University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A proposal of professional performance objectives for the teacher education programs in Viet Nam

(USC Thesis Other)

A proposal of professional performance objectives for the teacher education programs in Viet Nam

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A PROPOSAL OF PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES FOR THE TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN VIET NAM by Nguyen Phung Hoang vii A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY • > (Education) January 1974 UMI Number: DP24098 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI DP24098 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 © 1973 NGUYEN PHUNG HOANG ALL RIGHTS RESERVED UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007 This dissertation, w ritte n by NGUYEN PHUNG HOANG under the direction of h.is... Dissertation C om mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y Dean DISSERTATION C O M M IT T E E y i Chairmai i Chairman ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The investigator wishes to express sincere appre ciation to the chairman and members of the Doctoral Committee for their invaluable counsel and guidance throughout the study. Gratitude is further indebted to Dr. Frank H. Fox, Dr. William B. Michael, and Dr. Robert A. Smith for their suggestions and advice on the survey instrument and statis tical methods. Deep appreciation is extended to Rector Le Thanh Minh Chau of the University of Hue for his sponsorship and the partial financial support in printing the question naire. For the helpful assistance during the data collec tion phase of the study, the researcher is indebted to the Vice Rector and Deans of the Faculties of Letters, Pedagogy and Science of the University of Hue; Dean and faculty and staff of Weber State College, Ogden, Utah; Dr. W. James Popham of the University of California, Los Angeles; and teacher education specialists of the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, and Department of State, Washington, D. C. Special thanks are owed to university faculty members, high school principals and teachers, student teachers of the participating institutions, friends, and colleagues whose help and cooperation were critical to this study. To his wife, Bich Ngoc, and his sister, Huong Thuy, the researcher is deeply indebted for their under standing, support, and encouragement, and their continual efforts in assisting and cooperating during the various stages of the investigation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ill LIST OF TABLES VII Chapter I THE PROBLEM 1 Background of the Problem Statement of the Problem Specification of the Subproblems Purpose of the Study Hypotheses Rationale for the Study Importance of the Problem Assumptions Delimitations Limitations Definitions of Terms Organization of the Remainder of the Study Importance of Defining Performance Objectives in Teacher Education Programs Program Objectives and Components of Professional Preparation Programs for High School Teachers in the United States Competencies or Performance Objectives Most Frequently Considered Desirable for Teachers Performance-Based Programs as a Current Trend in Teacher Education Objectives and Nature of Existing Programs for the Professional Preparation of High School Teachers in Viet Nam Summary II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13 Hi Chapter III. THE PROCEDURE ............................. The Questionnaire and Its Character istics The Sample The Data Collection Plan The Data Analysis Plan Level of Significance Estimating the Success Potential of the Research Summary IV. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS . Characteristics of Teacher Educators, Student Teachers, and High School Teachers in the Sample Opinions of Teacher Educators, High School Teachers and Student Teachers Regarding Professional Objectives Relationships Between Selected Teacher Variables and High School Teachers1 Ratings of Desirability of Objectives Proposed Set of Priority Performance Objectives for Programs for Professional Training of High School Teachers in Viet Nam Suggestions of Additional Professional Obj ectives Optional Comments Summary V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Summary Conclusions Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ APPENDICES . . ...................................... A. Cover Letter for the Questionnaire .... iv Page 43 55 100 111 122 123 Page B. The Questionnaire......................... 125 C. List of Professors and Teacher Education Specialists Who Helped to Revise the Questionnaire ............................. 136 D. Opinions of Teacher Educators, High School Teachers, and Student Teachers Regarding the Desirability of Objectives............................... 139 E. Distribution of Teachers' Ratings of Desirability of Objectives by Their Number of Years of Teaching Experience When Significant Relationships Exist . . 155 F. Distribution of Teachers' Ratings of Desirability of Objectives by Their Number of Professional Courses Completed When Significant Relationships Exist . . 162 G. Distribution of Teachers' Ratings of Desirability of Objectives by Their Subject Area When Significant Relation ships Exist............................... 166 H. Quintile Distribution of Objectives By Respondent Classification ........... 168 I. The Questionnaire in Vietnamese......... 17 2 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Summary of Questionnaire Distribution and Response Reported by Numbers and Percent ages of Teacher Educators, High School Teachers, and Student Teachers ............ 57 2. Responding Teacher Educators Categorized According to Academic Degrees . ........... 58 3. Responding Student Teachers Grouped According to Specialized Subject Areas................ 59 4. Responding High School Teachers Categorized by Sex and Subject Teaching A r e a ......... 61 5. Responding High School Teachers Categorized by Number of Years of Teaching Experience and Number of Professional Courses Completed 62 6. Objectives Rated Highest by Teacher Educators (First Quarter) .................. 65 7. Objectives Rated Highest by High School Teachers (First Quarter) .................. 66 8. Objectives Rated Highest by Student Teachers (First Quarter) .................. 67 9. Objectives For Which There Are Significant Differences in Desirability Ratings Between Teacher Educators and High School Teachers . ................... 71 10. Objectives For Which There Are Significant Differences in Desirability Ratings Between Teacher Educators and Student Teachers............................ 73 vi'1 Table Page 11. Objectives For Which There Are Significant Differences in Desirability Ratings Between High School Teachers and Student Teachers.................................... 77 12. Objectives For Which There Are Significant Relationships Between the Degree of Favor of High School Teachers and Their Number of Years of Teaching Experience ........... 80 13. Objectives For Which There Are Significant Relationships Between the Degree of Favor of High School Teachers and Their Number of Professional Courses Completed ......... 84 14. Objectives For Which There Are Significant Relationships Between the Degree of Favor of High School Teachers and the Area of Teaching Subjects ........................... 87 15. Objectives Commonly Placed by All Groups in the Upper 40 Per Cent (First and Second Quintiles) ........................... 91 16. Objectives Commonly Placed by Two of the Three Groups in the Upper 40 Per Cent (First and Second Quintiles) ............. 92 17. Objectives Uniquely Specified by Each Group of Respondents in the Upper 40 Per Cent (First and Second Quintiles) ......... 93 vii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Background of the Problem The problem of improving the system of education to respond to the needs of the society as well as to keep pace with the progress achieved by other nations in the field of education is one of the primary concerns of the national leaders in Viet Nam (93:12). In 1966, the National Council of Education proposed four criteria for developing the curricula of the secondary and elementary schools in Viet Nam: (1) individualization of instruction, (2) socialization of schools, (3) democratization of the educational systems, and (4) increasing the effectiveness of the curricula (82:121). In 1970, the ministry of education decided to concentrate research activities on the problem of how to improve the quality of instruction and to reorient the curricula of teacher training institu tions . On the other hand, the continuous war caused educational activities to be given second priority at a time when education was of critical importance to the near 1 2 term future of the nation (93:8). Growth of secondary school enrollments has not been accompanied by any signifi cant growth in the numbers of students preparing to teach. Furthermore, in the past the program of secondary teacher preparation in Viet Nam placed emphasis upon academic study with little attention to pedagogy (82:153). The student teacher was expected to obtain a broad knowledge in his subject field. Courses in professional areas such as principles of learning, curriculum, testing, and evaluation were overlooked (84:151). Therefore, a reform in teacher education is needed to train qualified teachers for the youth of a new generation and for "the reconstruction of the educational system to more nearly project values and forms that are compatible with the indigenous culture." (93:8) To implement a "humanistic, national, and open- minded education" (82:93) in Viet Nam during the postwar period, the Vietnamese high schools will need new kinds of teachers armed with new curricula and new teaching methods (54:419). However, the innovation process must escape the conservative spirit caused by the long contact with the culture of the colonial power, and at the same time avoid the blind acceptance of new ideas or the indiscriminate transplantation of foreign educational practices (96:4). 3 Statement of the Problem Foundations must be built for the development of new teacher education programs which are relevant to the needs and desires of students and teachers, and which reflect the attitudes, values and the culture of the Vietnamese people. The problem of this study was to determine the objectives that could be considered represen tative of the competencies desired for high school teachers in Viet Nam as a result of participation in the profession al preparation programs. Specification of the Subproblems Specifically, this study was intended to seek answers to the following questions: 1. What performance objectives are considered necessary for teacher training programs, as reflected in authoritative literature? 2. What are the general objectives, underlying philosophy, and the nature of existing programs for pro fessional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam, and especially at the University of Hue? 3. Which performance objectives are considered t essential or important for the teacher education programs by the college teacher educators at the University of Hue? 4. Which performance objectives are considered essential or important for the teacher education programs 4 by teachers in public high schools in the areas where the graduates of the Faculty of Pedagogy of Hue have been assigned? 5. Which performance objectives are considered essential or important for the teacher education programs by the fourth-year students participating in the training programs at the University of Hue? 6. What variations in the degree of acceptance of the performance objectives to be included in programs for professional preparation of high school teachers are registered among teacher educators, high school teachers, and student teachers participating in the study? 7. What is the relationship between the number of years of teaching experience and high school teachers1 opinions regarding the desirability of including the per formance objectives in programs for professional prepara tion of teachers for Vietnamese public high schools? 8. What is the relationship between the quantity of professional education coursework completed and the teachers' expressed preference for the performance objec tives in programs for professional preparation of teachers for Vietnamese public high schools? 9. What is the relationship between high school teachers' degree of acceptance for the performance objec tives and their area of teaching subjects? 5 10. What performance objectives should be included in the programs for professional preparation of high school teachers at the University of Hue as suggested by the analysis of the data? Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to examine the underlying philosophy and general objectives of the teacher education programs at the Vietnamese public universities, and (2) to identify a sample of priority performance objectives considered by teacher educators, high school teachers, and fourth-year student teachers to be most appropriate for inclusion in programs for profes sional preparation of teachers in Vietnamese public high schools. Hypotheses As part of the effort to answer the questions, the following hypotheses were tested by statistical methods: 1. There will be no significant differences on the desirability of including each of the potential per formance objectives in programs for professional prepara tion of high school teachers between the opinions of: a. college teacher educators and high school teachers 7 b. college teacher educators and fourth-year _____________ student teachers:__________________________________ 6 c. high school teachers and fourth-year student teachers. 2. There will be no significant relationships between the level of preference teachers express toward each of the performance objectives in programs for profes sional preparation of high school teachers and: d. the number of years teachers have taught in high schools; e. the number of professional education courses that high school teachers completed; . f. the subject matter areas high school teachers taught in their schools. Rationale for the Study In the past, the status-quo in teacher-training institutions in Viet Nam was represented by input factors, such as number of courses completed and number of hours in subject matter areas, and by quasi-output such as grading systems (62:5), but the curricula objectives were never explicitly stated. If the objectives are not specified, however, the assessment of the outcomes is difficult and analysis of the curriculum impossible (62:8). Therefore, objectives stated in performance terms should be used to develop guidelines through which student teachers can be trained and evaluated (80:99). Moreover, as Fox observed: 7 . . . change does not take place simply by making available to people the news that a better way exists. Rather it takes place when the people involved in the discovery of the better way take the responsi bility for implementing it in their own settings . . . (31:88) College and university teacher educators should work co operatively with teachers in high schools to discover what a teacher needs to know and be able to do in order to determine the components of the preparatory curriculum (59:8). Adequate opportunities should be provided for campus (faculty and students) and field representatives of different backgrounds to cooperate in program development, conduct, and evaluation (32:13). Reform is not possible unless the basic parties of interest participate in the reform (63:476). Therefore, the selection of the priority professional performance objectives for new teacher educa tion programs must be based on the opinions of teacher evaluators, high school teachers, and student teachers. Importance of the Problem For years, typical classroom procedure in secondary schools in Viet Nam consisted of lectures with the use of the blackboard. The strictly verbal approach was traditional. Teachers had little opportunity to learn more effective procedures and were unaware of alternatives (91:33). This was partially due to the fact that until recently only a few people in Viet Nam were trained to 8 teach professional education courses (91:71). The need for change and reorganization of the teacher education programs has been increasing for sometime. However, If the concept of curriculum change as involving a change in people and their relations to each other is accepted, it is reasonable to conclude that changes should be made only as fast as people are able and willing to change. (4:19) Therefore, it will be necessary to assess how teacher educators and high school teachers view the new role of a teacher in high schools and those competencies that are expected of him in order to evaluate the readiness for change and to seek widespread professional support in the move toward curriculum reform. Those objectives accepted by these groups will provide a framework for the develop ment of pre-service and in-service programs, and guidelines to formulate evaluation policies and to construct evalua tive instruments (80:89). Assumptions This study was based on the following assumptions: 1. A significant sample of performance objectives of programs for professional preparation of high school teachers can be ascertained, delineated, and used as foundations for the development of innovative programs and the evaluation of the outcomes. 2. College teacher educators and high school teachers are sufficiently cognizant of the needs of high 9 school teachers and the nature of the professional prepara tion programs to assess and judge the relative importance of the performance objectives for those programs. 3. Opinions of college teacher educators, high school teachers and fourth-year student teachers on the desirability of including each of the performance objec tives are reasonably accurate reflections of what they considered appropriate and necessary for the professional preparation of high school teachers. Delimitations The scope of this study was delimited by the following factors: 1. Analysis of general objectives of the teacher education programs were limited to those offered in the public universities. 2. The sampling of teacher educators was drawn from rosters of full-time Vietnamese faculty at the Univer sity of Hue participating in the programs for professional preparation of high school teachers during the school year 1972-1973 only. 3. High schools included in this study were limited only to public institutions in the areas where the graduates of the Faculty of Pedagogy of Hue have been assigned because of the accessibility and the cost of traveling during the war period. 10 4. The sampling of high school teachers was drawn from the list of those teaching in the selected institu tions during the school year 197 2-1973. 5. Only the performance objectives related to the professional preparation of high school teachers were included. The objectives relating to competencies in the subject matter field, although important, were beyond the scope of this study. 6. The content of the questionnaire was limited to identifying the desired behaviors or products of behaviors and not the conditions or standards for these behaviors (83:4). Limitations The validity of this study was limited: 1. To the extent that the objectives included on the survey instrument were significant to those partici pating in the study. 2. To the extent that the questionnaires which were completed and returned were representative of the total sample receiving the questionnaires. 3. To the degree of bias which may have resulted from the teacher1s judgment of the importance and the degree of competence in the professional areas. 4. To the extent that the instrument included the major professional performance objectives desired for high 11 school teachers. Definitions of Terms Following are the definitions of terms used in this study: Competence or Competency. Ability for a particular job or vocation (29:102); the ability to apply to practical situations the essential principles and techniques of a particular subject-matter field (33:115). Level of Significance. Probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true (41:3). In this study, tests of significance were made at the .10 level (41:32). Objectives. Aim, end in view, or purpose of a course of action or a belief; that which is anticipated in the early phases of an activity and serves to select, regulate, and direct later aspects of the act so that the total process is designed and integrated (33:371). In this study, a statement of objective specifies observable or measurable changes in the student teachers' behavior at the end of the training program (9:514). Performance. Actual accomplishment as distinguished from potential ability, capacity, or aptitude (33:389). In this study, the term "performance" refers to observable or measurable behaviors as evidence of what the prospective teacher knows or is able to do after participating in the training program. 12 Professional Curriculum. A program or sequence of courses, designed to prepare specifically for the responsibilities of particular types of teaching positions as well as to fulfill appropriate certification require ments for teaching (33:150). In this study, "professional curriculum" refers to components in education, not in cluding general academic preparation or specification for teaching fields. Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter II of this study contains a review of the literature. The procedures used in conducting the study and in gathering and organizing the data are presented in Chapter III. Chapter IV includes the statistical analysis of the data, a description of the findings, and a discussion of the results. Chapter V consists of a summary of the study, the conclusions and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter has the purpose of providing a review of the research and non-research authoritative literature in the areas related to the: (1) importance of defining performance objectives in teacher education programs, (2) program objectives and components of professional prepara tion programs for high school teachers in the United States, (3) competencies or performance objectives most frequently considered as desirable for teachers, (4) performance- based programs as a current trend in teacher education, and (5) general objectives and nature of existing programs for the professional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam. The related literature was organized around topics and presented in narrative form. Importance of Defining Performance Objectives in Teacher Education Programs The need and importance of defining objectives in specific terms in curriculum planning and curriculum evaluation were stressed by Anderson (4), Taba (56), Bruner (14), Gronlund (34), and Mager (46). Objectives should be 13 14 stated in terms of what the student does so that the focus is always on the student and the behavior that he is expected to develop as a result of his learning experi ences. Statements of objectives should be specific enough to be capable of being evaluated (4:437). Mager noted that "an objective is meaningful to the extent it com municates an instructional intent to its readers, and does so to the degree that it describes or defines the terminal behavior expected of the learner." (46:43) Each statement of an objective should identify the terminal behavior by name, define the conditions under which the behavior will be expected to occur, and specify the criteria of accept ance performance (46:12). Particularly in the field of teacher education, utmost attention also was given to defining objectives in specific terms. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) noted that: Curricula for teacher education are designed to achieve explicitly stated objectives. These objectives are determined in relation to both the professional role for which the preparation programs are designed and the behavioral out comes sought. (3:3) Furthermore, the maintenance of acceptable teacher education programs demands continuous efforts to evaluate the graduates of the programs, modifications of existing programs, and long-range planning. A continuous review of the objectives of these programs is required, because: 15 Any effort to assess the quality of graduates requires that evaluations be made in relation to the objectives sought. Therefore, institutions use the stated objectives of their teacher education programs as a basis for evaluating the teachers they prepare. (3:12) In teacher education programs, identification of behavioral objectives also would give direction to the identification of concepts and skills which a student must have in order to perform specific competencies. In addition, specification of behavioral objectives would provide the opportunity to preassess the prospective teacher's abilities and to determine where instruction for that individual should begin (8:204). Moreover, when objectives are clearly stated, the student will not have to develop strategies for determining the teacher's goals. The possibility of applying "capricious and ad hoc crite ria" to the evaluation of students also will be minimized (62:7). To stress the importance of specifying objectives in teacher education programs, Baird, Belt and Holder (8) stated: To learn most efficiently one must have specific goals or objectives. Teaching and instructing are processes and are not ends, goals, or objectives. Processes without ends, goals, or objectives seldom last. If for some reason they survive, they often produce unspecified outcomes which are more the result of accident than of planning. To avoid accidental outcomes resulting from the teaching process requires prior statements of objectives or intended outcomes. The outcomes of such teaching are overt be havioral acts or behavioral products. (8:204) 16 According to Elam (27:6), and Allen and Cooper (1:7), the objectives of a teacher education program should be: (1) expressed in terms of knowledge, skills, or behaviors to be expected of the prospective teacher, (2) derived from explicit conceptions of teacher roles, and (3) stated so as to make possible assessment of a student's behavior in relation to specific competencies. Elam also added that specifying instructional objectives precisely is by no means new, but the procedure has usually been limited to single courses taught by single instructors, and not applied to whole programs (27:13). Shalock suggested that objectives in teacher education programs should be specified in terms of per formances. Operationally, this means that the knowledge, skills, attitudes, sensitivities, and competencies that prospective teachers are expected to have upon completion of the program are specified, and the indicators acceptable as evidence of the realization of those outcomes are made public (51:3-4). In general, different levels of educational objectives were recommended by Bloom in the cognitive domain (10), Krathwohl in the affective domain (43), and Harrow in the psychomotor domain (35) . In teacher educa tion, Turner (28:29) identified six levels for the orien tation of objectives from teacher performance to process, product, along a continuum from low (level six) to high 17 (level one) confidence. On the other hand, defining performance objectives for teacher education programs has been particularly diffi cult, and there is a danger that competencies or skills that are easy to describe and evaluate will dominate the set of derived objectives (27:23). When a behavior pattern can be easily analyzed, a behavioral objective and the relevant criterion measures can be readily specified. As behaviors become complex, the statement of behavioral objectives and criterion measures become difficult, since, as Klatt and Baron observed: . . . teaching remains an exceedingly complex activity, and a clear explication of some of the parts should not be taken to imply an under standing of the whole. (42:9) Weldon also expressed this difficulty and distinguished three types of performance objectives: (1) those that can be concretely and specifically defined and measured; (2) those that cannot be directly defined, but can be in directly defined in terms of other specific and observable behaviors, and so measured; and (3) those that cannot be defined indirectly and cannot be tested and measured, but can be evaluated "by a skilled master teacher." (59:74) In spite of these difficulties, educators generally recognized that the use of performance objectives is necessary to show direct relationships between the teacher education program and the teacher1s eventual classroom 18 performance (42:8-9). These objectives provide a basis for the design of the instructional sequence, standards to assess afterward whether or not the instructional sequence was indeed effective (68:5), and guidelines for those persons who wish to participate in a teacher-preparation program (71:42). Program Objectives and Components of Professional Preparation Programs for High School Teachers in the United States In curriculum planning, the general objectives provide an orientation to the main emphasis in educational programs. As Taba noted, objectives on this level estab lish what might be described as a philosophy of education and are only a step toward translating the needs and values of society and of individuals into an educational program (56:196). Ways of describing the program objec tives and arranging the components of the professional preparation curriculum in teacher education are as numerous as the institutions which attempted to define them. At Brigham Young University, it was felt that teachers tend to teach as they have been taught, and "it is necessary that prospective teachers be trained in a program where the emphasis is on teaching and learning behavior designed to facilitate the changing practices in the public schools." (8:203) Therefore, the experimental program for the pre-service training of secondary teachers 19 was designed to provide opportunities for the student to assume individual responsibility for his own study and learning. The program at Teachers College, Columbia Univer sity, emphasized the teacher as a developer of curriculum, an organizer of technological systems, a designer of the social system within the school, and an instructional decision-maker and inter-active teacher (39:126). In contrast, the teacher education program developed at Michigan (36:29) aimed to provide the future teacher with a broad experience in general education and to prepare a new kind of teacher who: (1) engages in teaching as a clinical practice; (2) understands human learning, its capacity, and its environmental characteristics; and (3) assumes the role of a responsible agent in social change. The program for secondary teacher preparation at the University of Pennsylvania was designed to (95:275): 1. Develop in students strong background in the liberal arts and in their major teaching field, 2. Develop in students the understandings of the special methods of instruction needed to convey a discipline to youth, and 3. Develop in students the skills needed to perform successfully in the classroom through supervised student teaching. 20 On the other hand, Andrews viewed the teacher for the 1980's as an instructional specialist and a team leader who will be a: (1) diagnostician of pupil needs and learning problems, (2) developer, applier and evaluator of learning strategies, (3) instructional leader, (4) specialist in the wise use of instructional technologies, (5) specialist in curricula, (6) specialist in evaluation techniques, and (7) specialist in the laboratory phases of teacher education (5:167-169). Although there was a considerable degree of varia tion in the particular goals and objectives associated with each institution, the general features seemed to be con sistent with the recommendation of the American Associa tion of Colleges for Teacher Education: That the objec tives be reflective of the institution's conception of the teacher's role (3:3). Examination of the components and sequence in professional education among the schools of education and teachers colleges also revealed different organizational structures of the curriculum. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education recommended that teacher education curricula should be organized to include general studies, content for the teaching specialty, humanistic and behavioral studies, teaching and learning theory with laboratory and clinical experience, and practicum (3:3). 