UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Problem statements referred to teacher assistance teams Amsden, Janet 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A8 A57.pdf [ 4.61MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054626.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054626-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054626-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054626-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054626-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054626-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054626-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054626-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054626.ris

Full Text

PROBLEM STATEMENTS REFERRED TO TEACHER ASSISTANCE TEAMS by J a n e t M a r g u e r i t e Amsden, B . E d . The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Depar tment o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y and S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e d e s i r e d s t a n d a r d . THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 1990 (c) J a n e t M a r g u e r i t e Amsden, 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) A b s t r a c t T h i s study examined problems r e f e r r e d t o Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams (TATs) during the 1988-89 school year i n four Vancouver s c h o o l s . E x p l o r a t o r y analyses were conducted to d i s c o v e r : (a) s i m i l a r i t i e s or d i f f e r e n c e s between problems r e f e r r e d to Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams and those r e f e r r e d to School-based teams (SBTs); and (b) s i m i l a r i t i e s or d i f f e r e n c e s between problem statements before and a f t e r the problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n phase of the TAT process was c a r r i e d out. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n the nature of problems r e f e r r e d t o TATs and to SBTs. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n problem statements before and a f t e r problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was c a r r i e d out. i i T a b l e of C o n t e n t s Chapter One: I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Chapter Two: Review of the L i t e r a t u r e 9 Outcome Research in P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n Procedures 11 Problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n 20 The C u r r e n t Study 24 Chapter Three: Methodology 28 Research Hypotheses 28 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms ..29 Procedures 31 Chapter Four: R e s u l t s 39 General C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Data 39 E x p l o r a t o r y Analyses 46 Chapter F i v e : C o n c l u s i o n s 64 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 67 D i scuss i on 69 Impl i c a t i o n s 75 Recommendations f o r Future Research 78 References 81 Appendix A: Sample R e f e r r a l t o School-based Team 85 Appendix B: Sample R e f e r r a l to Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team....87 Appendix C: Sample Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team Meeting Record.89 Appendix D: D e s c r i p t i o n s of C a t e g o r i e s 91 Appendix E: I l l u s t r a t i o n of S c o r i n g 98 Appendix F: Rules f o r S c o r i n g 100 Appendix G: Grouping of C a t e g o r i e s 102 Appendix H: Percentage of Problems Retained From TAT 1 to TAT2 105 Appendix I: School-based Team C o n s u l t a t i v e Process 107 L i s t of Tables and Figures Tab 1es 1. Populations of TEAMS and Control Schools 32 2. Numbers of TAT Referrals and Meeting Records and SBT Referrals Within Schools 35 3. Frequency of Weaknesses and Strengths Within SBT, TAT 1, and TAT2 Groups 42 4. High Frequency Weaknesses and Strengths in SBT, TAT1 and TAT2 Groups 46 5. Frequency of Behavioural, External, and Academic Factors in Descriptions of SBT, TAT1, and TAT2 Weaknesses 48 6. Frequency of Behavioural, External, and Academic Factors in Descriptions of SBT, TAT1, and TAT2 Strengths 48 7. Observed Frequencies of Student Weaknesses for each Group Using Pugach and Johnson's Categories 52 8. Frequency of Strengths and Weaknesses for Empirically Derived Category Clusterings for SBT, TAT1, and TAT2...60 9. Summary of the Differences in the Content of Teachers' Descriptions of Students' Problems 62 F i gures 1. Mean Number of Strengths and Weaknesses for Each Group 43 iv Acknowledqements I am g r e a t l y indebted to three e x t r a o r d i n a r y men, Steve Amsden, Randy Cranston, and Wolfgang Rothen. Without t h e i r i n s p i r a t i o n , support, encouragement, knowledge, and p a t i e n c e , t h i s study would never have been completed. CHAPTER ONE Introduction The focus of t h i s study, the Teacher Assistance Team, is a type of prereferral intervention which has evolved in response to concern about the continuing increase and s u b j e c t i v i t y of r e f e r r a l s of children with mild handicaps for special education services. Algozzine and Ysseldyke (1983) examined the incidence of special education r e f e r r a l s and found, in the 1979-80 school year, that 9.5 percent of America's school population was receiving special education or related services and that that number was increasing by 3% per year. They described the numbers of children being referred for special class placement as "burgeoning" masses. Their study increased the disquiet in the f i e l d of special education which had been aroused by e a r l i e r research that examined the process for determining e l i g i b i l i t y for special education services. In the previous year Algozzine, Christenson, and Ysseldyke (1982) surveyed a national sample of directors of special education and found that 32% of the students referred to special education were tested and 78% were found to be e l i g i b l e for special class placement. In another study, Algozzine and Ysseldyke (1981) examined the decision making process through which e l i g i b i l i t y for special education services was determined. They asked 224 school personnel to decide on the placement 1 2 of 16 students on the b a s i s of t h e i r psychoeducationa1 data (which was w i t h i n normal l i m i t s ) . Half of the p r o f e s s i o n a l s recommended s p e c i a l c l a s s placement f o r these s t u d e n t s . In a review of the comprehensive research e f f o r t i n t o p r a c t i c e s in making psychoeducational d e c i s i o n s about l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d s t u d e n t s , Ysseldyke (1983) remarked t h a t the d e c i s i o n making process i s a "rubber stamp" process and that the most important d e c i s i o n made i s to r e f e r the student f o r psychoeducational e v a l u a t i o n . He a l s o suggested t h a t , not only i s the r e f e r r a l t o placement process v i r t u a l l y automatic, but t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e m i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s o c c u r r i n g . In s h o r t , students who teachers suspect may be handicapped are being too e a s i l y swept i n t o s p e c i a l c l a s s p1acement. Concerns about the appropriateness of teacher r e f e r r a l s have r e s u l t e d from s e v e r a l s t u d i e s i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Graden, Wesson, Deno, & A l g o z z i n e (1983) observed t h a t t e a c h e r s r e f e r m i l d l y handicapped students ( i . e . , those who r e q u i r e more i n s t r u c t i o n a l e f f o r t than t h e i r normally a c h i e v i n g peers) f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s i n the e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t these students w i l l be p l a c e d in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c l a s s e s and that the r e g u l a r c l a s s w i l l become more manageable when they are removed. Ysseldyke et a l . a l s o i n d i c a t e d that t e a c h e r s have i d i o s y n c r a t i c and c h a o t i c r e f e r r a l methods and tend to r e f e r c h i l d r e n who "bother" them. Gerber and Semmel (1985) 3 e x p l a i n e d t h a t r e f e r r a l s to s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n are an " a t t r a c t i v e o p t i o n " to t e a c h e r s who d e s i r e to i n c r e a s e classroom e f f i c i e n c y . By reducing classroom v a r i a n c e through s p e c i a l c l a s s placement, t e a c h e r s expect to maximize i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s and, thereby, to i n c r e a s e the classroom mean output. The c r i t i c a l study of the s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n r e f e r r a l -to-placement sequence has c o i n c i d e d with a search f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s t o c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e s . T h i s search f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s has been i n f l u e n c e d by s p e c i f i c concerns a r i s i n g from two other areas of s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n r e s e a r c h : e f f i c a c y of s p e c i a l c l a s s placement and c u r r i c u l u m - b a s e d i n s t r u c t i o n . The f i r s t concern i s the value of s p e c i a l c l a s s placement f o r m i l d l y handicapped students. B i c k l e n and Z o l l e r s (1986) examined e f f i c a c y s t u d i e s from the 1939's t o 1986 and concluded t h a t m i l d l y hancicapped students do not b e n e f i t from s p e c i a l education placement o u t s i d e the r e g u l a r c l a s s . T h e i r review d i s c l o s e d t h a t , because of m e t h o d o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s (such as an i n a b i l i t y to d e f i n e a d i s c r e t e l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n and the lack of c o n t r o l groups) they c o u l d f i n d no d e f i n i t i v e s t u d i e s to support the placement of l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d ( L D ) students i n s p e c i a l c l a s s e s . In a d d i t i o n , they d i s c o v e r e d s e v e r a l "troublesome" f e a t u r e s of the p u l l o u t nodel. These f e a t u r e s ranged from l o s s of teacher a c c o u n t a b i l i t y , t o stigma and 4 a l i e n a t i o n f o r LD students. As a r e s u l t , B i c k l e n and Z o l l e r s recommended t h a t s u c c e s s f u l l e a r n i n g f o r LD stu d e n t s depends on sc h o o l s adapting to accommodate a wider range of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s in the mainstream. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n has n o u r i s h e d the search f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n s that r e s u l t in the r e d u c t i o n of numbers of students r e f e r r e d f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s . A second concern brought out by s p e c i a l education r e s e a r c h , c e n t r e s on the e x i s t e n c e of " c u r r i c u l u m c a s u a l t i e s " ( G i c k l i n g & Thompson, 1985). C u r r i c u l u m c a s u a l t i e s are students who are at r i s k , not because of any d e f i c i t s i n t h e i r c o g n i t i v e or pe r c e p t u a l a b i l i t i e s , but because t h e i r l e v e l of achievement does not match the l e v e l of i n s t r u c t i o n i n the classroom. " T h e i r one b a s i c f a u l t or problem, i f i t can be c a l l e d t h a t , i s t h a t t h e i r r e a d i n e s s l e v e l s or l e a r n i n g r a t e s do not synchro n i z e p r e c i s e l y with the i n s t r u c t i o n a l entry s k i l l requirements and r a t e s of i n t r o d u c t i o n and review making up grade l e v e l programs" ( G i c k l i n g & Thompson, 1986, p. 209). G i c k l i n g and Thompson r e p o r t e d t h a t , once the mismatch between the students' l e v e l of r e a d i n e s s and the l e v e l of i n s t r u c t i o n was e l i m i n a t e d , low a c h i e v i n g c h i l d r e n and c h i l d r e n with a t t e n t i o n d e f i c i t d i s o r d e r demonstrated a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e in on-task behaviour (which c o r r e l a t e s d i r e c t l y with i n c r e a s e d achievement). Therefore, i t seems reasonable to expect 5 that, before r e f e r r i n g a student to special education, teachers should f i r s t ascertain whether the student is a curriculum casualty - a victim of inappropriate i n s t r u c t i o n . Galagan (1985), however, suggested another basis for the mismatch with i n s t r u c t i o n . Evidence abounds that regular education teachers i n i t i a t e r e f e r r a l s without documenting that a l t e r n a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies have been attempted and evaluated. Moreover, there is often no evidence of the student's present level of i n t e l l e c t u a l functioning, language dominance, school attendance, or systematic observational data on the student's performance. These omissions emanate from almost uniform teacher attitudes that academic and behavioral d i f f i c u l t i e s are not related to inadequate i n s t r u c t i o n but rather home and family problems and internal student d e f i c i t s (1985, p.290). The concerns about the value of special class placement and the f a i l u r e of r e f e r r i n g teachers to document modification in the i n s t r u c t i o n a l environment, have stimulated educators to seek an alternative special education service delivery model for mildly handicapped students. The search has been for a model that not only avoids pullout placements, but also provides information on the students' interaction with the curriculum and the environment in the classroom. To meet these c r i t e r i a , 6 educators have developed p r e - r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n models. Most no t a b l y , these i n c l u d e the P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n Process (Graden, Casey, & C h r i s t e n s o n , 1985) and Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams ( C h a l f a n t , Pysh, & M o u l t r i e , 1979). The procedures o u t l i n e d in these models c r e a t e a p r e l i m i n a r y step i n the s p e c i a l education r e f e r r a l - t o - p l a c e m e n t sequence in which the r e f e r r i n g teacher c o l l a b o r a t e s with a c o n s u l t a n t or a group of peers to examine the student i n the l e a r n i n g s e t t i n g and, i f a p p r o p r i a t e , to modify the environment or the c u r r i c u l u m and c o l l e c t data on the m o d i f i c a t i o n . These procedures focus on i d e n t i f y i n g d e f i c i t s in the i n s t r u c t i o n and s e t t i n g r a t h e r than in the c h i l d . If d e f i c i e n c i e s can be found and c o r r e c t e d , the c h i l d remains in the r e g u l a r classroom and the teacher's s k i l l s are enhanced. As a consequence, the need f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s i s reduced. The promise of p r e r e f e r r a l p r a c t i c e s to reduce the e s c a l a t i n g need f o r s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e s has led to t h e i r wide-spread acceptance in North America, d e s p i t e a s c a r c i t y of e m p i r i c a l evidence to support t h e i r use. C a r t e r and Sugai (1989) surveyed 51 s t a t e - l e v e l s p e c i a l education a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n 1987 and found t h a t p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n procedures were r e q u i r e d in 23 s t a t e s and recommended in 11 o t h e r s . T h i s i n t e r e s t in p r e r e f e r r a l procedures i s shared in Canada. School systems in at l e a s t four p r o v i n c e s , i n c l u d i n g B r i t i s h Columbia, are using the procedures ( C h a l f a n t & Pysh, 1981). The widespread adoption 7 of these procedures suggests that news of their p o s i t i v e e f f e c t is spreading. However, published evaluations of p r e r e f e r r a l success stress the cost-effectiveness of the procedures ( i . e . , reductions in r e f e r r a l s for special education services). Studies d e t a i l i n g the e f f e c t s of the procedures on the teachers and students involved (rather than on the systems) are rare. Chalfant and Pysh (1981) reported that the problems that teachers referred to TATs encompassed both learning and behavioural concerns (with behavioural concerns dominating), but they do not discuss how these concerns were addressed. Issues such as teacher s a t i s f a c t i o n with TATs have been surveyed with favourable r e s u l t s , but success is generally equated with reduction in r e f e r r a l s for special education services (Chalfant, Pysch & Moultrie, 1979; Chalfant & Pysh, 1981; and Graden, Casey, & Christenson, 1985). Evaluation of prereferral intervention success became a focus in Vancouver in 1988. The Vancouver School Board p i l o t e d a prereferral procedure, the Teacher Assistance Team model, in four schools during the 1988-89 school year. The p i l o t , which has been c a l l e d Project TEAMS (Teaming for Educational Alternatives Methods and Strategies) is the focus of t h i s study. In the Teacher Assistance Team model used in Project TEAMS, classroom teachers referred learning or behaviour problems to a groups of three classroom teachers who helped them to c l a r i f y and solve possible prob1 ems. 8 T h i s study examined the type of problems r e f e r r e d to the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams to determine whether they were s i m i l a r to problems r e f e r r e d to School-based Teams - the t r a d i t i o n a l avenue f o r s p e c i a l education r e f e r r a l s in Vancouver. It was reasoned t h a t , s i n c e r e d u c t i o n of the numbers of students r e f e r r e d f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s has been used as an i n d i c a t o r of p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s , i t would be u s e f u l to determine whether the types of problems r e f e r r e d by teachers to TATs were, in f a c t , s i m i l a r to those r e f e r r e d to School-based Teams. T h i s study a l s o examined the TAT process to determine whether problem r e - c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n had taken p l a c e as a r e s u l t of the peer c o n s u l t a t i o n . CHAPTER TWO Review of the L i t e r a t u r e Increasing numbers of m i l d l y handicapped l e a r n e r s being r e f e r r e d f o r s p e c i a l c l a s s placement ( A l g o z z i n e & Ysseldyke, 1983) have prompted educators to seek c o s t -e f f e c t i v e s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y a l t e r n a t i v e s . Concerns about the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of r e f e r r a l s f o r s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e s (Ysseldyke, 1983, Galagan, 1985) have d i r e c t e d t h i s search to the e a r l i e s t stage of the s p e c i a l education r e f e r r a l - t o - p l a c e m e n t sequence, the p o i n t where the classroom teacher acknowledges a need f o r help with a student having l e a r n i n g or behaviour problems. A c l a s s of s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y o p t i o n s , known as p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s , has been generated to meet t h i s demand. P r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s provide an intermediary phase in the r e f e r r a l f o r s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e s process and are c a r r i e d out " c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y " with classroom t e a c h e r s . The o b j e c t i v e s of the i n t e r v e n t i o n s are: (a) to improve the a b i l i t y of classroom t e a c h e r s to accommodate the needs of c h i l d r e n with l e a r n i n g and behaviour problems, and (b) to reduce unnecessary r e f e r r a l s f o r s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e s ( C a r t e r & Sugai, 1989). P r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n models have been developed in which the r e f e r r i n g teacher meets with i n f o r m a l , s c h o o l -based problem-solving teams such as Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams 9 10 ( C h a l f a n t , Pysh, & M o u l t r i e , 1979); or in which the r e f e r r i n g teacher meets with a s p e c i a l education teacher (the P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n System, Graden, Casey, & C h r i s t e n s o n , 1985; and s p e c i a l education c o n s u l t a t i o n models, e.g. F r i e n d , 1984; I do 1-Maestas, 1983; P a o l u c c i -Whitcomb & Nevin, 1985). In a l l of these models the c o n s u l t a n t ( s ) f u n c t i o n s as a problem-solving h e l p e r . The p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g procedures used in these models i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g g e n e r i c steps: 1. Problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n 2. Generation of p o s s i b l e problem i n t e r v e n t i o n s 3. S e l e c t i o n of an i n t e r v e n t i o n 4. Implementing and e v a l u a t i o n of the i n t e r v e n t i o n 5. R e v i s i o n of u n s u c c e s s f u l i n t e r v e n t i o n s The prob1em-so1ving process shared by these models i s c o l l a b o r a t i v e . A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s are assumed to have equal l e v e l s of e x p e r t i s e and the r e f e r r i n g teacher r e t a i n s ownership of the problem throughout the process. (In t h i s r e s p e c t , c o l l a b o r a t i v e c o n s u l t a t i o n d i f f e r s from t r a d i t i o n a l expert-based models of c o n s u l t a t i o n in which the c o n s u l t a n t i s assumed to have more e x p e r t i s e than the c o n s u l t e e and the c o n s u l t e e , in e f f e c t , r e l i n q u i s h e s ownership of the problem to the c o n s u l t a n t . ) The o b j e c t i v e of the p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g p rocess i s to provide d i r e c t s e r v i c e to the teacher, not to the student, in hopes of e n a b l i n g the teacher to accommodate the m i l d l y handicapped student w i t h i n the l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e environment - the r e g u l a r classroom. 