Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The structure and organization of professional development : perceptions of FSL teachers Lamarre, Patricia Grace 1988

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A8 L36.pdf [ 8.51MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078270.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078270-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078270-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078270-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078270-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078270-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078270-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078270-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078270.ris

Full Text

THE STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: PERCEPTIONS OF FSL TEACHERS by PATRICIA GRACE LAMARRE B . A . , Univers i t e du Quebec, 1985 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Language Education) We accept t h i s thes i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1988 © P a t r i c i a Grace Lamarre, 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Language Educa t ion (Modern Languages) The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date October , 12,1988 DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Two developmental theories propose gu ide l ines for profess iona l development programs. The bas ic assumption shared by both these theories i s that teachers' preferences w i l l vary between i n d i v i d u a l s and that t h i s v a r i a t i o n r e f l e c t s d i f f e r e n t stages of teachers ' development. Teachers at lower l eve l s of development (e i ther profess ional or conceptual) w i l l prefer h igh ly s tructured programs that focus on "concrete" concerns, with l i t t l e i n t e r a c t i o n between peers. Teachers at higher l eve l s of development w i l l prefer loose ly s tructured programs, with more teacher i n t e r a c t i o n , autonomy, and d i scuss ion of t h e o r e t i c a l problems underlying "concrete" issues . This study invest igated: 1) FSL teachers' preferences for decision-making ro les and for content i n profess iona l development programs; 2) FSL teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s poss ib ly in f luenc ing teachers' preferences for profess iona l development. Teachers' preferences were measured using an instrument developed by the researcher. The survey consisted of two parts : 1) A sect ion on teachers' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , prov id ing a p r o f i l e of the teacher's background and current profess ional development opportuni t ies ; 2) A quest ionnaire on teachers' preferences for s tructure and content i n profess ional development programs. The survey was answered by 132 teachers from 12 school d i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia (12.2% of a l l French teachers i n B r i t i s h Columbia). The f indings showed that respondents would l i k e to a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n profess ional development programs. Teachers 7 preferences for s tructure and content were v a r i e d . This supports one bas ic assumption of developmental approaches: that the l earn ing environment and mater ia l of profess iona l development programs should be designed to meet the v a r i e d needs of teachers. Teachers d i d not express a preference for lower l e v e l content and a d i r e c t i v e s tructure of profess iona l development. While profess iona l development programs should address the var ied needs of p a r t i c i p a t i n g teachers, i t should not be aimed p r i m a r i l y at lower l e v e l s of development, as can be assumed from the f indings of developmental research. When teachers' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were examined as poss ib le factors in f luenc ing teachers' preferences for s tructure and content, no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences were observed between teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and t h e i r preferences for content. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences were observed between teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and teachers' preferences for s tructure (decision-making r o l e s ) . Two teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s showed s ign i f i cance : i i i ) 1) Grade l e v e l taught by FSL teachers and t h e i r preference for s tructure i n the presentat ion of profess iona l development content. A s i g n i f i c a n t number of elementary school teachers pre ferred to leave r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for presentat ion with a supervisor . A s i g n i f i c a n t number of secondary teachers preferred a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t ruc ture . 2) S i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences were observed between teachers' current profess ional development opportuni t ies and t h e i r preferences for decision-making ro les i n a profess iona l development s t ruc ture . A s i g n i f i c a n t number of teachers that had prev ious ly had r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for decision-making expressed a preference for a non-d irec t ive s t ruc ture . Teachers that had never had r e s p o n s i b i l i t y preferred to leave decision-making to a supervisor . From these r e s u l t s , i t can be concluded that teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s might be in f luenc ing teachers' preferences and should be taken into account by organizers of profess iona l development. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y experienced by teachers i n t h e i r current profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s would appear to be a fac tor in f luenc ing t h e i r preferences for future r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The importance of environment i n s t imulat ing growth would appear to be a fac tor deserving the cons iderat ion of both p r a c t i t i o n e r s intending to adopt a developmental approach and researchers i n t h i s area. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS V LIST OF TABLES v i i i GLOSSARY OF TERMS x i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x iv CHAPTER ONE: NATURE OF THE STUDY Profess ional Development: Issues and Prescr ip t ions 1 Developmental Theory as a Profess ional Development Framework 10 Second Language Teaching: Issues and Trends 15 Core French Programs i n Canada 19 Profess ional Development of Second Language T e a c h e r s . . . . 22 General Statement of the Problem 32 Theore t i ca l and P r a c t i c a l Value of the Study 34 Purpose of the Study 3 6 Research Questions 37 CHAPTER TWO: RELATED RESEARCH Intent of Developmental Theory 39 Developmental Approaches and The ir Link to E d u c a t i o n . . . . 40 The Adult Learner 46 Developmental Theories and Teacher Education 49 Conceptual Systems Theory 51 v Page Stages of Concern Theory 60 L imi ta t ions of Developmental Theories 62 Summary of Review 65 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Instrument Design 69 P i l o t Test ing of Survey Instrument 80 Populat ion, Sampling and Data C o l l e c t i o n Procedures 83 Analys i s Procedures 87 Response Rates 88 Representativeness of the Sample 90 L imi ta t ions of the Study 91 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS OF THE STUDY Descr ipt ion of Teacher C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 93 Teachers' Preferences for Structure and Content 102 Discuss ion of Governance Var iab les 108 Discuss ion of Relevance Var iables 118 Summary of Descr ipt ive Analys i s of Findings 120 Teacher C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Teachers' Preferences 122 Discuss ion of Analys i s of B i - v a r i a t e Analys i s 150 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Summary of Research Problem and Research Methodology . . . . 155 Summary of Findings and Conclusions 158 v i Page Implicat ions of Study on Prac t i ce 165 Implicat ions for Further Research 169 BIBLIOGRAPHY 172 APPENDICES: Appendix A: P i l o t tested questionnaires 184 Appendix B: P o s t - p i l o t t e s t survey 194 Appendix C: Let ter to coordinators 19 5 Appendix D: Covering l e t t e r 197 Appendix E : Questionnaire 198 Appendix F: Approval from the Screening Committee for Research and Other Studies Involving Human S u b j e c t s . . . . 205 v i i LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. Descr ip t ion of Developmental Stages and t h e i r Implicat ions for Learning 58 2. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Questionnaires 86 3. Response Rates 89 4. Comparison of CASLT Sample and Sample of Study 90 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS 5. Gender and Age 94 6. Language Background 95 7. Academic Degree and FSL S p e c i a l i z a t i o n 96 8. Teaching Level 97 9. Teaching Experience 97 10. Contact with Other FSL Teachers 98 11. Profess ional Development Opportunit ies 99 12. Current Structure for Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 100 13. Current Structure for I n i t i a t i o n and Coordinat ion 101 14. Desire to P a r t i c i p a t e i n Profess ional Development 101 PREFERENCES FOR STRUCTURE 15. Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 105 16. Choosing the P r i o r i t i e s of Needs 105 17. Coordinat ion of Profess ional Development 106 18. Presentat ion during Profess ional Development 107 v i i i TABLE Page 19. Coaching 107 20. Evaluat ion 108 21. Governance Var iab les 110 22. Summary of Teachers' Preferences for Structure 113 PREFERENCES FOR CONTENT 23. Goals and Content 115 24. Number of Options 116 25. Transfer of Content 117 26. Groups Addressed 118 27. Relevance Var iab les Using Developmental Scale 119 BI-VARIATE ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS' CHARACTERISTICS AND TEACHERS' PREFERENCES 28. Grade Level by Preference for Presentation 127 29. Past Grade Level by Preference for Presenta t ion . . 129 30. A v a i l a b i l i t y of A c t i v i t i e s by Preference for C o a c h i n g . . . 131 31. A v a i l a b i l i t y of A c t i v i t i e s by Preference for Eva luat ion . 133 32. Frequency of PD A c t i v i t i e s by Preference for C o a c h i n g . . . 134 33. Current Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Preference for Coaching. 135 34. Current Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Preference for Evaluat ion 13 6 35. Current I n i t i a t i o n of PD by Preference for Choosing the P r i o r i t y of Needs 138 36. Current I n i t i a t i o n of PD by Preference for Coordination 14 0 ix TABLE Page 37. Current I n i t i a t i o n of PD by Preference for Presentation 141 38. Current I n i t i a t i o n of PD by Preference for Coaching 142 39. Current R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Coordination by Preference for Choosing the P r i o r i t y of Needs 144 40. Current R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Coordination by Preference for Coordination 146 41. Current R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Coordination by Preference for Presentation 147 42. Current R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Coordination by Preference for Coaching 148 43. Attendance at A c t i v i t i e s by Preferences for Choosing the P r i o r i t y of Needs 149 44. Summary of Results of B i - v a r i a t e Analys i s of Teacher C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Governance Var iab les 152 x GLOSSARY OF TERMS Adult development: "Phys io log ica l , p sycho log ica l , and s o c i o l o g i c a l growth or maturation occurr ing throughout an a d u l t ' s l i f e t i m e . " ( E r i c , p.5) Adult education: "Providing or coordinat ing purposeful l earning a c t i v i t i e s for adu l t s ." ( E r i c , p.6) Cognitive development: "Increasing complexity of awareness, inc lud ing perce iv ing , conceiving, reasoning, and judging, through adaptation to the environment and a s s i m i l a t i o n of informat ion." ( E r i c , p. 37) Conceptual Systems theory: A developmental theory based on how teachers as adults move through d i f f e r e n t stages of conceptual development towards conceptual "maturity". Core French teachers: Teachers of French as a Second Language. French Immersion and French as a F i r s t Language teachers are excluded from t h i s category. In B r i t i s h Columbia, Core French teachers are often re ferred to as FSL teachers. Design: "The process of conceiving and s e l ec t ing the s tructure , elements, arrangement, mater ia l s , steps or procedures of some a c t i v i t y or t h i n g . " ( E r i c , p.62) x i Development: "Progression from e a r l i e r to l a t e r stages of growth or organizat ion . . . includes gradual r e a l i z a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l , u sua l ly compared by advances i n s i z e , complexity, e f f i c i e n c y , e tc ." ( E r i c , p.62) Developmental program: "Programs promoting gradual growth of persons or systems through progressive advances i n s i z e , complexity, capacity or e f f i c i e n c y . " ( E r i c , p.62) Developmental stages: "Natural or common d i v i s i o n s of the human developmental process, character ized by types of behaviour (as i n the o r a l stage), by b i o l o g i c a l propert ies or manifestations (as i n the embryonic stage), or by mental processes (as i n Piaget ' s concrete operat ions' stage) ." ( E r i c , p.63) Evaluation: "Appraising or judging persons, organizat ions or things i n r e l a t i o n to stated object ives , standards or c r i t e r i a . " ( E r i c , p.84) Instructional methods: "Ways of presenting i n s t r u c t i o n a l mater ia ls or conducting i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . " ( E r i c , p.120) Planning: ' "The process of determining object ives and the means ( a c t i v i t i e s , procedures, resources, e tc . ) of a t t a i n i n g them." ( E r i c , p.180) x i i Profess iona l development: " A c t i v i t i e s to enhance profes s iona l career growth." ( E r i c , p.187) Stages of Concern theory: A developmental theory based on how teachers ' concerns and a t t i tudes change as they acquire pro fes s iona l experience (profess ional matur i ty ) . ABBREVIATIONS PD: Profess ional development FSL: French as a Second Language CASLT: Canadian Assoc ia t ion of Second Language Teachers x i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to express my grat i tude to the members of my committee for t h e i r help and cons iderat ion . I would l i k e to thank Dr. Frank Echols for h i s valuable advice on what to do and what not to do i n survey research, and also for h i s help with s t a t i s t i c a l ana lys i s ; Dr. Nick Ardanaz for h i s sound advice coming from years of experience i n the school system; Dr. Peter Grimmett for h i s expert ise i n teacher education and developmental theory. I would e s p e c i a l l y l i k e to thank my advisor , Dr. Robert Roy, for h i s he lp , encouragement, patience and sense of humour, a l l of which were t r u l y appreciated. I would a lso l i k e to express my thanks to my fr iends and fe l low graduate students, who have helped and encouraged me a l l through the preparat ion of t h i s study: Monique, Danie l , C a r o l , Isgo, S y l v i e and Ginet te . A f i n a l word of thanks must go the coordinators and teachers that contr ibuted t h e i r time and energy to the study. x iv CHAPTER ONE NATURE OF THE STUDY Profess ional Development: Issues and Prescr ip t ions Up u n t i l quite recent ly , most of the energy and e f f o r t i n teacher education has been d irec ted towards the pre - serv ice education of teachers. Perhaps due to the low turn-over rate of teachers i n the schools , t h i s emphasis has sh i f t ed and the importance of profess ional development i s increas ing ly recognized. A s table teaching s t a f f must r e l y on i t s opportunit ies for profess iona l development to keep abreast of changes i n educational theory. With r a d i c a l changes i n the theories of second language learning and teaching and major curriculum renewal projec t s being undertaken i n every province , the importance of profess ional development programs for French as a Second Language (FSL) teachers cannot be overlooked. Profess ional development i s a vast , d iverse and complex area of teacher education. I t has many forms and purposes and i s af fected by many i n t e r n a l and external fac tors . Despite t h i s d i v e r s i t y , there i s growing agreement on i t s importance as "the i s ing le most c r u c i a l factor to educational change" (Fu l lan , 1982). Not only does the teaching force depend on profess ional development to keep abreast of change, but educational change 1 i t s e l f depends on the ex i s t ing teaching force and teachers' opportuni t ies for development and growth (Fu l lan , 1981). The importance accorded profess iona l development i n implementing educational change i s , as stated above, re lat ive ly-recent . Educational reform has t r a d i t i o n a l l y focused on e i ther the p u p i l or on new curriculum mater ia l s . Teachers have usual ly been the forgotten component i n the educational t r i a n g l e . Educat ional reform e i ther attempted to b u i l d teacher-proof mater ia ls or provided teachers with b r i e f information sessions and occas iona l ly with low- leve l s k i l l t r a i n i n g . The teacher as the p ivot of educational change i s a concept that has been too long ignored. The l i s t of studies documenting the complexity of educational change has grown (Rogers and Schoemaker, 1971; Berman and McLaughlin, 1975; Emrick, Peterson, and Argarwala, Rogers, 1977; F u l l a n and Pomfret, 1977; H a l l and Loucks, 1977). One of the factors emerging from these studies i s the importance of the teachers' ro l e i n the change process. Research shows that plans for change are not l i k e l y to be implemented i f the teacher i s not a c t i v e l y involved i n these plans (Bentzen et a l . , 1974; Schaf farz ick , 1976; McLaughlin and Marsh, 1978; T y l e r , 1983). F u l l a n claims that "a r a d i c a l r e s t r u c t u r i n g of the r o l e of the user and a complete reversa l of the d i r e c t i o n of inf luence i n the 2 process of change are required i f e f f ec t ive innovations are to occur" (Fu l lan , 1972, p . l ) . I t i s increas ing ly recognized that many of the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n implementing c u r r i c u l a r innovations could be avoided, i f the process of change with in the teacher i s considered. "The main problem appears to be that curriculum change usua l ly necess i tates c e r t a i n organizat ional changes, p a r t i c u l a r l y changes i n the ro l e and r o l e re la t ionsh ips of those organizat ional members most d i r e c t l y involved i n put t ing the innovation into pract ice" (Ful lan and Pomfret, 1977, p.337). In approaching profess ional development and curriculum implementation, two d i f f e r e n t sets of needs can be addressed: the needs of i n d i v i d u a l teachers and the needs of an educational i n s t i t u t i o n or system. I t goes without saying that the educational i n s t i t u t i o n and i t s goals are v i t a l and bas ic elements when designing a profess ional development program. To be success fu l , however, both i n s t i t u t i o n a l and i n d i v i d u a l needs should be addressed: "Staff development and organizat ional development are a ges ta l t of school improvement; both are necessary for maximum growth and e f f ec t ive change." (Di l lon-Peterson , 1982, p.2-3) The p o s i t i o n behind t h i s paper i s a b e l i e f that any e f f o r t to implement change with in an educational system should focus p r i m a r i l y on the i n d i v i d u a l teacher. 3 A review of the l i t e r a t u r e (Lamarre, 1986), conducted for the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers (CASLT) task force on teacher education and professional development, revealed that there i s a great deal of agreement as to what a i l s professional development and on c e r t a i n prescriptions for future professional development. I t i s symptomatic of the f i e l d that the greater part of the l i t e r a t u r e i s devoted to what i s wrong and very l i t t l e to what i s r i g h t . Joyce, Howey and Yarger (1976) conducted a massive review of inservice teacher education. The study, which i s s t i l l frequently c i t e d , examined interview data from more than 1000 people involved i n some way with professional development. I t also reviewed over 2000 volumes, 600 journal a r t i c l e s and major p o s i t i o n papers. The o v e r - a l l picture provided by these multiple sources was negative; one of f r u s t r a t i o n , d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and f a i l u r e . Less extensive reviews of the l i t e r a t u r e , conducted since then, have not yielded a brighter picture. I t would appear that researchers and p r a c t i t i o n e r s have come to nearly unanimous agreement as to the prescriptions for professional development. Three major points of general agreement can be summed up as follows. The f i r s t general point of agreement i s that inservice 4 teacher education needs a t h e o r e t i c a l framework. For too long, profess iona l development has been subject to ad hoc systems of planning and conceptual izat ion . Profess ional development i s guided at best by fragmented, unevaluated and non-cumulative experience. (Fu l lan , 1981; F u l l a n , 1982; Gleave, 1983) The second point of general agreement i s that teachers should be more a c t i v e l y involved i n planning, determining and organiz ing programs, i n presenting content, i n the evaluat ion of profess iona l development programs and t h e i r impact. (Arends, Hersch and Turner, 1978; Berman and Fr iedwi tzer , 1981; B u r r e l l o and Orbaugh, 1982; Inservice Education, 1983; Melv in , 1974; Smith, 1983.) There i s a c a l l for a new pattern i n the organizat ion of profess iona l development programs based on a "consumer" model. This model involves the consumer of profess iona l development, the teacher, i n the planning, decision-making, d e l i v e r y and evaluat ion of programs (Yarger, Howey and Joyce, 1980). A 1980 research analys i s b r i e f prepared by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educat ional Management concludes that research points to "a need for more (teacher) p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n choosing and running s t a f f development programs". Act ive teacher involvement i n shaping the content and s tructure of programs i s one of the most c i t e d guide l ines for 5 e f f ec t i ve profess iona l development. V i r t u a l l y every meta-analys i s of research stresses the importance of invo lv ing teachers i n planning, choosing, and evaluat ing profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s (Fu l lan , 1981; Gleave, 1983; King et a l . , 1977; Korinek and Schmid, 1985; Rubin, 1981; Wood et a l . , 1 9 8 2 ) . The l i t e r a t u r e shows a c l e a r l i n k between successful programs and co l l abora t ive design, d e l i v e r y and evaluat ion . (Gleave, 1981; Bure l lo and Orbaugh, 1982; Fr iedberg , Buckley and Townsend, unpublished manuscript; Loucks and Zigarmi , 1981). The Rand Chancre Agent Study (Berman and McLaughlin, 1975) found that i t d i d not matter who i n i t i a t e d a program, what mattered was how planning was c a r r i e d out. Co l laborat ive planning i n which teachers and administrators had equal input was more successful than e i t h e r planning by teachers alone or planning by administrators alone. Rubin (1978) of fers an explanation for the success of c o l l a b o r a t i v e programs. In h i s opinion, many teachers have had unsat i s fac tory experiences with inserv ice a c t i v i t i e s . Rubin be l ieves that teachers' incent ive to improve i s great ly strengthened when they can p a r t i c i p a t e i n the determination, i n i t i a t i o n and organizat ion of t h e i r own profess ional development. This opinion i s shared by Ryor and h i s col leagues: "Teachers who know the most about t h e i r own needs have had too l i t t l e to say about i t . . . What we need i s a cooperative process of school improvement i n which teachers are f u l l partners i n decision-making." (Ryor et a l . , 1979, p.14) 6 I t i s a l so the opinion of T y l e r : "By being one of the responsible p a r t i c i p a n t s i n i d e n t i f y i n g educational problems, s e l ec t ing or devis ing s tra teg ies for t h e i r attack, i d e n t i f y i n g the new a t t i tudes , knowledge and s k i l l s required to carry out s t ra teg i e s , and s e l e c t i n g or designing poss ib le means for acquir ing them, teachers develop the necessary background for not only broadening t h e i r range of choices , but for making more informed choices ." (Tyler i n Rubin, 1978, p.149) Teacher involvement i s deemed important for two reasons: 1) Programs designed by teachers are l i k e l y to be s tructured around t h e i r own concerns; 2) A teacher who has been a c t i v e l y involved i n planning a program i s l i k e l y to have a greater sense of ownership and w i l l work to make i t success fu l . The t h i r d point of general agreement i s that profess ional development should focus on the teacher on the job (Berman and McLaughlin, 1978; Bush, 1984; G r i f f i n , 1982; Joyce and Showers, 1980; Lawrence, 1974; L i t t l e , 1984; Nicholson, Joyce, Parker and Waterman, 1976; National Ins t i tu te of Education, 1980; Wood and Thompson, 1980) and on teacher's needs (Berman and McLaughlin, 1978; Lawrence, 1974; McLaughlin and Marsh; 1978; Nicholson, Joyce, Parker and Waterman, 1976; Nat ional I n s t i t u t e of Educat ion, 1980; Wade, 1984-85; Wood and Thompson, 1980). I t i s argued that for schools to change the i n d i v i d u a l s wi th in them must change (Halls and Loucks, 1978). For change to take place i n the i n d i v i d u a l , the content and type of profes s iona l development a c t i v i t y must be deemed re levant by the 7 teacher. The importance of recognizing teachers' perceptions of needs has often been stated (Whitehead, 1949; Coombs, 1978; Hunter, 1985; Knowles, 1980; Lambert, 1985; M i t c h e l l , 1968; Rutherford and Weaver, 1974; Weber, 1974). To summarize, the three major points of agreement found i n the l i t e r a t u r e on profess ional development are 1) the need for a t h e o r e t i c a l framework; 2) ac t ive involvement of teachers i n t h e i r own profess iona l development; 3) content that i s focused on the teacher on the job and on teacher concerns. Of these three major points of agreement, the need for a t h e o r e t i c a l framework can be thought of as fundamental. A t h e o r e t i c a l framework for profess ional development, by i t s very nature, should encompass various dimensions of teacher education. The other two points of agreement (teacher involvement i n decision-making and content focused on teachers' concerns) can be thought of as two of the many dimensions of profess ional development. At the present time, they are considered v i t a l and important dimensions. I t can be expected that any t h e o r e t i c a l framework current ly being proposed w i l l address these two dimensions. Teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be defined as the dimension of 8 governance: who makes the decis ions and takes on the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for organizing programs. Content focused on teachers ' concerns can be defined loose ly as the dimension of relevance. Relevance re fers here to content and mode of presentat ion that teachers consider to be worthwhile and are w i l l i n g to accept and respond to . I t would appear to be u n i v e r s a l l y agreed that enthusiasm for profess iona l development (PD) programs has been lack ing p a r t l y due to disagreement over program contro l and p a r t l y due to a perceived lack of relevance i n programs. B i v e r t (1982) stated "that p a r t i c i p a t i o n ( in planning) r e s u l t s i n greater perceived relevance of the educational content, a more favorable a t t i tude toward l e a r n i n g , a stronger commitment to the program and a greater l i k e l i h o o d that an i n d i v i d u a l ' s l earn ing object ives w i l l be met." Relevance, seen i n t h i s l i g h t , can be considered as secondary to governance. I f teachers are responsible for planning and choosing content and i t s form of presentat ion, they have the p o t e n t i a l to choose what they consider "relevant". The importance accorded these two dimensions i s r e f l e c t e d i n the t h e o r e t i c a l frameworks current ly being put forward. 