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 Br i t ish 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 this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1981 ( £ ) Kathryn Ann Coles In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of RAacn{(CiC\  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 r>F-fi 17/19) ABSTRACT This study used a questionnaire to examine f ive 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 their language arts program? • 4. What are teachers' perceptions of the role played by their d is t r i c t in providing information and in-service program support related to the B. C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide? 5. What relationship exists between teachers' attitude toward, and use of , 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 terature indicated that curriculum guides have not played a major role in influencing teachers' language arts programs. The l i terature 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 ive-point , Likert-type scale to examine various areas related to the f ive research questions. The third part gathered background information from each respondent. Six elementary schools were chosen at random from each of three Lower Mainland school d is t r ic ts and questionnaires were distributed to the teachers in these 18 schools. Of the 202 questionnaires distr ibuted, 115 of these were returned, resulting in a return rate of 56.9 percent. i i i 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 attitude. There was no clear concensus regard-ing the role of textbooks in determining the language arts program. The data related to d is t r i c t provision of in-service 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 in-service support could be provided in the areas specif ied. A positive correlation was found between teachers' attitude toward, and use of , the BCELAC Guide and their perceptions of d is t r i c t support. Recommendations included a greater emphasis on the whole implementa-tion 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 direct ly involved in the implementation and possibly the development process and that there be more release time for teachers to develop local materials. Further recommendations included additional research to seek possible explanations for the low level of use of the Guide. F ina l ly , the whole concept underlying the present development of provincial curriculum guides was questioned and several points discussed. i v Table of Contents Abstract i i L is t of Tables vi Acknowledgements v i i Chapter 1. THE PROBLEM 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Rationale for the Study 1 1.3 Purpose of the Study 3 1.4 Definition of Terms 4 1.5 Limitations of the Study 5 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Overview 6 2.2 The Questionnaire as a Research Tool 6 2.3 The Roles of Curriculum Guides and Textbooks . 8 2.4 The Roles of Teachers and Dist r ic t Administrators in the Implementation Process . 12 2.5 Summary 19 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Organization of the Chapter 20 3.2 Population 20 3.3 Development of the Questionnaire 21 3.4 Procedures 25 3.5 Method of Analysis 26 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 4.1 Organization of the Chapter 29 4.2 Final Questionnaire Return Rate 29 4.3 Analysis for Question One 30 4.4 Analysis for Question Two 32 4.5 Analysis for Question Three 34 4.6 Analysis for Question Four 36 4.7 Analysis for Question Five 42 4.8 Additional Findings 46 V 5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Summary 49 5.2 C o n c l u s i o n s 52 5.3 Recommendations 55 5.4 D i s c u s s i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s 58 B i b l i o g r a p h y 61 Appendices A PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE 67 B PILOT RESULTS 74 C COVERING LETTER AND FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE . . 78 vi L ist of Tables TABLE PAGE 1. Final Questionnaire Return Distribution . . . . . . . . 29 2. Teacher Use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide 31 3. Teacher Attitude Toward the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide 33 4. Teacher Perceptions of the Role of Textbooks in Determining the Language Arts Program 35 5. Teacher Perceptions of the Frequency with which Their D ist r ic t Provides Information and In-Service Program Support Related to the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide 37 6. Teacher Attitude Toward Dist r ic t In-Service Program Support Related to the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide 39 7. Teacher Attitude Toward Additional D is t r ic t In- y Service Program Support Related to the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide 40 8. Rank Order Correlations for Perceived Dist r ic t Support and Teacher Attitude Toward the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide, and for Perceived Dist r ic t Support and Teacher Use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide 43 9. Individual Dist r ic t Rank Order Correlations for Perceived Dist r ic t Support and Teacher Attitude Toward the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide, and for Perceived Distr ic t Support and Teacher Use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide 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 v i i Acknowledgement A special thanks to my mother and the rest of my family and friends for their encouragement and support. I would also l ike to thank Dr. Roland Gray for his time, patience, and helpful suggestions and Dr. Donald Al l ison for his help with the questionnaire design and analysis. Last ly, my thanks to those who took the time to respond to the questionnaire, for without their help this study could not have been completed. 1 Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM 1.1 Introduction The development of provincial curriculum guides for elementary schools involves a great deal of time and money. While the Bri t ish Columbia Department of Education has control over the development and distr ibution of these guides, the implementation of them is lef t up to the local school d i s t r i c t and i ts teachers. The view has been expressed by some teachers that these guides are placed in the schools and then forgotten. It was fe l t that a survey of elementary teachers would provide some indication of the extent to which the Bri t ish Columbia Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide (BCELAC Guide) is being used by teachers, what their attitude is toward this Guide, and what role they perceive their d is t r i c t to have played in the implementation process. 1.2 Rationale for the Study The Bri t ish 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 is 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 terature in the area of curriculum studies has indicated that there is often a discrepancy between what the developers of a curriculum envision, and what actually occurs at the classroom level . (Goodlad, Klein & Associates, 1970; Ha l l , 1975; Pratt, 1930). 