21 In a study conducted in 1971 involving 210 selected Catholic and non-sectarian liberal arts colleges, Sister Kirley found that: (1) the humanistic and behavioral studies "appeared" to be a part of the program of each school in the sample; (2) about 20 per cent of non sectarian colleges and 41 per cent of Catholic colleges reported having incorporated laboratory and/or clinical experience into their method courses; and (3) about 61 per cent of both the Catholic and non-sectarian colleges reported having student-teaching experiences of either eight or 16 weeks duration (85). In The Education of American Teachers, Conant identified four components of the "intellectual equipment" that would be a prerequisite to the development of teach ing skill: (1) the first was called "the democratic social component"; (2) the second referred to an interest in the way behavior develops in groups of children and some experience of this development; (3) the third dealt with a "sympathetic knowledge of the growth of children"; and (4) the last was called the principles of teaching (21:113-117). He recommended also that the number of clock hours of practice teaching should be from 90 to the maximum of 300. The program of studies should include: (1) general education, (2) educational psychology, (3) philosophy or history or sociology of education, (4) con- 22 tent for the teaching specialty, and (5) practice teaching and special methods. However, he emphasized that "what is important is the level of competence, hot the number of semester hours." (21:125-172) Several other authors described basic components for the program of teacher preparation. Broudy (11) proposed a professional curriculum which consisted of: General Professional Studies for Interpretive Use. Humanistic studies of education in general: History of education (including cultural history of education) Philosophy of education Aesthetic education Scientific studies of (or science of) education: Psychology of education Sociology of education Economics of education Anthropology of education Professional Studies in the Field of Specialization. Humanistic backgrounds of one's specialty. Technology of one's specialty: Theoretical studies (contributions of sciences to practice) Technical rules of procedure Clinical work and internship Methods for production and consumption of research. (11:17) Browne (13) listed four areas which represented the usual pattern of studies in colleges of education: 1. Education— Child development; the psychology of education; the history, sociology and philosophy of education; and general approach to the curriculum; 2. Curriculum or professional studies; 3. Practice of teaching; 4. Main subject study. (13:100) 23 Other listings of professional preparation elements were reported by the AACTE Teacher Education and Media Project (2:67), Brown (74), Burdin and Lanzillotti (16), Burke (17), La Grone (44), Weldon (59), and the Commission on English (23). As Stratemeyer stated, it was not known exactly what organizational grouping of experience will best contribute to productive learning in professional education (55:165). Perhaps, no single plan would be equally effective for all colleges. Andrews recommended, however, that teachers in public schools and student teachers should "have opportunities to present their viewpoints prior to the making of decisions," and that they "continue to participate after decisions have been made." (6:7) Similarly, Cottrell believed that the prospective teachers must now be "enlisted as partners in the task of shaping the appropriate teacher education program," and that "teacher education faculties must learn to treat their students as junior professional colleagues" in the development of the preparation programs (22:14). Competencies or Performance Objectives Most Frequently Considered Desirable for Teachers Numerous studies were undertaken to identify the competencies or performance objectives most desirable for the teacher education programs in the United States. In their dissertations in 1971, Kuster (87) and 24 Brown (75) concluded that public school teachers need substantial work in the areas of curriculum development, selection and use of materials for teaching, and psychology of the pre-adolescent and early adolescent. McNutt (90) gave attention to the importance of guidance and counsel ing, instructional media, and tests and measurement in the professional preparation of junior college teachers. Four significant studies were made to compare the perceptions held by practicing teachers and school adminis trators or college teacher educators concerning the importance of selected professional objectives. Anderson's study in Ohio involved 500 teacher educators selected nationwide at random and 700 secondary social studies teachers representing a combined grouping of both junior high schools and senior high schools (72). He concluded that knowledge of adolescent behavior and personality, and the ability to maintain effective classroom management were considered by both groups as the two most important factors in secondary social-studies teaching (72:124). In his dissertation at Indiana University, Bradley reported a variation in the response patterns between the university professors and college supervisors compared to the secondary school professionals regarding the objectives for special method courses for the subject areas of English, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies (73:234). Objec- 25 tives ranked highest by all respondents were those re lated to (73:135): 1. Selection of sources of materials in the sub ject area 2. Identification of recent trends and issues that affect teaching in the subject area 3. Fundamental teaching skills 4. Organizing materials for instruction 5. Evaluation of methods of presenting subject matter in relation to specific objectives 6. Development of teaching units 7. Encouraging creativity of students 8. Knowledge of curriculum content 9. Effective questionning techniques 10. Adapting subject matter for students of varying abilities 11. Effective leadership in discussion 12. Guiding students to develop concepts in the subject area. Of particular note was a study conducted in 1971 by Feck. In this survey of a stratified random sample of teachnical teachers of agriculture and administrators of agricultural technology programs in two-year technical institutes or colleges, he found that: (1) teachers with pedagogical preparation rated the importance of competen- 26 cies significantly higher in eight of the nine competency areas at the .05 level (chi-square); (2) there was a posin tive significant relationship between the number of years of teaching vocational agriculture and the importance ratings in the competency area of planning for instruction (79:194). The competencies rated highest in importance by teachers, administrators and state supervisors included: (1) motivating within students a desire for learning, (2) selecting and developing instructional content for a course, (3) teaching students to think critically and independently, (4) up-dating, revising and improving curriculum based upon follow-up data, (5) determining student needs and goals, (6) selecting and developing instructional content for a lesson, (7) fostering an environment which is conducive to students for an "open- door" policy regarding counseling, (8) directing student laboratory experiences, (9) developing good professional working relationships with school staff, (10) formulating lesson objectives, (11) evaluating one's own techniques and method of teaching, and (12) utilizing principles of learning in daily instruction (79). Concerning the extremely low ratings in the area of audio-visual aids and programmed instruction. Feck observed: There are several possible explanations for this reaction. First the potential value of the use 27 of some of the newer teaching aids may be unknown to technical teachers and administrators. . . Second, since technical education programs in agriculture are relatively new, perhaps many technical institutes or colleges cannot afford the high costs of some of the more expensive newer teaching aids. (79:141-142) Similarly, in a study undertaken to obtain infor mation relative to the professional preparation of instructors for California public junior colleges, Cashin reported that: (1) coordinators of junior college in structor training programs and deans of instruction tended to be more favorable toward professional preparation for instructors than did the instructors themselves; (2) there was a positive correlation between the degree of favor instructors showed toward the inclusion of certain compo nents in professional preparation programs and the number of professional units they had completed; (3) instructors with degrees in professional education tended to be more favorable toward professional preparation for instructors than those who held their degrees in a teaching subject field (76:167-170). Also, in a survey in 1972 Gardner found that those competencies identified with the teaching-learning process received higher mean and median values when com pared with competencies not directly related to the teach ing act (81:51). In the search for a sample of priority performance 28 objectives which could be used for the design of degree programs and preparation of courses to meet the unique needs of the USDESEA (United States Dependents Schools, European Area) staff development program, professors Smith and Handler of the University of Southern California reported a comparison of objective responses for a sample of USDESEA school personnel and host nation educators (83). Analysis of the quintile distribution indicated some agree ment among the groups on the desirable objectives. Con siderable diversity existed among each group of teachers, pupil personnel workers, administrators, and host nation educators (83:30-31). In the Smith-Handier study, the 20 content areas employed in the 1970 edition of the Encyclopedia of Educational Research provided the structure for the prepar ation of the objectives included on the survey instrument. These were: (26:vii) 1. Foundation Areas: Developmental Psychology, Psychology of Learning, Human Behavior, Social Foundations 2. Function Areas: Curriculum, Instruction, Special Education, Educational Measurement, Research 3. Subject Areas: Tool subjects, Cultural sub jects, Vocational subjects 4. Personnel Areas: Student Personnel, Teacher Education, Teacher Personnel 29 5. Administration Areas: Levels of Education, School Systems, School Administration, Educational Finance, Educational Facilities. Several writers described various lists of perfor mance objectives for the professional preparation programs in teacher education. Joyce, et al, of Columbia University (40), Lougheed of Michigan State University (45), Allen and Cooper of the University of Massachusetts (1) reported the objectives for new teacher preparation programs. Of signi ficant importance, Allen and Cooper listed three areas of teaching competencies: 1. Mastery of content knowledge produces subject matter competency 2. Mastery of content knowledge plus behavioral skills produces presentation competency 3. Mastery of content knowledge plus behavioral skills plus human relations skills produces professional decision-making competencies. ( 1:20) Howsam identified five categories of objectives for teacher education based on the kinds of performance crite ria used in determining whether the objectives had been met: (1) knowledge objectives, (2) performance objectives, (3) consequence objectives, (4) affective objectives, and (5) experience objectives (66:37). In contrast, Bush defined different skills of teaching under five major headings: (1) initiating behaviors, (2) presenting or communicating behaviors, (3) consolidating behaviors, (4) monitoring behaviors, and (5) evaluating behaviors (19:48). 30 Comprehensive listings of professional performance objectives also were reported by Burdin and Lanzillotti for Elementary Teacher Models (15), Politzer for foreign lan guage teacher education program at Stanford (49), Lee for "A Model for Innovation" (88), Elfenbein for the programs at the University of Washington (28) , and Weldon for the model program at Mount Mercy College (59). Objectives for the secondary experimental program at Brigham Young University were derived on the basis of essential teacher behavior provided by the research on effective teaching and learning, the analysis of communica tion problems among teachers and parents, pupils, adminis trators, personal experiences of teachers and supervisors of student teachers, and data about students— their simi larities, differences, needs, abilities, development patterns, and style of learning (8:204). In sum, this portion of the reviewed literature revealed a variation in the perceptions held by teachers, administrators, and teacher educators concerning the importance of selected professional performance objectives, as well as in the listings of the objectives at different institutions. As professor Ploghoft of Ohio University stated, "It would be an immense task to list all of the performance objectives for any teacher education program since it has been estimated that they would run into the thousands." (92) What could be done is to identify the____ 31 most important objectives to meet the needs at each institution. Performance-Based Programs as a Current Trend in Teacher Education According to Broudy, the performance-based approach to teacher education had its origin presumably in the dis satisfaction with programs existing in teachers colleges and schools of education (12:1). It was felt that soon it will no longer be feasible to evaluate the qualifications of teachers by reviewing course titles on college tran scripts (16:v). Cohen and Hersh also proposed that the major reason for the establishment of competency-based teacher education programs was to focus attention not on inputs but on educational outcomes (62:16). Howell used the term "competency" to refer to "the capacity necessary to the performance of a given task," as distinguished from "teaching performance" as the observable t^li manifestation of teaching competence (37:3-5). Lougheed i°)ll (45), and Andrews and Allen (60) used the term "competency- 7L mi nij based" while Rudman (69), Elam (27), and Massanari (47) preferred "performance-based." Performance-based teacher education was defined as an approach to preparing teachers that placed great stress on the demonstration of explicit performance criteria as evidence of what the prospective teacher knows and is able to do (7:2). Competencies to be acquired by the student and the criteria to be applied 32 in assessing the competency of the student are made explicit and the student is held accountable for meeting those criteria (45:ii). Significant examples of this trend were reported in Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey, Texas, Utah, and Washington (60:70-72). The principal characteristics of the performance- based programs described by Elam are (27:7-9): 1. Instruction is individualized and personalized 2. Learning experience of the individual is guided by feedback 3. The program as a whole is systematic 4. The emphasis is on exit, not on entrance requirements 5. Instruction is modularized 6. The program is field-centered 7. The materials and experiences provided to students focus upon concepts, skills, and know ledge, which can be learned in a specific instructional setting 8. Role integration takes place as the prospec tive teacher gains an increasing comprehensive perception of teaching problems. Moreover, all programs utilized the systems approach, identified program goals, behavioral objectives, and structured programs in terms of input, process, and output (28:12) . __________________________________________________________ 33 Generally, the modules used in these programs included the following elements: 1. A set of objectives which describes fully what the trainee will be able to do successfully completing the module; 2. Materials, including practice activities, with trainee feedback, for accomplishing each of the module objectives; 3. Evaluation activities to determine when the trainee has accomplished the module objectives. (25:8-9). Recently, McCleary and McIntyre proposed a model which included: (1) a competency dimension classified primarily as technical, conceptual, or human; (2) the specific levels of competence to be attained— familiarity, understanding, or application; and (3) the content (sub ject matter) and processes (methods) to be employed to develop the competency specified (89:2-3). Evaluation has been one aspect of the performance- based programs that has been given special attention in the literature. Schalock considered as an advantage the possibility of these programs to be open to continuous change on the basis of the feedback (52:4). Massanari reported that both students and teachers in the new models appeared to have a high degree of satisfaction with the preparation program (47:6). In Michigan, interns at Oak land University rated performance-based instruction much higher than a more traditional program (45:xiii). Sybouts reported, however, that early results of the evaluation of 34 the Nebraska secondary teacher education program were in conclusive (70:303). Furthermore, some problems were also met in the evaluation of performance-based programs. Getz noted that competency-based models frequently specify only those competencies that can be easily identified and measured. Much training in improved teacher behavior, however, requires complex learning activities and complex creative evaluations (64:301). Nash and Russell also noted that: One of the most glaring inadequacies of the com petency-based model is that it excludes from its program structured opportunities for students to explore, express, and comprehend their feelings. (67:151) Most interesting of all was the competency-based program at Weber State College which received the Distin guished Achievement Award for 1971 from the American Asso ciation of Colleges for Teacher Education (17:17). Other characteristics of the performance-based programs also were reported by Howsam (66), Burkhart (18), Voelker (71), Joyce (40), Rudman (69), and Weber and Cooper (58). Overall, it can be said that: Competency-based teacher education is a strong move ment in education today and it will probably grow even stronger . . . Many significant questions concerning competency-based teacher education remain unsolved. Many people, however, are committed to solving them. (60:72) 35 Objectives and Nature of Existing Programs For the Professional Preparation of High School Teachers in Viet Nam The Vietnamese people believe that the greatest strength of their educational system is in the people, in their faith in education, in their conviction that educa tion is good and desirable for their children. They believe that no sacrifice is too great for them to make to provide educational opportunities for their sons and daughters (94:43). Emerged from 2000 years of turbulence, violence, and disruption born from social injustices and the intense desire for self-determination (94:12), the Republic of Viet Nam aimed to provide their citizens with an education which was humanistic, national, and open- minded (82:93). Secondary school teachers in Viet Nam were expected to prepare young people to live and function as contributing members, at all levels, in a progressive Vietnamese society (86:2). They were also expected to work in a school system which was established to (94:19): 1. Induct the immature members into their culture 2. Provide for the development of democratic citi zenship 3. Increase the economic efficiency of youth 4. Develop good personality in the youth 5. Develop scientific knowledge and attitudes in their students. 36 Until 197 3, teachers in Vietnamese public high schools were trained in three public institutions of teacher education in Saigon, Hue, and Cantho, and in a private university in Dalat. The objectives of the train ing programs are not stated explicitly in the curriculum guides or bulletins of these schools of education. In 1970, working cooperatively with other college educators for a project sponsored by UNESCO, professor Hai of the University of Hue proposed that teachers should be trained: 1. To have adequate factual information and a thorough knowledge of principles and generali zations ; 2. To be thoroughly disciplined in the socio-moral content of the culture; 3. To be familiar with the perspectives of the major status groups; 4. To be thoroughly disciplined in methods of think ing appropriate to such socio-moral problems as those that characterized politics, economics, and education; 5. To master the skills of human relations; 6. To have competencies in a specialized field of knowledge. (82:148-149) The oldest and largest institution of teacher education was the Faculty of Pedagogy in Saigon, which originated from the Higher School of Pedagogy founded in Hanoi in 1917 as a part of the ’ ’Indochinese University" (38:12). The second, the Faculty of Pedagogy of the University of Hue, was founded in 1958 (57:5). In both Saigon and Hue, teacher education programs aimed to prepare students for teaching in both the First- 37 and Second-Cycle schools, which are equivalent to junior and senior high schools in the United States. The main goals of the programs of studies were to provide student teachers with: (1) a basic knowledge in one or more special fields which they will later teach in high schools; (2) sufficient knowledge needed in their profession; and (3) enough experiences to command respect from their students (38:44). In both Saigon and Hue, the programs for the preparation of secondary teachers were divided into three parts: (1) specialization, (2) professional, and (3) practice teaching (38:44). In Hue, a general educa tion component was added recently. Typically, the profes sional education component for the preparation of English teachers at the Faculty of Pedagogy in Saigon in 197 2 con sisted of (78:2): 1. First Year. First Semester: General Principles of Teaching, General Psychology, Foundations of Education, Method of Teaching English. Second Semester: Educational Psychology, Guidance and Counseling, Problems of Education in Viet Nam and in the World, Statistics, Method of Teaching English. 2. Second Year. First Semester: Psychology of Adolescence, Guidance and Counseling, Method of Teaching English. 38 Second Semester: Educational Psychology, Guidance and Counseling, Method of Teaching English. 3. Third Year. First Semester: Professional Morals, Audio-Visual Educa tion, Comparative Education, Method of Teaching English. Second Semester: School Administration, Health Education, Method of Teaching English. A student may take the entrance examination for the Faculty of Pedagogy, University of Saigon, in his sophomore year after he has successfully completed a year of preparation in either the Faculty of Letters or the Faculty of Science. Similarly, at the Faculty of Pedagogy in Hue the courses in professional education included: 1. First Year: Youth Psychology, School Activities 2. Second Year: Philosophy or History of Education, Guidance and Counseling, School Activities. 3. Third Year: Principles of Learning, Evaluation of Learning, Method of Teaching, School Activities. 4. Fourth Year: Comparative Education or Educational Sociology, School Administration, Professional Morals, School Activities. (57) Emphasis in past training programs was upon academic study with little attention to pedagogy (82:153), but continuous changes have been made to improve the quality of the teaching personnel needed for the public secondary schools. In 1962, a contract team of specialists from Ohio University arrived in Viet Nam to consult with the Faculties of Pedagogies in Saigon and Hue to assist in the development of pre-service and in-service training 39 programs for secondary school teachers (48:144). Demon stration high schools also were established at the Univer sities of Saigon and Hue for education research and the demonstration of teaching methods, and to provide facili ties for the teaching interns. The philosophy and objec tives of the demonstration school attached to the Faculty of Pedagogy in Saigon illustrate the purpose of the pro gram: 1. To provide a secondary education for all of its students, consistent with their individual interests and abilities, so that they can right fully assume their roles as contributing members in a free, democratic Vietnamese society; 2. To develop a new secondary high school curriculum, a new system of school administration, a new concept of teaching and learning that will be gradually implemented throughout the many secondary schools in Viet Nam; 3. To provide a laboratory for the student-teachers of the faculty of pedagogy in order that they might observe, do practice teaching, and discuss new educational trends and developments; 4. To provide an environment of learning in which the value of the Vietnamese cultural heritage is highly appreciated; 5. To serve as a center for experimentation and research in secondary education in curriculum, methods of teaching, evaluation, counseling, administrative organization, and public relations; 6. To serve as a pattern of education for future Vietnamese secondary schools. (48:145) In a study conducted in 1971 to assess the progress in education in Viet Nam during the past ten years, Purdy found that changes have occurred in the professional training for the secondary school teachers in Viet Nam in the following areas (94:141-142): 40 1. More professional courses have been introduced into the teacher training programs; 2. There was some evidence to indicate that the conventional lecture method has been modified in a few instances for an increase in demonstration and student participation; 3. There was a growing awareness and value of in-service programs for teachers in service. Purdy recommended that future strategies for further changes must include a clear and definitive analysis of: (1) the needs to be met by the educational system, (2) the translation of these needs into explicit and applicable educational objectives, (3) the development of a curri culum designed to meet the identified needs, and (4) a structure which will make possible the fulfillment of the program requirements to meet the needs at an acceptable level of quality, with efficiency in organization and economy in operation (94:200). In another study also undertaken in 1971, Ploghoft identified five needs: (1) to provide coordinative acti vities among the three national universities in the field of education to maximize the available resources; (2) to develop a body of literature for teacher education courses; (3) to give high priority to forming and sup porting educational development and research centers as an 41 integral part of teacher education; (4) to develop evalua tive devices and test instruments; and (5) to give strong assistance to the development and initiation of graduate programs in education (93) . It is concluded that there has been a definite breakthrough in secondary teacher training from conditions that existed ten years ago. Although the professional education components were not fully developed, and even though the teacher education programs in Viet Nam could not be considered fully comparable to those in modern training institutions in advanced countries, a significant progress has been made (94:142). Summary This chapter was arranged on a topical basis to present an overview of the literature relating to the professional preparation of high school teachers. From this review, it is concluded that: 1. The objectives of a teacher education program need to be defined in performance terms to provide a basis for the design of the instructional content and guidelines for the evaluation of the program results. 2. Program objectives and the patterns of organi zational structure of the professional preparation programs differed from one institution to another. 3. There was variation in the perceptions held by 42 teachers, administrators, and teacher educators concerning the importance of selected professional performance objectives as well as in the listings of these objectives at different institutions. 4. The performance-based teacher education has been a strong movement in education today. 5. Significant improvements were made in the professional programs for the preparation of high school teachers who were to serve a "humanistic, national, and open-minded" education in Viet Nam. CHAPTER III THE PROCEDURE Procedures for organizing and undertaking this study included the following steps: (1) defining the research problem and stating the hypotheses, (2) review of the related literature, (3) selecting and developing the questionnaire, (4) submission of the questionnaire for editing and critiquing, (5) identifying the population and selecting the sample, (6) conducting pilot studies, (7) distributing and collecting the questionnaires, (8) analyz ing the data, and (9) drawing conclusions and making recom mendations. The first two steps are presented in Chapters I and II, the others are discussed in this chapter. The Questionnaire and Its Characteristics The researcher obtained permission from one of his professors. Dr. Robert A. Smith of the University of Southern California, to use a set of performance objectives constructed for the USDESEA (United States Dependents Schools, European Area) staff development program (83:1). When the original survey instrument was administered to three groups of USDESEA school personnel, five common 43 44 instructional objectives were included in each of the three sets. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample test with the level of significance at .05 level indicated similar response patterns among the three groups for approximately 82 per cent of the 15 possible comparisons (83:20). In order to adapt the objectives listed to the procedures in this study and the characteristics of the Vietnamese school systems, several changes were necessary. Those objectives related to areas still unfamiliar to Viet Nam such as Computer Education and Cooperative Work Experience were omitted. The wording and content of some statements also were changed into a form more familiar to Vietnamese teachers. Other objectives were added from the review of the literature. The questionnaire was then submitted to the chair man and members of the Doctoral Committee for criticism and approval, to other professors recommended by the chair man, to specialists in teacher education of the Far West Laboratory, and to former advisors of teacher education in the Vietnamese public universities for further comments and suggestions for changes to adapt to the situation of a developing country. The names of these professors and experts in the field of teacher education appear in Appendix C. Graduate students in an advanced class of secondary education at the University of Southern Califor- 45 nia and Vietnamese graduate students at the same univer sity participated in the pilot studies. From the critiques received, the questionnaire was again refined and revised both in the content and format. The questionnaire consisted of three parts. Part I included questions on personal data of respondents con cerning the subject area, sex denotation, number of years of teaching experience, and number of courses in profes sional education completed. Part II contained a number of performance objectives frequently associated with profes sional competencies desired for high school teachers. Respondents were to select the answer on a five-point Likert-type scale to indicate whether or not each objective should be included in the formal programs for professional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam. In addi tion, results from studies conducted by Bechtol (61:38), Ford (80:41), Feck (79:216), Brown (74:63-68), Gardner (81:37-51) and the Content Outline of the Encyclopedia of Educational Research (26) suggested that this instrument could be divided into six areas: (1) Teaching and Learning Theories, (2) Social and Philosophical Foundations, (3) Curriculum and Instruction, (4) Student and Teacher Person nel, (5) Evaluation and Research, and (6) Administration and Organization. Part III of the survey instrument included optional items for comments or additional objec 46 tives. The same questionnaire was distributed to teacher educators, student teachers, and high school teachers, except for one item at the end of the copy for teacher educators which was used to identify the respondent's academic degree. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix B. Except for the data on the reliability of the original USDESEA questionnaire, no attempt was made in this study to estimate the reliability of the revised instrument. Faced with Cronbach's "Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma" (24:181), the researcher adopted the position of Parkinson (50:134) that the identified performance objectives would be used only "to build a self-corrective system” which will constantly get feedback "from the users of the product of the training programs," from the society, from the community and will be modified "in terms of that feedback." Also, the emphasis in this study would be on "external corroboration" (31:433) to identify those objectives the respondents of the same sample agreed upon and those objectives upon which they disagreed. With more items on the survey instrument devoted to the areas and objectives most often selected by teacher educators and school teachers in previous studies (Psychol 47 ogy of Learning, Curriculum and Instructional Methods, and Evaluation), and from the analysis of the content just discussed, the content validity was obtained. The Sample In a country at war, experience has shown that for many reasons teachers would not cooperate in surveys using mailed questionnaires. Representatives of the researcher, therefore, went to each participating institu tion to distribute and collect the questionnaire. Owing to limitations of time and financial resources, 12 public high schools were selected at random in the areas where the graduates of the Faculty of Pedagogy of Hue had been assigned. Names of the high schools were secured from a list compiled by the Directorate of Secondary Education in Saigon (77). Within each school, 30 per cent of the teachers were randomly drawn (31:333) from the list of full-time teachers at each institution. Thus, 323 high school teachers were selected. The sample also included all the 67 teacher educators at the University of Hue and all 114 fourth- year student teachers at the Faculty of Pedagogy in Hue in the 197 2-1973 school year. These students had experi ence in classroom situations during the teaching practice period at the end of the third year. 48 There was a loss of the bias-free virtue of the completely random selection (31:342). Also, inasmuch as not all teachers in the invited sample returned the ques tionnaires, there could be selective factors that deter mined the characteristics of those who accepted and those who rejected the invitations (31:342). So, there could be interaction effects of selective biases and the expressed preferences for the objectives (20:6-19). There could be also a "reactive arrangements effects" (20:20) when the respondents realized that they were participating in a research study. The Data Collection Plan After the approval of the Doctoral Committee, recognition and sponsorship were sought and received from the Rector of the University of Hue and the Dean of the Faculty of Pedagogy in Hue. The final version of the questionnaire, in Viet namese, was sent to Hue for printing. Prior to the circu lation of the questionnaires, a letter written on letter head stationery by the Rector of the University of Hue to endorse the study was sent to the principal of each high school selected. In May, 1973, the researcher's represen tative at each institution helped to distribute and collect the questionnaires. A cover letter was attached to the survey instrument to explain the purpose of the 49 study and to ask for cooperation. A copy of the cover letter is in Appendix A. The time necessary for a respondent to complete the questionnaire was approximately 30 minutes. Respon dents either could return the questionnaire on the same day, or a tentative date was arranged individually for later collection. However, the representatives reminded the respondents at periodic intervals. Because the names of the participants were not requested on the question naires, and are thus unknown, difficulty was encountered in a number of cases in recognizing whether or not a respondent had returned the questionnaire. Three weeks after the first day of distribution, a second copy of the survey instrument was given to those persons identified as not having responded. Collection of the questionnaires was terminated on July 10, 1973, encompassing almost an eight-week period. All the returned copies were then packed and returned to the United States for data analysis. Late and incompletely marked questionnaires were classed as unusable returns. Another difficulty encountered in this study was that although the use of separate Mark Sense Code Sheets would save time in tallying, it could create varying degrees of resistance on the part of many teachers because of the "transplantation of the best practices without 50 preparatory process." (96:4) The Data Analysis Plan In Chapter II, teacher education programs at the Vietnamese public universities, and especially at the University of Hue were analyzed to determine the nature and general objectives of the existing curricula. Data obtained from the returned questionnaires were key-punched on IBM cards and processed at the Computer Center of the University of Southern California. The cards were sorted, counted, and selected for different statistical analyses. First, the distribution and per centage of the responses were calculated for each of the groups of college teacher educators, high school teachers, and fourth-year student teachers. Responses for each of the three groups were then separately categorized by quin- tile. The common objectives placed by all groups in the first and second quintiles as well as specific objectives in the first and second quintiles of each group were pre sented in Tables. Since the five-point scale on the sur vey instrument could be classified as ordinal and the groups of respondents as nominal, chi-square analyses were used (53:175) to compare the opinions of: 1. teacher educators and high school teachers? 2. high school teachers and fourth-year student teachers; . - 51 3. teacher educators and fourth-year student teachers; and to calculate the degrees of association (30:200-204) between the expressed preferences of high school teachers for each instructional objective and: 4. their number of years of experience; 5. the number of courses in professional educa tion completed; 6. the subject areas taught in their schools. The findings from the statistical analysis are presented in Chapter IV. Based on these results, a sample of priority performance objectives was proposed for the programs of professional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam. General conclusions and recommenda tions are presented in Chapter V. Level of Significance It was intended in this study to identify the difference between the teacher educators' viewpoints and the high school teachers' concerns in order to support the recommendations for a closer cooperation between the Faculty of Pedagogy and high schools and for the utiliza tion of an evaluation feedback system in planning the teacher education programs. Falsely concluding that the differences in opinions, and/or the relationships between the expressed preference for the objectives and the number 52 of years of experience (or number of courses in profession al education completed) are not significant (type II error) would result in failing to persuade, university administra tors to be sensitive to the needs of the graduates. To commit the type I error in falsely concluding that the differences in opinions (or the relationships between the presented factors) exist could lead to unnecessary criti cism from teacher educators for "blind acceptance of new ideas and practices" (96:4) when the recommendations are made. Because the type I error was less undesirable, it was decided in this study to set the level of significance at .10 (41:32). Estimating the Success Potential of the Research Estimating the success potential of the research was among the important considerations given before under taking this study. If a great number of the potential objectives were accepted, the study would be successful. Results of the study would provide decision makers of the Faculty of Pedagogy in Hue with information which would assist them in the future planning and conducting of pre-service and in-service teacher education programs for teachers in public high schools in Viet Nam. On the other hand, if the teachers and educators did not accept new areas such as in the fields of Psychol 53 ogy, Guidance, Evaluation and Research, the study still would be a productive failure, for the data would indicate again that change and progress in education cannot be faster than readiness for change in the people's mind. As Machiavelli observed, "there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things." (65:358) Resistance could be expected, and "if the innovator cannot live and cope with this phenomenon, he should stay out of the innovating business." (65:360) Summary After the Doctoral Committee's approval of the research problem, a review of the related literature was conducted. The philosophy and objectives of the teacher education programs in Viet Nam were reviewed and analyzed. A questionnaire was developed, submitted for criticisms and suggestions, and administered to two groups of graduate students at the University of Southern Califor- nis in pilot studies. The questionnaire was then revised. The Vietnamese version of the questionnaire was printed and administered to a sample of 67 teacher educators and 114 fourth-year student teachers at the University of Hue and 323 teachers selected at random in 12 randomly chosen high schools in Viet Nam. 54 The data collected were classified and analyzed. Findings were organized, conclusions drawn, and recommenda tions made relative to the performance objectives for the formal programs for professional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings of the study relating to: (1) descriptive characteristics of teacher educators, high school teachers, and student teachers participating in this study; (2) opinions of each group of respondents regarding the de sirability of the potential objectives of programs for professional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam; (3) relationships between the expressed preference of high school teachers for the objectives and certain teacher variables; and (4) priority rankings of the objec tives according to the degrees of favor registered by each group of respondents. The structure of this chapter is constructed around each of the hypotheses stated in Chapter I. For each section, presentation of data is followed by the subsequent but separate interpretation of the results. Although chi- square tests in this study involved large samples (N greater or equal 151), a correction for small expected frequencies was made (30:207) when more than 20 per cent of the cells of tables had expected frequencies of less 55 56 than five (53:178) by combining categories four (un necessary) and five (unacceptable) of the responses. Data on the distribution of respondents' desirability ratings for the objectives, however, are presented in the Appen dices as they were originally obtained. Characteristics of Teacher Educators, Student Teachers and High School Teachers in the Sample A total of 382 usable returned questionnaires from three groups of teacher educators, high school teachers, and student teachers provided data for analysis. On Table 1, the number of distributed, returned, and usable questionnaires for each group is shown. More than 70 per cent of the questionnaires from each group were returned. Usable questionnaires were received from 57 teacher educators, 231 high school teachers, and 94 fourth-year student teachers. The level of college degrees earned by teacher educators in the sample is reported in Table 2. Faculty members at the University of Hue who participated in the training of high school teachers either must possess at least a level of education beyond the Bachelor's degree or must be specialists in some particular field. Of the 57 responding college teacher educators, six held a Master's degree or equivalent, eight held a Doctor's degree or equivalent, and three were specialists. 57 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION AND RESPONSE REPORTED BY NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF TEACHER EDUCATORS, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS, AND STUDENT TEACHERS Total Number Total Returned Total Usable Sample Distributed Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Teacher Educators 67 58 86.5 57 85.0 High School Teachers 323 231 71.5 231 71.5 Student Teachers 114 96 84.2 94 82.4 Total Number 504 Per Cent 100 385 76.4 382 75.7 58 TABLE 2 RESPONDING TEACHER EDUCATORS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO ACADEMIC DEGREES Teacher Educators* Level Completed Number Per Cent Beyond Bachelor's Degree 40 70.2 Master's Degree or Equivalent 6 10.5 Doctor's Degree or Equivalent 8 14.0 Specialist or Other Types 3 5.3 Total 5 7 100.0 * Full-time faculty members at the University of Hue participating in the training of high school teachers only. 59 In Table 3, fourth-year student teachers are grouped according to specialized subject areas. Students in the French section constituted 10.6 per cent of the responding student teachers group, and those in the Viet namese section, 22.3 per cent of the group. TABLE 3 RESPONDING STUDENT TEACHERS GROUPED ACCORDING TO SPECIALIZED SUBJECT AREAS Subject Area Responding Student Teachers Number Per Cent Vietnamese Language 21 22.3 History - Geography 18 19.2 French 10 10.6 English 14 14.9 Mathematics 15 16.0 Physics - Chemistry 16 17.0 Total 94 100.0 60 The type and frequency of subjects taught by high school teachers as well as a denotation of their sex are presented in Table 4. Of the 231 responding high school teachers, 159 (or 68.8 per cent) were males and 72 (or 31.2 per cent) were females. The major field of specialization reported most frequently were Vietnamese language (19.5 per cent), and the least frequently re ported field was Philosophy (about four per cent). Teachers listed under "Other Subjects" were those who taught either "non-academic" subjects such as Music, Drawing, or newly introduced "practical arts" subjects such as Home-Economics, Industrial Arts, and Typing. In Table 5, high school teachers are categorized according to the number of courses in professional educa tion completed, and their number of years of teaching experience. As the data indicate, 96 teachers in the sample (or 41.6 per cent) had not studied any professional courses, 127 (or 55.0 per cent) had completed from one to five courses, and eight (or less than four per cent) had completed over five courses. Although not supported by the data collected, teachers reporting over five profes sional courses were likely those who were attending some graduate program in education, or teachers trained in the United States in the new areas, or recent graduates of the new teacher education programs. Table 5 also indicates 61 TABLE 4 RESPONDING HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS CATEGORIZED BY SEX AND SUBJECT TEACHING AREA Subiect Area Sex Total Area Sub j ect Male Female • Number Per Cent I Vietnamese Language 29 16 45 19.5 Civics 5 5 10 4.3 Philosophy 8 1 9 3.9 History- Geography 14 9 23 10.0 French 8 6 14 6.1 English 28 11 39 16.9 II Mathematics 26 4 30 13.0 Physics - Chemistry 25 8 33 14.3 Natural Sciences 8 10 18 7.8 III Other Subj ects 8 2 10 4.3 Number Total Per Cent 159 68.8 72 31.2 231 100.0 100.0 62 TABLE 5 RESPONDING HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS CATEGORIZED BY NUMBER OF YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE AND NUMBER OF PROFESSIONAL COURSES COMPLETED Number of Courses Number of Years Total 1-5 6-10 Over 10 Number Per Cent None 32 33 31 96 41.6 1 - 5 28 47 52 127 55.0 Over 5 4 3 1 8 3.5 Total Number 64 83 84 231 100.0 Per Cent 27.7 35.9 36.4 100 that 64 of the 231 teachers (or 27.7 per cent) had taught from one to five years, 83 (or 35.9 per cent) from six to ten years, and 84 (or 36.4 per cent) over ten years. Opinions of Teacher Educators, Hicrh School Teachers and Student Teachers Regarding Professional Objectives Teacher educators, high school teachers, and student teachers were asked to assess the importance or desirability of 112 statements of professional performance objectives for programs for professional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam. A Likert-type five- 63 point scale was used as follows: one (1) for "Essential," two (2) for "Important," three (3) for "Desirable but not Important," four (4) for "Unnecessary," and five (5) for "Unacceptable." Median values of the score ratings were used (53:24-26) as a measure of the degree of desirability of each objective as expressed by each of the groups surveyed. The total number of responses, percentage of responses in each of the five response categories as well as the median group response values are presented in Appendix D. On a five-point scale, a theoretically neutral response value (83:23) is three. Data in Appendix D indicate, however, that the number of objectives with a median score rating of two-and-one-half (2.5) or less (high desirability) is: 108 out of 112 objectives (or 96.5 per cent) for teacher educators, 111 out of 112 objectives (or 99.1 per cent) for high school teachers, and 111 out of 112 objectives (or 99.1 per cent) for student teachers. These findings might be interpreted as a generally favorable attitude from respondents toward the inclusion of the potential objectives in teacher education programs. To identify objectives rated highest in importance or desirability, the 28 objectives receiving lowest median rating scores for each group of teacher educators, high 64 school teachers, and student teachers are presented in Tables 6 through 8. Data in these tables show that the greatest number of objectives rated highest in importance by three groups of respondents was in the areas of Curri culum and Instruction, Teaching and Learning Theory, and Evaluation. These results were similar to the general findings of Anderson (72), Bradley (73), Brown (75), and Gardner (81) presented in Chapter II. Examination of Tables 6 to 8 reveals that 18 of 28 (or 64.3 per cent) of the objectives rated highest in importance by all three groups were the same. These related to the content areas of: (1) using inquiry tech niques; (2) stimulating student inquiry and response; (3) maintaining student involvement in learning activities; (4) selecting textbooks and reference materials; (5) helping students believe in themselves as whole and worthy people; (6) developing instructional content for a course; (7) keeping abreast of the professional field; (8) infer ring the influence of the post-war society; (9) promoting positive student self-concepts; (10) writing test items; (11) planning for continuing education; (12) encouraging independent study; (13) selecting a teaching approach; (14) improving individual development of creative ability; (15) employing a variety of questioning strategies; (16) assisting students with scholastic problems; (17) pre- dicting student behavior; and (18) evaluating and___________ 65 TABLE 6 OBJECTIVES RATED HIGHEST BY TEACHER EDUCATORS (FIRST QUARTER) Objective Area Median B2 Inquiry techniques 1. 27 Bl Student inquiry 1.29 DIO Student involvement 1.45 B16 Textbooks and reference materials 1.48 D16 Students as worthy people 1.58 B17 Instructional content for a course 1.60 G9 Keeping abreast of the professional field 1.60 A4 Influence of society 1.62 A6 Positive student self-concepts 1.64 E9 Writing test items 1.66 G10 Continuing education 1.68 B31 Independent study 1.72 B3 Teaching approaches 1.72 D13 Development of creative ability 1.73 BIO Students' questioning strategies 1.73 E7 Essay and objective tests 1.73 A1 Democratic process, student organization 1.75 C12 Students' scholastic problems 1.76 B15 Sequence of learning tasks 1.83 B4 Discovery and expository methods 1.83 B5 Individual students' information 1.87 G8 Liaison with community, colleges 1.88 B26 Innovative practices and changes 1.88 D4 Predicting student behavior 1.89 Bl4 Behavioral objectives 1.90 E17 Curriculum evaluation 1.90 G7 Working with other teachers 1.91 El Criterion measures 1.91 TABLE 7 OBJECTIVES RATED HIGHEST BY HIGH TEACHERS (FIRST QUARTER) SCHOOL 66 Objective Area Median B2 Inquiry techniques 1.21 Bl Student inquiry 1.21 DIO Student involvement 1.37 B16 Textbooks and reference materials 1.39 B31 Independent study 1.43 A4 Influence of society 1.48 B15 Sequence of learning tasks 1.59 D13 Development of creative ability 1.51 B17 Instructional content for a course 1.56 B8 Instructional media 1.58 E9 Writing test items 1.59 D16 Students as worthy people 1.61 G9 Keeping abreast of the professional field 1.63 E17 Curriculum evaluation 1.65 B3 Teaching approaches 1.67 A6 Positive student self-concepts 1.67 BIO Students' questioning strategies 1.67 C12 Students' scholastic problems 1.69 D4 Predicting student behavior 1.70 G10 Continuing education 1.72 D9 Motivational techniques 1.72 D17 Conflict resolution 1.74 D15 Mental health 1.78 G13 Improving teaching performance 1.78 E7 Essay and objective tests 1.78 B5 Individual students' information 1.80 B30 Individualization of instruction 1.83 Al Democratic process, student organization 1.85 67 TABLE 8 OBJECTIVES RATED HIGHEST BY STUDENT TEACHERS (FIRST QUARTER) Objective Area Median B2 Inquiry techniques 1.26 Bl Student inquiry 1.32 G9 Keeping abreast of the professional field 1.41 Cl 2 Students1 scholastic problem 1.44 B31 Independent study 1 .'44 D13 Development of creative ability 1.48 DIO Student involvement 1.48 B16 Textbooks and reference materials 1.57 A4 Influence of society 1.58 E9 Writing test items 1.59 D16 Students as worthy people 1.65 BIO Students' questioning strategies 1.69 C13 Resource materials 1.73 GlO Continuing education 1.74 B3 Teaching approaches 1.77 A6 Positive student self-concepts 1.77 D4 Predicting student behavior 1.78 B30 Individualization of instruction 1.79 E4 Individual students' information 1.80 D23 Teacher conduct 1.80 D15 Mental health 1.80 E17 Curriculum evaluation 1.81 E5 Student subculture 1.81 G3 Working with school staff 1.81 Cll Group processes 1.82 B17 Instructional content for a course 1.83 Cl Counseling techniques 1.84 D9 Motivational techniques 1.85 68 improving curriculum. To some extent, these results also were similar to the findings of Bradley (73) and Feck (79) in Chapter II. Bradley reported common agreements among method instructors, college supervisors, high school supervising teachers, and administrators on objectives relating to: (1) materials, (2) methods and techniques of instruction, (3) implementation of teaching behavior, (4) planning, and (5) evaluation of student progress and needs (73). Feck found competencies rated highest in importance by teachers, administrators, and state supervisors in the areas of planning for instruction, teaching, evaluation, guidance, and professional role (79) . Furthermore, four additional highest rated objec tives were common to teacher educators and high school teachers, and three others were common to student teachers and high school teachers. These results seemed to indicate closer agreements between high school teachers and teacher educators or student teachers than between teacher educa tors and student teachers in the selection of the most important professional education objectives. Inasmuch as the primary purpose of this study was to identify a set of priority performance objectives, the discussion of objectives rated lowest by the three groups is not presented here. These objectives could be deter mined either by their high median score values shown in 69 Appendix D or from the quintile distribution of objectives in Appendix H. Nevertheless, it could be noted that the six objectives receiving a median group response value greater than two-and-one-half (2.5) were: 1. By teacher educators: Objectives C9 (values and teacher behavior), D6 (individual differ ences) , D7 (individual student achievement), and E16 (action research); 2. By high school teachers: Objective C7 (counseling and guidance)r 3. By student teachers: Objective E13 (survey research). An examination of the "optional comments" at the end of the questionnaires of each of the respective groups revealed that respondents considered difficulties in implementing these concepts in the Vietnamese school systems such as high student-teacher ratio, and heavy teaching and work load. To compare the opinions of the three groups of respondents, in the following sections chi-square analyses were used to determine the significant differences, if any, between the response patterns of teacher educators and high school teachers and between each of these groups with student teachers. Rejection of the null hypotheses was based on the chi-square value read at the .10 level 70 (41:32). Whenever significant differences existed beyond .10 level, specific levels of .05, .01, or .001 also were reported in the corresponding tables. Comparisons of Ratings of Desirability of Objectives Between Teacher Educators and High School Teachers The null hypothesis tested was that there is no significant difference in the ratings of the desirability of each of the listed professional objectives between college teacher educators and high school teachers. On Table 9 are presented the objectives for which significant differences in the response patterns were found. The null hypothesis was rejected for 12 of the 112 objectives at the .10 level, eight at the .05 level, and three at the .01 level. Areas which included the largest number of objectives differing significantly in the ratings of importance were Curriculum and Instruction (eight objec tives) , and Student Personnel - Teacher Personnel (six objectives). An examination of the median group response values in Appendix D reveals that except for objectives B28 (specific course objectives), Cll (group processes), and E2 (evaluation of student progress), the degree of favor toward the inclusion of 20 of the 23 objectives in Table 9 were higher for high school teachers than for teacher educators. The areas rated higher by teacher educators TABLE 9 OBJECTIVES FOR WHICH THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN DESIRABILITY RATINGS BETWEEN TEACHER EDUCATORS AND HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS Objec-. tive Area X2 df Signif icance Level B8 Instructional media 14.62* 3 .01 Bll Students’ ideas 9.99 3 .05 B13 Educational outcomes 8.48 4 .10 B15 Sequence of learning tasks 7.52 3 .10 B24 Evaluation of teaching 6.89* 3 .10 B28 Specific course objectives 11.45 4 .05 B30 Individualization of instruction 7.97* 3 .10 B31 Independent study 6.50* 3 .10 Cl Counseling techniques 10.30* 3 .05 C2 Group counseling 11.18* 3 .05 C3 Student behavior 8.47 4 .10 CIO Teacher characteristics 9.00* 3 .05 Cll Group processes 9.04 4 .10 C15 Student rights and respon-. sibility 6.67* 3 .10 D4 Student behavior 6.70* 3 .10 D9 Motivational techniques 6. 60* 3 .10 D12 Motivation and achievement 16.56 4 .01 D13 Development of creative ability 6.64* 3 .10 D21 Group control processes 9.70 4 .05 E2 Evaluation of student progress 8.96* 3 .05 E16 Action research 13.91 4 .01 G2 Teaching demonstration 6.87* 3 .10 G13 Improving teaching performance 9.03* 3 .05 *Corrected for small expected frequencies (53 : 178) by combining categories four (Unnecessary) and five (Unacceptable). 72 such as behavioral objectives, or evaluation based on stated criteria, are relatively new in Viet Nam and were only introduced into the teacher education programs recently. High school teachers, on the contrary, showed higher concerns toward the problems or conditions which could enhance or inhibit learning or progress of students, possibly because they themselves had more direct experi ences than teacher educators in working with the youth of high school ages. Furthermore, the findings of significant differences beyond .10 level for 23 of 112 objectives (or 20.5 per cent) suggested that teacher educators and high school teachers generally have similar opinions on the desirability for inclusion in the preparation programs of most of the 112 potential objectives. Comparisons of Ratings of Desirability of Objectives Between Teacher Educators and Student Teachers The null hypothesis that there is.no significant difference in the response patterns on the desirability of each statement of objectives between teacher educators and student teachers was rejected for 16 of the 112 objec tives at the .10 level of confidence, nine at the .05 level, six at the .01 level, and two at the .001 level. In Table 10, objectives differing significantly between the two groups are listed. Areas which included the great est number of objectives in Table 10 were Curriculum and 73 TABLE 10 OBJECTIVES FOR WHICH THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN DESIRABILITY RATINGS BETWEEN TEACHER EDUCATORS AND STUDENT TEACHERS Objec tive Area x2 df Signif icance Level A3 Students' geographic mobility 6.86 3 .10 A6 Positive student self-concept 7.67* 3 .10 A8 Educational philosophy 9.7 0 4 .05 B9 Inquiry process 7.3 2* 3 .10 B14 Behavioral objectives 7.62* 3 .10 Bl7 Instructional course content 7.17* 3 .10 B18 Teaching techniques 9.29 3 .05 B19 Teaching activities 6.75 3 .10 B21 Lesson plans, unit plans 8.13* 3 .05 B24 Evaluation of teaching 9.94* 3 .05 B28 Specific course objectives 9.13 4 .10 B30 Individualization of instruction 6.65 3 .10 B31 Independent study 12.25* 3 .01 Cl Counseling techniques 8.31* 3 .05 C2 Group counseling 16.44 4 .01 C3 Student behavior 14.97 4 .01 C6 Dropouts problems 7.40* 3 .10 C8 Objectives of guidance programs 7.42* 3 .10 C9 Values and teacher behavior 8.69 4 .10 CIO Group processes 6.93* 3 .10 Cl 2 C14 Students' scholastic problems Teacher rights and respon 9.37 3 .10 sibility 6.38* 3 .10 C17 Controversial issues 10.23 4 .05 D12 Motivation and achievement 11.82* 3 .01 D21 Group control processes 13.54 4 .01 D22 Peer pressures 9.97* 3 .05 D23 Teacher conduct 7.92 3 .05 E9 Writing test items 7.24 3 .10 E16 Action research 19.12* 3 .001 G3 Working with school staff 12.27* 3 .001 74 TABLE 10— Continued Signif- Objec- 2 icance tive Area X df Level G4 Theory of counseling 6.67* 3 .10 G8 Liaison with community, colleges 13.68* 3 .01 G12 Human relations 10.76 4 .05 *Corrected for small expected frequencies (53:178) by combining categories four (Unnecessary) and five (Unacceptable). Instruction (ten objectives), and Student Personnel - Teacher Personnel (ten objectives). This result is similar to the findings on the differences in opinions between teacher educators and high school teachers. Except for objectives A6 (positive student self- concepts) , B14 (behavioral objectives), B17 (instructional content for a course), B18 (teaching techniques), B21 (lesson plans, unit plans), B28 (specific course objec tives) , and G8 (liaison with the community, other schools, and colleges), in all other cases where significant dif ferences in desirability ratings existed between teacher educators and student teachers, the median score values for each group obtained from Appendix D indicates a higher degree of favor on the part of student teachers for 26 of 75 the 33 objectives in Table 10 (78.8 per cent). Student teachers appeared to be more enthusiastic toward accepting objectives relating to concepts and competencies still unfamiliar to the Vietnamese school systems such as individualization of learning, independent study, counsel ing techniques, dropout problems, motivation and achieve ment, and action research. Teacher educators seemed to be more cautious and conservative than student teachers in rating higher objectives relating to basic skills for an effective high school teacher such as formulating be havioral objectives, developing instructional content for a course, demonstrating skills in using techniques to in troduce a lesson, and constructing lesson plans and unit plans. Furthermore, there seemed to be more disagreement on the importance of objectives between teacher educators and student teachers than between teacher educators and high school teachers. Nevertheless, teacher educators and student teachers had more similarity than diversity in their opinions on the importance or desirability of the objectives, with no significant differences between them found for 70.6 per cent of the potential objectives. Comparisons of Ratings of Desirability of Objectives Between High School Teachers and Student Teachers The null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the ratings of desirability of each of the 76 professional objectives between high school teachers and student teachers was rejected for nine of the 112 objec tives at the .10 level, 11 at the .05 level, five at the .01 level, and three at the .001 level. The objectives t differing significantly on the expressed preference ratings between the two groups are presented in Table 11. Of the 28 objectives, 13 were in the area of Curriculum and Instruction, five in Administration and Organization, four in Teaching and Learning Theory, and three in Evaluation and Research. Except for objectives A3 (students' geographic mobility), E4 (students' information), E9 (writing test items), and G3 (working with the school staff) , in all other cases where there were significant differences in the desirability ratings between high school teachers and student teachers# the median values of the objectives in Appendix D indicates a higher degree of favor toward 24 of the 28 objectives in Table 11 on the part of high school teachers. Student teachers tended to favor objectives relating to problems that concern them the most when first entering upon a teaching career such as writing test items, and working with the school staff. High school teachers, on the contrary, inclined to be more favorable toward objectives relating to problems encountered in working day by day with the youth, administrators, and the 77 TABLE 11 OBJECTIVES FOR WHICH THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN DESIRABILITY RATINGS BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS Objec tive Area 2 X df Signif icance Level A1 Democratic process 7.45* 3 .10 A3 Students' geographic mobility 8.80 4 .10 B6 Instructional objectives 8.78 4 .10 B8 Instructional media 15.45* 3 .01 BIO Questioning strategies 10.34 3 .05 Bll Students1 ideas 8.74* 3 .05 B15 Sequence of learning tasks 21. 29 3 .001 B16 Textbooks and reference materials 13.18 3 .01 B17 Instructional course content 19.15* 3 .001 B18 Teaching techniques 9.23 4 .10 B19 Teaching activities 8.52 4 .10 B21 Lesson plans, unit plans 13.23 4 .05 B25 Practical arts programs 9.68 4 .05 B28 Specific course objectives 9.88 4 .05 B31 Independent study 10.87* 3 .05 C12 Students' scholastic problems 7.51* 3 .10 D16 Students as worthy people 8.23* 3 .05 D17 Conflict resolution 7.35* 3 .10 D18 Students’ functional roles 6.70* 3 .10 D19 Reaction of classmates 17.63* 3 .001 E4 Students' information 10.21* 3 .05 E7 Essay and objective tests 9.03 3 .05 E9 Writing test items 12.74 3 .01 G2 Teaching demonstration 8.56 4 .10 G3 Working with school staff 15.54* 3 .01 G8 Liaison with community, colleges 12.87* 3 .01 G9 Keeping abreast of the professional field 10.92* 3 .05 G12 Human relations 11.29 4 .05 * Corrected for small expected frequencies (53:178) by combining categories four (Unnecessary) and five (Unacceptable). 