9 Developmental Theory as a Profess ional Development Framework Developmental theory i s one type of framework present ly being discussed. An important feature of a developmental framework i s that i t takes into account two of the most c i t e d p r e s c r i p t i o n s found i n the l i t e r a t u r e : the dimensions of governance (act ive teacher involvement i n decision-making) , and the dimension of relevance (content and type of a c t i v i t y ) . Another important aspect of developmental theory i s that i t sees profess iona l development as a process taking place over an extended per iod of time. This answers another severe c r i t i c i s m of current profess iona l development programs; the prevalence and f a i l u r e of one-shot PD sessions. Because i t addresses these current concerns, i t i s l i k e l y that developmental theory w i l l p lay an i n f l u e n t i a l r o l e i n the coming decade. I t can also be sa id that developmental approaches to teacher education follow a larger educational movement, the s h i f t toward learner-centered, process-or iented i n s t r u c t i o n . In profess iona l development, "developmental approach" i s an umbrella term covering three d i f f e r e n t trends and areas of research which have d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t roots . I t i s used i n reference to Teacher centers (resource centers where teachers can go for help from other teachers or to f ind and design m a t e r i a l s ) ; The study of teachers as developing profess ionals whose 10 concerns change as they move through t h e i r profess iona l l i v e s ( F u l l e r ' s work on "Stages of Concern", F u l l e r , 1970); The study of teachers as adult l earners , moving through d i f f e r e n t stages of conceptual development (Hunt's work on "Conceptual Systems Development", Hunt, 1974). Teacher centers , though they have an underlying philosophy, have no c l e a r t h e o r e t i c a l foundation. For t h i s reason, teachers centers were not invest igated for the preparat ion of t h i s study. Stages of Concern theory and Conceptual Systems theory, however, were drawn upon to provide a t h e o r e t i c a l base for the study. They w i l l be discussed i n depth i n Chapter Two. Stages of Concern theory and Conceptual Systems theory have v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t backgrounds and goals for teacher education and spring from d i f f e r e n t areas of research. Despite t h i s , they share many bas ic assumptions. Both theories 1) consider the teacher as an i n d i v i d u a l , and profess iona l development as dependent on change with in the i n d i v i d u a l ; 2) argue that e f f e c t i v e , profess iona l development should be d i rec ted at the i n d i v i d u a l wi th in the group; 3) are based on the assumption that i n d i v i d u a l s have d i f f e r e n t needs and that these needs change; 4) are based on a theory of development, with the assumption of a h i e r a r c h i c a l scale of stages and an end state ( in both cases the end state i s "maturity"); 11 5) see teachers as being at d i f f e r e n t points on a developmental sca le , varying i n t h e i r degree of s e l f -d i rec tedness , a b i l i t y and des ire to work c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y , and i n competence to deal with conceptual problems and un iversa l p r i n c i p l e s as we l l as p r a c t i c a l concerns; 6) be l i eve that teachers' concerns and teachers' preferences for decision-making ro les are d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the teacher's stage of development (whether profes s iona l or conceptual); 7) set forward a framework and guidel ines for a profess iona l development program which are s ens i t i ve to i n d i v i d u a l d i f f erences ; 8) see development as i n t e r a c t i v e (Lewin's theory that behaviour = person + environment); 9) take into considerat ion the two dimensions of profess iona l development most often c i t e d as needing a t tent ion: governance and relevance. Not only do these two theories have an end state of "maturity" i n common, the actual descr ipt ions of t h i s end state have many s i m i l a r i t i e s . Stages of Concern theory b u i l d s on the assumption that a teacher must move through a number of l eve l s of development before becoming a "mature" teacher. The theory of Conceptual Systems i s based on the assumption that an adult must move through a number of stages before becoming a "mature" adul t . The mature person or teacher, described i n both theor ies , i s 12 someone who i s responsible , autonomous, yet at the same time, able to i n t e r a c t with others . Both theories propose s i m i l a r guide l ines and a s i m i l a r framework for profess iona l development. Both approaches see the immature teacher or adult as someone who w i l l require a s tructured l earning environment and who w i l l f e e l l i t t l e need for r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and i n t e r a c t i o n with others . Teachers at low l e v e l s of development can be expected to prefer a r i g i d d i r e c t i v e form of profess iona l development. They w i l l funct ion best i n a h igh ly s tructured profess ional development program organized by a supervisor or a s p e c i a l i s t . They w i l l be p r i m a r i l y in teres ted i n very " p r a c t i c a l " , concrete classroom-oriented content. They do not l i k e being offered a l t e r n a t i v e ways of teaching, but want "one good way". They prefer to r e l y on the expert ise of an author i ty rather than on the expert ise of other teachers . There i s very l i t t l e des ire for group i n t e r a c t i o n . As teachers move up the scale of development, they w i l l pre fer less d i r e c t i v e profess ional development (PD) programs that are semi-structured. They w i l l des ire a more c o l l e g i a l and c o l l a b o r a t i v e organizat ion , where supervisors work with teachers, o f f e r i n g information and support. Content can be more var i ed and there i s more in teres t i n group problem so lv ing and peer l e a r n i n g . 13 Teachers a r r i v i n g at the higher stages of development w i l l pre fer and benef i t from a loose ly s tructured form of profess iona l development (PD) with l i t t l e supervis ion and d i r e c t i o n . They w i l l pre fer more s e l f - d i r e c t i o n and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , involvement, c o l l a b o r a t i o n and sharing of ideas with col leagues . They w i l l a l so have more in teres t i n the theories of i n s t r u c t i o n . Research i n developmental theory has provided increas ing evidence that a large percentage of adults (teachers included) have not completed the t r a n s i t i o n from lower l e v e l stages of conceptual development to higher l eve l s of development (Kuhn, Langer, Kohlberg and Haan, 1971; Neimark, 1975; Tomlinson-Keasey, 1972) . Research on the developmental stages of teachers indicates that most teachers are at the lower l eve l s of a developmental scale (Harvey et a l . , 1968; Murphy and Brown, 1970). When the r e s u l t s of t h i s research are appl ied to developmental frameworks, i t can be expected that most teachers, being at lower l e v e l s of conceptual development, w i l l prefer a d i r e c t i v e s tructure for programs and "concrete" p r a c t i c a l content. Research has concentrated on teachers i n general . At the present time, there has been l i t t l e e f f o r t to apply developmental theor ies to s p e c i f i c contexts such as the continuing education of second language teachers. 14 Second Language Teaching: Issues and Trends As stated at the beginning of t h i s chapter, the second language teaching profess ion i s i n the midst of change and r e o r i e n t a t i o n , upheaval and adjustment. Major changes i n the t h e o r e t i c a l foundation of language i n s t r u c t i o n are r e f l e c t e d i n changes being made to second language programs, curr iculum and mater ia l s . T r a d i t i o n a l l y , language i n s t r u c t i o n has always followed the movement of t h e o r e t i c a l l i n g u i s t i c s . In the f o r t i e s , f i f t i e s and s i x t i e s , the major emphasis was on s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s : the study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the components of language. This emphasis resu l ted i n a s t r u c t u r a l approach to language teaching. Since the l a te s i x t i e s , t h e o r e t i c a l l i n g u i s t i c s has sh i f t ed i t s a t tent ion to the communicative propert ies of language and the importance of s o c i a l context. This has resu l ted i n language i n s t r u c t i o n adopting communicative approaches to language teaching. Krashen 7 s d i s t i n c t i o n (1981) between language l earn ing (conscious a t tent ion to language forms) and language a c q u i s i t i o n (subconscious a t tent ion to functions) has further i n t e n s i f i e d a long-term debate i n appl ied l i n g u i s t i c s : how to reconc i l e formal and natura l approaches to language l earn ing . A formal or r a t i o n a l approach attempts to introduce order and reason to the b a s i c a l l y 15 disordered nature of spoken language. I t focuses on s t ruc ture , ru le s and the components of language. A natura l approach attempts to emulate, i n the classroom s e t t i n g , aspects found i n the natura l or non-teaching s e t t i n g . At the present time, "communicative approach" i s used to cover the spectrum of teaching s ty l e s found between the two poles , formal and n a t u r a l . As Massey wri tes : "There i s no u n i f i e d theory of a communicative approach, but b a s i c a l l y i t can be c l a s s i f i e d into strong and weak vers ions . The strong vers ion has communicative i n t e r a c t i o n at the heart of the curr iculum, while the weak vers ion s t i l l preserves a s t r u c t u r a l core curr iculum, and when, the learner knows the language, promotes a c t i v i t i e s that w i l l engage the student i n communicative i n t e r a c t i o n . " (Massey, 1985, p.269) I t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine what goes on i n the classroom simply by asking teachers to describe what they do. There i s , as yet , very l i t t l e research on what teachers r e a l l y do i n the classroom. What they l a b e l "communicative" could vary according to the vers ion of the communicative approach to which they adhere. What research does ex i s t would seem to ind ica te a pattern that i s not necessar i ly "strongly" communicative. Fanselow (1978) showed that the second language classroom i s ru led by the teacher, who dominates questions, determines responses and provides most of the react ions i n the classroom. Long and Sato (1983) found that the nature of question-and-answer pattern i n the second language classroom d id not resemble question and answers i n natura l se t t ings , even though teachers claimed to be using a communicative approach. F r o h l i c h , Spada and A l l e n (1985) found that the focus of the second language classroom, even when declared communicative, was on grammar and vocabulary. They character ized the t y p i c a l classroom i n the fo l lowing way: "Second language classrooms are t y p i c a l l y based on a rather high degree of teacher c o n t r o l . Learners r a r e l y i n i t i a t e d iscourse; they are seldom asked questions to which the teacher does not already have the answer, are expected to produce s p e c i f i c language forms and are not often given the opportunity to exchange information with i n t e r l o c u t o r s i n a natura l manner." (1985, p.49) A study of Core French classrooms conducted by Ullmann and Geva (1984) found the same s i t u a t i o n i n the FSL classroom. From observations made at the primary, jun ior and intermediate l e v e l , they concluded that Core French programs, l i k e other second language classrooms, tend to be p r i m a r i l y formal i n nature. Worldwide, the movement of language teaching i s towards t r u l y communicative approaches. New curriculum and programs based on a "strong" communicative approach br ing new methods, new mater ia ls and more importantly, new ro les for the second language teacher and l earner . I t can be predicted that t h i s movement w i l l br ing i n the coming years, a per iod of upheaval and adjustment. Profess ional development i s an important and v i t a l element i n encouraging the s h i f t from t r a d i t i o n a l , s t r u c t u r a l approaches 17 to n a t u r a l , learner-centered communicative approaches. For FSL i n Canada, F u l l a n ' s caution can only be underl ined: educational change, now more than ever before, i s dependent on the e x i s t i n g teaching force and teachers' opportunit ies for profess iona l development. As stated above, the term "communicative" i t s e l f i s ambiguous, and requires c l a r i f i c a t i o n before i t can be adopted as a curriculum goa l . This need for c l a r i f i c a t i o n l ed H . H . Stern to define and describe a "multi-dimensional curriculum". Stern defines t h i s d i v e r s i f i e d curriculum (1984) as cons i s t ing of four components or "syllabuses": 1) A language sy l labus - with a stronger n o t i o n a l - f u n c t i o n a l component (focus on language forms used i n c e r t a i n funct ions , acts , or ru les of conversation) 2) A c u l t u r a l sy l labus which would be more elaborate than the now customary occasional c u l t u r a l t i d b i t s 3) A sy l labus of communicative a c t i v i t i e s which would br ing an immersion-type language experience component into the core program 4) A general language education sy l labus , which would aim at creat ing among students a c e r t a i n l i n g u i s t i c awareness through deal ing with questions of language, c u l t u r e , communities, and language learning i n general 18 Stern emphasized that these four syl labuses must not be thought of as four separate areas handled independently of each other; they should be c l o s e l y integrated into one another. Stern proposed t h i s sy l labus for a l l second language classrooms (1984). An attempt at a c t u a l l y implementing a mult i -dimensional curr iculum i s present ly taking place i n the FSL classroom i n Canada. Core French Programs i n Canada French as a second language (FSL) has been treated as a core subject i n both elementary and secondary curriculum since the f i f t i e s . When i t was f i r s t introduced to the elementary curr iculum, i t was hoped that i t would contr ibute to the development of b i l i n g u a l i s m . These high hopes were not to be met. Parents' d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with FSL programs eventual ly lead to the crea t ion of French Immersion programs. By the l a t e seventies , French Immersion had proved i t s e l f a p r a c t i c a l and successful way for anglophones to l earn French. French Immersion remains, however, an a l t e r n a t i v e program: an option ava i lab l e only to a minori ty of school c h i l d r e n . Approximately 90% of the students who study French i n Canada, do so i n FSL classrooms (Yalden, 1981). For these students, FSL/Core French programs are the only means a v a i l a b l e for l earn ing French. 19 Over time, Core French has undergone various measures of improvement. Stern (1985) summarizes these measures: 1) Gett ing an e a r l i e r s t a r t at l earn ing French. Parent groups advocated that FSL be moved down from secondary to elementary, from grades 6 and 7 to kindergarten and grade one. 2) Increased time a l l o c a t i o n s . The G i l l i n Report (Ontario M i n i s t r y of Education, 1974) has been i n f l u e n t i a l wel l beyond Ontar io . The G i l l i n report advocated a more r e a l i s t i c approach to the time needed for l earn ing a language. I t suggested that 1,200 hours of school time, regardless of the d i s t r i b u t i o n over school years , was needed to a t t a i n a bas ic l e v e l of p r o f i c i e n c y . This time allowance has been widely adopted across the country. 3) Recru i t ing s p e c i a l i s t French teachers and prov id ing opportuni t ies for t r a i n i n g and profess iona l development i n Core French. 4) Improvement of teaching mater ia l s . A v a r i e t y of French courses and supplementary materials r e f l e c t newer p r i n c i p l e s of course design. 5) Renewal of the Core French curr iculum. Many new curriculum guides have been developed since the la te seventies or ear ly e i g h t i e s . These curriculum guides emphasize communication or communicative competence as a goal and s t r i v e i n d i f f e r e n t ways to achieve t h i s goa l . 20 In sp i t e of these e f f o r t s , there i s s t i l l a general f ee l ing of discontent with Core French programs, expressed by adminis trators , parents , teachers and students a l i k e . The success of immersion programs has added weight to the need f e l t to improve FSL. Stewart Goodings, of Canadian Parents for French, compared French Immersion and Core French programs: "In terms of Core French, or French as a subject , I am less o p t i m i s t i c . Far fewer c h i l d r e n are studying French at the secondary l e v e l than ten years ago, and the programs at the elementary l e v e l appear to be very uneven. These programs seem to be e l iminated whenever budget r e s t r a i n t i s imposed. Much remains to be done to ensure top q u a l i t y bas ic French programs a l l over Canada." (Goodings, 1984, p.2) This concern i s shared by FSL teachers themselves. In the 1986 Canadian Assoc ia t ion of Second Language Teachers (CASLT) nat iona l survey, i n response to an open-ended quest ion, many FSL teachers voiced t h e i r des ire to improve FSL teaching by drawing on the Immersion experience. The biggest challenge at the present time i s the s h i f t from t r a d i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r a l approaches to language teaching to newer approaches. As Carmella Hohwy, president for the Canadian Assoc ia t ion of Second Language Teachers (CASLT) i n 1984, wrote: "L'enseignement du francais langue seconde est constamment remis en quest ion. Bien que les programmes se soient ameliores, i l reste beaucoup a f a i r e . Ces dernieres annees les methodes d'enseignement de francais langue seconde ont de la i s se les methodes t r a d i t i o n n e l l e s pour tenter d i f f erentes methodes ou l ' o r a l prime." (Hohwy, 1984. p.3) The Commission of the Canadian Teachers' Federat ion, a f ter a study of FSL across Canada (1982), concluded that dec i s ive improvements were needed nation-wide, and pleaded for a more comprehensive e f f o r t , inc lud ing a research program. This plea was answered by the Canadian Assoc ia t ion of Second Language Teachers (CASLT) which proposed a Nat ional Core French Study. The Nat ional Core French Study has two goals: 1) M o b i l i z a t i o n of e x i s t i n g resources by i d e n t i f y i n g and coordinat ing the d i f f e r e n t e f f o r t s made across the country 2) Innovation of the Core French curriculum The Nat ional Core French Study, therefore , represents a nation-wide thrust to rethink FSL curr iculum. The Study was undertaken on the convic t ion that Core French programs i n Canada needed to be strengthened i f they were to s a t i s f y the expectations of the Canadian populat ion. The main intent of the Study i s to inves t igate Stern's mult i -dimensional curriculum and i t s implementation i n schools across Canada. The FSL teacher i s recognized as the p ivot of educational change. David Stern wrote: "Teachers are a key fac tor i n any change or renewal of the teaching of French as a second language. . . . I f t h i s project i s to make an impact here and now, i t i s the p r a c t i s i n g teachers who are i n the schools at present who should be brought into the process of renewal and who should be i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e . " (Stern, 1986, p . i ) Profess ional Development of Second Language Teachers There i s a great deal of research to be done yet i n the area of profess iona l development for second language teachers. This area has not received the breadth of a t tent ion that general in serv i ce has rece ived. There i s r e a l l y very l i t t l e information on the profess iona l development of FSL teachers and on t h e i r needs. Very few profes s iona l development models have been proposed for FSL teachers , though i t would appear that c e r t a i n guide l ines are being handed along i n an informal fashion from one French coordinator to another. C a r r i e r e (1980) describes j u s t such a set of guide l ines found i n the school d i s t r i c t s of r u r a l B r i t i s h Columbia. The informal model that he describes meets two s p e c i f i c needs for profess ional development. C a r r i e r e ' s model targets 1. The n o n - s p e c i a l i s t classroom teacher who i s able to teach elementary school FSL programs 2. Small school d i s t r i c t s C a r r i e r e states that there i s l i t t l e information s p e c i f i c to the profess iona l development of n o n - s p e c i a l i s t classroom teachers of FSL. He estimates that i n B r i t i s h Columbia 62% of a l l teachers of elementary French f a l l in to t h i s category. C a r r i e r e sees t h i s as a r e a l dilemma. With the growing popu lar i ty of French programs, i t can be expected that more d i s t r i c t s w i l l be implementing programs and more teachers w i l l need FSL inserv ice t r a i n i n g . 23 C a r r i e r e a lso underl ines the problems encountered by small school d i s t r i c t s i n provid ing for the continuing education of the FSL teaching s t a f f . Small school d i s t r i c t s can draw on very few resource people, have l i m i t e d f i n a n c i a l resources and none of the courses a v a i l a b l e to urban dwel lers . Of a l l school d i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 57% can be d e f i n i t e l y categorized as small school d i s t r i c t s , another 17% could f a l l in to t h i s category. As the problem of inserv ice "tra ining" of non-spec ia l i zed teachers i s an offshoot of program implementation, there i s a l o t of importance accorded to pre-program and pre -profes s iona l development groundwork. The model i t s e l f i s s tructured around a "Year One", f i r s t year of an elementary school FSL program. The three main aims of the proposed profess iona l development model for "Year One" are 1. To provide the non- spec ia l i s t teacher with the bas ic s k i l l s needed to conduct an elementary program i n French as a second language 2. To implement the curriculum guide and approved program 3. To fos ter a des ire i n teachers to further improve o r a l French s k i l l s and/or language teaching s k i l l s by v o l u n t a r i l y undertaking one or more follow-up a c t i v i t i e s (summer school) The model i s broken into three components: a l i n g u i s t i c component, a pedagogical component and a c u l t u r a l component. 24 As can be seen by both the aims and the components suggested by t h i s model, the profess ional development of FSL teachers has c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which d i s t i n g u i s h i t from more general profes s iona l development models. The profess iona l development of FSL teachers i s very c l o s e l y t i e d to expanding programs and program implementation. Teachers not only need to keep abreast of changes i n the theory and p r a c t i c e of language i n s t r u c t i o n , some may have to be introduced to t h i s f i e l d . Teachers might need to improve t h e i r French language s k i l l s , as wel l as l earn more about French Canadian c u l t u r e . These are not the types of problem l i k e l y to be encountered by teachers i n other subject areas. I t can be hypothesized that these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i l l a f f ec t a teacher's concerns and preferences for r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Another model for the profess ional development of FSL teachers was described by B i l i n k i et a l . (1986). This model was used i n Manitoba i n a province-wide attempt to change the o r i e n t a t i o n of FSL teaching. I t attempted to organize simultaneously the profess ional development of teachers and curriculum implementation. In Manitoba, new FSL c u r r i c u l a and mater ia l s required a t r a n s i t i o n from teacher-d irected approaches to a student-centered approach. I t was f e l t that , for these new programs to be e f f e c t i v e , FSL teachers i n the school system needed to understand the underlying p r i n c i p l e s of the communicative approach, acquire 25 new teaching s k i l l s and accept a r e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e i r ro les as teachers. A f l e x i b l e format for profess iona l development was chosen. I t was a lso s trongly f e l t that teachers should a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n the planning and organizat ion of sess ions . An important element i n t h i s program was that profess iona l development took place at regular i n t e r v a l s during the f i r s t year of implementation, rather than p r i o r to implementation. These sessions provided support and assistance to the teachers when they needed them most and were based on questions that teachers ra i sed as they worked with the new curr iculum. A f t e r one year of implementation, changes were made to the curriculum based on teachers ' comments and experience. As can be seen, the profess iona l development model proposed for FSL teachers addresses a teaching context s p e c i f i c to FSL. However, what a lso can be seen i n B i l i n k i ' s model i s a concern with issues that have been brought up i n more general teacher education: the importance of a profess ional development program that allows for teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n and provides content that r e f l e c t s teachers' concerns. Though there i s more l i t e r a t u r e a v a i l a b l e on the profes s iona l development of second language teachers than there i s on that of FSL teachers, there i s not a wealth of information. 