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. (Goodlad, et a l . , 1970). It is often assumed that a change wil 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 signif icant questions or problems, the assumption is made that the change has taken place (Pratt, Melle, & Metzdorf, 1980, p. 11). It was fe l t that this assumption should be tested by examining just how much use teachers do make of their curriculum guides, in part icular , the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. The B.C. Ministry of Education (1979), has pointed out the need for appropriate in-service 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 is 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 is 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 situation relat ive 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 structured approach. Through the use of a questionnaire, information related to f ive basic research questions was sought. These f ive 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 is 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 of , 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 5 a n ( j bel iefs) in order to achieve certain desired student learning outcomes (Fullan & Park, 1981, p. 10). Until recently, implementation has been viewed as a separate process from those of planning, adoption, and evaluation. Attitude: Attitude refers to the positive or negative feelings associated with an object. For the purposes of this study, the object was the BCELAC Guide and the degree of attitude was measured through the use of a special ly developed attitude scale. Curriculum Guide: In B .C . , curriculum guides are developed at the Provincial level . These guides outline what is to be taught in each subject area at the various levels. Curriculum guides are unlike teacher manuals which are usually produced by publishers to accompany texts or learning materials. D ist r ic t Administrators: 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 Limitations of the Study In interpreting the results of this study, certain factors must be taken into consideration. F i r s t , the v a l i d i t y of the results i s limited to the population used in this study and may or may not be tr u l y representative of B.C. elementary language arts teachers in general. Secondly, the use of a questionnaire to gather data has li m i t a t i o n s . Some of these limitations are discussed in Chapter Two. Also, the decision to keep the responses anonymous meant that non-responders could not be i d e n t i f i e d for any follow-up studies. Chapter 2 6 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Overview The review of l i terature is divided into three main parts in this chapter. In Section 2.2 the use of the questionnaire as a research tool is discussed. Empirical studies and related l i terature 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 terature 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 brief summary. 2.2 The Questionnaire as a Research Tool Questionnaires have been used in the f i e ld of education for over a century. One of the ear l iest questionnaires was a ten page "circular" sent to Massachusetts' teachers by Horace Mann in 1847 (NEA Research Bul le t in , 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 is no opportunity for the respondent to have a statement or question c la r i f i ed 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 ci te 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 investigation, 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 fe 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 is easily fac i l i ta ted through the use of a Likert-type scale. This type of scale has been used to measure the intensity of attitude or opinion associated with a psychological object or construct, and/or socio logica l , academic, and professional issues. It is easily 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 respondent1 degree of agreement or disagreement. Also, i ts 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 zed 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 va l id i ty since at the present time, there is no sure way of determining the val id i ty of an attitude scale (Oppenheim, 1966, p.122). The Roles of Curriculum Guides and Textbooks His tor ica l ly , 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 ts 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 dist inct ion developed between curriculum and instruction. 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 Bei l in (1969) report that the courses of study developed had relat ively l i t t l e effect on teaching (p. 278). During the late 19501s and the early 1960's, 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 direct ly or indirect ly having an influence on the Canadian school system. More recently, part ia l ly as a result of the "back to the basics" approach, curriculum planning has become more central ized, with committees attempting to outline what they see as the goals and outcomes for each subject area. Leithwood and Montgomery (1980) report; The legis lat ive arm of the education system attempts to capture socia l ly shared images in a form amendable to systematic school intervention. In the Provinces of Canada . . . the product of such image-capturing is usually a curriculum guideline (p.2). The study done by Flanders (1980), examining the professional development act iv i t ies of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, found that "teachers seemed generally unaware of ministry moves toward control in the curriculum area" (p. 13). In fact , 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, Kle in, and Associates (1970) in their survey of American public schools, found that the textbook, as opposed to State guides or local curriculum bul let ins, 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 specif ic" classroom goals were not identi f iable to observers" (p. 98), indicating a lack of central i ty of educational objectives. Clark and Yinger (1977) in their review of research on how teachers think, concluded that teachers rely less on objectives than we had been led to believe. In part icular, the teachers studied did not begin or guide their planning in relation to clearly specified objectives or goals. Rather, teacher planning seems to begin with content to be taught and considerations about, the setting in which teaching wil 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 part icularly 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 al 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 o f f i c i a l s . 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 Br i t ish 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. Robitai l le (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 Dis t r ic t Administrators-in the  Implementation Process It is only within the last ten years that the topic of implementation has become a major focal point. Prior to that, studies in the area of curriculum were mainly interested in the development of curriculum and i ts evaluation. The classroom teacher was seen merely as the tool for putting a curriculum into practice and the emphasis was on what teachers "ought to do". In fact , 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 is 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 envision, and what actually occurs in the classroom (Bergman & McLaughlin, 1976; Myers, 1977; Sabor & S h a f r i r i , 1980). As Goodlad et al (1970) put i t ; 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 ref lects 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 (Hal 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 institutions" (p. 106). However, the majority of the l i terature ci te the root of the problem as the fai lure to adequately attend to any one of a number of factors affecting the implementation of an innovation. 14 One important factor is 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 is b i t ter ly resented...There is 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 l ikelihood 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 degree • of implementation. 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 ab i l i ty 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 is t r i c t in improving teacher c la r i ty of the goals of an innovation. Ben-Peretz and Kremer (1979), in their study of pre-implementation training courses, found that during in-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 ts major characteristics (p. 250). As a resul 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 their everyday repertoire and are not clearly 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 speci f ic i ty of goals had a major effect on implementation. The more specif ic the teachers fe 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, . . .are related to the successful implementation of educational innovations (p. 49). Another area cited in the l i terature as being important for providing better teacher understanding of an innovation and higher motivation as wel l , is teacher participation in day-to-day decision-making as an innovation is implemented (Kardas & Talmage, 1970; Langenbach, 1972; McLaughlin, 1976). However, in discussing the l i terature on teacher part ic ipat ion, Fullan and Pomfret (1977), point out that; The best research on implementation that we could find te l ls us very l i t t l e