78 community. Comparisons of data in Tables 9, 10, and 11 suggest that teacher educators and high school teachers agreed more often on the importance or desirability of the listed professional objectives than teacher educators and student teachers, or high school teachers and student teachers. Nevertheless, high school teachers and student teachers generally appeared to have more similarity than diversity in their views on the importance or desirability of the objectives, with no significant differences between them for 75.0 per cent of the 112 potential objectives. Relationships Between Selected Teacher Variables and High School Teachers' Ratings of Desirability of Objectives In the following sections, chi-square tests were used to determine what relationships exist between high school teachers' ratings of importance or desirability of the objectives and their number of years of teaching experience, their number of professional education courses completed, and their teaching subject area. The level of significance used was also .10 (41). A correction for small expected frequencies was made by combining cate gories four (unnecessary) and five (unacceptable) when more than 20 per cent of the cells have expected fre quencies of less than five (53:178). For objectives which yielded a significant relationship with any of the 79 variables, data on the distribution of the total number of responses and the percentage of responses as well as the median group response values for each variable are presented respectively in Appendices E, F, and G. Data on other objectives are available to researchers upon request. Relationships Between Teachers1 Ratings of Desirability of Objectives and Their Number of Years of Teaching Experience Objectives for which significant relationships existed at the .10 level or higher between the number of years of teaching experience and high school teachers' patterns of ratings are listed in Table 12. The chi- square values, degrees of freedom and significance levels also are presented. Table 12 indicates that 42 of the 112 objectives (or 37.5 per cent) displayed a significant association between the number of years of teaching experi ence and teachers' expressed preference for the profession al objective. Of the 42 cases, 39 objectives were per ceived as more desirable by teachers with more than ten years of experience, two by teachers with one to five years, and one by teachers with six to ten years of experi ence. Teachers with one to five years of experience showed a higher degree of favor toward two objectives related to students' emotional and intellectual maturity, and continuing education; whereas teachers with six to ten TABLE OBJECTIVES FOR WHICH THERE ARE BETWEEN THE DEGREE OF FAVOR AND THEIR NUMBER OF YEARS 80 12 SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE Highest Objective 2 Favor** Number Area X df Level (Years) A 2 Democratic process 11.40 6 .10 Over 10 B5 Students' information 17.57* 6 .01 Over 10 B6 Instructional objectives 16.52 8 .05 Over 10 B7 Communications media 12.24* 6 .10 Over 10 B9 Teaching methods 14.85 8 .10 Over 10 Bll Students 1 ideas 13.41 6 .05 Over 10 B17 Instructional course content 13.81 4 .01 Over 10 B18 Teaching techniques 13.25 6 .05 Over 10 B24 Self—evaluation of teaching 14.00* 6 .05 Over 10 B27 Academic and Vocational objectives 12.78* 6 .05 Over 10 B29 Exceptional students 21.19* 6 .01 6-10 C2 Group counseling 11.54* 6 .10 Over 10 C4 Theory of counseling 14.42* 6 .05 Over 10 C6 Dropouts Problems 12.12* 6 .10 Over 10 Cl Counseling and guidance 13.83 8 .10 Over 10 C14 Teacher rights and responsibility 13.72* 6 in o • Over 10 C15 Student rights and responsibility 11.39* 6 .10 Over 10 C16 Teacher's value system 13.19* 6 .05 Over 10 D2 Emotional and intellec tual maturity 14.36* 6 .05 1 - 5 D5 Psychological changes 17.15 8 .05 Over 10 D6 Individual differences 17.30 8 .05 Over 10 D8 Individual learning activities 10.85* 6 .10 Over 10 Dll Determinant of behavior 17.11 6 .01 Over 10 Dl2 Motivation and achieve ment 11.30* 6 .10 Over 10 Dl5 Mental health 18.14* 6 .01 Over 10 81 TABLE 12— Continued Highest Objective 2 Favor** Number Area df Level (Years) D21 Group control processes 11.93* 6 .10 Over 10 D23 Teacher conduct 13.86* 6 .05 Over 10 E5 Expected outcome behavior 12.81* 6 .05 Over 10 E7 Essay and objective tests 17.00 6 .05 Over 10 E9 Writing test items 12.42 4 .05 Over 10 Ell Interpreting evaluation data 12.71* 6 .05 Over 10 E13 Survey research 15.42 8 .10 Over 10 El7 Evaluation of curri culum 18.47* 6 .01 Over 10 Gl Quality of teaching 13.69 6 .05 Over 10 G2 Teaching demonstration 28.02* 6 .001 Over 10 G3 Working with school staff 12.91 6 .05 Over 10 G8 Liaison with community, colleges 18.30* 6 .01 Over 10 G9 Keeping abreast of the professional field 16.51* 6 .05 Over 10 GlO Continuing education 14.98 6 .05 1 - 5 Gil Professional activities 14.23* 6 .05 Over 10 G14 Human inter-relationships 16.80* 6 .05 Over 10 G15 Decision making procedures 20. 33 6 .01 Over 10 * Corrected for small expected frequencies (53:178) by combining categories four (Unnecessary) and five (Unacceptable) in the chi-square test. **Number of years when the highest degree of favor was expressed. 82 years of experience rated higher an objective concerned with exceptional students. An examination of the median group response values listed in Appendix E for the 42 objectives in Table 12 does not always indicate a direct increase in ratings of importance with the increase in the number of years of experience. Nevertheless, in cases where significant relationships existed, the most experienced teachers (over ten years) tended to be favorable toward a larger number (93.0 per cent) of objectives in the areas of Curriculum and Instruction, Administration and Organiza tion, Evaluation and Research, Teaching and Learning Theory, and Student Personnel - Teacher Personnel, than teachers with less experience. Feck (7 9) also reported a positive significant relationship between the number of years of experience in teaching vocational agriculture and the importance ratings of objectives in the competency area of planning for instruction. On the contrary, Cashin (76) did not reject any hypotheses of no relationships between the degrees of favor instructors registered toward the professional education components and the number of years they taught in college. In some aspects, the results obtained in this study are thus more nearly equi valent to Feck's findings (79). 83 Relationships Between Teachers' Ratings of Desirability of Objectives and Their Number of Professional Courses Completed Chi-square tests revealed significant relationships beyond .10 level for 18 of the 112 potential objectives (or 16.0 per cent). On Table 13, the chi-square values, degrees of freedom, and levels of significance are shown for objectives where a significant association existed between high school teachers' expressed preference and the number of professional courses completed. The highest degrees of favor were registered by teachers with over five professional courses for 14 of the 18 objectives in Table 13. The remaining three objectives were rated higher by teachers with one to five courses, and none by teachers without professional education preparation. Data in Table 13 also indicate that teachers with professional education training showed greater degrees of favor toward seven objectives in the areas of Curriculum and Instruction, four in Evaluation and Research, three in Student Person nel - Teacher Personnel, two in Teaching and Learning Theory, one in Social and Philosophical Foundations, and one in Administration and Organization. Kirk (41:83) noted that when a large number of significance tests were made at an alpha level, the probability that at least one of the tests would be signi ficant by chance is equal to __________________________1 - (1 - alpha)C_______________________ 84 TABLE 13 OBJECTIVES FOR WHICH THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE DEGREE OF FAVOR OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND THEIR NUMBER OF PROFESSIONAL COURSES COMPLETED Highest Objective 2 Favor** Number Area x df Level (courses) A8 Philosophy of education 17.07 8 .05 1 - 5 B7 Communications media 11.93* 6 .10 Over 5 B14 Behavioral objectives 15.57 8 .05 1 - 5 B18 Teaching techniques 12.06 6 .10 Over 5 B20 Student's readiness 10.74* 6 .10 Over 5 B26 Evaluation of innovative practice 10.93* 6 .10 1 - 5 B27 Academic and vocational objectives 12.78* 6 .05 Over 5 B28 Specific course objec tives 31.36 8 .001 Over 5 C8 Objectives of a guidance program 11.80* 6 .10 1 - 5 CIO Group processes 15.63* 6 .05 Over 5 C15 Student rights and responsibility 11.29* 6 .10 Over 5 D4 Predicting student behavior 12.52* 6 .10 Over 5 DIO Student involvement 11.87 6 .10 Over 5 El Criterion measures 26.14* 6 .001 Over 5 E5 Expected outcome behavior 14.09* 6 .05 Over 5 E13 Survey research 12.80* 6 .05 Over 5 E16 Action research 12.90* 6 .05 Over 5 G7 Working with other teachers 10.94* 6 .10 Over 5 Corrected for small expected frequencies (53:178) by combining categories four (Unnecessary) and five (Unacceptable) in the chi-square test. **Number of professional courses completed by teachers who expressed the highest degree of favor. 85 where C is the number of tests. Therefore, any attempt to consider the significant association between teachers' desirability ratings and the number of professional courses in planning in-service or advanced programs needs to be tempered by this caution. Data in Table 13 reveal that no significant relationships existed between the degrees of favor expressed by teachers and the number of professional courses completed for a large number (84.0 per cent) of the potential objectives. Feck (79) noted that teachers with pedagogical preparation rated the importance of competencies signifi cantly higher in eight of the nine competencies areas at the .05 level. Cashin (76) reported a positive correla tion between the degree of favor instructors showed toward the inclusion of certain components in professional prepar ation programs and the number of. professional education units they had completed. As compared to Feck's and Cashin's findings, the results obtained in this study could be explained by noting that previously, training of secondary teachers in Viet Nam emphasized academic study more with little attention to pedagogy (82:153). Further more, courses in professional areas in the training pro grams often were overlooked, because most college profes sors in Viet Nam earned their degrees in specific subject areas and had little background in the professional educa 86 tion field (84:151). Overall, data shown in Table 13 revealed, however, that in all cases where a significant association was found between the number of professional courses completed and teachers' preference of the objec tive, teachers with professional preparation exhibited a more favorable attitude toward the inclusion of the objec tive . Relationships Between Teachers 1 Ratings of Desirability of Objectives and Their Teaching Subject Area Chi-square analyses indicated that six of the 112 objectives (about five per cent) displayed a significant association beyond the .10 level between the teaching subject area and teachers' expressed preference for the potential objectives. The chi-square values, degrees of freedom, and levels of significance are presented in Table 14. When the median group response values obtained from Appendix G are compared, Mathematics and Science teachers tended to express greater favor than teachers in other subject areas toward the inclusion of an objective relating to instructional objectives. Teachers of Viet namese language, Civics, Philosophy, History-Geography, English and French were inclined to be more favorable toward objectives concerning independent study and group processes. Teachers in "practical arts" areas and "non- academic" subjects expressed greater favor toward the 87 TABLE 14 OBJECTIVES FOR WHICH THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE DEGREE OF FAVOR OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND THE AREA OF TEACHING SUBJECTS Obj ective Number Area x2 df Level Highest Favor** (Area) B6 Instructional objectives 16.54 8 .05 II B19 Teaching activities 11.81* 6 .10 III B31 Independent study 13.50* 6 .05 I Cll Group process 11.80* 6 .10 I El Criterion measures 13.36* 6 .05 III Gl Quality of teaching 13.24 6 .05 III * Corrected for small expected frequencies (53:178) by combining categories four (Unnecessary) and five (Unacceptable) in the chi-square test. **Teaching area of teachers who expressed the highest degree of favor: (I) Vietnamese, Civics, Philosophy, History- Geography, English, French. (II) Mathematics, Physics-Chemistry, Natural Sciences (III) Subjects in "Practical Arts" area and "Non- Academic" subjects. 88 inclusion of three objectives relating to teaching activities, criterion measures, and quality of teaching. Again, the interpretation of the results obtained in Table 14 needs to be tempered by noting that when a large number of significance tests are performed at an alpha level, the probability that at least one test will be significant by chance is equal to C 1 - (1 - alpha) where C is the number of tests (41:83). In this study, no significant relationships were discovered between the teaching subject area and teachers' desirability ratings for 108 of the 112 objectives (96.4 per cent). These results seem to indicate that there was little or no difference in opinions between high school teachers of different fields of specialization regarding the impor tance or desirability of the potential objectives. Proposed Set of Priority Performance Objectives for Programs for Professional Training of High School Teachers in Viet Nam To obtain a basis for inclusion of potential objectives in the proposed set of priority performance objectives for programs for professional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam, consultations were made personally and individually to seek the advice from the Doctoral Committee members. Professors Frank H. Fox and Robert A. Smith of the University of Southern California, 89 Dr. W. James Popham of the University of California in Los Angeles, Dean Caseel D. Burke, Dr. Blair Low, Dr. Luan H. Ferrin, and the Evaluation Committee members of Weber State College in Ogden, Utah. Cashin (76), in his disser tation, established the criterion that "only when a mean response of 2.49 or lower was registered by respondents who had received preparation in the component would it be considered appropriate for inclusion in professional preparation programs." (76:79) In this study, if a median group response value of two-and-one-half (2.5) was selected as a criterion, 106 of the 112 objectives would have been accepted; the exceptions would be made for objectives C7 (counseling and guidance), C9 (values held by teachers), D6 (individual differences), D7 (individual achievement), E13 (survey research), and E16 (action research). The position adopted in this study, however, was to identify and accept diversity in the expressed preference among three groups as a strong indication of the necessity for structuring programs to meet the needs or competencies desired for high school teachers as perceived by each group (83:31). Highest priority for inclusion in the proposed set of performance objectives was given to objectives commonly rated highest by all groups. The next high priority rankings were given to objectives identified by any two of the three groups as most impor 90 tant, and those uniquely selected by each group of teacher educators, high school teachers, and student teachers as the most desirable for inclusion in the professional preparation programs. Based on the median group response values obtained from Appendix D, a rank order classification for the objectives was developed. Responses for each group were then separately categorized by quintiles. Of the total 112 objectives, 22 objectives rated highest in importance or desirability by each group were assigned to the first quintile for that particular group, the second quintile included objectives 23 through 45, and continuing through the fifth quintile, objectives 91 through 112. Lists of the quintile distribution of the objectives for each group of respondents are presented in Appendix H. On Tables 15, 16, and 17, respectively, are presented objectives that were placed by all groups, two of the three groups, or uniquely specified by each group in the upper 40 per cent of the rankings (first and second quintiles). Of the 27 objectives ranked highest by teacher educators, high school teachers, and student teachers in Table 15, three were in the areas of Social and Philosophi cal Foundations, nine in Curriculum and Instruction, two in Student Personnel - Teacher Personnel, seven in Teach ing and Learning Theory, three in Evaluation and Research, and three in Administration and Organization.________________ 91 TABLE 15 OBJECTIVES COMMONLY PLACED BY ALL GROUPS IN THE UPPER 40 PER CENT (FIRST AND SECOND QUINTILES) Quintile Objective Teacher H.S. Student Number Area Educator Teacher Teacher Al Democratic process I II II A4 Influence of society I I I A6 Student self-concepts I I I Bl Student inquiry and response I I I B2 Inquiry techniques I I I B3 Approach to teaching I I I BIO Questioning strategies I I I B16 Textbooks and materials I I I B17 Instructional course content I I II B29 Exceptional students II II II B30 Individualization of instruction II II I B31 Independent study I I I C12 Scholastic problems I I I Cl 3 Resource materials II I II D4 Student behavior II I I D9 Motivational techniques II I II DIO Student involvement I I I D13 Creative ability I I I D15 Mental health II II I D16 Students as worthy people I I I D17 Conflict resolution II I II E7 Essay and objective tests I II II E9 Writing test items I I I E17 Curriculum evaluation II I I G3 Working with school staff II II II G9 Keeping abreast of the professional field I I I G10 Continuing education I I I 92 TABLE 16 OBJECTIVES COMMONLY PLACED BY TWO OF THE THREE GROUPS IN THE UPPER 40 PER CENT (FIRST AND SECOND QUINTILE) Quintile Objective Teacher H.S. Student Number Area Educator Teacher Teacher Teacher Educators and High School Teachers B5 Individual students 1 information I II II B6 Instructional objectives II II III B7 Communications media II II III B8 Instructional media II I III B12 Classroom interaction II II III B15 Sequence of learning tasks I I III B18 Teaching techniques II II V D18 Student's functional roles II II IV Teacher Educators and Student Teachers B9 Teaching methods II III II Cll Group processes II III II G7 Working with other teachers II III II G8 Liaison with the community / colleges I IV II High School Teachers and Student Teachers Cl Counseling techniques IV II II Dll Student performance III II II D23 Teacher conduct III II I Gl Quality of teaching IV II II G5 Innovative practice III II II G6 Parent-Teacher Association III II II Gl3 Improving teaching performance III II II TABLE 17 OBJECTIVES UNIQUELY SPECIFIED BY EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS IN THE UPPER 40 PER CENT (FIRST AND SECOND QUINTILES) 93 Quintile Obj ective Teacher H.S. Student Number Area Educator Teacher Teacher Teacher Educators B4 Discovery methods I III III B14 Behavioral objectives II III V B20 Student's readiness II III III B21 Evaluative criteria II III V El Criterion measures II III IV E2 Student progress II IV IV High School Teachers Bll Students' ideas IV II III B24 Self-evaluation of teaching IV II III D14 Verbal creative performance III II III Student Teachers A5 Student subculture IV III II B22 Student involvement III IV II C6 Dropouts problems IV III II CIO Teacher characteristics III III II D5 Psychological changes III III II D8 Individual learning activities IV III II E4 Individual students' information III IV ' I 94 On Table 16 is a list of 19 objectives placed in the upper 40 per cent by any two of the three groups. Objectives commonly selected by teacher educators and high school teachers included seven objectives in Curriculum and Instruction, and one in Teaching and Learning Theory. Teacher educators and student teachers showed agreement in ranking highest four objectives relating to teaching methods, group processes, working with other teachers, liaison with the community, other schools and colleges. High school teachers and student teachers assigned in the upper 40 per cent seven objectives, four of which were in the area of Administration and Organization. Objectives which represented preference uniquely expressed by each group are listed in Table 17. Four of the six objectives specified by teacher educators were in the area of Curriculum and Instruction. High school teachers ranked highest three objectives concerning students' ideas, evaluation of professional abilities, and student verbal creative performance. Student teachers specified seven objectives in five different areas, with the exception of Administration and Organization. The proposed set or priority performance objec tives thus selected consisted of 62 objectives, with 27 objectives in Table 15, 19 objectives in Table 16, and 16 objectives in Table 17. The most highly accepted areas of 95 competencies were Curriculum and Instruction, with 24 out of 31 objectives (77.4 per cent). Administration and Organization, with nine out of 15 objectives (60.0 per cent), and Teaching and Learning Theory, with 13 out of 23 objectives (56.5 per cent). For the remaining areas, four objectives (50.0 per cent) were in Social and Philosophical Foundations, six objectives (35.3 per cent) were in Evaluation and Research, and six objectives (33.3 per cent) were in Student Personnel - Teacher Personnel. As 106 of the 112 objectives received median rating scores lower than two-and-one-half (2.5) from all groups of respondents, as indicated in Appendix D, additional objec tives similarly could be selected in the development of professional programs or courses by considering the median values in Appendix D or the quintile distribution in Appendix H. Suggestions of Additional Professional Objectives In Part III of the questionnaire, teacher educators;^ high school teachers, and student teachers were invited to suggest additional statements of objectives that should be considered for inclusion in the formal programs for pro fessional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam. Of the 382 respondents, three teacher educators, 14 high school teachers, and two student teachers responded to this 96 optional item. A number of suggestions, however, were either similar to those included in the survey instrument or related to academic subject and non-professional seg ments of the preparation programs. Some of the statements listed by respondents were: "Prepare to play a leadership role in the school." "Plan a unit of study which illustrates progres sing from the familiar to the unknown." "Describe how local conditions could be used to supplement national curriculum in order to increase relevance." "Anticipate students' non-scholastic problems, and prepare a list of resources for them." Others suggested to include objectives concerning the basic philosophy or system of principles for the con duct of life, motivation and punishment in learning, teacher creativity, male teacher's attitude toward female student. Optional Comments The questionnaire also provided space for respon dents' comments relative to the appropriateness of the listed professional objectives. Altogether, five teacher educators, 27 high school teachers, and four student teachers commented on the overall characteristics of the set of objectives, or certain specific objectives rated as 97 "Unacceptable." Mostly, respondents remarked difficulty in implementing "new concepts" such as individualization of instruction, changing the objectives of a lesson according to students' ability or readiness, and guidance and counseling. Teacher educators and high school teachers commented that almost all objectives are important or very desirable, but whether each should be included or not in the training program depends on the war situation, the availability of facility resources and competent personnel, and the characteristics of the post-war society. A number of respondents indicated that it would be a tremendous task to include all of the listed objectives in the pro grams for professional preparation of teachers, because competencies in subject areas also are important. The centralized system of education, the existence of national examinations, the high student-teacher ratio, the lack of time "to teach for the examinations," and the heavily loaded high school curriculum were among other concerns expressed by teacher educators, high school teachers, and student teachers. Summary The data used in the analyses in this chapter were obtained from usable returned questionnaires of 57 college teacher educators, 231 high school teachers, and 94 fourth- year student teachers. The null hypotheses of no signifi 98 cant differences in opinions between the three groups, and those of no significant relationships between selected teacher variables and their expressed preference of the objectives were tested at the .10 level. Teacher educators, high school teachers, and student teachers commonly selected 18 of the 28 objectives rated highest by each group. Significant differences in desirability ratings existed for 23 objectives between teacher educators and high school teachers, 33 objectives between teacher educators and student teachers, and 28 objectives between high school teachers and student teach ers. Significant associations were found between high school teachers' degree of favor of the objectives and their number of years of teaching experience for 42 objec tives, between teachers' favor and the number of profes sional courses completed for 18 objectives, and between teachers' favor and their teaching subject area for six objectives. From Kirk's remark on "spurious significance" when a large number of significance tests are made, there seemed to be little or no relationships between teachers' ratings of the desirability of the objectives and their subject area. A total of 27 objectives commonly placed by all groups in the upper 40 per cent, 19 by any two of the three groups, and 16 uniquely specified by each group were 99 proposed to be included in the priority set of performance objectives for programs for professional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam, In addition, a summary of comments and suggested additional objectives from respondents was included in this chapter. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary A review of the literature revealed that in the past, performance objectives have never been explicitly stated in the curriculum guides of the Faculties of Pedagogy in Viet Nam. Moreover, the programs of high school teacher preparation emphasized academic study with little attention to pedagogy. Specific statements of professional objectives, however, are needed for analysis of the curriculum and assessment of the outcomes. Problem The focal point of this study was to identify a sample of priority performance objectives that could be considered representative of the competencies desired for high school teachers in Viet Nam as a result of participa tion in the professional preparation programs. Specific cally, this investigation was intended to answer the following questions: 100 101 1. What performance objectives are considered necessary for teacher training programs, as reflected in authoritative literature? 2. What are the philosophy, goals, and nature of the existing programs for professional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam, and especially at the Univer sity of Hue? 3. What performance objectives are considered essential or important for teacher education programs by teacher educators at the University of Hue? 4. What performance objectives are considered essential or important for teacher education programs by teachers in public high schools in the areas where the graduates of the Faculty of Pedagogy of Hue have been assigned? 5. What performance objectives are considered essential or important for teacher education programs by fourth-year student teachers participating in the training programs at the University of Hue? 6. What variation in the degree of acceptance of the performance objectives are registered among teacher educators, high school teachers, and student teachers? 7. What is the relationship between the number of years of teaching experience and high school teachers' opinion regarding the desirability of the performance objectives?_____________________________________________________ 102 8. What is the relationship between the quantity of professional education coursework completed and high school teachers' expressed preference for the performance obj ectives? 9. What is the relationship between the area of teaching subjects and high school teachers' degree of acceptance for the performance objectives? 10. What performance objectives should be included in programs for professional preparation of high school teachers offered at. the University of Hue as suggested by the analyses of data? Hypotheses The following hypotheses were tested by statistical methods: 1. There will be no significant differences on the desirability of including each of the potential per formance objectives in programs for professional prepara tion of high school teachers between the opinions of: a. college teacher educators and high school teachers. b. college teacher educators and fourth-year student teachers. c. high school teachers and fourth-year student teachers. 103 2. There will be no significant relationships between the level of preference teachers expressed toward each of the performance objectives in programs for profes sional preparation of high school teachers and: d. their number of years of teaching experience. e. their number of professional education courses completed. f. their area of teaching subjects. Procedures After the Doctoral Committee's approval of the research problem, a review of the related literature was conducted. The philosophy, general objectives, and nature of the teacher education programs in Viet Nam were reviewed and analyzed. A questionnaire was developed, submitted to the Doctoral Committee members and teacher education specia lists for criticisms and evaluations regarding the format, clarity of expression, and content. From their sugges tions for improvement, the instrument was refined and revised. Following pilot studies, the Vietnamese version of the questionnaire was printed and administered to a sample of 67 teacher educators and 114 fourth-year student teachers at the University of Hue, and 3 23 teachers selected at random in 12 randomly chosen high schools in Viet Nam. 104 Data obtained from usable returned questionnaires of 5 7 teacher educators, 231 high school teachers, and 94 fourth-year student teachers were classified and analyzed at the Computer Center of the University of Southern California. Chi-square tests were used to study the stated hypotheses. A proposed sample of priority perfor mance objectives was drawn from the findings of the data analyses. Findings The results may be summarized as follows: 1. Within the last few years, significant improve ments were made in programs for professional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam. 2. Over 94 per cent of the 112 potential objec tives were rated high in importance by all groups, with median group response values of less than two-and-one-half (2.5) . 3. Of the 28 objectives rated highest in impor tance by each group, 18 objectives were commonly selected by teacher educators, high school teachers, and student teachers. 4. Significant differences in desirability ratings were found beyond the .10 level between: a. teacher educators and high school teachers for 23 potential objectives (20.5 per 105 cent). b. teacher educators and student teachers for 33 potential objectives (29.4 per cent). c. high school teachers and student teachers for 28 objectives (25.0 per cent). Differences in opinions occurred most often in the area of Curriculum and Instruction. 5. Significant relationships existed beyond the .10 level between high school teachers' degree of favor toward the inclusion of the objectives in the professional preparation programs and: a. their number of years of teaching experi- ence for 42 objectives (37.5 per cent). b. their number of professional courses completed for 18 objectives (12.5 per cent) c. their areas of teaching subjects for six objectives (about five per cent). Objectives yielding significant relationships were found most often in the area of Curriculum and Instruction. Any interpretation of the results in sections b and c, never theless, must be cautioned by Kirk's remark on "spurious significance." 6. A total of 62 potential objectives rated highest by teacher educators, high school teachers and student teachers were proposed to be included in the set 106 of priority performance objectives for programs for pro fessional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam. The largest number of these objectives were in Curriculum and Instruction (24 objectives), and Teaching and Learning Theory (13 objectives). Conclusions On the basis of the findings, and in light of the assumptions, limitations, and delimitations of this study, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. Most of the potential performance objectives were perceived by teacher educators, high school teachers, and student teachers in the study sample as highly important or desirable for inclusion in formal programs for professional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam. 2. Overall, more similarity than diversity existed in the expressed preference of teacher educators, high school teachers, and student teachers for the potential professional objectives. 3. Beyond the general agreement on the most desirable objectives, diversity existed among the groups in the study at the level of specific objectives which should receive higher priority for inclusion in the pro fessional preparation program. Differences in opinions occurred most often in the area of Curriculum and Instruc- 107 tion. 4. Teacher educators and high school teachers agreed more closely on the importance or desirability of the potential objectives than either teacher educators or high school teachers with student teachers. 5. Objectives concerning influence of post-war society, positive student self-concepts, inquiry techni ques, teaching approaches, questioning strategies, instructional content for a course, textbooks and reference materials, independent study, scholastic problems, student ; behavior, student involvement in learning activities, creative ability, keeping abreast of the professional field and continuing education were considered by all groups as most important for professional preparation programs. 