11 Outcome Research in P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n Procedures The high face value of p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n models has led to t h e i r e x t e n s i v e implementation. Yet, d e s p i t e r e p o r t s of of t h e i r widespread use (C a r t e r & Sugai, 1989), r e s e a r c h on the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of these p r a c t i c e s i s r e l a t i v e l y s c a r c e . E f f e c t i v e n e s s or outcome r e s e a r c h i s more p l e n t i f u l i n the general f i e l d of c o n s u l t a t i o n (which i n c l u d e s s c h o o l , mental h e a l t h , and p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s u l t a t i o n ) . Research i n school c o n s u l t a t i o n has addressed many aspects of the c o n s u l t a t i o n p r o c e s s : t h e o r i e s u n d e r l y i n g school c o n s u l t a t i o n models (West & I d o l , 1987); the methodology of c o n s u l t a t i o n research (Gresham & K e n d a l l , 1987); teacher competencies (West & Cannon, 1988); and c o n s u l t a n t t r a i n i n g and p r a c t i c e ( F r i e n d , 1984; Idol & West, 1987). However, Medway (1982) cautioned t h a t e f f e c t i v e n e s s of c o n s u l t a t i o n should only be i n t e r p r e t e d with r e s p e c t to the c o n s u l t a t i o n model used. In t h e i r m e t a - a n a l y s i s of c o n s u l t a t i o n outcome r e s e a r c h , Mannino and Shore (1975) d e f i n e d an outcome as: (a) a change i n the s k i l l l e v e l of the r e f e r r i n g teacher ( c o n s u l t e e ) ; (b) a change i n the student's behaviour; or (c) an improvement in s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y w i t h i n the system. T h i s review focuses on outcome re s e a r c h in p r e r e f e r r a l models of school c o n s u l t a t i o n . F i n d i n g s in the area of problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h i n the general area of school c o n s u l t a t i o n were a l s o i n c l u d e d . P a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n i s d i r e c t e d at the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team model ( C h a l f a n t , 12 Pysh & M o u l t r i e , 1979) which, under the name P r o j e c t TEAMS (Teaming f o r E d u c a t i o n a l A l t e r n a t i v e s , M o d i f i c a t i o n s , and S t r a t e g i e s ) was implemented in Vancouver s c h o o l s and i s the focus of t h i s study. T h i s examination of outcome r e s e a r c h in p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n procedures i n c l u d e s : (a) the P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n System (Graden, Casey, & C h r i s t e n s o n , 1985), (b) the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team model ( C h a l f a n t , Pysh & M o u l t r i e , 1979), and (c) s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c o n s u l t a t i o n models in which teachers c o l l a b o r a t e to develop, implement, and e v a l u a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n s which attempt t o meet the needs of a t - r i s k c h i l d r e n before r e f e r r i n g those c h i l d r e n f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e . The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of these procedures has been evaluated i n terms of outcomes in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n r e f e r r a l r a t e s , teacher a t t i t u d e s , student achievement, and student behaviours. A_, T h e P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n System. The P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n System (Graden, Casey, & Bonstrom, 1985) i s one i n which the r e f e r r i n g teacher requests a s s i s t a n c e from a c o n s u l t a n t who co u l d be the school s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r , p s y c h o l o g i s t , or other resource person. The process has s i x stages. The f i r s t f o u r , request f o r c o n s u l t a t i o n , c o n s u l t a t i o n , o b s e r v a t i o n , and conference, are " p r e r e f e r r a l " . The remaining two stages, formal r e f e r r a l and formal program meeting, c o n s t i t u t e the decision-making process f o r s p e c i a l education e l i g i b i l i t y . 13 The i n i t i a l four stages of t h i s process are c a r r i e d out by the classroom teacher and an assigned c o n s u l t a n t . Together, they assess the student's needs, design, implement, and e v a l u a t e an i n t e r v e n t i o n . The c o n s u l t a n t g i v e s d i r e c t support to the teacher through the problem-s o l v i n g meeting and may a s s i s t with the assessment of the s t u d e n t . The c o n s u l t a n t a l s o c o o r d i n a t e s the " C h i l d Review Team" which ente r s the process i n the f i n a l two s t a g e s . E f f e c t i v e n e s s r e s e a r c h conducted by Graden, Casey, and Bonstrom (1985) on the P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n System fo c u s s e d on outcomes in r e f e r r a l r a t e s and teacher a t t i t u d e s . In the 1982-83 academic year the P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n System was implemented in s i x s c h o o l s in a l a r g e suburban school d i s t r i c t . In two elementary s c h o o l s ( s c h o o l s 1 and 2) and one j u n i o r secondary school (school 3) the model was implemented u s i n g s p e c i a l education r e s o u r c e t e a c h e r s as c o n s u l t i n g t e a c h e r s to the classroom t e a c h e r s . In another two elementary s c h o o l s (schools 4 and 5) and one j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l , (school 6) the model was implemented using a school p s y c h o l o g i s t who was a s s i g n e d to a l l t h r e e schools as a c o n s u l t a n t . Several s p e c i a l c l a s s t e a c h e r s at s c h o o l s 4, 5, and 6 a s s i s t e d with the c o n s u l t a t i o n as t h e i r time allowed. In schools 1 and 2 the P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n System met with r e s i s t a n c e by the s t a f f s and f a i l e d to become e s t a b l i s h e d . R e s u l t s of the study i n d i c a t e d t h a t r e f e r r a l s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced in schools 3, 4, 5, and 14 6 and t h a t s t a f f s p e r c e i v e d the process as h e l p f u l and e f f e c t i v e . Graden et a l . a t t r i b u t e d the lack of change i n two s c h o o l s to the f a i l u r e to e s t a b l i s h the P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n System i n those s c h o o l s . Nonetheless, the P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n System d r a m a t i c a l l y a l t e r e d the t r a d i t i o n a l r e f e r r a l t o placement sequence. Graden et a l . concluded t h a t t h i s study provided "at l e a s t t e n t a t i v e s upport" f o r the p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n model of s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o t r a d i t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s . IL The Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team Model. The Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team (TAT) i s a process in which a group of three classroom t e a c h e r s uses peer c o l l a b o r a t i o n to a i d t h e i r c o l l e a g u e s who are t r y i n g to meet the needs of c h i l d r e n with l e a r n i n g and behaviour problems. In t h i s p r o c e s s , the r e f e r r i n g teacher becomes an equal member of a problem-s o l v i n g team and r e t a i n s f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the r e f e r r e d student. C h a l f a n t , Pysh, and M o u l t r i e (1979) recommended t h a t the TAT be composed of the r e f e r r i n g t e a c h e r , a parent of the r e f e r r e d student, and t h r e e classroom t e a c h e r s e l e c t e d from the s t a f f they serve. C h a l f a n t et a l . c a u t i o n e d a g a i n s t the i n c l u s i o n of p r i n c i p a l s or s p e c i a l i s t s on the teams l e s t they be assigned the r o l e of "expert", which would undermine the essence of peer c o l l a b o r a t i o n . They suggested that the i d e a l TAT member i s an experie n c e d classroom teacher who has a s u p p o r t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y , good communication s k i l l s , and a genuine i n t e r e s t in h e l p i n g other teachers s o l v e classroom problems. The TAT process c o n s i s t s of four phases: (a) teacher r e f e r r a l , (b) review of the r e f e r r a l , (c) requests f o r s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n (and classroom v i s i t ) , and (d) problem s o l v i n g meeting. C h a l f a n t , Pysh, and M o u l t r i e (1979) d e s c r i b e d the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the TAT model in terms of r e f e r r a l r a t e s and teacher a t t i t u d e s . They s t u d i e d the model in H i g h l a n d Park, I l l i n o i s . There, TATs worked with 203 s t u d e n t s in seven s c h o o l s . The TATs r e s o l v e d the d i f f i c u l t i e s of 129 c h i l d r e n and r e f e r r e d 74 to s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n f o r more i n t e n s i v e help. In the second year of the p r o j e c t the model was implemented and e v a l u a t e d in f i f t e e n s c h o o l s i n A r i z o n a , I l l i n o i s , and Nebraska ( C h a l f a n t & Pysh, 1981). Two hundred students were r e f e r r e d t o the TATs in urban and r u r a l s c h o o l s . The TATs were able to r e s o l v e the problems of 133 s t u d e n t s , 30 of whom were mainstreamed handicapped students. The remaining 67 students were r e f e r r e d to s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n and 54 were found e l e g i b l e f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s . C h a l f a n t and Pysh c i t e the r e s u l t s of t h e s e s t u d i e s as evidence t h a t TATs: "1. Help teachers to e s t a b l i s h s u c c e s s f u l programs f o r students with l e a r n i n g and b e h a v i o r a l problems; 2. Provide support to t e a c h e r s in 16 mainstreaming handicapped students; 3. Provide an e f f i c i e n t p r e r e f e r r a l s c r e e n i n g f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n services;, and 4. Can be e f f e c t i v e l y r e p l i c a t e d in school d i s t r i c t s with a v a r i e t y of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " ( C h a l f a n t & Pysh, 1981, p.22). In 1985, the TAT model was implemented in two elementary schools i n Olympia, Washington. Data were c o l l e c t e d on s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n r e f e r r a l r a t e s , student achievement, and teacher a t t i t u d e s . MacDonald (1987) r e p o r t e d an e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e d u c t i o n in r e f e r r a l s to s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . "In the f i r s t year of the p r o j e c t the two implementing b u i l d i n g s , with a combined t o t a l of about 700 s t u d e n t s r e f e r r e d one student to s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . The second-year b u i l d i n g s , with a combined student body of about 900, r e f e r r e d 19" (p. 17). MacDonald a l s o r e p o r t e d gains i n student achievement in s c h o o l s that implemented the TAT model. R e s u l t s of s t a n d a r d i z e d group achievement t e s t s showed " s u b s t a n t i a l gains i n r e a d i n g " (p. 17) f o r grades 2, 3, 4, and 5. McDonald compared changes in teacher a t t i t u d e s i n s c h o o l s which implemented the TAT model with those t h a t d i d not. A f t e r one year of u s i n g the TAT model, teachers in the implementing schools both d e s i r e d and experienced s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s p u l l - o u t i n s t r u c t i o n . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c rease in s e r v i c e s d e l i v e r e d in the b a s i c e d u c a t i o n classroom and t e a c h e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more 17 p o s i t i v e about the q u a l i t y of support and c o n s u l t a n t s e r v i c e s who helped them to serve students with problems i n the r e g u l a r classroom. In 1987 the TAT was implemented i n the d i s t r i c t ' s s i x sch o o l s and one middle s c h o o l . Wood (undated) rep o r t e d t h a t r e f e r r a l s t o s p e c i a l education f o r assessment and placement were 80% fewer than in comparison schools with each school averaging two r e f e r r a l s . Students with m i l d l y handicapping c o n d i t i o n s were u s u a l l y being served i n r e g u l a r classrooms. Surveys r e v e a l e d t h a t t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of l e v e l s of s e r v i c e and involvement w i t h i n r e g u l a r classrooms were s i g n i f i c a n t l y p o s i t i v e . O v e r a l l student achievement p a t t e r n s continued to be p o s i t i v e and s p e c i a l needs students in p r o j e c t s c h o o l s gained more i n comparison to t h e i r peers in n o n - p r o j e c t s c h o o l s in the area of r e a d i n g . Both MacDonald (1987) and Wood (undated) suggest t h a t the TAT model has been h i g h l y s u c c e s s f u l i n Olympia s c h o o l s . They r e p o r t t h a t classroom teachers were s a t i s f i e d with the TAT model and Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced i n a p p r o p r i a t e r e f e r r a l s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s . However, n e i t h e r of t h e i r accounts p r o v i d e s comprehensive i n f o r m a t i o n on the methodology used i n the s t u d i e s . In a d d i t i o n , the data MacDonald d e s c r i b e d on in c r e a s e s in student achievement i n the p r o j e c t s c h o o l s i s p u z z l i n g because t h e r e was no suggestion as to why the implementation of the TAT model should r a i s e the achievement of students who are not at r i s k . For these reasons, t h e i r r e s u l t s must 18 be c o n s i d e r e d as t e n t a t i v e . The f i n d i n g s of MacDonald (1987), Wood (1988), C h a l f a n t , Pysh, and M o u l t r i e (1979) r e g a r d i n g TATs r e d u c i n g r e f e r r a l s t o s p e c i a l education have been r e p l i c a t e d by oth e r r e s e a r c h e r s . Schram and Semmel (1985) found that TATs were e f f e c t i v e in h e l p i n g 62% of the students r e f e r r e d and pr o v i d e d s c r e e n i n g f o r students r e q u i r i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s . They a l s o r e p o r t e d t h a t TATs in c r e a s e d t e a c h e r s ' knowledge of i n s t r u c t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s and provided i n t e r v e n t i o n s s u i t e d to stu d e n t s ' i n d i v i d u a l needs. Thus, outcomes of TATs as r e s u l t i n g i n reduced s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n r e f e r r a l s and inc r e a s e d teacher knowledge amd s k i l l s were c o n s i s t e n t throughout the l i t e r a t u r e . Hayek (1987), however, found p o s i t i v e and neg a t i v e i n d i c a t o r s of TAT e f f e c t i v e n e s s . To determine the impact of a t t i t u d e s on te a c h e r s r e f e r r a l of students, he surveyed a random sample of Georgia's t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a f t e r TATs had been mandated state-wide f o r a year. Hayek found t h a t t e a c h e r s b e l i e v e d the TAT process was h e l p f u l to st u d e n t s . However, he a l s o d i s c o v e r e d t h a t 67% of the te a c h e r s f e l t t h a t the time and paperwork i n v o l v e d in the process made them h e s i t a n t about r e f e r r i n g students to the TATs. F i f t y percent of the 1,251 teachers surveyed i n d i c a t e d t h a t more students would be r e f e r r e d f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s i f the TAT process were e l i m i n a t e d . Hayek noted t h a t these f i n d i n g s were c o r r e l a t e d with t e a c h e r s ' f r u s t r a t i o n with lack of time. These e q u i v o c a l 19 r e s u l t s suggest t h a t the r e d u c t i o n in r e f e r r a l r a t e s to s p e c i a l education may not be a v a l i d i n d i c a t o r of TAT e f f e c t i v e n e s s as a p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g t o o l . Instead, r e f e r r a l r a t e s may serve as an i n d i c a t o r of TAT's nuisance value to tea c h e r s who are r e q u i r e d to r e f e r to TATs b e f o r e being p e r m i t t e d to r e f e r f o r s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e . £_ S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n C o n s u l t a t i o n . S p e c i a l education c o n s u l t a t i o n i s a g e n e r i c term that r e f e r s to the p r a c t i c e of p r o v i d i n g c o n s u l t a t i o n a s s i s t a n c e to classroom t e a c h e r s who are concerned about students p r i o r to placement i n a s p e c i a l education program. When used f o r p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n , s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c o n s u l t a t i o n p r o v i d e s d i r e c t s e r v i c e to the classroom teacher, not to the student. The c o n s u l t a t i o n i s c o l l a b o r a t i v e . Neither p a r t y assumes the r o l e of expert, and the o b j e c t i s to s o l v e student problems. The s p e c i a l education c o n s u l t a n t i s u s u a l l y a r e s o u r c e t e a c h e r , s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n teacher, or p s y c h o l o g i s t . S p e c i a l education c o n s u l t a t i o n i s more widely p r a c t i c e d than e i t h e r The P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n System or the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team model. Consequently, i t has been the o b j e c t of more e x t e n s i v e study. Idol (1988) examined i n d i v i d u a l s t u d i e s and meta-analyses of school psychology c o n s u l t a t i o n outcomes and r e p o r t e d the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s : (a) c o n s u l t a t i o n i s an e f f e c t i v e means of i n c r e a s i n g m i l d l y handicapped s t u d e n t s ' academic and s o c i a l s k i l l s ; 20 (b) c lassroom t e a c h e r s who r e c e i v e c o n s u l t a t i o n develop s t r a t e g i e s to a s s i s t a l l c h i l d r e n , not j u s t handicapped 1 e a r n e r s ; (c) c o n s u l t a t i o n i s co s t e f f i c i e n t , e n a b l i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s to manage large c a seloads s i n c e they do not p r o v i d e d i r e c t s e r v i c e to students; (d) c o n s u l t a t i o n allows teachers to prevent some student problems; (e) c o n s u l t a t i o n r e s u l t s in school p r o f e s s i o n a l s and parents becoming more i n v o l v e d in a student's programs; ( f ) c o n s u l t a t i o n r e s u l t s i n fewer r e f e r r a l s f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c l a s s placement; and (g) c o n s u l t a t i o n a s s i s t s i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s t a f f development needs. These outcomes, l i k e those of the P r e r e f e r r a l I n t e r v e n t i o n Process and Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team e f f e c t i v e n e s s s t u d i e s , i n d i c a t e changes i n teacher s k i l l and student behaviours and a l s o , i n d i c a t e system l e v e l improvement. However, resea r c h in the area of school c o n s u l t a t i o n has a l s o examined v a r i a b l e s w i t h i n theconsu 1 t a t i o n process i n an e f f o r t to i d e n t i f y the r e l a t i o n of those v a r i a b l e s to c o n s u l t a t i o n outcomes. Of p a r t i c u l a r r e l e v a n c e to t h i s study are f i n d i n g s concerning the f i r s t phase of the c o n s u l t a t i o n process - problem i dent i f i cat ion. P r o b l e m I d e n t i f i c a t i o n In the c o l l a b o r a t i v e p roblem-solving procedures used i n 21 p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n , problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n can be d e f i n e d as e s t a b l i s h i n g a treatment goal and/or t a r g e t b e h a v i o u r s . The importance of problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was f i r s t e s t a b l i s h e d when Bergan and Tombari (1976) i d e n t i f i e d t h i s phase as most c r i t i c a l to the success of the e n t i r e c o n s u l t a t i o n process. Bergan and Tombari s t u d i e d the e f f e c t of c o n s u l t a n t s k i l l s and e f f i c i e n c y on th r e e phases of the p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g process: problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , plan implementation, and problem s o l u t i o n . A f t e r examining t r a n s c r i p t s of 806 p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g i n t e r v i e w s and t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g case r e p o r t summaries, they d i s c o v e r e d t h a t a c o n s u l t a n t ' s s k i l l s had the g r e a t e s t impact on the problem-s o l v i n g process at the problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n phase. Bergan and Tombari v e r i f i e d the s u c c e s s f u l completion of the problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n phase, in i n t e r v i e w s between the school p s y c h o l o g i s t and the r e f e r r i n g t e acher, by examining t r a n s c r i p t s of the i n t e r v i e w s to a s c e r t a i n whether problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n took p l a c e or not. They found t h a t s u c c e s s f u l problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n v i r t u a l l y guaranteed a s u c c e s s f u l problem s o l u t i o n and in cases where the problem was not i d e n t i f i e d , the pr o b l e m - s o l v i n g process terminatedpremature1y. In these l a t t e r cases the teacher o f t e n withdrew the r e f e r r a l or r e d i r e c t e d i t to another agency or s e r v i c e . In some cases c h i l d r e n l e f t the c l a s s or schoo1 . Bergan and Tombari (1976) e s t a b l i s h e d the importance of problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to s u c c e s s f u l school c o n s u l t a t i o n . 22 Pugach and Johnson (1988) i s o l a t e d t h i s phase in a study of a p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n procedure using the s p e c i a l education c o n s u l t a t i o n model. In the i n t e r v e n t i o n group, 48 teache r s grouped from southeasten Wisconsin and c e n t r a l I l l i n o i s were grouped in 21 p a i r s , and 3 t r i a d s . The study i n c l u d e d a c o n t r o l group of 43 elementary t e a c h e r s from the same area. Teachers in the i n t e r v e n t i o n group used peer c o l l a b o r a t i o n t o develop and implement a l e r n a t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n s f o r students with l e a r n i n g and behavior problems. R e f e r r i n g t e a c h e r s met with a peer p a r t n e r who had been t r a i n e d i n a s t r u c t u r e d , four step p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g process i n v o l v i n g : (a) problem c l a r i f i c a t i o n through s e l f -q u e s t i o n i n g , (b) problem summarization, (c) g e n e r a t i n g p o t e n t i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s and p r e d i c t i n g t h e i r outcomes, and (d) developing an e v a l u a t i o n plan. Pugach and Johnson (1988) examined 70 problems and, usi n g the constant comparative method ( G l a s e r & S t r a u s s , 1967), generated nine c a t e g o r i e s in which to c l a s s i f y the problems. Problems were c a t e g o r i z e d as they were d e s c r i b e d i n i t i a l l y and again as summarized a f t e r t e a c h e r s had engaged in a problem c l a r i f i c a t i o n process. Pugach and Johnson found that 64 of the problems (91%) s h i f t e d to new c a t e g o r i e s f o l l o w i n g the c l a r i f i c a t i o n process. Only two problems each d e s c r i b e d as o f f - t a s k behaviour and a c t i n g - o u t behaviour remained in the same category f o l l o w i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n and only one each remained in the 23 c a t e g o r i e s of poor m o t i v a t i o n / a t t i t u d e and low general achievement. F u r t h e r , only one problem was coded in the category of poor s e l f - c o n c e p t as a d e s c r i p t i o n ; 12 were so c a t e g o r i z e d i n subsequent problem summaries. S i m i l a r l y , no d e s c r i p t i o n s focussed on the absence of an a p p r o p r i a t e s t r u c t u r e i n the classroom, while 18 were so c a t e g o r i z e d i n summaries (Pugach & Johnson, p.12). Pugach and Johnson (1988) concluded t h a t t h i s " d ramatic" comparison re v e a l e d t h a t as t e a c h e r s became more s p e c i f i c i n t h e i r understanding of problems they were able to d i s c u s s them in a manner which led more e a s i l y to s o l u t i o n . Pugach and Johnson measured the success of the treatment group as problem s o l v e r s by a d m i n i s t e r i n g an i n v e n t o r y of student t e a c h a b i l i t y b e f o r e and a f t e r t r a i n i n g in peer c o l l a b o r a t i o n . R e s u l t s of the study i n d i c a t e d that the treatment group s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d i t s t o l e r a n c e f o r students with l e a r n i n g and behaviour problems without any decrease i n e x p e c t a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g student compliance with classroom r o u t i n e s . However, Pugach and Johnson d i d not p o s t u l a t e any c o r r e l a t i o n between t e a c h e r s ' r e c o n c e p t u a 1 i z a t i o n of problems and t h e i r i n c reased t o l e r a n c e f o r problem students. In f a c t , they s a i d l i t t l e about t e a c h e r s ' r e c o n c e p t u a 1 i z a t i o n of problems other than t h a t i t had o c c u r r e d . Research i n t o the nature of problem c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n in v a r i o u s d i s c i p l i n e s , computer programming (Adelson, 1984), p h y s i c s ( C h i , F e l t o v i c h & G l a s e r , 1981), and 24 mathematics, (Schoenfe1d & Herrmann, 1982), has shown that experts s o l v i n g problems in these domains i n i t i a l l y d i r e c t t h e i r a t t e n t i o n toward more a b s t r a c t conceptual e n t i t i e s , whereas novices focus on more concrete " s u r f a c e " f e a t u r e s of problems. This d i s t i n c t i o n between a b s t r a c t and c o n c r e t e f e a t u r e s of problem c a t e g o r i e s may be r e l e v e n t to Pugach and Johnson's (1988) study. It i s p o s s i b l e t h a t , as the t e a c h e r s r e c o n c e p t u a l i z e d the f e a t u r e s of problems, t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r t i s e i n c r e a s e d and r e s u l t e d i n i n c r e a s e d t o l e r a n c e f o r problem st u d e n t s . The s t u d i e s by Bergan and Tombari (1976) and by Pugach and Johnson (1988) support the hypothesis t h a t a s u c c e s s f u l problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n stage w i t h i n the peer c o l l a b o r a t i o n process i s a v a l i d i n d i c a t o r of success in i n c r e a s i n g t e a c h e r s ' a b i l i t y and w i l l i n g n e s s to accommodate and a s s i s t c h i l d r e n with l e a r n i n g and behaviour problems w i t h i n t h e i r classrooms. The C u r r e n t Study T h i s study focussed on problems r e f e r r e d to Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team meetings in P r o j e c t TEAMS. The problems are examined in r e s p e c t to two c o n s u l t a t i o n outcomes: s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n r e f e r r a l r e d u c t i o n and problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . S p e c i a l education r e f e r r a l r e d u c t i o n . C h a l f a n t , Pysh, and M o u l t r i e (1979), Graden, Casey, and Bonstrom (1985), and MacDonald (1987) surmised t h a t r e d u c t i o n s in the numbers of students r e f e r r e d f o r s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e s were a v a l i d i n d i c a t o r of p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . 25 T h i s reasoning i s based on the i m p l i c i t assumption that problems brought to p r e r e f e r r a l c o n s u l t a t i o n s are i d e n t i c a l in nature to r e f e r r a l s f o r t r a d i t i o n a l s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e s . If t h a t i s the case, then r e d u c t i o n i n numbers of problems r e f e r r e d f o r s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e i s a v a l i d i n d i c a t o r of p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . However, other f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e t e a c h e r s ' d e c i s i o n s to r e f e r students f o r e v a l u a t i o n . Hayek's r e p o r t (1987) that the time and paperwork i n v o l v e d i n the TAT process d e t e r r e d t e a c h e r s from making TAT r e f e r r a l s (which were p r e r e q u i s i t e to s p e c i a l education r e f e r r a l ) i s only one of s e v e r a l reasons why r e d u c t i o n in s p e c i a l education r e f e r r a l s may not be a v a l i d i n d i c a t o r of TAT e f f e c t i v e n e s s . C h r i s t e n s o n , Y s s e l d y k e , and A l g o z z i n e (1982) found t h a t t e a c h e r s ' r e f e r r a l d e c i s i o n s were i n f l u e n c e d by the a v a i l a b i l i t y of s e r v i c e s and t eachers' p e r c e p t i o n s of the p r o f e s s i o n a l competence of r e f e r r a l r e c i p i e n t s . In view of these c o n s t r a i n t s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t classroom t e a c h e r s may withhold c e r t a i n types of problems from s p e c i a l education personnel because they do not see any advantage to making the r e f e r r a l . It may be that the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team o f f e r s t e a c h e r s a s o l u t i o n to a d i f f e r e n t type of problem. That i s , the problems r e f e r r e d to TATs may be d i f f e r e n t i n nature from those r e f e r r e d to s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n . Given these p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and because P r o j e c t TEAMS was in i t s f i r s t year, i t was f e l t to be premature to u t i l i z e data on the r e d u c t i o n i n r e f e r r a l s t o s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n as a major v a r i a b l e in r e s e a r c h . Rather, t h i s study examined the problems r e f e r r e d to TATs to d i s c o v e r .whether those problems were, indeed, s i m i l a r in nature to those t r a d i t i o n a l l y r e f e r r e d to s p e c i a l e ducation. T h i s l e d to resea r c h hypothesis 1 : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between problem d e s c r i p t i o n s made by r e f e r r i n g t e a c h e r s in r e f e r r a l s to School-based Teams and those made by te a c h e r s in r e f e r r a l s to Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams. Problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The study of the problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n phase of the c o n s u l t a t i o n process i n d i c a t e s t h a t s u c c e s s f u l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of treatment goals and/or t a r g e t behaviours i s p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d to s u c c e s s f u l problem s o l u t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , the problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / c l a r i f i c a t i o n phase in the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team process was c o n s i d e r e d t o be a v a l i d p r e d i c t o r of problem-solving e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n phase of the TAT meeting was examined to d i s c o v e r the nature of the problem descr i pt i ons. T h i s led to resea r c h hypothesis 2: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between problem d e s c r i p t i o n s made by r e f e r r i n g t e a c h e r s and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s a r r i v e d at by consensus at Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team meetings. 27 In summary, the r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e in c o n s u l t a t i o n and p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s supports the use of the problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and c l a r i f i c a t i o n processes as i n d i c a t o r s of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the TAT process. Reduction i n r e f e r r a l s to s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n has a l s o been an e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n d i c a t o r , but there i s some q u e s t i o n as t o the v a l i d i t y of that p r a c t i c e . T h e r e f o r e , t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c a r r i e d out to examine problem d e s c r i p t i o n s and statements in both TATs and School-based Teams i n s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l to d i s c o v e r i f and how they are s i m i 1 a r . CHAPTER THREE Methodology T h i s study focussed on the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team (TAT) model in four Vancouver s c h o o l s . Under the name P r o j e c t TEAMS (Teaming f o r Ed u c a t i o n a l A l t e r n a t i v e s , M o d i f i c a t i o n s and S t r a t e g i e s ) , these schools formed f i v e Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams i n June and September of 1988. (Because of i t s s i z e , one school formed 2 teams). Team members completed t h e i r t r a i n i n g i n the peer c o n s u l t a t i o n / TAT meeting procedure i n October 1988 and began accept i n g r e f e r r a l s at t h a t time. The purpose of the study was two - f o l d : (a) to a s c e r t a i n whether the problems r e f e r r e d to TATs were, i n f a c t , s i m i l a r to those t r a d i t i o n a l l y r e f e r r e d to s p e c i a l education; and (b) t o determine i f d e s c r i p t i o n s of problems r e f e r r e d t o Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams changed as a r e s u l t of the TAT process. Research Hypotheses The r e s e a r c h hypotheses were: 1. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between problem d e s c r i p t i o n s made by r e f e r r i n g t eachers i n r e f e r r a l s to School-based Teams and those made by teach e r s i n r e f e r r a l s to Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams. 2. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between problem d e s c r i p t i o n s made by r e f e r r i n g t eachers and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s a r r i v e d at by consensus at Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team meetings. 29 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team The f i v e Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams (TATs) i n t h i s study were p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g teams, each composed of three elementary classroom t e a c h e r s . The teams f o l l o w e d the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team model introduced by C h a l f a n t , Pysh, and M o u l t r i e (1979) and members were t r a i n e d i n a c o l l a b o r a t i v e problem-solving process. C h a l f a n t et a l . recommended t h a t team members be e l e c t e d by t h e i r s t a f f s . In P r o j e c t TEAMS, schools A, B and D e l e c t e d t h e i r TAT members by acclamation. In school C where two teams were formed, a balance of primary and intermediate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was sought i n team composition. Three intermediate t e a c h e r s were e l e c t e d by acclamation and the primary teachers were e l e c t e d by s t a f f vote. The mandate of these teams was to a s s i s t t e a c h e r s s o l v e problems of l e a r n i n g or behaviour. Teachers were asked to begin r e f e r r i n g such problems to the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams. School-based Team The School-based Team (SBT) i s a m u 1 t i - d i s c i p 1 i n a r y group which can include the school p r i n c i p a l , the l e a r n i n g a s s i s t a n c e ( r e s o u r c e room) t e a c h e r , the school p s y c h o l o g i s t , and other s p e c i a l i s t s . The team meets to eva l u a t e r e f e r r a l s f o r s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e s . In Vancouver, the avenue f o r r e f e r r a l to the School-based Team i s through the l e a r n i n g a s s i s t a n c e t e acher. 30 Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team Meetings Teacher Assistance Team meetings are h a l f hour p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s e s s i o n s d u r i n g which the r e f e r r i n g teacher and the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team members address the student's problem. The meeting format i s : 1. Problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ( f i v e minutes); 2. Goal s e t t i n g ( t h r e e minutes); 3. B r a i n s t o r m i n g p o s s i b l e i n t e r v e n t i o n s ( t e n minutes); 4 . S e l e c t i n g an i n t e r v e n t i o n (two minutes); 5. Developing an implementation plan ( f i v e minutes); and 6. Developing a p l a n f o r e v a l u a t i n g the progress of the i n t e r v e n t i o n ( f i v e minutes). Problem D e s c r i p t i o n The problem description i s the r e f e r r i n g t e a c h e r ' s i n i t i a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the problem as s t a t e d on the r e f e r r a l to (a) the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team or to (b) the School-based Team. A. Problem d e s c r i p t i o n i n School-based Team r e f e r r a l s . In Vancouver s c h o o l s , r e f e r r a l s to School-based Teams encompass the f i r s t page of the In d i v i d u a l E d u c a t i o n Plan under the headings "A. Student P r o f i l e " which s o l i c i t s demographic i n f o r m a t i o n and "B. Classroom Teacher Information" which s o l i c i t s goals for l e a r n i n g a s s i s t a n c e , other concerns, assessment data, and teacher comments on the student's s t r e n g t h s , needs and le a r n i n g s t y l e (see Appendix A: Sample R e f e r r a l to School-based Team). 31 B. Problem d e s c r i p t i o n in Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team r e f e r r a l s . R e f e r r a l s to Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams v a r i e d in format from school to school but a l l i n c l u d e d a s e c t i o n f o r demographic i n f o r m a t i o n and questions t h a t addressed the broad goals of the r e f e r r a l . The TAT r e f e r r a l form was s i m i l a r to the SBT form in that both forms s o l i c i t e d i n f o r m a t i o n on p u p i l s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses (needs), and background i n f o r m a t i o n and t e s t data. The forms were d i f f e r e n t i n t h a t TAT r e f e r r a l forms asked teac h e r s what s t r a t e g i e s had been t r i e d a lready (see Appendix B: Sample R e f e r r a l t o Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team). Problem Statement The problem statement i s the d e s c r i p t i o n of the problem which has been reached by consensus by the r e f e r r i n g teacher and the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team at the c o n c l u s i o n of the problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n phase of the TAT meeting. The problem statement i s part of the TAT meeting r e c o r d and space a l l o t t e d i s s u f f i c i e n t to accommodate one to three sentences (see Appendix C: Sample Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team Meeting Record). Procedures Sub i e c t s P r o j e c t TEAMS p a r t i c i p a n t s i n c l u d e d the t e a c h i n g s t a f f s of four Vancouver s c h o o l s . The number of teachers and. students w i t h i n each school are i n d i c a t e d i n Table 1. TABLE 1 Populations of TEAMS and Control Schools School No. of teachers No. of students __ _ _ B 17 364 C 35 613 D 12 284 E (control) 26 478 Schools A and C are located on the east side of Vancouver and have large ESL populations. Children come from low to moderate income fa m i l i e s . Schools B and C are located on the west side of the c i t y and have smaller English as a Second Language (ESL) populations. School B is situated in a moderate to high income area and school D, located in a high income area near an Indian reserve, serves a mixed population of students. School E was chosen as a control school for School-based Team records because of i t s general representativeness to the Vancouver school population. It is a large school with students from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds that is s i m i l a r to the over-all range in the Project TEAMS schools. It also serves a large number of ESL students, as do the TEAMS schools c o l l e c t i v e l y . The student and s t a f f population in school E is r e l a t i v e l y stable, as are the populations in the Project TEAMS schools. School E is large and heterogeneous enough to be free of idiosyncrasies caused by the domination of any single demographic factor. The Project TEAMS p i l o t schools were chosen from seven 33 t h a t requested to p a r t i c i p a t e in the p r o j e c t . P r o j e c t d i r e c t o r s chose s c h o o l s on the b a s i s of demonstrated need f o r the s e r v i c e (as i n d i c a t e d by "wait l i s t s " f o r s p e c i a l c l a s s placement and numbers of "at r i s k " s t u d e n t s ) and on the b a s i s of s t a f f i n g f a c t o r s . They e l i m i n a t e d s c h o o l s in which larg e numbers of s t a f f were l e a v i n g , or i n which s t a f f s were i n v o l v e d with school-based p r o j e c t s such as the Inner C i t y Schools p r o j e c t . Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team T r a i n i n g In October 1988, team members r e c e i v e d approximately 15 hours of t r a i n i n g i n the TAT process. T r a i n i n g focussed p r i m a r i l y on c o l l a b o r a t i v e problem-solving s k i l l s . The c o l l a b o r a t i v e prob1 em-so 1ving process begins with the problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n stage. Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team members were t r a i n e d to use a c l u s t e r i n g technique to f a c i l i t a t e problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . During the t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s , groups of t e a c h e r s generated sample r e f e r r a l s u s i n g a c t u a l problems t h a t they were e x p e r i e n c i n g or had p r e v i o u s l y encountered. Each group of teac h e r s exchanged the problems generated with another group. W i t h i n the groups, teachers t r a n s f e r r e d i n d i v i d u a l b i t s of i n f o r m a t i o n from s e l e c t e d sample r e f e r r a l s onto small p i e c e s of paper and grouped the a t t r i b u t e s i n t o c l u s t e r s with headings such as "academic", " s o c i a l " , or "home" and, thus, c r e a t e d an o v e r a l l p a t t e r n f o r each c h i l d . They i d e n t i f i e d i n f o r m a t i o n gaps in the p a t t e r n and generated questions to f i l l those gaps. Subsequently, the teams met with the r e f e r r i n g 34 t e a c h e r s , o b t a i n e d the missing i n f o r m a t i o n , and then a r r i v e d at a consensus about the nature of the c h i l d ' s problem. Members completed t h e i r t r a i n i n g i n the peer c o n s u l t a t i o n / T A T meeting procedure i n October 1988 and began a c c e p t i n g r e f e r r a l s at that time. A d d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g in curriculum-based assessment methods and l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s was gi v e n to s t a f f s of a l l four s c h o o l s . In October, 1988, school s t a f f s attended a one day workshop on curriculum-based assessment with Dr. James Tucker. Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team members r e c e i v e d an a d d i t i o n a l day of i n s t r u c t i o n on the t o p i c . The s e s s i o n s t r e s s e d t h a t , when faced with c h i l d r e n with l e a r n i n g and behavior problems, teachers should look f o r d e f i c i t s i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l environment. Dr. Tucker demonstrated s e v e r a l methods of curriculum-based assessment which i n d i c a t e the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the l e v e l of i n s t r u c t i o n i n the classroom in r e l a t i o n to the c h i l d ' s l e v e l of r e a d i n e s s . During the months of December and January, t e a c h i n g s t a f f s at the four TEAMS schools were t r a i n e d in the use of l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . The purpose of t h i s t r a i n i n g was to gi v e t e a c h e r s a method of adapting i n s t r u c t i o n to accommodate a v a r i e t y of a b i l i t y l e v e l s in a larg e group. Data Col 1e c t i o n Data c o n s i s t e d of photocopies of a l l r e f e r r a l s to TATs (n=30) and TAT meeting records (n=27) f o r the 1988-89 school year. The data a l s o i n c l u d e d photocopies of r e f e r r a l s to School-based Teams i n schools C and D f o r the 1987-88 school 35 year (n=31) and r e f e r r a l s t o School-based Teams (SBTs) i n school E f o r the 1987-88 school year (n=14) and f o r the 1988-89 school year (n=53). For i t e m i z a t i o n of r e f e r r a l s in each s c h o o l , see Table 2. TABLE 2 Numbers of TAT R e f e r r a l s and Meeting Records and SBT R e f e r r a l s W i t h i n S c h o o l s Schoo1 TAT TAT SBT SBT r e f e r r a l s meet i ng r e f e r r a 1 s r e f e r r a 1 s r e c o r d s 1987-88 1988-89 A 11 11 0 0 B 7 4* 0 0 C 5 5 5 0 D 7 7 26 0 E 0 0 14 53 T o t a l 30 27 45 53 * In school B, the r e c o r d of one TAT meeting was l o s t and in two i n s t a n c e s TAT meetings d i d not take p l a c e , once because the student t r a n s f e r r e d and once because of the urgency of the problem. Two steps were taken t o determine the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of 1988-89 r e f e r r a l s to School-based Teams. (a) Problem statements from 1987-88 r e f e r r a l s to S c h o o l -based Teams at schools C and D were c o l l e c t e d as i n d i c a t o r s of what 1988-89 SBT r e f e r r a l s might have been. (Schools A and B had not kept SBT r e f e r r a l s from the 1987-88 school year.) (b) As a cross-check t o c o n f i r m the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of u s i n g 1987-88 SBT r e f e r r a l s from Schools C and D as comparisons 36 for 1988-89 TAT r e f e r r a l s , SBT r e f e r r a l s at a non-TEAMS school, School E, were collected for both the 1987-88 and 1988-89 school years. To ensure the anonymity of schools, teachers, and students, the problem descriptions were coded to indicate the school, source (e.g. TAT r e f e r r a l ) , and number. Data Analysis Generating Categories. The constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used to generate a set of categories a r i s i n g from the data that could be used to describe the data. Within the context of t h i s study, t h i s procedure consisted of four stages: (1) i d e n t i f y i n g problem descriptors contained within the data; (2) integrating descriptors into categories; (3) delimiting the categories, and (4) writing the descriptions of the categories. Stage 1 of t h i s process was executed by reviewing each problem description and recording words or phrases used to describe features of the problem (descriptors). The entire set of data was reviewed three times. Stage 2 of the process was accomplished by tr a n s f e r r i n g a l l of the descriptors to a master l i s t where they were organized according to t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y . At t h i s stage two things became apparent: (a) descriptors could be sorted into three groups of general categories and then subgrouped within those categories; and (b) descriptors could be considered as negative or positive indicators (strengths and weaknesses) within the categories. 37 Stage 3, d e l i m i t i n g the c a t e g o r i e s , was e f f e c t e d by s t u d y i n g the items from the master l i s t of p r o p e r t i e s and then d e f i n i n g the parameters of each category. This procedure r e s u l t e d i n 46 c a t e g o r i e s . The outcome of Stage 4 was the w r i t i n g of d e s c r i p t i o n s f o r each of the 46 c a t e g o r i e s , was d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of each of the 46 c a t e g o r i e s (see Appendix D: D e s c r i p t i o n s of Categor i e s ) . D e s c r i b i n g the data. A matrix was then formed with the s c o r i n g c a t e g o r i e s ranging a c r o s s one dimension and code numbers f o r r e f e r r a l s ranging across the other dimension. The experimenter then examined each r e f e r r a l and recorded e n t r i e s i n the matrix i f the r e f e r r a l appeared to provide evidence f o r the presence of a s c o r i n g category. (A demonstration of the s c o r i n g process i s presented in Appendix E: I l l u s t r a t i o n of S c o r i n g , which c o n t a i n s a s c o r e d r e f e r r a l t o a Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team.) A s e t of r u l e s was c r e a t e d to govern p o t e n t i a l l y ambiguous s i t u a t i o n s (see Appendix F: Rules f o r S c o r i n g ) . Next, d e s c r i p t i o n s of the s c o r i n g c a t e g o r i e s and a s c o r i n g matrix were provided to a second r a t e r who then scored each r e f e r r a l . F o l l o w i n g s c o r i n g by both r a t e r s , a measure of i n t e r - r a t e r agreement was computed. Subsequently, both r a t e r s c o n f e r r e d to d i s c u s s d i s c r e p e n c i e s , r e f i n e d e s c r i p t i o n s of the c a t e g o r i e s , and expand or e l i m i n a t e c a t e g o r i e s . The c y c l e of s c o r i n g and category refinement was repeated ( f i v e times) u n t i l the s c o r i n g scheme was c l e a r , r e p l i c a b l e , and appeared 38 to capture the essence of the r e f e r r a l s . The f i n a l s e t of s c o r i n g c a t e g o r i e s c o n t a i n e d 46 d e s c r i p t i v e dimensions, each c o n t a i n i n g d e s c r i p t o r s i n d i c a t i n g the weakness (x) or s t r e n g t h (o) of a t t r i b u t e s on t h a t dimension. I n t e r - r a t e r agreement f o r the f i n a l s c o r i n g was .78. A f t e r the d e s c r i p t o r s from the r e f e r r a l s and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s were entered onto the matrix, the r e s u l t i n g data was analysed. E x p l o r a t o r y procedures were used to d i s c o v e r p o s s i b l e p a t t e r n s or r e g u l a r i t i e s i n the d e s c r i p t i o n s . To get maximal i n f o r m a t i o n from the data, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d e s c r i p t o r s was examined from t h r e e d i f f e r e n t aspects: a t h r e e - f o l d grouping of c a t e g o r i e s ; a n i n e - f o l d grouping of c a t e g o r i e s ; and a 46-way e x p l o r a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l c a t e g o r i e s . The t h r e e - f o l d grouping was developed because the d e s c r i p t o r s appeared to r e f l e c t predominantly academic or b e h a v i o u r a l concerns. T h e r e f o r e , the c a t e g o r i e s were grouped i n t o three c l a s s e s , Behaviour, Academic, and E x t e r n a l F a c t o r s . The n i n e - f o l d grouping was developed in an attempt to r e p l i c a t e the f i n d i n g s of Pugach and Johnson (1988) in regard to problem r e c o n c e p t u a 1 i z a t i o n f o l l o w i n g peer c o n s u l t a t i o n . To accomplish t h i s comparison, the 46 i n d i v i d u a l dimensions ( c a t e g o r i e s ) were aggregated i n t o 9 s u p e r o r d i n a t e c a t e g o r i e s which were adopted from the Pugach and Johnson study. F i n a l l y , the 46 c a t e g o r i e s were e x p l o r e d s i n g l y . (See Appendix G: Grouping of C a t e g o r i e s . ) CHAPTER FOUR Results The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of the data are presented below in two major s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n presents d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s which are aimed at p o r t r a y i n g the data. The second s e c t i o n presents the r e s u l t s of the a p p l i c a t i o n of e x p l o r a t o r y s t a t i s t i c a l methods which are aimed at uncovering l e s s apparent r e g u l a r i t i e s in the data. General C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Data The 46 c a t e g o r i e s generated by the cons t a n t comparative method ( G l a s e r & S t r a u s s , 1967) were c o n s i d e r e d s i n g l y and in two groupings: one, a n i n e - f o l d grouping based on the r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e and, the other, a t h r e e - f o l d grouping based on i n t u i t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the 46 c a t e g o r i e s . These groupings were formed to allow f o r m u l t i - l e v e l e x p l o r a t o r y a n a l y s i s . O v e r a l l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Weaknesses and Str e n g t h s The i n i t i a l a n a l y s i s of the data computed the r e l a t i v e frequency with which d e s c r i p t o r s o c c u r r e d i n each of the c a t e g o r i e s and w i t h i n the three groups, r e f e r r a l s to School-based Teams (SBT), r e f e r r a l s to Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams (TAT1) and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s reached by consensus in the problem c l a r i f i c a t i o n phase of the TAT meetings (TAT2). To pr o v i d e a general p i c t u r e of the data, those d e s c r i p t o r s which o c c u r r e d most and l e a s t f r e q u e n t l y o v e r a l l and w i t h i n each of the t h r e e groups are repo r t e d here. 4 0 Across a l l r e f e r r a l s and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s (n=155), d e s c r i p t o r s i n d i c a t i n g student weakness occu r r e d with the h i g h e s t frequency in the c a t e g o r i e s : Decoding S k i l l (39% of the r e f e r r a l s ) and A t t e n t i o n (38%). In c o n t r a s t , weaknesses in Reasoning ( 1 % ) , Tension ( 1 % ) , Attendance (2%), S c h o o l / S o c i a l Experience (2%), Memory (3%), Respect f o r A u t h o r i t y (3%), and V o l a t i l i t y (3%) were r a r e l y r e p o r t e d . D e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t r e f e r r a l s and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s focussed on student weaknesses, students' s t r e n g t h s were a l s o noted. Across a l l of the data, f r e q u e n t l y noted s t r e n g t h s were i n the c a t e g o r i e s of A t t i t u d e (26%), M o t i v a t i o n (17)%, Oral Language (12%), and Attendance ( 8 % ) . No s t r e n g t h s were r e p o r t e d in the c a t e g o r i e s : V e r b a l l y Abusive, P h y s i c a l l y A g g r e s s i v e , H y p e r a c t i v i t y , Schoo1/Socia 1 Experience or Tension. SBT D i s t r i b u t i o n of Strengths and Weaknesses Wi t h i n School-based Team (SBT) r e f e r r a l s (n=98), d e s c r i p t o r s i n d i c a t i n g weaknesses o c c u r r e d with the h i g h e s t frequency in the c a t e g o r i e s of Reading Comprehension (38%), Mathematics (37%), and E n g l i s h as a Second Language (37%). R a r e l y r e p o r t e d were weaknesses in Attendance, Respect f o r A u t h o r i t y , Tension, H y p e r a c t i v i t y , Reasoning, Memory, F o l l o w i n g I n s t r u c t i o n s , S e l f C o n t r o l , Schoo1/Socia 1 Expe r i e n c e , A t t i t u d e , D i s r u p t i v e , V e r b a l l y Abusive, or F r i e n d s (1% or le s s of the t o t a l e n t r i e s ) . D e s c r i p t o r s i n d i c a t i n g s t r e n g t h o c c u r r e d with the h i g h e s t frequency in A t t i t u d e (33%), M o t i v a t i o n (24%), Oral 41 Language (14%), and Work Habits (10%). Strengths were never r e p o r t e d w i t h i n the c a t e g o r i e s : V e r b a l l y Abusive, P h y s i c a l l y A g g r e s s i v e , F o l l o w i n g I n s t r u c t i o n s , H y p e r a c t i v i t y , S e l f -c o n t r o l , Schoo1/Socia 1 Experience, T r u s t w o r t h i n e s s , T e n s i o n , ESL, Reading, Sentence C o n s t r u c t i o n , or Memory. TAT 1 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Strengths and Weaknesses Within the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team (TAT1) r e f e r r a l s (n=30), d e s c r i p t o r s i n d i c a t i n g weaknesses o c c u r r e d with the hi g h e s t frequency i n A t t e n t i o n (60%), Work Ha b i t s ( 4 3 % ) , D i s r u p t i v e (43%), and Family/Home (40%). Weakness i n Language A r t s was never r e p o r t e d . Rarely r e p o r t e d were weaknesses i n S c h o o l / S o c i a l Exper ience ( 3 % ) , Tension ( 3 % ) , Sentence C o n s t r u c t i o n (3%) or Handwriting ( 3 % ) . D e s c r i p t o r s i n d i c a t i n g s t r e n g t h s o c c u r r e d with the h i g h e s t frequency i n A t t i t u d e (30%), Reading (23%), Reasoning (20%), Oral Language (17%), General Behaviour (13%), and Mathematics (13%). TAT r e f e r r a l s i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h s in only 28 of the 46 c a t e g o r i e s . TAT2 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Strengths and Weaknesses Within the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team (TAT2) problem d e s c r i p t i o n s (n=27), d e s c r i p t o r s i n d i c a t i n g weakness oc c u r r e d with the h i g h e s t frequency in A t t e n t i o n (33%), Assignment Completion (30%), and D i s r u p t i v e (26%). Weaknesses were not r e p o r t e d in 13 of the 46 c a t e g o r i e s . No Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team problem d e s c r i p t i o n s i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of s t u d e n t s ' s t r e n g t h s . 42 . Comparison of O v e r a l l SBT and TAT 1 D i s t r i b u t i o n s Comparision of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of i n d i c a t i o n s of s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses (across a l l 46 c a t e g o r i e s ) f o r the SBT and TAT1 groups showed no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s [x (1, n = 946) = .01, p>.05]. In both groups of r e f e r r a l s or problem d e s c r i p t i o n s weaknesses dominated s t r e n g t h s t h r e e t o one (see Table 3). TABLE 3 Freauencv of Weaknesses and Strengths W i t h i n SBT. TAT 1 . and TAT2 Groups SBT TAT 1 TAT2 Weaknesses 480 229 77 S t r e n g t h s 162 78 0 While the o v e r a l l p r o p o r t i o n of s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i n SBT and TAT1 r e f e r r a l s was roughly comparable, the t o t a l volume of s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses d i f f e r e d . Means were computed f o r the numbers of weaknesses and s t r e n g t h s per r e f e r r a l w i t h i n groups. Examination of the means suggested that TAT1 r e f e r r a l s i n c l u d e d more s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses (£1 = 10.3) than d i d SBT r e f e r r a l s (M. = 6.6) or TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s (H = 2.85). As w e l l , the type of r e f e r r a l d e s c r i p t i o n ( i . e . , a 43 s t r e n g t h or weakness) a l s o d i f f e r e d . Across groups, the average number of weaknesses per r e f e r r a l (M. = 5.1) exceeded the average number of s t r e n g t h s (M = 1.5). F i g u r e 1 d i s p l a y s the mean number of s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses f o r each group. Average Number Weaknesses Strengths F i gure 1. Mean number of s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses f o r each group. To e x p l o r e p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between SBT and TAT1 groups, the r e l a t i v e percentages of weaknesses were compared f o r each of the 46 d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s . tt was found t h a t SBT r e f e r r a l s c o n t a i n e d 20% more weaknesses than TAT1 r e f e r r a l s f o r the c a t e g o r i e s ESL, Reading Comprehension, Decoding S k i l l s , W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n , and S p e l l i n g . On the other hand, TAT1 r e f e r r a l s c o n t a i n e d 20% more weaknesses than SBT r e f e r r a l s f o r the c a t e g o r i e s , Work Ha b i t s , A t t e n t i o n , Assignment Completion, D i s r u p t i v e , A t t e n t i o n Seeking, S o c i a l Problems, F r i e n d s , H y p e r a c t i v i t y , and Family/Home. I n t u i t i v e comparison of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the c a t e g o r i e s in the groups suggested t h a t SBT r e f e r r a l s 44 i d e n t i f i e d more academic concerns and TAT1 r e f e r r a l s c i t e d more beha v i o u r a l concerns. Comparison of TAT 1 and TAT2 D i s t r i b u t i o n s F u r t h e r comparisions were made of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses ( a c r o s s a l l 46 v a r i a b l e s ) f o r the TAT1 and TAT2 groups. A chi-squared t e s t of the independence of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s was s i g n i f i c a n t [x (1, n = 375) = 25.7, p<.001)]. Examination of the r e s i d u a l s showed t h a t t h i s s i g n i f i c a n c e was c h i e f l y due to the absence of p o s i t i v e d e s c r i p t o r s ( i . e . s t r e n g t h s ) i n TAT2 problem descr i pt i ons. Although t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the r a t i o of weaknesses to s t r e n g t h s between TAT1 r e f e r r a l s and TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s , s e v e r a l v a r i a b l e s were notab l y s t a b l e . That i s , f o r some v a r i a b l e s , a weakness noted in the i n i t i a l r e f e r r a l to TAT (TAT1) tended to remain as a d i f f i c u l t y in the d e s c r i p t i o n of the problem reached by consensus at the TAT meeting (TAT2). However, of the 229 weaknesses noted i n TAT1 r e f e r r a l s , only 79 remained in TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s . The most p e r s i s t a n t d i f f i c u l t i e s were in Assignment Completion, General Behaviour, P h y s i c a l l y A g g r e s s i v e , Working C o o p e r a t i v e l y , Respect For A u t h o r i t y , S e l f - c o n t r o l , Schoo1/Socia 1 Experience, Tension, W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n , and Handwriting. In t h i r t e e n of the c a t e g o r i e s , d e s c r i p t o r s present i n TAT1 r e f e r r a l s were never found in 45 TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s . (See Appendix H: Percentage of Problems Retained From TAT 1 to TAT2.) It i s worth n o t i n g t h a t , except f o r Assignment Completion, none of the problem d e s c r i p t o r s which p e r s i s t e d from TAT 1 to TAT2 occurred with r e l a t i v e l y high frequency in e i t h e r TAT1 or TAT2 d i s t r i b u t i o n s of weaknesses. Thus, problem r e c o n c e p t u a 1 i z a t i o n , i f i t has o c c u r r e d in TAT2 r e f e r r a l s , may be r e p r e s e n t e d by the i s o l a t i o n of a few s u b t l e d i f f i c u l t i e s a g a i n s t a backdrop of other student problems, r a t h e r than a complete s h i f t i n the nature of the students' prob1 em. Summary. In summary, the d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s r e v e a l e d d i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s between the nature and numbers of d e s c r i p t o r s used in the t h r e e groups. The h i g h l i g h t s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses are presented in Table 4 below. The i n f o r m a t i o n presented in the t a b l e r e f l e c t s the f i n d i n g t h a t SBT d e s c r i p t o r s tended to be predominantly academic in f o c u s , whereas TAT1 and TAT2 d e s c r i p t o r s were predominantly b e h a v i o u r a l i n nature. Although the p r o p o r t i o n of weaknesses to s t r e n g t h s (three to one) was roughly c o n s i s t e n t throughout the three groups, the numbers d i f f e r e d . Teachers s u p p l i e d a g r e a t e r volume of d e s c r i p t o r s f o r TAT1 r e f e r r a l s , l e s s f o r SBT r e f e r r a l s , and l e a s t f o r TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s . TABLE 4 High Frequency Weaknesses and Strengths in SBT. TAT 1 and TAT2 Groups Groups SBT TAT 1 TAT2 Weaknesses Reading Comp Mathemat i cs ESL A t t e n t i o n Work Habits D i s r u p t ive Fami1y/Home A t t e n t ion Assignment Comp-l e t i o n D i s r u p t i v e S t r e n g t h s At t i tude M o t i v a t i o n Oral Language Work Habits A t t i tude Reading Reason i ng General Behaviour Mathemat i cs E x p l o r a t o r y Analyses Because the re s e a r c h hypotheses d i d not s p e c i f y the nature of s i m i l a r i t i e s expected between SBT, TAT1, and TAT2 groups; e x p l o r a t o r y , r a t h e r than hypothesis t e s t i n g procedures were used to d i s c o v e r p o s s i b l e r e g u l a r i t i e s i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of r e f e r r a l s and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s . F i r s t , the data were examined to see i f r e f e r r a l s and problem d e s c r i p t i o n d i f f e r e d in regard to a dominance of beh a v i o u r a l or academic concerns. Second, the 46 c a t e g o r i e s were grouped i n t o the n i n e - f o l d c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of r e f e r r a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i d e n t i f i e d by Pugach and Johnson (1988). T h i r d , h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r i n g techniques were employed to uncover p o s s i b l e e m p i r i c a l groupings and dimensions i n the 46 c a t e g o r i e s of d e s c r i p t o r s used in r e f e r r a l s and problem descr i p t i ons. 47 A n a l y s i s of B e h a v i o u r a l Compared with Academic Concerns The d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s r e s u l t s found t h a t nine d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s were observed with a high frequency among SBT r e f e r r a l s , and t h a t f i v e d i f f e r e n t d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s were observed with high frequency among TAT1 r e f e r r a l s . These d i f f e r i n g d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s seemed to d i v i d e i n t o b e h a v i o u r a l compared to academic groupings. Based on t h i s i n t u i t i v e h y p o t h e s i s , a t h r e e - f o l d grouping of c a t e g o r i e s , b e h a v i o u r a l , e x t e r n a l , and academic f a c t o r s was c r e a t e d . B e h a v i o u r a l f a c t o r s were comprised of c a t e g o r i e s 1 to 26; e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s i n c l u d e d c a t e g o r i e s 27 and 28; and academic f a c t o r s i n c l u d e d c a t e g o r i e s 29 to 46 (see Appendix G: Grouping of C a t e g o r i e s ) . Each of the o r i g i n a l 46 d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s was then sort e d i n t o one of the t h r e e groups. To achieve a degree of v a l i d i t y i n the assignment of d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s to f a c t o r s , another i n d i v i d u a l conducted a s i m i l a r s o r t i n g and d i s c r e p e n c i e s were r e s o l v e d through c o n s u l t a t i o n with two i n d i v i d u a l s , (a school p r i n c i p a l and a team leader from a d i a g n o s t i c t e a c h i n g and e v a l u a t i o n c e n t r e ) unconnected with t h i s study. The frequency of occurrence of d e s c r i p t o r s i n d i c a t i n g students' weaknesses or s t r e n g t h s w i t h i n each of the three f a c t o r s f o r the three groups, SBT, TAT1, and TAT2 i s shown in Tables 5 and 6 below. 48 TABLE 5 Frequency of Behavioural. External, and Academic Factors in  Descriptions of SBT. TAT1. and TAT2 Weaknesses Weaknesses SBT TAT 1 TAT2 A: Behavioural Factors 121 156 59 B : External Factors 16 15 0 C: Academic Factors 343 58 18 TABLE 6 Frequency of Behavioural. External, and Academic Factors in Descriptions of SBT. TAT 1. and TAT2 Strengths Strengths SBT TAT 1 TAT2 A: Behavioural Factors 108 35 0 B : External Factors 6 4 0 C: Academic Factors 48 39 0 D i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses. To test the hypothesis that SBT, TAT 1 and TAT2 might be distinguished by a majority of behavioural compared to academic concerns, chi-squared analyses were performed on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses and strengths. A chi-squared test of the independence of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses across the three groups (SBT, TAT 1, and TAT2) and three types of factors produced the s t a t i s t i c x 2(4, n = 774) = 173.6, (p<.01). Since the p value for t h i s s t a t i s t i c was less than alpha, (c* =.05), the 49 observed d i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses d i f f e r e d from the expected d i s t r i b u t i o n i n a s i g n i f i c a n t manner. Comparison with the expected f r e q u e n c i e s r e v e a l e d a higher than expected frequency of academic weaknesses expressed among SBT r e f e r r a l s , and c o n v e r s e l y , a lower than expected frequency of b e h a v i o u r a l weaknesses i n SBT r e f e r r a l s . On the other hand, both TAT 1 and TAT2 r e f e r r a l s i n c l u d e d a higher than expected frequency of b e h a v i o u r a l weaknesses and a lower than expected frequency of academic weaknesses. These r e s u l t s c o r r o b o r a t e d the o b s e r v a t i o n made from examination of the d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s ; namely, weaknesses d e s c r i b e d in SBT r e f e r r a l s were g e n e r a l l y Academic F a c t o r s and weaknesses d e s c r i b e d in TAT r e f e r r a l s and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s were g e n e r a l l y B e h a v i o u r a l F a c t o r s . To d i s c o v e r whether a s i m i l a r d i s t i n c t i o n e x i s t e d between TAT1 and TAT2 groups, chi-squared a n a l y s e s were conducted to compare the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of d e s c r i p t o r s i n d i c a t i n g weaknesses. The r e s u l t i n g s t a t i s t i c , x (2, n = 297) = 5.77, p<.10), was not s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s r e s u l t i n d i c a t e d no r e a l d i s t i n c t i o n between the TAT1 r e f e r r a l s and TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s i n regards to academic compared with behavioural concerns. D i s t r i b u t i o n of s t r e n g t h s . A s i m i l a r a n a l y s i s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s t r e n g t h s was conducted. The r e s u l t a n t c h i -squared s t a t i s t i c , with empty TAT2 c e l l s o mitted, was s i g n i f i c a n t [x (2, n = 240) = 9.88, p<.01)]. Examination of the r e s i d u a l s r e v e a l e d an i n v e r s e of the f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g 50 the d i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses among the r e f e r r a l s . While, as i n the previous r e s u l t s , E x t e r n a l F a c t o r s played a minor r o l e i n the o v e r a l l s i g n i f i c a n t c h i-squared s t a t i s t i c , a grea t e r than expected number of Academic F a c t o r s were found among TAT1 r e f e r r a l s . T h i s number was counterbalanced by a small e r than expected number of Behavioural F a c t o r s . In c o n t r a s t , SBT r e f e r r a l s i n c l u d e d a sma l l e r than expected number of Academic s t r e n g t h s and a g r e a t e r than expected number of Behavioural s t r e n g t h s . Summary. In summary, s t a t i s t i c a l comparison of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses and s t r e n g t h s across the th r e e groups (SBT, TAT1, and TAT2) and three types of f a c t o r s produced r e s u l t s r e l e v a n t t o both t h e s i s hypotheses. Two f i n d i n g s c o n t r a d i c t the f i r s t n u l l h y p o t h e s i s : (a) SBT r e f e r r a l s c o n t a i n a higher p r o p o r t i o n of academic concerns than do TAT1 r e f e r r a l s and TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s ; and (b) TAT1 r e f e r r a l s and TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s c o n t a i n a higher p r o p o r t i o n of behavioural concerns than do SBT r e f e r r a l s . A t h i r d f i n d i n g , t h a t TAT1 r e f e r r a l s compared with TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s do not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y in r e s p e c t to academic and behavioural concerns, supports the second n u l l h y p othesis. A n a l y s i s of Pugach and Johnson's Nine-Fold C a t e g o r i z a t i o n S c h e m e , When Pugach and Johnson (1988) employed the constant comparative method ( G l a s e r & S t r a u s s , 1967) to c l a s s i f y problems r e f e r r e d t o peer c o l l a b o r a t i o n (a p r e - r e f e r r a l 51 procedure) they i d e n t i f i e d the f o l l o w i n g nine problem c a t e g o r i e s : P1. O f f - t a s k / d i s t r a c t i b l e ; P2. Poor se1f-concept; P3. Poor m o t i v a t i o n / a t t i t u d e ; P4. A c t - o u t / h o s t i l e / d i s r u p t i v e ; P5. T a l k - o u t ; P6. Poor work completion; P7. Low general achievement; P8. S p e c i f i c s k i l l d e f i c i t ; and P9. Other Because the present study c l o s e l y resembled the Pugach and Johnson study, t h e i r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme was imposed on the 46 c a t e g o r i e s generated by the author. This was accomplished by a s s i g n i n g each of the 46 c a t e g o r i e s t o the c o r r e s p o n d i n g Pugach and Johnson category. Another i n d i v i d u a l conducted a s i m i l a r s o r t i n g and d i s c r e p e n c i e s were r e s o l v e d by c o n s u l t i n g with two educators who were independent of the study. The r e s u l t a n t n i n e - f o l d c a t e g o r i z a t i o n scheme (see Appendix Q: Grouping of C a t e g o r i e s ) was used to re-examine the t h e s i s hypotheses. The observed f r e q u e n c i e s of student weaknesses t h a t f e l l w i t h i n each of the nine c a t e g o r i e s adopted from Pugach and Johnson are r e p o r t e d in Table 7. 52 TABLE 7 Observed Freauencies of Student Weaknesses f o r each GrouD Usinq Pugach and Johnson's Cateqor i es Pugach and Johnson Observed frequenc i es Categor i es SBT TAT 1 TAT2 P1 8 13 2 P2 9 5 3 P3 17 15 3 P4 51 75 29 P5 4 12 4 P6 14 39 13 P7 55 13 4 P8 287 40 13 P9 20 26 3 Overal 1 independence of d i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses. A c h i - s q u a r e d t e s t of the independence of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses across the t h r e e groups (SBT, TAT1, and TAT2) and the nine Pugach and Johnson c a t e g o r i e s produced the s t a t i s t i c x 2 ( 1 6 , n = 774) = 201.8 (p<.001). T h i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the observed d i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses d i f f e r e d from expected d i s t r i b u t i o n i n a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t manner. Examination of the c o n t r i b u t i o n of each c e l l toward the s i g n i f i c a n t c h i - s q u a r e d s t a t i s t i c r e v e a l e d that the dominant components (77%) of the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t was accounted f o r by c a t e g o r i e s P8, P4, and P6. For each of these c a t e g o r i e s , an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between the SBT and TAT1/TAT2 groups. The SBT group showed a higher than expected number of responses f o r P8 ( s p e c i f i c s k i l l d e f i c i t s ) , whereas the TAT1 and TAT2 groups showed a lower than expected frequency f o r t h a t category. On the other 53 hand, f o r both P4 ( a c t i n g o u t / h o s t i l e / d i s r u p t i v e ) and P6 (poor work completion) there were lower than expected f r e q u e n c i e s of weaknesses among the SBT group and higher than expected f r e q u e n c i e s i n the TAT1 and TAT2 groups. These r e s u l t s s u b s t a n t i a t e d the previous f i n d i n g s i n r e l a t i o n t o n u l l Hypothesis 1 ( i . e . , the dominance of academic and behavioural d e s c r i p t o r s w i t h i n groups), and provided more s p e c i f i c i t y as to the nature of the d i s t i n c t i o n between the groups. The g r e a t e s t source of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between groups lay in the c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d e d in P8 ( s p e c i f i c s k i l l d e f i c i t s ) , P4 ( a c t o u t / h o s t i l e / d i s r u p t i v e ) , and P6 (poor work completion). To explore Hypothesis 2, the chi-squared s t a t i s t i c f o r the independence of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses across the TAT1 and TAT2 groups and the nine Pugach and Johnson c a t e g o r i e s was computed. The r e s u l t a n t s t a t i s t i c , x2 (8, n=297)=6.9 (p>.10), i n d i c a t e d t hat the d i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses between those two groups d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . However, the number of weaknesses noted in TAT2 was roughly one t h i r d of the number noted i n TAT1. T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t a m a j o r i t y of the weaknesses noted i n TAT1 r e f e r r a l s were e l i m i n a t e d from the f i n a l TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n . O v e r a l l independence of d i s t r i b u t i o n of s t r e n g t h s . Chi-squared t e s t i n g was done to d i s c o v e r whether p r o p o r t i o n s of s t r e n g t h s r e p o r t e d i n the data were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from expected d i s t r i b u t i o n . However, because TAT2 54 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s c o ntained no r e p o r t s of s t r e n g t h , t h i s a n a l y s i s i n c l u d e d only SBT and TAT 1 r e f e r r a l s . The r e s u l t i n g c h i - s q u a r e d s t a t i s t i c , x (8, n = 240) = 29.3 (p <.01), i n d i c a t e d that the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s t r e n g t h s throughout the Pugach and Johnson c a t e g o r i z a t i o n scheme was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the expected d i s t r i b u t i o n . The g r e a t e s t c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the s i g n i f i c a n c e were made by: (a) lower than expected f r e q u e n c i e s of SBT s t r e n g t h s noted i n P7 (low general achievement); (b) lower than expected TAT 1 s t r e n g t h s i n P3 (poor m o t i v a t i o n / a t t i t u d e ; and (c) higher than expected TAT 1 s t r e n g t h s i n P7 (low general ach i evement). H i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s . C l u s t e r analyses were conducted to d i s c o v e r p o s s i b l e co-ocurrences of the nine c a t e g o r i e s adopted from Pugach and Johnson (1988). To conduct the c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s , phi c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed to form a matrix of s i m i l a r i t y among c a t e g o r i e s . C o e f f i c i e n t s were computed s e p a r a t e l y f o r each of the t h r e e groups (SBT, TAT 1, and TAT2). For each group, the c o r r e l a t i o n a l measures among c a t e g o r i e s were subjected to s i n g l e and comp1ete-1ink h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r i n g a n a l y s i s (Johnson, 1967) and then the c l u s t e r i n g r e s u l t s were t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e using a method proposed by Hubert and Baker (1976). Since both s i n g l e and comp1ete-1ink c l u s t e r i n g s o l u t i o n s were obtained f o r each group of r e f e r r a l s , the methodology employed conforms to a c r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n procedure proposed by M c l n t y r e and B l a s h f i e l d (1980), whose 55 i n t e n t i s to i n d i c a t e the s t a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t a n t c l u s t e r i n g s o l u t i o n s . For the t h r e e groups (SBT, TAT1, and TAT2), an i n i t i a l c l u s t e r was formed between c a t e g o r i e s P1 ( o f f - t a s k , d i s t r a c t i b l e ) and P6 (poor work completion), and then a second c l u s t e r formed between the c a t e g o r i e s P4 ( a c t s o u t / h o s t i l e / d i s r u p t i v e ) and P5 ( t a l k s o u t ) . These c l u s t e r i n g s appeared in both s i n g l e and comp1ete-1ink a n a l y s e s . For each of the t h r e e groups, r e s u l t s of the Hubert and Baker (1976) t e s t s achieved s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e (8 = 1.0, p< .01) f o r both c l u s t e r s . Although f u r t h e r c l u s t e r s were formed, not one was found to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s f i n d i n g suggested that t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between c a t e g o r i e s P1 and P6 or between c a t e g o r i e s P4 and P5. To e l i m i n a t e redundancy, c a t e g o r i e s P4/5 and P1/6 were combined, thereby producing a m o d i f i e d s e v e n - f o l d c a t e g o r i z a t i o n scheme. A n a l y s i s of the m o d i f i e d s e v e n - f o l d c a t e g o r i z a t i o n scheme. As a f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t o r y a n a l y s i s , c h i - s q u a r e d a n a l y s e s were conducted on f r e q u e n c i e s of weaknesses and s t r e n g t h s f o r SBT, TAT 1, and TAT2 groups across the m o d i f i e d s e v e n - f o l d Pugach and Johnson c a t e g o r i e s . The r e s u l t s r e p l i c a t e d f i n d i n g s f o r the n i n e - f o l d c a t e g o r i z a t i o n scheme. The o v e r - a l l c h i - s q u a r e d s t a t i s t i c f o r weaknesses was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t [ x 2 ( 1 2 , n = 774) = 199.3, p<.01]. A higher than expected number of s p e c i f i c s k i l l d e f i c i t s (P8) was evident f o r the SBT group and a lower than expected number of P8 56 weaknesses was p r e s e n t in the TAT 1 and TAT2 groups. The TAT 1 and TAT2 groups contained a higher than expected frequency of both P1/P6 and P4/P5 weaknesses, whereas the SBT group c o n t a i n e d lower than expected f r e q u e n c i e s f o r both of those weaknesses. No d i f f e r e n c e s were found f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses between TAT 1 and TAT2 r e f e r r a l s [ x 2 ( 6 , n = 297) = 5.0, p>.25]. The c h i - s q u a r e d s t a t i s t i c f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s t r e n g t h s was s i g n i f i c a n t [x (6, n=240) =28.11,p<.01]. The c h i e f c o n t r i b u t i o n s to t h a t r e s u l t were in the same c a t e g o r i e s r e p o r t e d i n the a n a l y s i s of s t r e n g t h s i n Pugach and Johnson's n i n e - f o l d c a t e g o r i z a t i o n scheme. Summary. In summary, the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s using Pugach and Johnson's c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of student weaknesses produced r e s u l t s r e l e v a n t to both t h e s i s hypotheses and a m p l i f i e d the f i n d i n g s from the t h r e e - f o l d c a t e g o r i c a l grouping. D i f f e r e n c e s were found between SBT and TAT r e f e r r a l s , thus c o n t r a d i c t i n g the f i r s t n u l l h y p o t h e s i s . Those d i f f e r e n c e s supported e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s ; SBT r e f e r r a l s were dominated by s p e c i f i c s k i l l d e f i c i t s (academic) and TAT1 r e f e r r a l s were dominated by act o u t / h o s t i l e / d i s r u p t i v e / t a l k out weaknesses and o f f - t a s k / d i s t r a c t i b l e / p o o r work completion weaknesses ( b e h a v i o u r a l ) . In regard to the second h y p o t h e s i s , no d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n the nature of TAT1 r e f e r r a l s and TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s . However, te a c h e r s employed more d e s c r i p t o r s in TAT1 r e f e r r a l s than in TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s . TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s 57 c o n t a i n e d fewer c a t e g o r i e s . An a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g was t h a t the Pugach and Johnson c a t e g o r i z a t i o n scheme co n t a i n e d redundancies. C a t e g o r i e s P1 ( o f f - t a s k ) and P6 (poor work c o m p l e t i o n ) , and c a t e g o r i e s P4 ( a c t out) and P5 ( t a l k out) were found to e m p i r i c a l l y c l u s t e r i n a l l groups. 46-Wav A n a l y s i s of R e f e r r a l D e s c r i p t i v e C a t e g o r i e s . To gain an even f i n e r - g r a i n e d p i c t u r e of p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s between SBT, TAT1 and TAT2 groups than had been uncovered in the previous a n a l y s e s , c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s techniques were used to search f o r more s u b t l e d i s t i n c t i o n s among the 46 c a t e g o r i e s c o n s i d e r e d i n d i v i d u a l l y . SBT c l u s t e r f ormation . To examine p o s s i b l e groupings of the 46 c a t e g o r i e s w i t h i n the SBT r e f e r r a l s , i n i t a l l y a phi c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was computed between a l l p a i r w i s e combinations of the t o t a l set of d e s c r i p t o r s . The s i m i l a r i t y matrix contained 780 c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s among 40 c a t e g o r i e s . No weaknesses were repo r t e d i n s i x of the SBT c a t e g o r i e s : Attendance, Respect f o r A u t h o r i t y , H y p e r a c t i v i t y , Tension, Reasoning, and Language A r t s . S i n g l e - l i n k and comp1ete-1ink h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r i n g t e c h n i q i u e s were a p p l i e d to the s i m i l a r i t y matrix to y i e l d 18 and 19, r e s p e c t i v e l y , p a r t i t i o n l e v e l s t h a t i d e n t i f i e d p o s s i b l e c l u s t e r s of c a t e g o r i e s . Hubert and Baker's (1976) proposed s i g n i f i c a n c e t e s t s were a p p l i e d to assess the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the r e s u l t a n t groupings of c a t e g o r i e s . T h i s method i n v o l v e d the c a l c u l a t i o n of a gamma s t a t i s t i c which assessed the extent to which the agglomerated c l u s t e r s at s u c c e s s i v e p a r t i t i o n s of the c a t e g o r i e s reproduced the rank o r d e r i n g of the s i m i l a r i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s w i t h i n the t o t a l m a t r i x . The s i n g l e - l i n k r e s u l t y i e l d e d a gamma s t a t i s t i c l e s s than 1.0 at the f i r s t p a r t i t i o n l e v e l which, when compared with a p p r o p r i a t e monte c a r l o v a l u e s of the gamma s t a t i s t i c , was not s i g n i f i c a n t . The comp1ete-1ink c l u s t e r i n g was s i g n i f i c a n t at the f i r s t p a r t i t i o n l e v e l (% 1.0, p<.01), but not at the second p a r t i t i o n l e v e l ( < 1 .0, p>.30). The c l u s t e r s which were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t at the f i r s t p a r t i t i o n l e v e l were formed between c a t e g o r i e s 23 ( A t t i t u d e ) and 26 ( V o l a t i l i t y ) , and between c a t e g o r i e s 11 (Working C o o p e r a t i v e l y ) and 17 ( S e l f - c o n t r o l ) . In both cases the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (phi=1.0). TAT 1 c l u s t e r f o r m a t i o n . A s i m i l a r procedure was f o l l o w e d to d i s c o v e r p o s s i b l e c l u s t e r s w i t h i n the TAT r e f e r r a l s . For the s e t of TAT1 r e f e r r a l s , phi c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r a l l p a i r w i s e combinations of 44 d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s . No TAT1 r e f e r r a l s noted weaknesses f o r c a t e g o r i e s 45 (Academic S k i l l s ) or 46 (Language A r t s ) . Assessment of the c l u s t e r s found s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c l u s t e r s at only the f i r s t two p a r t i t i o n l e v e l s (6 = 1.0, p<.01). Both s i n g l e and comp1ete-1ink methods produced c l u s t e r s between c a t e g o r i e s 29 (ESL) and 30 (Language D i f f i c u l t i e s ) and between c a t e g o r i e s 38 (Sentence C o n s t r u c t i o n ) and 40 (Handwriting). 59 The s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of these c l u s t e r s was c o r r o b o r a t e d by n o t i n g t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were high and s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero f o r both c l u s t e r s [phi (29,30) = 0.80; phi (38,40) = 1.0]. TAT2 c l u s t e r f ormation. Since TAT2 r e f e r r a l s r e p o r t e d no weaknesses f o r 14 c a t e g o r i e s , (Attendance, F o l l o w i n g I n s t r u c t i o n s , Emotional Problems, T r u s t w o r t h i n e s s , M o t i v a t i o n , V o l a t i l i t y , Family/home Problems, Health, ESL, Language D i f f i c u l t i e s , Vocabulary, Sentence C o n s t r u c t i o n , Reasoning, and Language A r t s ) , phi c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were c a l c u l a t e d between p a i r w i s e combinations of the remaining 32 c a t e g o r i e s . Only c l u s t e r s at the f i r s t p a r t i t i o n l e v e l were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (5 =1.0, p<.01). In both s i n g l e and comp1ete-1ink methods, three c l u s t e r s formed at the f i r s t p a r t i t i o n l e v e l . C l u s t e r s formed between c a t e g o r i e s 18 (Schoo1/socia 1 experience) and 45 (Academic S k i l l s ) , between c a t e g o r i e s 33 ( L i s t e n i n g Comprehension) and 35 (Reading Comprehension), and between c a t e g o r i e s 40 (Handwriting) and 41 ( F i n e Motor S k i l l s ) . Again, c o n f i r m a t i o n of the s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of these c l u s t e r s was suggested by n o t i n g that a l l t h r e e p a i r w i s e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were high (phi=1.0). To examine the r e s u l t a n t c l u s t e r i n g s o l u t i o n s , the frequency of weaknesses and s t r e n g t h s were t a b u l a t e d f o r each c l u s t e r , and these f r e q u e n c i e s were c r o s s t a b u l a t e d by groups (SBT, TAT1, and TAT2). Weaknesses not f a l l i n g w i t h i n e i t h e r of the e m p i r i c a l l y - d e r i v e d c l u s t e r s of c a t e g o r i e s 60 were p l a c e d in an "other" category. Table 8 d i s p l a y s these r e s u 1 t s . TABLE 8 Frequency of Strengths and Weaknesses f o r E m p i r i c a l l y  D e r i v e d Category C l u s t e r i n g s f o r SBT. TAT 1. and TAT2 Category C l u s t e r s Frequency of Frequency of Weaknesses Strengths SBT TAT 1 TAT2 SBT TAT 1 TAT2 Cl : 23 26 ( a t t i t u d e ) & ( v o l a t i 1 i t y ) 3 6 1 33 9 0 C2: 1 1 17 (working c o o p e r a t i v e l y ) ( s e 1 f - c o n t r o 1 ) 3 10 8 4 4 0 C3: 38 40 (sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n ) (handwriting) 15 2 1 3 0 1 C4: 29 30 ( ESL ) (language d i f f i c u l t i e s ) 43 5 0 1 0 0 C5 : 18 45 ( s c h o o l / s o c i a l exper.) (academic s k i 1 Is) 14 6 2 1 3 0 C6: 40 41 (handwriting) ( f i n e motor s k i l l s ) 17 6 2 1 3 0 C7: 33 35 ( 1 i s t e n i ng comp.) ( r e a d i n g comp.) 47 5 2 2 1 0 Other 338 182 71 116 59 0 Chi-squared a n a l y s i s of the o v e r a l l d i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses f o r the e m p i r i c a l l y - d e r i v e d c l u s t e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from expected values [x^(14, n = 779) = 72.09, p<.012]. Since a s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l c h i - s q u a r e d r e s u l t suggested that t h e r e was s t r u c t u r e in the data, f u r t h e r comparisons were c a r r i e d out t o l o c a t e p o s s i b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n s to t h i s r e s u l t . C hi-squared a n a l y s i s of the o v e r a l l d i s t r i b u t i o n of 61 weaknesses f o r c l u s t e r s w i t h i n the S8T group and the TAT 1 and TAT2 groups combined was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t [x (7, n = 779) = 65.65, p<.01]. Examination of r e s i d u a l s showed t h a t the g r e a t e s t c o n t r i b u t i o n s to t h i s r e s u l t came from C2, C4, and C7. In C2 (Working C o o p e r a t i v e l y & S e l f - c o n t r o l ) , the SBT observed f r e q u e n c i e s were lower than expected whereas the TAT1/TAT2 f r e q u e n c i e s were higher than expected. In C4 (ESL & Language D i f f i c u l t i e s ) , the SBT observed f r e q u e n c i e s were higher than expected w h i l e the TAT1/TAT2 f r e q u e n c i e s were lower than expected. In C7 ( L i s t e n i n g Comprehension & Reading Comprehension) the SBT observed f r e q u e n c i e s were high e r than expected and the TAT1/TAT2 f r e q u e n c i e s were lower than expected. Chi-squared a n a l y s i s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of weaknesses f o r c l u s t e r s w i t h i n TAT1 and TAT2 groups was not s i g n i f i c a n t [ x 2 ( 7 , n = 309) = 5.41, p>.05]. As w e l l , no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found in the o v e r a l l d i s t r i b u t i o n of s t r e n g t h s [ x 2 (7, n = 241) =7.52, p>.05]. Summary The c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s d i d a r r i v e at a f i n e r g r a i n e d p i c t u r e of the d i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i 1 a r i t i e s among the groups of r e f e r r a l s and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s . The i n i t i a l e x p l o r a t i o n of the data using the t h r e e - f o l d d i v i s i o n of c a t e g o r i e s ( b e h a v i o u r a l , e x t e r n a l , and academic f a c t o r s ) r e v e a l e d an academic and b e h a v i o u r a l d i s t i n c t i o n between SBT and TAT groups, but no d i s t i n c t i o n between TAT1 and TAT2 groups. These f i n d i n g s are summarized in Table 9 below. 62 TABLE 9 Summary of the D i f f e r e n c e s in the Content of Teachers' D e s c r i p t i o n s of Students' Problems A n a l y t i c Frameworks Type of R e f e r r a l 3 - F o l d Breakdown Pugach & Johnson C a t e g o r i c a l Scheme 46 - Fo l d Breakdown SBT Academi c weaknesses Spec i f i c s k i l l def i c i t s ESL & Language D i f f i cu11 i es Behav i oura1 St r e n g t h s Mot i vat i o n / A t t i t u d e Strengths L i s t e n i n g Comp. & Reading Comp. D i f f i c u l t i e s TAT Beha v i o u r a l Weaknesses Academi c Strengths Act o u t / h o s t i 1 e / d i s r u p t i v e / t a l k out weaknesses Off t a s k / d i s t r a c t -i b l e , Poor Work Completion weaknesses General academic st r e n g t h s Work ing C o o p e r a t i v e l y & S e l f Control weaknesses Subsequent e x p l o r a t i o n u s i n g , Pugach and Johnson's c a t e g o r i c a l scheme, confirmed these f i n d i n g s and suggested t h a t the SBT r e f e r r a l s were dominated by concerns with s p e c i f i c s k i l l d e f i c i t s , whereas the TAT r e f e r r a l s and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s were dominated by act o u t / h o s t i l e / d i s r u p t i v e / t a l k out weaknesses and o f f -t a s k / d i s t r a c t i b 1 e/poor work completion weaknesses. The c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s r e f i n e d these i n i t i a l f i n d i n g s . The d e s c r i p t o r s which d i s c r i m i n a t e d SBT r e f e r r a l s and TAT problem d e s c r i p t i o n s r e s i d e d i n c a t e g o r i e s : 11 (Working 63 C o o p e r a t i v e l y ) , 17 ( S e l f - c o n t r o l ) , 29 (ESL), 30 (Language D i f f i c u l t i e s ) , 33 ( L i s t e n i n g Comprehension), and 35 (Reading Comprehension). The c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s a l s o confirmed the lack of d i s t i n c t i o n between TAT1 r e f e r r a l s and TAT2 problem descr i pt ions. CHAPTER FIVE C o n c l u s i o n s T h i s study was prompted by the search f o r an a l t e r n a t i v e to the t r a d i t i o n a l r e f e r r a l - t o - p l a c e m e n t sequence. Concerns about m i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of s t u d e n t s , o v e r - r e f e r r a l f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s , f a i l u r e of t e a c h e r s to document what they have t r i e d t o modify in the i n s t r u c t i o n a l environment, and, f i n a l l y , q u e s t i o n s about the e f f i c a c y of s p e c i a l c l a s s placement have r e s u l t e d i n the wide-spread adoption of p r e - r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s such as Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams ( C h a l f a n t , Pysh & M o u l t r i e , 1979). T h i s e x p l o r a t o r y study had two g o a l s . The f i r s t goal of the study was to examine the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team (TAT) p r o c e s s to determine i f types of problems r e f e r r e d by t e a c h e r s to TATs were s i m i l a r to those r e f e r r e d to S c h o o l -based Teams (the t r a d i t i o n a l r e f e r r a l - t o - p l a c e m e n t sequence). T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n would support or r e f u t e the use of r e d u c t i o n i n the numbers of students r e f e r r e d f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s as an i n d i c a t o r of p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The second goal of the study was t o f i n d out whether problem r e - c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n had taken p l a c e as a r e s u l t of the TAT process. To achieve these goals, e x p l o r a t o r y analyses were conducted on r e f e r r a l s to School-based Teams, r e f e r r a l s t o Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams, and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s a r r i v e d at d u r i n g the TAT process. The goals of the analyses were expressed as the f o l l o w i n g n u l l hypotheses. 6 4 65 Hypothesis 1: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between problem d e s c r i p t i o n s made by r e f e r r i n g t e a c h e r s in r e f e r r a l s to School-based Teams and those made by teache r s i n r e f e r r a l s t o Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams. Hypothesis 2 : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between problem d e s c r i p t i o n s made by r e f e r r i n g t e a c h e r s and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s a r r i v e d at by consensus at Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team meetings. Two major f i n d i n g s emerged from the data a n a l y s i s . F i r s t , i t was d i s c o v e r e d t h a t r e f e r r a l s to School-based Teams d i f f e r e d from r e f e r r a l s to Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams i n both nature and number of d e s c r i p t o r s used by teac h e r s d e s c r i b i n g s tudents. In nature, SBT r e f e r r a l s emphasized academic weaknesses whereas TAT r e f e r r a l s emphasized behavioural weaknesses. In number, TAT r e f e r r a l s contained a g r e a t e r volume of student weaknesses than d i d SBT r e f e r r a l s . These d i f f e r e n c e s c o n t r a d i c t e d the f i r s t h y pothesis and i n d i c a t e d t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s do e x i s t between r e f e r r a l s to School-based Teams and to Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams. The second major f i n d i n g was t h a t the nature of TAT r e f e r r a l s and subsequent problem d e s c r i p t i o n s d i d not d i f f e r . The analyses uncovered no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the c o n f i g u r a t i o n of weaknesses w i t h i n T A T 1 r e f e r r a l s and T A T 2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s . There was a d i f f e r e n c e in the number of d e s c r i p t o r s in TAT r e f e r r a l s and TAT problem d e s c r i p t i o n s . Subsequent problem d e s c r i p t i o n s 6 6 narrowed in on a s m a l l e r set of student problems. However, t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n number was a f u n c t i o n of the design of the TAT process and would only have been s i g n i f i c a n t had i t not o c c u r r e d . T h e r e f o r e , i t must be concluded t h a t the data a n a l y s i s supported the second h y p o t h e s i s : namely, that no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between problem d e s c r i p t i o n s in TAT r e f e r r a l s and i n TAT meeting r e c o r d s . A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n a l s o emerged from an e x p l o r a t i o n of the data. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n s p e c i f i e d the type of weaknesses and s t r e n g t h s t h a t o c c u r r e d with h i g h e s t and lowest f r e q u e n c i e s w i t h i n SBT and TAT r e f e r r a l s and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s and c o n s i s t a n t groupings of weaknesses w i t h i n both SBT and TAT r e f e r r a l s . SBT problem d e s c r i p t i o n s were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a preponderance of weaknesses i n r e a d i n g comprehension, mathematics, and ESL; and s t r e n g t h s i n a t t i t u d e , m o t i v a t i o n , o r a l language, and work h a b i t s . TAT1 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s were dominated by weaknesses c l a s s e d as a t t e n t i o n , work h a b i t s , d i s r u p t i v e , and f a m i l y / home f a c t o r s , with s t r e n g t h s in a t t i t u d e , r e a d i n g , reasoning, general behaviour, and mathematics. T A T 2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s r e p o r t e d weaknesses c h i e f l y in a t t e n t i o n , assignment completion, and d i s r u p t i v e behaviour. No s t r e n g t h s were i n c l u d e d in TAT2 problem d e s c r i p t i o n s . T h i s data r e v e a l e d student c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t were of primary concern to t e a c h e r s in the study. 6 7 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study Given t h a t t h i s study was an e x p l o r a t o r y r e s e a r c h e f f o r t by design, i t i s important to note l i m i t a t i o n s t o the genera 1 i z a b i 1 i t y of the r e s u l t s . Two f a c t o r s l i m i t the g e n e r a l i z a b i 1 i t y of t h i s study with regard to the f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s . They are: (a) f a i l u r e to e s t a b l i s h congruence between School-based Team r e f e r r a l s and Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team r e f e r r a l s ; and (b) absence of u n i f o r m i t y among School-based Team r e f e r r a l s . The f i r s t h y p o t hesis questioned the assumption made by other r e s e a r c h e r s that problems r e f e r r e d to (and s o l v e d by) TATs were, in f a c t , s i m i l a r to those presented i n the t r a d i t i o n a l r e f e r r a l - t o - p l a c e m e n t sequence ( i n t h i s case, School-based Teams). To make comparisons between TAT and SBT r e f e r r a l s w i t h i n s c h o o l s , SBT r e f e r r a l s were c o l l e c t e d from each of the p r o j e c t schools f o r the previous year. Two steps were taken to determine the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of the SBT r e f e r r a l s f o r the p e r i o d of the study (1988-89 school y e a r ) . F i r s t , 1987-88 r e f e r r a l s to SBTs at schools C, and D were to be c o l l e c t e d as i n d i c a t o r s of what 1988-89 SBT r e f e r r a l s might have been.' Next, SBT r e f e r r a l s at a non-TEAMS s c h o o l , School E, were c o l l e c t e d f o r both the 1987-88 and 1988-89 school years as a cross-check to c o n f i r m the e q u i v a l e n c e of 1987-88 SBT r e f e r r a l s from Schools C and D and 1988-89 TAT r e f e r r a l s . However, th e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t data on which to base comparisons between sc h o o l s and data a n a l y s i s d i d not 6 8 p r o v i d e any means of making more than very s u p e r f i c i a l comparisons between the groups of SBT r e f e r r a l s . T h i s was l a r g e l y due to the small numbers of SBT r e f e r r a l s p r o v i d e d by some of the p a r t i c i p a t i n g s c h o o l s . Schools A and B d i d not keep any records of SBT r e f e r r a l s f o r the 1987-88 school year. Schools C and D provided 5 and 26 r e f e r r a l s r e s p e c t i v e l y , whereas the c o n t r o l , school E, c o n t r i b u t e d 67 r e f e r r a l s . As a r e s u l t , the SBT r e f e r r a l s were c o n s i d e r e d as a c o l l e c t i v e i n d i c a t i o n of SBT r e f e r r a l p a t t e r n s i n those f i v e s c h o o l s . Queries i n t o the reason f o r the p a u c i t y of SBT r e f e r r a l s from s c h o o l s A, B, and C r e v e a l e d c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n SBT r e f e r r a l procedures. Students came to the a t t e n t i o n of the SBT i n one of three ways: review of the e n t i r e c l a s s l i s t by the SBT; requests by members of the SBT or other d i s t r i c t s t a f f ; or r e f e r r a l by classroom t e a c h e r s . Only when r e f e r r a l s were made by classroom t e a c h e r s , was the SBT p r o v i d e d with the problem d e s c r i p t i o n used in t h i s study. As a r e s u l t of these p r a c t i c e s , i n s c h o o l s A, B, and C, some r e f e r r a l s to SBT were made without accompanying r e f e r r a l forms. The combined e f f e c t of these f a c t o r s was a f a i l u r e to e s t a b l i s h the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of School-based Team in r e l a t i o n to Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams. For t h i s reason, i t i s not p o s s i b l e to r e p o r t d e f i n i t i v e l y t h a t the TAT r e f e r r a l s were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of what r e f e r r a l s t o SBT would have been in the four p i l o t s c h ools d u r i n g the 1988-89 69 schoo1 year. No such t h r e a t s to g e n e r a l i z a b i 1 i t y e x i s t f o r the second h y p o t h e s i s . The main c a u t i o n r e g a r d i n g these r e s u l t s i s t h a t the numbers of r e f e r r a l s (n = 30) and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s (n = 27) were sm a l l . The l i m i t e d numbers pre c l u d e the g e n e r a l i z a b i 1 i t y of the f i n d i n g s of the study to s e t t i n g s beyond the Vancouver School D i s t r i c t with i t s mixed e t h n i c ackground. Extension to other Canadian or American s c h o o l s , because of d i f f e r e n c e s i n the indigenous e t h n i c groups, should be viewed c a u t i o u s l y . D i s c u s s i o n The o b j e c t of t h i s study was to conduct a p r e l i m i n a r y e x p l o r a t i o n of two v a r i a b l e s that have been used by other r e s e a r c h e r s to e v a l u a t e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n procedures. One v a r i a b l e , r e d u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n r e f e r r a l r a t e s , has been used by C h a l f a n t , Pysh, and M o u l t r i e (1979); Graden, Casey, and Bonstrom (1985), MacDonald (1987) and Hayek (1987) to i n d i c a t e the success of p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n procedures. Another v a r i a b l e , problem c l a r i f i c a t i o n , was used by Bergan and Tombari (1976) and Pugach and Johnson (1988) to i n d i c a t e t h a t s u c c e s s f u l c o n s u l t a t i o n has o c c u r r e d . Reduction in S p e c i a l Education R e f e r r a l Rates The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study do not encourage the use of the r e d u c t i o n i n s p e c i a l education r e f e r r a l r a t e s as a v a l i d i n d i c a t o r of outcome e f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s . A d i s t i n c t d i f f e r e n c e was found between the 70 types of problems teachers r e f e r r e d f o r peer c o n s u l t a t i o n and the types of problems t e a c h e r s r e f e r r e d to the t r a d i t i o n a l s p e c i a l education r e f e r r a l - t o - p l a c e m e n t sequence. Even given the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study, t h e r e remains a d i s t i n c t i o n between the nature of problems r e f e r r e d t o SBTs and TATs. Se v e r a l f a c t o r s , s i n g l y or i n combination, may be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n . These f a c t o r s may e x i s t at a s u r f a c e , procedural l e v e l or at a deeper, systemic l e v e l . At a s u r f a c e l e v e l , the d i f f e r e n c e between SBT and TAT r e f e r r a l s may simply be an a r t i f a c t of the r e f e r r a l forms used, s i n c e the questions on TAT r e f e r r a l forms are l e s s p r e s c r i p t i v e than on SBT r e f e r r a l forms. S i m i l a r l y , the d i f f e r e n c e may be a r e s u l t of the lack of s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n i n the SBT r e f e r r a l process. The f a c t t h a t SBT r e f e r r a l s are i n i t i a t e d by sources other than the classoom teacher, and are not always accompanied by r e f e r r a l forms may i n f l u e n c e the nature of r e p o r t e d problem d e s c r i p t i o n s . At a deeper l e v e l , the d i f f e r e n c e between SBT and TAT r e f e r r a l s may r e f l e c t other f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g t e a c h e r ' s r e f e r r a l d e c i s i o n s and may a c t u a l l y i n d i c a t e a unique f u n c t i o n being served by the TAT. The low i n c i d e n c e of b e h a v i o u r a l d e s c r i p t o r s i n SBT r e f e r r a l s may be due to t e a c h e r s ' i n a b i l i t y to d e s c r i b e "bothersome" behaviours i n a manner in which they f e e l comfortable p r e s e n t i n g to an expert group. It may a l s o be due to i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s or e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e s such as those i d e n t i f i e d 71 by C h r i s t e n s o n , A l g o z z i n e and Ysseldyke (1982). C h r i s t e n s o n et a l . found t h a t t e a c h e r s ' d e c i s i o n s to r e f e r were i n f l u e n c e d by: (a) estimates of the competence of the p r o f e s s i o n a l r e c e i v i n g the r e f e r r a l and the extent to which the r e f e r r a l r e c i p i e n t encouraged or discouraged r e f e r r a l s ; (b) the length of time between r e f e r r a l and s e r v i c e ; (c) absence or shortage of s e r v i c e s ; (d) time and paperwork i n v o l v e d ; (e) a t t i t u d e s toward s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n ; and ( f ) e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e s such as t h r e a t of l i t i g a t i o n or i n f l u e n c e of advocacy groups. As a r e s u l t of these f a c t o r s , the TAT may be s e r v i n g as an a l t e r n a t i v e to the SBT and may be r e c e i v i n g problems t h a t t e a c h e r s have p r e v i o u s l y w i t h h e l d from SBTs and i s not, in f a c t , be a p r e l i m i n a r y step in the t r a d i t i o n a l s p e c i a l education r e f e r r a l - t o - p l a c e m e n t sequence. The nature of problems r e f e r r e d to TATs i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g in view of Hayek's (1987) f i n d i n g t h a t 67% of a l l t e a c h e r s surveyed f e l t t h a t time and paperwork d e t e r r e d them from r e f e r r i n g problems to TATs. The f a c t t h a t t e a c h e r s overcame these d e t e r r e n t s to complete the TAT r e f e r r a l suggests t h a t the problems they were r e p o r t i n g were of c o n s i d e r a b l e concern to them. T h i s , coupled with the apparent d i f f e r e n c e in the nature of r e f e r r a l s made to TATs, a l s o supports the s u p p o s i t i o n that TATs serve a unique f u n c t i o n . It may be that TATs are p e r c e i v e d as non-t h r e a t e n i n g avenues in which to d i s c u s s problems. Or i t may be t h a t r e f e r r i n g t e a c h e r s p e r c e i v e t h e i r peers as the only 72 r e a l " e x p e r t s " a v a i l a b l e to help them with t h e i r concerns about students with behaviour problems. In any case, the f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g the d i f f e r i n g nature of r e f e r r a l s to TATs and SBTs r a i s e q uestions as to whether they are a d d r e s s i n g s i m i l a r problems. For these reasons, r e d u c t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n r e f e r r a l s may not be caused by TAT success, d e s p i t e p o s s i b l e c o r r e l a t i o n with TAT s u c c e s s . Problem I d e n t i f i c a t i o n The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study do not c h a l l e n g e the use of problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as an i n d i c a t o r of TAT e f f e c t i v e n e s s . However, they do r a i s e questions about the v a l i d i t y Pugach and Johnson's (1988) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the concept of problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , i . e . problem r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . S u c c e s s f u l problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was d i r e c t l y c o r r e l a t e d with c o n s u l t a t i o n outcome success by Bergan and Tombari (1967). In t h e i r study of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of peer c o n s u l t a t i o n i n a p r e r e f e r r a l context, Pugach and Johnson extended problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to problem r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . Evidence of problem r e c o n c e p t u a 1 i z a t i o n , they i m p l i e d , showed t h a t t e a c h e r s ' d i a g n o s t i c s k i l l l e v e l s had i n c r e a s e d . "Teachers became more s p e c i f i c in t h e i r understandings of the problems they encountered and s h i f t e d to d i s c u s s i n g them in a manner which made problems p o t e n t i a l l y more s o l v a b l e " (p.14). Since change in the s k i l l l e v e l of the r e f e r r i n g teacher i s regarded as an outcome of s u c c e s s f u l c o n s u l t a t i o n (Mannino & Shore, 1975), problem r e c o n c e p t u a 1 i z a t i o n appears to be a 73 d e s i r a b l e outcome. However, although problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o c c u r r e d in a l l of the TAT r e f e r r a l s , problem r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , as r e p o r t e d by Pugach and Johnson, was not e v i d e n t in t h i s study. Using the constant comparative method (Gl a s e r & S t r a u s s , 1967), Pugach and Johnson (1988) s o r t e d each of 70 problems i n t o a s i n g l e c a t e gory. The problems were c l a s s i f i e d when r e f e r r e d , and reexamined a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n had taken p l a c e . Pugach and Johnson r e p o r t e d t h a t 91% of the problems s h i f t e d to new c a t e g o r i e s a f t e r the problem c l a r i f i c a t i o n phase of the procedure was completed. T h i s r e s u l t was not r e p l i c a t e d in the present study. Perhaps the major"reason behind the f a i l u r e to f i n d problem r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n was t h a t the present study r e c o g n i z e d amd examined m u l t i p l e a t t r i b u t e s of problems, r a t h e r than mapping a problem i n t o one of a l i m i t e d set of s i n g l e a t t r i b u t e s , as in Pugach and Johnson's procedure. The r e c o g n i t i o n of m u l t i p l e a t t r i b u t e s of problems i s c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s of C h a l f a n t and Pysh (1981) who r e p o r t e d t h a t c h i l d r e n r e f e r r e d to TATs averaged n e a r l y f i v e problem areas per c h i l d . The r e s u l t s of the present study i d e n t i f i e d a background of each student's problem areas and r e v e a l e d that the problems took on a narrower focus, r a t h e r than a new focus, a f t e r the problem c l a r i f i c a t i o n phase of the procedure was completed. T h i s f i n d i n g c h a l l e n g e s the use of problem r e c o n c e p t u a 1 i z a t i o n as an i n d i c a t o r of p r e r e f e r r a l e f f i c a c y . 74 It d i r e c t s a t t e n t i o n to assumptions u n d e r l y i n g problem c l a r i f i c a t i o n . Pugach and Johnson's (1988) study assumed that t e a c h e r s need to be educated in the problem c l a r i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s : t h a t t h e i r s k i l l s as d i a g n o s t i c i a n s are i n need of improvement. However, t h i s may not be the case. Gerber and Semmel (1984) suggested t h a t t e a c h e r s ' d e s c r i p t i o n s of student problems should be t r e a t e d as " e v a l u a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s , not s u s p i c i o n s " (p. 141). T h e i r r a t i o n a l e e x p l a i n s the "rubber stamp" process ( d e c r i e d by Ysseldyke, 1983) as c o n f i r m a t i o n of the t e a c h e r s ' d i a g n o s t i c s k i l l . If t h i s i s indeed the case, i t i s important to the success of the problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n phase of the TAT process to make e x p l i c i t the assumption t h a t the r e f e r r i n g t e acher i s competent to diagnose the student's problem. The focus of the process should then be to i d e n t i f y a c h i e v a b l e o b j e c t i v e s as i n t e r v e n t i o n t a r g e t s . T h e r e f o r e , i n l i n e with the r e s u l t s of t h i s study, i t can be concluded t h a t the use of problem r e c o n c e p t u a 1 i z a t i o n (Pugach & Johnson, 1988), as an e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n d i c a t o r i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e . Instead, the e x p r e s s i o n of a c h i e v a b l e o b j e c t i v e s - problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (Bergan & Tombari, 1967), i s a more v a l i d i n d i c a t o r of c o n s u l t a t i o n success i n the TAT process. A d d i t i o n a l F i n d i n g s S p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g the nature of weaknesses that o c c u r r e d with h i g h e s t frequency in TAT r e f e r r a l s and problem d e s c r i p t i o n s are important in view of the research by Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Graden, Wesson, and Deno (1983). In 75 t h e i r f i v e - y e a r r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t on psycho-educational assessment and d e c i s i o n making, they found that " d i f f e r e n t t e a c h e r s may r e f e r d i f f e r e n t kinds of students because d i f f e r e n t kinds of behaviours bother them" (p. 80). S i n c e the d e c i s i o n to r e f e r u s u a l l y leads to s p e c i a l c l a s s placement (Ysseldyke, et a l . 1983), i t i s important to know what types of problems are most bothersome to t e a c h e r s . The r e s u l t s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e t h a t weaknesses in a t t e n t i o n , assignment completion, and d i s r u p t i o n were the most p e r s i s t a n t concerns expressed by t e a c h e r s . Since TATs c o u l d be most s u p p o r t i v e i n these areas, i t f o l l o w s that s t a f f development i n s c h o o l s with TATs should address these prob1 ems. Imp!ications Given t h a t the o v e r a l l o b j e c t i v e of the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team process i s to i n c r e a s e t e a c h e r s ' a b i l i t i e s to accommodate c h i l d r e n with l e a r n i n g and behaviour problems in the r e g u l a r classroom, the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study have i m p l i c a t i o n s both f o r the c o n t i n u i n g development of P r o j e c t TEAMS and f o r f u t u r e e v a l u a t i o n of p r o j e c t . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the School D i s t r i c t 1. The f a c t that t e a c h e r s d e s c r i b e d i f f e r e n t aspects of problems to t h e i r peers (TATs) than to experts (SBTs) suggests t h a t b e h a v i o u r a l concerns may not be adequately d e a l t with at the School-based (system) l e v e l . T h i s concern c o u l d be examined by a task f o r c e composed of classroom t e a c h e r s and d i s t r i c t p e r sonnel. 76 2. R e f e r r a l s to Schoo1-based Teams should f o l l o w a standard procedure. A general procedure f o r using TATs as a p r e r e f e r r a l i s to r e q u i r e a l l teachers to r e f e r l e a r n i n g and behaviour concerns f i r s t to TATs. Problems t h a t p e r s i s t d e s p i t e the TAT c o n s u l t a t i o n can then be passed to School-based Teams. The wholesale adoption of such a process c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d too abrupt f o r such a school d i s t r i c t as larg e as Vancouver. If so, a t t e n t i o n should be given t o an a d a p t a t i o n to the use of TATs in p r e r e f e r r a l procedures which has been generated by s t a f f at school D (see Appendix I: School-based Team C o n s u l t a t i v e P r o c e s s ) . T h i s procedure c o n s i s t s of a c l e a r l y d e f i n e d s e r i e s of steps which t e a c h e r s can f o l l o w to deal with l e a r n i n g or behaviour problems. The teacher may d i r e c t the c o n s u l t a t i o n to procede through the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team or through the Learning A s s i s t a n c e Centre (the t r a d i t i o n a l avenue f o r r e f e r r a l s to School-based Teams in Vancouver s c h o o l s ) . If the problem i s not r e s o l v e d at e i t h e r of these p o i n t s , i t reaches the School-based Team and should be accompanied with documentation of the i n t e r v e n t i o n s attempted. R e f e r r a l forms used i n the i n i t i a l stages of the process, Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team Request f o r A s s i s t a n c e or Learning A s s i s t a n c e Centre Request f o r A s s i s t a n c e , are very s i m i l a r to the TAT r e f e r r a l forms used in t h i s study. As a r e s u l t , the forms are le s s l i k e l y to p r e s c r i b e the problem d e s c r i p t i o n than were the SBT r e f e r r a l forms used in t h i s study. 77 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Teacher Education 1. The f a c t t h a t t e a c h e r s narrowed t h e i r problem focus r a t h e r than r e d i r e c t i n g i t in the problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n phase of the TAT process should be c o n s i d e r e d during f u t u r e TAT t r a i n i n g . The assumption that t e a c h e r s have good d i a g n o s t i c s k i l l s c o u l d be made e x p l i c i t . The focus d u r i n g problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n should be to t a r g e t measurable o b j e c t i v e s f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n . 2. The concerns which teachers expressed most f r e q u e n t l y i n TAT and SBT r e f e r r a l s should guide f u t u r e s t a f f development p l a n s . The high frequency of concerns about rea d i n g comprehension a r i s i n g from SBT r e f e r r a l s i n d i c a t e s a need f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g in s t r a t e g i e s t o improve reading comprehension. The high frequency of concerns about a t t e n t i o n i n TAT r e f e r r a l s i n d i c a t e s a need f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i n methods f o r improving on-task behaviour. T h i s c o u l d i n c l u d e techniques of a p p l i e d behaviour a n a l y s i s . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Future E v a l u a t i o n of P r o j e c t TEAMS 1. Reduction in r e f e r r a l s to s p e c i a l education should not be used as a primary i n d i c a t o r of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of TATs. Such measures focus only on system-level improvement. E v a l u a t i o n which examines teacher or student centered outcomes (e.g. teacher s a t i s f a c t i o n and i n t e r v e n t i o n success) would g i v e a more complete p i c t u r e of the e f f e c t t h a t TATs have on teach e r s and students. 2. Problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n should be used as an i n d i c a t o r of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of TATs. S u c c e s s f u l problem 78 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n should be d e f i n e d as the t a r g e t t i n g of measurable academic or b e h a v i o u r a l o b j e c t i v e s . 3. E v a l u a t i o n of TAT e f f e c t i v e n e s s could a l s o use measures to d i s c o v e r i f : (a) changes have occured in teacher's s k i l l l e v e l s ; (b) changes have o c c u r r e d in students' behaviours; and (c) s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y w i t h i n the system has been improved. (A method to gauge improvement in t e a c h e r s ' s k i l l l e v e l s i s to measure t h e i r t o l e r a n c e f o r c h i l d r e n with l e a r n i n g and behaviour problems before and a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n . Changes in s t u d e n t s ' behaviours can be assessed through academic measures or records of frequency of t a r g e t t e d behaviours b e f o r e and a f t e r i n t e r v e n t i o n s . Improvement in s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y throughout the system can be e v a l u a t e d through surveys of teacher s a t i s f a c t i o n with the TAT process and through c a l c u l a t i o n s of numbers of students r e c e i v i n g d i r e c t or i n d i r e c t s e r v i c e as a r e s u l t of the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams.) R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r F u t u r e R e s e a r c h The s t r o n g academic l o a d i n g of concerns expressed on r e f e r r a l s t o School-based Teams should be more f u l l y e x p l o r e d . Research should examine issues such as: (a) What are teachers' e x p e c t a t i o n s of the outcomes of r e f e r r a l s to SBT? (b) What environmental or i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s may i n f l u e n c e t e a c h e r s ' r e f e r r a l s to SBTs? (c) Which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the r e f e r r a l form may p r e f i g u r e problem d e s c r i p t i o n s ? 79 (d) What comparisons can be made between the s e v e r i t y of problems r e f e r r e d to TATs and SBTs? (e) In the case of problems that are not r e s o l v e d in p r e r e f e r r a l procedures, what comparisons can be made between problem d e s c r i p t i o n s made by r e f e r r i n g teachers and those made by psychometricians? ( f ) What d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between outcomes of TAT meetings t h a t f o l l o w a h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d format and those t h a t f o l l o w a loose or u n s t r u c t u r e d format? (g) What types of i n t e r v e n t i o n s are most f r e q u e n t l y chosen by t e a c h e r s ? Which are most s u c c e s s f u l ? (h) What are t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of the r e s u l t s of TAT meetings? A hoped-for outcome of such a resea r c h schedule would be an increased focus on the teacher and s t u d e n t - c e n t e r e d aspects of the TAT pr o c e s s . R e s u l t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d lead t o improvements to the TAT process that remove the teacher f r u s t r a t i o n s r e p o r t e d by Hayek (1987). e x p e r t i s e of the classroom teacher. S u m m a r y T h i s was a p r e l i m i n a r y study of a p i l o t p r o j e c t in i t s f i r s t year and, t h e r e f o r e , was designed to be e x p l o r a t o r y , not e v a l u a t i v e . Other s t u d i e s c i t e d here have s t a b l i s h e d the success of the TAT model as a cost e f f e c t i v e method of han d l i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n concerns. Other s t u d i e s have 80 a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d teacher s a t i s f a c t i o n with the TAT model. However, t h i s study has had a d i f f e r e n t focus and the r e s u l t s have been encouraging. They have pr o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n of use to the c o n t i n u i n g development of the p r o j e c t by uncovering t e a c h e r s ' concerns with behaviour. They have a l s o p r o v i d e d guidance f o r eventual e v a l u a t i o n of the p r o j e c t e f f e c t i v e n e s s . In a d d i t i o n , the study probed assumptions u n d e r l y i n g the TAT model and r e s u l t e d i n two important i m p l i c a t i o n s ; (a) t h a t t e a c h e r s have g r e a t e r than expected s k i l l s as d i a g n o s t i c i a n s ; and (b) t h a t TATs may be s e r v i n g a d i f f e r e n t purpose than was o r i g i n a l l y intended. F u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n of these i m p l i c a t i o n s may r e s u l t i n improvements t o the Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team model that make i t even more a t t r a c t i v e to t e a c h e r s . Such improvements are worth pursuing because Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Teams have the p o t e n t i a l t o e f f e c t long term change i n the p r o v i s i o n of support to classroom teachers who have c h i l d r e n with l e a r n i n g and behaviour problems. 81 References Adelson, B. (1984). When n o v i c e s surpass e x p e r t s ; The d i f f i c u l t y of a task may in c r e a s e with e x p e r t i s e . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology: L e a r n i n g , Memorv.and C o g n i t i o n . J_Q_(3), 483-495. A l g o z z i n e , B., C h r i s t e n s o n , & Ysseldyke, J. (1982). P r o b a b i l i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with the r e f e r r a l to placement process, Teacher Education And S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n. 5(1), 19-23. A l g o z z i n e , B., & Ysseldyke, J . (1981). S p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s f o r normal s t u d e n t s : Better s a f e than s o r r y . E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n . 43(3), 238-242. A l g o z z i n e , B., & Ysseldyke, J . (1983). An a n a l y s i s of the i n c i d e n c e of s p e c i a l c l a s s placement: The masses are burgeoning. Journal of S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n . .11(2), 141-148. Bergan, J . , & Tombari, M. (1976). Consultant s k i l l and e f f i c i e n c y and the implementation and outcomes of c o n s u l t a t i o n . Journal of School Psychology, 14.(1), 3-14. B i c k l e n , D., & Z o l l e r s , N. (1986). The focus of advocacy i n the LD f i e l d , Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . J_9.( 10), 579-586. C a r t e r , J . , & Sugai, G. (1989). Survey on p r e - r e f e r r a l p r a c t i c e s : Responses from s t a t e departments of education. E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n , 5_3_(4), 238-302. C h a l f a n t , J . , Pysh, M., & M o u l t r i e , R. (1979). Teacher a s s i s t a n c e teams: A model f o r w i t h i n - b u i l d i n g problem s o l v i n g . L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s Q u a r t e r l y . 2, 85-86. C h a l f a n t , J . , & Pysh, M. (1981, November). Teacher a s s i s t a n c e teams: A model f o r w i t h i n - b u i l d i n g problem s o l v i n g . C o u n t e r p o i n t . 1 ( 3 ) , 21-23. C h i , M.T., F e l t o v i c h , P.J., & G l a s e r , R. (1981). C a t e g o r i z a t i o n and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of p h y s i c s problems by experts and n o v i c e s . C o g n i t i v e S c i e n c e . 5 ( 2 ) , 121-152. C h r i s t e n s o n , S., A l g o z z i n e , B. & Ysseldyke, J.(1982). I n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s and e x t e r n a l p ressure? i n f l u e n c i n g r e f e r r a l d e c i s i o n s . Psychology in the  Schools. J_2, 341-345. 8 2 F r i e n d , M. (1984). C o n s u l t a t i o n s k i l l s f o r r e s o u r c e t e a c h e r s . L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y . I , 246-250. Galagan, J. (1985). P s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g : Turn out the l i g h t s , the p a r t y ' s over. E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n . 52(3), 288-299. Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1984). Teacher as imperfect t e s t : Reconceptua1izing the r e f e r r a l process. Educat ional  P s y c h o l o g i s t . 19(3), 137-148. Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1985). The microeconomics of r e f e r r a l and r e i n t e g r a t i o n : A paradigm f o r e v a l u a t i o n of s p e c i a l education. S t u d i e s i n E d u c a t i o n a l Eval uat ion . JJ., 13-29. G i c k l i n g , E. & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curric u l u m - b a s e d assessment. E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n . 5 2 ( 3 ) , 205-218. G l a s e r , B., & S t r a u s s , A. (1967). The d i s c o v e r y of grounded theory: S t r a t e g i e s f o r q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h . Chicago: A l d i n e . Graden, J. L., Casey, A., & C h r i s t e n s o n , S. L. (9185). Implementing a p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n system: Part I. The model. E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n , 5 1 ( 5 ) , 377-384. Graden, J . , Casey, A. & Bonstrom, 0. (1985). Implementing a p r e r e f e r r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n system: Part I I . The data. E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n , 5 1 ( 6 ) 487-496. Gresham, F., & K e n d a l l , G. (1987). School c o n s u l t a t i o n r e s e a r c h : M e t h o d o l o g i c a l c r i t i q u e and f u t u r e r e s e a r c h d i r e c t i o n s , School Psychology Review. 1 6 ; , 306-316. Hayek, R. (1987). The Teacher A s s i s t a n c e Team: A pre-r e f e r r a l support system. Focus on E x c e p t i o n a l  C h i I d r e n , 2 1 2(1), 1-7. Hubert, L. J . , & Baker, F.B. (1976). Data a n a l y s i s by s i n g l e - l i n k and conp1ete-1ink h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r i n g . Journal of Educational S t a t i s t i c s . 1(2). 87-1 1 1 . I d o l , L. (1988). R a t i o n a l e and g u i d e l i n e s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c o n s u l t a t i o n programs. Remed i a 1 and S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n . 1, 48-58. I d o l , L. & West, F. (1987). C o n s u l t a t i o n in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n : P a r t II. T r a i n i n g and p r a c t i c e . Journa1 of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i 1 i t ies . 22.(8), 474-494. 83 Idol-Maestas, L. (1983). S p e c i a l educator's c o n s u l t a t i o n  handbook. R o c k v i l l e , MD: Aspen. Johnson, S.C. (1967). H i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r i n g schemes. Psvchometrika. 12(3), 241-254. MacDonald, M. (1987). P r o j e c t MERGE. Co u n t e r p o i n t . 2(3) 17. M c l n t y r e , R. M., & B l u s h f i e l d , R.K. (1980). A nearest-c e n t r o i d technique f o r e v a l u a t i n g the minimum-v a r i a n c e c l u s t e r i n g procedure. Mu11 i var i ate  B e h a v i o r a l Research. 15_, 225-238. Mannino, F., & Shore, M. (1975). The e f f e c t s of c o n s u l t a t i o n : A review of e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s . American Journal of Community Psychology. 13, 1-21. Medway, F. ( 1982). School c o n s u l t a t i o n r e s e a r c h : Past t r e n d s and f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s . P r o f e s s i o n a l Psychology. 13, 422-430. Pao1ucci-Whitcomb, P., & Nevin, A. (1985). P r e p a r i n g c o n s u l t i n g t e a c h e r s through a c o l a b o r a t i v e approach between u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y and f i e l d - b a s e d c o n s u l t i n g t e a c h e r s . Teacher Education and S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n , fl(3), 132-143. Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. (1988, A p r i l ) . Peer c o l l a b o r a t i o n : Enhancing teacher problem-solving c a p a b i l i t i e s f o r students at r i s k . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , New O r l e a n s . S c h o e n f e l d , A. H., & Herrmann (1982). Problem p e r c e p t i o n and knowledge s t r u c t u r e in expert and novice mathematical problem s o l v e r s . J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology: L e a r n i n g , M e m o r y , &  C o g n i t i o n . 8.(5), 484-494. Schram, L., & Semmel, M. (1984). Problem-solving teams i n C a l i f o r n i a : A p p r o p r i a t e responses bv school s i t e  s t a f f to students who are d i f f i c u l t to teach and  manage. Santa Barbara: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Graduate School of Education (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 255 485). West, F., & Cannon, G. (1988). E s s e n t i a l c o l l a b o r a t i v e c o n s u l t a t i o n competencies f o r r e g u l a r and s p e c i a l e ducators. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 21(1), 56-63. 34 West, F., & Idol, L., (1987). School c o n s u l t a t i o n ( P a r t 1): An i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y p e r s p e c t i v e on theory, models, and r e s e a r c h . Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . m(D 388-406. W i l l , M., (1986). Educating students with l e a r n i n g problems: A shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n . 5_2(5), 411-415. Wood, S., (undated). P r o j e c t MERGE: Maximizing r e m e d i a t i o n w i t h i n general e d u c a t i o n : A d i s c u s s i o n and review of an a l t e r n a t i v e s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y model f o r m i l d l y handicapped s t u d e n t s . Olympia School D i s t r i c t S p e c i a l S e r v i c e s . Y s s e l d y k e , J . , (1983). C u r r e n t p r a c t i c e s in making psychoeducational d e c i s i o n s about l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d students. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . _16_(4), 226-232. Y s s e l d y k e , J . , A l g o z z i n e , B., Shinn, M. & McGue, M., (1982). S i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between underachievers and students c l a s s i f i e d as l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d . Journal of S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n . 13., 73-85. Ys s e l d y k e , J . , Thurlow, M., Graden, J . , Wesson, C Deno, S., & A l g o z z i n e , B. (1983). G e n e r a l i z a t i o n s from f i v e years r e s e a r c h on assessment and d e c i s i o n making. E x c e p t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n a l Q u a r t e r l y , 4(1), 75-84. 85 APPENDIX A SAMPLE REFERRAL TO SCHOOL-BASED TEAM fep INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PLAN Individual Educational Plan Learning Assistance Centre Date: 8 6 NAM! ( H S( H( X X >I AH'Mf INTH'IMY A. STUDENT PROFILE Name: Address: Phone: „ First Language: Language in Home: Crades Repeated: .. B.D. Grade Handedness (L/Rl Teacher: Family Constellation: Parents Informed: Pertinent Health Information: Sex IM/F) Age: Yes No B. CLASSROOM TEACHER INFORMATION Teacher's immediate goal for referring student to L.A.C. Student's standing in area of concern as compared to rest of the class: Functional Levels /Assessment Data: Reading: Decoding Comprehension Spelling ._. Language: Oral Written Math OTHER CONCERNS: (a) Health Please check and comment (b) Social (c) Emotional (d) Behaviour Strengths Needs EARNING STYLE: This child seems to learn best when these teaching strategies are used in the classroom (i.e. materials, technique, strategies). E3 87 APPENDIX B SAMPLE REFERRAL TO TEACHER ASSISTANCE TEAM 8 8 TAT R e q u e s t f o r A s s i s t a n c e S t u d e n t ' s N a m e : D a t e : A g e : B i r t h D a t e G r a d e S e x : P r o b l e m ( s ) : P l e a s e s t a t e What w o u l d y o u l i k e t h e c h i l d i n o r d e r o f c o n c e r n t o be a b l e t o d o t h a t s / h e d o e s n o t p r e s e n t l y d o ? P u p i l S t r e n g t h s P u p i l W e a k n e s s e s B a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n a n d / o r t e s t d a t a " . S t a t e g i e s t h a t h a v e b e e n t r i e d a l r e a d y ? P l e a s e u s e t h e b a c k i f y o u n e e d more r o o m : APPENDIX C SAMPLE TEACHER ASSISTANCE TEAM MEETING RECORD ACTION FORM STUDENT'S NAME: DATE:_ REFERRING TEACHER: GRADE: TAT MEMBERS PRESENT: BRAINSTORMING: The l i s t i s on the o t h e r s i d e . Reached by consensus: P r o b l e m ( s ) s t a t e d : S p e c i f i c O b j e c t i v e ( s ) : S e l e c t e d I n t e r v e n t i o n s (Immediate S t r a t e g i e s ) : Long Term S t r a t e g i e s ( I f a n y ) : Fol l o w - U p : By -Notes: APPENDIX D DESCRIPTION OF CATEGORIES D e s c r i p t i o n s of C a t e g o r i e s 1 . Work h a b i t s : T h i s category i n c l u d e d a l l r e f e r e n c e s to the process of student work. D e s c r i p t o r s such as " d i s o r g a n i z e d work", "poor" or "messy work h a b i t s " , and " o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s k i l l s " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ( x ) ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "good worker" i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h (+) i n t h i s category. 2. A t t e n t i o n : T h i s category i n c l u d e d a l l r e f e r e n c e s to s t u d e n t s ' a t t e n d i n g behaviour. D e s c r i p t o r s such as " o f f - t a s k " , "daydreams", "low a t t e n t i o n " , "poor l i s t e n i n g s k i l l s " , and "needs encouragement to complete work" i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "works independently" i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 3. Assignment completion: T h i s category included a l l r e f e r e n c e s to the product of student work. D e s c r i p t o r s such as "incomplete assignments" i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "good worker" i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h in and "completes assignments" marked t h i s category. 4 . Attendance: T h i s category i n c l u d e d a l l r e f e r e n c e s to s t u d e n t s ' p h y s i c a l presence in s c h o o l . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "school absenteeism", " l a t e to s c h o o l " , i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as " r e l i a b l e " , and " p u n c t u a l " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h i n t h i s category. 5. General behaviour: This category i n c l u d e d non-s p e c i f i c i n d i c a t i o n s of behaviour. D e s c r i p t o r s such as such as "behaviour problems" i n d i c a t e d weaknesses; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "well-behaved" i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 6. D i s r u p t i v e : T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of s t u d e n t s ' d i s r u p t i n g the progress of working or l e a r n i n g w i t h i n the c l a s s . D e s c r i p t o r s such as " d i s r u p t s " , " i n t e r r u p t s " , "bothers other students", i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "pleasant in c l a s s " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 7. A t t e n t i o n seeking: T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s i n d i c a t i n g student demands f o r a t t e n t i o n . D e s c r i p t o r s such as " a t t e n t i o n s e e k i n g " , " s h o u t s / c a l l s / a c t s out" i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as " q u i e t " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 8. V e r b a l l y abusive: This category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s i n d i c a t i n g students' use of s o c i a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e language. D e s c r i p t o r s such as " v e r b a l l y a b u s i v e " , "rude or i n a p p r o p r i a t e language", and "puts o t h e r s down" i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s in t h i s category. 93 9. P h y s i c a l l y a g g r e s s i v e : D i f f i c u l t i e s in t h i s category were i n d i c a t e d by d e s c r i p t o r s such as " a g g r e s s i v e behaviour" and "punching, h i t t i n g k i d s " . 10. S o c i a l problems: T h i s category included non-s p e c i f i c i n d i c a t i o n s of the e x i s t e n c e of s o c i a l problems. D e s c r i p t o r s such as "problems with other c h i l d r e n " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t y in the category; d e s c r i p t o r s such as " s t r o n g s o c i a l s k i l l s " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 11. Working c o o p e r a t i v e l y : T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' demonstrated a b i l i t y to work in groups. D e s c r i p t o r s such as "doesn't work c o o p e r a t i v e l y " , "not a c c e p t i n g of o t h e r s " , " s o c i a l i z a t i o n problems", and "doesn't p a r t i c i p a t e o r a l l y " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "very s o c i a l " , " c o n t r i b u t e s to group d i s c u s s i o n s " , and "works well in groups" i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 12. F r i e n d s : T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of s t u d e n t s ' f r i e n d s h i p s with other c h i l d r e n . D e s c r i p t o r s such as " i s o l a t e s h i m s e l f " , "doesn't p a r t i c i p a t e " , and "few f r i e n d s " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as " f r i e n d l y " , and " c h i l d r e n want to be h i s f r i e n d s " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 13. Respect f o r a u t h o r i t y : T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of student's r e l a t i o n s with a d u l t s . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "no r e s p e c t f o r a u t h o r i t y / s c h o o l / p r o p e r t y " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as " r e l a t e s well to t e a c h e r " , and "works well one-to-one" i nd i cated s t r e n g t h . 14. F o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s : T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n of students' compliance with school r u l e s or teacher d i r e c t i o n s . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "doesn't f o l l o w r u l e s / i n s t r u c t i o n s / d i r e c t i o n s " , and " d i s o b e y s " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h i s category. 15. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : T h i s category included r e f e r e n c e s to student r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . D e s c r i p t o r s such as " l a c k of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as " r e s p o n s i b l e " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 16. H y p e r a c t i v i t y : T h i s category included d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' l e v e l of p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y . D e s c r i p t o r s such as " h y p e r a c t i v e " , " R i t a l i n " , and "doesn't stay in s e a t / s i t s t i l l " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s . 94 17. S e l f - c o n t r o l : T h i s category included d e s c r i p t i o n s of l e v e l of impulse c o n t r o l in students' behaviour. D e s c r i p t o r s such as " lack of s e l f - c o n t r o l " , " i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour", and i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "no longer indulges in i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour" i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 18. Schoo1/socia 1 expe r i e n c e : The d e s c r i p t o r s " l a c k s schoo1/socia 1 e x p e r i e n c e " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t y i n t h i s category. 19. Emotional problems: T h i s category i n c l u d e d non-s p e c i f i c i n d i c a t i o n s of students' emotional h e a l t h . D e s c r i p t o r s such as " r e q u i r e s emotional support", "emotional problems" i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t y ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as " i s g e n e r a l l y happy" i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 20. Immature behaviour: T h i s category i n c l u d e d r e f e r e n c e s to students' l e v e l s of m a t u r i t y . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "immature behaviour", i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as " l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s " and "mature f o r h i s age" i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 21. Se1f-concept: T h i s category included d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' se1f-concept. D e s c r i p t o r s such as "low s e 1 f - c o n c e p t / c o n f i d e n c e " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ( x ) ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as " c o n f i d e n t " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 22. T r u s t w o r t h i n e s s : T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t o r s such as " d e c e i t f u l " , " c h e a t i n g " , "mischievous", and " s t e a l i n g " , i n d i c a t i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s . 23. A t t i t u d e : T h i s category included d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' a f f e c t or a t t i t u d e s . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "poor a t t i t u d e " or " n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e " , i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ( x ) ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "good a t t i t u d e " , " w i l l i n g " , " e n t h u s i a s t i c " , " t r i e s hard to p l e a s e " , " c h e e r f u l " . "good-natured", " c o o p e r a t i v e " , and "agreeable to s u g g e s t i o n " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 24. Tension: T h i s category included d e s c r i p t o r s such as " s e n s i t i v i t y to c r i t i c i s m " and " e a s i l y f r u s t r a t e d " , i n d i c a t i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "accepts a s s i s t a n c e " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 25. M o t i v a t i o n : T h i s category included d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' l e v e l of m o t i v a t i o n . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "low m o t i v a t i o n " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t y ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as " h i g h l y motivated", "wants to do b e t t e r " , and " t r i e s hard" i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h i n the category. 95 26. V o l a t i l i t y : T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' emotional s t a b i l i t y . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "e m o t i o n a l l y u n s t a b l e " , " v o l a t i l e " , "angry", and "quick temper" i n d i c a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h i s c a t e g o r y . 27. Family/home: This category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' f a m i l y or home l i f e . D e s c r i p t o r s such as " s i n g l e parent", " s e p a r a t i o n " , "home problems" i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "parents are s u p p o r t i v e " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 28. H e a l t h : T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' p h y s i c a l h e a l t h . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "poor h e a l t h " , " l i s t l e s s " , " t i r e d " , " n u t r i t i o n problems" i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "good a t h l e t e " and " e n e r g e t i c " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 29. E n g l i s h as a Second Language (ESL): T h i s category i n c l u d e d any i n d i c a t i o n that students had a non-English f i r s t language. 30. Language d i f f i c u l t i e s : T h i s category i n c l u d e d non-s p e c i f i c d e s c r i p t i o n s of students as having problems in the area of language. D e s c r i p t o r s such as "weakness i n /poor language s k i l l s " marked d i f f i c u l t y in the category. 31. Oral language: This category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of s t u d e n t s ' f a c i l i t y with o r a l language. D e s c r i p t o r s such as " d i f f i c u l t i e s v e r b a l i z i n g " and " o r a l language d i f f i c u l t i e s " , i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "speaks w e l l " , " s t r o n g verbal s k i l l s " and "expresses h i m s e l f w e l l " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 32. Vocabulary: T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' f a c i l i t y with vocabulary. D e s c r i p t o r s such as "vocabulary d i f f i c u l t i e s " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as " l a r g e vocabulary" i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 33. L i s t e n i n g comprehension: T h i s category included d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' a b i l i t y to understand or f o l l o w spoken language. D e s c r i p t o r s such as "comprehension d i f f i c u l t i e s " and "doesn't understand verbal d i r e c t i o n s " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the category. 34. Reading: T h i s category i n c l u d e d n o n - s p e c i f i c d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' reading a b i l i t y . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "low r e a d i n g scores", i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "higher than grade l e v e l reading s c o r e s " , and "reads advanced m a t e r i a l " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 35. Reading comprehension: T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' r e a d i n g comprehension a b i l i t y . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "low reading comprehension s c o r e s " and "doesn't f o l l o w w r i t t e n d i r e c t i o n s " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s in the category. 36. Decoding s k i l l : T h i s category included d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' decoding a b i 1 i t y . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "decoding problems", "phonics/1etter/word r e c o g n i t i o n problems", "poor s i g h t word vocabulary", " o r a l r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t y " , i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "good decoding s k i l l s " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 37. W r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n : T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' w r i t i n g s k i l l s . D e s c r i p t o r s such as " w r i t i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s " , " w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n d i f f i c u l t i e s " , i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as " w r i t e s w e l l " , and " l o g i c a l paragraph w r i t i n g " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 38. Sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n : T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' a b i l i t y to c o n s t r u c t w r i t t e n sentences. 39. S p e l l i n g : T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of s t u d e n t s ' s p e l l i n g a b i l i t y . D e s c r i p t o r s such as " s p e l l i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as " s p e l l s w e l l " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 40. Handwriting: T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' handwriting or p r i n t i n g a b i l i t y . D e s c r i p t o r s such as " h a n d w r i t i n g / p r i n t i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s " , " r e v e r s a l s " , i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "neat p r i n t e r " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 41. F i n e motor: T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of s t u d e n t s ' f i n e motor development. D e s c r i p t o r s such as " f i n e motor d i f f i c u l t i e s " , "poor penci1/crayon c o n t r o l " , i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "good motor s k i l l s " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 42. Mathematics: T h i s category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' a b i l i t y to do math. D e s c r i p t o r s such as "low math s c o r e s " , "doesn't know numbers", i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "good grasp of numbers" i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 43. Reasoning: This category i n c l u d e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of s t u d e n t s ' i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y or p o t e n t i a l . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "slow r e a s o n i n g " and "high l e v e l t h i n k i n g problems" i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "very b r i g h t " , " c l e a r t h i n k i n g " , "above average IQ", and " a b i l i t y exceeds output" i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 44. Memory: Th i s category included d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' memory a b i l i t y . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "poor memory" and "s h o r t term memory problems", i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "good v i s u a l memory", and "can memorize" i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 45. Academic s k i l l s : T h i s category i n c l u d e d non-s p e c i f i c d e s c r i p t i o n s of students' academic s k i l l s . D e s c r i p t o r s such as "low academic s k i l l s / w o r k " , "low Stanford/CTBS/CTAB s c o r e s " " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s ; d e s c r i p t o r s such as "high Stanford/CTBS s c o r e s " , and "well above grade l e v e l a c a d e m i c a l l y " i n d i c a t e d s t r e n g t h . 46. Language a r t s : T h i s category included n o n - s p e c i f i d e s c r i p t i o n s of s t u d e n t s ' achievement i n language a r t s D e s c r i p t o r s such as "language a r t s d i f f i c u l t i e s " and "poor l i t e r a c y " i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t y in the cat e g o r y . APPENDIX E: ILLUSTRATION OF SCORING VN 99 TAT Request f o r Assistance Studen Age: X = Weakness 0 = Str e n g t h Problem(s): Please s t a t e i n order of concern What would you l i k e the c h i l d to be able to do that s/he p— 1 does not p r e s e n t l y do? X .•» 11 -j /^ f X > 6. 3. fre^uu-n^^ inteYS^fJ-C^ x ^ 20 P u p i l Strengths ^ 0 23 . * f - 0 » 23 j - L l b 3 4t> J^-OLM) ^ o * 43. * n X » 2 P u p i l Weaknesses !lx * 17 J Background i n f o r m a t i o n and/or t e s t data: y^t^x LdlfL It'tK* ^i/ndcu K<^d" J-S t a t e g i e s t h a t have been t r i e d already? 2 . A t t e n t i o n 6. D i s r u p t i v e 11 . Working c o o p e r a t i v e l y 17. S e l f - c o n t r o l 20. Immature behaviour 23. A t t i t u d e 43. Reasoning -To ti^A <n *-»'•*" fire;re in a.v~t~ h&0ii?<^ - . Please -use the back i f you need more room: M ^jr°uP p^b^Cn^ or a. h i m uS< APPENDIX F: RULES FOR SCORING 101 Rules f o r S c o r i n g 1. If the d e s c r i p t o r s "high/low Stanford/GTBS/CTAB s c o r e s " are entered a f t e r the headings "math", " r e a d i n g " , " s p e l l i n g " , or "language", then the category which corresponds to the heading i s marked ( r a t h e r than the general category "academic s k i l l s " ) . 2. The d e s c r i p t o r "doesn't f o l l o w d i r e c t i o n s " can appear i n c a t e g o r i e s 14. Follows I n s t r u c t i o n s , 33. E.S.L., or 35. Reading. If the d e s c r i p t o r i s i n c l u d e d in a r e f e r r a l which i n d i c a t e s E.S.L. problems but no reading or behaviour problems, then 33. E.S.L. i s marked. If no i n d i c a t i o n of r e a d i n g or E.S.L. competence i s given, then 14. Follows I n s t r u c t i o n s becomes the d e f a u l t category. 3. Category 36., Decoding, covers a l l ways of ' c r a c k i n g the code' and i n c l u d e s no comprehension. Decoding i s "word c a l l i n g " and i n c l u d e s phonics, sound/symbol a s s o c i a t i o n s , word attack or word r e c o g n i t i o n s k i l l s . 4. Category 46. Language A r t s i s subordinate to 45. Academic S k i l l s , and s u p e r o r d i n a t e to 34. Reading, 31. Oral Language, 33. L i s t e n i n g Comprehension, and 37. W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n . 5. Re c a t e g o r i e s 34. Reading and 35. Reading Comprehension: i f a general r e a d i n g s k i l l d e f i c i t i s i n d i c a t e d once (e.g. "low reading s c o r e s " ) and then another d e s c r i p t o r s p e c i f i e s comprehension problems, both c a t e g o r i e s are marked. 6. Do not r e c o r d : (a) scores w i t h i n 0.5 grade e q u i v a l e n t s of grade l e v e l ; (b) "improving" (c) "average"; (d) " s a t i s f a c t o r y " ; (e) " f a i r " ; ( f ) s t a n i n e s 4,5,or 6; (g) d e s c r i p t o r s q u a l i f i e d by "some" (e.g. "some e r r o r s " or "shows some p o t e n t i a l " . 7. Do r e c o r d : " s a t i s f a c t o r y at grade 2 l e v e l " (when placement i s at grade 3) as a d e f i c i t . APPENDIX G GROUPING OF CATEGORIES Grouping of C a t e g o r i e s The 46 c a t e g o r i e s generated through the constant comparative method ( G l a s e r & S t r a u s s , 1967) were grouped i n t o t h r e e major c l a s s e s (Behaviour, E x t e r n a l F a c t o r s , and Academic) and i n t o nine c a t e g o r i e s (PI - P9, c o r r e s p o n d i n g to those i d e n t i f i e d by Pugach and Johnson, 1988) in accordance with the f o l l o w i n g o u t l i n e . Class A, Behav iour Pugach & Johnson Category: Corresponding D e s c r i p t i v e Category: P1. Off-task/D i s t r a c t i b1e 2. A t t e n t i on P2. Poor s e l f concept 21 . Se1f-concept P3. Poor m o t i v a t i o n / a t t i t u d e 15 . Respons i b i 1 i ty 19 . Emotional problems 23. At t i tude 24. Tens ion 25 . Mot i vat i on 26 . V o l a t i 1 i t y P4 . Act o u t / H o s t i l e / 5 . Behaviour problems d i s rupt i ve 6. D i s r u p t i v e 9. P h y s i c a l l y a g g r e s s i v e 10 . S o c i a l problems 13. Respect f o r a u t h o r i t y 14. Follows i n s t r u c t i o n s 16 . Hyperact i v i t y 17 . S e l f - c o n t r o l 20. Immature behaviour 22. T r u s t w o r t h i n e s s P5 . Talk out 7 . A t t e n t i o n seeking 8. Verba 11y abus i ve P6 . Poor work completion 1 . Work h a b i t s 3. Assignment completion 4 . Attendance 1 1 . Working c o o p e r a t i v e l y 104 C l a s s B, Academic Pugach & Johnson Category: P7. Low General Achievement P8. S p e c i f i c s k i l l d e f i c i t Corresponding D e s c r i p t i v e Category : 30 . Language d i f f i c u l t i e s 34 . Read i ng 45 . Academic s k i l l s 46 . Language a r t s 29 . E . S . L . 31 . Oral language 32 . Vocabu1ary 33. L i s t e n i n g comprehension 35 . Reading comprehension 36 . Decod i ng 37 . W r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n 38. Sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n 39. Spe11i ng 40. Handwr i t i ng 41 . Fine motor 42. Math C l a s s C: Pugach & Johnson Category: P9. Other exper i ence E x t e r n a l F a c t o r s Corresponding D e s c r i p t i v e Category: 12. Fr i ends 18. Schoo1/soci al 27 . Fami1y/home 28. Health 43. Reason i ng 44. Memory APPENDIX H: PERCENTAGE OF PROBLEMS RETAINED FROM TAT 1 TO TAT2 fO D -l-> W c c 0) © o w <D O a o H—i—hH—i I I I I — l — r — I — i — M M — I — r - 1 — I I I I—I—r-r-H—I—M~$M>^<>-u>-<J>--<^^ ^ 7 l » W ? 7 f o 5 9 II 13 24 34 6 1 *V> 3j 1 lo ( 5 33 i f |4 31 I S 4/ II *5 41 W /if ^ w ^ f t f 27 2§ 23 3o 3L3$>43 <rfc! Category D e s c r i p t i o n Numbers Rank Ordered A c c o r d i n g t o Percentage of Problems Retained From TAT1 to TAT2 Descr i p t i o n s o APPENDIX I SCHOOL-BASED TEAM CONSULTATIVE PROCESS souTHLanDS ELemenTapv S C H O O L 1 SCHOOL BASED TEAM CONSULTATIVE PROCESS Date: Teacher:. Dale 1. Classroom teacher identifies the problem. 2. Classroom teacher completes the Teacher Assistance Team Request for Assistance Form. (Blue) OR: 3. Classroom teacher completes the Learning Assistance Center Request for Assistance Form. (Green) 4. Classroom teacher contacts parent/guardian to inform of referral: contact is recorded. (White) 5. All student contacts/observations to be recorded. 6. Classroom teacher and Learning Assistance Center teacher Meet: Learning Assistance Center Action Form is filled out by L.A.C. teacher. (GTZZXi) OR: 7. Teacher Assistance Team meets: T.A.T. Chairperson fills out and monitors T.A.T. Action Form. (Blue) 8. Copy of Action Form goes to classroom teacher. 9. School Based Team Request for Consultation: can be initiated by classroom teacher, L.A.C. teacher, or Teacher Assistance Team. L.A.C. teacher fills out the form. (Pink) 10. School Based Team meets and fills out School Based Team Action Form: copies to classroom teacher and L.A.C. teacher. (Pink) Student Name:. Birthdate: Grade: TECICHER ClSSISTCinCE TECim REQUEST FOR CISSSTCinCE 109 ( B l u e ) (To be completed by classroom teacher) Student Name:. Birthdate: Teacher: Date:_ Age-— Grade:. 1. Probiem(s): State in order of concern. What would you like the child to be able to do that he/she does not presently do? 2 Student Strengths: Weaknesses: 3- Background Information and/or test data: 4. Strategies that have been tried already: 5. Contact with parent(s)/guardian(s}: Date: Comments: Classroom Teacher Signature:. T E C I C H E R assisTance TECim: cicrion roam (To be completed, by T.A.T. Chairperson) (6 i u i ; Student Name: Date: Referring Teacher: Grade: Teacher Assistance Team Members: (please sign) 1. Brainstorming: to be listed on the other side of this page. 2. Reached by consensus: 3. Probiem(s) stated: 4. Specific objective(s): 5. Selected Interventions (Immediate Strategies): 6. Long Term Strategies: 7. Follow-up: By: Time: Notes: Report to Parent(s)/guardian(s): Date: Comments: T.A.T. Chairperson Signature:. LECinninG cissiSTcincE C E R T E R PEQUE5T F O P . GSSISTDnCE ( G r e e n ) (To be completed by classroom teacher) Student Name: Date: Birthdate: : Age: Teacher: Grade: 1. Problem(s): State in order of concern What would you like the child to be able to do that he/she does not presently do? 2. Student Strengths: Weaknesses: 3. Background Information and/or test data: 4. Strategies that have been tried already: 5. Type of assistance requested: i. Further testing: • ii. Consultation: • iii. Classroom based support: (specify) 6. Contact with parent(s)/guarciian(s): Date:_ Comments: Classroom Teacher Signature: LECinnms GssisTcincE CEnTEP •cTion Fonm (To be completed by L.A.C. teacher) 1 1 2 ( G r e e n ) Student Name: Classroom Teacher:. Date:_ Grade:. Type of assistance requested: Further testing • : Consultation • Classroom based support: (specify). ACTION TAKEN: Date(s) l£Sl Results 1. Testing: Date(s) Issue(s) 2. Consultation: Date(s) Type of Support 3. Classroom Based Support: B y -Date:. 4. Follow-up: .; Time: 5 Report to Parentis)/Guardian(s): Date: L.A.C. Teacher Signature. REQUEST -G": S C H O O L B C 1 S E D TEOFTl LP i%$ consuLTcmon (To be completed by L.A.C. teacher) Student Name: Date: Classroom Teacher: Grade: 1. Problem(s): State in order of concern 2. Summary of Testing Results: Date lest ResyUs 3. Remedial actions and interventions implemented: 4. Specific request for School Based Team involvement: Date: C. Teacher Signature:. 5IH00L BC1SED TECim ClCTIOn FQRm : I — 11 H ( i o be completed by School Based Team: copies to classroorrv/p, k\ teacher and L.A.C. teacher.) Student Name: Date: Classroom Teacher: Grade: ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY: 1. Learning Assistance Teacher: 2. Principal: 3. School Physician/Nurse: 4. Psychologist: 5. Speech & Language Pathologist: 6. Area Counsellor: 7. District Integrative Support Teacher: o, Native Indian Support Worker: Review Date: SCHOOL BQSED Team acTion roam : 2 (To <:-:• completed by School Based Team: copies to classroom^71 n teacher and L.A.C. teacher.) Student Name: Date: Classroom Teacher: Grade: ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY: 1. Learning Assistance Teacher: 2. Principal: 3. School Physician/Nurse: 4. Psychologist: 5. Speech & Language Pathologist: 6. Area Counsellor: 7. Native Indian Support Worker: 8. District Integrative Support Teacher: CLOSinS OF FILE \ 1.6. (To be completed by L.A.C. Teacher.) C v e l 1 Student Name: Date:_ Classroom teacher: Grade: 1. Summary of actions/interventions: 2. Review date: L.A.C. Teacher Signature: RECORD DF COnTQCTS 117 Student Name: School Year: 19 /19 Grade: Classroom Teacher: Date Comments Signature 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054626/manifest

Comment

Related Items