about one of the most theoretically prominent independent variables rj iarticipationjin the innovation l i terature (p. 376). Two other important areas of d i s t r i c t responsibi l i ty are the provision of in-service t ra in ing, and mechanisms for teacher feedback. Berman and McLaughlin, (1976), in a review of the Rand Study, report that the interaction of staff training and frequent meetings were found to be important for successful implementation Fullan and Pomfret (1977) concluded; 17 It appears that intensive in-service training (as dist inct from single workshops or pre-service training) is an important strategy for implementation (p. 373). Willson's (1980) study of teacher persistence found that in-depth study by means of in-service workshops tended to result in greater teacher persistence in the implementation of a new curriculum. Heusner (1964) reported that increased contact among teachers appeared to influence the ut i l i za t ion of curriculum guide materials. Gross et al (1971) concluded that fa i lure 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 fai lure to implement an innovation. Kilbert (1980) in his study of the implementation of a business education curriculum, found that in-service training, teacher participation in planning, and the ava i lab i l i ty of feedback mechanisms for teachers were important factors in the successful implementation of the curriculum. Despite the evidence that d is t r i c t support is important, i t would appear that this support is not always readily avai lable. 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 signif icant impact on their teaching. Goodlad et al (1970) 18 also found a lack of d is t r i c t support for teachers and l i t t l e in the way of pre-service or in-service teacher education. An important aspect of d is t r i c t support is 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 is t r i c t and school p r io r i ty , teachers may not put in the extra effort and emotional investment necessary for successful implementation (p. 361). McLaughlin and Marsh (1978) also report that the attitudes of d is 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 is t r i c t commitment had an effect on teacher persistence in the implementation of a curriculum. The stronger the d is t r i c t commitment appeared to be, the more effort the teachers gave. A large proportion of the l i terature describing the role of the local school d is t r i c t in curriculum implementation, concerns curriculum that is developed by local d i s t r i c t s . In B .C . , curriculum is developed at the Provincial l eve l , but responsibi l i ty for implementation is lef t to the local school d i s t r i c t . Since there is l i t t l e l i terature available that examines the relationship between a provincial ly developed curriculum and i ts 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 is t r i c t l eve l . This has been done by assessing teachers' use of , and attitude toward, the BCELAC Guide and by assessing teachers' perceptions of local d is t r i c t in-service support related to the implementation of the Guide. 2.5 Summary The questionnaire has been used for over 130 years and is a val id 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 too l . A review of l i terature dealing with the roles of curriculum guides and textbooks indicates that h is to r ica 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 terature and empirical studies examining the roles of teachers and d is t r i c t administrators in the implementation process, indicate the importance of both parties in determining the degree of implementation. The teacher is seen as being the f inal determiner of what is actually implemented, while the d is t r i c t is seen as having a great influence on teachers' understanding of an innovation and their attitude toward i t . 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 Br i t ish Columbia. Five Lower Mainland school d is t r ic ts were approached for permission to distribute questionnaires to teachers. Permission was obtained from three of these d i s t r i c t s . One d is 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 is t r ic ts included a socio-economic cross-section that -was essential ly similar. The names of the six schools surveyed in each d is 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 pi lot 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 in-service 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 in-service programs. The third 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 l i terature , 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 levels of intensity. The preliminary questionnaire was subject to several revisions. These.revisions were made on the basis of informal t r i a l s with several teachers and discussions with members of the writer's committee. Statements were added, deleted or reworded and the original scales were changed to f ive-point , Likert-type scales. During the month of March, 1981, the pi lot 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 ize , 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 five 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 easier, items five and s ix , were reworded to have these items focus on the role of the BCELAC Guide as compared to the prescribed texts. Items one through four were reworded to improve c l a r i t y . Item eight was eliminated and replaced with a comment regarding the general feeling of comfort in using the BCELAC Guide. Items eight and nine were interchanged on the f inal questionnaire. Items ten through fourteen were total ly changed. The information obtained on the pi lot study was used to come up with three general statements 23 regarding the provision of d is t r i c t in-service programs. Item fifteen was changed somewhat in the wording and included in the f inal questionnaire as a guide to areas in which teachers fe l t the need for more d is 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 inal 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 is t r i c t in-service implementation programs. Each item had five categories of response, Constantly (C), Frequently (F), Occasionally (0), Seldom (S), and Never (N), as in the following examples. 1. During the past month I made use of C F 0 S N the B.C. Elementary Language Arts . Curriculum Guide. 2. My Distr ic t provides me with inform- C F 0 S N ation regarding the content of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. The f ive responses. C, F, 0, S, and N were weighted four, three, two, one, and zero respectively for 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 texts, and toward d is t r i c t in-service programs designed to aid implementation of the Guide. Each item had five categories of response; Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Uncertain (U), . Disagree (D), and Strongly Disagree (SD), as in the fol lowing examples. 1 . I see the goals of the B.C. Elementary SA A U D SD Language Arts Curriculum Guide as providing the framework of my Language Arts program. 2. In my opin ion, my D i s t r i c t SA A U D SD has provided me with adequate in -serv ice support for the implementation of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. The f i ve responses SA, A, U, D, and SD were weighted four , three, two, one, and zero respect ive ly for tabu la t ion . The l as t sect ion 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 tota l sample and between each d i s t r i c t , in the areas out l ined above. The questionnaire items were spaced out on each page with every response requir ing ei ther a c i r c l e or a check mark. The questionnaire i t s e l f had a tota l of 32 items and was f i ve pages long. The "Survey of Use" sect ion was put f i r s t on hal f the questionnaires while the "Survey of Opinion" was put f i r s t on the other ha l f . It was estimated to take approximately f i ve minutes to complete the quest ionnaire. (See Appendix C for f i na l quest ionnaire). 25 Procedures This section describes the sampling techniques, the distr ibution 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 pi lot study. Corresponding numbers were written on s l ips of paper and the sl ips for each d is 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 distribute the questionnaires at each school. 