6. VJhen a significant association existed between high school teachers' degree of favor toward the objec tive and their number of years of teaching experience, the most experienced teachers tended to perceive the importance of the objective higher than their counterparts with less experience. 7. When a significant association existed between high school teachers' degree of favor toward the objective and their number of professional courses completed, teachers with more professional preparation tended to be more favorable toward the inclusion of the objective in 108 the preparation programs than teachers with less or no pedagogical preparation. 8. The area of high school teachers’ subjects had little or no association with their perception of the importance or desirability of the professional objectives. 9. As perceived by teacher educators, high school teachers, and student teachers in this study, formal pro grams for professional preparation of high school teachers in Viet Nam should include objectives in the areas of Social and Philosophical Foundations, Curriculum and Instruction, Student Personnel - Teacher Personnel, Teaching and Learning Theory, Evaluation, and Administra tion and Organization, with highest priority given to objectives listed in Tables 15, 16, and 17. Recommendations Based on the findings and conclusions, the follow ing recommendations are made: 1. Within the limited context of this investiga tion involving teacher educators and student teachers at the University of Hue, the proposed set of priority per formance objectives, if adopted for programs at other universities in Viet Nam, should be modified according to the particular needs at each institution. 2. Pre-service and in-service learning activities for teacher preparation programs should place great 109 emphasis upon skills and competencies represented in the proposed set of priority performance objectives. 3. There should be a well-defined plan for con tinuous evaluation of the quality of the graduates of the Faculty of Pedagogy on the basis of the stated priority performance objectives. 4. Adequate opportunities should be provided for faculty and staff, student teachers at the teacher train ing institution, and representatives of high school teachers and administrators of different backgrounds to cooperate in the development, conduct, and evaluation of the teacher education programs. 5. The set of priority performance objectives should be continuously reviewed and modified in terms of the evaluation findings, feedbacks from the graduates of the Faculty of Pedagogy, from students and parents, and from practicing school teachers and administrators. 6. A clearly defined evaluative instrument con structed on the basis of the programs' priority performance objectives should be used during the practicum period in place of general criteria or individual subjective judg ments of supervising teachers. 7. The proposed set of priority performance objectives could be used as foundations for the develop ment of a competency-based teacher education program as 110 another alternative approach along with the existing traditional preparation programs. 8. Further research should be undertaken to identify priority performance objectives for graduate programs in education, programs for professional prepara tion of elementary (multiple-subject) teachers, and for the subject matter component and general education compo nent of teacher preparation programs in Viet Nam. 9. The multiple matrix sampling technique could be used in other studies involving larger samples to reduce the cost in time and money and respondents' efforts. BIBLIOGRAPHY 111 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books 1. Allen, Dwight W. , and Cooper, James M. A Proposed New Program for Elementary Teacher Education at the University of Massachusetts. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts, 1968. ED 025 490. 2. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Educa- tion. Professional Teacher Education. Washington, D. C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1968. 3. _________. Recommended Standards for Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1969. 4. Anderson, Vernon E. Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1966. 5. Andrew, L. 0. "Challenges and Needed Developments in Teacher Education." Teacher Education in Transition. Vol. II: Emerging Roles and Responsibilities. Edited by Howard E. Bosley. Maryland: Multi-State Teacher Education Project, 1969. 6. Andrews, Theodore E. A New Style of Certification. Albany: New York State Education Department, 1971. ED 055 971. 7. _________. Manchester Interview: Competency-Based Teacher Education/Certification. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1972. ED 063 275. 8. Baird, J. Hugh; Belt, W. Dwayne; and Holder, Lyal. "The Individualized Teacher Education Program at Brigham Young University." Teacher Education in Transition. Vol. I.: An Experiment in Change. Edited by Howard E. Bosley. Maryland: Multi- State Teacher Education Project, 1969. 112 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 113 Blishen, Edward, ed. Blond's Encyclopedia of Educa tion. London: Blond Educational, 1969. Bloom, Benjamin S., ed. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1971. Broudy, Harry S. "The Role of the Foundational Studies in the Preparation of Teachers." Improving Teacher Education in the United States. Edited by Stanley Elam. Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Incor porated, 1967. _________. A Critique of Performance-Based Teacher Education. Washington, D. C.: American Associa tion of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1972. ED 063 274. Browne, J. D. "The Balance of Studies in Colleges of Education." Towards a Policy for the Education of Teachers. Edited by William Taylor. London: Archon Books, 1968. Bruner, Jerome S. Toward a Theory of Instruction. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1968. Burdin, Joel L., and Lanzillotti, Kaliopee, eds. A Reader's Guide to the Comprehensive Models for Preparing Elementary Teachers. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1969. and Reagan, Margaret, eds. Performance- Based Certification of School Personnel. Washington, D.C.: Eric Clearinghouse on Teacher Education and Association of Teacher Educators, 1971. ED 049 152. Burke, Caseel. The Individualized, Competency-Based System of Teacher Education at Weber State College. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 197 2. ED 063 276. Burkhart, Robert C. The Assessment Revolution: New Viewpoints for Teacher Evaluation . New York: New York State Education Department and Buffalo State University College, 1969. ED 036 485. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 114 Bush, Robert N. "The Science and Art of Educating Teachers." Improving Teacher Education in the United States. Edited by Stanley Elam. Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Incorporated, 1967. Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. Experi mental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Conant, James Bryant. The Education of American Teachers. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964. Cottrell, Donald P. National Policy for the Improve ment of the Quality of Teacher Education. Washington, D. C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1970. Commission on English. Freedom and Discipline in English. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1965. Cronbach, Lee J. Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1970. Daniel, Fred K. "Performance-Based Teacher Certifi cation: What Is It and Why Do We Need It?" Performance-Based Certificated of School Personnel. Edited by Joel L. Burdin and Margaret Reagan. Washington, D.C.: Eric Clearinghouse on Teacher Education and Association of Teacher Educators, 1971. ED 049 152. Ebel, Robert L., ed. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. London: The Macmillan Company, 1969. Elam, Stanley, ed. Performance-Based Teacher Educa tion, What Is the State of the Art? Washington, . D. C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1971. ED 058 166. Elfenbein, Iris M. Performance-Based Teacher Educa tion Programs: A Comparative Description. Wash ington, D. C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 197 2. English, Horace B., and English, Ava Champney. A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psycho-Analytical Terms. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1964. 115 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. ffjerguson, George A. Statistical Analysis in Psychol ogy and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966. Fox, David J. The Research Process in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. Giles, Frederic T., and Foster, Clifford D. Changing Teacher Education in a Large Urban University. Washington, D. C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 197 2. Good, Carter V., ed. Dictionary of Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959. Gronlund, Norman E. Stating Behavioral Objectives for Classroom Instruction. London: The Macmillan Company, 1971. Harrow, Anita J. A Taxonomy of the Psychomotor Domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., ^ 1972. Houston, W. Robert. "Michigan State University." A Reader's Guide to the Comprehensive Models for Preparing Elementary Teachers. Edited by Joel L. Burdin and Kaliopee Lanzillotti. Washington, D. C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1969. Howell, John J. Performance Evaluation in Relation to Teacher Education and Teacher Certification. New York: The City University of New York, 1971. ED 055 976 Jarmon, Hattie; Gerritz, Ellsworth; and Patrick, William S. Republic of Viet Nam. Washington, D. C.: The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, 1970. Joyce, Bruce R. "Teachers College, Columbia Univer sity. " A Reader1s Guide to the Comprehensive Models for Preparing Elementary Teachers. Edited by Joel L. Burdin and Kaliopee Lanzillotti. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1969. Joyce, Bruce R.; Morind^) Greta; Weil, Marsha; and Wald, Rhoada. Materials for Modules: A Classifi cation of Competency-Oriented Tools for Teacher Education- New York: Columbia University.________ 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 116 1971. ED 057 016. Kirk, Roger E. Experimental Design; Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. California: Brooks/ Cole Publishing Company, 1968. Klatt, Judith, and Baron, Walt Le. A Short Summary of Ten Model Teacher Education Programs. Washing ton, D. C.: National Center for Educational Research and Development, 1970. Krathwohl, David R.; Bloom, Benjamin S.; and Masian, Bertram B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1971. La Grone, Herbert F. Pre-Service Professional Component of a Program of Teacher Education. Washington, D. C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1964. Lougheed, Jacqueline I. Competency-Based Education Development Project, Final Report. Washington, D. C.: National Center for Educational Research and Development, 1971. ED 061 179. Mager, Robert F. Preparing Instructional Objectives. California: Fearon Publishers, 1962. Massanari, Karl. Performance-Based Teacher Education: What's It All About? Washington, D. C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1971. Normington, Louis W. Teacher Education and the Agency for International Development. Washington, D. C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1970. Politzer, Robert L. Performance Criteria for the Foreign Language Teacher. California: Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, 1967. Pyatte, Jeff A. The Effectiveness of Performance- Based Training Modules on Planning and Presenting. Florida: University of West Florida, 1972. ED 062 299. Schalock, H. Del. Alternative Strategies and Foci 117 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. for Teacher Education. Oregon: Oregon State System of Higher Education, 1970. _________. "The Focus: Knowledge, Teaching Behavior, or the Products?" Performance-Based Certification of School Personnel. Edited by Joel L. Burdin and Margaret Reagan. Washington, D. C.: Eric Clearinghouse on Teacher Education and Association of Teacher Educators, 1971. ED 049 152. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956. Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in the Classroom. New York: Vintage Books, 1971. Stratemeyer, Florence B. "The Professional Sequence in Teacher Education." Teacher Education for a Free People. Edited by Donald P. Cottrell. New York: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1956. Taba, Hilda. Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York: Hartcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1962. University of Hue. Chi Nam Dai Hoc Su Pham. ("Bulletin of the Faculty of Pedagogy.") Hue: University of Hue, 1969. Weber, Wilfor A., and Cooper, James M. Competency- Based Teacher Education: A Scenario. Washington, D. C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 197 2. ED 063 27 3. Weldon, John I. Model: An Authentic Teacher Educa tion Program. Iowa: Mount Mercy College, 197 2. ED 063 265. Periodicals Andrews, Theodore E., and Allen, Wendell C. "Competency-Based Teacher Education." Journal of Research and Development in Education, V (Winter, 1972), 69-72. 61. Bechtol, William M. "The Compac: An Instructional Package for Competency-Based Teacher Education." 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. A ' •. 72. 118 Educational Technology, XII (September, 1972), 37-39. Cohen, Stuart, and Hersh, Richard. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Am I the Best Teacher of Them All? There Is No Substitute for Competence." Journal of Teacher Education, XXIII (Spring, 1972), 5-10. Fantini, Mario D. "The Reform of Teacher Education: A Proposal for New York State." Phi Delta Kappan. LIII (April, 1972), 476-479. Getz, Howard; Kennedy, Larry; Pierce, Walter; Edwards, Cliff; and Chesebro, Pat. "From Traditional to Competency-Based Teacher Education." Phi Delta Kappan, LIV (January, 1973), 300-302. Hearn, Norman E. "The Where, When, and How of Trying Innovation." Phi Delta Kappan, LIII (February, 1972), 358-361. Howsam, Robert B. "Performance-Based Instruction." Today's Education, LXI (April, 1972), 33-40. Nash, Robert J., and Agne, Russell M. "Competency in Teacher Education: A Prop for the Status Quo?" Journal of Teacher Education, XXII (Summer, 1971), 147-156. Popham, W. James. "Behavioral Objectives and Teach ing Skills." Forum, VIII (October, 1969), 4-7. Rudman, Masha. "A Performance-Based Teacher Educa tion Curriculum in the Language Arts." Elementary English, XLIX (February, 197 2), 197-201. Sybouts, Ward. "Performance-Based Teacher Education: Does It Make a Difference?" Phi Delta Kappan, LIV (January, 1973), 303-304. Voelker, Allan M. "A Competencies Approach to Teacher Education." Science Teacher, XXXVII (September, 1970), 37-42. Unpublished Materials Anderson, James Everett. "A Study of Selected Inno- vational Components for the Professional Education Segment of Secondary Social Studies Teacher Educa tion Programs." Unpublished doctoral disserta- 119 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. tion, Ohio State University, 1971. Bradley, Banks Thurston. "An Assessment of Objectives for Special Methods Courses for the Subject Areas of English, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1970. Brown, Gordon Leslie. "A Reconstructed Program of Teacher Education." Unpublished doctoral disser tation, Northwestern University, 1970. Brown, Lela Joan G. "A Survey of Opinions of Selected Principals Concerning Preparation and Character istics of Teachers for Junior High And Middle Schools." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of New Mexico, 1971. Cashin, Harold John. "Programs for Professional Preparation of Instructors for California Public Junior Colleges." Unpublished doctoral disserta tion, University of Southern California, 1968. Directorate of Secondary Education. "Chuong Trinh Mo Lop 1972-1973 Theo Phat Trien Binh Thuong Cac Truong Trung Hoc Toan Quoc." ("Projected Plan for the Development of High School Classes in the Whole Country during the 197 2-1973 School Year Based on Normal Trends.") Saigon: Ministry of Education, 1972. (Mimeographed.) Faculty of Pedagogy, University of Saigon. "Chuong Trinh." ("Curriculum Guide") Saigon: University of Saigon, 1972. (Mimeographed.) Feck, Vincent Joseph. "Characteristics and Profes sional Competency Needs of Teachers of Agriculture in Two-Year Technical Institutes or Colleges in the United States." Unpublished doctoral disser tation, Ohio State University, 1971. Ford, Jerry Doyle. "Development of Behavioral Objectives in the Evaluation of Student Teachers." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A and M University, 1971. Gardner, Richard Earl. "The Common Professional Education Competencies of Junior High School Teachers." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, 1972. 120 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87 , 88. 89. 90. 91. Hai, Nguyen Van. "Education in Viet Nam." Hue: University of Hue, 1970. (Mimeographed.) Handler, Harry, and Smith, Robert. "Staff Develop ment Survey— Graduate Studies and In-Service Programs Priorities." Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1972. (Mimeographed.) Kien, Nguyen Due. "A Design for the Evaluation of Student Progress in Vietnamese Secondary Schools." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1969. Kirley, Kathleen M. "A Study of Teacher Education Programs in Selected Catholic and Nonsectarian Liberal Arts Colleges." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1971. Knox, Donald M. "The Case for Comprehensive Educa tion in Viet Nam." Speech delivered at the Rotary International Club of Saigon, Viet Nam, December 18, 1969. Kuster, Lee Norman Von. "A Study of Opinions About the Preparation Programs for Secondary School Mathematics Teachers." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Montana, 1971. Lee, Richard R. "Performance Criteria for Teachers: Design of a Model for Innovation." Speech pre sented at the Sixth Annual TESOL Convention, Washington, D.C., March 1, 197 2. ED 060 707. McCleary, Lloyd E., and McIntyre, Kenneth. "Compe tency -Development and the Methodology of College Teaching: A Model and Proposal." Utah: Univer sity of Utah, 1972. (Mimeographed.) McNutt, Hazel Wandella. "The Relevance of Teacher Education Programs to the Needs of Junior College Business Teachers." Unpublished doctoral disser tation, University of Oklahoma, 1971. Ohio University Contract. "Semi-Annual Report for the Period July First, 1967 to January First, 1968." Saigon: Ohio University Viet Nam, 1968. (Mimeographed.) 92. 93. 94. 95. 121 Ploghoft, Milton E. Letter to the researcher, Athens, Ohio, January 29, 1973. (Typewritten.) ______. "Teacher Education— Practical Arts Areas." Saigon: Ohio University Contract, 1971. (Mimeographed.) Purdy, Ralph D. "Evaluation and Planning for Second ary Education in South Viet Nam." Saigon: Ohio University Contract, 1971. (Mimeographed.) Reynolds, William W. "Teacher Preparation Programs at the University of Pennsylvania: An Appraisal and Recommendations." Unpublished doctoral disser tation, University of Pennsylvania, 1971. 96. Tong, Duong Thieu. "Obstacles to Educational Moderni zation in Viet Nam." Saigon: USAID Mission, 1969. (Mimeographed.) APPENDICES 122 APPENDIX A COVER LETTER FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE 123 124 COPY Dear Colleague: Viet Nam is in an urgent need of more teachers for the expanding high school programs during the postwar period. In an effort to make a tiny contribution to the preparation of high school teachers, presently this study is being undertaken with the purpose to identify the "professional competencies desired for prospective teachers as a result of participation in teacher education programs.' As part of the research, the enclosed questionnaire is designed in an attempt to obtain from teacher educators and high school teachers useful information and recommen dations concerning the professional education needs of those who are to become teachers in our high schools. Because of your experience in teaching, your assistance in answering the questionnaire will be valuable to the trans formation of these professional needs into performance objectives for teacher education programs and to the completion of the research report which will be shared with the authorities in teacher education in Viet Nam. All responses will be treated confidentially. Your support and cooperation will be necessary for the success of this study undertaken as another effort to make a significant contribution to the general educational welfare of our country. Thank you very much for your time and effort in this endeavor. Cordially yours, Nguyen Phung Hoang APPENDIX B THE QUESTIONNAIRE 125 A TEACHER EDUCATION SURVEY 126 PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION Your Institution Your Subiect Area Please circle the response at the right which corres- ponds to the answer you have chosen for each of the follow- ing questions: A. Your sex? 1) male, 2) female 1 2 B. Number of years of teaching experience 1) 1 - 5 2) 6 - 10 3) Over 10 1 2 3 C. How many courses in professional education have you completed? 1) None 2) 1 - 5 3) Over 5 1 2 3 PART II. OPINIONNAIRE This survey instrument contains a number of performance objectives which are frequently associated with profession- al competencies of high school teachers as a result of participation in a teacher education program. For each suggested statement, please place an "X"' in ONE of the columns at the right to indicate whether YOU consider it to be an objective of a formal program for professional preparation of high school teachers as follows 1. Essential 2. Important 3. Desirable but not important 4. Unnecessary 5. Unacceptable Example: If you believe that it is essential for a high school teacher to be able to evaluate and select •text- books and materials for a course of study, mark an "X I I in Column 1: I 1 2 3 4 5 Evaluate and select textbooks and X materials for a course of study. (If you think that this objective is un necessary, please place the "X" in column 4.) ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES AND COMMENTS If you wish to include additional objectives or comments, please use the last sheet of the set of ob j ec tives . 127 Potential Performance Objectives of Programs for Professional Preparation of High School Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4. 5 6, 7, A. SOCIAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS Establish procedures to make the democratic process operative in a student organization. Appraise the effects of the democratic pro cess on student attitude. Analyze potential effects of geographic mobility on student performance. Infer the influence of the post-war society on the learning of the youth. Analyze why the student subculture may con flict with conventional standards. Participate in school incentive systems to promote positive student self-concepts. Analyze major concepts in education as applied in Vietnamese school systems. Express a philosophy relevant to the basic goals of the teaching professional. B. ' CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION Demonstrate skill in stimulating student inquiry and response. Develop an instructional unit using inquiry techniques. Establish criteria and methods for selecting an approach to teaching a concept or principle in a given situation. Distinguish between discovery and expository teaching methods. Use available information about individual students to determine probable outcomes of instructional strategies employed. Modify instructional objectives in terms of individual student ability levels. Demonstrate skill in utilizing communica tions media. 12 8 Potential Performance Objectives of Programs for Professional Preparation of High School Teachers i - 3 a EH 53 H C / 3 C / 3 w 1 E h 1 Z 5 a c* o PM s H 2 KJ i - 3 a H C / 3 W Q 3 & < 03 03 W U 4 H 3 a PM W U U g 5 8. Select and utilize the media most effective 'for a given instructional task. 9. Establish criteria and methods to enable the students to examine a situation from several points of view. 10. Direct students to employ a variety of questioning strategies. 11. Develop ways to lead students to generate and express their own ideas. 12. Apply various techniques for encouraging classroom interaction. 13. Develop and implement procedures for writing clear statements of educational outcomes. • i —1 Formulate behavioral objectives to be used as criteria for the planning, implementation and evaluation of instruction. 15. Organize the sequence of learning tasks. 16. Evaluate and select textbooks and reference materials to meet course objectives. 17. Select and develop instructional content for a course, based upon stated behavioral obj ectives. H 00 • Demonstrate skill in using different techniques to introduce ,a lesson. 19. Outline the basic steps in organizing a demonstration, a field trip, or-group discussion. 20. Develop procedures to determine student's readiness level. 21. Prepare evaluative criteria for and con struct lesson plans and unit plans effectively. 22. Involve students in selecting learning experiences. 23. Demonstrate proficiency in performing an interaction analysis and interpreting the resn 1 t - .s . 129 Potential Performance Objectives of Programs for Professional Preparation of High School Teachers A < H E H S 2 J H m H p p m .a W o o 24. Use self-analysis to evaluate one's pro fessional abilities and limitations 25. Appraise new practical arts programs as applied to a given school situation. 26. Evaluate innovative practices in pilot and demonstration schools and suggest changes. 27. Distinguish between academic and vocational curriculum objectives. 28. Derive specific objectives for a course from the general objectives stated in the national curriculum. 29. Prepare individual learning activities for exceptional students. 30. Evaluate the effects of individualization on student involvement, interest, and behavior. 31. Formulate a systematic plan to encourage and direct students toward independent s tudy. C. STUDENT PERSONNEL - TEACHER PERSONNEL 1. Select and utilize counseling techniques for resolving student conflicts. 2. Evaluate the possibilitLes and limitations of group counseling as a technique which might be used in the school. 3. Explain student behavior observed in a counseling situation to other professional personnel. 4. Explain a selected counselor response according to a particular theory of counseling. 5. Analyze some causes of leaving school early. 6. Devise techniques to encourage potential dropouts to remain in school. 130 Potential Performance Objectives of Programs for Professional Preparation of High School Teachers 7. Distinguish between counseling and guidance. 8. Construct objectives to be satisfied by a • guidance program in the secondary school. 9. Determine how values held by teachers can influence the teacher behavior. 10. Distinguish between teacher characteristics which facilitate or inhibit group processes 11. Develop and maintain group processes which provide for individual growth. 12. Develop procedures to assist students with scholastic problems. 13. Provide students with resource materials on areas of specialization, college programs, or occupational opportunities. 14. Distinguish between teacher rights and responsibilities. 15. Distinguish between student rights and responsibilities. 16. Recognize and interpret how the teacher's value system affects educational outcomes. 17. Develop procedures for dealing with contro versial issues in the classroom. 18. Analyze the relationship between student's life style (learned value system) and his probable educational achievement. D. TEACHING AND LEARNING THEORY 1 . Infer probable levels of social and emotion al development from observations of student behavior. 2. Distinguish between emotional maturity and intellectual maturity. 3. Recognize teenage behavior which suggests a change in a student's instructional program, 131 Potential Performance Objectives of Programs for Professional Preparation of High School Teachers R w < i t H < P C R R P S Ph W O H 03 CU 03 03 S!H W H Q 1 2 3 ■ H i a w u u 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, Predict student behavior given a specific set of observed behaviors. Interpret possible psychological changes that accompany biological changes in adolescents. Devise educational strategies to provide for individual differences. Explain why individual achievement will differ from class standards. Prepare individual learning activities for students of different abilities. Demonstrate motivational techniques based on learning theories. Devise different techniques to maintain student involvement in meaningful learning activities. Predict the probable effect of environmental determinants of behavior (incentives, ecological factors, and cultural and social variables) on student performance. Summarize current research dealing with the effect of motivational level upon achieve ment. Develop and maintain classroom and instruc tional conditions to improve individual development of creative ability. Estimate the effect of high degree of con trolling behavior by the teacher on student verbal creative performance. Identify forces conducive to and forces destructive of mental health. Develop strategies to help students believe in themselves as whole and worthy people. Propose alternative approaches to conflict resolution. 132 Potential Performance Objectives of Programs for Professional Preparation of High School Teachers s E h 3 H CO CO W 1 E h 13 fi Pd o Bj H 4 w .4 pq PU H CJ u <3 18. Establish procedures which will allow stu dents the opportunity to experience a variety of functional roles in the class room. 19. Predict the reaction of classmates (the ripple effect) to the type of controlled behavior exhibited by the teenager toward the deviant student. 20. Distinguish between natural and artificial groups. 21. Analyze the effects of autocratic versus democratic group control. 22. Indicate how peer pressures can contribute to student behavior. 23. Infer the relationship between teacher conduct and student behavior. E. EVALUATION AND RESEARCH 1. Establish the relationship between criterion measures and instructional out comes . 2. Prepare an outline for a plan to evaluate student progress based on stated criteria. 3. Identify local school conditions which can influence student test results. 4. Select information to be utilized in addi tion to test results in the placement of students for instruction. 5. Specify the types of behavior that students are expected to demonstrate at the end of the learning process. 6. Explain student progress in terms of instructional objectives. 7. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of essay tests and objective tests. 133 Potential Performance Objectives of Programs for Professional Preparation of High School Teachers (4 E h w C R H < PC R R PS pi O H Pt m Ui pa w H Q 1 2 3 4 TET (4 PQ g Pt pa u u 8. Analyze the differences between a student's actual achievement and the teacher's assess ment of the achievement. 9. Demonstrate proficiency in writing items of multiple-choice and essay tests. 10. Compute measures of central tendency and variability of a test. 11. Select and develop approaches to inter preting evaluation data for students and parents. 12. Prepare and file evaluation reports on student progress. 13. Conduct and participate in survey research on an educational problem in the school. 14. Prepare a questionnaire, interview form, or check-list which would be used to gather data on the status of areas such as student activities, discipline problems. 15. Formulate hypotheses related to educational problems. 16. Determine possible limitations of action research and suggest ways to reduce their effects. 17. Evaluate a curriculum project, interpret data and recommend revisions for improvement. G. ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION 1. Obtain information from fellow teachers and supervisory personnel regarding the quality of teaching. 2. Prepare a teaching demonstration which deals with an innovative technique or topic. 3. Develop favorable approaches to work with a team of school staff on pertinent school problems. 134 Potential Performance Objectives of Programs for Professional Preparation of High School Teachers P EHw ! 2 Sp H < m F h p a C * Joi w o H COp CO CO s H w H P 1 2 3 w P PQ £ P - i H U 4 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 Design plans to exchange observational visits, innovations, and ideas with other teachers. Analyze some innovative practice which could be adopted by our system. Appraise the role of the Parent-Teacher Association in establishing a relationship between the school and the community. Work with other teachers to plan and develop the overall educational objectives and goals of the total school program. Maintain a liaison with the community, other schools and colleges. Keep abreast of the professional field by reading and exchanging literature. Develop a plan for continuing education. Participate in professional organization activities. Illustrate how human relations criteria can be used in teacher evaluation. Formulate policy on using evaluation results to improve teaching performance. Illustrate the effect upon teacher perfor mance of human interrelatipnships in organizing and administering school programs. Appraise the effect of decision-making procedures on teacher performance. 