Teacher Knowledge, Attitudes, and Classroom ... - APA PsycNET

0 downloads 0 Views 705KB Size Report
man Development at George Peabody College. Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert P. Cantrell, Institute on Teaching and Learning,. George Peabody ...
Journal of Educational Psychology 1977, Vol. 69, No. 2, 172-179

Teacher Knowledge, Attitudes, and Classroom Teaching Correlates of Student Achievement Robert P. Cantrell George Peabody College for Teachers

A. Jackson Stenner

William G. Katzenmeyer Duke University

National Testing Service Durham, North Carolina

This experiment studied relationships among three teacher behavioral knowledge and attitude profile groups, the classroom verbalization patterns of teachers within each profile group, and differential residual achievement gains made by the teachers' first-grade pupils. First-grade teachers characterized by high knowledge of behavioral principles on the Alternative Classroom Strategies Inventory (n = 26) were more verbally positive with their classes and produced significantly higher residual achievement gain results for low-IQ (IQ range 50-89) and middle-IQ (IQ range 90-104) pupils than did first-grade teachers characterized by low knowledge of behavioral principles and either traditional authoritarian (n = 8) or traditional nonauthoritarian (n = 6) attitude profiles. Results were examined for their implications on mainstreaming borderline IQ pupils in regular classes.

theme assumes that a teacher's knowledge, attitudes, or other characteristics are correlated with that teacher's classroom teaching process which in turn effects changes in student behavior and/or achievement. Mitzel (1960), following through with Brownell's (1948) concepts, suggested that three criteria be used in teacher effectiveness research: (a) presage variables (teacher personality, knowledge, status characteristics); (b) process variables (teacher behaviors, pupil behaviors, and teacher-pupil interactions); and (c) product variables (primarily measures of pupil change). Few studies have combined all three criteria simultaneously, much less demonstrated conclusively those teacher competencies causally related to student achievement. This lack has not deterred many teacher-educators from advocating competency-based teacher education programs (National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification, 1971) nor others (Rosenshine & Furst, 1971) from compiling from a variety of studies those competencies thought to be most valid. Others, in taking a critical look at both the studies cited by Rosenshine and Furst (Heath & Nielson, 1974)

Teacher effectiveness research has a number of recurrent themes, restricted elements of which are usually part of every study performed in the area. The core This experiment was adapted from a paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Convention in Washington, B.C., April 1975. This project was funded cooperatively by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Title III (Section 306), U.S. Office of Education; Education Professions Development Act, U.S. Office of Education; Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (BEH), U.S. Office of Education; Tennessee ESEA Title III; BEH through the Tennessee Department of Education; Tennessee Department of Mental Health; Tennessee Department of Education; and five Tennessee school systems: Metropolitan Nashville-Davidson County, Memphis City, Kingsport City, Robertson County, and Hamilton County. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position, policy, or official endorsement of the U.S. Office of Education or any of the abovementioned state and local agencies. This research was also supported in part by Public Health Service Grant No. HD04510 from National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the John F. Kennedy Center for Research on Education and Human Development at George Peabody College. Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert P. Cantrell, Institute on Teaching and Learning, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, Tennessee 37203. 172

TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND CORRELATES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