26 Few meta-analyses of surveys and studies were found. There were very few l i s t s of pre scr ip t ions and guide l ines for the future, although some recommendations for the profess iona l development of second language teachers have been proposed. These recommendations, as wel l as c r i t i c i s m s of e x i s t i n g profess iona l development programs, echo what i s being sa id about profess iona l development i n general . The profess iona l development programs present ly a v a i l a b l e to the second language teacher, with a few notable exceptions, have received the same type of c r i t i c i s m aimed at general profess iona l development programs: "Many of the programs developed tend to be deve loper -ra t iona l i zed rather than trainee-need responsive. Few programs connect classroom r e a l i t y to in serv i ce t r a i n i n g . . . . Foreign language teacher education for beginning or experienced teachers tends to be u n i v e r s i t y dominated and i n i t i a t e d . Foreign language teachers r a r e l y i n i t i a t e the design of t h e i r own programs." (Goddu, 1976) Janice Yalden (1983) wrote that profess iona l development should be made more systematic; provid ing opportuni t ies to a t t a i n higher l e v e l s of a b i l i t y and competence and rep lac ing the incoherent set of workshops without theme or o v e r a l l purpose now prevalent . I t i s f e l t that the implementation of programs based on the communicative approach should r e l y on planned profess ional development (Bergeron, 1986; B i l i n k i et a l . , 1986) and i t should 27 focus on the i n d i v i d u a l teacher: "Inset ( inserv ice education for teachers) needs to begin from the present knowledge, a t t i tudes , object ives and methods of i t s p a r t i c i p a n t s . " (Candlin, 1983, p.83) The three major concerns of general research are repeated once again i n the context of second language teaching. These are 1) the need for a t h e o r e t i c a l framework; 2) the need for greater teacher involvement i n decision-making and design; 3) the need for content based on teachers' concerns. Referr ing to the National Core French Study, Stern wrote: "The mult i -dimensional curriculum makes new demands on foreign language teachers which i n the long run have impl icat ions for u n i v e r s i t y courses and language teacher education, and i n the immediate future are best met by ac t ive teacher involvement and i n - s e r v i c e programs." ( Stern, 1985) A mult i -dimensional curriculum with a strong communicative component and a learner-centered approach to language teaching leads to many changes as to what i s taught and how i t i s taught. For new programs and materials to be success fu l , teachers need to understand the l i n g u i s t i c theories underlying the approach. They a lso need to acquire new teaching s k i l l s . But most of a l l , they w i l l need to acquire a new perception of the student's ro le and of t h e i r own r o l e . A t r u l y communicative approach to 28 language teaching requires that teachers make a s h i f t from teacher-d irec ted approaches to student-centered approaches (Bergeron, 1986; Edelhoff , i n A l a t i s et a l . , 1983). Profess ional development w i l l need to provide not only-knowledge and s k i l l s , but a lso to br ing about a change i n teacher a t t i t u d e s . At t i tude change, as was shown by the research work of Korinek and Schmid (1985), i s the most d i f f i c u l t of goals for profes s iona l development. I t i s a lso not the type of goal l i k e l y to be reached through one-shot PD sess ions. A t t i t u d e change requires time. Janice Yalden (1983), i n a d e s c r i p t i o n of t r a i n i n g needs i n the 1980's, wrote that as the context of teaching languages has changed, so should teacher education goals and objec t ives . Among the new s k i l l s required of FSL teachers, are the fo l lowing: 1) The a b i l i t y to meet i n d i v i d u a l and group needs i n terms of content 2) The a b i l i t y to provide learner-centered i n s t r u c t i o n I t would seem l o g i c a l that i f that i s what i s expected of teachers, i t should a lso be what i s expected of those responsible for prov id ing the continuing education of teachers . Profess ional development for FSL teachers should meet i n d i v i d u a l and group needs. I t should a lso focus on the l earner , i n t h i s case, the FSL teacher. 29 Implicat ions of a Developmental Approach A developmental approach to the profess iona l development of second language teachers has, i n many ways, much to o f f e r . Recognizing that not a l l teachers have the same perception of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n profess ional development, nor the same type of concerns w i l l r e s u l t i n a d i f f e r e n t approach to profess iona l development. A profess iona l development s t r u c t u r e , that recognizes that teachers are not a homogeneous group, w i l l necessar i ly attempt to provide a l earning environment s ens i t ive to these d i f ferences . This i s what developmental theory has to o f f er profess iona l development. There are some aspects of developmental theory that should be treated with caut ion. There i s a danger of categor iz ing teachers, and of categor iz ing them i n c o r r e c t l y through judgments made about t h e i r preferences for governance and content. There i s a l so a danger that a developmental approach w i l l be adopted i n a s i t u a t i o n that requires more immediate and pragmatic ac t i on . Teachers might have preferences for t h e i r l earn ing environment that are not re la ted to t h e i r stage of development but to more concrete fac tors , such as i s o l a t i o n , lack of s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g i n FSL and lack of confidence i n t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s . FSL teachers i n a given school d i s t r i c t range from the non-q u a l i f i e d elementary classroom teacher c a l l e d upon to teach FSL without the necessary l i n g u i s t i c or teaching s k i l l s , to the 3 0 highly q u a l i f i e d s p e c i a l i s t who wishes to keep abreast of theory and p r a c t i c e . FSL teachers are often i s o l a t e d both from a French-speaking m i l i e u and from other FSL teachers . They may or may not f ee l confident i n t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s and i n t h e i r FSL t r a i n i n g and competence as teachers. These fac tors may weigh heav i ly i n teachers' perceptions of the type of l earn ing environment that they need, and on t h e i r current concerns. Each teaching context has i t s own p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In the case of FSL, i t can be argued that the context i s even more complex for one major reason. Many teachers are teaching i n a language that i s not t h e i r mother tongue (69.9% according to the CASLT nat ional survey, 198 6). I t could be extremely inappropriate to r e l y on a developmental d e s c r i p t i o n of stages as the major factor in f luenc ing choices . We should hes i tate before adopting one of the bas ic assumptions of stage development theory, namely, that how complexly a person thinks or fee ls i s governed by h i s / h e r stage of development. Keeping i n mind the recency of developmental theory for adul t s , i t i s important that each teaching context be examined before any genera l izat ions are made. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the ac tua l FSL teaching context need to be studied before whole-heartedly adopting developmental theory. 31 Stern and Reiser (1975) reviewed the r e l a t i o n s h i p between successful change attempts and teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and concluded that demographic teacher v a r i a b l e s were not good pred ic tors of successful change. Even i f demographic var iab le s are not what determines the success of a program, they could inf luence how teachers perceive t h e i r needs and r o l e i n programs. They could be an i n d i r e c t inf luence on the success or f a i l u r e of (even the best) programs. General Statement of the Problem While there i s general agreement that teachers, as profess ionals and adults must be involved i n the planning, design, d e l i v e r y and evaluat ion of profess iona l development, there i s no c l e a r agreement on how teachers should be involved and to what degree. Teachers themselves have r a r e l y been given the opportunity to express t h e i r perception of t h e i r r o l e i n the organizat ion of profess ional development. There i s a lso general agreement that profess iona l development must be re levant , addressing teachers' concerns and presented i n a mode to which teachers w i l l respond. There i s , however, l i t t l e information as to how teachers ' needs and concerns can be met. There i s a lso very l i t t l e information on how teachers themselves perceive content needs. 32 While there i s s t i l l very l i t t l e information a v a i l a b l e on teachers' preferences i n general , we know even less about how second language teachers perceive t h e i r r o l e i n profess iona l development; and the s i t u a t i o n worsens when the perceptions of Core French teachers are considered. Do FSL teachers wish to be a c t i v e l y involved i n decision-making? In what phases? To what degree? What a f fects t h e i r preferences? The assumptions of two developmental theories have been appl ied to profess iona l development. They have provided a t h e o r e t i c a l framework as wel l as guidel ines for the organizat ion and content of programs. The bas ic assumption of both these theor ies i s that wi th in a group of teachers are i n d i v i d u a l teachers at various stages of development. These stages determine a teacher's preferences for involvement i n decision-making; the content and form of i n s t r u c t i o n that a teacher w i l l consider relevant and w i l l therefore be more w i l l i n g to accept and respond to . The suggestion made by current research i s that teachers are at d i f f e r e n t stages of conceptual development and at d i f f e r e n t stages i n t h e i r profess ional l i v e s . Are these stages, i n e f fec t , r e f l e c t e d i n the preferences of FSL teachers? Are they the only factors in f luenc ing how teachers perceive t h e i r profess iona l development needs? Or are there other teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 33 s p e c i f i c t o the FSL t e a c h i n g context i n f l u e n c i n g t e a c h e r s ' p r e f e r e n c e s , such as i s o l a t i o n from o t h e r FSL t e a c h e r s , l a c k of c o n f i d e n c e i n l i n g u i s t i c competence and t h e i r c u r r e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l development. T h e o r e t i c a l and P r a c t i c a l Value of the Study Research i n t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n has s h i f t e d i t s f o c u s . T h i s can be seen i n the heightened i n t e r e s t i n the p r o f e s s s i o n a l development of t e a c h e r s and the r e c o g n i t i o n of the importance of the t e a c h e r i n implementing e d u c a t i o n a l change. Competency-based t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g has been d i s p l a c e d as the f o c a l p o i n t f o r r e s e a r c h . There are two new t r e n d s of r e s e a r c h : 1) r e s e a r c h which views the t e a c h e r as c e n t r a l t o e d u c a t i o n a l change, and 2) r e s e a r c h i n t o the development of t e a c h e r s i n t h e i r a d u l t and p r o f e s s i o n a l l i v e s . T h i s type of r e s e a r c h has been conducted a t a g e n e r a l l e v e l . There i s , as y e t , v e r y l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n on how these t h e o r i e s apply t o s u b j e c t - s p e c i f i c areas, such as second language t e a c h i n g . I t i s important t o examine these broad t h e o r e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s i n s p e c i f i c c o n t e x t s . The assumptions of developmental t h e o r y concerning p r o f e s s i o n a l development need to be examined i n r e a l s i t u a t i o n s . 34 With current changes i n second language teaching p r a c t i c e and theory, the need for more information on the profess iona l development of FSL teachers i s evident. I f new second language teaching approaches are to be adopted wi th in schools , many teachers w i l l need to adjust how they perceive t h e i r ro les as teachers . As change i s dependent on e x i s t i n g s t a f f , the adoption of new a t t i tudes and a new approach to language teaching w i l l neces sar i ly r e l y on e f f ec t ive profess iona l development. More information on teachers' perceptions would be of use to those responsible for the organizat ion of profess iona l development (administrators and teachers a l i k e ) . I t i s a lso quite poss ib le that c e r t a i n teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , p a r t i c u l a r to FSL teaching, might inf luence teachers ' preferences. I f t h i s i s so, then these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s would need to be considered i n any approach to profess iona l development, "developmental" or other. As has been prev ious ly s tated, the context of FSL teaching i n Canada has p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that are d i s t i n c t l y i t s own. More information on how these var iab le s a f fec t teachers' perceptions and choices would be valuable on the t h e o r e t i c a l , as wel l as, on the p r a c t i c a l l e v e l . A study which invest igates teachers' preferences for supervisory support, decision-making ro les and program content may a s s i s t a l l those involved i n the profess iona l development of FSL teachers i n making the implementation of change a smoother process . The Purpose of the Study The purpose of t h i s study i s two-fo ld . I t intends to examine 1) FSL teachers' preferences for decision-making ro l e s (the planning, design, de l i very and evaluat ion of profess iona l development) and t h e i r preferences for content and form of i n s t r u c t i o n of profess ional development programs. 2) Teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , p a r t i c u l a r to FSL teaching, that might inf luence teachers ' , preferences for s tructure and content i n profess ional development. I f there i s v a r i a t i o n among teachers' preferences for the s tructure and content of profess ional development, t h i s w i l l support a bas ic and fundamental assumption of developmental theory. This i s that teachers need to be considered as a group of people with d i f f e r e n t l earning s ty l e s and concerns. While t h i s might not be an unexpected f i n d i n g , recogni t ion of such an assumption has yet to be re f l ec t ed i n the ac tua l organizat ion of profess iona l development programs. Research i n Conceptual Systems theory showed that the majori ty of teachers, l i k e the majority of adul t s , are at lower l eve l s of conceptual development. When these f indings are appl ied to proposed developmental frameworks for profess iona l 36 development, i t can be expected t h a t the m a j o r i t y o f t e a c h e r s w i l l p r e f e r c o n c r e t e content and l i t t l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r decision-making. I f the study shows t h a t the m a j o r i t y of respondents p r e f e r a d i r e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e and c o n c r e t e and p r a c t i c a l c ontent i n t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l development programs, t h i s w i l l support t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n . I f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s can be seen between te a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s p e c i f i c t o the FSL t e a c h i n g c o n t e x t and t e a c h e r s ' p r e f e r e n c e s f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l development s t r u c t u r e and content, t h i s w i l l i n d i c a t e t h a t f a c t o r s o t h e r than developmental l e v e l may be i n f l u e n c i n g t e a c h e r s ' p r e f e r e n c e s . These f a c t o r s w i l l have t o be c o n s i d e r e d by developmental t h e o r i e s a p p l i e d t o the FSL t e a c h i n g c o n t e x t and by f u t u r e r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area. Research Questions and Hypotheses The study w i l l pose the f o l l o w i n g r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s : 1) Do t e a c h e r s have v a r i e d p r e f e r e n c e s f o r decision-making r o l e s i n p r o f e s s i o n a l development? Do the m a j o r i t y p r e f e r t o l e a v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r decision-making w i t h a s u p e r v i s o r y f i g u r e ? 2) Do t e a c h e r s have v a r i e d p r e f e r e n c e s f o r content and type of a c t i v i t y i n p r o f e s s i o n a l development programs? Do the majority prefer " p r a c t i c a l " concrete content? 3) Are there teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s p e c i f i c to the FSL teaching context, that are possibly influencing teachers' preferences? The study w i l l examine t h i s l a s t research question by t e s t i n g the following hypothesis: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences observed between teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and teacher preferences for structure and content i n professional development. 38 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of t h i s study i s to examine teachers 7 preferences for decision-making ro les and content i n profess iona l development programs. Two developmental theories that have been appl ied to teacher education provided a framework for designing a research instrument. This chapter provides an overview of developmental theory, i t s background and i t s l i n k to education. I t a lso presents a summary of Stages of Concern theory and Conceptual Systems theory, two developmental theories that propose profess iona l development environments and content wi th in a developmental approach. Intent of Developmental Theory The intent of developmental theory i s to provide a framework for understanding human growth. There i s no one developmental theory capable of encompassing the complexity of human growth. As Norman S p r i n t h a l l wri tes : "A s ing le human being i s and always w i l l be more complex than any s ing le theory (or even, a grand and poss ib ly s y n e r g i s t i c grouping of mul t ip le theories) would lead one to be l i eve . However, we fee l that i t i s poss ib le to at l east gain on the problem (and the paradox) of human understanding by employing a v a r i e t y of developmental perspect ives ." ( S p r i n t h a l l , 1982, pp .1 -2 ) . In a developmentalist attempt to understand human growth, a ser ies of theories and perspectives must be used. I t i s common 39 p r a c t i c e among developmental t h e o r i s t s to look to each other for confirmation and v a l i d a t i o n . Developmental Approaches and The ir Link to Education " . . . t h e aim of education i s development of i n d i v i d u a l s to the utmost of t h e i r p o t e n t i a l i t i e s . " (Dewey, 1934) S p r i n t h a l l j u s t i f i e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between developmental psychology and education by drawing on Dewey, who he claims was the very f i r s t developmentalist . Dewey proposed that c h i l d r e n , far from being miniature vers ions of adul t s , were moving through stages of development. Each stage of t h i s development i s unique and defines how thought i s organized and meaning negotiated. The stage of development of the c h i l d or adolescent w i l l determine what and how that c h i l d w i l l l e a r n . The second part of Dewey's proposal was that development, while occurr ing wi th in the i n d i v i d u a l , was dependent on that person's i n t e r a c t i o n with the environment. Growth, according to Dewey, does not take place automat ica l ly . Without s t imulat ion from the environment, growth ceases and s t a b i l i z e s prematurely. From a developmental point of view, an i n d i v i d u a l ' s growth depends upon the general educational experience ava i l ab l e to him. In h i s essay "The Need for a Philosophy of Education", Dewey unknowingly predic ted the two major preoccupations of future developmental t h e o r i s t s : 1) to a r r i v e at a d e s c r i p t i o n of stages of development, 2) i n order to provide l earn ing experiences and 40 materia ls that are appropriate to that stage and which w i l l promote further growth. Dewey wrote: "What then i s education when we f ind s a t i s f a c t o r y specimens of i t i n existence? In the f i r s t p lace , i t i s a process of development of growth and i t i s the process, and not merely the r e s u l t that i s i m p o r t a n t . . . . an educated person i s the person who has the power to go on and get more education." (Dewey, 1934) The next sect ion provides an over-view of four developmental theor i e s . Descr ipt ions of these theories are drawn from S p r i n t h a l l and Mosher's summary of developmental theory ( S p r i n t h a l l and Mosher, 1983). P iaget ' s Theory of Cognit ive Development. Without a doubt, Piaget has been the developmental t h e o r i s t to inf luence education most. His theory of cogni t ive development defines stages of cogni t ion r e l a t e d to the b i o l o g i c a l age of the c h i l d or adolescent. B a s i c a l l y , stage of cogni t ion describes how the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l th ink and learn at d i f f e r e n t stages of chi ldhood. In Piaget ian theory, i t i s assumed that formal operat ional thought i s at ta ined by the end of adolescence and that no further changes i n cogni t ive development occur i n adulthood. For years the study of human development focused on the development of c h i l d r e n . I t i s only more recent ly that development i n adult l i f e has been recognized and s tudied. Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. Kohlberg, un l ike Piaget , b u i l t a t h e o r e t i c a l framework that encompasses adult cogni t ive development. Kohlberg x s work, based on a ser ies of 41 f i e l d interviews, invest igated how people a c t u a l l y th ink about problems of s o c i a l j u s t i c e . His study revealed that the process of making judgments formed a developmental sequence of s ix stages. This sequence of stage growth p a r a l l e l s Piaget ' s f ind ings . Kohlberg's theory i s that a l l human beings do think about questions of s o c i a l j u s t i c e . The ways that people th ink about them, however, forms a sequence of d i s t i n c t l y and q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t stages of moral judgment. Following Piaget , Kohlberg described the mechanism of change i n terms of accommodation, a s s i m i l a t i o n and e q u i l i b r a t i o n . In each of these processes, change i s the r e s u l t of i n t e r a c t i o n between the i n d i v i d u a l and the environment. The i n d i v i d u a l i s an ac t ive agent i n both the motivation and the d i r e c t i o n of change. The environment provides s i tua t ions that e i ther support or i n h i b i t change. Kohlberg's theory of moral development i s often c i t e d i n developmental approaches to teacher education. Loevinqer's Theory of Ego Development. Loevinger's theory i s a lso based on a ser ies of f i e l d interviews. Her theory (1976) proposes a framework for understanding the stages of ego development. "Ego" refers to the part of human persona l i ty that acts as an executive: ego coordinates , chooses, se lec t s and d i r e c t s a person's a c t i v i t i e s . 42 Loevinger's theory states that at d i f f e r e n t stages of development, the ego functions i n d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t ways. As i n a l l developmental theor ies , there i s the notion of hierarchy and of q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t stages, based on a succession of turning points that include aspects of thought, character development, interpersonal r e l a t i o n s and se l f -understanding . The higher stages are character ized by more complex ego funct ioning ( ie . more aspects of a s i t u a t i o n are taken into cons iderat ion , a broader v i s i o n and understanding, greater to lerance and the a b i l i t y to handle more a l ternat ives ) . I t i s important to note the overlap between Kohlberg's and Loevinger's theor i e s . The lower stages of both of these are character ized by conformity and a des ire to respect the norm, at l eas t s u p e r f i c i a l l y . As mentioned prev ious ly , overlap between theories i s a common occurrence and i s considered a form of corroborat ion . Selman's Theory of Interpersonal Development. Selman i s the f i r s t of the developmental theor i s t s to view the interpersonal domain through a developmental perspect ive . Selman reasoned that i f people process i n stage and sequence the way they th ink of a) time, space and c a u s a l i t y ; and of b) e t h i c a l and s o c i a l j u s t i c e ; and of c) the s e l f and ego domains, then i t would seem l o g i c a l that people a lso move i n developmental stages and sequence i n the way they th ink about and act i n interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Selman defined a f ive-s tage sequence to understand how an i n d i v i d u a l functions i n an interpersonal world. 43 As i n other developmental theor ies , in terpersonal theory i s based on a h ierarchy of development. The i n d i v i d u a l progresses from concrete to abstract , from e g o - c e n t r i c i t y to greater f l e x i b i l i t y . Greater awareness of others, greater to lerance for mul t ip l e perspect ives and a l t ernat ives are t r a i t s of higher stages of development. The l i n k between interpersonal and cogni t ive development has been shown i n research ( F l a v e l l et a l . , 1968; Kuhn et a l . , 1971; Selman, 1971; Tomlinson-Keasey and Keasey, 1974). As can be seen i n these four descr ipt ions of developmental theory, the notion of cogni t ive development has evolved since P iaget ' s work and i s now understood as inc lud ing the development of the ego, the conceptual , the moral and the in terpersona l . There i s a lso increas ing evidence that a large percentage of adults (teachers included) have not completed the t r a n s i t i o n from concrete ( l o g i c a l operations) to formal operat ional thought (propos i t ional thinking) (Tomlinson-Keasey, 1972; Kuhn, Langer, Kohlberg and Haan, 1971; Neimark, 1975). Piaget described t h i s t r a n s i t i o n as ending at the end of adolescence. Chicker ing (1974) d iv ided development t h e o r i s t s into two groups: developmental age theor i s t s and developmental stage t h e o r i s t s . Age theor i s t s d i r e c t t h e i r work at i d e n t i f y i n g concerns, problems and tasks that are common to i n d i v i d u a l s at 44 various times i n t h e i r l i v e s ; and why these concerns, e t c . , are prominent at one time of l i f e rather than another. Stage t h e o r i s t s focus on d i s t i n c t or q u a l i t a t i v e d i f ferences i n the s tructure of th inking and act ing at d i f f e r e n t stages of development that are not l inked to age. These s tructures of thought provide ins ight into what information an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l use, how information i s used and the type of i n t e r a c t i o n to be expected. Stage theor i s t s have i n common a view of adult development as a d e f i n i t e progression from concrete, u n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g , simple s tructured i n d i v i d u a l s to more abs tract , complex s tructured , autonomous, and yet interdependent i n d i v i d u a l s . The presupposi t ion of a l l stage development theories remains that how complexly a person thinks or fee ls i s governed by h i s / h e r stage of development. Development i n a l l cases i s be l i eved to be spurred from wi th in , but also to r e l y on stimulus provided by the environment (Lewin's formula: behaviour = persona l i ty + environment). The inf luence of developmental theories on our philosophy of education for c h i l d r e n i s strong and c l e a r l y recognized. From Dewey, who was the f i r s t to propose that i f we know something about what development i s , then we w i l l know something about what education ought to be, developmental t h e o r i s t s have kept t h e i r 45 l i n k to education. The inf luence of developmental theory on the education of adults has only jus t begun to be f e l t . The Adult Learner There ex i s t s a great deal of theory and research on the normal development of the c h i l d , and on adult pathology. But u n t i l r ecent ly , there was very l i t t l e research or even in teres t i n the cogni t ive development of normal adul t s . Adult learners resemble c h i l d learners i n one important and often forgotten way: Within any group of adult learners w i l l be found d i f f e r e n t l earn ing s t y l e s . Adul t s , ju s t l i k e c h i l d r e n , w i l l react d i f f e r e n t l y to educational environments, p r e f e r r i n g various l e v e l s of s t ruc ture , content and task complexity, a t tent ion to personal needs, feedback about performance, and r i s k - t a k i n g . A d e s c r i p t i o n of the adult learner (Thompson, 1984)) provides the fo l lowing l i s t of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which confirm many of the statements made by developmental t h e o r i s t s : Adults have a need to be s e l f - d i r e c t e d . They prefer to be involved i n s e l ec t ion of object ives , content, a c t i v i t i e s and assessment techniques. (Brundage and MacKeracher, 1980, p. 26; Keirnes-Young, 1981; Wood and Thompson, 1980; Young, 1979) Adults come to any learning experience with a wide range of previous experiences, knowledge, s k i l l s , in teres t s and competence. I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n i s important for adults as 46 wel l as c h i l d r e n . (Brundage and MacKeracher,1980, p.32; Keirnes and Young, 1981; Wood and Thompson, 1980) Adults w i l l l e a r n , r e t a i n and use what they perceive to be re levant to t h e i r personal and profess iona l needs. This means that l earn ing should be p r a c t i c a l and d i rec ted toward r e a l problems. (Brundage and MacKeracher, 1980; Keirnes -Young, 1981; Wood and Thompson, 1980; Young, 1979) Adults need c o l l e g i a l i t y rather than c r i t i c i s m from t h e i r in serv i ce leaders . Adult l earning i s enhanced by a supportive cl imate and by behaviors that demonstrate respect , t r u s t and concern for the l earner . (Arends, 1980; Arends, Hersh and Turner, 1978; Brundage and MacKeracher, 1980, p.26; Keirnes-Young, 1981; Wood and Thompson, 1980; Young, 1979) Adult l earn ing i s ego-involved. Learning a new s k i l l , technique or concept may promote a p o s i t i v e or negative view of s e l f . Adults are more concerned with whether they are changing i n the d i r e c t i o n of t h e i r own i d e a l i z e d s e l f -concept than with whether they are meeting object ives es tabl i shed by others . (Brundage and MacKeracher, 1980, p. 24; Wood and Thompson, 1980) Adults w i l l r e s i s t s i tua t ions which they be l ieve are an attack on t h e i r competence. They tend to re jec t p r e s c r i p t i o n s by others for t h e i r l earn ing , e s p e c i a l l y when what i s described i s viewed as an attack on what they are present ly doing. (Wood and Thompson, 1980) Adults have a need to integrate t h e i r present l earn ing with past experiences. They tend to modify, transform and re integrate e x i s t i n g meaning, values , s t ra teg ies and s k i l l s rather than accumulate new learning as i n chi ldhood. (Brundage and MacKeracher, 1980, p.32-32; Young, 1979, p.11) Many of these bas ic assumptions on the adult l earner are a lso found i n developmental theor ies . However, developmental theories do n o t r s e t out one l i s t of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for a l l adult l earners . They see the adult learner as being at d i f f e r e n t points on a developmental sca le . The d i f f e r e n t developmental stages of adults w i l l be re f l ec t ed i n what they expect from a l earn ing environment and i n how they w i l l react . I t has only very recent ly been proposed that developmental theor ies might have something to o f f er adult education and teacher education. These theories deserve cons iderat ion and c lose examination by a l l those involved with teacher education for the fo l lowing t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions: 1) Change occurs i n the i n d i v i d u a l . 