Print ED365716 TIF 22 pages ERIC

Print Ed365716 Tif 22 Pages Eric-PDF Download

  • Date:20 May 2020
  • Views:8
  • Downloads:0
  • Pages:22
  • Size:561.68 KB

Share Pdf : Print Ed365716 Tif 22 Pages Eric

Download and Preview : Print Ed365716 Tif 22 Pages Eric

Report CopyRight/DMCA Form For : Print Ed365716 Tif 22 Pages Eric


Martin Haberman put it this way It is easer and wiser to select people with attributes that will enable them to succeed in metropolitan schools than it is to expect that individuals who might he sexist racist uncreative uninterested in the world of ideas rigid moralistic humorless or fearful will be transformed by virtue of completing a traditional teacher education program 1991 p


Discussion research evaluation 175,THE URBAN TEACHER SELECTION INTERVIEW. INTERNAL VALIDITY,Maryan Baskin and Steven M Ross,Memphis State University. Since a cumulative score is not computed for the Urban Teacher Selection. Interview item ratings do not appear to be operationally related to the overall ranking and. final categorization of teacher education candidates The purpose of this study was to. determine the extent to which during the final decision making process the interviewers. ranked and categorized candidates on the basis of the information collected during the. interview Subjects were 33 candidates for an alternative licensure program and had been. recommended for the program by administrators from four local school districts Trained. interviewers worked in pairs to conduct the interviews Candidates were scored using the. Urban Teacher Selection Interview Continua Rating Form on 14 items in seven areas. Persistence Response to Authority Application of Generalizations Approach to At Risk. Students Personal vs Professional Orientation Burnout and Fallibility. Multiple regression was used to determine which items best predicted the final. rankings Only one item Application of Generalizations A surfaced as a significant. predictor of final ranking p 019 Pearson product moment correlations were computed to. determine the degree to which each dependent variable correlated with final ranking Eight. of 14 items on the interview correlated significantly with the final ranking However of the. six items which did not correlate to final ranking five were highly correlated with other. items within the interview, Based on these findings the Urhan Teacher Selection Interview does seem to. have a reasonable degree of internal validity, U 9 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PERMISSION TO PEPROMICF THIS. a F Resew a C MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY,s ha pee AS Mite vh v gfi sieiA.
M U NI Yon n I r,ewndut 11 11 1,n 1 r TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES. P tap r r s a,INFORMATION CENTER ERIC,BEST COPY AVAILABLE. Much of the criticism leveled at education over the last decade has centered on teachers. and teacher education Parents businesspeople legislators and even school administrators have. voiced concerns that teachers are not prepared for today s classrooms Many in the business of. preparing teachers for the profession however feel that if we are to overcome these criticisms. we must choose more prudently potential teachers Smith Coleman 1991 To these. educators careful selection of candidates for teacher education programs may be more important. than the actual training Martin Haberman put it this way It is easer and wiser to select people. with attributes that will enable them to succeed in metropolitan schools than it is to expect that. individuals who might he sexist racist uncreative uninterested in the world of ideas rigid. moralistic humorless or fearful will be transformed by virtue of completing a traditional teacher. education program 1991 p 1 Mick ler and Soloman 1986 p 340 agree Overall the. research suggests that teachers technical skills and knowledge of content are relatively ineffective. in facilitating total student growth in the absence of supportive and positive relationships between. the teacher and the student They conclude that teacher selection procedures which do not use. attitudes behaviors and life style as pre employment measures are unfair to students and unwise. for school officials, Applegate 1987 p 2 notes that many of the cries for reform in education focus on. teacher candidates but she also writes historically only minimal attention has been given to. the selection of those most able to teach Kasambria 1984 found both grades and. recommendations have been inflated to the point that they are virtually useless as tools for. helping to make appropriate decisions about teacher candidates Choices must be based on other. Dissatisfaction with traditional selection variables has shifted teacher educators to the. qualities that appear to distinguish effective teachers and to attempts to discover the degree to. which those qualities are possessed by candidates Jane Stallings 1992 writing about teachers. in inner city schools lists nine personal characteristics three basic knowledge skills and six. lengthy pedagogical knowledge and skills objectives cousidered to be attributes of effective. teachers These range from sense of personal efficacy to observational and interpretive skills. needed to reflect on instruction, Several interviews have been devised by personnel departments universities and. consultants to assist school districts in selecting teachers who have the greatest potential for. success in the classroom people who have the attributes listed by Stallings 1992 and by others. Of the structured interviews available to school district personnel the Minnesota Teacher Attitude. Inventory is perhaps the most notable Others include the Omaha Teacher Interview Teac ier. Perceiver Interview developed by Selection Research Incorporated of Lincoln Nebraska and. many interview instruments developed specifically for particular districts Formal structured. interviews are generally believed to provide the best assessment because they can be more readily. validated through research Baker Morris 1990, All of these measures attempt to define certain qualities which teachers should possess and.
then to construct questions to determine if the applicant has those qualities The reaction to the. overall effectiveness of these measures is mixed Miller 1977 Wong 1989 Educators. continue to be thwarted in their efforts to discern such skills in applicants to both teaching. preparation programs and to teaching assignments All of the characteristics listed by Stallings. 1992 for example have definite face appeal they look right According to the American. Psychological Association Standards 1974 p vii though face validity the mere appearance. of validity is not an acceptable basis for interpretive inferences from test scores How then. does one determine whether an applicant possesses the required qualities and whether the. administrator is asking questions that will discriminate between successful and unsuccessful. teachers Stone 1978 says The success of virtually all personnel selection techniques e e. testing interviewing etc rests upon their criterion related validity The question of validity. remains unanswered for most interview processes currently used to predict the success of. teachers Tuckman 1972 notes that questionnaire items are usually reviewed for clarity and. distribution of responses without necessarily running an item analysis In order to know whether. or not such interviews are able to identify characteristics of successful teachers both internal and. external validity must be addressed, The relationship between the characteristics measured in the interview and actual selection. made as a result of the interview can help determine internal validity of the decisions Tuckman. 1972 feels the researcher must constantly ask about your terns Is this what I want to he. measuring p 192 He concludes the larger the correlation between an item score and the total. score the greater the relationship between what the item is measuring and what the total scale. is measuring p 199 When validation studies were done on the Teacher Perceiver Interview. Sailor 1984 and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory Wong 1989 for example. statistical analysis showed that total scores on shorter versions correlateu highly with total scores. on the original forms In each case some items on the original interview contributed more. strongly to total score than did others Clearly appropriate statistical validation of teacher. selection instruments can save time in the selection procedure and more importantly assure. educators that they are measuring the criteria they have identified. The Urban Teacher Selection Interview, The Urban Teacher Selection Interview has been developed by Martin Haberman over. a period of 32 years and reflects four decades of change in urban schools in the United. States As early as 1958 Haberman began reviewing and researching personality tests as. predictors of effective teachers The work of Robert K Merton in the 1960 s presented a. sociological analysis of professions which Haberman has applied to the task of predicting. teacher success Merton identified two extremes on the left were personality traits which. individuals could be expected to demonstrate regardless of the situation and on the right were. the behaviors which would be effective for all teachers in a ecific situation Merton. advocated that each profession develop mid range functions somewhere between these two. extremes that is groups of behaviors that particular practitioners must demonstrate in order. to he effective Originally Haberman identified eight mid range functions for teachers. Over a period of years these mid range functions were reevaluated and refined into the seven. mid range functions which currently appear on the interview When ti z interview was used. in the Milwaukee Public Schools an error rate of approximately 1 percent was reported. between interview prediction and actual performance of teachers Haberman 1991. The Mid Range Functions identified by Haberman are Persistence Response to. Authority Application of Generalizations Approach to At Risk Students Personal vs. Professional Orientation Toward Teaching Burnout and Fallibility Persistence is identified. in interviews by two questions that look for tenacity commitment and a perception of the. teacher s daily job It attempts to identify people who will continually seek solutions to the. never ending problems of a classroom Respondents are asked to imagine a problem they. might encounter as a beginning teacher to suggest several ways to deal with that particular. problem and to estimate how often they might have to think about a problem like this. The second Mid Range Function Response to Authority seeks to determine the. respondent s willingness to support student learning in the face of or even against school. policy Candidates are asked to identify an activity they would undertake in spite of the fact. that their administrators might not support the activity Scoring is based on how they. respond to an irrational dogmatic authority who might say for example I don t care if the. children are learning stop this activity in your classroom. Application of Generalizations determines the degree to which the respondent is able. to deal with unive sal statements about human behavior When a broad principle has been. identified by candidates they are asked to describe how beliefs in this principle might be. demonstrated in their own classrooms Can the candidate apply principles to practice. Approach to At Risk Students seeks to discover if the candidate understands that it is. her his professional responsibility as a teacher to constantly find effective curricula and. methods of instruction regardless of the problems faced by at risk children Candidates who. blame a child s failure on the child the parents or the situation e g the socio economic. background have not responded appropriately, The fifth function Personal versus Professional Orientation to Teaching intends to. give the interviewer insight into the candidate s expectations of pupils and their need for. support from their students Teachers who enter the profession because they just love. children are seeking to fulfill their own emotiorrl needs and will he disappointed while. those with more professional expectations regarding teaching will he less likely to experience. this same type of dissatisfaction, Burnout is the term used by Haberman to represent the enormous physical and. emotional drain teachers encounter Respondents are asked to explain some causes of low. teacher morale and then to suggest how they might find ways to deal with burnout. The last function Fallibility looks for the candidates ability to accept. himself herself and to accept others Respondents are to think of a mistake they might make. as a teacher and to propose ways they would deal with these mistakes. Haberman s interview differs from most other interviews in two ways First if a. candidate receives a 0 rating on any function he she is considered to have failed the. interview Secondly candidates do not receive an overall cumulative score Rather at the. end of the first three interviews those conducting the interview are asked to discuss and. upon a ranking of the candidates and an assignment of each candidate to a category. Star High Average or Failure Additional candidates who are interviewed are also. assigned a category and are fitted into the total rank order begun by the first three. Haberman further asks interviewers to make separate decisions on every item including the. overall rating, The Urban Teacher Selection Interview was adopted as a primary selection tool in a.
new alternative licensure program at Memphis State University Memphis and the. surrounding area offer unique opportunities for training teachers The city itself faces many. of the urban and inner city problems that other metropolitan areas must confront and often. new teachers do not feel prepared to deal with the daily crises which occur The program. incorporates strict selection procedures of the initial 1 500 applicants only 16 were. selected intensive course preparation which includes 8 hours a day 5 days a week during. the first summer and two courses during each of the following two semesters and a year of. teaching in a regular classroom with constant mentoring by both university personnel and an. experienced teacher in the building where they work Given the enormous commitment of. time and energy for the program and the challenges of urban teaching heavy emphasis was. placed on selecting students who would ultimately be successful After deliberation the. Urban Teacher Selection Interview was chosen as the final discriminating measure for. candidates who had met the other criteria imposed by the university ana the state. Based on the extensive uses of the Haberman method Haberman 1991 the questions. and the process appear to provide candidates ample opportunity to demonstrate their. qualifications and potential to teach effectively Since a cumulative score is not computed. item ratings are not operationally related to the overall ranking and categorization with the. exception of the standard that a 0 score on any item constitutes failure of the interview A. natural question of interest and the one examined here is to what extent is the overall rating. a function of the individual items Ideal expectations were that each of the 14 items would. contribute fairly equally to the candidates final ranking and each item would make a unique. additive contribution to the final ranking, Subjects were 33 candidates for the DeWitt Wallace Reader s Digest Scholars at. Memphis State University These candidates were selectec by administrators from four loca. city or county school districts At the time of the study candidates were all working as. substitute teachers in these districts Each had an undergraduate degree with at least a 2 5. grade point average in the last 60 hours had taken the Miller s Analogies Test with a. minimum score of 40 and had submitted two letters of recommendation from principals in. their respective districts In the principal s recommendation principals were asked to rank. each candidate on a scale of Very successful 1 Successful 2 Average 3 Marginal 4. and I Have Serious Concerns 5 Immediately before the interview candidates were also. asked to spend about 30 minutes writing on an assigned topic under the supervision of a. faculty member These writing were scored as Good 1 Average 2 Fair 3 and Poor. 4 Of the 33 candidates 16 were chosen for the Scholars program based on their. performance on the Haberman Teacher Selection Interview. Interviewers worked in pairs to conduct the interview but score separately As. previously descirbed at the end of three interviews the two interviewers discussed the three. candidates and agreed on a ranking of them Each additional set of three interviews required. the interviewers to add the 3 new candidates to the order cf those they had already ranked. That is the first three candidates were ranked 1 2 3 The next three candidates were. ranked among those first three such that the best candidate of the six was ranked first the. second best second and so on, On the intervies the seven Mid Range Functions are divided into two questions each. for a total of 14 areas in which the teacher candidate was rated Each item was scored on a. continuum of 0 3 For example item I A could have been scored like this. The candidate would have received one half a point on that item Candidates could score. Maryan Baskin 9,Residency Project Proposal,Spring Summer 1993. anywhere along the continuum 1 2 3 1 75 etc Each subpart question was considered. to be equally as important as the others, The interviews were conducted in the spring of 1993 by faculty and graduate assistants. from Memphis State University who had been trained in the Haberman Interview process. Interviewers attended a rigorous eight hour training workshop conducted by Dr Gabriel. Barrow and Delia Stafford who have conducted more that 1 400 Urban Teacher Selection. Interviews themselves and are the official training team for the Interview Each Mid Range. Function was discussed in detail and interviewers were given the opportunity for guided. practice on each item In addition Dr Haberman visited the cami us and discussed the. development of the Interview with faculty and school district personnel who would be. involved The Urban Teacher Selection Interview Continua Rating Form and ranking. procedure were used to score candidates A template was used to divide each interval on the. rating scale into three equal parts scored as 25 50 75 2 75 3 00 Each candidate was. interviewed by two interviewers jointly At the completion of the first three interviews and. subsequent interviews interviewers discussed and devised rankings according to the. procedures described in the previous section Consequently interviewers produced a final. ranking of all candidates with their best candidate ranked one second best ranked two etc. Eight pairs of trained interviewers conducted the interviews during one evening Each pair. was assigned four or five candidates thus producing final rankings ranging from 1 to 4 or 1. to 5 However following the Haberman procedure if a candidate received a 0 on any. item he she was automatically given a final rank of 5. As discussed earlier each score mark on the Interview Rating Form was given a. numerical value for example 5 or 2 25 Step wise multiple linear regression was used to. determine which items best predicted the final rankings possible range 1 to 5 When the. rankings were entered as the dependent variables in the regression analysis and all 14 of the. interview items GPA MAT scores principals recommendations scores and writing sample. scores were employed as independent variables SPSS Base System 1992 only one item. Application of Generalizations A emerged as a significant predictor of ranking R 46. p 019 That is the higher the score on this item the better the final ranking. Of the four variables which were not part of the interview principals. recommendation had the highest correlation with ranking 13 462 while writing sample. correlated at a less significant level R 297 and undergraduate grade point average al id. MAT scores did not correlate significantly with ranking. Given the expectancy that many of the interview variables would be inter orrelated. and thus share common variance in predicting ranking simple correlations were examined to. determine the degree to which each dependent variable correlated with final ranking Table 1. summarized the intercorrelations between the Urban Teacher Selection Interview items Table. 2 summarizes the Pearson product moment correlations between the individual predictor. variables and final ranking,Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here.
