 1 Minimum Expected Frequency-.737 Number of Missing Observations: 0 1 .06128 1 .25820 1 .04370 1 .06266 .13326 .13326 328

PAGE 344

Table J-2 Affective Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: COLLECT MATERIALS ELEM SEC Row Total 48 20 68 YES 82.8 57.1 73.1 10 15 25 NO 17.2 42.9 26.9 Column 58 35 93 Total 62.4 37.6 100.0 Chi-Square Value Pearson 7.28693 Continuity Correction 6.04196 Likelihood Ratio 7.13871 Mantel-Haenszel 7.20858 DF 1 1 1 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 9.409 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Table J-3 Affective Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: DISCIPLINE & SCHEDULING ELEM SEC Row Total 43 26 69 YES 74.1 74.3 74.2 15 9 24 NO 25.9 25.7 25.8 Column 58 35 93 Total 62.4 37.6 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .00025 1 Continuity Correction .00000 1 Likelihood Ratio .00025 1 Mantel-Haenszel .00025 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 9.032 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Significance .00695 .01397 .00754 .00726 Significance .98741 1.00000 .98748 .98748 329

PAGE 345

Table J-4 Affective Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: CLASSROOM ARRANGEMENT ELEM SEC Row Total 27 9 36 YES 45.0 25.7 37.9 33 26 59 NO 55.0 74.3 62.1 Column 60 35 95 Total 63.2 36.8 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 3.49349 1 Continuity Correction 2. 72209. 1 Likelihood Ratio 3.59387 1 Mantel-Haenszel 3.45672 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 13.263 Number of Missing Observations: 0 Table J-5 Affective Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: OBSERVE CONFERENCES ELEM SEC Row Total 8 5 13 YES 13.6 14.7 14.0 51 29 80 NO 86.4 85.3 86.0 Column 59 34 93 Total 63.4 36.6 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .02358 1 Continuity Correction .00000 1 Likelihood Ratio .02343 1 Hantel-Haenszel .02333 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 4.753 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Significance .06161 .09897 .05799 .06300 Significance .87795 1.00000 .87834 .87861 330

PAGE 346

Table J-6 Affective Data Grouped by, Elementary 8. Secondary Teachers: CLARIFY FORMAL RULES ELEM SEC Row Total 40 20 60 YES 66.7 58.8 63.8 20 14 34 NO 33.3 41.2 36.2 Column 60 34 94 Total 63.8 36.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson .57824 1 Continuity Correction .28842 1 Likelihood Ratio .57424 1 Mantel-Haenszel .57209 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 12.298 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table J-7 Affective Data Grouped by, Elementary 8. Secondary Teachers: CLARIFY INFORMAL RULES ELEM SEC Row Total 47 25 72 YES 79.7 73.5 77.4 12 9 21 NO 20.3 26.5 22;6 Column 59 34 93 Total 63.4 36.6 100.0 Chi -Square Value DF Pearson 46389 1 Continuity Correction .17944 1 Likelihood Ratio .45718 1 Mantel-Haenszel .45890 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 7.677 Number of Missing Observations: 2 Significance .44700 .59124 .44858 .44943 SignIficance .49581 .67185 .49894 .49814 331

PAGE 347

Table J-8 Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: PROVIDE FEEDBACK ELEM SEC Row Total 30 15 45 YES 50.0 44.1 47.9 30 19 49 NO 50.0 55.9 52.1 Column 60 34 94 Total 63.8 36.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value Pearson .30092 Continuity Correction .11136. Likelihood Ratio .30142 Mantel-Haenszel .29772 DF 1 1 1 1 Minimum Expected Frequency 16.277 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table J-9 Affective Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: OBSERVE SELF ELEM SEC Row Total 32 17 49 YES 54.2 48.6 52.1 27 18 45 NO 45.8 51.4 47.9 Column 59 35 94 Total 62.8 37.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value DF Pearson 28260 1 Continuity Correction .10116 1 Likelihood Ratio .28254 1 Mantel-Haenszel .27959 1 Minimum Expected Frequency16.755 Number of Missing Observations: 1 Significance .58331 .73860 .58299 .58532 Significance .59500 .75045 .59504 .59697 :332

PAGE 348

Table J-10 Affective Data Grouped by, Elementary & Secondary Teachers: CLARIFY BELIEFS ELEM SEC Row Total 52 32 84 YES 88.1 91.4 89.4 7 3 10 NO ,-. .-..... u.9 8.6 10.6 Column 59 35 94 Total 62.8 37.2 100.0 Chi-Square Value Pearson .25058 Continuity Correction .02390 Likelihood Ratio .25757 Mantel-Haenszel .24791 Fisher's Exact Test: one-Tall Two-Tai 1 DF 1 1 1 1 Minimum Expected Frequency -3.723 Number of Missing Observations: 1 .333 Sign lf icance .61667 .87714 .61179 .61855 .44848 .73906