# 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