135 PART III. OPTIONAL ITEMS A. Part I of this questionnaire is intended as a comprehensive list of performance objectives for a teacher education program. If there are any other objectives which you feel should be added, please list them here: B. If you wish to explain why some of the objectives above (if any) were classified as "Unacceptable" (5), please list the reasons here: C. Please circle the response at the right which corresponds to the degree you have completed: 1) Bachelor's degree or equivalent 2) Master's degree or equivalent 3) Doctor's degree or equivalent 4) Others 1 2 3 4 THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST AND COOPERATION IN THIS STUDY. APPENDIX C LIST OF PROFESSORS AND TEACHER EDUCATION SPECIALISTS WHO HELPED TO REVISE THE QUESTIONNAIRE 136 137 LIST OF PROFESSORS AND TEACHER EDUCATION SPECIALISTS WHO HELPED TO REVISE THE QUESTIONNAIRE I. From the University of Southern California, Angeles, California: Dr. Myron S. Olson Dr. Robert A. Naslund Dr. William Lee Harvey Dr. Frank H. Fox Dr. Richard 0. Stone Dr. Robert L. Brackenbury Dr. Donald E. Wilson Dr. Joyce King-Stoops Los Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction Professor and Chairman, Department of Curriculum and Instruction Assistant Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction Professor and Chairman, Department of Educational Psychology Professor and Chairman, Department of Geological Sciences Professor, Department of Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education Professor and Chairman, Department of Teacher Education Assistant Professor, Department of Teacher Education II. From the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco, California: Dr. Rachel Ann Elder Specialist, Teacher Education Dr. Morris K. Lai Specialist, Teacher Education Dr. Dawn Skailand Specialist, Teacher Education 138 III. From Ohio University, Athens, Ohio: Dr. Milton E. Ploghoft Professor and former Consultant to Faculties of Pedagogy in Viet Nam, Ohio University Contract IV. From the Department of State, Washington, D.C.: Dr. Eleanor K. Green Specialist and former Advisor for teacher ed- cation programs in Viet Nam, USAID/ Education V. From the University of Hue, Hue, Viet Nam: Dr. Le Thanh Minh Chau Rector, University of Hue 139 APPENDIX D OPINIONS OF TEACHER EDUCATORS, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS, AND STUDENT TEACHERS REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF OBJECTIVES 139 140 APPENDIX D OPINIONS OF TEACHER EDUCATORS, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS, AND STU DENT TEACHERS REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF OBJECTIVES ________E x p r e s s e d by _ Item Desirability Teacher H. S. Student Total Educator Teacher Teacher N N % N % N o . * 6 A1 Essential 22 38.6 78 33.8 27 28.7 127 33.2 Important 26 45.6 106 45.9 56 59.6 188 49.2 Desirable 7 12.3 36 15.6 6 6.4 49 12.8 Unnecessary 2 3.5 10 4.3 4 4.3 16 4.2 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 1 1.1 2 0.5 Median Group Response 1.75 1.85 1.86 1.84 A2 Essential 7 12.3 35 15.2 8 8.5 50 13.1 Important 37 64.9 123 53.2 55 58.5 215 56. 3 Desirable 11 19.3 52 22.5 17 18.1 80 20 .9 Unnecessary 2 3.5 18 7.8 13 13.8 33 8.6 Unacceptable 0 0.0 3 1.3 1 1.1 4 1.0 Median Group Response 2.08 2.15 2.21 2.16 A3 Essential 12 21.1 53 22.9 22 23.4 87 22.8 Important 21 36.8 93 40.3 48 51.1 162 42.4 Desirable 20 35.1 63 27.3 23 24.5 106 27.7 Unnecessary 4 7.0 18 7.8 1 1.1 23 6.0 Unacceptable 0 0.0 4 1.7 0 0.0 4 1.0 Median Group Response 2.29 2.17 2.02 2.14 A4 Essential 26 45.6 118 51.1 44 46.8 188 49.2 Important 21 36.8 90 39.0 38 40.4 149 39.0 Desirable 9 15.8 19 8.2 11 11.7 39 10.2 Unnecessary 0 0.0 4 1.7 1 1.1 5 1.3 Unacceptable 1 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 Median Group Response 1.62 1.48 1.58 1.52 A5 Essential 13 22.8 69 29.9 35 37.2 117 30.6 Important 24 42.1 100 43.3 39 41.5 163 42.7 Desirable 14 24.6 44 19.0 13 13.8 71 18.6 Unnecessary 3 5.3 13 5.6 6 6.4 22 5.8 Unacceptable 3 5.3 5 2.2 1 1.1 9 2.4 Median Group Response 2.15 1.97 1.81 1.9 5 A6 Essential 24 42.1 97 42.0 35 37.2 156 40.8 Important 32 56.1 109 47.2 44 46.8 185 48.4 Desirable 1 1.8 21 9.1 11 11.7 33 8.6 Unnecessary 0 0.0 3 1.3 3 3.2 6 1.6 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 1 1.1 2 0.5 Median Group Response 1.64 1.67 1.77 1.69 A7 Essential 8 14.0 32 13.9 15 16.0 55 14.4 Important 26 45.6 101 43.7 35 37.2 162 42.4 Desirable 17 29.8 72 31.2 33 35.1 122 31.9 Unnecessary 5 8.8 23 10.0 9 9.6 37 9.7 Unacceptable 1 1.8 3 1.3 2 2.1 6 1.6 Median Group Response 2.29 2.33 2.41 2.34 141 APPENDIX D — Continued Expressed by Item Desirability Teacher H. S. Student Total Educator Teacher Teacher N % N % N % N % A8 Essential 8 14.0 51 22.1 23 24.5 82 21.5 Important 24 42.1 92 39.8 32 34.0 148 38.7 Desirable 20 35.1 51 22.1 19 20.2 90 23.6 Unnecessary ' 5 8.8 30 13.0 16 17.0 51 13. 4 Unacceptable 0 0.0 7 3.0 4 4.3 11 2.9 Median Group Response 2.35 2.20 2. 25 2.24 Bl Essential 36 63.2 162 70.1 57 60. 6 255 66.8 Important 19 33.3 65 28.1 31 33.0 115 30.1 Desirable 2 3.5 3 1.3 5 5.3 10 2.6 Unnecessary 0 0.0 1 0.4 1 1.1 2 0.5 Median Group Response 1.29 1.21 1.32 1.25 B2 Essential 37 64.9 164 71.0 62 66. 0 263 68.8 Important 20 35.1 65 28.1 30 31.9 115 30.1 Desirable 0 0.0 2 0.9 2 2.1 4 1.0 Median Group Response 1.27 1.21 1.26 1.23 B3 Essential 22 38.6 97 42.0 36 37.2 154 40.3 Important 29 50.9 110 47.6 45 47.9 184 48.2 Desirable 5 8.8 15 6.5 11 11.7 31 8.1 Unnecessary 0 0.0 3 1.3 2 2.1 5 1.3 Unacceptable 1 1.8 6 2.6 1 1.1 8 2.1 Median Group Response 1.72 1.67 1.77 1.70 B4 Essential 19 33. 3 61 26.4 22 23.4 102 26.7 Important 29 50. 9 120 51.9 47 50. 0 196 51.3 Desirable 8 14.0 33 14.3 16 17.0 57 14.9 Unnecessary 0 0.0 9 3.9 7 7.4 16 4.2 Unacceptable 1 1.8 8 3.5 2 2.1 11 2.9 Median Group Response 1. 83 1.95 2.03 1.95 B5 Essential 16 28.1 80 34.6 26 27.7 122 31.9 Important 34 59.6 118 51.1 48 51.1 200 52.4 Desirable 6 10.5 25 10.8 13 13. 8 44 11.5 Unnecessary 1 1.8 7 3.0 2 2.1 10 2.6 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 5 5.3 6 1.6 Median Group Response 1.87 1.80 1.94 1.85 B6 Essential 15 26.3 70 30.3 25 2 6.6 110 28.8 Important 30 52.6 103 44.6 45 47.9 178 46.6 Desirable 7 12.3 26 11.3 13 13. 8 46 12.0 Unnecessary 2 3.5 13 5.6 10 10.6 25 . 6.5 Unacceptable 3 5.3 19 8.2 1 1.1 23 6.0 Median Group Response 1.95 1.94 1.99 1.96 B7 Essential 14 24.6 74 32.0 24 25.5 112 29.3 Important 35 61.4 116 50.2 49 52.1 200 52.4 Desirable 8 14.0 29 12.6 15 16.0 52 13.6 Unnecessary 0 0.0 10 4.3 3 3.2 13 3.4 Unacceptable 0 0.0 2 0.9 3 3.2 5 1.3 Median Group Response 1. 91 1 ..86 . 1.97 ,1. 90 142 APPENDIX D,-— Continued Item Desirability Expressed by , ■ Teacher ' H. S. Student ‘ Educator Teacher Teacher N % N % N % Total N • % B8 Essential 13 22.8 108 46.8 23 24.5 144 37.7 . Important 34 > 59 .6 92 39.8 49 52.1 175 45.8 Desirable 10 17.5 23 10.0 14 14.9 47 12.3 Unnecessary 0 0.0 7 , 3.0 5 5.3 12 ,3.1 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 3 3.2 4 * 1.0 Median Group Response 1.96 1.58 ,1. 99 1.77 * B9 Essential 14 24.6 46 19.9 29 30. 9 89 23.3 Important 34 59.6 133 57.6 44 46.8 211 * 55. 2 Desirable 9 15.8 36 15.6 12 ‘ 12.8 57 ' 14.9 Unnecessary 0 0.0 11 4.8 6 6.4 17 4.5 Unacceptable 0 0.0 5 2.2 3 3.2 8 2.1 Median Group Response 1.93 2.02 1.91 1.98 BIO Essential 21 36.8 96 41.6 37 39.4 154 40.3 Important 3Z 56.1 115 49.8 53 56. 4 200 52.4 Desirable 4 7.0 19 8.2 1 • 1.1 24 6.3 Unnecessary 0 0.0 1 0.4 3 3.2 4 1.0 Median Group Response 1.73 1.67 , 1.69 1.68 Bll Essential 13 22.8 54 23.4 22 2 3.4 ' 89 23.3 Important 25 43.9 141 61. 0 51 54.3 217 56.8 Desirable 17 29. 8 33 14.3 14 14. 9 64 16. 8 Unnecessary 2 3.5 3 1.3 6 6.4 11 2.9 Unacceptable 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 0.3 . Median Group Response 2.12 1.94 1.99 1.97 B12 Essential 15 26.3 69 29.9 25 26.6 109- 28.5 Important 32 56.1 125 54.1 49 52.1 206 53.9 Desirable 9 15.8 27 11.7 15 16. 0 51 13.4 Unnecessary 1 1.8 7 3.0 '5 5.3 13 3.4 Unacceptable 0 0.0 3 1.3 0 0.0 3 0.8 Median Group Response 1.92 1.87 1.95 1.90 B13 Essential 11 19.3 65 28.1 18 19.1 94 24.6 Important 23 40.4 103 44.6 45 4 7.9 171 44.8 , . Desirable 19 33. 3 45 19.5 21 22.3 85 22.3 Unnecessary 1 1.8 13 5.6 9 9.6 23 6.0 Unacceptable 3 5.3 5 2.2 1 1.1 9 2.4 Median Group Response 2.26 1.99 2.14 2.07 B14 Essential 16 28.1 48 20.8 13 13.8 77 20.2 Important 31 54.4 132 57.1 49 52.1 212 55.5 Desirable 8 14.0 35 15.2 22 23.4 65 17.0 Unnecessary 0 0.0 13 5.6 8 8.5 21 5.5 Unacceptable 2 3.5 3 1.3 2 2.1 7 1.8 Median Group Response 1.90 2.01 2.19 2.04 B15 Essential 19 33. 3 116 50.2 23 24.5- 158 41.4 Important 29 50.9 91 39.4 50 53.2 170 44.5 Desirable 9 15.8 20 8.7 15 16.0 44 11.5 Unnecessary 0 0.0 4 1.7 6 6.4 10 2.6 Median Group Response 1.83 1.50 1.98 1.69- 143 APPENDIX D — Continued Item Desirability ' Expressed by Teacher H. S. Educator Teacher N % N % Student Teacher N % Total N % B16’ Essential 29 50.9 130 56.3 44 46.8 203 53.1 Important 24 42.1 96 41.6 :41 43.6 161 42.1 Desirable 4 7.0 5 2.2 5 5. 3 14 3.7 Unnecessary 0 0. 0 0 0.0 4 4.3 4 1.0 Median Group Response 1.48! 1.39 1.57 1.44 B17 . Essential 26 45.6 110 47.6 29 30.9 165 43.2 Important 25 43.9 103 44.6 54 57.4 182 47.6 Desirable 6 10.5 18 7.8 6 6.4 30 7.9 Unnecessary 0 0. 0 0 0.0 4 4.3 4 1.0 Unacceptable 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 0.3 Median Group Response 1.60 1. 55 1.83 1.64 B18 Essential 17 29.8 65 28.1 16 17.0 , . 98 27.5 Important 30 52.6 112 48.5 45 47.9 187 49.0 Desirable 10 17.5 44 19.0 24 25. 5 78 20.4 Unnecessary 0 0.0 10 4.3 8 8.5 18 4.7 Unacceptable 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 0.3 Median Group Response 1.88 1.95 2.19 2.00 B19 Essential ■5 8.8 36 15. 6 8 8.5 49 12.8 Important 30 52.6 109 47. 2 55 58.5 194 50. 8 Desirable 21 36. 8 73 31. 6 21 22. 3 115 30.1 Unnecessary 1 1.8 9 3.9 7. 7.4 17 . , 4.5 Unacceptable 0 0. 0 4 1.7 3 3.2 7 1.8 Median Group Response 2.28 2.23 2.21 2.23 B20 Essential 14 24. 6 55 23.8 21 22. 3 90 23.6 Important 34 59. 6 134 58. 0 52 55.3 220 57.6 Desirable 8 14. 0 30 13. 0 15 16.0 53 13. 9 Unnecessary 0 0.0 8 3.5 3 3.2 11 2.9 Unacceptable 1 1.8 4 1. 7 3 3.2 8 2.1 Median Group Response 1.93 1.95 2.00 1.96 B21 Essential 17 29.8 60 26.0 12 12. 8 89 23.3 Important 25 43.9 121 52. 4 48 51.1 194 50.8 Desirable 13 22. 8 39 16.9 24 25. 5 76 19.9 Unnecessary 1 1.8 10 4.3 7 7.4 18 4.7 Unacceptable 1 1.8 1. 0.4 3 3.2 5 1.3 Median Group Response 1.96 1. 96 2.23 2.03 B22 Essential 12 21.1 49 21.2 31 33.0 92 24.1 Important 29 50. 9 113 48.9 37 39.4 179 46.9 Desirable 10 17. 5 47 20.3 16 17.0 73 19.1 Unnecessary 2 3.5 17 7.4 7 7.4 26 6.8 Unacceptable 4 7. 0 5 2.2 3 3.2 12 3.1 Median Group Response 2.07 2.09 1.93 2.05 B23 Essential 5 8.8 48 20.8 21 22.3 74 19.4 Important 30 52.6 118 51.1 42 44.7 190 49.7 Desirable 17 29.8 45 19.5 19 20.2 81 21.2 Unnecessary 3 5.3 11 4.8 6 6.4 20 5.2 Unacceptable 2 3.5 9 3.9 6 6.4 17 4.5 Median Group Response 2. 28 2.07 2.12 2.12 APPENDIX D — Continued 144 Item v Desirability Expressed by Teacher H. S. Educator Teacher N % N . % Student Teacher • N % Total . N % B24 Essential 8 14.0 61 26.4 •23 24.5 92 24.1 Important 31 54.4 125 54.1 52 55.3 208 54.5 Desirable 16 28.1 36 15.6 10 10.6 62 16.2 Unnecessary 2 ,3.5 8 3.5 5 5.3 15 3.9 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 4 4.3 5 1.3 Median Group Response 2.16 1.94 1.96 1.98 B25 Essential 11 19.3 61 26.4 23 24.5 95 24.9 Important 28 49.1 102 44.2 44 46.8 174 45.5 Desirable 14 24.6 50 21.6 16 17.0 80 20.9 Unnecessary 3 5.3 15 6.5 4 4.3 22 5.8 Unacceptable 1 1.8 : 3 1.3 7 7.4 11 2.9 Median Group Response 2.13 2.03 2.05 2.05 B26 Essential 7 12.3 44 19.0 15 16.0 66 17.3 Important 33 57. 9 109 47.2 47 50.0 189 49.5 Desirable 14 24.6 52 22. 5 19 2 0.2 85 22.3 Unnecessary 3 5.3 21 9.1 7 7.4 31 8.1 Unacceptable 0 0.0 5 2.2 6 '6.4 11 2.9 Median Group Response 2.15 2.16 2.18 2.16 B27 Essential 10 17.5 38 16.5 16 17.0 64 16.8 Important 30 52.6 107 46.3 47 50.0 184 48.2 Desirable 14 24.6 62 26. 8 21 22.3 97 25.4 Unnecessary 1 1.8 18 7.8 9 9.6 28 7.3 Unacceptable 2 3.5 6 2.6 1 1.1 9 2.4 Median Group Response 2.12 2.22 2.16 2.19 B28 Essential 16 28.1 35 15.2 9 9.6 60 15.7 Important 20 35.1 116 50.2 41 43.6 177 46.3 Desirable 16 28.1 59 25.5 31 33.0 106 27.7 Unnecessary 3 5.3 20 8.7 9 9.6 32 8.4 Unacceptable 2 3.5 1 0.4 4 4.3 7 1.8 Median Group Response 2.13 2.19 2.43 2.24 B2 9 Essential 16 28.1 77 33.3 27 28.7 120 31.4 Important 29 50.9 102 44.1 48 51.1 179 46.9 Desirable 10 17.5 42 18.2 15 16. 0 69 17.5 Unnecessary 2 3.5 6 2.6 1 1.1 9 2.4 Unacceptable 0 0.0 4 1.7 3 3.2 7 1.8 Median Group Response 1.93 1.88 1.92 1.90 B30 Essential 15 26.3 71 30. 7 32 34.0 118 30.9 Important 29 50.9 134 58.0 51 54.3 214 56.0 Desirable 12 21.1 19 8.2 7 7.4 38 9.9 Unnecessary 1 1.8 5 2.2 4 4.3 10 2.6 Unacceptable 0 0.0 2 0.9 0 0.0 2 0.5 Median Group Response 1.97 1.83 1.79 1.84 B31 Essential 21 36.8 125 54.1 50 53.2 196 51.3 Important 34 59.6 96 41.6 31 33.0 161 42.1 Desirable 2 3.5 8 3.5 8 8.5 18 4.7 Unnecessary 0 0.0 1 0.4 4 4.3 5 1.3 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 1 1.1 2 0.5 Median Group Response 1.72 1.43 1.44 1. 48 APPENDIX D — Continued 145 Expressed b y ____ Item Desirability Teacher H. S. Student Total Educator Teacher Teacher N ! N % N o , “ 5 N % Cl Essential 10 17.5 71 30.7 31 33.0 112 29.3 Important 30 52.6 123 53.2 47 50.0 200 52.4 Desirable 16 28.1 29 12.6 12 12.8 57 14.9 Unnecessary 1 1.8 6 2.6 2 2.1 9 2.4 Unacceptable 0 0.0 2 0.9 2 2.1 4 1.0 Median Group Response 2.12 1.86 1.84 1.90 C2 Essential 9 15.8 23 10.0 9 9.6 41 10.7 Important 22 38.6 129 59.8 48 51.1 199 52.1 Desirable 25 43.9 61 26.4 20 21.3 106 27.7 Unnecessary 1 1.8 13 5.6 12 12.8 26 6.8 Unacceptable 0 0.0 5 2.2 5 5.3 10 2.6 Median Group Response 2.39 2.22 2.29 2.25 C3 Essential 4 7.0 34 14.7 15 16.0 53 13.9 Important 25 43.9 115 49.8 48 51.1 188 49.2 Desirable 25 43.9 61 26.4 17 18.1 103 27.0 Unnecessary 3 5.3 16 6.9 9 9.6 28 7.3 Unacceptable 0 0.0 5 2.2 5 5.3 10 2.6 Median Group Response 2.48 2.21 2.17 2.23 C4 Essential 6 10.5 30 13.0 17 18.1 53 13.9 Important 24 42.1 122 52.8 41 43.6 187 49.0 Desirable 21 36.8 53 22.9 23 24.5 97 25.4 Unnecessary 6 10.5 18 7.8 9 9.6 33 8.6 Unacceptable 0 0.0 8 3.5 4 4.3 12 3.1 Median Group Response 2.44 2.20 2.23 2.24 C5 Essential 11 19.3 61 26.4 22 23.4 94 24.6 Important 21 36.8 103 44.6 45 47.9 169 44.2 Desirable 17 29. 8 47 20.3 16 17.0 80 20. 9 Unnecessary 5 8.8 13 5.6 6 6.4 24 6.3 Unacceptable 3 5.3 7 3.0 5 5.3 15 3.9 Median Group Response 2.33 2.03 2.06 2.07 C6 Essential 13 22.8 56 24.2 30 31.9 99 25.9 Important 22 38.6 115 49.8 40 42.6 177 46.3 Desirable 18 31.6 44 19.0 13 13.8 75 19.6 Unnecessary 3 5.3 6 2.6 3 3.2 12 3.1 Unacceptable 1 1.8 10 4.3 8 8.5 19 5.0 Median Group Response 2.21 2. 02 1.93 2.02 C7 Essential 6 10.5 21 9.1 7 7.4 34 8.9 Important 23 40.4 92 39.8 41 43.6 156 40.8 Desirable 25 43.9 79 34.2 29 30.9 133 34.8 Unnecessary 2 3.5 33 14.3 12 12.8 47 12.3 Unacceptable 1 1.8 6 2.6 5 5.3 12 3.1 Median Group Response 2.48 2.53 2.48 2.51 C8 Essential 14 24.6 50 21.6 20 21.3 84 22.0 Important 26 45.6 124 53.7 53 56.4 203 53.1 Desirable 16 28.1 44 19.0 13 13.8 73 19.1 Unnecessary 1 1.8 10 4.3 6 6.4 17 4.5 Unacceptable 0 0.0 3 1.3 2 2.1 5 1.3 Median Group Response 2.06 2.03. 2.01 2.03 146 APPENDIX D — Continued Item , Desirability Expressed by Teacher H. S. Educator Teacher N % N % Student Teacher N % Total N % C9 Essential 8 14.0 42 18.2 21 22.3 71 18.6 Important 20 35.1 108 46.8 41 43.6 169 44.2 Desirable 24 42.1 58 25.1 19 20.2 101 26.4 Unnecessary 4 7.0 17 7.4 11 11.7 32 8.4 Unacceptable 1 1.8 6 2.6 2 2.1 9 2.4 Median Group Response 2. 52 , . 2.18 2.13 2.21 CIO Essential 8 14.0 55 23.8 26 27.7 89 23.3 Important 34 59.6 131 56.7 50 53.2 215 56. 3 Desirable 15 26.3 33 14.3 15 16. 0 63 16.5 Unnecessary 0 0.0 10 4.3 2 2.1 12 3.1 Unacceptable 0 0.0 2 0.9 1 1.1 3 0.8 Median Group Response 2.10 1.96 1.92 1.97 Cll Essential 11 19.3 58 25.1 32 34. 0 101 26.4 Important 38 66.7 109 47.2 47 50.2 194 50.8 Desirable 7 12.3 38 16.5 10 10.6 55 14.4 Unnecessary 1 1.8 19 8.2 2 2.1 22 5.8 Unacceptable 0 0.0 7 3.0 3 3.2 10 2.6 Median Group Response 1.96 2.03 1.82 1.96 C12 Essential 20 35.1 92 39.8 50 53.2 162 42.4 Important 33 57.9 121 52.4 38 40.4 192 50.3 Desirable 4 7.0 13 5.6 2 2.1 19 5.0 Unnecessary 0 0.0 1 0.4 4 4.3 5 1.3 Unacceptable 0 0.0 4 1.7 0 0.0 4 1.0 Median Group Response 1.76 1.69 1.44 1.65 C13 Essential 16 28.1 77 33.3 38 40.4 131 34.3 Important 29 50.9 95 41.1 40 42.6 164 42.9 Desirable 9 15.8 42 18.2 10 10.6 61 16.0 Unnecessary 1 1.8 10 4.3 4 4.3 15 3.9 Unacceptable 2 3.5 7 3.0 2 2.1 11 - 2.9 Median Group Response 1.93 1.91 1.73 1.87 C14 Essential 13 22.8 63 27.3 26 27.7 102 26.7 Important 26 45.6 116 50.2 45 47.9 187 49.0 Desirable 16 28.1 37 16.0 13 13.8 66 17.3 Unnecessary 2 3.5 14 6.1 7 7.4 23 6.0 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 3 3.2 4 1.0 Median Group Response 2.10 1.95 1.97 1.98 C15 Essential 10 17.5 60 26.0 19 20.2 89 23.3 Important 27 47.4 116 50.2 49 52.1 192 50.3 Desirable 19 33.3 44 19.0 19 20.2 82 21.5 Unnecessary 1 1.8 10 4.3 4 4.3 15 3.9 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 3 3.2 4 1.0 Median Group Response 2.19 1.98 2.07 2.03 C16 Essential 16 28.1 56 24.2 27 28.7 99 25.9 Important 21 36.8 119 51.5 44 46.8 184 48.2 Desirable 17 29.8 46 19.9 18 19.1 81 21.2 Unnecessary 3 5.3 9 3.9 1 1.1 13 3.4 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 4 4.3 5 1.3 Median Group Response 2.10 2.00 1.96 2. 00 147 APPENDIX D — Continued Item Desirability Expressed by Teacher H. S. Educator Teacher N % N % Student Teacher N % Total N % C17 Essential 9 15.8 42 18.2 14 14.9 65 17.0 Important 25 43.9 124 53.7 59 62.8 208 54.5 Desirable 18 31.6 49 21.2 11 11.7 78 20.4 Unnecessary 5 8.8 13 5.6 9 9.6 27 7.1 Unacceptable 0 0.0 3 1.3 1 1.1 4 1.0 Median Group Response 2.28 2.09 2.06 2.11 C18 Essential 9 15.8 49 21.2 21 22.3 79 20.7 Important 26 45.6 89 38.5 42 44.7 157 41.1 Desirable 18 31. 6 66 28.6 19 2 0.2 103 27.0 Unnecessary 4 7.0 21 9.1 6 6.4 31 8.1 Unacceptable 0 0.0 6 2.6 6 6.4 12 3.1 Median Group Response 2.25 2.25 2.12 2.21 Dl Essential 9 15. 8 50 21.6 17 18.1 76 19.9 Important 38 66.7 120 51.9 49 52.1 207 54.2 Desirable 7 12. 3 46 19.9 21 22.3 74 19.4 Unnecessary 3 5.3 12 5.2 5 5.3 20 5.2 Unacceptable 0 0.0 3 1.3 2 2.1 5 1.3 Median Group Response 2.01 2.05 2.11 2.06 D2 Essential 9 15.8 50 21.6 19 20.2 78 20.4 Important 28 49.1 114 49.4 45 47.9 187 49.0 Desirable 16 2 8.1 52 22.5 26 27.7 94 24.6 Unnecessary 3 5.3 10 4.3 3 3.2 16 4.2 Unacceptable 1 1.8 5 2.2 1 1.1 7 1.8 Median Group Response 2.20 2.08 2.12 2.10 D3 Essential 10 17.5 46 19. 9 19 20.2 75 19.6 Important 34 59.6 127 55.0 48 51.1 209 54.7 Desirable 10 17. 5 48 20. 8 20 21.3 78 20.4 Unnece s sary 3 5.3 9 3.9 7 7.4 19 5.0 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 0.3 Median Group Response 2.04 2.05 2.08 2.06 D4 Essential 20 35.1 94 40.7 36 38.3 150 39.3 Important 22 38.6 108 46.8 40 42.6 170 44.5 Desirable 11 19.3 21 9.1 9 9.6 41 10.7 Unnecessary 4 7.0 4 1.7 8 ' 8.5 16 4.2 Unacceptable 0 0.0 4 1.7 1 1.1 5 1.3 Median Group Response 1.89 1.70 1.78 1.74 D5 Essential 10 17.5 60 26.0 29 30.9 99 25.9 Important 35 61.4 119 51.5 45 47.9 199 52.1 Desirable 9 15. 8 41 17.7 15 16.0 65 17.0 Unnecessary 3 5.3 6 2.6 3 3.2 12 3.1 Unacceptable 0 0.0 5 2.2 2 2.1 7 1.8 Median Group Response 2.03 1.97 1.90 1.96 D6 Essential 9 15. 8 47 20.3 28 29.8 84 22.0 Important 17 29.8 98 42.4 32 34.0 147 38.5 Desirable 15 26.3 44 19.0 17 18.1 76 19.9 Unnecessary 7 12.3 17 7.4 11 11.7 35 9.2 Unacceptable 9 15.8 25 10.8 6 6.4 40 10.5 Median Group Response 2.67 2.20 2.09 2.23 148 APPENDIX D — Continued Item Desirability Expressed by Teacher H. S. Educator Teacher N % N % Student Teacher N % Total N % D7 Essential 3 5.3 15 6.5 9 9.6 27 7.1 Important 23 40.4 103 44.6 46 48. 9 172 45.0 Desirable 21 36.8 70 30.3 26 27.7 117 30.6 Unnecessary 6 10.5 34 14.7 8 8.5 4S 12.6 Unacceptable 4 7.0 9 3.9 5 5.3 18 4.7 Median Group Response 2.62 • 2.48 2.33 2.45 D8 Essential 10 17.5 59 25.5 31 33 . 0 100 26.2 Important 29 50.9 109 47.2 46 48 . 9 184 48.2 Desirable 12 21.1 44 19.0 11 11.7 67 17.5 Unnecessary 4 7.0 7 3.0 2 2.1 13 3.4 Unacceptable 2 3.5 12 5.2 4 4.3 18 4.7 ' Median Group Response 2.14 2.02 1.85 2.00 D9 Essential 15 26.3 89 38.5 31 33. 0 135 35.3 Important 30 52.6 119 51.5 46 48. 9 195 51.0 Desirable . 9 15.8 18 7.8 13 13.8 40 10.5 Unnecessary 3 5.3 4 1.7 3 3.2 10 2.6 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 1 1.1 2 0.5 Median Group Response 1.95 1.72 1.85 1.79 DIO Essential 30 52.6 133 57.6 48 51.1 211 55.2 Important 26 45.6 90 39.0 39 41.5 155 40.6 Desirable 1 1.8 7 3.0 5 5.3 13 3.4 Unnecessary 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.1 2 0.5 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 0.3 Median Group Response 1.45 1.37 1.48 1.41 Dll Essential 13 22.8 69 29.9 27 28.7 109 28. 5 Important 32 56.1 127 55.0 50 53.2 209 54.7 Desirable 12 21.1 27 11.7 14 14.9 53 13.9 Unnecessary 0 0.0 8 3.5 2 2.1 10 2.6 Unacceptable 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 0.3 Median Group Response 1.98 1.87 1.90 1.89 D12 Essential 6 10.5 33 14.3 17 18.1 56 14.7 Important 24 42.1 144 62.3 52 55.3 220 57.6 Desirable 24 42.1 40 17.3 16 17.0 80 20.9 Unnecessary 2 3.5 11 4.8 7 7.4 20 5.2 Unacceptable 1 1.8 3 1.3 2 2.1 6 1.6 Median Group Response 2.44 2.07 2.08 2.11 D13 Essential 21 36. 8 115 49.8 47 50. 0 183 47.9 Important 32 56.1 108 46.8 41 43.6 181 47.4 Desirable 4 7.0 5 2.2 4 4.3 13 3.4 Unnecessary 0 0.0 2 0.9 1 1.1 3 0.8 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 1 1.1 2 0.5 Median Group Response 1.73 1.51 1.48 1.54 D14 Essential 13 22. 8 62 26.8 20 21.3 95 24. 9 Important 32 56.1 137 59.3 62 66.0 231 60.5 Desirable 11 19.3 22 9.5 10 10.6 43 11.3 Unnecessary 0 0.0 9 3.9 2 2.1 11 2.9 Unacceptable 1 1.8 1 0.4 0 0.0 2 0.5 Median Group Response 1. 98 I.89 1.94 1.92 APPENDIX D -- Continued 149 Item Desirability Expressed by Teacher H. S. Educator Teacher N % N % Student Teacher N % • Total N % D15 Essential 15 26.3 83 35. 9 33 35.1 131 34. 3 Important 31 54.4 118 51.1 46 48.9 195 51.0 Desirable 9 15. 8 23 10.0 12 12. 8 44 11. 5 Unnecessary 1 1.8 5 2.2 1 1.1 7 1.8 Unacceptable 1 1.8 2 0.9 2 2.1 5 1.3 Median Group Response 1.94 1.78 1.80 1.80 D16 Essential 26 45.6 104 45.0 40 42.6 170 44.5 Important 29 50. 9 104 45.0 48 51.1 181 47.4 Desirable 2 3.5 22 9.5 3 3.2 27 7.1 Unnecessary 0 0.0 1 0.4 2 2.1 3 0.8 Unacceptable 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 0.3 Median Group Response 1.59 1.61 1.65 1.62 D17 Essential 14 24.6 90 39.0 30 31.9 134 35.1 Important 33 57. 9 108 46.8 44 46.8 185 48.4 Desirable 9 15.8 31 13.4 15 16.0 55 14.4 Unnecessary 1 1.8 2 0.9 3 3.2 6 1.6 Unacceptable 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.1 2 0.5 Median Group Response 1.94 1.74 1.89 1.81 D18 Essential 14 24.6 75 32.5 22 23.4 Ill 29.1 Important 33 57.9 99 42.9 42 44.7 174 45.5 Desirable 8 14. 0 49 21.2 21 22. 3 78 20.4 Unnecessary 2 3.5 5 2.2 4 4.3 11 2.9 Unacceptable 0 0.0 3 1.3 5 5.3 8 2.1 Median Group Response 1.94 1.91 2.10 1.96 D19 Essential 11 19. 3 62 26.8 13 13.8 86 22.5 Important 29 50.9 111 48.1 57 60.6 197 51.6 Desirable 14 24.6 52 22. 5 14 14. 9 80 20. 9 Unnecessary 2 3.5 5 2.2 5 5.3 12 3.1 Unacceptable 1 1.8 1 0.4 5 5.3 7 1.8 Median Group Response 2.10 1. 98 2.10 2.03 D20 Essential 9 15. 8 26 11.3 13 13.8 48 12.6 Important 25 43.9 110 47.6 39 41.5 174 45.5 Desirable 20 35.1 68 29.4 27 28.7 115 30.1 Unnecessary 3 5.3 21 9.1 10 10.6 34 8.9 Unacceptable 0 0.0 6 2.6 5 5.3 11 2.9 Median Group Response 2.28 2. 31 2.37 2.32 D21 Essential 17 29.8 56 24.2 24 25.5 97 25.4 Important 20 35.1 120 51.9 46 48.9 186 48. 7 Desirable 18 31.6 39 16.9 11 11.7 68 17.8 Unnecessary 1 1.8 13 5.6 11 11.7 25 6.5 Unacceptable 1 1.8 3 1.3 2 2.1 6 1.6 Median Group Response 2.08 2. 00 2.00 2.01 D22 Essential 9 15.8 37 16.0 18 19.1 64 16. 8 Important 23 40.4 118 51.1 53 56.4 194 50.8 Desirable 22 38.6 61 26.4 15 16.0 98 25.7 Unnecessary 3 5.3 12 5.2 7 7.4 22 5.8 Unacceptable 0 0.0 3 1.3 1 1.1 4 1.0 Median Group Response 2.35 2.17 2.05 2.16 150 APPENDIX D — Continued Item Desirability Expressed by Teacher H. S. Educator Teacher N % N % Student Teacher N % Total N % D23 Essential 12 21.1 60 26.0 34 36.2 106 27.7 Important 27 47.4 125 54.1 43 45.7 195 51.0 Desirable 17 29.8 37 16. 0 13 13.8 67 17.5 Unnecessary 1 1.8 8 3.5 4 4.3 13 3.4 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 0.3 Median Group Response 2.11 1.94 1.80 1.94 El Essential 14 24.6 46 19.9 16 17.0 76 19.9 Important 35 61.4 140 60.6 56 59.6 231 60. 5 Desirable 8 14.0 36 15.6 15 16. 0 59 15.4 Unnecessary 0 0.0 7 3.0 5 5.3 12 3.1 Unacceptable 0 0.0 2 0.9 2 2.1 4 1.0 Median Group Response 1.91 2.00 2.05 2.00 E2 Essential 8 14 .0 40 17.3 15 16. 0 63 16.5 Important 43 75.4 129 55.8 58 61. 7 230 60. 2 Desirable 6 10. 5 52 22.5 16 17.0 74 19.4 Unnecessary 0 0.0 7 3.0 1 1.1 8 2.1 Unacceptable 0 0.0 3 1.3 4 4.3 7 1.8 Median Group Response 1.98 2.09 2.05 2.06 E3 Essential 14 24. 6 62 26.8 30 31.9 106 27 .7 Important 24 42.1 116 50.2 35 37.2 175 45.8 Desirable 18 31. 6 45 19.5 22 23.4 85 22.3 Unnecessary 1 1.8 8 3.5 4 4.3 13 3.4 Unacceptable 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 3.2 3 0.8 Median Group Response 2.10 1. 96 1.99 1.99 E4 Essential 12 21.1 47 20.3 35 37. 2 94 24. 6 Important 31 54.4 124 53.7 40 42. 6 195 51. 0 Desirable 12 21.1 45 19.5 15 16. 0 72 18. 8 Unnecessary 2 3.5 12 5.2 3 3.2 17 4.5 Unacceptable 0 0.0 3 1.3 1 1.1 4 1. 0 Median Group Response 2.03 2.05 1.80 2.00 E5 Essential 7 12.3 33 14.3 18 19.1 58 15. 2 Important 34 59.6 113 48.9 44 46. 8 191 50.0 Desirable 14 24.6 67 29.0 25 26.6 106 27.7 Unnecessary 2 3.5 14 6.1 4 4.3 20 5.2 Unacceptable 0 0.0 4 1.7 3 3.2 7 1.8 Median Group Response 2.03 2.23 2.16 2.20 E6 Essential 5 8.8 19 8.2 9 9.6 33 8.6 Important 35 61.4 124 53.7 47 50. 0 206 53.9 Desirable 14 24.6 77 33.3 29 30. 9 120 31.4 Unnecessary 3 5.3 9 3.9 8 8.5 20 5.2 Unacceptable 0 0.0 2 0.9 1 1.1 3 0.8 Median Group Response 2.17 2.28 2.31 2.27 E7 Essential 21 36.8 84 36.4 26 27.7 131 34.3 Important 32 56.1 111 48.1 59 62.8 202 52.9 Desirable 4 7.0 33 14.3 6 6.4 43 11.3 Unnecessary 0 0.0 3 1.3 3 3.2 6 1. 6 Median Group Response •1.73 1 .78 1.86 1 : .80 151 APPENDIX D — Continued Item Desirability Expressed by Teacher H. S. Educator Teacher N % N % Student Teacher N % Total N % . E8 Essential 7 , 12.3 38 16.5 21 22.3 66 17.3 Important 31 54.4 141 61.0 45 47. 9 217 56.8 Desirable 15 26.3 42 18.2 21 22.3 78 20.4 Unnecessary 3 5.3 9 3.9 5 5. 3 17 4.5 Unacceptable 1 1.8 1 0.4 2 2.1 4 1.0 Median Group Response 2.19 2.05 2. 08 2.08 E9 Essential 24 42.1 106 45.9 43 45.7 173 45.3 Important 28 49.1 107 46.3 47 50.0 182 47.6 Desirable 5 8.8 18 7.8 1 1.1 24 6.3 Unnecessary 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 3.2 3 0.8 Median Group Response 1.66 1.59 1.59 1.60 E10 Essential 10 17.5 47 20. 3 12 12.8 69. v 18.1 Important 29 50.9 124 53. 7 54 57.4 207 54.2 Desirable 16 28.1 46 19.9 19 20 . 2 81 21.2 Unnecessary 1 1.8 12 5.2 7 7.4 20 5.2 Unacceptable 1 1.8 2 0.9 2 2.1 5 1.3 Median Group Response 2.14 . 2.05 2.15 2.09 Ell Essential 5 8.8 31 13.4 14 14.9 50 13.1 Important 27 47.4 111 48.1 47 50.0 185 48.4 Desirable 21 36.8 66 28.6 22 23.4 109 28.5 Unnecessary 3 5.3 19 8.2 10 10.6 32 8.4 Unacceptable 1 1. 8 4 1.7 1 1.1 6 1.6 Median Group Response 2. 37 2.26 2. 20 2.26 E12 Essential 10 17.5 53 22.9 15 16.0 78 20.4 Important 29 50.9 111 48.1 44 46. 8 184 48. 2 Desirable 14 24.6 57 24.7 26 27.7 97 25. 4 Unnecessary 4 7.0 7 3.0 7 7.4 18 4.7 Unacceptable 0 0.0 3 1.3 2 2.1 5 1.3 Median Group Response 2.14 2. 06 2. 23 2.11 E13 Essential 8 14.0 19 8.2 10 10.6 37 9.7 Important 25 43.9 102 44.2 36 38.3 163 42.7 Desirable 20 35.1 85 36.8 36 38. 3 141 36. 9 Unnecessary 3 5.3 20 8.7 10 10. 6 33 8.6 Unacceptable 1 1.8 5 2.2 2 2.1 8 2.1 Median Group Response 2. 32 2.45 2.53 2.45 E14 Essential 6 10.5 28 12.1 12 12. 8 46 12.0 Important 31 54.4 118 51.1 49 52.1 198 51.8 Desirable 17 29.8 57 24.7 24 25.5 98 25.7 Unnecessary 2 3.5 23 10.0 7 7.4 32 8.4 Unacceptable 1 1.8 5 2.2 2 2.1 8 2.1 Median Group Response 2.23 2.24 2.21 2.23 E15 Essential 7 12.3 26 11.3 16 17.0 49 12.8 Important 26 45.6 122 52. 8 42 44.7 190 49. 7 Desirable 21 36.8 63 27.3 28 29.8 112 29.3 Unnecessary 3 5.3 14 6.1 5 5.3 22 5.8 Unacceptable 0 0.0 6 2.6 3 3.2 9 2.4 Median Group Response 2.33 2.2 3 2.24. 2.25 • APPENDIX D — Continued 152 Expressed by Item Desirability Teacher H. S. Educator Teacher N % N % Student Teacher N % Total N % E16 Essential 1 1.8 35 15.2 21 22.3 57 14. 9 Important 27 47.4 114 49.4 47 50.0 188 49.2 Desirable 25 43. 9 58 25.1 17 18.1 100 26.2 Unnecessary 4 7.0 17 7.4 7 7.4 28 7.3 Unacceptable 0 0.0 7 3.0 2 2.1 9 2.4 Median Group Response 2. 52 2.21 2.05 2.21 E17 Essential 18 31.6 100 43.3 32 34.0 150 39.3 Important 26 45.6 101 43.7 49 52.1 176 46.1 Desirable 11 19.3 22 9.5 10 10.6 43 11. 3 Unnecessary 2 3.5 7 3.0 3 3.2 12 3.1 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 • 0.3 Median Group Response 1.90 1.65 1.81 1.73 G1 Essential 11 19.3 62 26. 8 26 27.7 99 25. 9 Important 28 49. 1 123 53.2 49 52.1 200 52.4 Desirable 16 28.1 36 15.6 17 18.1 69 18.1 Unnecessary 2 3.5 10 4.3 1 1.1 13 3.4 Unacceptable 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 0.3 Median Group Response 2.13 1.94 1.93 1.96 G2 Essential 11 19.3 58 25.1 16 17.0 85 22.3 Important 2 3 40.4 119 51.5 52 55.3 194 50.8 Desirable 18 31.6 . 44 19.0 15 16. 0 77 20.2 Unnecessary 4 7.0 7 3.0 9 9.6 20 5.2 Unacceptable 1 1.8 3 1.3 2 2.1 6 1.6 Median Group Response 2.26 1.98 2.10 2.05 G3 Essential 15 26.3 67 29.0 31 33. 0 113 29.6 Important 29 50.9 125 54.1 52 55.3 206 53.9 Desirable 12 21.1 36 15.6 4 4.3 52 13.6 Unnecessary 1 1.8 2 0.9 5 5.3 8 2.1 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 2 2.1 3 0.8 Median Group Response 1. 97 1.89 1.81 1.88 G4 Essential 8 14.0 43 18.6 19 20.2 70 18.3 Important 29 50.9 127 55.0 53 56.4 209 54.7 Desirable 19 33. 3 50 21.6 16 17.0 85 22.3 Unnecessary 1 1.8 5 2.2 5 5.3 11 2.9 Unacceptable 0 0.0 6 2.6 1 1.1 7 1.8 Median Group Response 2.21 2.07 2.03 2.08 G5 Essential 12 21.1 55 23.8 23 24.5 90 23.6 Important 29 50.9 139 60.2 58 61.7 226 59.2 Desirable 14 24.6 30 13.0 9 9.6 53 13. 9 Unnecessary 2 3.5 3 1.3 3 3.2 8 2.1 Unacceptable 0 0.0 4 1.7 1 1.1 5 1.3 Median Group Response 2.07 1.94 1.91 1.95 G6 Essential 11 19.3 64 27.7 31 33.0 106 27.7 Important 34 59.6 120 51.9 40 42.6 194 50.8 Desirable 9 15.8 36 15.6 19 20.2 64 16.8 Unnecessary 1 1.8 8 3.5 2 2.1 11 2.9 Unacceptable 2 3.5 3 1.3 2 2.1 7 1.8 Median Group Response 2.02 1.93 1.9 0 1.94 153 APPENDIX D — Continued Item Desirability Expressed by Teacher H. S. Educator Teacher N % N % Student Teacher N % Total N % G7 Essential 17 29.8 47 20.3 25 26.6 89 23.3 Important 28 49.1 136 58.9 58 61.7 222 58.1 Desirable 10 17. 5 39 16.9 9 9.6 58 15. 2 Unnecessary . 2 3.5 6 2.6 1 1.1 9 2.4 Unacceptable 0 0.0 3 1.3 1 1.1 4 1.0 Median Group Response 1.91 2.00 1.88 1.96 G8 Essential 19 33. 3 56 24.2 24 25.5 99 25. 9 Important 25 43.9 112 48.5 59 62. 8 196 51. 3 Desirable 13 22.8 53 22.9 6 6.4 72 18.8 Unnecessary 0 0.0 9 3.9 3 3.2 12 3.1 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 2 2.1 3 0.8 Median Group Response 1.88 2.03 1.89 1.97 G9 Essential 26 45.6 101 43.7 52 55.3 179 46.9 Important 24 42.1 116 50.2 30 31. 9 170 44.5 Desirable 7 12. 3 12 5.2 11 11. 7 30 7.9 Unnecessary 0 0.0 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 0.3 Unacceptable 0 0.0 1 0.4 1 1.1 2 0.5 Median Group Response 1.60 1.63 1.41 1.57 G10 Essential 24 42.1 92 39. 8 38 40.4 154 40. 3 Important 25 43.9 109 47.2 38 40.4 172 45.0 Desirable 7 12. 3 27 11.7 13 13.8 47 12.3 Unnecessary 1 1.8 3 1. 3 4 4.3 8 2.1 Unacceptable 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 0.3 Median Group Response 1.68 1.72 1.74 1.72 Gil Essential 13 22. 8 36 15.6 19 20. 2 68 17. 8 Important 30 52. 6 138 59. 7 51 54.3 219 57. 3 Desirable 10 17. 5 45 19.5 20 21. 3 75 19. 6 Unnecessary 2 3.5 7 3.0 2 2.1 . 11 2.9 Unacceptable 2 3.5 5 2.2 2 2.1 9 2.4 Median Group Response 2.02 2.08 2.05 2.06 G12 Essential 3 5.3 21 9.1 17 18.1 41 10.7 Important 28 49.1 111 48.1 47 50.0 186 48.7 Desirable 20 35.1 82 35. 5 20 21.3 122 31.9 Unnecessary 4 7.0 15 6.5 10 10.6 29 7.6 Unacceptable 2 3.5 2 0.9 0 0.0 4 1.0 Median Group Response 2.41 2.35 2.14 2.31 G13 Essential 12 21.1 80 34.6 28 29.8 120 31. 4 Important 31 54.4 126 54. 5 52 55.3 209 54. 7 Desirable 13 22.8 23 10.0 10 10.6 46 12.0 Unnecessary 1 1.8 0 0.0 3 3.2 4 1. 0 Unacceptable 0 0.0 2 0.9 1 1.1 3 0.8 Median Group Response 2.03 1.78 1. 87 1.84 Gl4 Essential 9 15. 8 52 22. 5 17 18.1 78 20. 4 Important 31 54.4 132 57.1 57 60.6 220 57.6 Desirable 13 22. 8 43 18.6 17 18.1 73 19.1 Unnecessary 2 3.5 3 1. 3 2 2.1 7 1.8 Unacceptable 2 3.5 1 0.4 1 1.1 4 1.0 Median Group Response 2.13 1.98 2.03 2.01 154 APPENDIX D — Continued Item Desirability Expressed by Teacher H. S. Educator Teacher N % N 4 Student Teacher N % 1 ‘ N Total Q. “ O G15 Essential 12 21.2 47 20.3 23 24.5 82 21.5 Important 27 47.4 121 52.4 45 47. 9 193 50.5 Desirable 15 26. 3 54 23.4 24 25.5 93 24.3 Unnecessary 2 3.5 9 3.9 2 2.1 13 3.4 Unacceptable 1 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0. 3 Median Group Response 2.11 2. 07 2.03 2.06 APPENDIX E DISTRIBUTION OF TEACHERS’ RATINGS OF DESIRABILITY OF OBJECTIVES BY THEIR NUMBER OF YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE WHEN SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS EXIST 155 156 APPENDIX E DISTRIBUTION OF TEACHERS' RATINGS OF DESIRABILITY OF OBJECTIVES BY THEIR NUMBER OF YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE WHEN SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS EXIST Objective Desirability Ratings* Number• of ' Years Total 1 - .3 6' - i.o: Over 10' N Q. “ O. A2 Essential 8 10 17 35 15.2 Important 33 40 50 123 53.2 Desirable 14 26 12 52 22. 5 Unnecessary 7 6 5 18 7.8 Unacceptable 2 1 0 3 1. 3 Median Group Response 2.23 2.29 2.00 2. 15 B5 Essential 26 22 32 80 34.6 Important 26 43 49 118 51. 1 Desirable 10 12 3 25 10. 8 Unnecessary 2 5 0 7 3.0 Unacceptable 0 1 0 1 0.4 Medi an Group Response 1. 73 1.95 1.70 1.80 B6 Essential 19 23 28 70 30. 3 Important 30 29 44 103 44. 6 Desirable 6 15 5 26 11. 3 Unnecessary 2 9 2 13 5.6 Unacceptable 7 7 5 19 8. 2 Median Group Response 1. 93 2. 14 1. 82 1. 94 B7 Essential 16 24 34 74 32.0 Important 34 39 43 116 50.2 Desirable 9 13 7 29 12. 6 Unnecessary 4 6 0 10 4.3 Unacceptable 1 1 0 2 0.9 Median Group Response 1.97 1.95 1.69 1. 86 B9 Essential 12 16 18 46 19. 9 Important 39 41 53 133 57. 6 Desirable 6 21 9 36 15. 6 Unnecessary 4 5 2 11 4. 8 Unacceptable 3 0 2 5 2.2 Median Group Response 2. 01 2. 12 1. 95 2. 