As shown in Table 1 only two sets of items had high intercorrelations Persistence B. with Response to Authority A 717 and Persistence A with Persistence B 665. Moderately high correlations were found between Personal vs Professional Orientation A and. Personal vs Professional Orientation B 631 Approach to At Risk Students A and. Approach to At Risk Students B 628 Burnout B and Fallibility B 619 and Persistence A. and Response to Authority A 606 Nineteen other sets of items were moderately. correlated ranging from 370 to 585 Generally the A questions correlated more highly. with B questions 17 pairs than with different questions Specifically for all seven of the. Mid Range Functions the A question correlated with its counterpart B question at a. moderate to moderately high level range 370 to 665 Eight of the pairs had negative. correlations though none of these was significant The lowest r among the items was 006. for Application of Generalizations A with Personal vs Professional Orientation A. Eight of the fourteen items correlated moderately and significantly with final ranking. see Table 2 The highest correlation was between ranking and Application of. Generalizations A r 496 The others in order of the strength of their correlations were. Approach to At Risk Students B r 439 Approach to At Risk Students A r 425. Burnout B I 417 Response to Authority B r 376 Burnout A 1 358 Persistence B. r 357 and Fallibility B r 306 Generally the questions on section 13 of each Mid. Range Function correlated higher with final ranking than did the A questions The lowest. correlation of any of the items with final ranking was Personal vs Professional Orientation A. Conclusions and Discussion, The purpose of this study was to determine the consistency and predictability of items. composing the Urban Teacher Selection Interview In regressing final ranking on the 14. interview items and other variables only one variable Application of Generalizations was. selected for entry into the regression equation r 496 This item asks candidates to state. some principle they believe is true about education However other variables such as. Principal s Recommendations r 162 Burnout B r 306 and Approach to At Risk. Students A r 425 were almost as strong in predicting final ranking but did not account. for sufficient unique variance to he entered, Application to Generalizations A thus emerged as the most discriminating of the. individual items When asked the associated interview question candidates often responded. with I believe all children can learn or I believe learning can be fun and relevant to daily. lives These responses as well as the responses to other strong predictors such as Burnout. may have been a function of the amount of time a candidate had been in a classroom teaching. situation That is it would probably be difficult for younger or less experienced applicants to. a teacher education program to generalize about education in a convincing and reasonable. way The influences of the candidate s response on the final decision might also be a. function of the philosophies of the interviewers if the candidate selects a generalization about. education with which the interviewer agrees the interviewer would value that candidate more. The correlational results indicated that 8 of the 14 items on the interview correlated. significantly with the final ranking although the final ranking on the interview is not derived. directly from the item scores Perhaps more interesting however is the significant and. relatively high correlation between final ranking and principals recommendations Both the. rankings and the principal s recommendations were conducted independently and interviewers. were not aware of the candidates scores on either While the principals recommendation. rankings correlations is not overly strong it still suggests that principals university faculty. and trained interviewers tended to perceive the candidates in a similar manner Seemingly. they all look for the same qualities or they have all be trained in various educational. institutions to distinguish certain qualities that will be acceptable to the education system It. should also be noted that the traditional methods of selecting teacher education candidates for. graduate studies undergraduate GPA r 255 MAT scores r 064 and writing sample. r 297 correlated very weakly with ranking Educators apparently look for characteristics. other than academic performance when selecting potential teachers. The findings indicated that six of the items on the Urban Teacher Selection Interview. did not correlate with final ranking see Table 2 Five of those six though were highly. correlated with other items within the interview see Table 1 The final ratings then seem. to be based on a holistic judgment of the interviewer that is only weakly related to the item. responses Also that some of the items correlated highly with one another raises the. question of whether such a long interview is really needed The A questions for example.

Related Books