UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Implementation of the B.C. elementary language arts curriculum guide : a study of teacher perceptions Coles, Kathryn Ann 1981

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A8 C64.pdf [ 3.54MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055687.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055687-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055687-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055687-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055687-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055687-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055687-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055687-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055687.ris

Full Text

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE B.C. ELEMENTARY LANGUAGE ARTS CURRICULUM GUIDE: A STUDY OF TEACHER PERCEPTIONS  by Kathryn Ann Coles B . E d . , University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Elementary Education, Faculty of Education)  We.accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September,  (£)  1981  Kathryn Ann Coles  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t  the L i b r a r y s h a l l make  it  and study.  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . understood t h a t  copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s  f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  Department o f  RAacn{(CiC\  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  r>F-fi  17/19)  Itis  Columbia  written  ABSTRACT  This study used a questionnaire to examine f i v e research questions related to the implementation of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide (BCELAC Guide).  These questions were as follows:  1.  To what extent are elementary Language Arts teachers using the B. C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide?  2.  What is the general attitude of teachers toward the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide?  3.  What do teachers perceive as the role of textbooks in determining t h e i r language arts program? •  4.  What are teachers' perceptions of the role played by t h e i r d i s t r i c t in providing information and i n - s e r v i c e program support related to the B. C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide?  5.  What relationship exists between teachers' attitude toward, and use o f , the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide and teachers' perceptions of d i s t r i c t support?  A review of the l i t e r a t u r e  indicated that curriculum guides have  not played a major role in influencing teachers' language arts programs. The l i t e r a t u r e  also pointed to the importance of the part played by  both teachers and administrators in determining the degree to which a curriculum guide is implemented. A three-part questionnaire was designed.  The f i r s t two parts each  used a f i v e - p o i n t , Likert-type scale to examine various areas related to the f i v e research questions. information from each respondent.  The t h i r d part gathered background Six elementary schools were chosen  at random from each of three Lower Mainland school d i s t r i c t s and questionnaires were distributed to the teachers in these 18 schools. Of the 202 questionnaires d i s t r i b u t e d , 115 of these were returned, resulting in a return rate of 56.9 percent.  iii The results indicated that the teachers surveyed use the BCELAC Guide occasionally at the most, with long term planning being the most frequent reason for reference.  The data related to teachers' attitude  toward the Guide indicated that at least 50 percent of the teachers surveyed had a favourable a t t i t u d e .  There was no clear concensus regard-  ing the role of textbooks in determining the language arts program.  The  data related to d i s t r i c t provision of i n - s e r v i c e program support related to the BCELAC Guide showed that the teachers surveyed perceive this as being provided only occasionally.  The teacher attitude toward the  support that was provided was ambivalent.  There was generally strong  agreement that more i n - s e r v i c e support could be provided in the areas specified.  A positive correlation was found between teachers'  attitude toward, and use o f , the BCELAC Guide and their perceptions of d i s t r i c t support. Recommendations included a greater emphasis on the whole implementation process and on providing teachers with a clearer understanding of the changes and expectations involved with the BCELAC Guide.  It was  also recommended that teachers be more d i r e c t l y involved in the implementation and possibly the development process and that there be more release time for teachers to develop local materials. recommendations included additional  Further  research to seek possible  explanations for the low level of use of the Guide.  F i n a l l y , the whole  concept underlying the present development of provincial curriculum guides was questioned and several points discussed.  iv  Table of Contents  Abstract  ii  L i s t of Tables  vi  Acknowledgements  vii  Chapter 1.  THE PROBLEM 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5  2.  2.5  Overview The Questionnaire as a Research Tool The Roles of Curriculum Guides and Textbooks The Roles of Teachers and D i s t r i c t Administrators in the Implementation Process Summary  . .  6 6 8 12 19  METHODOLOGY 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5  4.  1 1 3 4 5  LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4  3.  Introduction Rationale for the Study Purpose of the Study Definition of Terms Limitations of the Study  Organization of the Chapter Population Development of the Questionnaire Procedures Method of Analysis  20 20 21 25 26  DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8  Organization of the Chapter Final Questionnaire Return Rate Analysis for Question One Analysis for Question Two Analysis for Question Three Analysis for Question Four Analysis for Question Five Additional Findings  29 29 30 32 34 36 42 46  V  5.  CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4  Summary Conclusions Recommendations D i s c u s s i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s  49 52 55 58  Bibl iography  61  Appendices A B C  PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE PILOT RESULTS COVERING LETTER AND FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE  . .  67 74 78  vi L i s t of Tables TABLE  PAGE  1.  Final Questionnaire Return Distribution  2.  Teacher Use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide  31  Teacher Attitude Toward the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide  33  Teacher Perceptions of the Role of Textbooks in Determining the Language Arts Program  35  Teacher Perceptions of the Frequency with which Their D i s t r i c t Provides Information and InService Program Support Related to the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide  37  Teacher Attitude Toward D i s t r i c t In-Service Program Support Related to the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide  39  3. 4. 5.  6.  7.  8.  9.  . . . . . . . .  29  Teacher Attitude Toward Additional D i s t r i c t InService Program Support Related to the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide  40  Rank Order Correlations for Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Attitude Toward the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide, and for Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide  43  Individual D i s t r i c t Rank Order Correlations for Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Attitude Toward the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide, and for Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide  y  4  4  10.  Teacher Background Information  45  11.  Rank Order Correlation for Teacher Attitude Toward and Teacher Use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide  46  vii Acknowledgement  A special thanks to my mother and the rest of my family and friends for their encouragement and support.  I would also l i k e to  thank Dr. Roland Gray for his time, patience, and helpful suggestions and Dr. Donald A l l i s o n for his help with the questionnaire design and analysis.  L a s t l y , my thanks to those who took the time to respond to  the questionnaire, for without t h e i r help this study could not have been completed.  1 Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM  1.1  Introduction The development of provincial curriculum guides for schools involves a great deal of time and money.  elementary  While the  B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Education has control over the development and d i s t r i b u t i o n of these guides, the  implementation  of them i s l e f t up to the local school d i s t r i c t and i t s teachers. The view has been expressed by some teachers that these guides are placed in the schools and then forgotten.  It was f e l t that  a survey of elementary teachers would provide some indication of the extent to which the B r i t i s h Columbia Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide (BCELAC Guide) is being used by teachers, what t h e i r attitude i s toward this Guide, and what role they perceive their d i s t r i c t to have played in the  implementation  process. 1.2  Rationale for the Study The B r i t i s h Columbia Ministry of Education (1979), in a booklet on curriculum planning, state that the basic purpose of the provincial curriculum guide is "to provide the classroom teacher with a clear understanding of what i s to be taught at each grade level" (p.5).  This booklet also states that the textbooks and  learning materials are selected to "support the provincial curriculum guide". (p.8).  2 Recent l i t e r a t u r e in the area of curriculum studies has indicated that there is often a discrepancy between what the developers of a curriculum e n v i s i o n , and what actually occurs at the classroom l e v e l . 1975; P r a t t , 1930).  (Goodlad, Klein & Associates, 1970;  Hall,  Furthermore, i t has been observed that there  is often a greater emphasis put on the textbooks used in a subject area than on the curriculum guide. It  (Goodlad, et a l . , 1970).  i s often assumed that a change w i l l occur once a new  curriculum guide is put into the hands of teachers. As long as the teachers involved in the change do not raise s i g n i f i c a n t questions or problems, the assumption i s made that the change has taken place (Pratt, Melle, & Metzdorf, 1980, p. 11). It was f e l t that this assumption should be tested by examining j u s t how much use teachers do make of their curriculum guides, in particular,  the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide.  The B.C. Ministry of Education (1979), has pointed out the need for appropriate i n - s e r v i c e programs at the local level to insure that teachers are provided with the continued support necessary to implement provincial curriculum (p.4). McLaughlin (1976), in a review of the Rand Corporation study of Federal Programs supporting educational change (Rand Study), reported that the role of d i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l s had been found to be very important in the successful implementation of an innovation.  3 Therefore, the perceptions of B.C. teachers regarding the support provided by their d i s t r i c t in the implementation of the BCELAC Guide was also seen as an appropriate area of investigation for this study. 1.3  Purpose of the Study This study undertook an examination of the present s i t u a t i o n r e l a t i v e to the implementation of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. This Guide was introduced to most B.C. elementary schools during the Spring of 1979.  While there are  many aspects of implementation which could have been examined, this study was limited in nature and took a f a i r l y approach.  structured  Through the use of a questionnaire, information  to f i v e basic research questions was sought.  related  These f i v e questions  were; 1.  To what extent are elementary language arts teachers using the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide?  2.  What is the general attitude of teachers toward the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide?  3.  What do teachers perceive as the role of textbooks in determining their language arts program?  4.  What are teachers' perceptions of the role played by their d i s t r i c t in providing information and i n service program support related to the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide?  5.  What relationship exists between teachers' attitude toward, and use o f , the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide, and teachers' perceptions of d i s t r i c t support?  4 1.4  Definition of Terms Implementation:  For the purposes of this study.  Implementation consists of alterations from existing practice to some new or revised practice (potentially \ involving materials, teaching CapproachesJ j beliefs) in order to achieve certain desired student learning outcomes (Fullan & Park, 1981, p. 10). 5  Until  recently,  implementation  an(  has been viewed as a separate  process from those of planning, adoption, and evaluation. Attitude:  Attitude refers to the positive or negative  associated with an object.  feelings  For the purposes of this study, the  object was the BCELAC Guide and the degree of attitude was measured through the use of a s p e c i a l l y developed attitude s c a l e . Curriculum Guide:  In B . C . , curriculum guides are developed at  the Provincial l e v e l .  These guides outline what is to be  taught in each subject area at the various l e v e l s . Curriculum guides are unlike teacher manuals which are usually produced by publishers to accompany texts or learning  D i s t r i c t Administrators:  materials.  