02 Bll Essential 14 14 26 54 23.4 Important 36 57 48 141 61. 0 Desirable 11 12 10 33 14. 3 Unnecessary 3 0 0 3 1.3 Median Group Response 2. 00 1. 98 1.83 1.94 B17 Essential 33 33 44 110 47.6 Important 25 38 40 103 44.6 Desirable 6 12 0 18 7.8 Median Group Response 1. 47 1.72 1.45 1. 55 Bl 8 Essential 18 18 29 65 28. 1 Important 26 40 46 112 48. 5 Desirable 16 20 8 44 19. 0 Unnecessary 4 5 1 10 4.3 Median Group Response 2.04 2.0 9 1. 78 1. 95 157 APPENDIX E — Continued Objective Desirability Rating* Number of Years Total 1 - 5 6 u 10 Over 10 N % • B24 Es sential 15 21 25 61 26. 4 Important 41 40 44 125 54. 1 Desirable 8 14 14 36 15.6 Unnecessary 0 7 1 8 3.5 Unacceptble 0 1 0 1 0.4 Median Group Response 1. 9 2 2.01 1.90 1.94 B27 Es sential 9 12 17 38 16. 5 Important 31 30 46 107 46.3 Desirable 15 29 18 62 26. 8 Unnecessary 6 9 3 18 7.8 Unacceptable 3 3 0 6 2.6 Median Group Response 2. 24 2.48 1.94 2.22 B29 Essential 16 36 25 77 33. 3 Important 30 23 49 102 44. 2 Desirable 16 19 7 42 18. 2 Unnecessary 0 3 3 6 2.6 Unacceptable 2 2 0 4 1. 7 Median Group Response 2.03 1.74 1. 85 1.88 C2 Essential 4 8 11 23 10.0 Important 37 38 54 129 55. 8 Desirable 16 30 15 61 26. 4 Unnecessary 6 4 3 13 5.6 Unacceptable 1 3 1 5 2.2 Median Group Response 2. 26 2. 38 1. 97 2.22 C4 Essential 7 13 10 30 13.0 Important 30 39 53 122 52. 8 Desirable 13 23 17 53 22.9 Unnecessary 10 5 3 18 7.8 Unacceptable 4 3 1 8 3.5 Median Group Response 2.33 2.23 2.10 2.20 C6 Essential 18 16 22 56 24. 2 Important 32 37 46 115 49. 8 Desirable 7 24 13 44 19. 0 Unnecessary 3 2 1 6 2.6 Unacceptable 4 4 2 10 4.3 Median Group Response 1. 94 2.19 1.93 2 . 02 C7 Essential 2 10 9 21 9. 1 Important 23 29 40 92 39.8 Desirable 23 30 26 79 34. 2 Unnecessary 15 10 8 33 14. 3 Unacceptable 1 4 1 6 2.6 Median Group Response 2. 81 2. 59 2.33 2.53 C14 Essential 13 19 31 63 27.3 Important 32 41 43 116 50.2 Desirable 14 14 9 37 16.0 Unnecessary 5 8 1 14 6.1 Unacceptable 0 1 0 1 0.4 Median Group Response 2. 09 2.05 1.7 6 1.95 158 APPENDIX E — Continued Obj ective Desirability Rating* Number of Y ear s To ta 1 1 - 5 6 - io Over 10i N Q. "O C15 Essential 12 20 28 60 26.0 Important 37 36 43 116 50. 2 Desirable 12 20 12 44 19. 0 Unnecessary 3 6 1 10 4.3 Unacceptable 0 1 0 1 0.4 Median Group Response 2.04 2.10 1.83 1.98 C16 Essential 16 16 24 56 24.2 Important 28 45 46 119 51.5 Desirable 13 20 13 46 19. 9 Unnecessary 6 2 1 9 3.9 Unacceptable 1 0 0 1 0.4 Me di an Group Response 2.07 2.08 1. 89 2 . 00 D2 Essential 16 15 19 50 21.6 Important 30 36 48 114 49.4 Desirable 14 21 17 52 22. 5 Unnecessary 2 8 0 10 4.3 Unacceptable 2 3 0 5 2.2 Median Group Response 2.03 2. 40 2.08 2.08 D5 Essential 15 23 22 60 26.0 Important 27 39 53 119 51. 5 Desirable 18 15 8 41 17. 7 Unnecessary 1 4 1 6 2.6 Unacceptable 3 2 0 5 2.2 Median Group Response 2.13 1. 97 1.88 1.97 D6 Essential 13 15 19 47 20. 3 Important 26 33 39 98 42.4 Desirable 11 19 14 44 19. 0 Unnecessary 2 12 3 17 7. 4 Unacceptable 12 4 9 25 10. 8 Median Group Response 2.23 2. 30 2.09 2. 20 D8 Essential 15 21 23 59 25.5 Important 31 33 45 109 47. 2 Desirable 10 24 10 44 19. 0 Unnecessary 3 3 1 7 3.0 Unacceptable 5 2 5 12 5.2 Median Group Response 2.05 2.12 1.92 2.02 Dll Essential 17 25 27 69 29.9 Important 33 45 49 127 55. 0 Desirable 7 13 7 27 11. 7 Unnecessary 7 0 1 8 3.5 Median Group Response 1. 95 1. 87 1. 81 1, 87 D12 Essential 12 11 10 33 14.3 Important 32 50 62 144 62. 3 Desirable 13 17 10 40 17. 3 Unnecessary 6 3 2 11 4. 8 Unacceptable 1 2 0 3 1. 3 Medi an Group Response 2.12 2. 11 2 . 02 2.0 7 159 APPENDIX E — Continued Objective Desirability Number of 1 years IJW r ' W H H ' ' f ' i " " i S S C S 3 B 3 S 3 S 3 Total Rating* 1. - 5 6 - 10 Over 10 N % D15 Essential 24 22 37 83 35. 9 Important 26 49 43 118 51. 1 Desirable 9 11 3 23 10.0 Unnecessary 3 1 1 5 2.2 Unacceptable 2 0 0 * 2 0.9 Median Group Response 1.81 1.90 1.62 1.78 D21 Essential 15 17 24 56 24. 2 Important 32 38 50 120 51.9 Desirable 11 20 8 39 16.9 Unnecessary 5 7 1 13 5.6 Unacceptable 1 1 1 3 1.3 Median Group Response 2.03 2.14 1.86 2.00 D2 3 Essential 14 20 26 60 26.0 Important 37 41 47 125 54. 1 Desirable 12 14 11 37 16.0 Unnecessary 0 8 0 8 3.5 Unacceptable 1 0 0 1 0.4 Median Group Response 1.99 2. 02 1.84 1.94 E5 Essential 10 10 13 33 14. 3 Important 30 32 51 113 48. 9 Desirable 2 0 31 16 67 29. 0 Unnecessary 2 8 4 14 6.1 Unacceptable 2 2 0 4 1.7 Median Group Response 2.23 2. 48 2. 07 2.23 E7 Essential 15 31 38 84 36. 4 Important 37 34 40 111 48.1 Desirable 12 15 6 33 14. 3 Unnecessary 0 3 0 3 1.3 Median Group Response 1.96 1.81 1. 60 1.78 E9 Essential 25 34 47 106 45.9 Important 36 37 34 107 46.3 Desirable 3 12 3 18 7. 8 Median Group Response 1.69 1. 70 1.39 1. 59 Ell Essential 10 8 13 31 13.4 Important 29 34 48 111 48.1 Desirable 16 34 16 66 28. 6 Unnecessary 6 6 7 19 8.2 Unacceptable 3 1 0 4 1.7 Median Group Response 2.26 2.48 2. 00 2.26 E13 Essential 3 9 7 19 8.2 Important 21 37 44 102 44. 2 Desirable 32 28 25 85 36. 8 Unnecessary 8 5 7 20 8.7 Unacceptable 0 4 1 5 2.2 Median G r o up Re sp on s e 4.50 2. 38 2.30 2. 45 160 APPENDIX E Continued Objective Desirability Number of Years Total Rating* 1 - 5 6 - 10 Over 10i N Q . " O E17 Essential 28 23 49 100 43.3 Important 30 43 28 101 43. 7 Desirable 5 12 5 22 9.5 Unnecessary 1 4 2 7 3.0 Unacceptable 0 1 0 1 0.4 Median Group Response 1.63 1.93 1. 36 1.65 G1 Essential 17 19 26 62 26 . 8 Important 33 41 49 123 53.2 Desirable 8 20 8 36 15.6 Unnecessary 6 3 1 10 4.3 Median Group Response 1.95 2 .05 1.83 1.94 G2 Essential 14 12 32 58 25.1 Important 36 44 39 119 51. 5 Desirable 7 25 12 44 19.0 Unnecessary 4 2 1 7 3.0 Unacceptable 3 0 0 3 1.3 Median Group Response 2.00 2.17 1. 76 1. 98 G3 Essential 18 18 31 67 29.0 Important 35 44 46 12 5 54.1 Desirable 9 20 7 36 15.6 Unnecessary 1 1 0 2 0.9 Unacceptable 1 0 0 1 0.4 Median Group Response 2.03 2.03 1.74 1.89 G8 Essential 17 18 21 56 24. 2 Important 25 37 50 112 48. 5 Desirable 15 26 12 53 22.9 Unnecessary 7 2 0 9 3.9 Unacceptable 0 0 1 1 0.4 Median Group Response 2 .10 2.14 1.92 2.03 G9 Essential 36 25 40 101 43.7 Important 27 50 39 116 50.2 Desirable 0 8 4 12 5.2 Unnecessary 0 0 1 1 0.4 Unacceptable 1 0 0 1 0.4 Median Group Response 1. 39 1. 83 1. 05 1.63 G10 Essential 35 28 29 92 39. 8 Important 25 38 46 109 47.2 Desirable 4 16 7 27 11. 7 Unnecessary 0 1 2 3 1. 3 Medina Group Response 1. 41 1. 86 1.78 1.72 Gil Essential 7 15 14 36 15. 6 Important 39 44 55 138 59. 7 Desirable 10 21 14 45 19.5 Unnecessary 4 3 0 7 3.0 Unacceptable 4 0 1 5 2.2 Median Group Response. 2.14 2.10 2.01 2.08 161 APPENDIX E — Continued Objective Desirability Rating* Number of Years To ta 1 1 - 5 6 - 10 Over 10 N a *o G14 Essential 15 13 24 52 22.5 Important 35 44 53 132 57.1 Desirable 12 25 6 43 18.6 Unnecessary 2 0 1 3 1.3 Unacceptable 0 1 0 1 0.4 Median Group Response 1. 99 2.15 1.84 1. 98 G15 Essential 12 14 21 47 20. 3 Important 32 36 53 121 52. 4 Desirable 15 30 9 54 23. 4 Unnecessary 5 3 1 9 3.9 Median Group Response 2. 12 2. 26 1. 90 2. 07 *Scaled from One (Essential) to Five (Unacceptable) APPENDIX E DISTRIBUTION OF TEACHERS' RATINGS OF DESIRABILITY OF OBJECTIVES BY THEIR NUMBER OF PROFESSIONAL COURSES COMPLETED WHEN SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS EXIST 162 APPENDIX'F 163 DISTRIBUTION OF TEACHERS' RATINGS OF DESIRABILITY OF OBJECTIVES BY THEIR NUMBER OF PROFESSIONAL COURSES COMPLETED WHEN SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS EXIST . n y n ' T m 1 - iu i‘v e a c e a r g j g ■■jm t-bi.i »' .r .if f g g a q s q B /.'jn .M .u i v .u Objective Desirability Rating* Number of Courses Total None 1 - 5 Over 5 N Q , “ O A8 Essential 19 30 2 51 22.1 Important 36 53 3 92 39. 8 Desirable 22 28 1 51 22. 1 Unnecessary 16 14 0 30 13.0 Unacceptable 3 2 2 7 3.0 Median Group Response 2. 31 2 .13 2.17 2.20 B7 Essential 22 48 4 74 32. 0 Important 54 58 4 116 50.2 Desirable 17 12 0 29 12.6 Unnecessary 2 8 0 10 4.3 Unacceptable 1 1 0 2 0.9 Median Group'Response 1.99 1.77 1. 50 1. 86 B14 Essential 13 33 2 48 20.8 Important 59 69 4 132 57.1 Desirable 17 17 1 35 15.2 Unnecessary 7 6 0 13 5.6 Unacceptable 0 2 1 3 1.3 Median Group Response .2.09 1. 94 2.00 2.01 B18 Essential 29 31 5 65 28.1 Important 46 66 0 112 48.5 Desirable 15 26 3 44 19.0 Unnecessary 6 4 0 10 4.3 Median Group Response 1.91 1.99 1. 30 1.95 B20 Essential 22 28 5 55 23.8 Important 55 77 2 134 58.0 Desirable 12 18 0 30 13. 0 Unnecessary 5 3 0 8 3.5 Unacceptable 2 1 1 4 1. 7 Median Group Response 1. 97 1.96 1. 30 1.95 B26 Essential 16 27 1 44 19.0 Important 43 61 5 109 47. 2 Desirable 19 32 1 52 22. 5 Unnecessary 16 5 0 21 9.1 Unacceptable 2 2 1 5 2.2 Median Group Response 2. 24 2.10 2.10 2. 16 B27 Essential 14 22 2 38 16. 5 Important 42 61 4 107 46. 3 Desirable 24 38 0 62 26 . 8 Unnecessary 15 3 0 18 7.8 Unacceptable 1 3 2 6 2.6 Median Group Response 2. 31 2.18 2.00 2. 22 B2 8 Essential 13 20 2 35 15.2 Important 49 63 4 116 50.2 Desirable 23 35 1 59 25.5 Unnecessary 11 9 0 20 8.7 Unacceptable 0 0 1 1 0.4 Median Group Response 2. 22 2.19 2.00 2.19 164 APPENDIX F — Continued Objective Desirability Rating* Number of Courses Total None 1 - 5 Over 5 N a 7 3 C-8 Essential 14 34 2 50 21. 6 Important 49 71 4 124 53.7 Desirable 24 18 2 44 19. 0 Unnecessary 7 3 0 10 4.3 Unacceptable 2 1 0 3 1.3 Median Group Response 2.19 1.92 2. 00 2.03 CIO Essential 15 35 5 55 23.8 Important 6 5 63 3 131 56.7 Desirable 13 20 0 33 14. 3 Unnecessary 3 7 0 10 4.3 Unacceptable 0 2 0 2 0.9 Median Group Response 2.01 1.95 1. 30 1.96 C15 Essential 25 31 4 60 26 .0 Important 52 62 2 116 50.2 Desirable 13 30 1 44 19.0 Unnecessary 6 4 0 10 4.3 Unacceptable 0 0 1 1 0.4 Median Group Response 1.94 2.03 1. 50 1.98 D4 Essential 43 46 5 94 40.7 Important 39 67 2 108 46.8 Desirable 13 8 0 21 9.1 Unnecessary 0 . 3 1 4 1. 7 Unacceptable 1 3 0 4 1.7 Median Group Response 1.63 1. 76 1. 30 1. 70 DIO Essential 61 64 8 133 57.6 Important 32 58 0 90 39 .0 Desirable 2 5 0 7 3.0 Unacceptable 1 0 0 1 0.4 Median Group Response 1.29 1.4 9 1.00 1.37 El Essential 11 29 6 46 19. 9 Important 59 80 1 140 60.6 Desirable 19 16 1 36 15.6 Unnecessary 5 2 0 7 3.0 Unacceptable 2 0 0 2 0.9 Median Group Response 2.13 1. 93 1. 17 2. 00 E5 Essential 8 21 4 33 14. 3 Important 53 57 3 113 48.9 Desirable 28 39 0 67 29.0 Unnecessary 7 7 0 14 6.1 Unacceptable 0 3 1 4 1.7 Median Group Response 2. 26 2. 25 1.50 2.23 E13 Essential 10 7 2 19 8.2 Important 35 62 5 102 44.2 Desirable 43 41 1 85 36. 8 Unnecessary 7 13 0 20 8.7 Unacceptable 1 4 0 5 2.2 Median Group Response 2.57 2. 41 1. 90 2. 45 165 APPENDIX F — Continued Objective Desirability Rating* Number of Courses Total None 1 - 5 Over 5; N Q . ' O E16 Essential 15 16 4 35 15. 2 Important 44 68 2 114 49.4 Desirable 26 32 0 58 25.1 Unnecessary 9 7 1 17 7.4 Unacceptable 2 4 1 7 3.0 Median Group Response 2.25 2.20 1.50 2.21 G7 Essential 22 21 4 47 20. 3 Important 58 75 3 136 58.9 Desirable 12 27 0 39 16. 9 Unnecessary 2 3 1 6 2.6 Unacceptable 2 1 0 3 1.3 Median Group Response 1. 95 2. 07 1.50 2.00 *Scaled from One (Essential) to Five (Unacceptable) APPENDIX G DISTRIBUTION OF TEACHERS' RATINGS OF DESIRABILITY OF OBJECTIVES BY THEIR SUBJECT AREA WHEN SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS EXIST 166 167 APPENDIX G DISTRIBUTION OF TEACHERS' RATINGS OF DESIRABILITY OF OBJECTIVES BY THEIR SUBJECT AREA WHEN SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS EXIST Objective Desirability Rating* Subject Area I II * * III Total N % B6 Essential 19 23 28 70 30. 3 Important 30 29 44 103 44.6 Desirable 6 15 5 26 11. 3 Unnecessary 2 9 2 13 5.6 Unacceptable 7 7 5 19 8.2 Median Group Response 1. 93 2. 14 1. 82 1. 94 B19 Essential 22 12 2 36 15. 6 Important 59 44 6 109 47.2 Desirable 54 17 2 73 31.6 Unnecessary 4 5 0 9 3.9 Unacceptable 1 3 0 4 1.7 Median Group Response 2. 31 2.15 2. 00 2.23 B31 Essential 80 41 4 125 54. 1 Important 54 38 4 96 41.6 Desirable 5 2 1 8 3.5 Unnecessary 0 0 1 1 0.4 Unacceptable 1 0 0 1 0.4 Median Group Response 1. 38 1.49 1. 75 1.43 Cll Essential 43 12 3 58 25.1 Important 60 45 4 109 47.2 Desirable 19 18 1 38 16. 5 Unnecessary 14 4 1 19 8.2 Unacceptable 4 2 1 7 3.0 Median Group Response 1. 95 2.13 2.00 2.03 El Essential 11 29 6 46 19.9 Important 59 80 1 140 60.6 Desirable 19 16 1 36 15.6 Unnecessary 5 2 0 7 3.0 Unacceptable 2 0 0 2 0.9 Median Group Response 1. 99 2.01 1. 83 2.00 G1 Essential 38 20 4 62 26.8 Important 81 38 4 123 53.2 Desirable 13 21 2 36 15. 6 Unnecessary 8 2 0 10. 4.3 Median Group Response 1.9,0 2, .,0.4 1. 75. 1.94. ^Scaled from One (Essential) to Five (Unacceptable) **Area I: Vietnamese, Civics, Philosophy, History-Geography, English, French Area II: Mathematics, Physics-Chemistry, Natural Sciences Area III: Subjects in "practical arts" area and "non-aca demic" subjects APPENDIX H QUINTILE DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECTIVES BY RESPONDENTS CLASSIFICATION 168 169 APPENDIX H QUINTILE DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECTIVES BY RESPONDENTS CLASSIFICATION Objective Area Objective Number Teacher Educator H. S. Teacher Student Teacher Social and Philosophical A1 I II II Foundations A2 III IV V A3 V IV III A4 I I I A5 IV III II A6 I I I A7 V V V A8 V V V Curriculum and Instruc- Bl I I I tion B2 I I I B3 I I I B4 I III III B5 I II III . B6 II II Ill B7 II II III B8 II I III B9 II III II BIO I I I Bll IV II III B12 II II III B13 IV III IV B14 II III V B15 I I III B16 I I I B17 I I II B18 II II V B19 V V V B20 II III III B21 II III V B22 III IV II B23 V IV IV B24 IV II III B25 IV IV III B.26 IV IV V B27 III V V B28 IV V V B29 II II II B.30 II II I B.31 I . I I Student Personnel — Cl IV II IX Teacher. Personnel C2 V V V 170 APPENDIX H — Continued Objective Area Objective Teacher H. S. Student Number. Educator Teacher Teacher Student Personnel -• Teacher Personnel Teaching and Learning Theory Evaluation and Research C3 V V V C4 V V V C5 V I V I V C6 I V I I I I I C7 V V V C8 I I I I V I I I C9 V V I V CIO I I I I I I I I Cll I I I I I I I C12 I I I C13 I I I I I C14 I I I I I I I I I C15 I V I I I I V C16 I I I I I I I I I C17 V I V I V C18 I V V I V Dl I I I I V I V D2 I V I V I V D3 I I I I V I V D4 I I I I D5 I I I I I I I I D 6 V V I V D7 V V V D8 I V I I I I I D9 I I I I I DlO I I I Dll I I I I I I I D12 V I V I V Dl3 I I I D14 I I I I I I I I D15 I I I I I D16 I I I D17 I I I I I D18 I I I I I V D19 I I I I I I I V D2 0 V V V D21 I I I I I I I I I D2 2 V I V I I I D23 I I I I I I El I I I I I I V E2 I I I V I V E3 I I I I I I I I I E4 I I I I V I E 5. I V V X V APPENDIX H — :Continued 171 Objective Area Objective * Number Teacher Educator H. S. Te acher Student Teacher Evaluation and Research E6 IV V V • E7 I II II E8 IV IV IV E9 I I I E10 IV IV IV Ell V V V E12 IV IV V E13 V V V E14 IV v V E15 V V V E16 V V IV E17 II I I Administration and Orga- G1 IV II II nization G2 IV III IV G3 II II II G4 IV IV III G5 III II II G6 III II II G7 II III II G8 I IV II G9 I I I G10 I I I Gil III IV IV G12 V V IV G13 III II II G14 IV III III G.1.5. III i.v III APPENDIX I THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN VIETNAMESE 172 173 , ! ( ) / ( , ngay thang ndm igyj > , G:*>t Q/tuin, £/ur<z uio- - &te, ■fDe dap-Crng vai nhu-cau phat-trien nen Trung-hoc trong nhOng narn tai-thiet thdi hau-chien, chac han Viet-Nam se can nhieu gido-sir han nua cho cac trirdng. Vai muc-dich g o p mot phan nho vdo van-de d a o -tg o ciao - c h ltc, chung toi dang co -g a n g thyc-hien mot cuoc nghien-ciru nham xac-dinh « nhOng k h a n a n g chuyen-nghiep can-thiet cho sinh-vien tot-nghiep Bgi-hoc Sir-Phgm ». Trong tap « th 1 nh-y s > nay, chung-toi xin dirge tham-khao y kien G iao- su* ve nhirng kha-nang chuyen-nghiep ma sinh vien Bgi-hgc Sir-Phgm can phai trau doi tren cac Idnh v y c : Xa hoi vd Triet Ly, Chirang trinh vd Phirang phdp G iang day, Sir Tirang quan giOa G ia o sir vd Hoc sinh vu, cac Thuyet Hoc tap va G iang day, Thdm dinh Thanh qua Hoc tap va Nghien ct)u Quan trj vd Hdnh chanh H oc Birdng. NhCrng giai d a p can ci> vao kinh-nghiem vd kien-thirc cua G iao sir vao ca c van d e tren se vo cung quy bau, vd se giup chung toi rat nhieu trong viec due ket vd h'tnh thanh mot tap tai lieu ve « nhOng muc tieu chuyen nghiep cua chirang trinh Bgi-hgc Sir-Phgm» hau d e trlnh quy vj hOu trach van d e huan luyen G ia o su tgi nirac nha. Be cac y kien bay to dirge trung thy: xin quy vi mien ky ten vao b ang tra lai. Thyc hien cong tac nay, chung toi chi mong dirge dong g o p vdo co n g viec gia o due chung, nhd sy vui long hgp-tac vd giup d a cua quy V j Chung tdi thanh kinh mong G ia o -sir nhan nai day nhOng I oi cam •on nong nhiet vd chdn-thanh cua chung toi. Nay Kinh, ■ ’ ' ) ( ' I , /\,.? i < . / f ( > \ f , • ” ' ' • ■ v Tl V /, > . < t---. j ■ : • . ■ \ . \ NGUYEN PH yN G -M O A N G 174 THINH Y VE KhX n ANG c An THIET CHO SINH-VlfiN t 6 t n g h i $p DAI-HOC SLP-PHAM PHAN I. T& N G -Q U A T T in T r u in g hay Ph3n-khoa cua G iio-sir _____ MAn d*y chinh cua G i£o.sir ------- X in Gido-sir khoanh tron n o t trong c3c con sd ir c$t ben phai tu<rng-trng v6 i c3u tr i-la i Gido-sir ch p n : A. Ong hay B3, CA 1> Ong 2) B i, CA B. SS nim da giang day 1) 1 r 5 2) 6 - 10 3) TrAn 10 C. Trong nhirng nam ir ntr&c n h i hay ngo?i qudc, G iio - sir co dir mdn hoc n io vS Gi&o due khAng ? 1) KhAng 2) 1 - 5 mAn 3) TrAn 5 mAn phAn 11. f-ki£n S a u dSy 13 ir.At so mpc-tiAu thuA rg d u p e xem nhtr tieu-bieu cho nhirng kha-n2ng chuyAn- nghi<p can-thiet cho m $t sinh-viAn khi t6t-nghi£p D ai-hpc Sir-Phjm . X in Q ui-vj d£nh m § t dau «X » v io M 0 T trong nhirng c^t ve bAn phai de eho biAt, TH EO V R lfiN G CUA Q U f V I, m u c-d6 quan-trpng cua m6i muc-tiAu trong chirang-trlnh dko- t?o G iio-str Trung-hpc. X in Qui-vj dAng giai-dQ sau d 3 y : 1. R2t quan-trpng v4 can-thiet 2- Quan - trpng 3. It quan - trpng 4. KhAng can - thiet 5 . KhAng thich - h<yp V i- d y : N eu Qui-vi nghi r it g mpt Gi5o-sir Trung-hpc r2t can c6 kha-nSng ph£n-do£n dA chon lira sach gido-khca cho mpt mon giang-day, Qui-vj tra-Rri c3u k Ph3n-doan de chon ly a sich giao-khca cho mot mAn giang d?y». b in g each danh dau « X ■ » v io c$t 1 («R2t quan-trpng v i ca n -th ie t»). (NAu nhtr Qui-vj nghi rang m uc-tieu n iy khcng can-thiet thl xin danh d2u « X » vfio c6 t 4 (« Khong ca n -th iet»). Qui-vj co the tra lai theo cam -nghi dau-tiAn. D E -N G H I VA V -K l£ N THEM t#p niiy. Neu Qu$-vi mu8n dS nghi them muc-tiiu khic hoy c6 y-kitn thim, xin dilng trang sau c&ng d a 1 175 N gooi ph&n ki4n thu'c ehuyen khoa, mdt sinh-vi§n Sur-phgm cdn di/oc huan-luyen v& phdn chuyen-nghiep de khi ra Irirdng co nhOng kh6-ndng sau d ay : A. X A - H O l VA t r i £ t LV i . T?o dieu-kien cho hoc-sinh y-thtrc v i thtrc-hinh phtrang-phap dan- chu trong sinh-hopt cua ld p hoc. а. Thana-dinh anh-hirdng cua phirang-phip d in -ch u dot v d i tlnh - tinh cua hpc - sinh. 3 . , N h fn biet anh-hirdng cua str thay doi nod ctr-tru (ro’i lin g m$c, di- cir) doi vai ket-qua h p c-t|p . 4 . Suy-doan anh-hir&ng cua hoin-canh x3-hpi hien tai doi v6d str hoc- tip cua thanh-thieu-nien. 5 . P h in -tlch vi sao c ic quan-diem hay y-n ifm cua giai tre khac vdi $- ni$m hay quan-diem cua ngtrfri Ion. б . Tham-gia ho?t-d$ng trong trtrcrng nhim giup hoc-sinh p h it-tri£n long ty -tin trong sir h o c-t|p . 7 . P h in -tlch cic du'dng-htrang gido-dyc chinh a V i§t-nam , xtra va nay. 8 . P h it-b ieu mdt quan-diem triet-ly giiorduc tu’ O'ng-ti'ng v6d m^t dtrdng- J6i giang-d?y. B. CHLTCTNG - TRiN H VA PHLTO’N G . PHAP DAY it C6 kha-nang khich-16 hoc-sinh d it c iu h6i v i tra lod. а. T?p hp c-sinh su y -lu in va tim -hieu trong khi giang-day. 3 . B at tiSu-chuan va phirang-phap de chpn-ltra mdt phtrang-phap giang- day thlch-hp'p vfri rndi b ii d?y. 4 . Phan-bipt ph irang-phip d?y bang 16i giang b ii v i loi cho hoc-sinh tir tim -tdi, thao-lupn. 5 . Xcrn-x^t trinh-dd v i dac-tinh hoc-sinh trong mQt Idp de tidn-doin ket-qua cua m ot phtrang-phip giang day. б . Thay doi m uc-tieu cua b ii hoc tCty theo kha nang cua hoc-sinh. 7 . C6 kha-nang phoi-ho’p cac phirang-tipn de giang-d?y. 8. Chpn-lya v i xir-dung dung-cu thinh-thi hay trcr-huan-cu thich hyp n h lt cho mdt b ii hpc. g. Chpn-lira p hirang-phip giup hoc-sinh nhln mdt van de dtrdi nhieu quan-diem . 10. Htrdng-dSn hoc-sinh cich dat. c iu hdi khi thao-lu^n. 11. Chon-lira phtrang-phap hurdng d in hpc sinh p h it bi£u y-kien riSng. 13. A p - d y n g cdc p h t r a n g - p h i p dfc k h u y e n - k h i c h h p c - s i n h t r a o - d o i j/-ki«!n luc giang-dsjy. 13. Biet phtrang-phdp de dien-dat m yc-tieu cua mdt b ii-h p c dtrdi dang-thu-c nhtrng ket-qua cu-the hay kha-ning dat dtryc sau khi hpc. 14. D.inh nhirng ti3u-chttan cu the v i rd-rang d£ tham -dinh ket-qua h o c-t|p . 15. NhJ n-biet thtr-ttr phai theo khi trinh -biy mdt b ii giang. 16. P h in -d o in d£ chpn-ltra sach giao-khoa v i tii-lifu hpc-tjp cho mpt mftn hpc 17. Soan v i phSn-ph3i b ii d$y cho chtro’ng-trinh trong m$t nam hpc, dtra t'fftn cic m pc-ti€u da d)nh. 1 O z o 1 2 176 Ngoai phfen ki6n there chuyen-khoa, m6t sinh-vi^n Sv-phgm c&n tfygc ho6n-luyen vfc phdn chuyfin-nghiep dk khi ra trirdrng co nhOrig kh6-n0ng sau dfiy : 18. B i e t cA ch n h l p - d £ c h o m $ t b i i d $ y . 1 9 . P h i c - h p a c i c g i a i - d o ? n c a n - b a n t r o n g c A c h d t i n g p h t r o n g - p h a p h 6 i - t h a o d u - k h a o , h a y t h i - n g h i ^ m . 30. B i l t c A c h t h l m - d j n h x e r o h p c - s i n h c 6 d u k i e n - t h t r c c a n - t h i e t c h o m $ t b i i h p c m d ri k h O n g . 3 1 . S a j n m $ t b i i d ? y h a y m $ t c h i r o n g v i d A t t i i u - c h u a n d ! t h a m - d j n h k £ t - q u a h p c - t $ p . a a . T a o c o - h ^ i c l i o h o c - s i n h p h i t - b i i u y - k i e n t r o n g v a n - d i c h o n l i r a p h t r o n g - p h A p h p c - h d i . 2 3 . A p-dyng c i c p h i r a n g - p h i p k h o a - h p c d l p h A n - t i c h k y - t h u ^ t g i a n g - d a y . .3 4 . D O n g k e t - q u l c u a p h t r c r n g - p h A p t y t h a m - d j n h k y - t h u | t g i l n g - d a y d S t h a y - d o i c A c h d f y . 3 5 . G 6 p y - k i £ n v i l y i v i h ^ i k h i d i r a cA c m 6 n h p c m d d n h t r d o a n h - t h i r o n g , k i n h - t e g i a - d i n h , c & n g - k y - n g h $ v i o c h i r a n g - t r i n h h p c . 3 6 . P h A n - t i c h i r u - k h u y i t - d i i m c u a cAc c a i - t i i n t r o n g cA c t r i r i r n g t f c n g - h o f p b * n 3 7 . P h A n - b i § t cAc m u c - t i i u t h u $ c p h 5n l y - t h u y € t v i cAc m p c - t i i u t h u Q c p h S n t h y c - h i n h . 3 8 . P h a t - b i i u m y c - t i f c u c y - t h e c h o m $ t m & n d ^ y t i r cAc c h i - t h j t o n g - q u i t t r o n g c h t r c r n g - t r i n h d o B $ d i r a . 3 9 . H i r d m g - d i n h o c - s i n h x u a t - s l c h p c - h o i t h e m . 3 0 . N h $ n b i e t a n h h i r a n g c u a s i r k h u y e n k h l c h v i q u a n - t i m d e n c A - n h l n d o i v 6 i k i t - q u a h p c - t A p c u a h o c - s i n h . 31. K h u y e n - k h i c h v i h i r < k n g - d l n h o c - s i n h t y h p c k- *J U C l . O £ X X z u *< X u H 0 0 z z • 0 - 0 X X iC V 4 5 3. 3- .4. 5- 6. 7- 8. 9* XO. XI. 13. C . GlAO-SLT VA HOC-SINH-VU C h o n - l y a v i A p - d u n g cA c p h i r c r n g - p h A p h i r & n g - d l n v i k h a i - d a o d e h 6 a - g i a i cAc v a n d i k h 6 - k h S n c u a h p c - s i n h . T h a m - x i t c o n g - d u n g v i g i < H - h ? n c u a cAc k y - t h u p t h i r & n g - d l n v i k h a i - d p o G i a i - t h i c h c a c k ^ - t h u A t t i m h i e u c t r - c h i v i t h A i - d ^ e u a h p c - s i n h t r o n g cAc h u o i h t r a n g d i n h a y k h a i - d p o . G i a i - t h i c h v i t h y c - t $ p cAc n g u y e n - t A c h t r & n g - d l n v i k h a i - d p o . P h A n - t i c h n g u y £ n - n h l n v i d ^ n g - l y c k l i i e n h p c - s i n h t h 6 i h p c s d 't n . H o p c h - d j n h c a c p h i r a n g - p h i p J k h u y e n - k h i c h h p c - s i n h c 6 y - d i n h th & i h p c t i e p - t y c h p c l ? i . P h A n - b i e t k j f - t h u A t h t r & n g d i n v i k y - t h u | t k h a i - d a o . D j n h cAc m y c - t i f e u c y - t h i c h o c h i r c r n g - t r i n h h i r i n g d i n h p c - s i n h t r o n g t r i r c r n g . P h A n - t i c h x e m q u a n - n i p m r if t n g c u a g iA o - s ir a n h - h i r o n g d e n t h a i - d p c u a g i i o - s t r t r o n g l<>p n h t r t h i n i o . P h A n - b i ^ t c i c y e u - t 6 n g A n - t r d - v i c a c y e u - t o p h A t - t r i i n s i n h - h o a t h p c - tA p t r o n g l o p . H o ? c h - d j n h v i t h y c - h i £ n c a c d t r b n g - l d i s i n h - h o a t t ^ p - t h e t r o n g t i n h - t h a n t d n - t r p n g c A - n h A n . G i u p - d S - h p c - s i n h g i p k h A - k h i n t r o n g c h u y ^ n h p c . 1 i 3 177 N g o a iip h a n kien thuc chuyen-khoa, mot sinh vien Sir-phgbi can dirge huan-luyen ve phdn chuyen-nghiep de khi ra tru'dng co nhOng kh6-nGng sau day : 1 2 3 O z < o x 13. C u n g - c a p tai-lipu h iro 'n g -d d n h p c -s in h ve c ic n g d n h c h u y £ n - m 6 n , c h i r a n g - tr i n h d p i- h p c , ha y v a n - d e tim c 6 n g viec tdm. 14. P h a n - b i p t q u y e n - h a n va t r a c h - n h i e m cua giao-sir. 15. P h a n - b i e t quy e n -h g in va t r a c h - n h i e m c u a h q c -s in h . 16- G i a i - t h i c h x e m t b i e n - k i e n v i t h i i - d o c u a giao-sir co the a n h - h u a n g d e n sir h o c - t a p c u a h o c - s i n h nlur the n i o . 17. P h a c - h o a d u ’a n g 16i d e h p c - s in h titn h ie u cac v a n - d e d a n g du-qc t r a n h - l u a n . 18. P h a n - t i c h m o i t i r a n g - q u a n giira c u o c s o n g rie n g - t ir c u a h p c - s i n h va t h d n h - q u a h o c - t a p a lo p . 9 - 10. 1 1. 13* 13. 14. 15 . 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. d. cAc thuy£t hoc-tAp vA giAng day Q u a rt-s a t cir-chi cua h p c - s i n h de s u y - d o a n m i r c - d o t r i r a n g - t h d n h . P h a n - b i e t sir t r i r a n g t h i n h ve t a m - l y va sir t r i r a n g t h i n h ve tr i - t u f . S u y -d ifin y m u o n cua h p c - s i n h tit ctr-chi q u a n - s a t d tro ’c. Q u a ii-s a t n e t m a t va ctr-chi c u a h p c - s in h de th ay doi each day’’. N h a n biet cac sir thay doi ta m - l y o’ m o i t h a i - k y truo-ng t h i n h cua th an li- t h i c u - n i e n D u n g cac dtrcrng-loi v i p h t r a n g - p h a p d a y khac n h a u de g iu p h o c - s i n h co k h a - n a n g va c a - tin h kha c n h a u . G ia i - t h i c h n g u y e n - n h a n c u a sir k h a c - b ip t ve t h i n h - q u a c u a m d i c i - n h a n h o c - s i n h t ro n g m o t l o p . G i u p h o c - s i n h p h a t - t r i e n n h ir n g p l u r a n g - p h d p h o c t a p khac n h a u tCiy th e o k h a -n a n g . A m -tiro 'n g cac k y - t h n a t khich-!e h p c -s in h . K h i t y e n - k h f c h h p c - s in h t h a m - g ia cac h o a t - d o n g h o c - ta p n lu r d o c s i c h th e m , t h a o - l u a n , hoc t u n g n h o m . N h a n b ie t a n h - h t r a n g c u a y e u - t o v a n - h o a , xa-hoi, m o i - t r t r a n g s in h -h o a t, tr e n sir h p c - t a p c u a t h a n h t h i e u - n i e n . C a n - c t r , va o k e t - q u a nghi& n-ctru d a tim ra, n h a n b ie t a n h - h t r a n g c u a su- k h u y e n k h ic h h p c - s i n h tr e n k e t - q u a h o c -ta p . T a o n h i e u d i e u k ie n ch o h o c - s in h p h a t h u y oc s an g kien, B iet a n h - l u r a n g cua thai.-dp va p h u ’crng p h a p g ian g d a y c u a gia o-sir doi vo'i sir p h a t - h u y o c s an g - k ien , N h | n b ie t c i c d p n g - l i r c k h ie n h p c - s i n h a n tarn hpc hay bi p h a n tri T a o d ie u - k ie n g i u p h p c - s in h tir-tin t r o n g sir hoc-t|ip. 1 im h ie u vd c h o n lira dtro'ng Ioi de g ia i - q u y e t cac t r t r a n g - h q p k y -lu at t r o n g l a p . I ao d i e u - k i e n de h p c - s i n h t | p d o n g n h i r n g v a i- tr o k h i c n h a u tr o n g l a p ( c h i - h u y , l a n h -d p o , p h u c - t o n g ) T i S n - d o a n a p h - h t r a n g c u a m o t bien-'-phap k y - l u ^ t v&t m d t h o c -s in h doi vo ’i cac h p c - s i n h k h a c t r o n g lo'p. P h a n - b ip t : d a c - t i n h c u a m 6 t n h o m d o h p c - s i n h tu* ^ c h o n lira vd m o t n h d m d o gifio-sir c h i - d i n h t i o n g c i c ' h o a t - d 6 t i g h p c - t | p . P h d n - t l c h a n h - h t r f r n g c u a p h i r a n g - p h i p d d n - c h u vd p h i r a n g - p h i p ' d § c - d o i n . k h i. giao-sir d i e n - k h i e n m § t ld’p. I i i I I 178 Ngoai phan ki6n thac chuyen-khoa, mot sinh-vien Str-phgm c&n ctirgc hu6n luyen ve phcin chuyen-nghiep de khi ra trirdng co nhOng khi-nflng sau dl6y: 32. N liSn b ie t a n h - h i r a n g cua b ^ n - b S doi vo ’i y -kie n v i h a n h - v i cua h o c - s i n h 23. f i o n - d o a n m oi t i r o m g - q u a n gitra loi ctr-xtr hay h £ n h - d £ n g c u a g i io - s ir vo’i t h i i - d o c u a h o c - s i n h . E. T h A M - D I N H K S T - Q U A H O C -T A P V A N G H IE N -C & U 1. N h i n - b i e t t a m q u a n - t r p n g cua t i e u - c h u a n t h a m - d j n h t h i n h - q u a h o c - t | p . 2. P h a c - h p a m o t d u ’o'ng loi de t h a m - d j n h k e t - q u a hpc t$ p dira tr2 n cac tie u - c h u a n d a c h o n . 3. N h a u b ie t d iS u - k ie n x a -h o i d ja -p h ir o 'n g c6 the a n h h i r o n g d e n k e t - q u a thi-cir cua h p c - s i n h nhur th e n i o . 4 . B iet c h p n y e u - t o n i o n g o i i b i i thi d e t h a m - d j n h k e t - q u a h o c - t a p tr o n g l&p. 5. D j n h trtro’c t h a n h q u a c u - t h e ( t h a m - d i n h d i r g e hay q u a n - s a t dirffc) h p c - s in h h y - v o n g d a t d i r g e s a u m ^ t b i i hpc. 6. G i a i - t h i c h sir t i e n - b p t r o n g so1 h p c t$ p dira trS n cac t i £ n - c h u a n da d in h . 7. N h ^ n - d j n h iru va k h u y e t - d i e m c u a cac p h i r c r n g - p h a p ra bai thi. 8. P h a n - b i p t t h i n h - q u a th tr c - s ir c u a h p c - s i n h v i t h i n h - q u a d o g iio - s ir t h a m - d j n h h a y q u a n - s i t d u ’p’c. g. B iet cac k y - th u S t v i p h u o m g - p h i p ra b i i thi. 30. Biet tin h c i c so d o m ire t r u n g - b i n h v i d o l£ch c h u a n cua b ii thi. C h o n - l t r a va i p - d u n g n h ir n g loi giai th ic h k e t - q u a h o c - t i p v a i h p c - s in h v i p h u - h u y n h h p c-s in h . 12. Biet l§p p h i e u d i e m v i gitr-gin ti i - l i e u ve k h a - n a n g cua h p c - s i n h , 13. B n t c i c h thirc hi£ n nhifrng c o n g - t a c n g h iS n - c t r u n h o vc n h ir n g v a n - d e h p c - v u tr o n g tririrng. 14. B iet each p h o n g - v a n , s o a n t h a m - v a n - l u c , . . de t h u - t h a p tai-iip u vc cac v a n de g ia o -d u c t h o n g - t h t r c r n g t r o n g t r t r o n g . 15. Biet ea c h d a t g i a - t h u y e t c h o cac v i n - d e g i i o - d u c can k h a o - c tr u . 36. D i n h i r u - k h u y e t - d i e m vi g i a i - h a n cua cac p h t r a n g - p h i p k h a o - c tr u va c i c h g ia m k h u y e t - d i c m . 17. C o k h a - n a n g p h a n - t i c h v i p h S - b i n h c h u a n g - t r i n h hpc. G. Q U A N TR1 V A H A N H -C H A N H i. B iet each tlm h i e u h i e u - n a n g g ian g d ? y q u a sir g i u p - d a c u a d o n g - n g h i f p v i c a p d ie u -k h ie n . 2 ' C h u a n - b j v i b iS u - d ie n m $ t k y - t h u | t g ia n g - d a y h a y hope m o i. 3. T a o h o i n - c a n h t h u ^ n - t i f n d e c o n g - t i c vfri d o n g - n g h i e p tr o n g cac v a n - d£ g i i o - d u c t r o n g t r i r a n g . 4. P h a c - h o a k e - h o g c h de to-chu'C c i c c u o c v ie n g th a m , q u a n - s a t v i tra o - doi y -k ic n vd'i b a n d o n g - n g h i e p . 5. P h a n - t i c h v i t h a m - d j n h cac c a i - t i e n a t r i r a n g k h a c x e m co a p - d u n g cho trtrd m g m i n h d i r g e k h b n g . 6. D j n h v a i - t r o cua H p i P h u - h u y n h H o c - s i n h tr o n g m 6 i g i a o - h i r u giira h o c - d t r i r n g v i c ^ n g - d o n g x a -h o i. 7. H g p - t i c v6u g ia o -s ir k h a c d£ h o a c h - d j n h v i p h a t - t r i e n m u c - t i e u t o n g - q u i t c u a trircrng. 0 z G oc O /. z o- < C f C - J H 0 7 , < >< -J CK 1 2 V U J C L . O- X X X z u '< T u 0 O z 7 0 •O X X 4 5 5 179 N g o a i ph6n ki£n thOrc ch u yen-khoa, m6» sinh-vien Sv-phgm c&n du-gc huan-luyen vfe phdn chuy&n-nghiep d b khi ra trvdng co nhOng khd-ndng sau d 6 y : 0 z o- a n O y — Z 7 O- < 0 £ _ > O z » — *< Q £ < Z ) O 1 2 1 — V U J Q . t> X X * — X z u ' < X u t — 0 0 z z • 0 * 0 X X v r V 4 5 8 . D u y -tri moi giao-hiru v&i cpng-dbng, v6d cdc trirang khdc, vd v a i d^i-hoc. 9 . D pc sdch hay viSt bao de trau-doi kha-nang chtrc-nghi^p. 10. D inh chtrang-trinh tiep-tuc hoc-hoi them khi c6 ca-hQ i. 1 1. 1 3 . 1 3 - 1 4 . Tham -gia cac hoat-dong giao-duc dia-phirang hay vdng. N h |n -d in h vai-trd cua kha-nang giao-te trong viSc tham -dinh h tfu - ndng cua gido-str. Biet each ddng cdc loi phS-binh xdy-dirng de cai-tien cdch giang d$y. Nh9n biet anh-hirang cua moi giao-htru giira giao-sir v i clp di§u- khien d6 i v6 i sir thdnh c6 ng cua trirang. T ham -dinh anh-hir&ng cua phirang-phap 1dm vifc vd quySt-dinh cua cdp diSu-khien d6 i v&i hi§u~nang cua giao-sir. PHAN III. DANH CHO QUY-V| GIAO SIT NAO C 6 f KliN THiM ( Gido-str mu6n trd liri phdn nhy hay khdttg thy y) Cac cdu o- phan 11 Id mot so muc-ti<£u tifeu-bieu cho nhirng kha-nang sinh-vi£n hy-vpng dat dirge khi tot-nghi?p. Neu Giao-sir c6 muc tieu ndo can th£m vdo, xin viet dirdd d 3 y : B. N eu G iao-sir c6 the cho biet nguytn-d o vi sao Giao-sir da tra thich h g p » (5), xin cho biet y-kien dird’ i day: liri mQt so myc-ftfiu « khAng; C . N eu co the, xin Giao-sir cho biet van-bang chuyfin-mdn cao nhat cua Gido-sir. Xin khoanh tr6 n mot trong cac con so 61 bSn phai tirang-irng v a i cau tra lo i G iio-str chpn : 1) T6 t-nghi?p D ?i-hoc hay Cir-nhan 2 ) Cao-hoc hay tirang-dirang 3 ) T ien-si hay tirang dirang 1 2 3 4 4 ) C ic trir&ng-ho'p khac C H U N G T O l X IN C H A N -T H A N H CAM -TA GlAO-SU* DA V U I LO N G H<7P-TAC TRO NG CUOC N G H lEN -C TJU NAY r ,