and the issue of competency-based teacher training (Shores, Cegelka, & Nelson, 1973), argue that far too little is currently known about which teacher competencies are associated with effective impacts on students and that a great deal of further research is still needed before training programs based on the teacher competency approach can be justified. With the exception of a study by Heil, Powell, and Feifer (Note 1), few researchers have combined all three of Mitzel's (1960) criteria in a single study. Many have studied pair-wise combinations of these criteria. Of relevance to the present investigation are those studies which measured (a) teacher characteristics and observation of the teacher's classroom process (Seibel, 1967; Tuckman, Forman, & Hay, 1971; Hess & Takanishi, Note 2); (b) teacher characteristics and their correlation with pupil product criteria (Quirk, Witten, & Weinberg, 1973; Harvey, Note 3); (c) classroom process variables and their impact on student change measures (Kounin & Gump, 1961; Solomon, Rosenberg, & Bezdek, 1964; Hess & Takanishi, Note 2; Soar, Note 4; Wallen, Note 5); and (d) teacher attitudes and their correlations with student product criteria (Getzels, 1969; McGee, 1955). This study combined all three criteria Mitzel (1960) suggested through investigating measures of teacher knowledge of behavior principles and of teacher attitudes toward pupils and teaching (measured teacher characteristics), classroom teaching statements (observed classroom process), and student achievement (pupil product). The purpose of the study was to determine whether teachers' behavioral knowledge and attitudes were systematically related to classroom verbalizations and in turn to pupil achievement changes. There were five phases in this investigation: (a) the determination of the factor structure of an experimental measure of teacher knowledge of behavioral principles, the Alternative Classroom Strategies Inventory (ACSI; Cantrell & Cantrell, Note 6); (b) the determination of the factor structure of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI; Cook, Leeds, & Callis, 1951); (c) the determination of

173

teacher profile clusters on these two measures; (d) the attempt to differentiate empirically among these profile clusters through the use of teacher's classroom teaching statements; and (e) the determination of differences, if any, in pupil achievement between the teacher cluster groups. Method Subjects Determination of factor structure for the ACSI (Phase 1) was accomplished using a sample group of 872 teachers from three sections of the country. Analyses for study Phases 2 through 5 were made on data collected in Prevention-Intervention Project schools. This project was designed to provide resource-type teacher support for children identified by their classroom teachers as needing behavioral and academic remedial help. However, in the first year of the project, only 132 children were worked with intensively out of a classroom population of about 4,000 pupils. For this study, all classroom teachers and pupils for whom teacher tests, classroom observations, and student achievement results were available from both experimental and control schools were used. Experimental and control school teachers and their pupils were represented in Phases 4 and 5 analysis results in approximately the same proportions as occurred in the total project distribution of experimental and control teachers (Cluster Group 1 = 41% control, Cluster Group 2 = 41% control, Cluster Group 3 = 64% control). Budgetary limitations forced a grade-by-grade progression in classroom observation and achievement testing activities across the life of the project. These first-year results were the first to be analyzed. The factor structure of the MTAI (Phase 2) was determined using a sample of 153 teachers and principals from these experimental and control schools. Cluster analysis procedures (Phase 3) were conducted on a subsample of these teachers and principals (ra = 138). Multiple discriminant analysis results (Phase 4) were obtained using classroom observations for 1 year on 40 first-grade teachers. Achievement analyses (Phase 5) were performed using these Phase 4 first-grade teachers' students (n = 1,000).

Materials Four major instruments were used in this study. Each was either developed or chosen to sample from important areas of teacher behavioral knowledge characteristics, attitude characteristics, classroom teacher-pupil interaction processes, and measurement of pupil achievement. ACSI. The ACSI is an experimental test of knowledge of behavioral principles and how these principles manifest themselves in the solutions of hypothetical classroom problems involving children.