This term refers to a group of people  consisting of the Superintendent of schools, Assistant Superintendents, co-ordinators, consultants, and any other persons hired by the School Board to work with teachers in the area of professional  development.  5 1.5  L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study In i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s of t h i s study, c e r t a i n f a c t o r s must be taken into consideration.  F i r s t , the v a l i d i t y of the  r e s u l t s i s l i m i t e d to the population used i n t h i s study and may or may not be t r u l y representative of B.C. elementary language arts teachers  i n general.  Secondly, the use of a  questionnaire to gather data has l i m i t a t i o n s . Some of these l i m i t a t i o n s are discussed i n Chapter Two.  A l s o , the decision  to keep the responses anonymous meant that non-responders could not be i d e n t i f i e d f o r any follow-up studies.  6 Chapter 2  LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1  Overview The review of l i t e r a t u r e i s divided into three main parts this chapter.  in  In Section 2.2 the use of the questionnaire as a  research tool is discussed.  Empirical studies and related  l i t e r a t u r e dealing with the roles of curriculum guides and textbooks are examined in Section 2.3.  In Section 2.4,  the  major findings that emerged from a review of l i t e r a t u r e and empirical studies on the roles of teachers and d i s t r i c t administrators in the implementation process are presented. Section 2.5 provides a b r i e f summary.  2.2  The Questionnaire as a Research Tool Questionnaires have been used in the f i e l d of education for over a century.  One of the e a r l i e s t questionnaires was a ten  page " c i r c u l a r " sent to Massachusetts' teachers by Horace Mann in 1847 (NEA Research B u l l e t i n , 1930, p.5).  The use of  questionnaires has met with mixed reactions since that time. One of the advantages of using a questionnaire to gather data is that i t can be self-administered, thus allowing a large number of people to be surveyed in a short period of time. However, the fact that the questionnaire is self-administered means that there i s no opportunity for the respondent to have a statement or question c l a r i f i e d by the researcher.  This  could result in misinformation being unintentionally provided.  7 Response rate is another area of concern associated with the use of questionnaires.  Parten (1950) and Oppenheim (1966)  both c i t e one of the major disadvantages of mass-distributed questionnaires as being the very poor response rate.  Oppenheim  (1966) states that: For respondents who have no special interest in the subject matter of the questionnaire, figures of 40 percent to 60 percent are typical (pp.33-34). Parten (1950) also reports that surveyors have found that such things as the interest in the subject of i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the prestige of the researcher among the recipients of the questionnaire, and a strong feeling of agreement or disagreement with the subject being surveyed, are a l l related to the response rate (p. 391).  Taking these factors into consideration, i t was  f e l t that a return of 50 to 55 percent would be a reasonable expectation for the questionnaires examining the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide (BCELAC Guide). While there are many questionnaire formats which can be used, the examination of attitudes and opinions i s easily facilitated  through the use of a Likert-type s c a l e .  This type  of scale has been used to measure the intensity of attitude or opinion associated with a psychological object or construct, and/or s o c i o l o g i c a l , academic, and professional issues.  It i s  e a s i l y adaptable to the measurement of intensity of use, and opinion, associated with the issues being examined in this study. Statements related to these issues are presented with possible responses arranged on a continuum from most to least favourable,  or vice versa.  This form of scale is advantageous in that  i t provides more precise information regarding a respondent degree of agreement or disagreement.  Also, its  1  objective  form lends i t s e l f more easily to simple data processing. One disadvantage however, is that the use of a Likert-type scale results in closed responses and doesn't allow the respondents to give qualifying statements to their responses Thus, the results could be influenced by variables of which the rater of the data is unaware.  Oppenheim (1966) points  out that the use of a Likert-type scale can also be c r i t i c i z e d because: It offers no interval measures and i t lacks a neutral point, so that one does not know where scores in the middle change from mildly positive to mildly negative (p. 140). There is the added problem of v a l i d i t y since at the present time, there is no sure way of determining the v a l i d i t y an attitude scale (Oppenheim, 1966,  of  p.122).  The Roles of Curriculum Guides and Textbooks H i s t o r i c a l l y , curriculum guides do not have a strong claim as the arbiter of curriculum.  Talmage (1972) reports that the  McGuffey Reader of a century ago was the textbook, the reading curriculum; and by the nature of i t s presentation.. .determined much of the instructional approaches (p. 22).  9 During the 1920's and 1930's, as schools attempted to define their philosophy of education, massive curriculum development was undertaken by means of committees within school systems. The philosophy of each committee influenced the selection of textbooks, but these textbooks continued to serve as the determiner of the curriculum (Talmage, 1972, p. 22).  During  the 1930's and 1940's, a d i s t i n c t i o n developed between curriculum and i n s t r u c t i o n .  Talmage (1972) reports that as  curriculums were developed, the textbook was placed in a position subordinate to the philosophy and the curriculum of a school system. Textbooks were selected to assure attainment of the objectives of the curriculum (p.22). However, Foshay and B e i l i n (1969) report that the courses of study developed had r e l a t i v e l y (p.  l i t t l e effect on teaching  278). During the late 1950 s and the early 1960's, 1  in response  to Sputnik, national curriculum committees were organized in the United States.  One result of this attempt to upgrade the  educational system, was an increase in the number of textbooks, workbooks, and other instructional materials, once again making the textbook the determiner of curriculum.  Many of  these textbooks and learning materials were adopted in Canada, thereby d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y having an influence on the Canadian school system.  More recently, p a r t i a l l y as a result of the "back to the basics" approach, curriculum planning has become more c e n t r a l i z e d , with committees attempting to outline what they see as the goals and outcomes for each subject area. Leithwood and Montgomery (1980) report; The l e g i s l a t i v e arm of the education system attempts to capture s o c i a l l y shared images in a form amendable to systematic school intervention. In the Provinces of Canada . . . t h e product of such image-capturing is usually a curriculum guideline (p.2). The study done by Flanders (1980), examining the professional development a c t i v i t i e s of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, found that "teachers seemed generally unaware of ministry moves toward control in the curriculum area" (p. 13).  In  f a c t , he found that while most teachers regard curriculum as providing organizing guidelines, they "do not appear to connect curriculum with making meaning with students" (p.  13).  Other studies would appear to support the view that the existence of curriculum guidelines does not necessarily mean that they have an impact on what occurs in the classroom. Goodlad,  K l e i n , and Associates (1970) in their survey of  American public schools, found that the textbook, as opposed to State guides or local curriculum b u l l e t i n s , was the immediate learning stimulus in more than half the classrooms beyond kindergarten (p. 64).  Shipman (1974) in his report on  the implementation of a project in the United Kingdom, refers  to the "materials madness" and the fact that often the materials become the focus of a curriculum. Goodlad et al  (1970) also reported that "general or s p e c i f i c "  classroom goals were not i d e n t i f i a b l e  to observers" (p.  98),  indicating a lack of c e n t r a l i t y of educational objectives. Clark and Yinger (1977) in their review of research on how teachers think, concluded that teachers r e l y less on objectives than we had been led to believe. In p a r t i c u l a r , the teachers studied did not begin or guide their planning in r e l a t i o n to c l e a r l y specified objectives or goals. Rather, teacher planning seems to begin with content to be taught and considerations about, the setting in which teaching w i l l take place (p. 300). These findings are supported by Zahorik (1975) who studied the role of specified objectives in the decisions 194 teachers made prior to teaching.  He found that objectives were not  p a r t i c u l a r l y important to these teachers.  Taylor (1970),  in a study of teacher planning in English in secondary schools, concluded that subject matter and the needs of the pupil took precedence over aims.  He also reported that he found  l i t t l e consistency in the role which the syllabus plays and some doubt must be entertained about whether teachers consider that the syllabus serves any worthwhile purpose at a l l (p.51). Jackson and Bedford (1965) interviewed 20 elementary school teachers who were considered to be outstanding by d i s t r i c t officials.  They reported that these teachers  12 l e f t the impression that the school's curriculum guides lay unread at the bottom of their supply closets (p. 287). In B r i t i s h Columbia, two studies undertaken on behalf of the Learning Assessment Branch of the B.C. Ministry of Education provide further information regarding the present role of textbooks and curriculum guides.  R o b i t a i l l e (1980) reported a  considerable gap between the intended curriculum as described in curriculum guides and the implemented curriculum.  Tuinman  and Kendall (1980) found that teachers reported that curriculum guides and resource books made available by the Ministry of Education are frequently consulted but have had l i t t l e impact on their teaching (p. 10). 2.4  The Roles of Teachers and D i s t r i c t Administrators-in the Implementation Process It  i s only within the l a s t ten years that the topic of  implementation has become a major focal point.  Prior to t h a t ,  studies in the area of curriculum were mainly interested in the development of curriculum and i t s evaluation.  The  classroom teacher was seen merely as the tool f o r putting a curriculum into practice and the emphasis was on what teachers "ought to do".  In f a c t , during the 1960's, the aim was to  develop "teacher-proof" curriculum.  However, evidence began to  mount which indicated that what teachers "actually did" had an enormous influence on whether or not a curriculum was implemented. It also became evident that d i s t r i c t administrators played a major role in determining the degree of implementation.  13 It  has now become commonly accepted that a great discrepancy  exists between what the developers of a curriculum e n v i s i o n , and what actually occurs in the classroom (Bergman & McLaughlin, 1976; Myers, 1977; Sabor & S h a f r i r i , 1980). (1970) put  As Goodlad et al  it; Many of the changes we have believed to be taking place in schooling have not been getting into classrooms; changes widely recommended for schools over the past 15 years were blunted on school and classroom doors (p. 97).  Full an and Pomfret (1977) report that implementation at the user level r e f l e c t s considerable discrepancies from intended plans (p. 354). Studies have also shown that even when an innovation is implemented, there is a great variation in the type  and degree of teacher use  of the innovation ( H a l l , Loucks, Rutherford  & Newlove, 1975).  Many theories have been put forth as to why this discrepancy exists.  One explanation is that teachers and schools are not open  to change. Lortie (1975) portrays teachers as being conservative and present-oriented and schools as being "self-perpetuating i n s t i t u t i o n s " (p. 106).  However, the majority of the l i t e r a t u r e  c i t e the root of the problem as the f a i l u r e to adequately attend to any one of a number of factors affecting the implementation of an innovation.  14 One important factor i s seen as the impact an innovation has on the classroom teacher.  Full an (1980a) points out that;  The rational assumptions, abstractions, and descriptions of a proposed new curriculum do not make sense in the capricious world of the teacher (p. 52). and Lortie (1975) claims; Many proposals for change strike them as frivolous (p. 235). Fullan (1980a) also reports that; When change is imposed from outside i t i s b i t t e r l y resented...There i s a strong tendency for people to adjust to the near occasion of change, by changing as l i t t l e as possible - either assimilating or abandoning changes (p. 55). This observation is supported by Johansen (1965) who found that when teachers perceived outside authorities  as being the major source of  influence in the curriculum decision-making process, the  likelihood  of curriculum implementation decreased. The work of Sarason (1971) has done much to make us aware of the complexity of the change process and how i t affects  schools.  Even when there is i n i t i a l acceptance or enthusiasm, studies have shown that this is not enough to ensure the implementation of an innovation (Boyd, 1978; Gross, Neal, Giacauinta & Bernstein, 1971; Smith, 1971).  The work of Hall et al  (1975) also shows that  prolonged use of an innovation does not guarantee a greater • of  implementation.  degree  15 More recently, attention  has begun to focus on the role of  d i s t r i c t administrators in the implementation process.  Studies  have shown that the strategies used by administrators, both d i s t r i c t and school based, can have a great impact on teachers' willingness and a b i l i t y to implement an innovation (Berman & McLaughlin, 1976; Fullan & Pomfret, 1977; Patterson & Czajkowki, 1979).  One recognized area of importance is the role  played by the d i s t r i c t in improving teacher c l a r i t y of the goals of an innovation.  Ben-Peretz and Kremer (1979), in their study  of pre-implementation training courses, found that during i n service training l i t t l e time i f any was devoted to a thorough analysis of the curriculum and to interpretation of i t s major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (p. 250). As a r e s u l t , they found that teachers tend to use instructional strategies with which they are familiar and to minimize use of instructional strategies that are not part of t h e i r everyday repertoire and are not c l e a r l y specified in the new curriculum (p. 254). McLaughlin and Marsh (1978), in their review of the Rand Corporation study of Federal Programs supporting educational change (Rand Study), found that the s p e c i f i c i t y of goals had a major on implementation.  effect  The more s p e c i f i c the teachers f e l t the project goals were, the higher the percentage of goals the project achieved, the greater the student improvement attributed to the project, and the greater the continuation of both project method and materials (p. 79). The findings of Hughes and Keith (1980) tended to support their general hypothesis that; The potential adapters' perceptions of an innovation, . . . a r e related to the successful implementation of educational innovations (p. 49). Another area cited in the l i t e r a t u r e as being important for providing better teacher understanding of an innovation and higher motivation as w e l l , is teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n in dayto-day decision-making as an innovation is implemented (Kardas & Talmage, 1970; Langenbach, 1972; McLaughlin, 1976).  However,  in discussing the l i t e r a t u r e on teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n , Fullan and Pomfret (1977), point out that; The best research on implementation that we could find t e l l s us very l i t t l e about one of the most t h e o r e t i c a l l y prominent independent variables r j i a r t i c i p a t i o n j i n the innovation l i t e r a t u r e (p. 376). Two other important areas of d i s t r i c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y are the provision of i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g , and mechanisms for teacher feedback.  Berman and McLaughlin, (1976), in a review of the Rand  Study, report that the interaction of s t a f f training and frequent meetings were found to be important for successful Fullan and Pomfret (1977) concluded;  implementation  17 It appears that intensive i n - s e r v i c e training (as d i s t i n c t from single workshops or preservice training) i s an important strategy for implementation (p. 373). Willson's (1980) study of teacher persistence found that in-depth study by means of i n - s e r v i c e workshops tended to r e s u l t i n greater teacher persistence in the implementation of a new curriculum.  Heusner (1964) reported that increased  contact among teachers appeared to influence the u t i l i z a t i o n of curriculum guide materials.  Gross et al (1971) concluded  that f a i l u r e to use feedback mechanisms to uncover "the barriers that arose during the period of attempted  implementation"  (p. 194) was one of the major possible explanations for the f a i l u r e to implement an innovation.  Kilbert (1980) in his study  of the implementation of a business education curriculum, found that i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g , teacher participation in planning, and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of feedback mechanisms for teachers were important factors in the successful implementation of the curriculum. Despite the evidence that d i s t r i c t support is important, would appear that this support i s not always readily  it  available.  A recent assessment of reading in B.C. (Tuinman & Kendall, 1980) found that nearly half of the elementary teachers surveyed stated that they had received no formal orientation toward the content and use of the BCELAC Guide.  The report concluded that the lack  of understanding regarding the use of this guide could be one reason why so many teachers reported that i t has had no s i g n i f i c a n t impact on their teaching.  Goodlad et al (1970)  18 also found a lack of d i s t r i c t support for teachers and l i t t l e in the way of pre-service or i n - s e r v i c e teacher education. An important aspect of d i s t r i c t support i s the part i t plays in motivating teachers to implement an innovation. A review of the Rand Study (Berman & McLaughlin, 1976) led to the conclusion that; Unless the project seems to represent a d i s t r i c t and school p r i o r i t y , teachers may not put in the extra e f f o r t and emotional investment necessary for successful implementation (p. 361). McLaughlin and Marsh (1978) also report that the attitudes of d i s t r i c t administrators can provide a "signal" to teachers as to how seriously they should take a proposed change.  Willson's  (1980) study found that d i s t r i c t commitment had an effect on teacher persistence in the implementation of a curriculum. The stronger the d i s t r i c t commitment appeared to be, the more e f f o r t the teachers gave. A large proportion of the l i t e r a t u r e describing the role of the local school d i s t r i c t in curriculum implementation, concerns curriculum that i s developed by local d i s t r i c t s .  In B . C . ,  curriculum i s developed at the Provincial l e v e l , but r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for implementation is l e f t to the local school d i s t r i c t .  Since  there i s l i t t l e l i t e r a t u r e available that examines the relationship between a p r o v i n c i a l l y developed curriculum and i t s  implementation  19 at the local l e v e l , this study has focused on the  implementation  process as carried out at the local school d i s t r i c t This has been done by assessing teachers' use o f ,  level. and attitude  toward, the BCELAC Guide and by assessing teachers' perceptions of local d i s t r i c t i n - s e r v i c e support related to the implementation of the Guide. 2.5  Summary The questionnaire has been used for over 130 years and is a v a l i d and useful data-gathering technique i f used properly.  The  advantages and disadvantages as outlined in Section 2.2 point to the limitations of the questionnaire when used as a research t o o l . A review of l i t e r a t u r e dealing with the roles of curriculum guides and textbooks indicates that h i s t o r i c a l l y , textbooks have played a greater role than curriculum guides in determining curriculum.  More recent studies have also questioned the  importance of curriculum guides in influencing a teacher's day-to-day decisions regarding what is to be taught. The l i t e r a t u r e and empirical studies examining the roles of teachers and d i s t r i c t administrators in the implementation  process,  indicate the importance of both parties in determining the degree of implementation.  The teacher i s seen as being the f i n a l  determiner  of what is actually implemented, while the d i s t r i c t is seen as having a great influence on teachers' understanding of an innovation and their attitude toward  it.  20 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1  Organization of the Chapter The population and sample used in this study are described in Section 3.2.  The development of the questionnaire used to gather  the data is described in Section 3.3.  Section 3.4 describes the  procedures used to gather and organize the data and Section 3.5 describes the method of data analysis. 3.2  Population This study required data from elementary language arts teachers in the public school of B r i t i s h Columbia.  Five Lower Mainland  school d i s t r i c t s were approached for permission to questionnaires to teachers. of these d i s t r i c t s .  distribute  Permission was obtained from three  One d i s t r i c t was somewhat smaller but was  otherwise similar to the other two.  The attendance areas of a l l  three d i s t r i c t s included a socio-economic cross-section that was e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r .  -  The names of the six schools surveyed  in each d i s t r i c t were drawn at random as described in Section 3.4. A total of 202 questionnaires were distributed and 115 of these were returned.  Therefore, the sample consisted of 115 teachers  from three Lower Mainland school d i s t r i c t s .  21 3.3.  Development of the Questionnaire I n i t i a l l y , a preliminary questionnaire was developed and a p i l o t administration of this questionnaire was run.  The  information sought led to the development of three sections. The f i r s t section examined the frequency with which teachers use the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide (BCELAC Guide) and teachers' perceptions of the frequency of d i s t r i c t i n - s e r v i c e programs related to implementation of this Guide.  The second section examined teachers' opinions of the  general value of the BCELAC Guide and teachers' opinions of the usefulness of related d i s t r i c t i n - s e r v i c e programs.  The t h i r d  section gathered personal data related to the grade level  taught,  the number of years of teaching experience, and the educational background of each respondent.  Items for the f i r s t two sections  of the preliminary questionnaire were drawn from related literature,  informal talks with teachers, sections of a reading  questionnaire (Province of B . C . , 1980), and personal experience. The f i r s t two sections of the preliminary questionnaire also used a Likert-type scale with three l e v e l s of i n t e n s i t y . The preliminary questionnaire was subject to several r e v i s i o n s . These.revisions were made on the basis of informal t r i a l s with several teachers and discussions with members of the committee.  writer's  Statements were added, deleted or reworded and the  original scales were changed to f i v e - p o i n t , Likert-type  scales.  During the month of March, 1981, the p i l o t run of the questionnaire was done.  The instrument (see Appendix A)  was distributed to 18 teachers from three Lower Mainland school d i s t r i c t s .  There were 15 questionnaires returned, a  return of 83 percent.  Given the sample s i z e , this return rate  was much higher than would be expected with larger numbers. The returns were tabulated  (see Appendix B) and comments noted.  The results indicated the need for several more changes.  Those  changes are described below. The "Survey of Use" was not altered to any great extent. The verb tense was changed in item one and the words 'long term' and 'short term' were underlined in items f i v e and six respectively.  Items ten through twelve had the phrase "In my  opinion" put at the beginning of each statement. The section on "Survey of Opinions" was altered considerably. In order to make tabulations e a s i e r , items five and s i x , were reworded to have these items focus on the role of the BCELAC Guide as compared to the prescribed texts. four were reworded to improve c l a r i t y .  Items one through  Item eight was eliminated  and replaced with a comment regarding the general feeling of comfort in using the BCELAC Guide. interchanged on the f i n a l fourteen were t o t a l l y  Items eight and nine were  questionnaire.  changed.  Items ten through  The information obtained on the  p i l o t study was used to come up with three general  statements  23 regarding the provision of d i s t r i c t i n - s e r v i c e programs.  Item  f i f t e e n was changed somewhat in the wording and included in the f i n a l  questionnaire as a guide to areas in which teachers  f e l t the need for more d i s t r i c t support. The section on "Background Information" was not changed except for the addition of the directions "Please Check One". A description of the f i n a l  questionnaire is outlined below.  The section "Survey of Use" was designed to assess the frequency with which teachers use the BCELAC Guide and teachers' perceptions of the frequency of d i s t r i c t i n - s e r v i c e programs.  implementation  Each item had f i v e categories of response, Constantly  (C), Frequently ( F ) , Occasionally (0),  Seldom (S), and Never  (N),  as in the following examples. 1.  2.  During the past month I made use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts . Curriculum Guide. My D i s t r i c t provides me with information regarding the content of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide.  C  F  0  S  N  C  F  0  S  N  The f i v e responses. C, F, 0, S, and N were weighted four, two, one, and zero respectively for  three,  tabulation.  The section "Survey of Opinions" was designed to measure the attitudes of teachers toward the general value of the BCELAC Guide, toward the role of this Guide as compared to the prescribed t e x t s , and toward d i s t r i c t i n - s e r v i c e programs designed to aid implementation of the Guide.  Each item had f i v e categories of  response; Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Uncertain (U), Disagree (D), and Strongly Disagree (SD), as i n the  .  following  examples. 1.  I see the goals of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide as providing the framework of my Language Arts program.  SA  A  U  D  SD  2.  In my o p i n i o n , my D i s t r i c t has provided me with adequate i n - s e r v i c e support for the implementation of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide.  SA  A  U  D  SD  The f i v e responses SA, A, U, D, and SD were weighted f o u r , two, one, and zero r e s p e c t i v e l y for  three,  tabulation.  The l a s t section of the questionnaire provided for  gathering  data related to the grade level taught, the number of years teaching experience and the formal educational background of each respondent.  This information was used to ensure that there was a  balance, both within the t o t a l sample and between each d i s t r i c t , in the areas outlined above. The questionnaire items were spaced out on each page with every response requiring either a c i r c l e or a check mark.  The  questionnaire i t s e l f had a t o t a l of 32 items and was f i v e pages long.  The "Survey of Use" section was put f i r s t on h a l f the  questionnaires while the "Survey of Opinion" was put f i r s t on the other h a l f .  It was estimated to take approximately  minutes to complete the questionnaire. questionnaire).  five  (See Appendix C for  final  25 Procedures This section describes the sampling techniques, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the questionnaire, and the follow-up procedures. The l i s t of elementary schools in the telephone directory was numbered for each of the three d i s t r i c t s , omitting the schools used in the p i l o t study.  Corresponding numbers were written on s l i p s  of paper and the s l i p s for each d i s t r i c t were combined seperately. Six numbers were drawn at random from each p i l e . The principals of the individual schools were contacted by telephone and permission was obtained to d i s t r i b u t e questionnaires at each school.  the  During the f i r s t two and a half  weeks of May, 1981, the questionnaires were delivered to each principal with instructions to distribute the questionnaires to teachers from grades one to seven who taught language arts (English' only).  Each questionnaire had a covering l e t t e r  (see Appendix C) and an envelope stamped with the w r i t e r ' s A sign asking for assistance was l e f t for the staffroom. sign mentioned that the study was being conducted by a  name. The  full-time  teacher and asked that teachers w i l l i n g to take part in the study complete the questionnaire within a week and turn i t school p r i n c i p a l .  in to the  A total of 202 questionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d .  26 Permission was obtained from each d i s t r i c t to use their inter-school mail to c o l l e c t the questionnaires and principals were given the name of the person to whom the questionnaires were to be sent.  At the end of the week, each principal was  contacted by telephone in order to check on the number of returns.  Extra questionnaires and a follow-up l e t t e r for each  teacher were then sent to the schools in an attempt to improve the return rate.  By the end of June, a total of 115 questionnaires  had been returned.  3.5  Method of Analysis A l l items from both the "Survey of Use" and the "Survey of Opinion" sections of the questionnaire were assigned to one of the f i r s t  four research questions.  These d i v i s i o n s are outlined  in Chapter 4 as the items related to these four questions are analyzed.  The various responses for each item were recorded  on a master sheet and the responses for each d i s t r i c t were recorded in separate colours. the  This provided the results for  total sample and in a d d i t i o n , i t allowed comparisons to be  made between the d i s t r i c t s . separately for each d i s t r i c t .  The percentages were also calculated Comments were noted and some of  them are presented in Chapter 4. The information for question f i v e was obtained by grouping the items from the "Survey of Use" and the "Survey of Opinion"  into three general categories:  Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide;  Teacher Attitude Toward the BCELAC Guide; and Teacher Perceptions of D i s t r i c t Support.  Values of f o u r , three, two, one, and zero  were assigned to strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, and strongly disagree, respectively. used for constantly, frequently, respectively.  The same f i v e values were  occasionally, seldom, and never,  Scores were tabulated for each of the three  categories as outlined below. A score for "Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide" was obtained by calculating the total score for items one through nine on the "Survey of Use".  A score for "Teacher Attitude Toward the BCELAC  Guide" was obtained by calculating the total scores for one through nine on the "Survey of Opinions".  items  The scores for  items ten through thirteen on the "Survey of Use" and items ten through twelve on the "Survey of Opinion" were tabulated provide the score for "Teacher Perceptions of D i s t r i c t  to  Support".  The three scores for each teacher were recorded and then ranked separately with the highest score in each category receiving the rank of one.  The ranks were then used to compute Spearman's  rank order correlation (rho)  for "Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and  Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide", and for "Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Opinion of the BCELAC Guide".  Additional f i n d i n g s included the data from the section on "Background Information".  These data were recorded and tabulated  to ensure a balanced sampling from the various grade l e v e l s , years of teaching experience, and educational background.  The  Spearman rank order c o r r e l a t i o n f o r "Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide and Teacher A t t i t u d e Toward the BCELAC Guide", was also computed.  F i n a l l y , some of the comments w r i t t e n on the questionnaires  were 1 i s t e d .  Chapter 4  DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS  4.1  Organization of the Chapter This Chapter reports the results obtained from the responses to the final the data.  questionnaire and the analyses that were performed on  The questionnaire return rate is presented in Section 4.2.  In Sections 4.3 through 4.7, the data related to the f i v e basic research questions are analyzed and additional findings are discussed in Section 4.8. 4.2  Final Questionnaire Return Rate The return d i s t r i b u t i o n of the final in Table 1.  questionnaire is presented  The total return rate was 56.9 percent.  This was  s l i g h t l y higher than the expected return rate of 50 to 55 percent as outlined in Chapter 2. TABLE 1  Final Questionnaire Return Distribution District  Distributed  Returned  % Returned  A  65  40  61.5  B  62  36  58  C  75  39  52  Total  202  115  56.9  30 4.3  Analysis for Question One The f i r s t basic research question was; To what extent are elementary language arts teachers using the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide? The data for this question were obtained from the f i r s t section of the "Survey of Use" which examined the frequency of use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide (BCELAC Guide).. The responses to items one through nine were tabulated.  This  information is presented in Table 2. These results indicated that the majority of teachers surveyed do not use the BCELAC Guide frequently or constantly for any of the items l i s t e d .  Long term planning was the only area in which  over 35 percent of the teachers reported more than an occasional use of the Guide (36.8  percent reported using the Guide frequently  and 12.3 percent reported using i t constantly).  In answer to the  item regarding the frequency with which teachers consult the BCELAC Guide, 52.6 percent reported consulting i t occasionally and 29.9 percent, seldom or never.  While 50 percent of the  teachers surveyed reported occasionally spending time f a m i l i a r i z i n g themselves with the content of the Guide, the other half were s p l i t between less than occasionally (25.5 occasionally (24.5 percent).  percent) and more than  Just under half (46.5 percent) of  the teachers reported never having used the Guide during the previous month.  O v e r a l l , 70.2 percent reported having used i t  occasionally (47.4 percent), frequently  (20.2 percent), or  TABLE 2 4  Teacher Use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide Constantly  Item No.  A*  B  C  1. **  .0  0  2.  0  5.6  3-  0  4-  Occasionally  Frequently A  5.3  1 8  15  19.4  13.2  15 8  60  41.. 7  55.3  52 6  25  27.7 21 1 24. 6  0  11.1 5.3  5.3  2.6  2 6  25  19.4  21.1  21 9  57 5  36.1  55.3  50  15  27.8 18 4 20.2  2.5  11.1 2.6  5.3  2.8  2.6  2 6  20  25  15.8  20 2  52 5  36.1  52.6  47 4  17 5 19.4 23 7 20.2  10  16.7 2.6  9.6  2.5  2.8  5.3  3 5  5  8. 3  0  4 4  17 5  27.8  21.1  21 9  35  11.1 23 7 23.7  40  50  46.5  5-  12. 5  8.3  15.8  12 3  31.6  36 8  37 5  33. 3  26.3  32 5  10  5.5 23 7 13.2  2.5  1.1.1 2.6  5.3  6-  2.5  0  2.6  1 8  19.4  18.4  14 0  47 5  33.3  36.8  39 5  35  30.5 26 3 30.7  10  16.6 15.8  4.0  7-  7.5  5.5  7.9  7 0  37.5 25.0  21.1  28 1  42 5  44.4  39.5  42 1  12 5 19.4 26 3 19. 3  8-  0  0  2.6  9  12.5 19.4  7.9  13 2  45  38.8  44.7  43 0  30  9.  0  2.7  0  9  12.5  15.8  12 3  55  44.4  39. 5  46 5  27. 5 22.2 21 1  A* = D i s t r i c t A **  37.5 41.6 5  8.3  B = District B  C  A  Never  T  B  T  Seldom  C = District C  B  C  T  A  B  11.1 28 9  T = T o t a l of a l l D i s t r i c t s  See items one through nine on the "Survey of Use" (Appendix C)  C  T  A  0  B  5,5  C  50  5.3  T  3.5  32.5 12.5 30.5 15.8 19.3 23.7  5  22.2 23.7 16.7  32  constantly (2.6 percent) during the past year.  The responses to  the remainder of the items indicated that over 64 percent of the teachers surveyed use the Guide occasionally or less for the following:  short term planning (72.4  the s k i l l s to be taught (64.9 strategies (94.8 (86.9  percent), as a reminder of  percent), as a source of teaching  percent), and to help assess the present program  percent).  In summary, for most of the areas examined, i t would appear that the BCELAC Guide is used only occasionally by the majority of teachers surveyed.  Long term planning was the only area in which  there was a s i g n i f i c a n t indication of more than occasional use.  4.4. Analysis for Question Two The second basic research question was: What is the general attitude of teachers toward the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide? The data for this question were obtained from the f i r s t part of the "Survey of Opinion" which examined teachers' attitudes the BCELAC Guide.  toward  The responses to items one through four and  seven through nine were tabulated.  This information is presented  in Table 3. An examination of the responses indicated that over 55 percent of the teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that they need to be familiar with the BCELAC Guide (87.9  percent); that  TABLE 3 Teacher A t t i t u d e Toward the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s Curriculum Guide  No.  A*  B  T  C  A  B  C  T  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Uncertain  Aaree  Strongly Agre e  Item  A  B  C  T  A  B 8. 3  C  T  A  B  C  T  5.1  6.1  0  2.7  0  .9  1. * *  30  36.1  48.7  38.3  62 5  44.4  41.0  49.6  2.5  8.3  5.1  5.2  5  2.  15  16.6  28.2  20  60  50  35.9  48.7  7.5  11.1  10. 3  9.6  10  13.8  25.6 16.5  7.5  8.3  0  5.2  3.  15  8.3  15.4  13  37 5  47.2  43.6  42.6  25  0  12.8  13  17.5  36.1  25.6 26.1  5  8.3  2.6  5.2  4.  20  8. 3  23.1  17.4  60  58.3  59  59.6  15  11.1  7.7  11. 3  2.5  19.4  10.3 10.4  - 2.5  2.7  0  1.7  7.  12. 5  13.8  25.6  17.4  37 5  44.4  41  40.9  42.5  27.7  33. 3  34.8  0,  11.1  0  3.5  7.5  2.7  0  3.5  8.  5  2.7  12.8  7.0  57 5  52.7  56.4  55.7  27.5  27.7  25.6  27.0  2.5  13.8  5.1  7.0  7.5  2.7  0  3.5  9.  5  5.5  7.7  6.1  70  50  61.5  60.9  17.5  25  25.6  22.6  5  16.6  5.1  8.7  2.5  2.7  0  1.7  A* = D i s t r i c t A **  B = District B  C = District C  T = T o t a l of a l l D i s t r i c t s  See items one through four and seven through nine on the "Survey of Opinion" (Appendix C)  CO CO  34 they need to be familiar with the Guide in order to do a good job of teaching the language arts (68.7  percent); and that the Guide  is the major reference source in the planning of their language arts program (55.6  percent).  Over 58 percent also agreed or  strongly agreed that they are s a t i s f i e d with the format of the present BCELAC Guide (62.7  percent); that i t  over the previous guide (58.3  is an improvement  percent); and that they are quite  comfortable using the Guide (67 percent).  Just over half  (55.6  percent) agreed that the Guide is seen as the major reference source in the planning of their language arts program. In summary, i t would appear that while the general attitude of the teachers surveyed was favourable toward the BCELAC Guide, just under one-half (44.4  percent) did not see the Guide as the  major reference source in the planning of their language arts program.  4.5  Analysis for Question Three The third basic research question was: What do teachers perceive as the role of textbooks in determining their language arts program? The data for this question were obtained from the "Survey of Opinion" Section of the questionnaire which examined teacher attitudes.  The responses to items f i v e and six were tabulated.  This information is presented in Table 4.  TABLE 4 Teacher P e r c e p t i o n s of the Role of Textbooks i n Determining the Language A r t s  No.  A*  B  C  T  A  10  5.5  7.7  7.8  22.5  38.8  33.3  7.5  5.5  12.8  8.7  37.5  41.6  43.6  A* = D i s t r i c t A **  B  C  B = District B  T  B  C  B  31.3  35  11.1  35.9  27.8  30  30.5  23.1  40.9  22.5 13.8  20.5  19.9  27.5 27.7  23.1  C = District C  C  A  A  T  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Uncertain  Agree  S t r o n g l y Agree  Item  Program  A  B  C  T  27.8  2.5  13.8  0  5.2  26.1  5  11.1  0  5.2  T  T = T o t a l of a l l D i s t r i c t s  See items f i v e and s i x on the "Survey of Opinion" (Appendix C)  The data indicated that the teachers surveyed are divided in their opinion regarding the importance of the BCELAC Guide, as opposed to the prescribed textbooks, when i t comes to the planning of their language arts program (39.1 BCELAC Guide is important; percent are uncertain).  percent agree the  33 percent disagree, and 27.8  While 49.6 percent agree that the Guide  provides more of a framework for their language arts program than the prescribed textbooks, half (50.4 they were either uncertain (19.1 (26.1  percent) reported that  percent) about t h i s ; disagreed  percent), or strongly disagreed (5.2  percent).  In summary, i t would appear that there was no clear consensus regarding teachers' perceptions of the role of textbooks in determining the language arts program.  Analysis for Question Four The fourth research question was: What are teachers' perceptions of the role played by their d i s t r i c t in providing information and i n service program support related to the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide? The response to this question was drawn from two sections of the questionnaire.  One set of information came from the "Survey of  Use" Section examining teacher perceptions of the frequency with which t h e i r ^ d i s t r i c t  provided information and i n - s e r v i c e program  support related to the BCELAC Guide.  The responses to items  ten through thirteen were tabulated and the information is presented in Table 5.  The second set of information came from  Table 5 Teacher Perceptions of the Frequency With Which T h e i r D i s t r i c t Provides Information and In-Service Program Support Related to the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s Curriculum Constantly  Item  Frequently  No.  A*  B  C  T  10. **  5  5.5  5.3  5.3  11.  2.5  2.7  0  12.  0  0  0  13.  0  0  2.6  A* - D i s t r i c t A **  Occasionally  B  C  20  13.8  26.3  20.2  1.8  7.5  8.3  23.7  0  5  0  11.1  .9  A  22.5  B = District B  Guide  T  A  B  C  25  19.4  39.5  13.2  30  19.4  34.2  30.7  5  39.5  24.6  25  Seldom T  Never  A  B  C  28.1  42.5  36.1  15.8  31.6  42.1  30.7  42.5  22.2  23.7  29.8  17.5 47.2  2.7  21.1  9.6  32.5  19.4  5.3  19.3  44.4  36.8  35.1  40  25  13.2  26.3  C = District C  See items ten through t h i r t e e n on the "Survey of Use"  T  A  B  C  7.5  25  T 13.2  14.9  10.5  24.6  57.5  77.7 39.5  57.9  12.5  19.4  13.2  T = T o t a l of a l l D i s t r i c t s (Appendix C)  to  7.9  38  the "Survey-of Opinion" section examining teachers'  attitudes  toward the i n - s e r v i c e program support provided by t h e i r d i s t r i c t s . The responses to items ten through twelve were tabulated and the results are presented in Table 6.  Item thirteen of the  "Survey of Opinion" examined teachers' attitudes towards possible areas in which t h e i r d i s t r i c t could provide additional  information  and i n - s e r v i c e program support.  thirteen  The responses to item  were tabulated and are presented in Table 7. Teacher responses to the questions regarding the frequency with which their d i s t r i c t provides information related to the BCELAC Guide (Table 5),  indicated that the majority  (over 74  percent) feel that information related to the content and use of the BCELAC Guide is provided occasionally or l e s s .  Over half of  the teachers surveyed (57.9 percent) reported never receiving release time to work on areas related to the Guide.  An  examination of the separate d i s t r i c t s showed some marked differences.  Over half the teachers surveyed in D i s t r i c t C (55.3  percent) reported receiving release time frequently  (34.2  percent) or occasionally (.21.1 percent) compared to f i v e percent from D i s t r i c t A and none from D i s t r i c t B who reported frequent release time, and f i v e percent from D i s t r i c t A and 2.7 percent from D i s t r i c t B who reported occasional release time.  The majority  of the teachers surveyed in D i s t r i c t A (90 percent) and D i s t r i c t B  Table 6 Teacher A t t i t u d e s Toward D i s t r i c t In-Service Program Support R e l a t e d t o the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s Curriculum Guide  No.  A*  B  C  T  A  B  C  T  A  B  C  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Uncertain  Agree  Strongly Agree  Item  T  A  B  C  T  2.5  2.7  7.7  4.3  25  25  48.7  33.0  22.5  27.7  17.9  22.6  42.5  33.3  25.6  33.9  10.**  2.5  2.7  7.7  4.3  17.5 25  35.9  26.1  30  27.7  28.2  28.7  45  33.3  25.6  25.6  11.  0  2.7  5.1  2.6  20  51.3  30.4  27.5  25  23.1  25.2  45  41.6  17.9  34.8  12.  A* = D i s t r i c t A l  *  B  19.4  = District B  C = District C  7.5  7.5  11.1  C  T  0  6.1  11.1 2.6  6.1  11.1 2.6  7.0  T = T o t a l of a l l D i s t r i c t s  See items te n through twelve on the "Survey of Opinion" (Appendix C)  to  TABLE 7 Teacher A t t i t u d e Toward A d d i t i o n a l D i s t r i c t In-Service Program Support Related to the B.C.  17.5  B  C  T  A  B  C  16.6  0  11.3  50  61.1  51.3  T  A  B  T  A  23.1  14.8  C  A  B  C  53.9  17.5  11.1  23.1  17.4  12.5  8.3  T  Strongly  Disagree  Uncertain  Agree  Strongly Agree A*  Elementary Language A r t s Curriculum Guide  Disagree  B  C  T  2.5  2.7  2.6  2.6  15  5.5  2.6  7.8  55  52.7  56.4  54.8  20  30.5  17.9  22.6  7.5  8.3  20.5  12.2  2.5  2.7  2.6  2.6  25  11.1  7.7  14.8  50  58.3  46.2  51.3  20  25  17.9  20.9  2.5  5.5  23.1  10.4  2.5  0  5.1  2.6  15  13.8  7.7  12.2  57.5  61.1  53.8  57.4  17.5  16.6  20.5  18.3  7.5  5.5  15.4  9.6  2.5  2.7  2.6  2.6  A* = D i s t r i c t A **  See  item 13  B = District B  C = District C  (a-d) on the "Survey of Opinion"  (Appendix C)  T = T o t a l of a l l D i s t r i c t s  41 (97.1  percent) reported receiving release time seldom or never.  There appeared to be no consensus regarding the frequency with which reference is made to the BCELAC Guide during d i s t r i c t workshops, with 24.6 percent reporting frequent  reference,  35.1 percent reporting occasional reference, and 26.3  percent  reporting that reference is seldom made. The data shown in Table 6, reporting teachers' attitudes the i n - s e r v i c e program support provided by their  toward  district,  indicated no overall consensus on any of the items.  Just under 30  percent were uncertain whether or not the i n - s e r v i c e programs were adequate, just over 30 percent agreed that they were adequate and just over 30 percent disagreed.  However, a higher  proportion of the teachers surveyed in D i s t r i c t C have a positive attitude toward d i s t r i c t i n - s e r v i c e program support dealing with content of the Guide (56.4  percent agree or strongly agree)  and toward the general i n - s e r v i c e program support (56.4 agree or strongly agree).  percent  The teachers surveyed in D i s t r i c t A  generally had a more negative attitude (at least 50 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed) toward a l l aspects of d i s t r i c t s i n - s e r v i c e program support.  their  The teachers surveyed  in D i s t r i c t B were somewhat s p l i t in their opinion of the i n service program support related to the content and use of the Guide, but were more negative  (52.7  percent disagreed or strongly  disagreed) regarding d i s t r i c t provision of adequate i n - s e r v i c e program support for implementation of the BCELAC Guide.  42 The data from Table 6, examining areas in which the could provide additional  district  in-service program support related to the  BCELAC Guide, indicated that the majority of teachers surveyed (over 60 percent) agree that more support could be provided in a l l the areas l i s t e d . In summary, the teachers surveyed appear to perceive d i s t r i c t provision of information related to the BCELAC Guide as occurring ocassional.ly at the most.  There was no consensus regarding  teachers' attitudes toward in-service program support provided by the d i s t r i c t , although there was generally strong agreement that more support could be provided in the s p e c i f i e d areas. Analysis of Question Five The f i f t h basic research question was; What relationship exists between teachers' attitude toward, and use o f , the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide, and teachers' perceptions of d i s t r i c t support? The material related to this question was obtained by tabulating three scores for each questionnaire.  Values of four, three,  two,  one, and zero were assigned to strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, and strongly disagree, respectively.  The same values  of four, three, two, one, and zero were also used for constantly frequently, o c c a s i o n a l l y , seldom, and never, respectively.  A score  for "Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide" was obtained by calculating  43 the total score for items one through nine on the "Survey of Use".  A score for "Teacher Attitude Toward the BCELAC Guide" was  obtained by calculating the total score for items one through nine on the "Survey of Opinions".  The score for "Teacher  Perception of D i s t r i c t Support" was obtained by calculating the total score for items ten through thirteen on the "Survey of Use" and items ten through twelve on the "Survey of Opinion".  The scores  for each of the three areas were then ranked, assigning the rank of one to the highest score in each area.  These ranks were used  to compute the Spearman rank order Correlation (rho)  for  "Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Attitude Toward the BCELAC Guide" and for "Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide".  The results are presented in Table 8.  TABLE 8 Rank Order Correlations for Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Attitude Toward the BCELAC Guide, and for Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide. Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Attitude  ^  = .414  p<  .05  n-  30  Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Use  P  = .354  p < .05  n-  30  The results indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t correlation between teacher perceptions of strong d i s t r i c t support and both a positive teacher attitude toward, and use o f , the BCELAC Guide.  The data were also correlated for individual d i s t r i c t s . These results are presented in Table 9.  TABLE 9 Individual D i s t r i c t Rank Order Correlation for Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Attitude Toward the BCELAC Guide and for Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide. Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Attitude Toward the BCELAC Guide. District A District B District C  9 = .44 ? = .41 p = .51  p ^ p < p <  .01 .05 .01  n n n  ^ ? Z  30 30 30  Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide. District A District B District C  ? = .06 ? = .35 ? = .58  p < p <  .05 .01  n 2 n f  -30 30  In the area of "Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Attitude Toward the BCELAC Guide" there appeared to be a correlation in a l l three d i s t r i c t s , with a higher correlation in D i s t r i c t s A and C.  There was no correlation in D i s t r i c t A in the area of  "Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide" while the correlation of D i s t r i c t C was higher than that of D i s t r i c t B in this area.  This would suggest that where teachers  perceive strong d i s t r i c t support, they have a more positive attitude toward the Guide and make greater use of  it.  TABLE 10 Teacher Background Information  *1.  Grade l e v e l you t e a c h  1 4  Formal Education  - l e s s than a B.Ed, o r B.C. - B. Ed. o r B.A. - B. Ed. o r B.A. p l u s a d d i t i o n a l courses - M. Ed. o r M.A. - M. Ed. o r M.A. p l u s a d d i t i o n a l courses  Years o f t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e as o f June, 1981. 1 2 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16  level  year o r l e s s years years years y e a r s o r more  %A  %B  %C  *1.  47.4 31.6 21.1  52. 9 23.5 23.5  38.5 35.9 25.6  45.9 30.6 23.4  2.  5.3 15.8 39.5 21.1 18.4  8.8 2.9 35. 3 17.6 35.3  0 10.3 35. 9 17.9 35.9  4.5 9.9 36.9 18.9 29.7  3.  26.3 60.5 5.3 5.3 2.6  17.6 55.9 23.5 0 2.9  17.9 30.8 41.0 5.1 5.1  20.7 48.6 23. 4 3.6 3.6  %TOTAL :  46 4.8  Additional Findings The data from the section "Background Information" are presented in Table 10 above.  The results showed a f a i r l y even  d i s t r i b u t i o n between primary and intermediate  teachers.  Of a l l  the teachers surveyed, 36.9 percent reported having taught from six to f i f t e e n years.  Just over 35 percent of the teachers  surveyed in D i s t r i c t s B and C reported having taught 16 years or more as compared to 18.4 percent in D i s t r i c t 4. of teachers surveyed (79.2  percent)  The majority  reported having a B . E d . ,  a B . A . , or one of these degrees plus additional courses.  A  higher percentage of the teachers surveyed in D i s t r i c t C (51.2 percent) reported having additional courses beyond their B.Ed, or B.A. compared with 13.2 percent in D i s t r i c t A and 26.4  percent  in D i s t r i c t B, The Spearman rank drder correlation was calculated for "Teacher Attitude and Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide".  The  results are presented in Table 11 *  TABLE 11 Rank Order Correlation for Teacher Attitude Toward and Teacher Use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. ^>  =  .63  p <  .01  n ^  30  47  The r e s u l t s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e t o w a r d , and use o f , the BCELAC Guide.  This  suggests  t h a t t e a c h e r s w i t h a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward t h e G u i d e a r e more l i k e l y t o make g r e a t e r use o f i t . A few t e a c h e r s w r o t e a d d i t i o n a l comments on t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Some o f t h e s e comments a r e as f o l l o w s ; 1.  We have a n o t h e r "wishy-washy" programme. I have d e v e l o p e d own programme and m a t e r i a l s . ( D i s t r i c t A)  2.  I f e e l t h a t t h e r e a d i n g program - n o t the c u r r i c u l u m g u i d e p r o v i d e s t h e b a s i s f o r t h e language a r t s program. Most t e a c h e r s b u i l d t h e i r program around t h i s program. They add t o t h e i r program whenever n e c e s s a r y so t h a t t h e items m e n t i o n e d i n t h e c u r r i c u l u m g u i d e a r e c o v e r e d . ( D i s t r i c t B)  3.  I have r e a d and r e f e r r e d t o the main g u i d e i n the p a s t , but do not f i n d i t p r a c t i c a l enough t o h e l p me g r e a t l y w i t h dayt o - d a y o r month-to-month p l a n n i n g . I t does g i v e a good g e n e r a l o v e r v i e w , but r e q u i r e s t o o much r e a d i n g t o be handy, f o r r e f e r e n c e . I f i n d m a t e r i a l s p r e p a r e d by my d i s t r i c t t o be f a r more v a l u a b l e . ( D i s t r i c t B)  4.  Having r e a d t h e c u r r i c u l u m g u i d e t h r o u g h o n c e , I seldom r e f e r t o i t a g a i n , as I f e e l I am "on t a r g e t " i n my program. ( D i s t r i c t B)  5.  I do n o t f e e l i t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r a d i s t r i c t t o go t o s u c h l e n g t h s as w o r k s h o p s , m e e t i n g s , e t c . t o f a m i l i a r i z e t e a c h e r s w i t h t h e g u i d e , i t i s q u i t e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . ( D i s t r i c t B)  6.  Have n e v e r seen t h e new g u i d e o r knew t h e new g u i d e e x i s t e d . ( D i s t r i c t B)  7.  I've worked a g r e a t d e a l on l o c a l c u r r i c u l u m so I haven't f e l t i t n e c e s s a r y t o use t h e p r o v i n c i a l g u i d e . ( D i s t r i c t C)  8.  Curriculum Guide i s very s u p e r f i c i a l at Intermediate Level i n r e g a r d s t o s k i l l s , methods, g o a l s , and t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s . ( D i s t r i c t C)  my  9.  ( D i s t r i c t C) has d e v e l o p e d i t s own P r i m a r y Language A r t s Resource Guide base on t h e P r o v i n c i a l G u i d e .  10. ( D i s t r i c t C) has s p e n t a g r e a t d e a l o f time on Language A r t s . These t e a c h e r comments i n d i c a t e d t h a t some t e a c h e r s do not f e e l the need t o make e x t e n s i v e use o f t h e B.C. E l e m e n t a r y A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  Language  They a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t t e a c h e r s i n  D i s t r i c t C a r e aware o f t h e m a t e r i a l s d e v e l o p e d by t h e i r own district.  49 Chapter 5  SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1  Summary In  this  study,  implementation Guide  2.  the  d a t a was c o m p i l e d r e l a t i n g  B . C . E l e m e n t a r y Language A r t s  (BCELAC G u i d e ) .  research 1.  of  descriptive  These d a t a were used to  to  the  Curriculum  examine f i v e  basic  questions:  To w h a t e x t e n t a r e e l e m e n t a r y l a n g u a g e a r t s t e a c h e r s t h e B . C . E l e m e n t a r y Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide? What i s t h e g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e o f t e a c h e r s t o w a r d . . E l e m e n t a r y Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m G u i d e ?  using  the B . C .  3.  What do t e a c h e r s p e r c e i v e a s t h e r o l e o f t e x t b o o k s d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i r language a r t s program?  4.  What a r e t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r o l e p l a y e d by t h e i r d i s t r i c t i n p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n and i n - s e r v i c e p r o g r a m s u p p o r t r e l a t e d t o t h e B . C . E l e m e n t a r y Language A r t s Curriculum Guide?  5.  What r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s b e t w e e n t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e t o w a r d , and u s e o f , t h e B . C . E l e m e n t a r y L a n g u a g e A r t s C u r r i c u l u m G u i d e and t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f d i s t r i c t support? The r e v i e w o f  and o u t l i n e d examination  literature  some o f of  the  p a s t and p r e s e n t ,  its  role  supported  limitations of  indicated  curriculum  the use o f  a  in  questionnaire  as a r e s e a r c h t o o l .  An  g u i d e s and t e x t b o o k s ,  that curriculum  guides  have n o t  both played  50 as important a role as textbooks in influencing a teacher's day-to-day decisions regarding what is to be taught.  The  l i t e r a t u r e which reported on the roles of teachers and d i s t r i c t administrators in the implementation process, showed the importance of both groups in determining the degree to which a curriculum change is implemented. A special three-part questionnaire was designed in order to examine the five basic research questions.  The "Survey of Use"  section of the questionnaire examined the frequency of use of the BCELAC Guide and teachers' perceptions of the frequency with which their d i s t r i c t provides information and i n - s e r v i c e program support related to the Guide.  The "Survey of Opinion" section of  the questionnaire examined teachers' attitudes toward the BCELAC Guide, teachers' perceptions of the role of textbooks in determining their language arts program, teachers'  attitudes  toward d i s t r i c t i n - s e r v i c e program support related to the Guide, and teachers' attitudes toward the need for additional i n - s e r v i c e program support related to the Guide.  The third part of the  questionnaire gathered background information from each respondent. After a lengthy process of refinement, including a p i l o t study, the f i n a l questionnaire was distributed to 202 teachers in three Lower Mainland school d i s t r i c t s .  Six schools were chosen  51 at random from each school d i s t r i c t .  A total of 115 questionnaires  were returned. In the a n a l y s i s , the data for question one were obtained by tabulating the responses to items one through nine on the "Survey of Use".  The data for the second question were obtained  by tabulating the responses to items one through f o u r , and seven through nine, on the "Survey of Opinion" while the responses to items f i v e and six on the "Survey of Opinion" were tabulated to provide the data for question three.  Question four was  examined through the responses to items ten through thirteen on the "Survey of Use" and items ten through thirteen on the "Survey of Opinion".  The data for question five were obtained by calculating  three scores for each questionnaire.  Values of four, three,  two,  one, and zero were assigned to strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, and strongly disagree, r e s p e c t i v e l y .  The same values  were assigned to constantly, frequently, o c c a s i o n a l l y , seldom, and never, respectively.  A score for "Teacher Use of the BCELAC  Guide" was obtained by tabulating the scores for items one through nine on the "Survey of Use".  A score for "Teacher  Attitude Toward the BCELAC Guide" was obtained by tabulating  the  scores for items one through nine on the "Survey of Opinions".  The scores for items ten through thirteen on the "Survey of Use" and items ten through twelve on the "Survey of Opinion" were tabulated to provide a total score for teachers' perceptions of d i s t r i c t support.  The scores for each of the three areas  were then ranked, assigning the rank of one to the highest score in each area.  These ranks were used to compute the  Spearman rank order Correlation (rho)  for "Perceived D i s t r i c t  Support and Teacher Use", and for "Perceived D i s t r i c t Support and Teacher Opinion".  Cone!usions Despite the limitations of the questionnaire, i t was deemed to be the most practical method of data-gathering for this study. The return rate of 56.9 percent was s l i g h t l y higher than the expected rate of 50 to 55 percent. In answer to question one, i t would appear that the BCELAC Guide is used occasionally at the most by the majority teachers surveyed.  of  Long term planning was the only area in which  there was a s i g n i f i c a n t indication of more than occasional use. The results suggest that the BCELAC Guide does not play a major role in the day-to-day, short term planning of the majority teachers surveyed.  of  Rather, i t would appear that the Guide is  something that teachers refer to occasionally during the year.  In answer to question two, at least 50 percent of the teachers surveyed indicated a favourable attitude tov/ard the general value of the BCELAC Guide.  However, the results also indicated that just  under one-half of the teachers surveyed do not necessarily view the Guide as the major reference source in the planning of t h e i r language arts program.  This would suggest that simply valuing  the Guide does not imply that i t  is used extensively.  There appeared to be no clear consensus in answer to question three regarding teachers' perceptions of the role of textbooks in determining the language arts program.  There was a f a i r l y  even s p l i t in opinion regarding the question of whether the Guide or the textbook played the more important role in the planning of the language arts program.  However, there was  stronger support for the Guide as providing the basic framework, of the language arts program rather than the textbook.  The  results suggest that the teachers surveyed do not agree on what role textbooks play in determining the language arts program. In answer to question four, i t appeared that the teachers surveyed perceive their d i s t r i c t s as providing only occasional information related to the BCELAC Guide.  It  is not surprising  therefore, that the teachers were somewhat ambivalent in their attitude toward the i n - s e r v i c e program support that was provided.  However, there was generally strong agreement that more i n - s e r v i c e support could be provided in the areas s p e c i f i e d . There was a marked difference in the amount of release time reported by the teachers surveyed when the separate d i s t r i c t s were examined.  The teachers in D i s t r i c t C reported receiving  release time with greater frequency than was reported by teachers in D i s t r i c t s A or B. The data related to question f i v e indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t correlation between teachers' attitude toward, and use o f , BCELAC Guide, and their perceptions of d i s t r i c t support.  the The  results suggested that where teachers perceive strong d i s t r i c t support, they have more positive attitudes and they make greater use of  toward the Guide  it.  The data from the section on "Background Information"  showed  a substantially even d i s t r i b u t i o n among the d i s t r i c t s in the number of primary and intermediate  teachers; in the number of  years teaching experience; and in educational background. The data related to teachers' attitudes  toward the BCELAC  Guide and their use of the Guide showed there to be a positive correlation between these two areas.  This suggests that teachers  with a positive attitude toward the Guide a r e , on balance, more l i k e l y to make greater use of  it.  55  A few of the additional comments written on the questionnaires indicated that some of the teachers do not feel the need to make extensive use of the BCELAC Guide.  The comments also indicated  that teachers in D i s t r i c t C are aware of the materials developed by t h e i r own d i s t r i c t .  5.3  Recommendations Presuming that the purpose of BCELAC Guide continues to be that of identifying "the basic aims of the Elementary Language Arts Program in B r i t i s h Columbia" (Ministry of Education, 1978, p. 9) and that local d i s t r i c t s continue to be charged with the role of helping teachers implement the Guide, the results of this study suggest the following recommendations: 1.  There should be a greater emphasis on providing teachers with a clearer understanding of the changes and expectations involved with the new BCELAC Guide.  This recommendation is  in accord with the views of Tuinman and Kendall (1980) who recommended ensuring that a l l teachers have the opportunity to participate in orientation sessions designed to increase the understanding and use of curriculum guides (p.61) and also the findings of the Rand Study (McLaughlin,  1976)  which suggested the need for a s h i f t in focus from the delivery system to the d e l i v e r e r .  This attempt to c l a r i f y the purpose  of the Guide could mean not only the provision of  orientation  sessions but also the inclusion of c l a r i f y i n g statements by  56 the developing committee.  These statements would outline  the beliefs upon which the Guide is based, the way(s) in which i t d i f f e r s from the previous guide, and what implementation of the Guide involves.  There should also  be an attempt made to help teachers understand the whole process of  2.  implementation.  The local development of materials related to the BCELAC Guide should be encouraged.  This recommendation is in  accord with the findings of the Rand Study (Berman and McLaughlin, 1976)  that the development of local  is important in bringing about teacher change.  materials This  material could be developed as 'a supplement to the Guide and would provide opportunities for teacher  participation  at the local l e v e l .  3.  There should be an increase in f i n a n c i a l support to provide more release time for local teachers to receive  information  related to the BCELAC Guide and to work in areas related to the implementation of the Guide.  This release time would  also provide for increased teacher interaction which was found to be an important factor in successful implementation by the Rand Study (Bermand and McLaughlin, 1976) Heusner (1964).  and by  Providing release time during the school day  would increase the likelihood of reaching teachers who do not have the time or energy to attend after school sessions.  The teachers surveyed in this study indicated that they f e l t a need for additional BCELAC Guide.  i n - s e r v i c e support related to the  D i s t r i c t s should re-evaluate their  present  program support keeping in mind the findings of the Rand Study (Berman and McLaughlin, 1976)  that teachers prefer  very concrete "how-to-do-it" workshops rather than the general l e c t u r e , inspirational  format.  There should be a longer time l i n e for the  implementation  of a new curriculum - especially in the area of i n - s e r v i c e programs.  There should also be fewer introductions of  new curriculum into the elementary school within a f i v e year time span.  With numerous guidelines etc.  implemented at any given time, i t is d i f f i c u l t regular d i s t r i c t administrators to handle a l l effectively.  to be for the the areas  This is further reason for providing  classroom teachers with release time so that they can help plan for ongoing i n - s e r v i c e support.  58 6.  Further research should be conducted to determine i f the format of the BCELAC Guide, or the  either  implementation  strategies used, are responsible for the low level of use of the Guide. 5.4  Discussion and  Implications  The findings of this study as well as other studies (Goodlad et a l . , 1970; Jackson & Bedford, 1965; T a y l o r , Tuinman & Kendall, 1980)  1970;  indicate that curriculum guides are not  widely used or recognized as important by teachers.  Based on  these f i n d i n g s , there would appear to be grounds to question the whole concept of curriculum guides developed by central at the state or provincial l e v e l .  Is the money spent on  developing and implementing curriculum guides j u s t i f i e d impact they have in the classroom?  authorities  If  by the  further research indicates  that neither the format of the BCELAC Guide, nor the  implementation  strategies used, are responsible for the low level of use, then perhaps the role of this curriculum guide should be re-examined. There are several areas that should be considered. 1.  If  teachers are not using the BCELAC Guide extensively,  the basis for their program is unclear and may l i e  then  elsewhere.  Further studies focusing on this problem might come up with a more acceptable common source which could be used as a framework for the language arts program.  59 2.  The findings of the Rand Study (McLaughlin & Marsh,  1978)  point to the need for teachers and administrative s t a f f  to  "reinvent the wheel" each time an innovation is introduced to the schools (p. 87).  This reinvention helps those  involved to understand the innovation and adjust i t needs.  to local  With this in mind, perhaps there should be only a  skeleton outline stating the expected outcomes for the language a r t s .  This outline could then be augmented at  the d i s t r i c t level allowing the teachers to more f u l l y develop the program.  This would provide local teachers with the  opportunity to help develop a program which would s u i t the local needs and which teachers could more readily with.  identify  The comments by some of the teachers surveyed in  D i s t r i c t C, for example, would seem to indicate that they are more comfortable using the language arts  materials  produced by their own d i s t r u c t .  3.  Recent l i t e r a t u r e on implementation indicates that this important area of curriculum is often neglected, or handled as short term projects instead of an ongoing process.  There  needs to be a great deal more time and money devoted to the study of this area and to helping teachers and administrators gain a better understanding of the whole process.  Whatever  form curriculum guides might take, there w i l l s t i l l be the job of implementation.  Until teachers and administrators  more f u l l y understand this complex and d i f f i c u l t process, curriculum innovations could continue f a i l i n g to gain widespread acceptance by teachers.  61  Bibliography  62  Bibliography Ben-Peretz, M., & Kremer, L. Curriculum implementation and the nature of curriculum materials. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1979, Y\_ (3), 247-255. Berman, P . , & McLaughlin, M.W. Implementation of educational The Educational Forum, 1976, 40 (3), 345-370.  innovation.  Boyd, W.L. The changing p o l i t i c s of curriculum policy-making for American schools. Review of Educational Research, 1978, 48 (4), 628. Clark, C , & Yinger, R . J . Research on teacher thinking. Inquiry, 1977, 7 (4), 279-304.  Curriculum  Edwards, A . L . Techniques of attitude scale construction. Appleton-Century-Crofts, I n c . , 1957.  New York:  577-  Epstein, I., & T r i p o d i , T. Research techniques for program planning, monitoring, and evaluation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977. Flanders, T. The professional development of teachers: A summary report. B . C . T . F . Newsletter, V o l . 20, Special E d i t i o n , December 1980. Foshay, A.W., & B e i l i n , . L . A . Curriculum. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 1969.  In R.L. Ebel ( E d . ) , Toronto: Col 1ier-MacMi1lan  Ltd.  F u l l a n , M. Conceptualizing problems of curriculum implementation. Paper presented at the Symposium on Curriculum Inquiry in Canada, V i c t o r i a , February 1979. F u l l a n , M. The meaning of educational change (Chapter 3). preparation, 1980. (a)  Book in  F u l l a n , M. Evaluation and Implementation. In A. Lewy ( E d . ) , r o l e s . New York: Gordon Breach Publications, 1980. (b) F u l l a n , M., & Park, P. Curriculum implementation: Ministry of Education, Toronto, Ontario, 1981.  Evaluation  A resource booklet.  F u l l a n , M., & Pomfret, A. Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 1977, 47 (2), 335-397. \  63  Goodlad, J . I . , K l e i n , M.F. & Associates. Behind the classroom door. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1970. Gross, N., Giacquinta, J . B . , & Bernstein, M. innovations. New York: Basic Books Inc.,  Implementing organizational 1971.  H a l l , G.E. The study of individual teacher and professor concerns about innovations. Journal of Teacher Education, 1976, 2_7 (1), 22-23. H a l l , G . E . , Loucks, S . F . , Rutherford, W.L., & Newlove, B.W. Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 1975, 2_6 (1 ), 52-56. Heusner, H.C. A study to selected factors d i s s e r t a t i o n , Wayne International, 1964,  of the u t i l i z a t i o n of curriculum guides as related in their planning and construction (Doctoral State University, 1963). Dissertation Abstracts 25, 322. (University Microfilms No. 64.-5101).  Hughes, A . S . , & Keith, J . J . degree of implementation. (2), 43-51.  Teacher perceptions of an innovation and Canadian Journal of Education, 1980, 5_  Jackson, P.W., & B e l f o r d , E. Educational objectives and the joys of teaching. The School Review, 1965, 73 (3) 267-91. Johansen, J . An investigation of the relationship between teachers' perceptions of authoritative influences in local curriculum decision-making and curriculum implementation (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Northwestern University, 1965). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1965, 26, 3127. (University Microfilms, 65-12 109). Kardas, B . J . , & Talmage, H. Characteristics of teacher participation in curriculum planning and reported acts of implementation. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Minneapolis, March 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 037 382). K i l b e r t , G.H. Determinants of implementation of a competency-based business education curriculum (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1981, £!_ (07), 2913-A. Langenbach, M. Development of an"instrument to measure teachers' attitudes toward curriculum use and planning. Journal of Educational Research, 1972, 6J5 (1 ), 35-38.  64  Leithwood, K . A . , & Montgomery, D.J. Assumptions and uses of a procedure for assessing program implementation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, A p r i l , 1980. L o r t i e , D.C. Schoolteacher - a sociological study. University of Chicago Press, 1975.  Chicago:  The  McLaughlin, M.W. Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. Teachers College Record, 1976, 77_ (3), 339-351. McLaughlin, M.W., & Marsh, D.D. Staff development and school change. Teachers College Record, 1978, 80 (1), 69-94. McNeil, J . D .  Curriculum.  Boston:  Little,  Brown and Company, 1977.  Mahan, J . M. Frank observations on innovations in elementary Interchange, 1972, 3 (2-3), 144-160.  schools.  Ministry of Education, B r i t i s h Columbia. Curriculum Planning V i c t o r i a , B . C . : Curriculum Development Branch, 1979.  1979.  Ministry of Education, B r i t i s h Columbia. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. V i c t o r i a , B . C . : Curriculum Development Branch, 1978. Myers, C.B. "Diffusion" does not equal "instructional change". Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council for the Social Studies, C i n c i n n a t i , Ohio, November 25, 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 156 546). National  Education Association.  Research B u l l e t i n , 1930, £3 (1),  Nault, W.H. Can curriculum guides be effective? Leadership, 1955, ]Z (7), 410-44.  5-8.  Educational  Oppenheim, A.N. Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York: Basic Books, 1966. Parten, M. Surveys, p o l l s , and samples: New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950.  Practical  procedures.  Patterson, J . L . , & Czajkowski, T . J . Implementation: Neglected phase in curriculum change. Educational Leadership, 1979, 37_ (3), 204-206. Pedersen, K . G . , & Fleming, T. Elementary education: The i l l u s i o n of change. Elementary School Journal, 1977, 77 (3), 221-230.  65  Pedersen, P . L . , Marx, R.W., & Clark, C M . Teacher planning, teacher behaviour, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 1 9 7 8 , 1 5 ( 3 ) , 4 1 7 - 4 3 2 . Popham, W.J. 1969,  39  Curriculum materials. (3),  Review of Educational Research.  319-338.  P r a t t , D. Curriculum Design and Development. Javanovich, 1 9 8 0 .  New York:  Harcourt Brace  P r a t t , H., Melle, M., Metzdorf, J . , & Loucks, S. The design and u t i l i z a t i o n of a concerns based s t a f f development program for implementing a revised science curriculum in eighty elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Boston, April 1 9 8 0 . R o b i t a i l l e , D.F. Intention, implementation, r e a l i z a t i o n : The impact of curriculum reform in mathematics. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1 9 8 0 , 12. (4), 2 9 9 - 3 0 6 . Romey, W.D. 54  (6),  The curriculum-proof teacher.  Phi Delta Kappan. 1 9 7 3 ,  407-408.  Sabar, N., & S h i f r i r i , N. The teacher as curriculum developer: A model for i n - s e r v i c e training of teachers in I s r a e l . Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1 9 8 0 , U ( 3 ) , 2 0 7 - 2 1 7 . Sarason, S.B. The culture of the school and the problems of change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1 9 7 1 . Shipman, M.D.  Inside a curriculum project.  London:  Methuen & Company,  1974.  Smith, M.P. Studies,  1971,  Curriculum change at the local l e v e l .  Sudman, S.  Applied sampling.  3  (2),  Journal of Curriculum  158-162.  New York:  Academic Press, 1 9 7 6 .  Talmage, H. The textbook as arbiter of curriculum and i n s t r u c t i o n . Elementary School Journal, 1 9 7 2 , 7J3 (1 ) , 2 0 - 2 5 . Taylor, P.H. How teachers plan their courses. London: National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, 1 9 7 0 . Tuinman, J . , & Kendall, J . R . The B.C. reading assessment: Summary report. Prepared for Learning Assessment Branch, Ministry of Education, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 8 0 .  66 W e i s s , . J . The r e a l i t i e s of curriculum work: The classroom l e v e l . In A.W. Foshay ( E d . ) , ..:Considered action for curriculum improvement. V i r g i n i a : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1980. Werner, W. Guide!ines for planning program imp!ementation. Prepared for Program Implementation Services, Ministry of Education, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1980. Wilson, V . L . An investigation of teachers' persistence in implementing NSF-supported science c u r r i c u l a . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1980, 17_ (3), 257-261. Wise, R.I. The use of objectives in curriculum planning. Theory Network, 1976, 5_ (4), 280-289. Zahorik, J . A . Teachers' planning models. 1975, 33 (2), 134-139.  Educational  Curriculum  Leadership,  Appendices  Appendix A PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE  69 SURVEY OF USE For the f o l l o w i n g statements, responses.  please c i r c l e one o f the f i v e C (Constantly) F (Frequently) 0 (Occasionally) S (Seldom) N (Never)  1.  I have c o n s u l t e d the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  C  F  0  S  N  2.  I spend time f a m i l i a r i z i n g myself w i t h the c o n t e n t o f the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  C  F  0  S  N  3.  D u r i n g the p a s t year I made use o f the B.C. Elementary Language Arts C u r r i c u lum .Guide.  C  F  0  S f'J  k-.  D u r i n g the p a s t month I made use o f the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  C  F  0  S  N  5.  I use the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide to a s s i s t i n the l o n g term p l a n n i n g o f my language a r t s program.  C  F  0  S  N  6.  I use the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s Curriculum.Guide to a s s i s t i n the s h o r t term p l a n n i n g o f my language a r t s program.  C  F  0  S  N  7.  I use the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide to remind me which s k i l l s must be taught.  C  F  0  S  N  8.  I use the t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s suggested i n the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  C  F  0  S  N  9.  I use the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide to help a s s e s s my p r e s e n t language a r t s program.  C  F  0  S  N  p.ly D i s t r i c t p r o v i d e s me w i t h informat i o n r e g a r d i n g the c o n t e n t o f the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  C  F  0  S  N  10.  70 11.  ?.'y D i s t r i c t p r o v i d e s me with informat i o n r e g a r d i n g the use o f the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  C  F  0  S  N  12..  Reference i s made to the B.C. Elemen. t a r y Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide d u r i n g D i s t r i c t workshops r e l a t e d to language a r t s .  C  F  0  S  N  71  SURVEY 0 ? OPINIONS For the  each o f the f o l l o w i n g statements, p l e a s e c i r c l e one of f i v e responses. SA ( S t r o n g l y Agree) A (Agree) U (Uncertain) D (Disagree) SD (Strongly Disagree)  1.  The B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide i s important to me.  SA  A  U  D  2.  I b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s important f o r me t o r e f e r f r e q u e n t l y to the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  SA  A  U  D 'SD  I see the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide as the major determiner o f my language a r t s program.  SA  A  U  D  SD  k.  I see the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide as the prime r e f e r e n c e source f o r my language a r t s program.  SA  A  U  D  SD  5.  I see the p r e s c r i b e d t e x t s as the major determiner o f my language a r t s program.  SA  A  U  .D  SD  6.  I see the p r e s c r i b e d t e x t s as the prime r e f e r e n c e source f o r my language a r t s program.  SA  A  U  D  SD  7.  I f i n d the new B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide an improvement over the p r e v i o u s one.  SA  A  U  D  SD  8.  I f e e l t h a t I can do a good j o b o f t e a c h i n g language a r t s w i t h o u t u s i n g the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  SA  A  U  D  SD  9.  I am s a t i s f i e d w i t h the format o f the p r e s e n t B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  SA  A  U  D  SD  3. '  SD  72 10.  U s e f u l a s p e c t s o f the B.C. E l e m e n t a r y Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide i n c l u d e : a) the non-graded a p p r o a c h b) t h e t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s c ) the g o a l s d) t h e l e a r n i n g o u t c o m e s e) the communication s k i l l s c h a r t f) other (specify)  11.  I f e e l t h a t t h e r e i s a need f o r a d i f f e r e n t format f o r the B.C. E l e m e n t a r y Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide .  12  A more u s e f u l f o r m a t w o u l d i n c l u d e : a) a c l e a r e r s t a t e m e n t o f s c o p e and sequence b) more i d e a s f o r day t o day activities c ) s u g g e s t i o n s f o r m o d i f i e d and enrichment programs. d) s u g g e s t i o n s f o r e v a l u a t i o n and record keeping e) i d e a s f o r i n t e g r a t i o n w i t h other subjects f) other (specify)  SA SA SA SA SA SA  A A A A A A  U U  u u u u  D D D D D D  SD SD SD SD SD SD  SA  A  u  D  SD  SA  A  u  D  SD  SA  A  u  D  SD  SA  A  u  D  SD  SA  A  u  D  SD  SA  A  u  D  SD  SA  A  u.  D  SD  13.  In my o p i n i o n , my D i s t r i c t has done an a d e q u a t e j o b o f f a m i l i a r i z i n g me w i t h t h e B.C. Elementa.ry Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  SA  A  u  D  SD  Ik.  In my o p i n i o n , my D i s t r i c t c o u l d do more t o f a m i l i a r i z e me w i t h t h e B . C . E l e m e n t a r y Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  SA  A  U.  D  SD  15.  The D i s t r i c t c o u l d p r o v i d e more s u p p o r t i n the a r e a s o f : ' a) workshops d e a l i n g w i t h s p e c i f i c a r e a s o f t h e B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide b) i n d i v i d u a l c o n s u l t a t u o n s f o r teachers c) small meeting f o r s h a r i n g ideas with peers d) h a n d s - o n work s e s s i o n s e) p r i n t e d r e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l f) other (specify)  SA  A  U  D  SD  SA  A  U  D  SD  SA  A  U  D  SD  SA SA SA  A A A  U U U  D D D  SD SD SD  BAC XGR 0 UN D IN FORNATION Grade l e v e l you t e a c h .  '  6-7  Years o f t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e as o f June, 19.81. 1 year or l e s s 2-5 6-10 11-15  years years years  16 y e a r s o r more Formal e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l l e s s than a B.Ed, o r B.A. B.Sd.  or B.A.  B.Ed, o r B.A. p l u s courses  additional  M.Ed, or M.A. M.Ed, o r M.A. p l u s courses  additional  Appendix B PILOT RESULTS  75  Teacher Attitude Toward the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide Item No.  % ' S.A.  '% 'A  '% U  % D  % ' S.D  *1. 2. 3. 4. 7. 8. 9. 10a b c d e 11. 12a b c d e  6.6 0 6.6 0 6.6 20 0 6.6 6.6 20 20 0 13.3 6.6 0 20 0 6.6  46.6 20 13.3 20 60 40 33.3 40 33.3 40 40 33.3 20 26.6 66.6 60 46.6 66.6  33.3 46.6 26.6 6.6 26.6 26.6 40 26.6 53.3 40 40 53.3 40 53.3 26.6 20 40 26.6  6.6 33.3 46.6 60 6.6 6.6 13.3 20 6.6 0 0 13.3 26.6 13.3 0 0 6.6 0  6.6 0 6.6 13.3 0 6.6 13.3 6.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.6 0 6.6 0  *See item one through four and seven through twelve on "Survey of Opinion". (Appendix A) Teacher Attitude Toward Textbooks Item No.  % S.A  % A  % U  *5 6  0 6.6  26.6 53.3  20 6.6  % D 40 26.6  % S. D 13. 3 6. 6  *See items f i v e and six on "Survey of Opinion" (Appendix A)  76 Teacher Use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide.  Item No.  %  %  *1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 13.3 0 6.6 0 0  C  F  %  0 53.3 33.3 46.6 0 33.3 26.6 53.3 13.3 20  %  S  33.3 60 26.6 20 26.6 26.6 13.3 53.3 26.6  %  N  13.3 6.6 26.6 80 26.6 46.6 26.6 33.3 53.3  *See items one through nine on "Survey of Use". (Appendix A) Teacher Perceptions of the Frequency With Which Their D i s t r i c t Provides Information and In-Service Programs Related to the B. C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. Item No.  %  *10 11. 12.  0 0 6.6  C  % F  6.6 6.6 26.6  %  0 26.6 6.6 6.6  %  %  26.6 33.3 26.6  40 53.3 26.6  S  N  *See items ten through twelve on "Survey of Use". (Appendix A)  Teacher Attitude Toward D i s t r i c t In-Service Program Support Related to the B. C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. Item No. *13. 14. 15.a b c d e  % S.A. 6.6 6.6 13.3 6.6 13.3 20 20  % A 33.3 26.6 53.3 33.3 33.3 60 33.3  % U  % D  20 33.3 26.6 40 26.6 13.3 20  40 33.3 6.6 20 20 6.6 26.6  % S.D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  Appendix C COVERING LETTER AND FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE  80 SURVEY OF USE For the f o l l o w i n g statements, responses.  p l e a s e c i r c l e one o f the f i v e C (Constantly) F (Frequently) 0 (Occasionally) S (Seldom) N (Never)  1.  I c o n s u l t the B.C. Elementary A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  Language  C  F  0  S  N  2.  I spend time f a m i l i a r i z i n g myself with the content o f the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  C  F  0  S  N  3.  D u r i n g the past year I made use o f the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u lum Guide.  C  F  0  S  N  4  D u r i n g the p a s t month I made use o f the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  C  F  0  S  N  5.  I use the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide to a s s i s t i n the l o n g term p l a n n i n g o f my language a r t s program,  C  F  0  S  N  6.  I use the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide to a s s i s t i n the s h o r t term p l a n n i n g o f my language a r t s program.  C  F  0  S  N  7.  I use the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide t o remind me which s k i l l s must be taught,  C  F  0  S  N  8.  I use the t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s suggested i n the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide,  C  F  0  S  N  9.  I use the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide to help assess my present language a r t s program.  C  F  0  S  N  My D i s t r i c t p r o v i d e s me w i t h informat i o n r e g a r d i n g the content o f the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  C  F  0  S  N  10.  81  11.  My D i s t r i c t p r o v i d e s me w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e use o f t h e B.C. E l e m e n t a r y Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  C  F  0  S  N  12.  My D i s t r i c t p r o v i d e s me w i t h r e l e a s e t i m e t o work on a r e a s r e l a t e d t o t h e B.C. E l e m e n t a r y Language A r t s C u r r i culum Guide.  C  F  0  S  N  13.  R e f e r e n c e i s made t o t h e B.C. E l e m e n t a r y Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide d u r i n g D i s t r i c t workshops r e l a t e d t o language a r t s .  C  F  0  S  N  82 SURVEY OF OPINIONS For each o f the f o l l o w i n g statements, please c i r c l e one o f the f i v e responses. SA ( S t r o n g l y Agree) A (Agree) U (Uncertain) D (Disagree) SD (Strongly Disagree) 1.  I f e e l t h a t i t i s important f o r me to be f a m i l i a r w i t h the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  SA  A  U  D  SD  2.  I f e e l t h a t I need to be f a m i l i a r w i t h the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide i n order to do a good job o f t e a c h i n g the language a r t s .  SA  A  U  D  SD  3.  I see the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide as the major r e f e r e n c e source i n the p l a n n i n g o f my language a r t s program.  SA  A  U  D  SD  k.  I see the goals o f the B.C. Element a r y Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide as p r o v i d i n g the framework o f my language a r t s program.  SA  A  U  D  SD  5.  I see the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide as p l a y i n g a more important r o l e i n my p l a n n i n g o f the language a r t s than the p r e s c r i b e d t e x t books.  SA  A  U  D  SD  6.  I see the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide as p r o v i d i n g more o f the framework o f my language a r t s program than the p r e s c r i b e d t e x t books.  SA  A  U  D  SD  7.  I f i n d the new B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide an improvement over the p r e v i o u s one .  SA  A  U  D  SD  8.  I am s a t i s f i e d w i t h the format o f v the p r e s e n t B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  SA  A  U  D  SD  83 9.  I am q u i t e comfortable u s i n g the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  SA  A  U  D  SD  10.  In my o p i n i o n , my D i s t r i c t has p r o v i d e d adequate i n - s e r v i c e programs to f a m i l i a r i z e me w i t h the content o f the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  SA  A  U  D  SD  11.  In my o p i n i o n , my D i s t r i c t has p r o v i d e d adequate i n - s e r v i c e programs to f a m i l i a r i z e me w i t h the intended use o f the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  SA  A  U  D  SD  12.  In my o p i n i o n , my D i s t r i c t has p r o v i d e d me w i t h adequate i n - s e r v i c e support f o r the implementation o f the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide.  SA  A  U  D  SD  13.  My D i s t r i c t c o u l d provide me w i t h more support i n the areas o f : a) workshops d e a l i n g w i t h s p e c i SA f i c areas o f the B.C. Element a r y Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide . b) s m a l l meetings f o r s h a r i n g SA i d e a s r e l a t e d to the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide. c) make-and-take s e s s i o n s f o r SA developing a d d i t i o n a l materials. r e l a t e d to the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide. d) s u g g e s t i o n s f o r u s i n g the B.C. SA Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i culum Guide as a resource i n my p l a n n i n g o f the language - • arts.  A  U  D  SD  A  U  D  SD  A  U  D  SD  A  U  D  SD  84 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.  Grade l e v e l you teach  (Please check one)  K-3 k-5  6-7 2.  Years o f t e a c h i n g experience  ______ as o f June, 1981.  1 year or l e s s 2-5 y e a r s 6-10 y e a r s 11-15  years  16 y e a r s or more 3.  Formal e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l l e s s than a B.Ed, or B.A. B.Ed,  or B.A.  B.Ed,  or B.A, p l u s a d d i t i o n a l  courses M.Ed,.or M.A. M.Ed, or M.A. p l u s a d d i t i o n a l courses ADDITIONAL COMMENTS  

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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055687/manifest

Comment

Related Items