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 letter (see Appendix C) and an envelope stamped with the writer's name. A sign asking for assistance was lef t for the staffroom. The sign mentioned that the study was being conducted by a ful l - t ime teacher and asked that teachers wi l l ing to take part in the study complete the questionnaire within a week and turn i t in to the school pr incipal . A total of 202 questionnaires were distributed. 26 Permission was obtained from each d is t r i c t to use their inter-school mail to col lect 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 letter 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 All 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 divisions 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 is t r i c t were recorded in separate colours. This provided the results for the total sample and in addit ion, i t allowed comparisons to be made between the d i s t r i c t s . The percentages were also calculated separately for each d i s t r i c t . Comments were noted and some of them are presented in Chapter 4. The information for question five 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 is t r ic t Support. Values of four, three, two, one, and zero were assigned to strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, and strongly disagree, respectively. The same five values were used for constantly, frequently, occasionally, seldom, and never, respectively. 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 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 the score for "Teacher Perceptions of Distr ic t 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 Dis t r ic t Support and Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide", and for "Perceived Distr ic t Support and Teacher Opinion of the BCELAC Guide". Additional findings 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 correlation for "Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide and Teacher Attitude Toward the BCELAC Guide", was also computed. F i n a l l y , some of the comments written on the questionnaires were 1isted. Chapter 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 4.1 Organization of the Chapter This Chapter reports the results obtained from the responses to the final questionnaire and the analyses that were performed on the data. The questionnaire return rate is presented in Section 4.2. In Sections 4.3 through 4.7, the data related to the f ive basic research questions are analyzed and additional findings are discussed in Section 4.8. 4.2 Final Questionnaire Return Rate The return distr ibution of the final questionnaire is presented in Table 1. The total return rate was 56.9 percent. This was s l ight ly higher than the expected return rate of 50 to 55 percent as outlined in Chapter 2. TABLE 1 Final Questionnaire Return Distribution Distr ict 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 is ted . 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 famil iar iz ing themselves with the content of the Guide, the other half were sp l i t between less than occasionally (25.5 percent) and more than occasionally (24.5 percent). Just under half (46.5 percent) of the teachers reported never having used the Guide during the previous month. Overal 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 Item No. A* Constantly B C T A Frequently B C T A Occasionally B C T A Seldom B C T A Never B C T 1. ** .0 0 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. 0 5.6 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 3- 0 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 4- 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 50 46.5 5- 12. 5 8.3 15.8 12 3 37.5 41.6 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 5 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 0 5,5 5.3 3.5 8- 0 0 2.6 9 12.5 19.4 7.9 13 2 45 38.8 44.7 43 0 30 11.1 28 9 32.5 12.5 30.5 15.8 19.3 9. 0 2.7 0 9 12.5 8.3 15.8 12 3 55 44.4 39. 5 46 5 27. 5 22.2 21 1 23.7 5 22.2 23.7 16.7 A* = D i s t r i c t A B = D i s t r i c t B C = D i s t r i c t C T = Total 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) 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 percent), as a reminder of the s k i l l s to be taught (64.9 percent), as a source of teaching strategies (94.8 percent), and to help assess the present program (86.9 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 signif icant 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 toward the BCELAC Guide. 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 Attitude Toward the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide Item Strongly Agre B C e Aaree Uncertain Disagree Strongly Disagree No. A* T A B C T A B C T A B C T A B C T 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 8. 3 5.1 6.1 0 2.7 0 .9 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 = D i s t r i c t B C = D i s t r i c t C T = Total 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 sat isf ied with the format of the present BCELAC Guide (62.7 percent); that i t is an improvement over the previous guide (58.3 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 att itudes. The responses to items five and six were tabulated. This information is presented in Table 4. TABLE 4 Item No. Teacher Perceptions of the Role of Textbooks i n Determining the Language Arts Program Strongly Agree A* B C T Agree A B C T Uncertain A B C T Disagree Strongly Disagree A B C T A B C T 10 5.5 7.7 7.8 22.5 38.8 33.3 31.3 35 11.1 35.9 27.8 30 30.5 23.1 27.8 2.5 13.8 0 5.2 7.5 5.5 12.8 8.7 37.5 41.6 43.6 40.9 22.5 13.8 20.5 19.9 27.5 27.7 23.1 26.1 5 11.1 0 5.2 A* = D i s t r i c t A B = D i s t r i c t B C = D i s t r i c t C T = Total of a l l D i s t r i c t s ** See items five and six 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 percent agree the BCELAC Guide is important; 33 percent disagree, and 27.8 percent are uncertain). 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 percent) reported that they were either uncertain (19.1 percent) about th is ; disagreed (26.1 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 is t r i c t in providing information and in -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 their^distr ict provided information and in-service 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 Item No. 10. ** 11. 12. 13. Teacher Perceptions of the Frequency With Which Their D i s t r i c t  Provides Information and In-Service Program Support  Related to the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide Constantly A* B C T Frequently A B C T Occasionally A B C T Seldom A B C T Never A B C T 5 5.5 5.3 5.3 20 13.8 26.3 20.2 25 19.4 39.5 28.1 42.5 36.1 15.8 31.6 7.5 25 13.2 14.9 2.5 2.7 0 1.8 7.5 8.3 23.7 13.2 30 19.4 42.1 30.7 42.5 22.2 23.7 29.8 17.5 47.2 10.5 24.6 0 0 0 0 5 0 34.2 30.7 5 2.7 21.1 9.6 32.5 19.4 5.3 19.3 57.5 77.7 39.5 57.9 0 0 2.6 .9 22.5 11.1 39.5 24.6 25 44.4 36.8 35.1 40 25 13.2 26.3 12.5 19.4 7.9 13.2 A* - D i s t r i c t A B = D i s t r i c t B C = D i s t r i c t C T = Total of a l l D i s t r i c t s ** See items ten through thirteen on the "Survey of Use" (Appendix C) to 38 the "Survey-of Opinion" section examining teachers' attitudes toward the in-service program support provided by their 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 their d is t r i c t could provide additional information and in-service program support. The responses to item thirteen were tabulated and are presented in Table 7. Teacher responses to the questions regarding the frequency with which their d is 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 less. 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 is t r ic ts showed some marked differences. Over half the teachers surveyed in Dist r ic t C (55.3 percent) reported receiving release time frequently (34.2 percent) or occasionally (.21.1 percent) compared to f ive percent from Distr ic t A and none from Distr ict B who reported frequent release time, and f ive percent from Distr ic t A and 2.7 percent from Distr ic t B who reported occasional release time. The majority of the teachers surveyed in Dist r ic t A (90 percent) and Dist r ic t B Table 6 Item No. 10.** 11. 12. Teacher Attitudes Toward D i s t r i c t In-Service Program Support Relatedto the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide Strongly Agree A* B C T Agree A B C T Uncertain A B C T Disagree 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 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 0 2.7 5.1 2.6 20 19.4 51.3 30.4 27.5 25 23.1 25.2 45 41.6 17.9 34.8 A* = D i s t r i c t A B = D i s t r i c t B C = D i s t r i c t C T = Total of a l l D i s t r i c t s Strongly Disagree C T 7.5 11.1 0 6.1 11.1 2.6 6.1 7.5 11.1 2.6 7.0 l* See items te n through twelve on the "Survey of Opinion" (Appendix C) to TABLE 7 Teacher Attitude Toward Additional D i s t r i c t In-Service Program Support Related to the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide Strongly Agree A* B C T Agree A B C T Uncertain A B C T Disagree Strongly Disagree A B C T A B C T 17.5 16.6 0 11.3 50 61.1 51.3 53.9 17.5 11.1 23.1 17.4 12.5 8.3 23.1 14.8 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 B = D i s t r i c t B C = D i s t r i c t C T = Total of a l l D i s t r i c t s ** See item 13 (a-d) on the "Survey of Opinion" (Appendix C) 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 is 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 toward the in-service program support provided by their d i s t r i c t , indicated no overall consensus on any of the items. Just under 30 percent were uncertain whether or not the in-service 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 Dist r ic t C have a positive attitude toward d is t r i c t in-service program support dealing with content of the Guide (56.4 percent agree or strongly agree) and toward the general in-service program support (56.4 percent agree or strongly agree). The teachers surveyed in Dist r ic t A generally had a more negative attitude (at least 50 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed) toward a l l aspects of their d is t r ic ts in-service program support. The teachers surveyed in Distr ic t B were somewhat sp l i t in their opinion of the in-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 is t r i c t provision of adequate in-service program support for implementation of the BCELAC Guide. 42 The data from Table 6, examining areas in which the d i s t r i c t could provide additional 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 ted . 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 specified areas. Analysis of Question Five The f i f th basic research question was; What relationship exists between teachers' attitude toward, and use of , 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, occasionally, 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 Distr ic 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 Dist r ic t Support and Teacher Attitude Toward the BCELAC Guide" and for "Perceived Dist r ic t Support and Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide". The results are presented in Table 8. TABLE 8 Rank Order Correlations for Perceived Dist r ic t Support and Teacher Attitude Toward the BCELAC Guide, and for Perceived Distr ic t Support and Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide. Perceived Dist r ic t Support and Teacher Attitude ^ = .414 p < .05 n - 30 Perceived Dist r ic t Support and Teacher Use P = .354 p < .05 n - 30 The results indicated a signif icant correlation between teacher perceptions of strong d is t r i c t support and both a positive teacher attitude toward, and use of, 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 Dist r ic t Rank Order Correlation for Perceived Distr ic t Support and Teacher Attitude Toward the BCELAC Guide and for Perceived Dist r ic t Support and Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide. Perceived Dist r ic t Support and Teacher Attitude Toward the BCELAC Guide. Dist r ic t A 9 = .44 p ^ .01 n ^ 30 Distr ic t B ? = .41 p < .05 n ? 30 Dist r ic t C p = .51 p < .01 n Z 30 Perceived Dist r ic t Support and Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide. Dist r ic t A ? = .06 Dist r ic t B ? = .35 p < .05 n 2 -30 Distr ic t C ? = .58 p < .01 n f 30 In the area of "Perceived Dist r ic 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 Distr icts A and C. There was no correlation in Dist r ic t A in the area of "Perceived Distr ic t Support and Teacher Use of the BCELAC Guide" while the correlation of Distr ic t C was higher than that of D is t r ic t B in this area. This would suggest that where teachers perceive strong d is t r i c t support, they have a more positive attitude toward the Guide and make greater use of i t . TABLE 10 Teacher Background Information *1. Grade l e v e l you teach 1 4 Years of teaching experience as of June, 1981. 1 year or less 2 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 15 years 16 years or more Formal Education l e v e l - less than a B.Ed, or B.C. - B. Ed. or B.A. - B. Ed. or B.A. plus a d d i t i o n a l courses - M. Ed. or M.A. - M. Ed. or M.A. plus a d d i t i o n a l courses %A %B %C %TOTAL : *1. 47.4 52. 9 38.5 45.9 31.6 23.5 35.9 30.6 21.1 23.5 25.6 23.4 2. 5.3 8.8 0 4.5 15.8 2.9 10.3 9.9 39.5 35. 3 35. 9 36.9 21.1 17.6 17.9 18.9 18.4 35.3 35.9 29.7 3. 26.3 17.6 17.9 20.7 60.5 55.9 30.8 48.6 5.3 23.5 41.0 23. 4 5.3 0 5.1 3.6 2.6 2.9 5.1 3.6 46 4.8 Additional Findings The data from the section "Background Information" are presented in Table 10 above. The results showed a fa i r l y even distribution between primary and intermediate teachers. Of a l l the teachers surveyed, 36.9 percent reported having taught from six to f i f teen years. Just over 35 percent of the teachers surveyed in Distr icts B and C reported having taught 16 years or more as compared to 18.4 percent in Dist r ic t 4. The majority of teachers surveyed (79.2 percent) reported having a B.Ed. , a B.A. , or one of these degrees plus additional courses. A higher percentage of the teachers surveyed in Dist r ic t C (51.2 percent) reported having additional courses beyond their B.Ed, or B.A. compared with 13.2 percent in Distr ic t A and 26.4 percent in Distr ic 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 toward, and use o f , the BCELAC Guide. T h i s s u g g e s t s 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 the Guide 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 wrote 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 my 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 - not the c u r r i c u l u m g u i d e -p r o v i d e s the b a s i s f o r the 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 mentioned i n the 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 day-t o - d a y or 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 too 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 the c u r r i c u l u m g u i d e t h r o u g h once, 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 not 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 such l e n g t h s as workshops, 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 the 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 never seen the new g u i d e o r knew the 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 the 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. C u r r i c u l u m Guide i s v e r y s u p e r f i c i a l a t I n t e r m e d i a t e L e v e l 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) 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 Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide. 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 the 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 d i s t r i c t . C h a p t e r 5 49 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Summary In t h i s s t u d y , d e s c r i p t i v e d a t a was c o m p i l e d r e l a t i n g t o t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t he 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 G u i d e (BCELAC G u i d e ) . These d a t a were used t o examine f i v e b a s i c r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s : 1. To what 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 u s i n g 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 G u i d e ? 2. 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 owa rd 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 G u i d e ? 3. What do t e a c h e r s p e r c e i v e as t h e r o l e o f t e x t b o o k s i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i r l a n g u a g e a r t s p rogram? 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 rogram 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 C u r r i c u l u m G u i d e ? 5. What r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s 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 , 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 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 s u p p o r t ? The r e v i e w o f l i t e r a t u r e s u p p o r t e d t h e use o f a q u e s t i o n n a i r e and o u t l i n e d some o f i t s l i m i t a t i o n s as a r e s e a r c h t o o l . An e x a m i n a t i o n o f t he r o l e o f c u r r i c u l u m g u i d e s and t e x t b o o k s , bo th p a s t and p r e s e n t , i n d i c a t e d t h a t c u r r i c u l u m g u i d e s have no t p l a y e d 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 terature which reported on the roles of teachers and d is 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 in-service 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 in-service program support related to the Guide, and teachers' attitudes toward the need for additional in-service 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 pi lot study, the f inal 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 analysis, 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 four, and seven through nine, on the "Survey of Opinion" while the responses to items five 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, respectively. The same values were assigned to constantly, frequently, occasionally, 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 Dis t r ic t Support and Teacher Use", and for "Perceived Dist r ic 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 ight ly 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 of teachers surveyed. Long term planning was the only area in which there was a signif icant 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 of teachers surveyed. 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 their 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 fa 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 is t r ic ts 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 in-service program support that was provided. However, there was generally strong agreement that more in-service support could be provided in the areas specif ied. There was a marked difference in the amount of release time reported by the teachers surveyed when the separate d is t r ic ts were examined. The teachers in Distr ic t C reported receiving release time with greater frequency than was reported by teachers in Distr icts A or B. The data related to question f ive indicated a signif icant correlation between teachers' attitude toward, and use of , the BCELAC Guide, and their perceptions of d is t r i c t support. The results suggested that where teachers perceive strong d i s t r i c t support, they have more positive attitudes toward the Guide and they make greater use of i t . The data from the section on "Background Information" showed a substantially even distr ibution among the d is t r ic ts 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 are, on balance, more l ike ly to make greater use of i t . 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 Dist r ic t C are aware of the materials developed by their 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 Br i t ish Columbia" (Ministry of Education, 1978, p. 9) and that local d is t r ic ts 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 shi f t in focus from the delivery system to the deliverer. This attempt to c lar i fy the purpose of the Guide could mean not only the provision of orientation sessions but also the inclusion of c lar i fy ing 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 di f fers 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 implementation. 2. 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 materials is important in bringing about teacher change. This material could be developed as 'a supplement to the Guide and would provide opportunities for teacher participation at the local level . 3. There should be an increase in f inancial 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) and by Heusner (1964). Providing release time during the school day would increase the l ikelihood 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 fe l t a need for additional in-service support related to the BCELAC Guide. Distr icts 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 lecture, inspirational format. There should be a longer time l ine for the implementation of a new curriculum - especially in the area of in-service programs. There should also be fewer introductions of new curriculum into the elementary school within a f ive-year time span. With numerous guidelines etc. to be implemented at any given time, i t is d i f f i c u l t for the regular d is t r i c t administrators to handle a l l the areas ef fect ively. This is further reason for providing classroom teachers with release time so that they can help plan for ongoing in-service support. 58 6. Further research should be conducted to determine i f either the format of the BCELAC Guide, or the 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; Taylor, 1970; Tuinman & Kendall, 1980) indicate that curriculum guides are not widely used or recognized as important by teachers. Based on these f indings, there would appear to be grounds to question the whole concept of curriculum guides developed by central authorities at the state or provincial level . Is the money spent on developing and implementing curriculum guides jus t i f ied by the impact they have in the classroom? If 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, then the basis for their program is unclear and may l i e 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 staff 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 to local needs. With this in mind, perhaps there should be only a skeleton outline stating the expected outcomes for the language arts. This outline could then be augmented at the d is t r i c t level allowing the teachers to more fu l ly develop the program. This would provide local teachers with the opportunity to help develop a program which would suit the local needs and which teachers could more readily identify with. The comments by some of the teachers surveyed in Distr ic t C, for example, would seem to indicate that they are more comfortable using the language arts materials produced by their own distruct . 3. Recent l i terature 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 wil l s t i l l be the job of implementation. Until teachers and administrators more fu l ly understand this complex and d i f f i c u l t process, curriculum innovations could continue fa i l ing to gain wide-spread acceptance by teachers. 61 B i b l i o g r a p h y 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 innovation. The Educational Forum, 1976, 40 (3), 345-370. Boyd, W.L. The changing pol i t ics of curriculum policy-making for American schools. Review of Educational Research, 1978, 48 (4), 577-628. Clark, C , & Yinger, R.J . Research on teacher thinking. Curriculum  Inquiry, 1977, 7 (4), 279-304. Edwards, A .L . Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957. Epstein, I., & Tr ipodi , 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, Vol . 20, Special Edit ion, December 1980. Foshay, A.W., & B e i l i n , . L . A . Curriculum. In R.L. Ebel (Ed.) , Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Toronto: Col 1ier-MacMi1lan Ltd. 1969. Fullan, M. Conceptualizing problems of curriculum implementation. Paper presented at the Symposium on Curriculum Inquiry in Canada, V ic tor ia , February 1979. Fullan, M. The meaning of educational change (Chapter 3). Book in preparation, 1980. (a) Fullan, M. Evaluation and Implementation. In A. Lewy (Ed.) , Evaluation  roles. New York: Gordon Breach Publications, 1980. (b) Fullan, M., & Park, P. Curriculum implementation: A resource booklet. Ministry of Education, Toronto, Ontario, 1981. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 1977, 47 (2), 335-397. \ 63 Goodlad, J . I . , Klein, M.F. & Associates. Behind the classroom door. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1970. Gross, N., Giacquinta, J . B . , & Bernstein, M. Implementing organizational  innovations. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1971. Ha l l , G.E. The study of individual teacher and professor concerns about innovations. Journal of Teacher Education, 1976, 2_7 (1), 22-23. Ha 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 of the ut i l i za t ion of curriculum guides as related to selected factors in their planning and construction (Doctoral dissertat ion, Wayne State University, 1963). Dissertation Abstracts  International, 1964, 25, 322. (University Microfilms No. 64.-5101). Hughes, A . S . , & Keith, J . J . Teacher perceptions of an innovation and degree of implementation. Canadian Journal of Education, 1980, 5_ (2), 43-51. Jackson, P.W., & Belford, 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 dissertat ion, 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). Ki lbert , G.H. Determinants of implementation of a competency-based business education curriculum (Doctoral dissertat ion, University of Southern Cal i forn ia , 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. Lort ie , D.C. Schoolteacher - a sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975. 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: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1977. Mahan, J . M. Frank observations on innovations in elementary schools. Interchange, 1972, 3 (2-3), 144-160. Ministry of Education, Br i t ish Columbia. Curriculum Planning 1979. V ic tor ia , B .C. : Curriculum Development Branch, 1979. Ministry of Education, Br i t ish Columbia. Elementary Language Arts  Curriculum Guide. V ic tor ia , 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, Cincinnati , Ohio, November 25, 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 156 546). National Education Association. Research Bul le t in , 1930, £3 (1), 5-8. Nault, W.H. Can curriculum guides be effective? Educational  Leadership, 1955, ]Z (7), 410-44. Oppenheim, A.N. Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York: Basic Books, 1966. Parten, M. Surveys, p o l l s , and samples: Practical procedures. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950. 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 lus ion 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 , 15 ( 3 ) , 4 1 7 - 4 3 2 . Popham, W.J. Curriculum materials. Review of Educational Research. 1 9 6 9 , 39 ( 3 ) , 3 1 9 - 3 3 8 . Pratt, D. Curriculum Design and Development. New York: Harcourt Brace Javanovich, 1 9 8 0 . Pratt, H., Melle, M., Metzdorf, J . , & Loucks, S. The design and  u t i l i za t ion of a concerns based staff development program for  implementing a revised science curriculum in eighty elementary  schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, April 1 9 8 0 . Robi ta i l le , D.F. Intention, implementation, real izat ion: 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. The curriculum-proof teacher. Phi Delta Kappan. 1 9 7 3 , 54 ( 6 ) , 4 0 7 - 4 0 8 . Sabar, N., & S h i f r i r i , N. The teacher as curriculum developer: A model for in-service training of teachers in Israel. 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, 1 9 7 4 . Smith, M.P. Curriculum change at the local level . Journal of Curriculum  Studies, 1 9 7 1 , 3 ( 2 ) , 1 5 8 - 1 6 2 . Sudman, S. Applied sampling. New York: Academic Press, 1 9 7 6 . Talmage, H. The textbook as arbiter of curriculum and instruction. 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, Br i t ish Columbia, 1 9 8 0 . 66 Weiss, .J . The rea l i t ies of curriculum work: The classroom leve l . In A.W. Foshay (Ed.) , ..:Considered action for curriculum improvement. V i rg in ia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1980. Werner, W. Guide!ines for planning program imp!ementation. Prepared for Program Implementation Services, Ministry of Education, Br i t ish Columbia, 1980. Wilson, V .L . An investigation of teachers' persistence in implementing NSF-supported science curr icula . Journal of Research  in Science Teaching, 1980, 17_ (3), 257-261. Wise, R.I. The use of objectives in curriculum planning. Curriculum  Theory Network, 1976, 5_ (4), 280-289. Zahorik, J .A. Teachers' planning models. Educational Leadership, 1975, 33 (2), 134-139. Appendices Appendix A PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE 69 SURVEY OF USE For the following statements, please c i r c l e one of the five responses. C (Constantly) F (Frequently) 0 (Occasionally) S (Seldom) N (Never) 1. I have consulted the B.C. Elementary C F 0 S N Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 2. I spend time f a m i l i a r i z i n g myself with C F 0 S N the content of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 3. During the past year I made use of the C F 0 S f'J B.C. Elementary Language Arts C u r r i c u -lum .Guide. k-. During the past month I made use of C F 0 S N the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 5. I use the B.C. Elementary Language C F 0 S N Arts Curriculum Guide to a s s i s t i n the long term planning of my language arts program. 6. I use the B.C. Elementary Language C F 0 S N Arts Curriculum.Guide to a s s i s t i n the short term planning of my language arts program. 7. I use the B.C. Elementary Language C F 0 S N Arts Curriculum Guide to remind me which s k i l l s must be taught. 8. I use the teaching strategies suggested C F 0 S N in the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 9. I use the B.C. Elementary Language C F 0 S N Arts Curriculum Guide to help assess my present language arts program. 10. p.ly D i s t r i c t provides me with informa- C F 0 S N t i o n regarding the content of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 70 11. ?.'y D i s t r i c t provides me with informa- C F 0 S N t i o n regarding the use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 12.. Reference i s made to the B.C. Elemen- C F 0 S N . tary Language Arts Curriculum Guide during D i s t r i c t workshops rel a t e d to language a r t s . 7 1 SURVEY 0? OPINIONS For each of the following statements, please c i r c l e one of the f i v e responses. SA (Strongly Agree) A (Agree) U (Uncertain) D (Disagree) SD (Strongly Disagree) 1. The B.C. Elementary Language Arts SA A U D SD Curriculum Guide i s important to me. 2. I believe that i t i s important for SA A U D 'SD me to r e f e r frequently to the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 3. I see the B.C. Elementary Language SA A U D SD ' Arts Curriculum Guide as the major determiner of my language arts program. k. I see the B.C. Elementary Language SA A U D SD Arts Curriculum Guide as the prime reference source for my language arts program. 5. I see the prescribed texts as the SA A U .D SD major determiner of my language arts program. 6. I see the prescribed texts as the SA A U D SD prime reference source for my language arts program. 7 . I f i n d the new B.C. Elementary SA A U D SD Language Arts Curriculum Guide an improvement over the previous one. 8. I f e e l that I can do a good job of SA A U D SD teaching language arts without using the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 9. I am s a t i s f i e d with the format of the SA A U D SD present B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 72 10. U s e f u l a s p e c t s o f the B.C. Elemen-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 : 11. 12 13. a) the non-graded approach SA A U D SD b) the t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s SA A U D SD c) the g o a l s SA A u D SD d) the l e a r n i n g outcomes SA A u D SD e) the communication s k i l l s c h a r t SA A u D SD f ) o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) SA A u D SD I f e e l t h a t there i s a need f o r a SA A u D SD d i f f e r e n t format f o r the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide . A more u s e f u l format would i n c l u d e : a) a c l e a r e r statement of scope and SA A u D SD sequence b) more i d e a s f o r day to day SA A u D SD a c t i v i t i e s c) s u g g e s t i o n s f o r m o d i f i e d and SA A u D SD 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 SA A u D SD r e c o r d 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 SA A u D SD o t h e r s u b j e c t s f ) o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) SA A u . D SD In my o p i n i o n , my D i s t r i c t has done SA A u D SD an adequate job of f a m i l i a r i z i n g me w i t h the B.C. Elementa.ry Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide. 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 SA A U. D SD more to f a m i l i a r i z e me w i t h theB.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide. 15. The D i s t r i c t c o u l d p r o v i d e 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 f i c SA A U D SD a r e a s o f the 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 SA A U D SD t e a c h e r s c) s m a l l meeting f o r s h a r i n g i d e a s SA A U D SD w i t h p e e r s d) hands-on work s e s s i o n s SA A U D SD e) p r i n t e d r e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l SA A U D SD f ) o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) SA A U D SD BAC XGR 0 UN D IN FORNATION Grade l e v e l you teach. ' 6-7 Years of teaching experience as of June, 19.81. 1 year or les s 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16 years or more Formal educational l e v e l less than a B.Ed, or B.A. B.Sd. or B.A. B.Ed, or B.A. plus a d d i t i o n a l courses M.Ed, or M.A. M.Ed, or M.A. plus a d d i t i o n a l courses 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 . 6.6 46.6 33.3 6.6 6.6 2. 0 20 46.6 33.3 0 3. 6.6 13.3 26.6 46.6 6.6 4. 0 20 6.6 60 13.3 7. 6.6 60 26.6 6.6 0 8. 20 40 26.6 6.6 6.6 9. 0 33.3 40 13.3 13.3 10a 6.6 40 26.6 20 6.6 b 6.6 33.3 53.3 6.6 0 c 20 40 40 0 0 d 20 40 40 0 0 e 0 33.3 53.3 13.3 0 11. 13.3 20 40 26.6 0 12a 6.6 26.6 53.3 13.3 0 b 0 66.6 26.6 0 6.6 c 20 60 20 0 0 d 0 46.6 40 6.6 6.6 e 6.6 66.6 26.6 0 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 D S. D *5 0 26.6 20 40 13. 3 6 6.6 53.3 6.6 26.6 6. 6 *See items five and six on "Survey of Opinion" (Appendix A) 76 Teacher Use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. Item % % % % % No. C F 0 S N *1. 0 0 53.3 33.3 13.3 2. 0 0 33.3 60 6.6 3. 0 0 46.6 26.6 26.6 4. 0 0 0 20 80 5. 0 13.3 33.3 26.6 26.6 6. 0 0 26.6 26.6 46.6 7. 0 6.6 53.3 13.3 26.6 8. 0 0 13.3 53.3 33.3 9. 0 0 20 26.6 53.3 *See items one through nine on "Survey of Use". (Appendix A) Teacher Perceptions of the Frequency With Which Their D ist r ic t Provides Information and In-Service Programs Related to the B. C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. Item % % % % % No. C F 0 S N *10 0 6.6 26.6 26.6 40 11. 0 6.6 6.6 33.3 53.3 12. 6.6 26.6 6.6 26.6 26.6 *See items ten through twelve on "Survey of Use". (Appendix A) Teacher Attitude Toward Dist r ic t In-Service Program Support Related to the B. C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. Item % % % % % No. S.A. A U D S.D *13. 6.6 33.3 20 40 0 14. 6.6 26.6 33.3 33.3 0 15.a 13.3 53.3 26.6 6.6 0 b 6.6 33.3 40 20 0 c 13.3 33.3 26.6 20 0 d 20 60 13.3 6.6 0 e 20 33.3 20 26.6 0 Appendix C COVERING LETTER AND FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE 80 SURVEY OF USE For the following statements, please c i r c l e one of the f i v e responses. C (Constantly) F (Frequently) 0 (Occasionally) S (Seldom) N (Never) 1. I consult the B.C. Elementary Language C F 0 S N Arts Curriculum Guide. 2. I spend time f a m i l i a r i z i n g myself with C F 0 S N the content of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 3. During the past year I made use of the C F 0 S N B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curricu-lum Guide. 4 During the past month I made use of C F 0 S N the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 5. I use the B.C. Elementary Language C F 0 S N Arts Curriculum Guide to a s s i s t in the long term planning of my language arts program, 6. I use the B.C. Elementary Language C F 0 S N Arts Curriculum Guide to a s s i s t in the short term planning of my language arts program. 7. I use the B.C. Elementary Language C F 0 S N Arts Curriculum Guide to remind me which s k i l l s must be taught, 8. I use the teaching strategies suggested C F 0 S N in the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide, 9. I use the B.C. Elementary Language C F 0 S N Arts Curriculum Guide to help assess my present language arts program. 10. My D i s t r i c t provides me with informa- C F 0 S N tion regarding the content of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 81 11. My D i s t r i c t p r o v i d e s me w i t h informa- C F 0 S N t 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. 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 C F 0 S N time to work on areas r e l a t e d to the B.C. Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i -culum Guide. 13. Reference i s made to the B.C. Elemen- C F 0 S 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 to language a r t s . 82 SURVEY OF OPINIONS For each of the following statements, please c i r c l e one of the five responses. SA (Strongly Agree) A (Agree) U (Uncertain) D (Disagree) SD (Strongly Disagree) 1. I f e e l that i t i s important for me to be f a m i l i a r with the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 2. I f e e l that I need to be f a m i l i a r with the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide i n order to do a good job of teaching the language a r t s . 3 . I see the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide as the major reference source i n the planning of my language arts program. k. I see the goals of the B.C. Elemen-tary Language Arts Curriculum Guide as providing the framework of my language arts program. 5. I see the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide as playing a more important role in my planning of the language arts than the prescribed text books. 6. I see the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide as providing more of the framework of my language arts program than the prescribed text books. 7. I fin d the new B.C. Elementary SA A U D SD Language Arts Curriculum Guide an improvement over the previous one . 8. I am s a t i s f i e d with the format of v SA A U D SD the present B.C. Elementary Lang-uage Arts Curriculum Guide. 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 83 9. I am quite comfortable using the SA A U D SD B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 10. In my opinion, my D i s t r i c t has pro- SA A U D SD vided adequate in-service programs to f a m i l i a r i z e me with the content of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 11. In my opinion, my D i s t r i c t has pro- SA A U D SD vided adequate in-service programs to f a m i l i a r i z e me with the intended use of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 12. In my opinion, my D i s t r i c t has pro- SA A U D SD vided me with adequate in-service support for the implementation of the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. 13. My D i s t r i c t could provide me with -more support i n the areas of: a) workshops dealing with speci- SA A U D SD f i c areas of the B.C. Elemen-tary Language Arts Curriculum Guide . b) small meetings for sharing SA A U D SD ideas related to the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. c) make-and-take sessions for SA A U D SD developing add i t i o n a l materials. r e l a t e d to the B.C. Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. d) suggestions f o r using the B.C. SA A U D SD Elementary Language Arts C u r r i -culum Guide as a resource i n my planning of the language - • a r t s . 84 BACKGROUND INFORMATION (Please check one) 1. Grade l e v e l you teach K-3 k-5 6-7 _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. Years of teaching experience as of June, 1981. 1 year or less 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16 years or more 3. Formal educational l e v e l less than a B.Ed, or B.A. B.Ed, or B.A. B.Ed, or B.A, plus a d d i t i o n a l courses M.Ed,.or M.A. M.Ed, or M.A. plus addi 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