174

R. CANTRELL, A. STENNER, AND W. KATZENMEYER

The inventory contains 60 problem situations ("stems"). A teacher is provided four alternative solutions or procedures for dealing with each classroom situation. One of the four procedures is consistent with a behavioral theory approach to the situation. Experimental and control elementary school teachers involved in the Prevention-Intervention Project were administered this measure at the beginning of the school year. Two major factor-analytic studies (Maxplane rotation) were conducted on classroom teachers' responses to this test. In one study, all four alternative answers to each classroom situation "stem" were factor analyzed using the alternative answers as "dummy variables." From this analysis, two factors were extracted as "error strategies" for inclusion in teacher test profiles. The second factor analysis study utilized only right-wrong dimensions for each question on the ACSI. From this analysis, three factors were extracted for use in teacher test profiles, making a total of five behavioral knowledge factors, defined as follows: ACSI 1 — Traditionally authoritarian control strategies: These are control strategies primarily aimed toward convincing pupils to cease and desist unwanted behavior and are implemented in a behaviorally erroneous fashion. ACSI 2 — Well-intentioned strategies that are sure to backfire: These are strategies whose goals are appropriate but whose behaviorally erroneous implementation techniques are very likely to produce effects opposite from those intended. ACSI 3 —Selective attention: High scores on this factor imply high knowledge in the use and control of consequating events for motivating students or shaping successive approximations toward desired pupil goals. ACSI 4 — Structuring contingencies: High scores on this factor imply high knowledge in behaviorally correct techniques for utilizing naturally occurring situations and consequences for producing behavior change in students. ACSI 5 —General classroom programming: High scores on this factor imply a generally high capability for comprehending the total behavioral gestalt of a classroom problem situation and then choosing a workable strategy for resolving the issue. Such capabilities for general analysis and remediation also apply to problems with academic or teaching technique components. A number of reliability studies have been performed with the ACSI using both the raw score correct and just recently with the newer factor structure replicability approaches (Katzenmeyer & Stenner, 1975). In one study with a small group (N = 36), the test-retest reliability over a 1-year span was .82, while the split-half reliability for another group and another testing was .85 (Kuder-Richardson 20, N 153). Acceptable factor structure replicabilities were obtained with two of the three knowledge factors, while the third was equivocal. Replicability coefficients were r, - .89 for ACSI 3 (Selective Attention), r, = .74 for ACSI 4 (Structuring Contingencies), and rr = .39 for ACSI 5 (General Classroom Programming). No factor replicability studies have been per-

formed on the two error factors. Further replicability studies are planned. In a number of unpublished validity studies, the ACSI has been shown to be a good measure of training effectiveness in behavior modification theory with significant pre-post workshop test results being repeatedly produced by qualified trainers. MTAI. The MTAI (Cook et al., 1951) has been an often-used measure of teacher attitudes toward pupils and toward teaching as a vocation. Experimental and control school teachers were administered this measure on the same testing schedule as the ACSI. A separate factor analysis (Maxplane rotation) was conducted on 153 teacher protocols with rotation to simple structure for seven factors. Teacher factor scores for each of the seven factors were derived by weighting teacher choices per item by the primary factor weight for that item, itself adjusted for the factor weights of the same item on all other factors in the analysis. Summed, weighted scores for each teacher were transformed to normalized T scores for subsequent analyses. The seven teacher attitude factors derived are described in the following: MTAI 1 — Student irresponsibility versus student self-direction: Agreement with these items implies that the teacher operates with a homunculus view of a child's development, positing problems within the child, saddling him with the responsibility for his own behavior which generally is viewed as irresponsible. Agreement with these items implies a rejecting view of children together with an attitude that the child should subject himself to the teacher's will, precepts, and instruction. Disagreement with these items implies a view of the child as being responsible and capable of self-directed action. MTAI 2 — Authoritarian versus supportive approach to pupils: Agreement with these items implies an extreme rigidity and regimentation of thinking about children and education if scores are high. Subjugation of pupils to the teacher's view of the educational process appears paramount. Disagreement with these items implies a supportive and accepting stance toward children. Disagreement with these items is characterized by low scores on this factor. MTAI 3 —Positive acceptance versus rejection of children: Agreement with these items more closely approximates a modern child development orientation. Agreement implies that children have certain positive characteristics which can be openly acknowledged without threatening the teacher's role as an adult. MTAI 4 — Expectation and enforcement of pupil's submission to authority: To agree with these items implies a strict and severely authoritarian stance toward children. To disagree with the items implies disagreement with an absolutist attitude and a hesitancy to use punishment readily. MTAI 5 —General dissatisfaction with children and teaching versus satisfaction with teaching and children: This factor is difficult to pull together into a conceptual whole except to predict from the Classroom Observation Schedule that high scorers (a) would probably be relatively high in general criticism aimed at the whole class and (b) would demon-

TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND CORRELATES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT strate a tendency to avoid using the teacher circulating format in favor of more teacher stationary and generally more variability in the use of punitive consequences over time than would teachers disagreeing with items with primary loadings on this factor. MTAI 6— Maintenance of teacher-pupil distance: Agreement with these items implies that the teacher believes that too much is asked of teachers and that students should make the job easier, but not at the expense of sacrificing the traditional activities that maintain the distance between teacherpupil roles. Disagreement with these items implies less need for absolutist-type teacher control over a teacher-pupil relationship and less emphasis on the need for a pupil to take an inferior role in deference to the teacher. MTAI 7 — Disbelief versus belief in student freedom: Agreement with these items implies that students would benefit from more task-oriented regimentation as imposed by teachers/schools. Disagreement with these items implies a more laissezfaire approach to child development with more emphasis on student self-direction or independence in learning. This factor is similar to, but includes more than, Yeo and Fruchter's (1971) Factor IV, Pupils' Independence in Learning. Classroom Observation Schedule. This observation schedule used 10-sec observation intervals divided into approximate thirds. Teacher Verbalization (First 3 sec) Accepts feelings Praises or encourages Accepts/uses ideas Asks questions Lecture Giving directions Criticize/justify authority Silence/confusion Target Child Responses (Second 3-4 sec) Handraising Child response Child initiative Attentive posture Nonattentive Disruptive Silence/confusion Consequences (Third 3-4 sec) Teacher positive Teacher negative Peer attention Teacher and peer attention No consequence The majority of the teacher verbalization and a portion of the student behavior categories for the first year's observations were Flanders's (Note 7) Interaction Analysis Categories. In addition to the above categories, 10 classroom format categories for the teacher, 10 classroom for-

175

mat categories for the target child, and the content subject being taught were recorded as changes occurred. Data collectors sampled teacher verbalizations (antecedent events), target child behaviors (responses), and their associated subsequent events (consequences) every 10 sec for 30 min. twice monthly for 1 year. Only the first ratable behavior to occur at each portion of the 10-sec sampling period was recorded on double-density optical scanning sheets. Reliability indices on the Classroom Observation Schedule were obtained in the following manner: Teachers were videotaped at the same time that data collectors were observing in the classroom. Each 10sec interval was numbered auditorily and loaded onto the auditory track of the videotape through a mike mixer. Criterion raters randomly sampled two tapes per month for rerating from videotapes made by data collectors. Data collectors maintained an average of 80% agreement with criterion raters' ratings of classroom observations across all three major categories (Cantrell, Wood, & Nichols, Note 8). Pupil measures. The Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test (Primary II, Form J; Otis & Lennon, 1967) and the Metropolitan Achievement Test (Primer; Durost, Bixler, Wrightstone, Prescott, & Balow, 1971) were administered during the fall semester to all first-grade pupils in the Prevention-Intervention Project schools. The Metropolitan Achievement Test (Primer) was repeated on this group at the end of the first grade for a postyear achievement measure.

Procedure A cluster analysis was performed on these teacher factor profile scores to determine the existence of teacher pattern groups on the two paperand-pencil teacher measures. Factor scores on the ACSI and the MTAI for 138 first-, second-, and thirdgrade teachers and principals were used as test profiles for a Q mode pattern similarity analysis. To check the adequacy of the three-cluster-group solution, a multiple discriminant analysis was performed using the 12 ACSI-MTAI factor scores as predictor variables and cluster group membership as the multiple discriminant criterion. Profile factor scores accounted for 71% of the variance in group membership. Following cluster analysis procedures, with profile cluster membership as the multiple dependent variable, a multiple discriminant analysis of teacher verbalizations as predictors of group membership was performed. For this analysis, those experimental and control school first-grade teachers (n = 40) for whom classroom observation data were available were used. Each teacher's statements across the total year's observations were used. The basic datum for each category of teacher verbalization was the occurrence rate for that category per block of 10-sec intervals. Finally, an analysis of variance for student achievement differences averaged across the Listening, Reading, and Numbers subtests of the Metropolitan Achievement Test was performed by the following procedure. Preachievement and IQ scores on

176

R. CANTRELL, A. STENNER, AND W. KATZENMEYER

all first-grade pupils in the data sample were used as predictor variables in a multiple regression format against postyear achievement scores for all first-grade pupils. Residual score differences between predicted and obtained scores for each pupil served as the dependent variable for a 3 x 3 analysis of variance. Three IQ levels (low IQ, range 50-89; mid IQ, range 90-104; and high IQ, range 105-135) were compared across the three cluster groups of teachers.

Results

A A TA Group D—Q PCM Group 0—0 TNA Group

..*•••••*•'

en 55 UJ

tr a o CO

50

45

Profile Analysis Knowledge and attitude cluster group profiles are presented in Figure 1. Traditional authoritarian (TA) teachers, (n = 8, of which 41% were control school teachers) were characterized by high factor scores on behaviorally erroneous strategies for problem solving, low knowledge of selective attention variables, relatively low positive acceptance of pupils, high belief in students' tendencies toward irresponsibility, disbelief in student freedom, general dissatisfaction with children and teaching, and a strong belief in maintaining teacher-student distance. This group might be characterized as a low-knowledge, negative cluster. Positive contingency managers (PCM), (n - 26, of which 41% were control school teachers) were characterized by high factor scores on structuring classroom contingencies, knowledge of selective attention strategies, and general classroom programming strategies. These teachers were the lowest of the three cluster groups on choice of behaviorally erroneous strategies for problem solving. Attitude characteris-

F A C T O R S

Figure 1. Teacher behavioral knowledge and attitude cluster group profiles (TA = traditional authoritarian; PCM = positive contingency managers; TNA = traditional nonauthoritarian; ACSI = Alternative Classroom Strategies Inventory; MTAI = Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory).

tics of this group were dominated by high positive acceptance of children, high belief in the responsibility of children, low belief in the idea that children should submit completely to authority, low dissatisfaction with children and teaching, low belief in the maintenance of traditional teacherpupil distance, and a high belief in student freedom. The PCM teachers might be viewed as comprising a high-knowledge, positive attitude group. Traditional nonauthoritarian (TNA) teachers, (n = 6, of which 64% were control school teachers) were characterized by

Table 1 Teacher Verbalization Means and Standard Deviations for ACSI-MTAI Profile Cluster Groups Variable

Traditional authoritarian

M

Silence Criticism Giving directions Lecture Asks questions Accepts/uses ideas Praises/encourages

.290 .038 .331 .172 .125 .021 .019

SO .088 .034 .056 .098 .058 .022 .014 itory; MTAI

Positive contingency managers M

SD

Traditional nonauthoritarian M

.257 .108 .240 .029 .037 .010 .287 .085 .233 .190 .102 .303 .169 .076 .155 .036 .025 .040 .032 .024 .015 = Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory.

sn .109 .013 .126 .151 .097 .037 .012

177

TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND CORRELATES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Table 2 Discriminant Function Weights for Teacher Verbalization Categories Variable

Canonical correlations Teacher verbalizations Silence Criticism Giving directions Lecture Asks questions Accepts/uses ideas Praises/encourages

Discriminant functions I

II

.52

.44

-71.29 -69.61 -62.54 -67.28 -75.61 -79.64 -107.61

22.69 11.05 20.47 30.19 27.72 13.66 12.93

generally low knowledge of behaviorally correct classroom strategies, but very similar attitude patterns to those of PCM teachers. This group might be referred to as low-knowledge, positive attitude teachers. Classroom Verbalization Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for teacher verbalizations between the three cluster groups. Table 2 presents the first two discriminant functions and associated canonical correlations for the teacher verbalization categories. Figure 2 displays the group centroids for the first two discriminant functions, tentatively labeled "positive responsiveness to students" and "teacher-initiated directiveness." The PCM group, as opposed to the TA group, was much more positive in their responsiveness to students. The TNA group was characterized by a more teacher-oriented direct approach to pupils as compared to the PCM and TA groups.

across the three teacher cluster groups. The two-way analysis of variance results for low- and middle-IQ groups by teacher clusters are presented in Table 4. The oneway analysis of variance results for the high-IQ group by teacher clusters were not significant (F = .13). Significant differences between teacher cluster groups for low- and middle-IQ pupils were obtained in favor of the PCM teachers. No differences for high-IQ pupils were obtained between teacher cluster groups. Discussion The results of this study indicate that it is possible to link teacher knowledge of behavioral principles and teacher attitude profiles to indices of both teacher classroom process and differential student achievement. Teachers (PCM) who evidenced high knowledge of behavior principles and positive attitudes toward students on the ACSI and the MTAI were more verbally positive in their classroom statements than were teachers low in knowledge of behavioral principles and either positive (TNA) or authoritarian (TA) in their attitudes toward pupils. Teachers from the TNA group were more verbally directive, yet ultimately their students evUJ ' J

z UJ

•TNA

P 10

o UJ

o LU

• PCM

Achievement Analysis Because of decreases in variability of achievement residuals in the high-IQ group, the assumption of homogeneity of variance for a 3 x 3 analysis of variance could not be met. Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations for these groups. Two separate analyses were performed: (a) a one-way analysis of variance for the high-IQ pupils across teacher cluster groups and (b) a two-way analysis of variance for the low- and middle-IQ pupils

(E Ul

• TA

-5

< UJ

-10

- 5

0

50

10

15

DPI' POSITIVE RESPONSIVENESS TO PUPILS

Figure 2. Cluster group centroids for the first two discriminant functions (DF = discriminant function; TNA = traditional nonauthoritarian; PCM = positive contingency managers; TA = traditional authoritarian).

178

R. CANTRELL, A. STENNER, AND W. KATZENMEYER

Table 3 Meows and Standard Deviations of Achievement Residuals for High-, Middle-, and Low-IQ Pupils Traditional authoritarian

Group

Positive contingency managers

Traditional nonauthoritarian

73 -7.98 26.49

209 -3.33 22.58

47 -10.99 29.85

329 -5.46 24.72

73 3.16 23.32

223 6.17 18.57

38 -.94 24.22

334 4.70 20.45

43 -.42 11.01

248 -1.60 13.58

46 -1.58 16.26

337 -1.45 13.65

680

131 -4.77 24.41

1,000 -.71 20.49

Total

Low IQ (50-89)

n M SD

Medium IQ (90-104) n M SD High IQ (105-135) n

M SD Total

N M SD

189 -1.96 22.99

.41 18.78

idenced lower adjusted achievement scores than did the students of either PCM or TA teachers. The PCM teachers were most successful in fostering adjusted achievement with low- and middle-IQ range pupils without producing a significant decrement in the achievement growth of highIQ pupils. These results contradict Heil et al.'s (Note 1) contention that teacher knowledge is worthless as a measure of teacher effectiveness, but support Soar's (Note 4) finding of a positive relationship between teachers' supportiveness and pupil gain. These results clarify somewhat 'McGee's (1955) finding of a positive, though moderate, correlation between teacher authoritarianism and pupil gain, but imply that an optimizing combination of teacher characteristics for pupil achievement gain may not lie primarily along the authoritarian/nonauthoritarian dimension. In summary, these results suggest the following profile of the effective teacher of Table 4 Achievement Residuals Analysis of Variance for Low- and Middle-IQ Pupils Source

df

MS

F

2 1 2 657

1,943.02 11,181.92 24.57 509.93

3.81* 21.93* .05

Teacher cluster groups (A) IQ levels (B) A x B Error * p < .025.

low- and middle-IQ first-grade pupils. This teacher is (a) more knowledgeable from a behavior theory standpoint than one likely to espouse primitive, controlling strategies for dealing with pupils; (b) much more positive, supportive, and comfortable with pupils than authoritarian; and (c) more likely to use a higher rate of praise or encouragement statements and to ask more questions while still being moderately directive in the classroom. These findings have direct relevance to the current emphasis on mainstreaming at least borderline IQ pupils within regular classrooms. It seems apparent that teacher knowledge of behavioral principles is correlated with differences in classroom teacher processes and successful academic achievement by borderline and average IQ pupils. The implications of these findings are enhanced when it is realized that the positive benefits for low- and middle-IQ students were obtained without significantly penalizing the achievement growth of above average pupils. Reference Notes 1. Heil, L. M., Powell, M., & Feifer, I. Characteristics of teacher behavior related to the achievement of children in several elementary grades (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Cooperative Research Contract No. SAE-7285). New York: Brooklyn College, 1960. 2. Hess, R. D., & Takanishi, R. The relationship of

TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND CORRELATES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

teacher behavior and school characteristics to student engagement (Tech. Rep. No. 42). Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, November 1974. Harvey, 0. J. Teachers' beliefs, classroom atmosphere and student behavior (Final report, U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity Contract No. OEO-1274). Boulder: University of Colorado Extension Division, 1967. Soar, R. Follow through model implementation (Interim report, U.S. Office of Education Contract No. OEG-O-8-522471-4618 (100). Gainesville: University of Florida, College of Education, Institute for the Development of Human Resources, 1970. Wallen, N. E. Relationships between teacher characteristics and student behavior, part III (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Contract No. SAE-5-10181). Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1966. Cantrell, R. P., & Cantrell, M. L. Alternative Classroom Strategies Inventory. Unpublished experimental test, 1969. Flanders, N. A. Teacher influence, pupil attitudes, and achievement: Study in interaction analysis (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 397). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1960. Cantrell, R. P., Wood, J. L., & Nichols, C. A. Teacher knowledge of behavior principles and classroom teaching patterns. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 1974.

References Brownell, W. A. Criteria for learning in educational research. Review of Educational Research, 1948, 18, 106-112. Cook, W. W., Leeds, C. H., & Callis, R. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. New York: Psychological Corp., 1951. Durost, W. N., Bixler, H. H., Wrightstone, J. W., Prescott, G. A., & Balow, I. H. Metropolitan Achievement Test. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971. Getzels, J. W. A social psychology of education. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 5). Reading, Mass.: Addi-, son-Wesley, 1969. Heath, R. W., & Nielson, M. A. The research basis

179

for performance-based teacher education. Review of Educational Research, 1974, 44, 463-484. Katzenmeyer, W. G., & Stenner, A. J. Strategic use of random subsample replication and a coefficient of factor replicability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1975, 35, 19-29. Kounin, J. S., & Gump, P. V. The comparative influence of punitive and nonpunitive teachers upon children's concepts of school misconduct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1961, 52, 4449. McGee, H. M. Measurement of authoritarianism and its relation to teachers' classroom behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1955, 52, 89-146. Mitzel, H. E. Teacher effectiveness. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research. New York: Macmillan, 1960. National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification. Standards for state approval of teacher education. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1971. Otis, A. S., & Lennon, R. T. Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1967. Quirk, T. J., Witten, B. J., & Weinberg, S. F. Review of studies of the concurrent and predictive validity of the National Teacher Examinations. Review of Educational Research, 1973,43, 89-113. Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. J. Current and future research on teacher performance criteria. In B. O. Smith (Ed.), Research on teacher education: A symposium. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1971. Seibel, D. W. Predicting the classroom behavior of teachers. Journal of Experimental Education, 1967, 36, 26-32. Shores, R. E., Cegelka, P. T., & Nelson, C. M. Competency based special education teacher training. Exceptional Children, 1973,39, 192-197. Solomon, D., Rosenberg, L., & Bezdek, W. E. Teacher behavior and student learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 55, 23-30. Tuckman, B. W., Forman, N., & Hay, W. K. Teacher innovativeness: A function of teacher personality and school environment. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1971,6, 527-528. (Summary) Yee, A. H., & Fruchter, B. Factor content of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. American Educational Research Journal, 1971, S, 119-133. Received May 5, 1976 Revision received November 22, 1976 •