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Proposal Of Professional Performance Objectives For The Teacher Education Programs In Viet Nam

PDF

An investigation of the effects of teaching method and selected attribute variable on the development of English comprehension as a second language for children

PDF

The evolution of a continuing teacher education program at Ethiopia's Haile Sellassie I University : A case study with a proposed model

PDF

A cross-cultural study of considerations involved in the establishment of a special education program for mentally retarded as a possible model for Iran

PDF

Multicultural education programs in California unified school districts: A descriptive survey

PDF

The development of professional salaries for public school teachers commensurate with educational and social contributions

PDF

A survey of the attitudes of school teachers toward problems in education

PDF

A competency-based curriculum for teaching prospective college teachers "Educational Research Methodology" in Brazil

PDF

An evaluation of a professional physical education curriculum

PDF

The use of two simulation techniques with regular class teachers in educational planning consultation for learning disabled children

PDF

A method for evaluating a university physical education program

PDF

The administrative services of testing offices of institutions of higher learning in California: A model for objectives

PDF

Teacher training programs in art education in the United States

PDF

The relationship between teacher attribution of student performance and conceptual level of teachers

PDF

The effect of seating position on performance and personality in a college classroom

PDF

A description and analysis of the process of educational planning in Egypt

PDF

Educational philosophies and intercultural ideologies: A study of the belief orientations of preservice teachers

PDF

A summative evaluation of a teaching program in prosocial behavior and social cognition for primary school children assigned to regular, special education, or Title I classrooms

PDF

For cause teacher dismissal cases in California, 1977-1982

PDF

Comparative performance of schizophrenics and normals on a projective object symbol arrangement test

Asset Metadata

Creator Hoang, Nguyen Phung (author)

Core Title A proposal of professional performance objectives for the teacher education programs in Viet Nam

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, philosophy of,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-444679

Unique identifier UC11245066

Identifier usctheses-c26-444679 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP24098.pdf

Dmrecord 444679

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hoang, Nguyen Phung

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA