Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED106264: Perceived Problems of Secondary School Teachers."

See other formats


DOCOHBIT BBSDHE 



BD 106 264 SP 009 1?3 

AUTHOR Cruickshank, Donald B.; And Others 

TITLE Perceived Problems of Secondary School Teachers. 

PUB DATE 75 

BOTE 29p. 



BDBS PBICE H?*$0.76 HC-$1<!J5 PLUS POSTAGE 

DESCBIPTOfiS *Edacational Problems; ♦Probleis; ♦Secondary School 

Teachers; Sarveys; ♦Teacher Education; Teacher Bole; 
Teachers 

ABSTBACT 

This study va?^ undertaken to (a) identify and verify 
a subset of educationally significant events, (b) analyze the events 
grossly, (c) suggest hov the events could be captured and recorded, 
and (d) suggest a vay by vhich potentially useful theoretical 
knowledge could be identified and employed. An ancillary concern vas 
to develop instruments vhich could be validated for use in further 
studies. In this study, significantly bothersome and frequently 
perceived problems of teachers vere considered to be educationally 
significant events. The procedure used to identify and verify these 
educationally significant events vere as follovs: (a) descriptions of 
^rav problems** vere solicited from teachers over a lO^day period, <b) 
the descriptions vere synthesized for the purpose of developing a 
checklist, and (c) the checklist vas administered to an independent 
sample of teachers in order to determine specific problems and 
problem clusters that vere reported as most bothersome and that 
occurred most frequently* The results suggest tvo different 
conclusions. The first is that teacher problems consist larqely of 
role-related strivings vhich the teacher generally has not previously 
encountered and for vhich s/he is unprepared* The second is that the 
global areas of teacher problems are not unlike global areas of 
people generally (i.e*, there is no dichotomy of general and 
role-derived needs) , but the problems may seem different because 
being the ""teacher** exacerbates particular general human needs or 
goals, making them more difficult to attain. (PB) 



PERCEIVED PROBLEMS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' 
Donald R. Cruickshank, John J. Kennedy and Betty Hye 
The Ohio State University 



US DCMRTMCNTOr HCALTH. 
COUCATION A WCLFARt 
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF 
EDUCATION 
THIS DOCUMENT HAS VEEN REFRD 
OUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM 
THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN 
ATINGIT FOlNTS OF VIEW DR OPINIONS 
STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REFRE 
SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF 
EDUCATION POSITION DR POClCY 



Several approaches have been cited ip#h!ch can be employed to determine 
a curriculum for the education of teachers (2: 73*82). However, the 
approach taken almost exclusively has been to collect and employ the con- 
ventional wisdom of a variety of persons in the business. This 'V^isdom** 
usually consists of recollections of and unstated and often unwarranted 
assumptions about teaching. Historically preservice and inservice teach** 
ers have found the resulting curriculum more religious and ceremonial thon 
useful . 

Smith (10) among others has advocated a c 1 ass room-situat ton-based 
curriculum development strategy as an alternative to the ubiquitous prac** 
ttco of employing conventional wisdom. At the heart of Smithes proposal 
is the need to identify and record classroom events of educational signi- 
ficance since he feels that teachers fail because they have not been ex- 
posed to them or at least not in such a way that they have learned to 
analyze and interpret the situations. Therefore, in order to pursue 
Smith's strategy, the following questions must be addressed. First, what 
is an event of educational significance? Second, how can those events 
best be captured or reproduced? Finally, what theoretical knowledge is 
available which, if known by teachers, might permit them to act more 
rationally when the events occur? 

The general purpose of the study was to begin to out the Smith curri- 
culum strategy to use. Specifically th'S study intended (a) to identify 
and verify a subset of educationally significant events, (b) to analyre 
the events grossly, (c) to suggest how the events could be captured and 
recorded, and (d) to suggest a way by which potentially useful theoretical 



2 



knoMled^ could be identified and employed. An ancillary concern was to 
develop instruments Krtiich could validated for use in further studies. 

In this study significantly lyothersom and frequent perceived prob- 
lems of teachers and students iiere considered to be educationally signi« 
ficant events. Earlier studies (3, 5) support this consideration by 
providing evidence frow three different samples of teachers who reported 
having classroom problems they perceived to be serious: The purpose of 
thts-report however is to summarize that portion of the investigation 
dealing with the perceived problems of teachers only. 

In order to identify and verify these educationally significant 
events, (a) descriptions of ••raw problems" were solicited from teachers 
over a ten-day period, (b) the descriptions of problems %#ere synthesized 
for the purpose of developing a checklist^ and (c) the checklist entitled 
the Teacher Problems Check List (TPCL) was adiministered to an independent 
sample of teachers for the purpose of determining the specific problems 
and problem clusters that were reported to be most bothersome and that 
occurred most frequently. 

PROCEDURES 

Teacher Samples 

As mentioned, two separate samples were involved. The first was 
constituted for the purpose of obtaining raw dayto-day problems con- 
fronted by junior high and high school teachers. From a listing of 
30,000 secondary schools who held membership in the National Association 
of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)» 81 schools were randomly setec-* 
ted. The 8l schools representing 37 states were informed by mail that 
they had been selected from a national population of secondary schools 



ERIC 



4 



and Mere being asked to participate in a national study designed to de* 
termine the nature of problems concerning teaching and learning. Of 
the 81 requests, 26 school principals indicated that their faculties 
Here wilting to participate. For the part of the study reported here, 
the 26 schools ¥iere then requested to provide a complete list of the 
names of their teaching faculty from which the investigators subsequent* 
ly identified a 10 percent random sample of faculty members within each 
school « 

The san^te of identified teachers within participating schciols was 
provided with MV Bi<west Problem Today Inventory forms (MBPTIs), de- 
scribed later. For a ten*day period, teachers }nere requested to de- 
scribe in detail on the lOPTI the school -re I a ted incident that repre- 
sented the major problem of each day. Faculties of six of the 26 
schools failed to return the HBPTIs, thus the resultant composition of 
the first sample consisted of 70 teachers representing 20 of the initial 
81 schools. The returned and usable 563 fttPTIs served as the basis for 
the construction of the Teacher Problems Check List which was adminis- 
tered to a second national sample of school faculties* The TPCL is also 
described later. 

Initially the second sample consisted of 33 secondary schools « re- 
presenting 20 states and the District of Columbia. Again schools were 
randomly selected from NASSP membership. Letters were forwarded to the 
principals of the 53 schools asking for the cooperation of their facu)* 
ties relative to verifying the problems previously reported by teachers 
in the first sample. Specifically, teachers were requested to complete 
the TPCLs. Sixteen schools indicated that the faculties were Interested 
incompleting the checklist instrument* Tlie Teacher problems Check List 



(TPCL) was distributed to all teachers employed by the 16 participating 
schools, and a total of 310 usable TPCLs were returned. The 310 usable 
TPCLs. represented 36 percent of the total distributed to teachers. 

In sum, the first sampling provided 563 raw problem descriptions 
frcfT. 70 teachers representing 20 schools while the second sample, which 
consisted of 310 teachers from 16 schools, provided information relative 
to the bothersomeness and frequency of problems appearing on the TPCL. 
Needless to say, the size of the resultant samples was somewhat disap- 
pointing. The obvious attrition which occurred during both stages of 
sampling must be considered with respect to the interpretation and gen- 
eral Izabi I i ty of subsequent findings. 
Instrumentation 

The instrument administered for the purpose of obtaining raw problem 
situations, the MBPTI , was used and extensively described in two previous 
studies (4, 5). Of the critical incident genre, it was employed to col- 
lect diary-like reports from teachers by asking them to describe thereon 
their biggest problem of the day. For each of ten consecutive days, the 
70 teachers comprising the first sample described on the MBPTI the inci- 
dent or concern that presented the greatest difficulty. A typical speci- 
men v>f 0 problem situation reported on a given day by o participating 
locichor follows: 

The bigt^est problem occurred in biology today. The class had 
its fifth day of a six lab period exercise on the dissection 
of a frog. Perhaps half the class is really Into this, fol- 
lowing their instructions carefully, doing exactly what they 
cire supposed to do, Identifying organs, and parts, working 
effectively, and enjoying it. Unfortunately perhaps a third 



of the class tired of the exercise after the first day, and 
now tend to spend their time in idle picking, and without 
constant attention wcHjI.d be spending the period talking, or 
getting into mischief. The consequence is that I have to 
spend most of my time with the, students who are least capa- 
ble, and least concerned. This, it appears to me, is a 
rather serious problem with education today. 
As previously mentioned, raw problem situations such as the above were 
used as the basis for the extraction and listing of specific problems 
which appeared on the second instrument, the TPCL. 

The process of examining the reported raw problem situations, eli* 
minating obvious duplications in reported problans, and synthesizing the 
problems for the purpose of developing a manageable list of succinctly 
stated problems for the TPCL was accomplished by two of the three inves* 
ti^tors. The task was greatly facilitated by the fact that the princi- 
pal investigator had previously developed two similar checklist instru- 
nents» the Perceived Problems Inventory (3) and the Teacher Problems In- 
ventory (S)f both designed for elementary teacher problems. It was of 
interest to note, however, that problem categories contained on the two 
previously reported instruments were sufficient to account for or describe 
all raw problem situations reported by the secondary teachers in the 
present study. The resultant TPCL contained 105 specific problem situa- 
tions which teachers in the second sample were requested to consider and 
indicate both (a) whether from their experience each specific problem was 
"bothersome*' or '*not bothersome'' and (b) v^ther in their experience each 
problem occurred ''f requently*' or •infrequently**. An example of five 
specific problems that appeared on the TPCL is provided below: 



Preface each statement with: "I have a problem 



FREQUENT 
YES NO 



a. 
b. 

c. 

d, 

e. 



Liking my students 

Eliminating inappropriate student 

behavior 

Being professional in my relation- 
ships with colleagues 
Encouraging parental interest in 
school matters 

Controlling aggressive student be- 
havior 



BOTHERSOME 
YES NO 



Thus, for each of the 105 specific problems on the TPCL, t^-achors in thv 
second sample (N » 310) provided information relative to both the extent 
to which the problem was perceived to be d iscomfort inn and the frequency 
with which the problem was experienced. 



RESULTS 

Of initial interest were those specific problems that teachers indi- 
cated were most bothersome and occurred most frequently.. To identify 
those problems which were perceived to be most bo the rsome . the mean pro- 
portion (P = .35) was then assumed to be a parameter and the prof>nrtion 
of response associated with each of the 105 specific problems was tested 
to determine if it significantly exceeded the value of the overall mean 
proportion. That is, a binomial test of the null hypothesis that the 
proportion of teachers who indicated that the problems perceived to be 
most bothersome was equal to ,35 was conducted at the .01 level of signi- 
ficonce (upper tail) for each of the 105 problems. Column 3 **Bothersome" 
in Tvible 1 presents the 34 specific problems perceived to be most bother- 
s.mio JcCvirdiog to the established criterion. 

Insert Table 1 about here 



7 



The identification of specific problems which were reported to occur 
most frequently was accomplished in a similar manner. Specific problems 
whose proportion of response significantly exceeded (£ < .01) the overall Iw^* 
mean response (P » .23) are also given in Table 1, Column k ^Trequent*', 
Twenty-nine specific problems are listed. An examination of Columns 3 
and Table 1 also reveals that 21 of the 105 specific problems were 
simultaneously both bothersome and frequently occurring. Obviously, these 
problems are of greatest concern to the teacher educator. 

A visual examination of data (only partially summarized in Table 1) 
suggested a positive relationship between the bothersomeness and frequency 
responses to the 105 items. Phi coefficients were computed for each of 
the items to determine the correlations between the dichotomous bother^ 
someness and frequency variables. The phi coefficients ranged from +,04 
to +.61 with a mean phi observed to be .31 In addition, when items wore 
ordered on the basis of bothersomeness and frequency, a rank correlation 
coefficient (rho) of .75 was observed. These results served to confirm 
the a priori suspicions of these investigators that problems perceived by 
teachers as bothersome would also tend to be frequently occurring, or 
vice versa. 

To determine the global problematic areas or clusters that were rep* 

rosonted by the items on the TPCL» both the bothersomeness and frequency 

responses provided by participating teachers were subjected separately to 
2 

0 factor analysis. The dichotomous bothersomeness responses and the 
ilii hotoiious frequency responses of the 310 teachers to the 105 items on 
tlio TPCL were first subjected to the principal-axis method of common fac- 
tor analysis to determine the number of sal ient common factors that could 
be meaningfully rotated. To be sure to account for all meaningful factors 



ERIC 



8 



i<; these two sets of data, each of the 105-item correlation matrices was 
••overfactored" (i.e., 20 factors) initially using modified squared multi- 
ple correlations as first estimates of the effective communal i t ies (6: ^t* 
5). 

Relative to the initial factoring of bothersomeness responses, a 
summary of resultant eigenvalues and estimated variance shared is given 
in the lefthand portion of Table 2. The summary offered by Table 2 was 
used to judge the number of factors (salient factors) that could bo moon- 
inqfully rotated. The principal methods used to determine the num!>or i)f 
foctors to be retained for rotation were CattelPs scree test (1: ?n6) 
and an examination of the overfactored initial principal-axis matrix (not 
shorn). To apply CattelPs scree test, the eigenvalue difference column 
is studied for the purpose of determining where (a) the differences begin 
tc ''level off** or (b) a reversal in magnitude of difference occurs. The 
scree criterion suggested either a seven or nine factor solution for the 
bothersomeness data with preference for the former since an examination 
ot the initial pr inc ipa 1 •axis matrix revealed the presence of only two 
substantial factor loadings esse:: iated wi th tl^ remaining 13 cxcliK^kil 
fdctors--a loading of on factor eight and one of .352 on fjctor nim* 
To resolve the choice between these two solutions, both seven and nine 
factors were subsequently rotated with the result that the seven factor 
solution lent itself to clearest interpretation. The decision, therefore 
was to retain seven factors for rotation,^ 

To achieve greater precision, the 105-item correlation matrix was 
rc-f«ic tored usinq the sum of the squared fictor loadings on the seve^i re- 
(tilned fni tors as estimates of effective communal i t ies Ro-factored re- 
suits are displayed in the righthand portion of Table ?. 



10 



Insert Table 2 about here 

Factors emanating from the re-factored solution were then subjected 
to an oblique promax rotation (8) for the purpose of obtaining meaningful 
structure. Table 3 presents the specific problems that had a .300 or 
higher loading on each of the seven bocnersomeness factors. 

Insert Table 3 about here 

Upon examination, the seven rotated bother some ness factors were in- 
terpreted and labeled: 

Factor I: Efficiency • Wanting to have skMls and to dcconu>lish 

tasks considered essential to ^earning. 
Factor II: Support « Wanting the understanding and «;ustenance 

of administrators and other teachers so 

that I can be efficient and feel profes-* 

sionat . 

Factor III: Invigoration - Wanting to vitalize my students* inter* 

ests in learning and improve their 
achievement. 

Factor IV: Control -Wanting to get students to behave as I 

want them to behave. 

Factor V: Inclusion •Wanting to establish and maintain rapport 

with svjdents, other teachers, and admini- 
strators. Being interested in them and 
having them interested In me.. 

Factor VI: Nurturance • Wanting to help students who have prob- 
lems. 



ERLC 



11 



10 



Factor VII: Influencing • Wanting to change the percept icns and 

attitudes of students and their parents 
toward theieselves and education. 

With respect to Vrequency responses^ the factor analytic methodology 
was identicaK Subsequent to obtaining the initial overfactored principal- 
axis matrix, a decision %ias laade to re*factor and rotate seven factors. 
Attempts viere also made to interpret the seven rotated frequency factors.^ 
However* interpretation of frequency factors was more difficult, thus 
seemingly less meaningful* perhaps because teMher frequency responses (as 
opposed to bothersomeness responses) are to a greeter extent influenced by 
local administrative and social factors wflich inherently are more hetero*- 
geneous in nature. In brief, the seven resultant factors were interpreted 
as follows: 

Factor I: Security - Wanting to feel free from fear and anxiety. 
Factor II: Remediation •Wanting to improve life for my stu^inUs by 

putting right conditions both insidi* an<l 

outside schools. 

Factor III: Invigoration - Wanting to vitalize my students* inter- 
ests in learning and In^rove their 
achievement. 

Factor IV: Control - Wanting to get students to behave as I 

want them to behave. 
Factor V: Satisfaction - Wanting to feel good about myself as a 

teacher, 

« Wanting the understanding and sustenance 
o( administrators «*)nd other t€«achers so 
that I can be efficient and feel 



Factor VI : Support 



ERLC 



12 



11 

professional . 

Factor VII: Time Wanting time to get both professional and 

personal things accomplished. 

The factor analysis, however, only reflected the common clustering of 
specific items contained on the TPCL. Of greatest concern to these inves* 
ti gators was the identification of broad problematic areas-His opposed to 
specific problems-- which were characterized as bothersome and frequent. 
To accomplish this, the results of che analysis of specific problems 
(Table 1) and global problem areas (e.g., Table 3) were combined. The 
intent was to identify those problem areas (factors) %ihich were charac* 
terized by a disordinate number of significantly bothersome specific prob«* 
lems or by a disordinate number of significantly frequent specific prob* 
lems, or both. A visual examination revealed that with respect to the 
bothersome factors. Factor Ml (tnvigoration) and Factor IV (Control) 
possessed the greatest number of significantly bothersome specific prob* 
lems, ten and nine problems respectively. The examination of frequency 
factors indicated again that Factor III (Invtgoration) was defined by a 
large number of specific problems (fourteen items) that teachers indicated 
occurred frequently. 

DISCUSSION 

It is clear from the results that secondary teachers have and are 
willing to admit to prjblems that can be recorded and interpreted on dimen* 
sions of bothersomeness and frequency (Table 1). Further the dimensions 
ciro amenable to factor analysis which defines seven global areas for each. 
(Table 3 displays bothersomeness factor information only.) Certain of the 
global areas, Invigoration and Control for bothersomeness and Invigoration 



n 



and Time for frequency, possess a greater proportion and a higher percent* 
age of significant individual problems than the other areas do* In Table 
3* for exanH>)e, it can be noted that all of the bothersome problems (10 of 
10) under the factor l^bel Invigoration and all of the problems under the 
factor label Control are significant problems making these the most power- 
ful factors. Follcwing is the list of the seven bothersome factors fol- 
Imed by the proportion and percentage of significant items appearing on 
each. 

Efficiency 2 of 12 or 17% 
Support 2 of 9 or 22% 

Invigoration 10 of 10 or 100% 
Control 9 of 9 or 100% 

Inclusion 0 of 7 or 0% 
Nurturance 2 of 8 or 25% 
Influencing 1 of 7 or 14% 
Likewise the listing below of the seven frequency factors indicate 
invigoration and Time to be powerful factors. 



Security 


0 of 


19 or 


0% 


Remediation 


0 of 


12 or 


07o 


Invigoration 


13 of 


or 


93% 


Control 


0 of 


9 or 


0% 


Satisfaction 


2 of 


8 or 


25% 


Support 


0 of 


3 or 


0% 


Time 


3 of 


3 or 10(Kf, 



GomMatly it r<in t>o said that (1) Invigoration is a powerful factor »n 
torms of both thi» bothorsomenos^ anJ frequency of the problems which de- 
fine it, (2) Control is a powerful bothersomeness factor but is not at all 

If 



13 



significant in terms of its frequency, i.e., Control problems are bother- 
some but not frequent, and (3) Time is a powerful frequency factor but is 
not at all definable or measurable as a bothersomeness factor, I.e., 
teachers are frequently concerned about time or lack of it but are not 
especially similarly bothered. 

The seven bothersomeness factors accounted for twenty-five or seventy* 
four percent of the original thirty-four problems listed in Table 1 that 
were bothersome to many teachers. The nine other problems (twenty'-six 
percent) that many teachers said were bothersome but that are not found 
in any of the seven factors are listed below. Although these problems do 
not seem to relate to any of the seven factors, they are significant and 
important* 

11 Providing for individual learning differences 

19 Knowing how to differentiate between student learning and psycholo- 
gical problems 
39 Teaching too many students or large classes 
ky Having my students feel successful in school 
^ Overcoming student apathy or outright dislike 

50 Monitoring the behavior of students outside the classroom but still 

in the school area 
66 Having students present and on time for all classes, rehearsals, 

games, etc. 

85 Keeping my students away from some things and people which may be a 
bad influence 

101 Having my students value sch(3ol marks and grades 

The seven frequency factors accounted for only seventeen or fifty- 
nine percent of the twentynlne problems that occurred frequently for 

/5 



1*^ 

many teachers. The twelve other problems (forty**one percent) that many 
teachers said \ntre frequent but that are not found in any of the seven 
factors are listed belOM. These are also significant and Important prob- 
lems. Several of them, numbers 11, 39» 50, 66, 101, are the san^ as 
bothersome items also unaccounted for by the factors. 
11 Providing for individual learning differences 

28 Enforcing social mores and folkways such as honesty and respect for 
teachers 

33 Encouraging parental interest in school matters 
3^ Haking my classroom attractive and interesting 
39 Teaching too many students or large classes 

^0 Planning instruction in different ways and for different purposes 

Completing the work t have planned 
50 Monitoring the behavior of students outside the classroom but still 

in the school area 
66 Having students present and on time for all classes, rehearsals, 

games, etc* 

81 Helping students know and accept themselves as they are 

91 Enforcing considerate treatment of property 
101 Having students value school marks and grades 

Since the bothersomeness factors contain a higher proportion of 
serious problems (problems reported by many teachers) than do the fre- 
quency factors, these factors are of greater importance and interest than 
jjv the frequency factors. 

Two related expKmations are offered for the results of the study. 
First consider that teacher goals come from two sources* One source in- 
cludes the general human needs both physiological and psychological. The 

16 



15 



second source of goals arises when the human takes on the role of teacher 
and assumes what have been referred to as role*der ived, institutional or 
normsthetic needs. Here the person as teacher is expected and usually ex- 
pects to model certain kinds of institutional behavior. Given the two 
sources of teacher goals, how do the bothersomeness and frequency factors 
relate to them? Most of the bothersomeness factors— the goals of Eff i- 
ciency» Support, Inclusion, Nurturance, Influencing and to some extent 
Control — can be related to formulations of general human needs such as 
Murray's (9). Two, and Indeed the most powerful two, Invigorotion and 
Control (in the sense It is defined in the study), are not easily related 
to general human needs and, in fact, seem to lend support to the notion of 
role-derived goals. They may create for the teacher a whole new set of 
strivings which the teacher as a person has had little experience with or 
preparation for. 

Similarly almost all of the frequency factor clus ters-*the goals of 
Security, Remediation, Control, Satisfaction, and Support*--are accounted 
for in Murray's 1 ist» However Time and again Invigoration are not.: These 
goals appear to be role-related. So the first explanation of teacher prob- 
lems is that they consist largely of role*related strivings which the 
teacher generally has not encountered and therefore is less prepared for. 

The second explanation of the results, suggesti^d by Wood, Is that 
the global areas of teacher problems are not unlike the global areas )f 
people generally (there is no dichotomy of general and role-derived needs) 
but that they may seem to be different because being •'teacher*' exacerbates 
particular general human needs or goals making them more difficult to at- 

Both explanations suggest that being the teacher either creates new 




16 



I 



goals or makes normal goals more difficult to achieve. 

Investigations are undervfay to determine whether the factor struc- 
tures identified are stable so that the TPCL instrument can be modified 
and eventually standardized. Beyond replication of the study it would be 
desirable to conduct (1) studies to determine whether teacher problems 
differ by subject area and/or level of instruction, (2) studies to measure 
relationships between amount and kind of teacher problems and teacher 
effectiveness criteria^ (3) studies to measure relationships between amount 
and kind of teacher problems and such variables as teacher age, experience, 
sex» education and so forth, (k) studies to measure relationsti ip«; between 
amount and kind of teacher problems and teaching style, (5) studies which 
compare student, teacher, parent, and administrator perceptions of teacher 
problems, and (6) studies to determine whether different kinds of schools 
present different problem profiles. 

Recall that the purpose of the study was to begin to put Smith's 
c 1 as s n>om-s i tuat ion -based curriculum development strotigy lowork. Assum- 
ing that the perceived problems of teachers are educationally *>iqnil:cfint 
events, the first and to some extent the second steps of the strategy 
have been accomplished. Next instances of bothersome and frequent indivi- 
dual problems or global problem areas^ especially those of Invigoration 
and Control, must be recorded as protocols or reproduced as simulations. 
Subsequently the events /problems ought to be studied by key educators and 
behavioral scientists so that they can infer potentially useful theoreti- 
cal kn«.iwledge which^ if in the possession of teachers, would permit them 
to »u I more rtitionally in similar roal-life circumstances. The resultant 
theoretiitii kiiowleiKie wiHiM constitute a new subset of teacher educat lf>n 
curriculum to be taught or learned in the context of and in relation to 




ERIC 



17 



the problem situations. Thus the theory should be more valid hence more 
readily learned and applied. Clearly use of perceived teacher problems 
is a tenablet viable alternative for teacher education curr iculum which 
should not be denied. 



19 



18 



REFERENCES 



ERIC 



1- Cattell, R. B. "The Meaning and Strategic Use of Factor Analysis/' In 

Cattell (ed.), Handbook of Multivariate Experimental psvcho > 
loqy > Chicago; Rand McNaliy, I966, pp. 17'»-243. 

2- Cruickshank, Donald R. 'Xonceptual izing a Process for Teacher Education 

Curriculurr) Development/' Journal of Teacher Education . I97I. 22, 
pp. 73-82. 

3- Cruickshank, Donald R. , and Frank W. Broadbent. The Simulation and 

Analysis of Problems of Beginning Teachers . Final Report Grant No. 
USOE 22-6OOOA. Washington, D. C: $• Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research, 
October I968. 

Cruickshank, Donald R., John J. Kennedy, James Leonarc' and Robert Thur- 
n . Perceived Problems of Teachers in Schools Serving Rural Dis - 
advantaged Populations: A Comparison with Problems Reported by 
Inner^City Teachers . The NDEA National Institute in Teaching Dis- 
advantaged Youth, Occasional Paper/Five. Washington, 0, C: The 
American. Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1968. 

5. Cruickshank, Donald R., and James Leonard. The Identification and AnaN 
ysis of Perceived Problems of Teachers In |nner«>City Schools . The 
W>IA N.illv>n*il Institute for Advanced Study in Teaching Disadvantaged 
Nouifi iKi.isiiMUil P*ipcr/One, Washington, D. C: The American 

so 



19 



Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1967. 

6. Cureton, E. E. A Factor Analysis of Project Talent Tests and Four Other 

Test Batteries . Interim Report k to the U. S. Office of Education, 
Cooperative Research Project Mo. 3051. Palo Alto: Project Talent, 
1968. 

7. Cureton, E. E*, and R. C* Durfee. Factor Analysis I - Prinax and Factor 

Analysis 11 - Promax . Contract No. OE-6*10-065 and PHS Grant No. 
MH-0727'* to the University of Pittsburgh and American Institutes for 
Research. University of Tennessee Computing Center, Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory Mathematics Division, August 1969. 

8. Hendrickson, A. E., and P. 0. White. ••Promax: A Quick Method for Rota- 

tion to Oblique Simple Structure British Journal of Statistical 
Psycholog y. 196**, 17, PP. 65-70. 

9. Murray, H. A. Explorations in Personality . Mew York: Oxford University 

Press, 1938. 

Sr.nth, 0., and Others. Teachers for the Real World . Washington, O.C.; 
The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Edurc^tion, 1969 




20 



FOOTNOTES 



'The study received partfa) support from the following sources: 
Science Research Associates, the Natlcmal Association of Secondary 
School Principals and the Research Committee of the College of Educa* 
tion, The Ohio State University. 

''The factor analysis was performed at the Instruction and Research 
Computer Center of The Ohio State University using programs entitled 
Factor Analysts I - Prinax and Factor Analysis II - Promax , authored 
by Edward E. Cureton and Richard C. Durfce at the University of 
Tennessee. 

^The investigators are indebted to Or. Edward E. Cureton, Professor 
of Psychology at the University of Tennessee, for his assistance with 
this decision. 

Results of the factor analysis of frequency data are available 

iijiiMi request. 

^Personal correspondence with Or. Michael T. Wood, Social Change 
Stu^y Center, Battel le Hun>an Affairs Research Center, Seattle* Washing- 
ton, November 23, 1973- 




To be Included with material on p. 6. 



TABLE 1. Forty*two Problem from the Teacher Problems Check Ust Identified as 
Being Significantly Bothersome or Frequent 



1 tern 








Item 








on 




Bother- 


Fre- 


on 




Bother- 


Fre- 


TPCL Problem Statement 


some 


quent 


TPCL Problem Statement 


some 


auent 


55 


Having every student 








Tei5crii«*5 coo many 








work up to his ab i 1 - 








students or large 
















.57 


.38 


91 


Enforcing consider-* 


1 

1 


naintaining oroer. 




ate treatment of 








guiet or control.... 


.55 








.67 


Ml 


















3 


iiav 1 ng a 1 1 my s tu* 






1 AC 


Getting my students 








oents pariicipace in 








to enjoy leerning 










.55 


.'♦5 




for Its ONn saKe**.. 


.65 


.60 


















m 


Having preparation 






MO 


Overcoming student 










.55 


.«»5 




apathy or outright 






66 












.6U 


.32 


Having students 
















prese'it and on time 






Hi 


Gettihg students to 








for all classes 9 re* 








use their leisure 








hearsalSt games » etc. 


.55 


33 






.63 


.59 


















^1 
*-i 


netnLeining ^cuiienL 






50 


Horn tor Ing the bena« 








atcent 1 on 


.5U 


.79 




vior of students 
















outside the class- 






11 


Providing for indi<» 








room Du t stilt in 








V 1 1 1 CQ r n • nQ u 1 1 * 










.61 


.i»1 






.53 


.'♦7 


88 


Eliminating inappro- 


67 


Having enough free 




priace scuoent oene* 










.53 


.M 






.61 




















2o 


enforcing social 






5 


Control 1 ing aggres- 








mores eno ToiiQw«y* 








sive student beha** 








sucn es nones iy ona 










.60 






respect for teachers 


.52 


37 


V 


Removing students 






29 


Creating interest m 








who are sources of 








the topic being 










.60 








51 


.3'» 




Having my students 




19 


Knowing how to dif- 




achieve competence 








ferentiate between 








in basic skills such 








student learning and 








as competence in ex* 








psychological prob- 


.'»9 






pressing themselves 














effectively in both 
















writing and speaking 


.58 


.56 


i»6 


Changing school pol- 







Z3 



on Ipth^r- Fre- 

TPCL Problem Sta^tw^nt ^^ift ^u^nt 

t 

iciof and ragulations 



k7 Having my students 
feel successful in 
school Jli 

20 Helping students im* 

prove academically.. I|8 .Mf 

26 Guiding my students 
to manage themselves 
to do the things to 
help them succeed in 

school M 

101 Having my students 
value school marks 
am? grades kB ,39 

103 Tell ing parents that 
their children have 
problems kB 

hi Respond i ngf appropr i - 
ately to improper 
behavior such as ob- 
scenity kj 

SO Overcoming a stu* 
dent*s feel ings of 
upset or frustration 
with himself kj 

13 Soliciting appropri- 
ate student behavior 

Jk Employing retribu* 
tion or punishment.. 



77 Performing admini« 
stretive functions 
such as administering 



lt55 

on Bother- Fre- 

TPCL PfoMem Statement some quent 



standerdized tests, 
scheduling and doing 
••paperworV* kk 

33 Encouraging parental 
interest in school 
matters k2 ,35 



85 Keeping my students 
away from some things 
and people which may 
be a bad influence... M 



S9 Eiriending learning 

beyond the classroom. 36 

68 Promoting student 

s«1f-evaluation .35 

58 Assessing my stu- 
dents* learning .3t» 

^ Planning instruction 
•Tn different ways and 
for different pur- 
poses... .31 

M» Completing the work I 

have planned .31 

3^^ Naicing my classroom 
attractive and inter* 
est ing ,29 

81 Helping my students 
iuHJM and accept them- 
selves as they are... .29 

92 Knowing about and 
having apprc^riate 
materials for learn* 

Jng .29 



*^proportion of teachers (N ■ 310) who indicated that a specific problem was 
bothersonw 

^proportion of teachers (N « 310) who indicated that a specific problem oc* 
cur red frequently 



To be included with materiel on p. 9. 



TABLE 2. Princlpet Axis Solution of Sothersomeness Responses 
used to Determine the Number of Salient Factors 











Sum of Squared Factor 




SqMr«d Multiple Corr«Utions 


Loadings Subsequently 




Used »« 


Estimates of Connunal ities 


Used as 


Estimates of 


Factor 








Communal i ties 




E igen* 


Eigenvalue 


Percent 


E igen* 


Percent 




Value 


Difference 


Variance 


Value 


Variance 


1 


13. 1'^ 




39.09 


13.09 


<i9.82 






10.05 








2 


3.09 




W.2; 


3.0U 


61 .39 






.59 








3 


2.50 




55.73 


2 M4 


IV 68 






.35 








k 


2.15 




62.13 


2 09 


65 






.21 








s 






67.90 


1 .89 


85 86 






.11 








6 


1 *83 




73.33 


1 .79 


92.66 






.21 








7 


1.62 




78.1f» 


1 55 


96.58 






—4.23 








8 


1 .39 




82.27 










.13 








9 


1 26 




86.02 










.11 








10 


1 .15 




89.^" 










.03 


92.1^ 






11 


U2 












.07 








1Z 


1 05 




95 91 










.02 








13 


1.03 




98.98 










.08 








\k 


.95 




101.81 










.05 








15 


.90 




lo<».ii8 










.05 








16 


.85 




106.99 










.01 








17 


M 




109. <»7 










.0^ 








18 


.80 




111.85 










.03 








19 


.77 




111*. 15 










.03 








20 


.7*» 




116.35* 







^Vhen the factor matrix is initially overfactored and squared multiple 
correlations are used for communality estimation, it \% coniMn that lat- 
ter factors account for more than 100 percent of common variance (trace). 



Z5- 



To be included with iMttrial on 9. 



TABLE 3. SiMMiry of RiMultant Factors for Botha rsomfMnst Data 
(Astarlsks denote itmn that teachers indicated were most 
botliersaie - see Table 1) 











Factor I: Efficiency 

Item 


Factor 
Loadine 


40 


Planning instruction in different ways and for differ- 
ent purposes 


A23 


73 


Organizing my work and materials 


.M)5 


92 


Knoning about and having appropriate materials for 
learning 


.386 


k9 


Setting objectives for individual courses 


.382 


71 


Keeping up professionally 


.366 


Having preparation time 


.352 




Completing the vrork 1 have planned 


332 


60 


Using A«»V equipment 


• icy 


96 


Learning to use alternative methods of instruct icm 


.326 


67^v Having enou^ free time 


.311 


(M 


Overcoming anxieties related to being supervised 


.303 


58 


Assessing my students' learning 


.303 




Factor 11: Support 

Item 


■ ■ ■ 

Factor 
Loadinq 


SO 


Avoiding duties inappropriate to my professional role 


.1*95 


86 


Having cooperation and support from the administration 


.•♦09 


kdfff Changing school policies and regulations 


MS 


95 


Developing and maintaining affiliation with my coN 

leagues 


.395 


?h 


Being professional in my relationships with colleagues 






Having confidence in my colleagues 


.35'* 



ERIC 



26 



• • • 



77* Performing administrative functions such as administer- 
ing standardized tests, scheduling and doing ''paperwork'' 


.327 


oi u 1 iTerenc loi 1 ng Dccviecn ua5i\5 vit ueiBviiivrs «nu lcowik;! 
aides 


.312 


37 Having cooperation from peers, including student teach- 
ers 


.311 


Factor III: Invigoration 

1 tern 


Factor 
Load i nq 


31^ Having my students achieve competence in basic skills 
such as competence in expressing themselves effectively 
in both writing and speaking 


.5U2 


20^ Helping students If^rwe academically 


MS 


3S^' Having every student work up to his ability 


Mo 


27'^ Maintaining student attention 


MS 


26v^ Guiding my students to manage themselves to do the 
things to help them succeed in* school 


MO 


29^ Creating interest in the topic being tau^t 


.353 


28'V Enforcing social mores and folkways such as honesty and 
respect for teachers 


.3'*9 


1 0Q^ ftoffrinn Ri\# cfiiHfftnfc tf\ ^nlf%\/ l^drninO for I tS OMn Sdke 


331 


kH' Getting students to use their leisure time well 


.328 


Max/ ma all mv «tud^nt< Dartlcioate in class 

riW I I'M Clll Illy 9 CUUdI C9 r** ' i w • ^ 


.302 


Factor IV: Control 

1 tem 


Factor 
Load ing 


5^ Controlling aggressive student behavior 


.529 


88)V Eliminating inappropriate student behavior 


.501 


Maintaining order, quiet or control 


.'♦99 


'^ly-'- Romoving students who are sources of frustration 


Mil 


27''* Maintaining student attention 


.383 



ERIC 



« 4 



7^* Employing retribution or punishment 


.382 


^2* Responding appropriately to improper behavior such as 
obsceni ty 


0 1: c 


91* Enforcing considerate treatment of property 


.338 


13* Soliciting appropriate student behavior 




Factor V: Inclusion 




Item V 


Factor 
Loading 


\ 

2h Being professional in my relationships with colleagues 


.521 


7 Developing and maintaining student rapport, affection 
and respect 


.513 


16 Feeling successful and important 




25 Liking my students 


.Mo 


62 Having confidence in my colleagues 


, ^pu 


18 Enjoying teaching more 


.3^*6 


8 Knowing subject matter 


^1 "7 
01/ 


Factor VI : Nurturance 




Item 


Factor 
Load i nq 


90-*' Overcoming a student's feelings of upset or frustration 
with himself 


.556 


89 Understanding and helping the atypical child 


.506 


103- Telling parents that their children have problems 


39'* 


79 Treating all my students fairly 


. .386 


102 Assisting students who have physical handicaps 


.380 


69 Boing tolerant of student differences 


.321 


7S Helping a student adjust socially or emotionally 


.315 


81 Helping my students know and accept themselves as they 
are 


.302 



ERIC 





Factor VII: Influencing 

1 tern 


Loading 


52 


Improving conditions so that students can study better 
at home 




33- Encouraging parental interest in school matters 


.U61 


82 


Improving the intellectual quality of my students* 
homes 




22 


Holding worthwhile conferences with parents 




78 


Assisting parents having difficulty with their children 


.380 


9 


Helping parents to understand school policies 


.331 


81 


Helping my students know and accept themselves as they 
are 


.U6