2) Not a l l i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l have the same needs nor react i n the same way to a profess ional development experience. 3) For change to occur, the i n d i v i d u a l must encounter educational experiences that both st imulate and promote growth and are appropriate to the current l e v e l of development. 48 4) This type of change (developmental) w i l l not occur i n a b r i e f educational sess ion, but w i l l take place over an extended per iod of time. These assumptions give weight to developmental models of teacher education i n that they answer and match many of the p r e s c r i p t i o n s and observations found i n the general l i t e r a t u r e of profes s iona l development. However, i n any attempt to apply developmental theory, i t should be remembered that the notion of "adult learner" goes back barely two decades and can only provide a t enta t ive foundation. The next part of t h i s chapter w i l l examine developmental theories proposed s p e c i f i c a l l y for the profess iona l development of teachers . Developmental Theories and Teacher Education As Feiman and Floden noted i n t h e i r summary on teacher development (1981), the term "development" has only recent ly entered the vocabulary of teacher educators. This marks a decided s h i f t from the r h e t o r i c of competency-based t r a i n i n g so popular jus t a short time ago. Competency-based t r a i n i n g r e f l e c t e d another school of psychologica l thought, that of behaviorism. Feidman and Floden (1981) wrote that : "the change to a developmental perspect ive i n teacher education may be p a r t l y a response to the treatment of teachers as passive r e c i p i e n t s of 49 profess iona l knowledge and the den ia l of i n d i v i d u a l d i f ferences among teachers ." This awareness of the i n d i v i d u a l teacher would seem to be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a general trend. Devon G r i f f i t h (1980) for the ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education wrote that : "Inservice programs that f a i l to address the i n t e l l e c t u a l and emotional needs of teachers who p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e m . . . . programs that f a i l to recognize the d i f f e r i n g needs of teachers at d i f f e r e n t stages i n t h e i r careers . . .may a c t u a l l y undermine themselves and prove a squandering of precious s t a f f development funds." G r i f f i t h also summarized current research and trends i n the fo l lowing statement: "As developmental theor i s t s l earn more about adults unique and ever-changing needs, a trend has emerged toward applying growing understanding of adult development to adult educat ion." In a report from the Adult Learning Po ten t ia l I n s t i t u t e (1980), we f i n d : "Thus far we have overlooked the obvious - that in serv i ce p a r t i c i p a n t s are t r u l y adult l earners , whose adult l earn ing patterns continue to change throughout t h e i r l i f e s p a n . . . . (adult) learners are cons i s tent ly approached as a homogeneous group i n which each member i s expected to p a r t i c i p a t e and respond i n l i k e fashion. . . t h i s occurs even though the a c t i v i t y design, may, i n and of i t s e l f , be c r e a t i v e . " 50 The f l u r r y of in teres t i n teacher development makes the s i t u a t i o n unclear . To what does teacher development refer? The l i t e r a t u r e on teacher development encompasses a v a r i e t y of quite d i f f e r e n t concepts, a l l of which have strong commonalities. Developmental approaches to teacher education cover three quite d i f f e r e n t trends: 1) The goals and framework of teacher centers; 2) The work done by Frances F u l l e r on the changing concerns and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of teachers at d i f f e r e n t stages of t h e i r profes s iona l l i v e s ; 3) The a p p l i c a t i o n of theories of adult development to teacher education (Hunt and others) . The next part of t h i s chapter w i l l look at Conceptual Systems Theory and Stages of Concern Theory. Conceptual Systems Theory Conceptual Systems i s based on two theories of stage development. I t integrates the concepts of both interpersonal maturity and information process ing. I t i s a persona l i ty theory that p a r a l l e l s i n some ways the theories of Loevinger (1976) and Kohlberg (1979). I t focuses on i n d i v i d u a l d i f ferences i n s o c i a l cogni t ion wi th in a developmental framework. In t h e i r i n i t i a l work, Harvey, Hunt and Schroeder (1961) proposed that i n d i v i d u a l d i f ferences among adults were a funct ion 51 of one's conceptual system. They described Conceptual Systems Theory as "how an i n d i v i d u a l learns to adapt to h i s i n t e r -personal environment, how such a pattern of adaptation af fects h i s react ions to contemporaneous events and how such patterns of conceptual organizat ion may be modified" (1961, p . 8 ) . A conceptual system represents a s tructure or organizat ion of concepts which work together. From the o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n of Conceptual Systems theory i n 1961, considerable research has been conducted (Hunt and S u l l i v a n , 1974; Schroeder, Driver and Steufert , 1967; Steufert and Steufer t , 1978) . I t should a lso be noted that there are d i f f e r e n t der iva t ives of conceptual systems theory; major d i f ferences are due to the emphasis given to motivation as opposed to conceptual complexity. Most of the research work has been c a r r i e d out i n an i n t e r a c t i o n i s t mode, fo l lowing Lewin's formulation that behaviour i s a funct ion of an i n t e r a c t i o n between persona l i ty and environment. Personal i ty i s viewed "as an i n t e r a c t i v e funct ion of the person's l e v e l of persona l i ty development and the environmental condit ions to be encountered." Like a l l developmental theor ies , i t i s e s s e n t i a l l y a typology. The developmental sequence of the theory can be described by d i s t i n c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for each stage or 52 conceptual l e v e l and for the conceptual work required for t r a n s i t i o n to the next l e v e l to occur. Optimal development i s assumed to occur when the environmental condit ions f a c i l i t a t e the conceptual work necessary for the person's conceptual growth. Development moves from a concrete to an abstract conceptual system as the a b i l i t y to d i f f e r e n t i a t e and integrate information i s increased. Conceptual Systems theory has been appl ied to teacher education by various teams (Hunt and Joyce, 1967; Murphy and Brown, 1970; Rathbone, 1970). Work has been done i n t h i s area at the U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, (Norman S p r i n t h a l l and h i s colleagues) and at OISE (David Hunt and h i s as soc ia tes ) . According to Bents and Howey (1981), the most comprehensive set of studies regarding adult teachers has been undertaken by David Hunt and h i s associates at the Ontario I n s t i t u t e for Studies i n Education. Through research conducted i n classrooms, Hunt has found that teachers at more advanced conceptual l eve l s were more e f f ec t i ve classroom teachers i n the fo l lowing ways: They were able to funct ion i n the classroom at higher l e v e l s , demonstrated a more adaptive teaching s t y l e and were more f l e x i b l e and t o l e r a n t . They were a lso more responsive to i n d i v i d u a l d i f ferences and were able to employ a v a r i e t y of teaching s t ra teg i e s . They were less d i r e c t i v e and a u t h o r i t a r i a n . They provided a wide and var i ed l earn ing environment for t h e i r students. For these reasons, they were rated as e f f ec t ive teachers . Stated simply, teachers at higher stages of development functioned i n the classroom at a more complex l e v e l . Hunt describes development i n terms of increas ing complexity i n handling information and increas ing s e l f - r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . He describes human development as a continuum of increas ing f l e x i b i l i t y and in tegrat ive power. He wri tes : "Persons low i n CL (conceptual leve l ) are less capable of generating t h e i r own concepts, cons idering t h e i r own a l t e r n a t i v e s , and d i r e c t i n g t h e i r own l e a r n i n g . As CL increases the person becomes more capable of generating h i s own concepts, bet ter able to consider a l t e r n a t i v e s , and more s e l f - r e s p o n s i b l e . " (Hunt, 1974) S u l l i v a n , Hunt's col league, extended the t h e o r e t i c a l framework of Conceptual Systems theory. She demonstrated that conceptual development was matched by ego state development (Loevinger) and mora l - e th i ca l stage (Kohlberg). This made Hunt's framework more comprehensive and i n c l u s i v e . S u l l i v a n drew on Dewey's not ion of a whole person processing experience through a v a r i e t y of overlapping developmental domains. The secondary concern of the work done i n t h i s area i s the same secondary concern found i n a l l developmental theor ie s . Given a person at t h i s stage of development, which educational approach w i l l be more e f f ec t ive for a given object ive? A f t e r def in ing a typology, the next attempt i s to coordinate person and environment. This can be evidenced by the work Hunt d id i n designing "Matching models for teaching". Matching models for teaching describe a v a r i e t y of l earning environments that d i f f e r 1) i n s tructure and task complexity, and 2) that are appropriate i n meeting the needs of the teacher, and 3) i n encouraging growth from the current stage of development to the next l e v e l . Hunt's work revealed that teachers who were at lower stages of conceptual development functioned best i n a more s tructured environment. Those at more abstract l eve l s can funct ion e f f e c t i v e l y i n e i t h e r high or low s tructured environments. I t i s important to note that while they are able to funct ion i n e i ther type of s t ruc ture , these i n d i v i d u a l s funct ion best i n a less s tructured environment. The p r e s c r i p t i o n for profess iona l development derived from these studies i s the fo l lowing: a pro fes s iona l development program must design appropriate and e f f i c a c i o u s l earn ing environments for teachers that take into cons iderat ion that some i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l funct ion bet ter i n a h igh ly s tructured environment and other i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l l earn best i n a loose ly s tructured environment. Hunt underl ines another point to be taken into account by profes s iona l development organizers . He emphasizes that adult development i s continuous. While an i n d i v i d u a l might be funct ioning best i n one type of environment at the current time, t h i s should not be considered a permanent t r a i t . I t i s a current preferred mode of funct ioning . He wri tes: "In CL (Conceptual Level) theory, learning s t y l e i s not regarded as fixed, but i s a developmental goal; i e . , although i n the short run, a low CL student may require a highly structured environment, such structure should be gradually reduced so that he can develop a more s e l f -responsible learning s t y l e . " (Hunt, 1974, p.20) Conceptual Systems Theory views adult development as a progression through four i d e n t i f i a b l e l e v e l s . At Level One, the i n d i v i d u a l i s u n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g and t i e d to s o c i a l norms while processing information i n a r e l a t i v e l y simple manner. By Level Four, i n d i v i d u a l s are characterized as autonomous and s e l f -r e l i a n t . Conceptual Systems theory was d i r e c t l y applied to teaching behaviours by Murphy and Brown (1970). They provide the following descriptions: Teachers i n Stage 1 have a tendency to view the world i n an overly s i m p l i s t i c , either/or, black/white way; believe strongly i n rules and r o l e s ; and view authority as the highest good, regarding a l l questions as having one answer. They thus tend to discourage divergent thinking and to reward conformity and rote learning. Stage 2 teachers are characterized by c o n f l i c t between compliance and opposition, are low i n s e l f -esteem and high i n a l i e n a t i o n and cynicism, and are inconsistent and uncertain when functioning i n a manner s i m i l a r to Stage 1 teachers. Stage 3 teachers, with strong outward emphases on friendship and dependence on the standards of others show high a f f i l i a t i v e needs based on mutuality and group consensus rather than rules. Their need to control others through dependency may 56 be d isguised under the des ire to help others . Being more abstract i n funct ioning than Stage 1 or 2 teachers , however, Stage 3 teachers do encourage more p u p i l s e l f - express ion . Stage 4 teachers being the most abstract , open-minded, s tress t o l e r a n t , and c r e a t i v e , regard knowledge as t entat ive rather than absolute and are able to consider s i tua t ions from other points of view. Thus, stage 4 teachers, being c o g n i t i v e l y complex themselves, tend to encourage more complex funct ioning i n t h e i r students. There i s now a small body of research on how teachers at d i f f e r e n t cogni t ive and interpersonal l eve l s of development react and are af fected by profess ional development programs. Teachers at d i f f e r e n t l eve l s w i l l not only have d i f f e r e n t teaching s t y l e s , but these teaching s ty les w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n how they react to a profes s iona l development program and what they w i l l consider re levant . They w i l l process the information provided i n a profes s iona l development program d i f f e r e n t l y . Some w i l l look at problems from one view point while others w i l l be able to see mul t ip le viewpoints . Both Salyvchvin (1972) and Bents (1978) reported that when two d i f f e r e n t kinds of information were presented to low conceptual l e v e l teachers, they were most af fected by what they experienced f i r s t . The fo l lowing f igure examines the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of teachers at d i f f e r e n t stages of development and the impl icat ions for conducting profess ional development sess ions. I t draws on 57 the work of Joyce (1980) and Bents and Howey (1981) and t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Santmire (1979). Table 1 Descr ipt ion of Developmental Stages and t h e i r Implicat ions for T r a i n i n g Stage One  Learners have a right/wrong or i en ta t ion to s i t u a t i o n s . There i s only one way, t h e i r way, to view the world. Only when learners perceive that what they are doing i s not working do they see a need for new knowledge. Information that does not f i t the l e a r n e r ' s current b e l i e f system i s adapted to f i t categories rather than create new ones. These learners pre fer h i e r a r c h i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . P r a c t i c a l concerns about what to do i n s p e c i f i c s i tua t ions (how would team learning work i n my second grade classroom?) are the major focus of t h i s type of l earner . The l earn ing environment must be h ighly s tructured . Presentation of p r a c t i c a l information should emphasize l)what to do, 2) how to do i t , and 3) circumstances i n which i t should be done. Discussions should include p r a c t i c a l examples and appl i ca t ions rather than theory or genera l i za t ions . Follow-up ass is tance needs to be d i r e c t i v e . Learners at t h i s stage benef i t from a supervisor who i s w i l l i n g to t e l l them what to do and how to do i t . Stage Two  Learners at t h i s stage begin to break away form s t r i c t ru les and b e l i e f s . They ask more questions and are more w i l l i n g to express t h e i r points of view. They exh ib i t in teres t i n p r i n c i p l e s and issues and des ire to develop t h e i r own app l i ca t ions or adaptations fo p r i n c i p l e s . Learners at t h i s stage of development often r e s i s t contro l by author i ty . The t r a i n i n g environment needs to provide choices i n content and i t s presentat ion . S p e c i f i c appl i ca t ions of ideas become a secondary focus rather than centra l to the presentat ion. Discussions that include various points of view r e l a t i v e to the issue should be concluded with a ra t iona l e of why the views are he ld . Follow-up assistance should be c o l l a b o r a t i v e , al lowing learners to express t h e i r opinions and suggest a l t e r n a t i v e ac t ions . Stage Three  Learners at stage three recognize that they have a v a r i e t y of a l t e r n a t i v e s and can choose the one that best f i t s the s i t u a t i o n . They are able to accommodate contradic tory information by balancing or connecting d i f f e r i n g ideas. 58 Learners should be given opportunit ies to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the planning and d e l i v e r y of s t a f f development programs. T r a i n i n g should include discuss ions that allow learners to share t h e i r view points and experiences so that colleagues may l earn from each other. In t h i s way learners are able to develop broader more comprehensive perspect ives . Follow-up ass is tance should be c o l l a b o r a t i v e or non-d irec t ive . These learners benef i t from ac t ive p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n i d e n t i f y i n g relevant issues and poss ib le an environment that allows them to work e a s i l y and comfortably i n a v a r i e t y of ways. They should se lec t and pursue top ics of personal i n t e r e s t . Opportunit ies for c r i t i c a l and creat ive th ink ing should be a v a i l a b l e . Follow-up ass is tance should be n o n - d i r e c t i v e , a l lowing these learners to design t h e i r own targets and standards for achieving t h e i r goals . Stage Four  Learners are able to synthesize information and create a d d i t i o n a l categories to accommodate new information. They approach problems and s i tua t ions i n a systematic fashion, which enables them to qu ick ly review a l t ernat ives i n order to make them e f f e c t i v e , spontaneous dec i s ions . These learners need an environment that allows them to work e a s i l y and comfortably i n a v a r i e t y of ways. They should se lec t and pursue top ics of personal i n t e r e s t . Opportunit ies for c r i t i c a l and creat ive th inking should be a v a i l a b l e . Follow-up ass is tance should be non-d irec t ive , a l lowing these learners to design t h e i r own targets and standards for achieving t h e i r goals . According to developmental t h e o r i s t s , i f we can match profes s iona l development programs to i n d i v i d u a l needs and l earn ing s t y l e s , we have the p o t e n t i a l of not only making programs more e f f e c t i v e , but teachers more e f f e c t i v e . Santmire (1979) wri tes : "The p o s s i b i l i t y that development continues i n the adult years means that s t a f f development programs may be p lay ing a r o l e , not only i n teaching new content and new s k i l l s , but also i n the development of the i n d i v i d u a l i n more fundamental ways as w e l l . " (1979) Hunt and S u l l i v a n (1974) proposed a model that matched 59 / developmental l e v e l to t r a i n i n g environments. The in tent ion was to s a t i s f y and f a c i l i t a t e the r e q u i s i t e s of that stage and therefore promote t r a n s i t i o n to the next stage. In b r i e f , we f i n d the same p r e s c r i p t i o n : Less developmentally mature i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l p r o f i t more from highly s tructured environments and more developmentally mature i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l p r o f i t i n e i ther high or low s tructured environments. Stages of Concern Theory This approach or ig inated i n the work done by Frances F u l l e r at the U n i v e r s i t y of Texas. I t was further explored and extended by her colleagues at the Research and Development I n s t i t u t e for Teacher Educat ion. Gene H a l l i s a well-known proponent of t h i s theory with h i s adaptation of Stages of Concern theory to innovat ions . Stages of Concern has been expanded to such an extent that i t i s sometimes c a l l e d "Teacher Career Development" which takes into account many external factors not broached by the o r i g i n a l theory. The o r i g i n a l hypothesis for Stages of Concern theory was formulated by Frances F u l l e r i n the s i x t i e s . From observations she was making as a teacher educator, F u l l e r (1969) proposed a t enta t ive theory: Teachers concerns change as they gain experience. These concerns are marked by d i s t i n c t developmental stages. Stages of Concern theory, as understood by F u l l e r , r e fers to a c l u s t e r of concerns or preoccupations which seem to 60 unfold i n a p a r t i c u l a r sequence over the course of a teacher's career . Her f i r s t model had only two stages and was based on a s e l f -other dichotomy. A f t e r ten years of research, F u l l e r made t h i s in to a three stage model. In both models teachers concerns move from s e l f concerns to student concerns. The three-stage model consis ted of 1) A s u r v i v a l stage: (self) teachers are concerned with t h e i r own adequacy. 2) A mastery stage: ( se l f as teacher) teachers concentrate on performance or the s i t u a t i o n at hand. 3) An impact stage: (students) teachers are wel l es tabl i shed i n school routine and can move t h e i r in teres t to become consequence-oriented and concerned about t h e i r impact upon students. This model was further elaborated and another category of concerns added: pre-teaching concerns ( se l f as student teacher) . F u l l e r drew on Marlow's Hierarchy of Needs to v a l i d a t e her theory. In one of her ear ly wri t ings (1969), she wrote: "Early concerns can be thought of as more potent s ecur i ty needs and l a t e r concerns as task-centered and s e l f - a c t u a l i z i n g needs which appear only a f t er the prepotent secur i ty needs have been s a t i s f i e d . " ( F u l l e r , Beck and Brown, 1969, p . 5 ) . This was to become the b u i l d i n g stone for her approach to teacher concerns: Lower stage concerns must be resolved before the teacher w i l l move on to higher stage concerns. F u l l e r ' s f i r s t commitment was to teacher education and to making the education that student teachers received more re levant . By making the content of teacher education more congruent with teachers' concerns, F u l l e r be l ieved that motivation for l earning would be increased and teachers would be more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r profess ional preparat ion and able to move more qu ick ly into the next l e v e l of concerns. Underlying t h i s theory i s a bas ic b e l i e f that teachers that are concerned about t h e i r impact on students are bet ter teachers. Like other developmental theor ies , Stages of Concern theory i s b u i l t on a h ierarchy , ending with the attainment of "maturity". Matur i ty , i n t h i s case, i s r e f l e c t ed i n teachers' concerns for students and the impact of t h e i r teaching on students' l earn ing . L imi ta t ions of Developmental Theory As was previous ly stated, developmental approaches are character ized by 1) a focus on an end-state (maturity); 2) the assumption that a l l i n d i v i d u a l s go through the same sequence of changes leading to the end-state; 3) the assumption that these changes are s e l f - d i r e c t e d . These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have been severely c r i t i c i z e d . Floden 62 and Feiman (1981) provide a strong d e s c r i p t i o n of the weaknesses of developmental theor ies . The ir comprehensive overview of developmental theory i s drawn upon i n the fo l lowing sec t ion . The des ired r e s u l t of a developmental approach i s to work toward a theory of change. A l l developmental approaches have two preoccupations: 1) To provide a descr ip t ion of the sequence of change leading to an end s ta te . This descr ip t ion often takes the form of a d e s c r i p t i o n of stage, culminating i n "maturity". Descr ipt ion of each stage includes only those aspects of the i n d i v i d u a l that are seen as leading to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of maturity . 2) To provide a descr ip t ion of the process or mechanism by which change i s brought about. This d e s c r i p t i o n attempts to expla in how an i n d i v i d u a l moves from one stage to the next, or progresses through a sequence of change. The three primary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of developmental theory w i l l now be discussed b r i e f l y . End State . The end state i s the primary aspect of developmental approaches. I t i s from t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of an end-state that a d e s c r i p t i o n of stages i s made poss ib l e . The end state i s e s s e n t i a l l y a descr ip t ion of maturi ty , a d e s c r i p t i o n that has been c r i t i c i z e d by some as being h igh ly subject ive . 63 Changes and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are considered as they r e l a t e to the end s ta te . Other changes or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s not re la ted to the end state are not considered. Any further change and development i n the i n d i v i d u a l , beyond the end s tate , are beyond the scope of a developmental approach. Researchers and p r a c t i t i o n e r s using a developmental theory need to consider that the theory being invest igated can only consider a small part of development. I t should a lso be remembered that the descr ip t ion of the end state i s very subjec t ive , provided by one researcher or team of researchers . The d e s c r i p t i o n of the end state and stages i s constrained, however, by empir ica l evidence. Invariant Sequence. The assumption about the way i n which an i n d i v i d u a l reaches an end s tate , i s a lso the dec i s ion of the researcher. The d e s c r i p t i o n of the sequence of change res ts on the dec i s ion about what to include i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of the end s ta te . Stage descr ipt ions are usua l ly constructed using empir ica l evidence, but decis ions are s t i l l made on which empir ica l evidence w i l l be descr ibed. They are a l l aimed at f ind ing a sequence of s i m i l a r i t i e s culminating i n the end s tate; necessar i ly excluding changes p r i o r to maturity that d i f f e r across i n d i v i d u a l s . Invariance of developmental changes implies that they can be seen as progress ive . Indiv iduals must pass through each stage before the end state i s reached. 64 Invariant sequence i s an aspect of developmental theory under c r i t i c i s m . I t i s suggested that not a l l i n d i v i d u a l s neces sar i ly progress through t h i s sequence. Mechanisms of Change. Movement through a sequence of change i s considered to be s e l f - d i r e c t e d . The d e f i n i t i o n of s e l f -d i r e c t i o n v a r i e s . However, a l l agree that change i s not imposed from outs ide; simple, ex terna l ly determined change i s not consistent with developmental approaches. But the outside environment does have a r o l e . Change i s determined by the i n d i v i d u a l and by an environment that st imulates and supports change. I t i s by no means c l ear what kind of environment brings about developmental change. Developmental theory i s weak at descr ib ing mechanisms for change and therefore , cannot provide c l e a r impl icat ions for ac t i on . Summary of Review From a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on profess iona l development and curriculum implementation, a d i s t i n c t trend towards a more teacher-centered approach was seen. Developmental theor ies , with t h e i r emphasis on the i n d i v i d u a l teacher, have the p o t e n t i a l of prov id ing a t h e o r e t i c a l foundation for a teacher-centered approach. As prev ious ly stated, the two main object ives of developmental theory are 65 1) to a r r i v e at a descr ip t ion of stages of development 2) i n order to provide l earning experiences and materia ls appropriate to that stage and which w i l l promote further growth. At the present time, the biggest contr ibut ion of developmental theory has been through i t s d e s c r i p t i o n of stages. A d e s c r i p t i o n of the sequence of change may provide a way of ca tegor iz ing teachers and of knowing how teachers are going to change. Categorizat ion i s h e l p f u l i n p r e d i c t i n g the e f fects of various a l t e r n a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t ra teg ie s , and the sequencing of i n s t r u c t i o n . Knowing a teacher's stage doesn't c l e a r l y ind ica te what to do, but i t does have the p o t e n t i a l of t e l l i n g you something about poss ib le e f fects of various in tervent ions . This ca tegor izat ion of teachers i s a lso the greatest danger of developmental theor ies . Categorizat ion and judgment are extremely d e l i c a t e areas, and can be misused and mis interpreted e a s i l y . Developmental theor i s t s are s ens i t ive to the danger of ca tegor iz ing a person as being at a lower stage of development and o f f er the fo l lowing caut ion: "A developmental theory enables the teacher educator to see teachers at lower stages of development i n a new l i g h t . Rather than evaluat ing a teachers' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n terms of t h e i r present worth, these a t t r ibute s can be seen as steps towards the end s tate ." (Floden and Feiman, 1981) Whether or not i t i s poss ib le to br ing about developmental change wi th in a teacher education program i s s t i l l a subject open 66 to d i s cus s ion . There i s a lso a need for research l i n k i n g teacher ef fect iveness to teachers' stage of development. I t must be remembered that the value attached to the end state i s a r b i t r a r y . I t w i l l need to be j u s t i f i e d from beyond the theory. Any organizat ion or i n s t i t u t i o n adopting a developmental approach must take into cons iderat ion that these theories are new and need to be further tes ted . What developmental does have to o f f er that i s extremely valuable i s a view of the teacher as an i n d i v i d u a l , an i n d i v i d u a l adult and an i n d i v i d u a l profess ional who i s not locked permanently into one learning or teaching s t y l e . I t might seem s i m p l i s t i c to propose that the organizers of profess iona l development recognize that the group of teachers that they are approaching are anything but a homogeneous group, but recogni t ion of the i n d i v i d u a l d i f ferences of teachers would change how profes s iona l development i s organized and presented. The one very p o s i t i v e aspect of developmental theory i s that : "It switches emphasis from teaching to l earn ing , a switch that may be a valuable change i n current teacher education p r a c t i c e , with i t ' s over-emphasis on s k i l l s - t r a i n i n g . " (Floden and Feiman, 1981, p.24) 67 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY The previous chapters discussed current issues i n profess iona l development. Two developmental theories that propose a framework for the profess ional development of teachers were presented. The ir p o t e n t i a l i n prov id ing a t h e o r e t i c a l foundation for the continuing education of FSL teachers was discussed. The study invest igates the d i f f e r e n t preferences of FSL teachers as to the s tructure and content of profess iona l development programs. I t uses the guide l ines for profess iona l development set for th by developmental theories as a foundation for the study and for the construct ion of a survey instrument. The study a lso invest igates teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , other than stage of development, poss ib ly in f luenc ing teachers' preferences. Chapter Three describes v a r i a b l e s e l e c t i o n , the populat ion and sampling procedures, instrument design, p i l o t t e s t i n g , data c o l l e c t i o n and analys i s procedures. I t describes how a quest ionnaire was constructed by drawing on s p e c i f i c p r e s c r i p t i o n s for profess ional development proposed by developmental theory. Response rate and the representativeness of the study are discussed, as are the l i m i t a t i o n s . 68 Instrument Design A survey instrument was designed to gather data for the study. The quest ionnaire consisted of two sect ions: Part A served to c o l l e c t information on respondents and on t h e i r opportuni t ies for profess ional development wi th in t h e i r school d i s t r i c t s . Part B c o l l e c t e d information on teachers' preferences for the s t r u c t u r a l organizat ion and content of profess iona l development. To construct Part A of the quest ionnaire , other surveys of FSL teachers were examined. In the spring of 1986, the Canadian Assoc ia t ion of Second Language Teachers (CASLT) sent out a quest ionnaire on profess ional development to over two hundred FSL teachers across the country. The CASLT survey provided c r i t e r i a for both the s e l ec t ion of teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and for the construct ion of s p e c i f i c items on profess iona l development. The f i r s t part of the survey instrument used i n t h i s study was designed to c o l l e c t data from each respondent on the fo l lowing t h i r t e e n teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that proved to be important i n studying FSL teachers i n the CASLT survey: 1) Years of teaching experience 2) Grade l e v e l s taught 3) Contact with other FSL teachers 4) Gender 5) Age 69 6) F i r s t language 7) Language of community 8) Language of school ing 9) Academic background 10) FSL t r a i n i n g 11) Subjects taught 12) Actual PD a c t i v i t i e s ava i l ab l e 13) Desire to p a r t i c i p a t e i n PD a c t i v i t i e s Part B of the instrument, a quest ionnaire on teachers' preferences for s tructure and content, was based on the l i t e r a t u r e on profess ional development. I t was constructed using the framework and guidel ines for profess iona l development proposed by developmental theor ies . The study was b u i l t on two developmental theor ies : 1) Stages of Concern i n a teacher's profes s iona l career ( F u l l e r , 1969; H a l l , 1973). The bas ic assumption of t h i s theory i s that teachers' concerns change as they gain teaching experience. 2) Conceptual Systems development (Hunt, 1961). The bas ic assumption i s that teachers are at d i f f e r e n t l eve l s of conceptual development and that t h i s a f fec t s how teachers react to the l earning environment and content of profess iona l development programs. 70 These two developmental theor ies , s p e c i f i c to teacher education, suggest that teachers w i l l prefer d i f f e r e n t s t r u c t u r a l organizat ion , from h igh ly s tructured to loose ly s tructured programs. I t i s a lso suggested that teachers w i l l have d i f f e r e n t concerns, which w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n the type of content they consider re levant . These di f ferences are l inked to teachers' d i f f e r e n t conceptual l eve l s and stages of career experience. This study proposes that while developmental approaches are correc t i n supposing that teachers have d i f f e r e n t preferences as to the s t r u c t u r a l organizat ion and content of profess iona l development, there might be factors other than developmental stages involved i n determining these preferences. I t i s a lso the in tent ion of the study to examine an assumption of Conceptual Systems theory, that the majority of teachers are at lower l eve l s of development and w i l l prefer a d i r e c t i v e s tructure and p r a c t i c a l and concrete content i n t h e i r profess iona l development programs. The second part of the questionnaire c o l l e c t e d information on teachers ' preferences for the s t r u c t u r a l organizat ion and content of profess iona l development. From the l i t e r a t u r e on profes s iona l development, eleven bas ic elements of profess iona l development were i d e n t i f i e d : 1) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the PD needs of FSL teachers 2) Ass igning p r i o r i t y to PD needs 71 3) Coordination of PD a c t i v i t i e s 4) Primary goal of PD program 5) Presentat ion of PD sessions 6) Content of PD programs 7) Number of teaching options presented during a PD session 8) Transfer of PD content 9) Groups addressed by a PD program 10) Coaching during a PD program 11) Evaluat ion of a PD program In the b i - v a r i a t e analys i s of data, these eleven var iab le s w i l l be treated as dependent var iab le s and the teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i l l be treated as independent v a r i a b l e s . A l l of the eleven dependent var iab le s f a l l under the two dimensions of profess iona l development discussed i n Chapter 1 of t h i s study: the dimension of governance (decision-making) and the dimension of relevance (content and type of profess iona l development a c t i v i t y ) . The fo l lowing var iab le s c l u s t e r under the dimension of governance. They r e f l e c t components of profess iona l development that involve decision-making and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y : - I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of needs (item B of questionnaire) Ass igning p r i o r i t y of needs (item C of questionnaire) Coordinat ion of PD a c t i v i t i e s (item D of questionnaire) 72 Presentat ion during PD sessions (item F of questionnaire) Coaching (item K of questionnaire) Evaluat ion (item L of questionnaire) The fo l lowing var iab le s c l u s t e r under the dimension of relevance. These components are l inked to content and type of PD a c t i v i t i e s . Goals (item E of questionnaire) Content (item G of questionnaire) Number of options presented (item H of questionnaire) Transfer of content (item I of questionnaire) Groups addressed (item J of questionnaire) Var iab le s c lus tered under governance c o l l e c t e d information on the degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y teachers would l i k e to assume i n decis ion-making. Each item was presented with three d i f f e r e n t decision-making r o l e s . These three options r e f l e c t a hierarchy of ro l e s suggested by both Conceptual Systems Theory and Stages of Concern theory. Both these theories suggest that teachers at lower stages of development (Stage One i n both Conceptual Systems and i n Stages of Concern) w i l l prefer to leave the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for organiz ing profess ional development with a supervisor or "expert". As teachers move up the scale of development, i t i s suggested that they w i l l wish to have a greater r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n organiz ing profess iona l development. The bas ic hypothesis of the two theor ies i s that the mature teacher and adult des ires a large 7 3 share of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n organiz ing h i s / h e r l earning environment. Glickman (1981) i d e n t i f i e d three d i s t i n c t supervisory or i enta t ions : d i r e c t i v e , c o l l a b o r a t i v e and non-d i r e c t i v e . Using t h i s same hierarchy of development (from l i t t l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and se l f -d irectedness to increas ing r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and se l f -d irectedness) , a l l governance v a r i a b l e s presented the fo l lowing three options. For the component of profess iona l development under d i scuss ion , teachers were asked whether they f e l t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y should l i e with 1) Supervisors (d irect ive) 2) Teachers and supervisors working i n concert (co l laborat ive) 3) Teachers, with support and information from t h e i r supervisors (non-directive) The order of presentat ion of the three options was scrambled throughout the questionnaire to avoid creat ing a bias (see p i l o t t e s t i n g , t h i s chapter) . A mul t ip le choice format was chosen rather than a L ikher t Scale . The intent of the study was to examine what decision-making s tructure respondents would p r e f e r . M u l t i p l e choice provided the appropriate format for c o l l e c t i n g t h i s information. The fo l lowing questions on decision-making ro l e s were generated (items labe l s from quest ionnaire) : B. Who should i d e n t i f y the PD needs of FSL teachers? 74 C. Who should choose which of these i d e n t i f i e d needs are to be addressed i n a PD program for FSL teachers? D. Who should be responsible for the coordinat ion (planning, organization) of PD a c t i v i t i e s for FSL teachers? F . Who should be responsible for presentat ion during a PD session? K. In the implementation of new curr iculum, new mater ia l s or a new approach ( e .g . : communicative approach), whom would you pre fer to be coached by? L . Who should be responsible for the evaluat ion of a PD program for FSL teachers? Items c lus tered under the dimension of relevance c o l l e c t e d information on teachers' preferences for content and type of PD a c t i v i t y . Unl ike governance v a r i a b l e s , these items do not have one common set of options. For each element of profess iona l development under d i scuss ion , a separate group of poss ib le options were o f fered . There i s , however, a h ierarchy b u i l t into each set of opt ions . These options r e f l e c t p r e s c r i p t i o n s for profes s iona l development put forward by both the theory of Conceptual Systems and the theory of Stages of Concern. Goals and Content. (Items E and G) The options offered under the goals and content of profess iona l development r e f l e c t a hypothesis from the theory of Stages of Concern. This hypothesis s tates that teachers at the beginning of t h e i r teaching careers 75 are p r i m a r i l y concerned with "surv iva l" , i n other words, with becoming f a m i l i a r with program materia ls and curriculum requirements. As teachers move beyond t h i s stage, they become interes ted i n improving t h e i r teaching s k i l l s . Only a f ter teachers have mastered these f i r s t two stages w i l l they become interes ted i n the impact of t h e i r teaching on students and on bet ter understanding how each i n d i v i d u a l student l earns . Teachers at Stage One have very l i t t l e concern with the theories of teaching and l earn ing . This assumption provided the fo l lowing sca le for item E (primary goal of PD) and item G (content of PD): Stage 1) Teachers at t h i s stage w i l l be most in teres ted i n content that provides information on mater ia l s , resources and c u r r i c u l a . Stage 2) Teachers w i l l prefer content that w i l l help them improve t h e i r teaching s k i l l s . Stage 3) Teachers at Stage 3 w i l l prefer content that w i l l help them explore the impact of t h e i r teaching on students. Theore t i ca l issues underlying teaching and learning w i l l be of i n t e r e s t . The items generated from t h i s developmental p r e s c r i p t i o n for PD are the fo l lowing: E . What should be the primary goal of a PD program for FSL teachers? 76 1. To provide me with information on mater ia l s , resources and c u r r i c u l a 2. To improve the impact of my teaching on students 3. To improve my s k i l l s as a teacher G. What should be the content of a PD program for FSL teachers? 1. Information on c u r r i c u l a , materia ls and resources followed by examples 2. Explorat ion of the impact of teaching on students (evaluation of performance and competence, changes needed to improve student outcomes) 3. Discuss ion focused on s i tua t ions and teaching tasks encountered i n the classroom (organizing, grouping, management) (Please note that the hierarchy of options has been scrambled.) I t can be noted that there i s an overlap between the two theor ie s . Conceptual Systems theory states that teachers at low l e v e l s of conceptual development have l i t t l e use for theory and have p r i m a r i l y p r a c t i c a l concerns i n terms of classroom needs. (Santmire, 1979). Number of Options, (item H) Conceptual Systems hypothesizes that teachers at lower stages of development w i l l have some d i f f i c u l t y i n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g information. When two kinds of 77 information are presented to low conceptual l e v e l teachers , they are most af fected by what they are presented f i r s t . They f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to look at a l t e r n a t i v e s , to choose and sort information (Bents, 1978; Sayachvin, 1972). I t i s considered a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of teachers at higher stages of conceptual development to be able to i d e n t i f y a l t erna t ive s su i ted to s p e c i f i c s i tua t ions (Schroder, Dr iver and Stenfert , 1967; Schroder, 1971). I t was beyond the scope of t h i s survey instrument to measure how teachers deal with more than one a l t e r n a t i v e i n a program. I t was, however, poss ib le to ask teachers how many a l t e r n a t i v e ways to teach a language s k i l l or s tructure they f e l t should be presented i n a sess ion. The fo l lowing two options were generated: 1) There i s one way to teach a s k i l l or s tructure 2) There are many poss ib le ways to teach a s k i l l or a s tructure This developmental assumption i s r e f l e c t e d i n item H: H. How many options should be presented i n a PD session? I . A number of a l t e r n a t i v e ways to teach a language s k i l l or s tructure 2. One way to teach a language s k i l l or s tructure Transfer , (item I) In Stages of Concern theory, F u l l e r defines the f i r s t l e v e l of teacher concerns as s u r v i v a l concerns. Teachers f ee l the need for immediate p r a c t i c a l content i n t h e i r 78 profess iona l development programs. As teachers gain experience and confidence, they may become interes ted i n explor ing the t h e o r e t i c a l issues underlying classroom s i t u a t i o n s . These are considered higher l e v e l concerns. In Conceptual Systems theory, teachers at lower l eve l s of development are be l ieved to prefer concrete and immediately p r a c t i c a l content, as they have not yet a t ta ined conceptual development stages that allow for abs trac t ion . Based on these assumptions, teachers were asked to i d e n t i f y t h e i r preferences for the scope of content presented during a PD session i n Item I of the quest ionnaire . I . PD programs should o f fer information and content on second language teaching: 1. I f i t i s immediately appl icable to the classroom 2. Even i f i t i s not immediately appl icab le to the classroom. Groups Addressed, (item J) Item J of the quest ionnaire asked teachers to i d e n t i f y t h e i r preferences i n regard to the groups addressed by a program. In Stages of Concern theory, i t i s hypothesized that as teachers develop they fee l the need to exchange ideas with more experienced teachers as wel l as share fee l ings with peers (Katz i n Floden and Feiman, 1981). In Conceptual Systems t h e o r y , i t i s stated that , as teachers develop, they become more interested i n what can be gained from group d i scuss ion and problem so lv ing (Santmire, 1979). These assumptions generated the fol lowing item: J . Which FSL groups should be addressed by a PD program? 1. D i f f erent groups of FSL teachers (beginning and experienced teachers, teachers from d i f f e r e n t grade leve ls ) 2. S p e c i f i c groups with common needs (PD for beginning teachers , PD for teachers from one grade leve l ) Coaching, (item K) The increas ing a b i l i t y to l earn from one's peers develops into the a b i l i t y to handle team teaching and peer coaching (Santmire, 1979). Teachers preferences for coaching are c o l l e c t e d i n item K. K. In the implementation of a new curr iculum, new mater ia ls or a new approach (e .g . : communicative approach), who would you pre fer to be coached by (observation and feedback)? 1. A supervisor 2. Other FSL teachers and a supervisor 3. Other FSL teachers I t i s important to note that the hierarchy of preferences underlying both theories were scrambled for each component to avoid b i a s . For data compilat ion, responses were recoded and rank-ordered for ord ina l ana lys i s . P i l o t Test ing of Survey Instrument The quest ionnaire was p i l o t tested i n three d i f f e r e n t forms. The intent of the p i l o t tes t s was 80 - to improve wording; - to check for b ias ; - to check for ambiguous items; - to rece ive feedback on the sa l ience of the study. The quest ionnaire was f i r s t p i l o t tested with a group of secondary FSL teachers. Teachers were asked to answer the survey and a post-survey questionnaire (see Appendices A and B) . The researcher was present to answer questions and to respond to a group d i scuss ion of the survey instrument. From the f i r s t p i l o t t e s t , a rev ised quest ionnaire was constructed that kept a l l the v a r i a b l e s of the o r i g i n a l quest ionnaire . The questionnaire was redesigned for e f f i c i e n c y and ease of response. Items that lead to confusion or that were ambiguous were rewri t ten . From the post-survey feedback, i t became c l e a r that teachers were able to i d e n t i f y the d i f f e r e n t ro les for teachers and supervisors (governance var iables ) offered throughout the quest ionnaire . No bias for any one r o l e was f e l t to be b u i l t into the quest ionnaire . The quest ionnaire was p i l o t tested again i n two d i f f e r e n t formats: One format offered a L ikher t Scale for each option presented; the other format offered a mul t ip le choice for each 81 item. M u l t i p l e choice was chosen as the more su i tab le format for the purposes of t h i s study. Use of a L i k h e r t scale confounded the f indings and d id not provide the necessary data since teachers d i d not have to make a choice as to which option they pre ferred . When asked to ind icate a preference from the three, teachers had to spend more time considering t h e i r answers and preference. The quest ionnaire was p i l o t tested with both elementary and secondary FSL teachers, and with both student teachers and experienced teachers. I t was submitted to the Research Evaluat ion Of f i ce of the Vancouver School Board. This o f f i c e provided both valuable e d i t i n g information and feedback from a profes s iona l development s p e c i a l i s t . The f i n a l vers ion of the survey instrument was considerably shorter i n length, avoided words that might create a bias (such as e f f e c t i v e , p r a c t i c a l , e tc . ) and contained a l l of the var iab le s of the o r i g i n a l vers ion . In i t s f i n a l format, i t uses a standardized mul t ip le choice quest ionnaire with some simple supply questions i n the teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c sec t ion only (e.g. teachers were asked how much time was spent teaching FSL a week, no set categories were provided) . A copy of the f i n a l quest ionnaire can be found i n Appendix E . 82 Populat ion, Sampling and Data C o l l e c t i o n Procedures Populat ion. The study was aimed at one s p e c i f i c target populat ion: FSL teachers ( f u l l FSL teaching load and p a r t i a l FSL teaching load) i n the pub l i c school system of B r i t i s h Columbia, inc lud ing both elementary and secondary school teachers. French Immersion teachers and teachers of French as a F i r s t Language were excluded from the target populat ion. A l l teachers of French at the post-secondary l e v e l were a lso excluded, as were teachers who were not current ly teaching. The preferences and points of view of supervisors were not explored by the present study. Data C o l l e c t i o n . I t proved impossible to locate a l i s t of FSL teachers i n B r i t i s h Columbia, however, an up-to-date l i s t of French coordinators and contact people i n the d i f f e r e n t school d i s t r i c t s of B r i t i s h Columbia was a v a i l a b l e . The fo l lowing procedure was used: 1. The quest ionnaire was submitted for e t h i c a l review by the Screening Committee for Research and Other Studies Involving Human Subjects (UBC) and received approval . 2. Personal ized covering l e t t e r s , introducing the study to coordinators and contact people, were prepared. The l e t t e r i n v i t e d contact people to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study and c l e a r l y defined the terms of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 83 P a r t i c i p a t i n g coordinators were asked - to s ign and return the consent form enclosed with the l e t t e r ; - to ind ica te on the consent form the t o t a l number of FSL teachers at the elementary l e v e l and the secondary l e v e l i n t h e i r school d i s t r i c t ; - to d i s t r i b u t e the questionnaires to these FSL teachers (the researcher would send the appropriate number of questionnaires by return post ) ; (see Appendix C for a copy of the covering l e t t e r to coordinators and a copy of the consent form). Questionnaires were designed to be se l f -adminis tered (no designated time or p lace ) . Coordinators were responsible for the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the quest ionnaire , not for expla in ing the purpose of the study, nor for the c o l l e c t i o n of the completed quest ionnaires . Each quest ionnaire had a covering l e t t e r to teachers and a stamped and addressed return envelope (see Appendix D for a copy of the covering l e t t e r to teachers) . In ear ly June 1987, coordinators and contact people were sent a copy of the covering l e t t e r , a quest ionnaire and a consent form. As consent forms were returned, packages with the 84 appropriate number of questionnaires were prepared and sent back to the school d i s t r i c t contact person. 6 . The c u t - o f f number for the amount of quest ionnaires to be sent out was four hundred and f i f t y . Once the cut -o f f number had been at ta ined , school d i s t r i c t s that expressed an in teres t i n the study were sent a l e t t e r expla in ing that the questionnaire had been d i s t r i b u t e d i n s u f f i c i e n t number and thanking them for t h e i r cons iderat ion . 7. Twelve school d i s t r i c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study. The sample was s t r a t i f i e d so that two major groups of teachers would be reached: elementary and secondary FSL teachers. The twelve school boards chosen allowed for t h i s s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . Roughly a f i f t h of the quest ionnaires were sent to teachers outside of the Lower Mainland, the main urban area of the province . Descr ipt ion of Sample. A sample of FSL teachers i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia was obtained through the p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study of French coordinators and contact persons. Within the p a r t i c i p a t i n g school d i s t r i c t s , quest ionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d to a l l FSL teachers. Four hundred and s i x t y four questionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d i n the 85 twelve school d i s t r i c t s . The table on the fo l lowing page shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of questionnaires to school boards. As w i l l be seen i n the tab le , 223 elementary FSL teachers and 241 secondary FSL teachers were sent quest ionnaires . I t should be noted that there are 1031 French teachers (both FSL and French Immersion) i n the province (Minis try of Education s t a t i s t i c s for the school year 1987-88. The exact number of FSL teachers i n the province has not been i d e n t i f i e d by the M i n i s t r y . Table 2 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Questionnaires Sent Out School d i s t r i c t Elementary teachers Secondary teachers Coquitlam 50 25 Prince George 3 4 Greater V i c t o r i a 100 154 Delta 40 Richmond 40 20 T r a i l 20 5 North Thompson 2 Centra l Okanagan 34 Saanich 23 17 Duncan 12 New Westminster ; 4 Arrowlake 12 T o t a l : 223 241 86 Analys i s Procedures Cer ta in items on the questionnaire (those using supply format) were hand-coded d i r e c t l y on the quest ionnaire i t s e l f . The coding for a l l the questionnaires was rechecked. Scrambled items were re-coded to r e f l e c t the t h e o r e t i c a l h ierarchy upon which they were based. The information from both sect ions of the quest ionnaire were trans ferred into a data base on the UBC Mainframe computer system. Dependent and independent var iab le s were i d e n t i f i e d and appropriate s t a t i s t i c a l measures chosen. A l l analyses were completed on the Mainframe computer of the UBC computer centre, using subprogrammes from the S t a t i s t i c a l  Package for the S o c i a l Sciences (SPSSX). vers ion release 2.0 (under MTS), 1986. Two types of ana lys i s were chosen to meet the two object ives of the study. Descr ipt ive u n i - v a r i a t e ana lys i s was used to c o l l e c t information for the fol lowing research questions: 1) Do teachers have var i ed preferences for decision-making ro l e s i n profess ional development? Do the majority of teachers prefer to leave r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for decision-making with a supervisory f igure? 2) Do teachers have var i ed preferences for content and type of a c t i v i t y i n profess ional development programs? Do the majority prefer p r a c t i c a l , concrete content? 87 B i - v a r i a t e analys i s (cross - tabulat ion and use of the c h i -square) was used to examine the t h i r d research quest ion: 3) Are there c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s p e c i f i c to the FSL teaching context, poss ib ly inf luenc ing teachers' preferences for s tructure and content i n profess iona l development programs? This t h i r d research question was examined through a t e s t of the fo l lowing hypothesis: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences observed between teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and teachers' preferences for s tructure and content i n profess ional development. Response Rates Of 461 questionnaires sent out, 132 were returned ( s l i g h t l y l e ss than a t h i r d ) . Due to the procedures used, i t i s impossible to i d e n t i f y how many of the 450 questionnaires sent out a c t u a l l y reached teachers i n the school . This low return rate i s probably due to the send-out date which was very l a t e i n the school year. Enough questionnaires were returned to provide data for the study. However, the low re turn rate i s a l i m i t a t i o n of the study and w i l l be discussed i n t h i s chapter under the heading "representativeness of sample", before proceeding to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of f ind ings . 88 In 1987-88, there were 1081 French teachers i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia (B.C. M i n i s t r y of Educat ion) . This number includes both French Immersion and FSL teachers. The response rate for t h i s survey was 132 quest ionnaires , which means that 12.2% of a l l French teachers i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia answered the survey. Though i t cannot be c a l c u l a t e d , the percentage rate of responses for only FSL teachers would be much higher (a conservative estimate would be 18.0%). This i s considered a large percentage of the t o t a l populat ion, which increases the represenatativeness of the sample. Table 3 Response Rate by School D i s t r i c t Number of Returned School D i s t r i c t Questionnaires Percentage Coquitlam 25 19.2% Richmond 14 10.7% T r a i l 10 7.6% New Westminster 2 1.5% Saanich 19 14 . 6% Prince George 11 8.4% V i c t o r i a 17 13.0% Centra l Okanagan 9 6.9% Arrow Lake 4 3 . 0% Delta 8 6.1% Miss ing information 11 8.4% T o t a l : 13 0 respondents 89 Table 3 presented information on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses. The number of returned quest ionnaires from each school board was presented, followed by what t h i s number represents as a percentage of a l l returned quest ionnaires . Representativeness of Sample The sample of respondents appears to be representat ive of the Canadian populat ion of FSL teachers. Wherever poss ib l e , the sample populat ion that responded to t h i s quest ionnaire was compared to the sample population described i n the CASLT nat ional survey (1986). Table 4 Comparison of the Sample to the CASLT Sample Sample Reached Language Background By t h i s Study CASLT Sample Eng l i sh 65.4% 69.9% French 20.8% 21.8% Other 13.1% 8.3% Academic Degree No degree 8.5% 6.3% Bachelors degree 73.8% 76.5% Masters degree 17.7% 17.6% As can be seen by comparing the language background and academic background of the two samples, the sample reached by t h i s study i s representat ive of the nat iona l populat ion of FSL 90 teachers . For these two v a r i a b l e s , the sample i s wi th in 3 percentage points of nat ional data i n four out of s ix cases. L imi ta t ions of the Study The procedures used to c o l l e c t data for the study could have been improved. The procedures used to reach FSL teachers made fol low-up to the survey extremely d i f f i c u l t . Questionnaires were therefore sent out only once. Follow-up would have required i d e n t i f y i n g teachers. This would have improved the response rate of the survey, but diminished i t s v a l i d i t y . Teachers that responded to the survey d id so as u n i d e n t i f i e d respondents. I t can be argued that anonymity allowed for a greater degree of honesty i n t h e i r responses. The l a t e send-out date i s probably p a r t l y responsible for the low r e t u r n - r a t e . The p o l i t i c a l c l imate at the time should a lso be considered as a fac tor (impending teacher s t r i k e ) . Follow-up becomes v i r t u a l l y impossible when a quest ionnaire i s sent out so l a t e i n the school year. The mob i l i t y of the FSL teaching populat ion would change the sample reached i n June from the sample reached i n September. The low return rate and the lack of fol low-up procedures pose l i m i t a t i o n s to the study that could have been avoided by 1) sending out questionnaires at an e a r l i e r date; 91 2) asking coordinators to p a r t i c i p a t e i n fol low-up procedures and b u i l d i n g t h i s step into data c o l l e c t i o n procedure. The study a lso could have been improved by b u i l d i n g i n a means of checking non-respondents for poss ib le b i a s . One of the l i m i t a t i o n s inherent to a survey instrument i s that i t c o l l e c t s information on what respondents say they would p r e f e r . Further research that examines how teachers a c t u a l l y react wi th in profess iona l development programs w i l l be needed before more conclusive statements can be made on developmental approaches to teacher education. In the actual design of the instrument, no attempt was made to l i n k teachers' stage of development with t h e i r expressed preferences for s tructure and content. From the r e s u l t s of t h i s study, i t w i l l not be poss ib le to make statements on the developmental l eve l s of FSL teachers. The study does not t e s t developmental theory. I t examines guide l ines for profess iona l development proposed by developmental theory. From the r e s u l t s of the study, statements can be made on whether the f indings support these gu ide l ines . 92 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS OF THE STUDY Chapter Four p r e s e n t s the f i n d i n g s o f the data compiled from a survey instrument sent t o a sample of FSL t e a c h e r s . The data c o l l e c t e d by the survey p r o v i d e d a p r o f i l e o f respondents and a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r the s t r u c t u r e and content of p r o f e s s i o n a l development. B i - v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f t h i s data examined t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p o s s i b l y i n f l u e n c i n g t e a c h e r s ' p r e f e r e n c e s f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l development. D e s c r i p t i o n Of Teacher C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P a r t A of the survey instrument gathered i n f o r m a t i o n on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f FSL t e a c h e r s i n B r i t i s h Columbia and t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l development. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the respondents and t h e i r t e a c h i n g s i t u a t i o n . I t a l s o allowed f o r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These c a t e g o r i e s were used i n b i - v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s t o examine t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p o s s i b l y i n f l u e n c i n g t e a c h e r s ' p r e f e r e n c e s f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l development. Information was c o l l e c t e d on the f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : 1) Years o f t e a c h i n g experience 2) Grade l e v e l s taught 3) Contact w i t h o t h e r FSL t e a c h e r s 4) Gender 5) Age 93 6) F i r s t language 7) Language of community 8) Language of schooling 9) Academic background 10) FSL t r a i n i n g 11) Subjects taught 12) Current profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s 13) Desire to p a r t i c i p a t e i n profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s In general , a l l items of the survey were answered by the respondents. In the tables that fol low, the percentages presented exclude missing responses. The number of v a l i d cases for each item w i l l be reported (n=) . A t o t a l of 130 quest ionnaires were retained for ana lys i s . Information on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of respondents w i l l be presented f i r s t i n table form, followed by a b r i e f d i scuss ion . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have been grouped to allow for d i scuss ion . Gender and Age Table 5 Gender and Age of Respondents Frequency Percentage Gender (n=126) Female 90 71.4% Male 36 28.6% 94 Age (n=127) 20 to 39 years o ld 40 years o ld or more Frequency Percentage 56.6% 43.4% 69 53 As can be seen i n the tab le , the majority of respondents are female. The majority of respondents were between 20 and 39 years o l d . Language Background Table 6 Language Background of Respondents Frequency Percentage F i r s t Language (n=130) Eng l i sh 85 65.4% French 18 13.1% Other 27 2 0.8% Language of Community (n= 130) Eng l i sh 90 69.2% French 31 23.8% Other 9 6.9% Language of Schooling (n=130) Eng l i sh 94 72.3% French 5 3.8% Eng l i sh and French 24 18.5% Other 7 5.3% 95 The majority of respondents spoke Eng l i sh as a f i r s t language (65.4%). Only 13.1% of respondents spoke French as a f i r s t language. A considerable number of teachers spoke a language other than French or Eng l i sh as a f i r s t language (20.8%). This supports the l i t e r a t u r e on the profess iona l development of French as a Second Language teachers, which states that the majori ty of teachers are teaching i n t h e i r second language. Though French was not necessar i ly the f i r s t language, 23.8% of FSL teachers had previous ly l i v e d i n a community where French was spoken. The majority had received t h e i r school ing i n Eng l i sh (72.3%). Very few had received t h e i r school ing only i n French (3.8%), but 18.5% had received part of t h e i r school ing i n the two o f f i c i a l languages. Academic Background and Teaching Experience Table 7 Academic Degree And FSL S p e c i a l i z a t i o n Frequency Percentage Academic Degree (n=130) No degree 11 8.5% Bachelors degree 96 73.8% Masters degree 23 17.7% FSL S p e c i a l i z a t i o n (n=129) FSL 48 37.2% FSL/French Immersion 15 11.7% FSL/other subjects 65 50.4% Of the respondents, most hold bachelor degrees (73.8%). Some (17.7%) hold a masters degree (M.A. or M . E d . ) . A small percentage (8.5%) hold no u n i v e r s i t y degree. Of respondents, 37.2% are teaching only FSL and 61.1% are teaching FSL and other subjects . Table 8 Teaching Level Frequency Percentage Teaching Level (n=126) Elementary 55 44.4% Secondary 69 55.6% Of the respondents, 44.4% teach at the elementary l e v e l and 55.6% at the secondary l e v e l . Table 9 Teaching Experience Freguencv Percentage General Teaching Experience (n=130) I to 10 years 54 41.5% II to 20 years 57 43.9% 21 or more years 19 14.6% FSL Teaching Experience (n=128) I to 10 years 90 70.3'-II to 20 years 26 20.3 ; 21 or more years 14 9.4 ! 97 The majori ty of respondents (64.6%) have between 1 and 20 years of general teaching experience and 70.3% have between 1 and 10 years of experience teaching FSL. This would seem to indicate that teachers have more general teaching experience than FSL teaching experience. I t should be noted that some teachers have become FSL teachers at the request of t h e i r school boards. Contact with other FSL Teachers Table 10 Contact with other FSL teachers Frequency Percentage Contact with Elementary FSL Teachers wi th in School Board (n=119) 1 to 30 FSL teachers 81 68.1% 31 or more FSL teachers 38 31.9% Contact with Secondary FSL Teachers wi th in School Board (n=118) 1 to 30 FSL teachers 58 49.2% 31 or more FSL teachers 60 50.8% Number of FSL Teachers  Within the School (n=127) 1 or 2 FSL teachers 57 44.9% 3 FSL teachers 26 20.5% 4 FSL teachers 26 20.5% 5 or more FSL teachers 21 14.2% 98 Secondary teachers would appear to have a greater p o s s i b i l i t y of contact with other FSL teachers wi th in t h e i r own school d i s t r i c t s than would elementary FSL teachers . A large group (44.9%) of FSL teachers (both elementary and secondary) work by themselves or with one other FSL teacher wi th in t h e i r own school . Current Profess ional Development A c t i v i t i e s Table 11 Profess ional Development Opportunit ies Frequency Percentage Opportunit ies for Profess ional Development (n=128) Yes 103 80.5% No 25 19.5% Groups Addressed by Programs (n=120) FSL teachers 86 71.7% FSL and Immersion 34 28.3% PD Frequency (n=118) Once or twice a year 69 58.5% 3/4 times a year 24 20.3% More than 5 times 25 21.2% PD Attendance (n=124) Optional/Encouraged 118 95.2% Monitored 6 4.8 9 -99 Of the respondents, 80.5% current ly have opportuni t ies for profes s iona l development within t h e i r school d i s t r i c t s . How profes s iona l development i s offered var i e s wi th in each school d i s t r i c t . General ly , there i s some form of profess iona l development s p e c i f i c a l l y for FSL teachers (71.7%) or for FSL teachers and French Immersion teachers (28.3%). The frequency of a c t i v i t i e s a lso var i e s from school to school . Profess ional development a c t i v i t i e s for FSL teachers general ly occur once or twice a year (58.5%), though some schools o f f er more than four PD a c t i v i t i e s for FSL teachers wi th in the school year (21.2%). In general , attendance at profess ional development a c t i v i t i e s i s opt ional or encouraged (95.2%). I t i s r a r e l y monitored (4.8%). Table 12 Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Frequency  Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n (n=114) Assessed needs 4 Assumed needs 38 Expressed needs 36 Combination 36 Percentage 3.5% 33.3% 31.6% 31.6% Formal assessment of needs would appear to be a rare occurrence (3.5%), however, expressed needs were often the basis for profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s (31.6%). In one t h i r d of cases, teachers' needs were assumed by a supervisory o f f i c i a l (33.3%). 100 Table 13 I n i t i a t i o n of A c t i v i t i e s Frequency Percentage I n i t i a t i o n of PD A c t i v i t i e s (n=119) Supervisor 73 60.3% Teachers and supervisor 28 23.1% Teachers 16 13.2% Coordinat ion of PD A c t i v i t i e s (n=119) Supervisor 63 52.1% Teachers and supervisor 36 29.8% Teachers 20 16.6% In general , profess ional development i s i n i t i a t e d by a supervisor (60.3%). There were a few cases of c o l l a b o r a t i v e i n i t i a t i o n (23.1%) and of t e a c h e r - i n i t i a t e d profess iona l development (13.2%). Profess ional development i s usua l ly coordinated by a supervisory f igure (52.1%), though there i s an important number of cases of c o l l a b o r a t i v e coordinat ion (29.8%) and teacher-d irec ted coordinat ion (16.6%). P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Profess ional Development Table 14 Desire to P a r t i c i p a t e i n PD Frequency Percentage Desire to p a r t i c i p a t e (n=129) Yes 117 90.7% No 12 9.3% 101 Of the respondents, a vast majority ind icated a des ire to p a r t i c i p a t e i n profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s for FSL teachers (90.7%). This supports the general l i t e r a t u r e on profess iona l development, which states that teachers wish to a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n profess ional development programs. Descr ipt ion of Teachers' Preferences for Structure and Content Part B of the survey c o l l e c t e d data on teachers ' preferences for s tructure and content i n profess iona l development. There were 11 v a r i a b l e s i n part B of the survey. As explained i n Chapter Three, items were constructed to r e f l e c t guide l ines for profess iona l development put forward by developmental theor ie s . These 11 v a r i a b l e s f a l l into two c l u s t e r s : governance (6 var iables ) and relevance (5 v a r i a b l e s ) . Governance var iab le s examine the fo l lowing decision-making r o l e s : 1) Needs i d e n t i f i c a t i o n 2) E s t a b l i s h i n g the p r i o r i t y of needs 3) R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for coordinat ion 4) Presentat ion during PD a c t i v i t i e s 5) Coaching 6) Evaluat ion Relevance var iab le s examine the content and type of profes s iona l development a c t i v i t i e s preferred by FSL teachers. 102 They examine the fo l lowing: 1) Primary goal for profess ional development 2) Content 3) Number of options per session 4) Transfer of content 5) Groups addressed by a session Information w i l l be presented by grouping the f indings under these two headings: governance and relevance v a r i a b l e s . Descr ip t ive analys i s of t h i s part of the survey provides information for the fol lowing research questions: 1) Do teachers have var i ed preferences for decision-making ro l e s i n profess iona l development? Do the majority of teachers prefer to leave r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for d e c i s i o n -making with a supervisory f igure? 2) Do teachers have var i ed preferences for content and type of a c t i v i t y i n t h e i r profess iona l development? Do the majori ty of teachers prefer p r a c t i c a l , concrete content? Descr ip t ive Analys i s of Governance Var iab les Examination of the descr ip t ive data on governance var iab le s provided information for the f i r s t research quest ion: 1) Do teachers have var i ed preferences for decision-making ro les i n profess iona l development? Do the majori ty of teachers prefer to leave r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for d e c i s i o n -making with a supervisory f igure? 103 For a l l governance v a r i a b l e s , three poss ib le s tructures for decision-making were presented: 1) A d i r e c t i v e s tructure (supervisor i s responsible for decision-making) 2) A c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure (supervisors and teachers share r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) 3) A non-d irec t ive s tructure (teachers are l a r g e l y responsible for decision-making) This scale r e f l e c t s pre scr ip t ions for profess ional development based on developmental theory. The bas ic assumption of these guide l ines i s that teachers at lower l e v e l s of development w i l l pre fer a d i r e c t i v e PD s t ruc ture , as they view author i ty as the highest good. Teachers at higher l eve l s w i l l pre fer a non-d irec t ive s t ruc ture . Research i n developmental theory showed that the majority of teachers are at lower stages of development, therefore , i t can be expected that the majority of teachers should prefer a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture . Information on s ix decision-making ro les was c o l l e c t e d . For each of these r o l e s , teachers were asked to ind ica te whether they would pre fer to l e t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y l i e with a supervisor , whether they would pre fer to make decis ions i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n with a supervisor , or whether they would prefer to be responsible for dec i s ions while rece iv ing support and information from a supervisor . The f indings for these s i x var iab le s fo l lows. 104 Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Table 15 Preferences for Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Frequency Percentage (n=125) D i r e c t i v e 11 8.8' Co l labora t ive 72 57.6' Non-direct ive 42 33.65 When asked who should i d e n t i f y the profess iona l development needs of FSL teachers, the majority of respondents opted for a c o l l a b o r a t i v e form of needs i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (57.6%). Some teachers preferred that a supervisory author i ty (8.8%) i d e n t i f y needs and a considerable group opted for teacher-autonomy (33.6%) i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of needs. P r i o r i t y of Needs Table 16 Preferences for Choosing the P r i o r i t y of Needs Frequency Percentage (n=127) D i r e c t i v e 7 5.5% Col labora t ive 79 62.2% Non-direct ive 4 32.3% When asked who should choose which of the i d e n t i f i e d needs should be addressed i n a profess iona l development program, 105 respondents again opted i n majority for a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure (62.2%). There are teachers, however, who preferred that a supervisory author i ty make the dec i s ion (5.5%) and a considerable group which preferred a teacher-d irected s tructure (32.3%). Coordinat ion (n=127) D i r e c t i v e Co l labora t ive Non-direct ive Table 17 Preferences for Coordination of PD Frequency 48 67 12 Percentage 37.8% 52.8% 9.4% More than h a l f of the respondents ind icated that they would prefer that coordinat ion of PD a c t i v i t i e s be organized with in a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure (52.8%). However, a large group of respondents f e l t that r e s p o n s i b i l i t y should l i e with a supervisor (37.8%). Only a few f e l t that teachers, with support and information from t h e i r supervisors , should assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for coordinat ion (9.4%). The response to t h i s v a r i a b l e d i f f e r s from other governance v a r i a b l e s . I t i s the one v a r i a b l e where teachers opted i n considerable number for a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture . 106 Presentat ion Table 18 Preferences for Presentation during PD Frequency Percentage (n=125) D i r e c t i v e 15 12.0% Col labora t ive 70 56.0% Non-direct ive 40 32.0% When asked who should be responsible for presentat ion i n profess iona l development, the majority of respondents (56.0%) chose a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t ruc ture . A small group (12.0%) f e l t that the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y should l i e with a supervisor and 32.0% f e l t that teachers should be responsible for presentat ion . Coaching (n=128) D i r e c t i v e Co l labora t ive Non-direct ive Table 19 Preferences for Coaching Frequency 21 72 35 Percentage 16.4% 56.3% 27.3% The majority of respondents expressed a preference for a c o l l a b o r a t i v e form of coaching (56.3%). A group representing 16.4% of respondents preferred that a supervisor be responsible 107 for coaching and 27.3% preferred that teachers assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Evaluat ion Table 20 Preferences for Evaluat ion Frequency Percentage (n=129) D i r e c t i v e 2 1.6% Col labora t ive 60 46.5% Non-direct ive 67 51.9% In the case of evaluat ion , more than h a l f of the respondents f e l t that teachers should be responsible for evaluat ing profess iona l development programs (51.9%). Nearly a l l of the remaining respondents (46.5%) opted for a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure and only 1.6% f e l t that supervisors should be responsible for evaluat ing profess iona l development programs and t h e i r impact. I t i s the only v a r i a b l e for which the majority of respondents chose a non-d irec t ive s tructure over a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e . Discuss ion of Governance Var iab les As can be seen by the responses, respondents i n general would c l e a r l y prefer a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure for d e c i s i o n -making i n profess iona l development programs. This supports what i s general ly being sa id i n the l i t e r a t u r e on the profess iona l development of teachers. I t would ind icate that FSL teachers, 108 l i k e teachers i n general , would prefer an ac t ive r o l e i n the design and organizat ion of t h e i r own continuing education. What the data a l so shows i s that not a l l teachers would pre fer the same degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n decis ion-making. Some teachers would prefer a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure and others a t eacher-d irec ted s truc ture , s t i l l others would prefer to l e t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y l i e with the supervisor . The v a r i a t i o n found within teachers' preferences for decision-making ro les supports the guide l ines for profess iona l development proposed by developmental theory. Teachers do not share the same need for r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n decis ion-making. Developmental theory a lso states that teachers are , i n general , at lower stages of development. When t h i s assumption i s appl ied to profes s iona l development, i t can be assumed that the majority of teachers w i l l prefer a d i r e c t i v e s tructure of profess iona l development. The f indings of t h i s survey do not support t h i s assumption. For a l l decision-making r o l e s , the majority of respondents chose a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure and a considerable number chose a non-d irec t ive s t ruc ture . I f c o l l a b o r a t i v e and non-d irec t ive s tructures are considered together, i t becomes quite c l e a r where the preferences of teachers l i e i n regard to decision-making r o l e s . The fol lowing tab le co l lapses the options "col laborat ion" and "non-direct ion". These are treated simply as a preference for involvement i n 109 decision-making and compared to the option "direct ive" which i s now labe led "non-involvement". Table 21 Governance Var iab les Frequency Percentage Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n (n=125) Teacher Non-involvement 11 8.8% Teacher Involvement 114 91.2% P r i o r i t y of Needs (n=127) Teacher Non-involvement 7 5.5% Teacher Involvement 120 94.5% Coordinat ion (n=127) Teacher Non-involvement 48 37.8% Teacher Involvement 79 62.2% Presentat ion (n=125) Teacher Non-involvement 15 12.0% Teacher Involvement 110 88.0% Coaching (n=128) Teacher Non-involvement 21 16.4% Teacher Involvement 107 83.6% Evaluat ion (n=129) Teacher Non-involvement 2 1.6% Teacher Involvement 127 98.4 9-110 In Table 21, i t can be seen that teachers f ee l s trongly that they can assume some degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the fol lowing decision-making r o l e s : 1) Evaluat ion (98.4%) 2) Choosing the p r i o r i t y of needs (94.5%) 3) Needs i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (91.2%) 4) Presentat ion (88.0%) 5) Coaching (83.8%) 6) Coordinat ion (62.2%) Evaluat ion was d e f i n i t e l y one decision-making r o l e that teachers f e l t they could assume. Almost a l l of the respondents (98.4%) opted for a c o l l a b o r a t i v e or non-d irec t ive s t ruc ture . Only 1.6% opted for a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture . Coordination was the one aspect of profes s iona l development that respondents seemed the l eas t w i l l i n g to assume. Of the respondents, 37.8% preferred non-involvement i n coordinat ion . This was the only v a r i a b l e for which a large group of teachers indicated a preference for a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture . Teachers seem to des ire some degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n d i f f e r e n t d e c i s i o n -making aspects of profess ional development. There seems to be less wi l l ingness to accept r e s p o n s i b l i t y for the actual management of programs. I l l I t should be stressed that for governance v a r i a b l e s , approximately h a l f of the respondents ind icated that they pre ferred c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t ruc tures . Another f ind ing from t h i s part of the study should a lso be underl ined, a considerable number of teachers d i d chose a non-d irec t ive s t r u c t u r e . Roughly a t h i r d of respondents chose non-d irec t ion for the fol lowing v a r i a b l e s : 1) Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n (33.6%) 2) Choosing the p r i o r i t y of needs (32.2%) 3) Presentat ion (32.0%) 4) Coaching (27.3%). Very few respondents chose a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture . I f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for coordinat ion i s excluded, the percentage of respondents that chose a d i r e c t i v e s tructure l i e s between 1.6% and 16.4% for remaining v a r i a b l e s : 1) Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 8. 8% 2) P r i o r i t y of Needs 5. 5% 3) Presentat ion 12. 0% 4) Coaching 16. 4% 5) Evaluat ion 1. 6% The d i s t r i b u t i o n of teachers' preferences for d e c i s i o n -making ro les across the s ix var iab le s can be found i n the fo l lowing t a b l e , which serves as a summary of the data . 112 Table 22 Summary of Teachers' Preferences for Structure D i s t r i b u t i o n across Var iab les Preferences for Structure Non-D i r e c t i v e Co l laborat ive d i r e c t i v e Decision-making Roles Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 8.8% 57.6% 33.6% P r i o r i t y of Needs 5.5% 62.2% 32.3% Coordinat ion 37.8% 52.8% 9.4% Presentat ion 12.0% 56.0% 32.0% Coaching 16.4% 56.3% 27.3% Evaluat ion 1.6% 46.5% 51.9% Descr ip t ive Analys i s of Relevance Var iab les Descr ip t ive analys i s of relevance v a r i a b l e s provided information for the examination of the fo l lowing research quest ion: 2) Do teachers have var i ed preferences for content and type of a c t i v i t y i n profess ional development programs? Do the majority prefer " p r a c t i c a l " concrete content? For each item c o l l e c t i n g information on relevance v a r i a b l e s , options were presented which respected a h ierarchy of concerns defined by developmental theor ies . A bas ic assumption of developmental theory i s that not a l l teachers have the same concerns. When developmental theories are appl ied to profes s iona l development, the fo l lowing guide l ine i s suggested: 113 profess iona l development w i l l need to take into account that a teachers' concerns w i l l be re f l ec t ed i n the content that he/she w i l l consider re levant . Research i n Conceptual Systems theory showed that the majori ty of teachers are at lower l e v e l s of conceptual development. When t h i s assumption i s c a r r i e d over and appl ied to profes s iona l development, i t can be expected that the majority of teachers w i l l prefer content that i s " p r a c t i c a l " and concrete, addressing lower l e v e l concerns. The v a r i a b l e s examined i n t h i s sec t ion are goals , content, number of options offered i n a sess ion, t rans fer of content and groups addressed by a profess iona l development program. Goals and Content. Item E c o l l e c t e d information on teachers' preferences as to the primary goal of a profess iona l development program and Item G as to the content of a program. Teachers had a choice of three options that were the same for both of these two items. These options r e f l e c t e d respec t ive ly 1) s u r v i v a l concerns; 2) teacher tasks concerns; 3) student impact concerns. Please note that the actual wording of these two items was designed so as to avoid b ia s . 114 Table 23 Goals and Content Frequency Percentage Goals (n=114) S u r v i v a l 38 33.3% Teacher Task 36 31.6% Student Impact 40 35.1% Content (n=97) S u r v i v a l 40 41.2% Teacher Task 21 21.6% Student Impact 36 37.1% As can be seen i n Table 23, there i s no one c l e a r category of concerns evident i n teachers' responses. When asked what the goal of PD should be, responses were f a i r l y evenly d i s t r i b u t e d across the three options. When asked what the content should be, there was a s h i f t downward from teacher-task concerns to s u r v i v a l concerns. Number of Options Developmental theory states that when teachers at lower stages of development are presented with more than one a l t e r n a t i v e for teaching a s k i l l , they w i l l be most inf luenced by the a l t e r n a t i v e that i s presented f i r s t . Developmental theory 115 hypothesizes that teachers at lower l eve l s of development w i l l pre fer to be taught one good "authorized" way to teach. Teachers were asked to ind icate a preference for sessions that presented one way or a number of ways to teach a language s k i l l or s t ruc ture . Table 24 Number of Options Frequency Percentage Number of Options (n=128) One Way 4 3.1% A l t e r n a t i v e s 124 96.9% The responses to t h i s item were nearly unanimous: 96.9% of respondents indicated that they would prefer that a number of a l t e r n a t i v e ways to teach a s k i l l or s tructure be presented during a profess iona l development sess ion. This v a r i a b l e w i l l not be discussed further i n the study. I t i s f e l t that a b ias was c a r r i e d i n the wording of t h i s item. I t i s the only item to rece ive only one category of response. Transfer of Content Developmental theory hypothesizes that teachers at lower stages of development w i l l prefer content that i s immediately appl i cab le to the classroom. 116 Table 25 Transfer of Content Frequency Percentage Transfer of Content (n=129) Immediately Appl i cab le 55 42.6% Not Immediately Appl i cab le 74 57.4% Teachers were asked whether they would pre fer that the information and content of programs be immediately appl i cab le to the classroom. Of the respondents, 42.6% indicated that they would pre fer information and content that i s immediately a p p l i c a b l e . The majority (57.4%) indicated that t h i s was not a necess i ty . Groups Addressed by Profess ional Development Developmental theory bu i lds on the assumption that higher stages of development are character ized by greater f l e x i b i l i t y and des ire to in t erac t and learn from others . Based on t h i s assumption, the fo l lowing guide l ine i s suggested for profess iona l development: teachers at lower l eve l s of development w i l l f e e l l i t t l e need for group i n t e r a c t i o n and peer l earn ing . As teachers move up the developmental sca le , they w i l l f ee l the need for more i n t e r a c t i o n with peers. 117 Table 26 Groups Addressed by PD Frequency Percentage Groups Addressed (n=125) S i m i l a r Groups 68 54.4% Di f f erent Groups 124 45.6% When asked which FSL groups should be addressed i n a program, answers were again d i v i d e d . The majori ty (52.4%) f e l t that profess iona l development should address s p e c i f i c groups with common needs while 45.6% f e l t that i t should address mixed groups. Discuss ion of Relevance Var iab les For the fo l lowing d i scuss ion , the v a r i a b l e "number of options presented i n a session" has been d iscarded. There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that the wording of the item created a b ias , r e s u l t i n g i n the nearly unanimous choice of one option by respondents. There remain four var iab le s for d i scuss ion: 1) goals 2) content 3) t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y of content 4) groups addressed by a profess iona l development sess ion 118 The d i f f e r e n t options presented for these v a r i a b l e s r e f l e c t a h ierarchy of concerns proposed by developmental t h e o r i s t s . From the d e s c r i p t i v e analys i s of responses, i t can be seen that teachers d i d not express a c l e a r preference for e i t h e r low l e v e l or high l e v e l content. What can be observed i s a roughly even d i s t r i b u t i o n across options. Table 27 presents an overview of f indings for t h i s sec t ion , using only percentages. Goals Level 1: Level 2: Level 3: Table 27 Relevance Var iab les Using Developmental Scale 33.3% 31.6% 35.1% T r a n s f e r a b i l i t y of Content Low Leve l : 42.6% High Leve l : 57.4% Content Level 1: Level 2: Level 3: 41.2% 21.6% 37.1% Groups Addressed Low Leve l : 54.4% High Leve l : 45.6% (N.B. Level One concerns are lower l e v e l concerns, Level Three concerns are higher l e v e l concerns.) These f indings support a bas ic assumption of developmental theor i e s , that teachers, being at d i f f e r e n t stages of development, have d i f f e r e n t concerns that w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n what they w i l l consider relevant wi th in a profess iona l 119 development s tructure and how they w i l l prefer content to be presented. Research i n Conceptual Systems theory showed that the majori ty of teachers are at lower l eve l s of development. I f t h i s f ind ing i s appl ied to profess ional development,it can be expected that the majority of teachers w i l l pre fer content and profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s that w i l l r e f l e c t these lower l e v e l s of development. The information from t h i s study does not support t h i s assumption. While there i s v a r i a t i o n i n the type of a c t i v i t y and content that teachers would pre fer , the responses are spread across options and are not concentrated i n options l i n k e d to lower l e v e l concerns. Summary of Descr ipt ive Analys i s of Findings Descr ipt ive ana lys i s of the data provided a p r o f i l e of teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . This allowed for a comparison between the sample that responded to t h i s survey and the sample reached by the l arger nat ional survey (Canadian Assoc ia t ion of Second Language Teachers, 1986). This d e s c r i p t i v e information w i l l a lso be used i n the next step i n ana lys i s : the b i - v a r i a t e ana lys i s of teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and teacher preferences for s tructure and content i n profess iona l development. Descr ipt ive analys i s provided information for the fol lowing research questions: 120 1) Do teachers have v a r i e d preferences for decision-making ro l e s i n profess iona l development programs? Do the majori ty of teachers prefer to leave r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for decision-making with a supervisory f igure? 2) Do teachers have var i ed preferences for content and type of a c t i v i t y i n profess ional development programs? Do the majority prefer "prac t i ca l" concrete content? Analys i s of governance var iab le s answered the f i r s t research quest ion. I t showed that teachers do have d i f f e r e n t preferences for decision-making r o l e s . However, the majority (usual ly over 50%), would prefer a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t ruc ture , with r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for decision-making shared between teachers and a supervisor . Roughly a t h i r d of respondents chose a non-d irec t ive s t ruc ture , with teachers assuming r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for decis ion-making. A small group of respondents chose a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture , which l e t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for decision-making l i e with a supervisor . This f ind ing supports one guide l ine for profess iona l development suggested by developmental theory: a profess iona l development s tructure needs to be b u i l t on the recogni t ion that teachers have d i f f e r e n t preferences for r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n decis ion-making. I t does not support another assumption namely; that the majority of teachers, being at lower l e v e l s of development, w i l l prefer a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture . 121 A n a l y s i s o f r e l e v a n c e v a r i a b l e s answered t h e s e c o n d r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n . I t showed t h a t t e a c h e r s do have d i f f e r e n t p r e f e r e n c e s as t o t h e c o n t e n t and t y p e o f a c t i v i t i e s i n a p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m . The f i n d i n g s showed t h a t some t e a c h e r s w o u l d p r e f e r c o n t e n t d i r e c t e d a t l o w e r l e v e l c o n c e r n s , w h i l e o t h e r s w o u l d p r e f e r c o n t e n t d i r e c t e d a t h i g h e r l e v e l c o n c e r n s . P r e f e r e n c e s f o r d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f c o n t e n t and a c t i v i t i e s were s c a t t e r e d a c r o s s o p t i o n s . The m a j o r i t y o f t e a c h e r s d i d n o t choose l o w e r l e v e l c o n t e n t and p r e s e n t a t i o n o p t i o n s . T h i s f i n d i n g s u p p o r t s a g u i d e l i n e f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l deve lopmen t s u g g e s t e d by d e v e l o p m e n t a l t h e o r y . The c o n t e n t and t y p e o f a c t i v i t y o f p r o f e s s i o n a l deve lopmen t p rograms w i l l need t o be b u i l t on t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t e a c h e r s have d i f f e r e n t c o n c e r n s . These c o n c e r n s w i l l a f f e c t what t h e y c o n s i d e r w o r t h w h i l e and a p p r o p r i a t e . I t does n o t s u p p o r t t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t e a c h e r s , b e i n g a t l o w e r l e v e l s o f c o n c e p t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t , w i l l p r e f e r c o n t e n t t h a t i s c o n c r e t e and i m m e d i a t e l y a p p l i c a b l e , a d d r e s s e d t o l o w e r l e v e l c o n c e r n s . T e a c h e r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and T e a c h e r P r e f e r e n c e s The s e c o n d p u r p o s e o f t h e s t u d y was t o e x p l o r e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t c e r t a i n t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s p e c i f i c t o t h e F S L t e a c h i n g c o n t e x t , m i g h t be i n f l u e n c i n g t e a c h e r s ' p r e f e r e n c e s f o r s t r u c t u r e and c o n t e n t i n p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t . 122 Developmental theory bu i lds on the assumption that teachers' preferences are d ic ta ted by t h e i r current l e v e l of development. The fo l lowing research question was posed: 3) Are there c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s p e c i f i c to the FSL teaching context, poss ib ly inf luenc ing teachers' preferences for s tructure and content i n profess iona l development programs? This research question was examined through a t e s t of the fo l lowing hypothesis: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences observed between teachers ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and teachers' preferences for s tructure and content i n profess ional development. Procedure The fo l lowing procedure was used to t e s t t h i s hypothesis . Teachers were d iv ided into categories according to th i r t een teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Information on these t h i r t e e n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was c o l l e c t e d through Part A of the quest ionnaire . Part B c o l l e c t e d information on teachers' preferences for s tructure and content through questions on eleven v a r i a b l e s . Each of the t h i r t e e n teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were analyzed with the eleven var iab le s on s tructure and content. B i -v a r i a t e ana lys i s showing s ign i f i cance were then further examined through a t e s t of expected frequencies . Contingency tables and the chi -square of s ign i f i cance were used to measure s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between categories . For a l i s t of teacher 123 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and s tructure and content v a r i a b l e s , please see Chapter Three. The fo l lowing working hypotheses were formulated: 1) No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences w i l l be observed between teachers ' preferences for decision-making (governance) i n a profess iona l development program ( r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n needs i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , i n choosing which of the i d e n t i f i e d needs should be addressed i n a program, i n coordinat ion , i n choosing presentat ion a c t i v i t i e s , i n coaching and evaluation) and teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s p e c i f i c to FSL teachers (years of experience, grade l eve l s taught, contact with other FSL teachers, gender, age, f i r s t language, language of community, language of school ing , academic background, s p e c i f i c FSL t r a i n i n g , s p e c i f i c teaching task, and current PD opportun i t i e s ) . 2) No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences w i l l be observed between teachers' preferences for content i n profess iona l development programs (goals, content, number of options presented i n a sess ion, t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y of content, and groups addressed) and teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s p e c i f i c to FSL teachers (years of experience, grade l e v e l s taught, contact with other FSL teachers, gender, age, f i r s t language, language of community, language of school ing, academic background, s p e c i f i c FSL t r a i n i n g , s p e c i f i c 124 teaching task, and current profes s iona l development oppor tun i t i e s ) . Results of B i - v a r i a t e Analys i s The fo l lowing n u l l hypotheses were not sustained by the study: No s i g n i f i c a n t di f ferences were observed between teachers' preferences for content i n profess iona l development and teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences were observed between teachers' preferences for s tructure i n profess iona l development and the fo l lowing teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : 1) Years of teaching experience (general and FSL) 2) Contact with other FSL teachers 3) Gender 4) Age 5) F i r s t language 6) Language of community 7) Language of schooling 8) Academic background 9) FSL t r a i n i n g 10) FSL s p e c i a l i z a t i o n 11) Desire to p a r t i c i p a t e i n profess iona l development B i - v a r i a t e analys i s showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences 125 between teachers 7 preferences and 11 of the 13 teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i d e n t i f i e d . Two teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i d show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences : 1) Grade l e v e l taught (elementary or secondary) 2) Current profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s These w i l l be discussed i n the next sec t ion . Information on b i - v a r i a t e ana lys i s w i l l be presented throughout t h i s s ec t ion . Teachers 7 preferences for profess iona l development are shown i n the row. Categories according to teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are shown i n the column. In each of the c e l l s , the actual number of respondents w i l l be ind ica ted , as wel l as the number that was s t a t i s t i c a l l y expected. The C h i -Square of s i gn i f i cance i s presented at the bottom of the t a b l e . The information presented i n the tables shows how the respondents were d iv ided into categories and how these d i f f e r e n t categories responded to the options presented to them for decis ion-making. Grade Level The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "grade l eve l" re fers to whether the respondent i s an elementary or secondary FSL teacher. When teachers were d iv ided into categories using t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ference was observed between elementary and secondary teachers and t h e i r preferences for one decision-making v a r i a b l e , presentat ion . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences were observed between grade l e v e l and other governance v a r i a b l e s . 126 Table 28 presents the r e s u l t s of the b i - v a r i a t e ana lys i s of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "teaching l eve l" and the governance v a r i a b l e "presentation". In t h i s case, two categories of respondents were i d e n t i f i e d : elementary and secondary teachers . The f i r s t number to appear i n each c e l l of t h i s contingency table represents the actual number of respondents i n t h i s category to have chosen that governance option (count). The number presented d i r e c t l y below t h i s , i s the number that was s t a t i s t i c a l l y expected to choose t h i s option (expected va lue) . Examination of the d i f ferences between actual frequency (count) and expected frequency (expected value) allows for a deeper understanding of the Chi-square of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Table 28 Grade Level by Preferences for Presentat ion Preferences for Presentat ion (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total Grade Level 12 25 18 55 Elementary 6.8 30.5 17.7 45.5% 3 42 21 66 Secondary 8.2 36.5 21.3 54.5% Column 15 67 39 121 Total 12.4% 55.4% 32.2% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance 9.01874 2 0.0110 Number of Missing Observations = 9 127 The Chi-Square of s ign i f i cance for t h i s ana lys i s i s 0.0110. When a breakdown of responses i s examined, i t can be seen that elementary teachers indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t preference for a d i r e c t i v e s tructure for presentat ion i n profess iona l development. I t was s t a t i s t i c a l l y expected that 6.8 would pre fer a d i r e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e . The actual count i s 12. I t was expected that 30.5 elementary teachers would prefer a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t ruc ture . In actua l fac t , only 25 teachers chose t h i s opt ion . The tab le a lso shows that secondary teachers expressed a s i g n i f i c a n t preference for a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t ruc ture . I t was expected that 3 6.5 secondary teachers would choose t h i s opt ion. The ac tua l frequency was 42. I t was expected that 8.2 secondary teachers would choose a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture . Only 3 respondents chose t h i s opt ion . This data seems to indicate that for the v a r i a b l e "presentation", elementary teachers f ee l a greater need for a d i r e c t i v e s tructure than do secondary teachers. When grade l e v e l taught i n the past was used to create categories , a very s i m i l a r f ind ing was produced (Table 29) . I t should be noted that , as i n the previous a n a l y s i s , the only v a r i a b l e to show s ign i f i cance i s presentat ion. 128 Table 29 Past Grade Level by Preference for Presentat ion (Count) (Expected Value) Preference for Presentation Row Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total Past Grade Level 9 22 12 43 Elementary 5.1 24.8 13.2 50.6% 1 27 14 42 Secondary 4.9 24.2 12.8 49.4% Column Total 10 11.8% 49 57.6% 26 30.6% 85 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance 7.05326 2 0.0294 Number of Missing Observations = 45 The teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "past grade l eve l" was used to e s t a b l i s h categor ies . Differences were observed between teachers who had prev ious ly taught at the elementary l e v e l and teachers who had prev ious ly taught at the secondary l e v e l . The only v a r i a b l e to show s ign i f i cance was presentat ion . As i n the previous f ind ing , elementary teachers indicated a preference for a d i r e c t i v e s tructure i n numbers higher than were s t a t i s t i c a l l y expected (Expected frequency: 5.1, Actual count: 9) . I t was expected that 4.9 secondary teachers would choose a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture . Only 1 respondent chose t h i s opt ion . These r e s u l t s corroborate the previous f i n d i n g . The f indings for both "grade l e v e l present ly teaching" and "grade l e v e l taught 129 i n past" would seem to indicate that elementary FSL teachers have a greater need for a d i r e c t i v e s tructure of presentat ion than do secondary FSL teachers. I t should be remembered, however, that the majori ty of elementary teachers indicated a preference for a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure of presentat ion. Current Profess ional Development A c t i v i t i e s The r e s u l t s of the survey showed s ign i f i cance for one other teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , teachers' current profess iona l development. Data on current profess ional development a c t i v i t i e s was c o l l e c t e d through s ix items: 1) A v a i l a b i l i t y of PD a c t i v i t i e s 2) Groups current ly addressed by PD a c t i v i t i e s 3) R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i n i t i a t i o n of a c t i v i t i e s 4) R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for coordinat ion of a c t i v i t i e s 5) Frequency of PD a c t i v i t i e s 6) Attendance at PD a c t i v i t i e s S ign i f i cance was found for f ive of these s ix items when they were analyzed with teachers' preferences for s t ruc ture . Of these 6 items, the item "groups addressed by PD a c t i v i t i e s " d id not show any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between categor ies . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences observed between respondents whose profes s iona l development a c t i v i t i e s were addressed only to FSL teachers, and respondents whose a c t i v i t i e s were addressed to FSL and Immersion teachers. 130 The f i ve remaining items to show s ign i f i cance when analyzed with governance var iab le s w i l l now be discussed. A v a i l a b i l i t y of A c t i v i t i e s Teachers were asked i f there were profes s iona l development a c t i v i t i e s a v a i l a b l e to them within t h e i r school boards. Information from t h i s item allowed for the d i v i s i o n of teachers in to two categories: teachers with PD opportuni t i e s , teachers without PD opportuni t i e s . Two governance v a r i a b l e s showed s ign i f i cance through b i - v a r i a t e ana lys i s : coaching and eva luat ion . Tables 30 and 31 provide information on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of teachers' preferences for coaching and evaluat ion according to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c " a v a i l a b i l i t y of profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s " . Table 30 A v a i l a b i l i t y of PD A c t i v i t i e s by Preferences for Coaching Preferences for Coaching (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total  Availability of  PD Activities 18 60 23 101 Yes 16.8 56.1 28.1 80.2% 3 10 12 25 No 4.2 13.9 6.9 19.8% Column 21 70 35 126 Total 16.7% 55.6% 27.8% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance 6.35738 2 0.0416 Number of Missing Observations = 4 131 From Table 30, i t can be seen that a s i g n i f i c a n t number of teachers , who present ly have PD opportuni t i e s , pre ferred a non-d i r e c t i v e s tructure for coaching i n numbers that were lower than expected (Expected frequency: 28.1, Actual count: 23). A s i g n i f i c a n t number of teachers, who have no opportuni t ies for profes s iona l development, chose a non-d irec t ive s tructure for coaching (Expected frequency: 6.9, Actual count: 12). Teachers, without profess ional development a c t i v i t i e s would appear to be more w i l l i n g to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for coaching, than teachers with profess iona l development opportuni t i e s . The only other v a r i a b l e to show s ign i f i cance with t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was evaluat ion . The next table (Table 31) shows the r e s u l t s of b i - v a r i a t e analys i s of the teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c " a v a i l a b i l i t y of a c t i v i t i e s " and the governance v a r i a b l e "evaluation". As can be seen i n Table 31, teachers, who do not have opportuni t ies for profess ional development, opted i n s i g n i f i c a n t number for a non-d irec t ive s tructure for evaluat ion (Expected frequency: 13, Actual count: 18). Teachers, who do have opportuni t i e s , chose a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure over a non-d i r e c t i v e s tructure i n s i g n i f i c a n t number (Expected frequency: 47.4, Actual count: 53). 132 Table 31 A v a i l a b i l i t y of A c t i v i t i e s by Preferences for Evaluat ion Preference for Evaluat ion (Count) (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Row Total Availability of Activities Yes 1 1.6 53 47.4 48 53.0 102 80.3% No 1 .4 6 11.6 18 13.0 25 19.7% Column Total 2 1.6% 59 46.5% 66 52.0% 127 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance 6.94496 2 0.0310 Number of Missing Observations = 3 These two f indings would seem to ind icate that teachers who have no profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s are more w i l l i n g to accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for coaching and for eva luat ion , than teachers who have a profess ional development i n f r a s t r u c t u r e . Frequency of PD A c t i v i t i e s The next teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c to show s i g n i f i c a n c e was the v a r i a b l e "frequency of PD a c t i v i t i e s " . This v a r i a b l e d iv ided teachers in to categories according to the frequency of a c t i v i t i e s wi th in a school year. Two categories were i d e n t i f i e d : teachers with one or two PD a c t i v i t i e s a year, teachers with 3 or more a c t i v i t i e s a year. One governance v a r i a b l e showed s i g n i f i c a n c e : coaching. Table 32 presents the r e s u l t s of ana lys i s of the v a r i a b l e s "frequency of PD a c t i v i t i e s " and "coaching". Table 32 Frequency of PD A c t i v i t i e s by Preferences for Coaching Preferences for Coaching (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total Frequency of  PD Activities 12 32 23 67 1 -2 Year 12.3 37.6 17.0 58.8% 9 32 6 47 3 or More/Years 8.7 26.4 12.0 41.2% Column 21 64 29 114 Total 18.4% 56.1% 25.4% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance 7.10397 2 0.0287 Number of Missing Observations = 16 Teachers, who have more than three PD a c t i v i t i e s a year, chose a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure for coaching i n numbers lower than were s t a t i s t i c a l l y expected (Expected frequency: 26.4, Actua l count: 23). Teachers, who have only one or two a c t i v i t i e s a year, chose a non-d irec t ive s tructure i n numbers greater than expected (Expected frequency: 17.0, Actual count: 32). This f ind ing seems to corroborate the previous f i n d i n g . Teachers, with l i t t l e or no PD opportuni t ies , would appear to be more w i l l i n g to accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for coaching i n a PD structure than teachers who have more frequent PD a c t i v i t i e s . Current Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Information on the current i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of needs i n 134 profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s allowed for the d i v i s i o n of respondents into two categories: teachers whose profess iona l development needs are assumed and teachers whose profess iona l development needs are expressed. B i - v a r i a t e ana lys i s of t h i s teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and governance v a r i a b l e s showed s ign i f i cance for two v a r i a b l e s : coaching and eva luat ion . Table 33 presents information on teachers' preferences for coaching. Table 33 Current Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Preferences for Coaching Preferences for Coaching (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total Current Needs Identification 6 14 17 37 Assumed Needs 6.2 19.5 11.3 51.4% 6 24 5 35 Expressed Needs 5.8 18.5 10.7 48.6% Column 12 38 22 72 Total 16.7% 52.8% 30.6% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance 9.12852 2 0.0104 Number of Missing Observations = 58 Teachers, who current ly express t h e i r needs i n a PD s t ruc ture , chose a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure for coaching i n numbers greater than were s t a t i s t i c a l l y expected (Expected frequency: 18.5, Actual count: 24). Teachers, whose PD needs are 135 assumed, chose a non-d irec t ive s tructure i n numbers that were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (Expected frequency: 11.3, Actual count: 17). From t h i s f i n d i n g , i t would appear that a s i g n i f i c a n t number of teachers, who do not have a say i n i d e n t i f y i n g t h e i r PD needs, would pre fer more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n t h i s aspect of profess iona l development. Table 34 examines the same teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , "current i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of needs", and the v a r i a b l e "evaluation". Table 34 Current Needs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Preferences for Evaluat ion Preferences for Evaluat ion (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total Current Needs Identification 0 10 28 38 Assumed Needs .5 14.6 22.9 52.1% 1 18 16 35 Expressed Needs .5 13.4 21.1 47.9% Column 1 28 44 73 Total 1.4% 38.4% 60.3% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance 6.44604 2 0.0398 Number of Missing Observations = 57 136 Teachers, who current ly express t h e i r profess iona l development needs, chose a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure for evaluat ion i n s i g n i f i c a n t numbers (Expected frequency: 13.4, Actual count: 18) . Teachers, whose needs are assumed, chose a non-d irec t ive s tructure i n numbers that were s i g n i f i c a n t (Expected frequency: 22.9, Actua l count: 28). This f ind ing i s consistent with the previous f i n d i n g . Teachers, whose needs are assumed, have ind icated a preference for more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n c e r t a i n aspects of t h e i r profess iona l development. Teachers, whose PD needs are expressed, ind icated a stronger preference for a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t ruc ture . I n i t i a t i o n of Current PD A c t i v i t i e s Information on the teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c " i n i t i a t i o n of current PD a c t i v i t i e s " allowed for the crea t ion of three categories of respondents: 1) teachers whose supervisor i n i t i a t e s profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s 2) teachers who work c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y with supervisors i n i n i t i a t i n g profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s 3) teachers who assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i n i t i a t i n g profes s iona l development a c t i v i t i e s The r e s u l t s of b i - v a r i a t e analys i s showed s ign i f i cance for t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and four governance v a r i a b l e s . These four 137 v a r i a b l e s were 1) choosing the p r i o r i t y of needs; 2) coordinat ion; 3) presentat ion; 4) coaching. The fo l lowing tables present information on the teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "current i n i t i a t i o n of profes s iona l development a c t i v i t i e s " and these four v a r i a b l e s . Table 35 presents information on "current i n i t i a t i o n of PD" and teachers' preferences for choosing the p r i o r i t y of needs. Table 35 Current I n i t i a t i o n by Preferences for Choosing P r i o r i t y of Needs Preferences for Choosing P r i o r i t v of Needs (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total Current Initiation Of PD Activities 3 49 19 71 Supervisor 3.7 44.8 22.4 62.3% 3 18 6 27 Teachers & Super 1.4 17.1 8.5 23.7% 0 5 11 16 Teachers .8 10.1 5.1 14.0% Column 6 72 36 114 Total 5.3% 63.2% 31.6% 100.0% Chi-Scruare D.F. Significance 14.03025 4 0.0072 Number of Missing Observations = 16 138 Teachers, who are current ly involved i n the i n i t i a t i o n of t h e i r own profess iona l development, expressed a preference for a non-d irec t ive s tructure i n s i g n i f i c a n t numbers (Expected frequency: 5.1, Actual count: 11). Teachers, whose profess iona l development i s i n i t i a t e d by a supervisor , chose a non-d irec t ive s tructure i n numbers that were lower than expected (Expected frequency: 22.4, Actual count:19). They chose a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure i n numbers that were s i g n i f i c a n t (Expected frequency: 44.8, Actual count: 49). This f ind ing would seem to ind ica te that teachers , whose profess iona l development i s i n i t i a t e d by a supervisor , would prefer a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure and that teachers , who have had r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i n i t i a t i n g t h e i r own profes s iona l development, would prefer a non-d irec t ive s t ruc ture . Table 36 examines the same teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "current i n i t i a t i o n of a c t i v i t i e s " and the governance var iab l e "coordination". In Table 36, i t can be seen that teachers, current ly responsible for the i n i t i a t i o n of t h e i r own profess iona l development, chose a non-d irec t ive s tructure for coordinat ion i n numbers that were s i g n i f i c a n t (Expected frequency: 1.5, Actual count: 5) . They chose a d i r e c t i v e s tructure for coordinat ion in numbers lower than were expected (Expected frequency: 5.9, Actual count: 2) . 139 Table 36 Current I n i t i a t i o n by Preferences for Coordinat ion Preferences for Coordination (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total Current Initiation  Of Activities 28 39 4 71 Supervisor 26.2 38.0 6.9 62.3% 12 13 2 27 Teachers & Super 9.9 14.4 2.6 23.7% 2 9 5 16 Teachers 5.9 8.6 1.5 14.0% Column 42 61 11 114 Total 36.8% 53.5% 9.6% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Sicmificance 12.38485 4 0.0147 Number of Missing Observations = 16 This f ind ing would seem to ind icate that teachers, who already have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , for i n i t i a t i n g t h e i r profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s , would prefer r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for coord inat ion . Table 37 presents information on the teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "current i n i t i a t i o n of a c t i v i t i e s " and the governance var iab l e "presentation". 140 Table 37 Current I n i t i a t i o n of PD by Preferences for Presentat ion Preferences for Presentation (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total Current Initiation Of Activities 10 40 22 72 Supervisor 8.9 40.1 22.9 63.7% 4 18 4 26 Teachers & Super 3.2 14.5 8.3 23.0% 0 5 10 15 Teachers 1.9 8.4 4.8 13.3% Column 14 63 36 113 Total 12.4% 55.8% 31.9% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance 12.33518 4 0.0150 Number of Missing Observations = 17 Teachers, current ly responsible for the i n i t i a t i o n of t h e i r own profess iona l development, again chose, i n s i g n i f i c a n t number, a non-d irec t ive s tructure (Expected frequency: 4.8, Actual count: 10). This f ind ing i s consistent with previous f ind ings . Table 38 table w i l l look at the same teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and teachers' preferences for coaching. In Table 38 i t can be seen that , teachers, current ly responsible for the i n i t i a t i o n of t h e i r own profess ional development, chose a non-d irec t ive s tructure for coaching i n numbers that were s i g n i f i c a n t (Expected frequency: 4.2, Actual 141 count: 8) . Teachers, whose profess ional development i s i n i t i a t e d by a supervisor , chose a s tructure that i s d i r e c t i v e i n s i g n i f i c a n t numbers (Expected frequency:11.9, Actual count: 17). Table 38 Current I n i t i a t i o n of PD by Preferences for Coaching Preferences for Coaching (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total  Current Initiation  Of Activities 17 40 15 72 Supervisor 11.9 41.3 18.8 62.6% 2 18 7 27 Teachers & Super 4.5 15.5 7.0 23.5% 0 8 8 16 Teachers 2.6 9.2 4.2 13.9% Column 19 66 30 115 Total 16.5% 57.4% 26.1% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance 11.05989 4 0.0259 Number of Missing Observations = 15 This f ind ing i s consistent with previous f ind ings . A trend can be seen across the b i - v a r i a t e ana lys i s of the teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "current r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i n i t i a t i o n of profes s iona l development a c t i v i t i e s " and governance v a r i a b l e s . Four v a r i a b l e s showed s i g n i f i c a n c e . For a l l four of these v a r i a b l e s , i t was seen that a s i g n i f i c a n t number of teachers , who 142 have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i n i t i a t i n g t h e i r own profess iona l development, preferred a non-d irec t ive s tructure of profess iona l development. For two v a r i a b l e s , i t was seen that a s i g n i f i c a n t number of teachers, whose profess iona l development i s i n i t i a t e d by a supervisor , chose a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture . This f ind ing w i l l be further discussed at the end of t h i s s ec t ion . Current R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Coordination The information co l l ec t ed for the teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "current r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for coordination" allowed for the crea t ion of three categories . Teachers whose current profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s were coordinated 1) by supervisors; 2) by teachers and supervisors; 3) by teachers themselves. Four governance var iab le s showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between categor ies . These were 1) choosing the p r i o r i t y of needs; 2) coordinat ion; 3) presentat ion; 4) coaching. Table 39 presents the r e s u l t s of b i - v a r i a t e ana lys i s of "current degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n coordinat ion" and teachers' preferences for the v a r i a b l e "choosing the p r i o r i t y of needs". 143 Table 39 R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Coordination by Preferences for Choosing P r i o r i t y of Needs Preferences for Choosing Priority of Needs (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total Current Resoonsibilitv For Coordination 5 45 11 20 Supervisor 3.2 38.4 19.5 52.6% 1 19 15 35 Teachers with Super 1.8 22.0 11.2 30.2% Guidance 0 9 11 20 Teachers 1.0 12.6 6.4 17.2% Column 6 73 37 116 Total 5.2% 62.9% 31.9% 100.0% Chi-Sguare D.F. Significance 13.39315 4 0.0095 Number of Missing Observations = 14 A s i g n i f i c a n t number of teachers, who already have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for coordinat ion of t h e i r profes s iona l development a c t i v i t i e s , chose a non-d irec t ive s tructure for p r i o r i t i z i n g profes s iona l development needs (Expected frequency: 6.4, Actual count: 11) . A s i g n i f i c a n t number of teachers, who have worked c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y with a supervisor i n coordinat ing profess iona l development, a lso chose a non-d irec t ive s tructure (Expected frequency: 11.2, Actual count:15). Teachers, whose profess iona l development i s coordinated by a supervisor , chose a d i r e c t i v e s tructure i n greater numbers then were s t a t i s t i c a l l y expected (Expected frequency: 3.2, Actual count: 5) . These teachers also 144 chose a non-d irec t ive s tructure i n numbers lower than expected (Expected frequency: 19.5, Actual count: 11). This f ind ing would seem to ind icate a l i n k between teachers' previous degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n profess iona l development and t h e i r preferences for s tructure i n choosing the p r i o r i t y of profes s iona l development needs. Table 40 presents re su l t s of the ana lys i s of the same teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and the governance v a r i a b l e : coordinat ion . As can be seen i n Table 40, teachers, who already have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for coordinat ion of t h e i r profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s , chose a non-d irec t ive s tructure for coordinat ion i n s i g n i f i c a n t number (Expected frequency: 2.1, Actual count: 8). Teachers, who have worked c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y with a supervisor , chose a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure i n greater numbers then were s t a t i s t i c a l l y expected (Expected frequency: 18.7, Actual count: 23) . Teachers, whose profess ional development i s coordinated by a supervisor , chose a d i r e c t i v e s tructure i n greater numbers then were s t a t i s t i c a l l y expected (Expected frequency: 22.1, Actual count: 32) . These teachers chose a non-d irec t ive s tructure i n numbers lower than were expected (Expected frequency: 6.3, Actual count: 1) . 145 Table 40 R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Coordination by Preferences for Coordination Preferences for Coordination (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total Current Responsibility For Coordination 32 . 28 1 61 Supervisor 22.1 32.6 6.3 52.6% 9 23 3 35 Teachers with Super 12.7 18.7 3.6 30.2% Guidance 1 11 8 20 Teachers 7.2 10.7 2.1 17.2% Column 42 62 12 116 Total 36.2% 53.4% 10.3% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance 34.11545 4 0.0000 Number of Missing Observations = 14 This f ind ing i s consistent with other f ind ings , which seem to ind ica te that current degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n profess ional development i s a fac tor poss ib ly in f luenc ing teachers' preferences for s t ruc ture . Table 41 presents the r e s u l t s of ana lys i s of the same teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and preferences for presentat ion . Teachers, who already have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for coordinat ion of t h e i r profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s , chose a non-d i r e c t i v e s tructure of coordinat ion i n numbers that were s i g n i f i c a n t (Expected frequency: 5.8, Actual count: 10). 146 Teachers, whose profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s are coordinated by a supervisor , chose a d i r e c t i v e s tructure i n greater numbers then were expected (Expected frequency: 7.4, Actual count: 12) . This f ind ing i s consistent with previous f indings for ana lys i s of teachers' degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in coordinat ion of current profess ional development a c t i v i t i e s and t h e i r preferences for s t ruc ture . Table 41 R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Coordination by Preferences for Presentat ion Preferences for Presentat ion (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total Current Responsibility For Coordination 12 31 17 60 Supervisor 7.4 33.2 19.5 52.6% 2 24 10 36 Teachers with Super 4.4 19.9 11.7 31.6% Guidance 0 8 10 18 Teachers 2.2 9.9 5.8 15.8% Column 14 63 37 114 Total 12.3% 55.3% 32.5% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance 11.33261 4 0.0231 Number of Missing Observations = 16 Table 42 looks at t h i s same teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and the governance v a r i a b l e : coordinat ion . 147 Table 42 R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Coordination by Preferences for Coaching Preferences for Coaching (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total Current Responsibility For Coordination 15 38 8 36 Supervisor 10.9 34.4 15.6 52.1% 6 20 10 36 Teachers with Super 6.5 20.3 9.2 30.8% Guidance 0 8 12 20 Teachers 3.6 11.3 5.1 17.1% Column 21 66 30 117 Total 17.9% 56.4% 25.6% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance 19.46085 4 0.0006 Number of Missing Observations = 13 Teachers, who already have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for coordinat ion of t h e i r profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s , chose a non-d i r e c t i v e s tructure for coaching i n s i g n i f i c a n t number (Expected frequency: 5.1, Actual count: 12). Teachers, whose a c t i v i t i e s are coordinated by a supervisor , chose a d i r e c t i v e s tructure i n s i g n i f i c a n t number (Expected frequency: 10.9, Actua l count: 15). This f ind ing i s consistent with previous f indings on teachers 7 current degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n coordinat ion and t h e i r preferences for s tructure i n profess iona l development. 148 Attendance at PD A c t i v i t i e s Information c o l l e c t e d on the teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "PD attendance" allowed for the creat ion of three categories: teachers whose attendance at a c t i v i t i e s i s o p t i o n a l , teachers whose attendance at a c t i v i t i e s i s encouraged, and teachers whose attendance at a c t i v i t i e s i s monitored. One governance v a r i a b l e showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between categories: choosing the p r i o r i t y of profes s iona l development needs. Table 43 presents the re su l t s of the ana lys i s of the teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "attendance at current PD a c t i v i t i e s " and the governance v a r i a b l e "choosing the p r i o r i t y of needs". Table 4 3 Attendance at A c t i v i t i e s by Preferences for Choosing P r i o r i t i e s Preferences for Choosincr Priorities (Count) Row (Expected Value) Directive Collaborative Non-Directive Total Attendance at Activities 4 23 20 47 Optional 2.1 29.1 15.8 42.7% 0 41 16 57 Encouraged 2.6 35.2 19.2 51.8% l 4 1 6 Monitored . 3 3.7 2.0 5.5% Column 5 68 37 110 Total 4.5% 61.8% 33.6% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Sicrnificance 10,53297 4 0.0323 Number of Missing Observations = 20 149 Teachers, whose attendance at a c t i v i t i e s i s op t iona l , pre ferred a non-d irec t ive s tructure for p r i o r i t i z i n g needs i n numbers that were s i g n i f i c a n t (Expected frequency: 15.8, Actual count: 20) . This f ind ing w i l l not be kept for further d i scuss ion . I t i s f e l t that there are too many small c e l l s i n t h i s contingency t a b l e . F ive out of nine c e l l s have a minimum expected frequency of l ess than f i v e , producing r e s u l t s that could be a f fec ted . Discuss ion of Analys i s of Teacher C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  And Teacher Preferences for Structure and Content The second purpose of the study was to examine teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s poss ib ly in f luenc ing teachers' preferences for s tructure and content. I t was hypothesized that: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences observed between teacher c h a r a c t e r i s i t c s and teachers' preferences for s tructure and content i n profess ional development. From the re su l t s of the study, t h i s n u l l hypothesis cannot be re jec ted when teachers' preferences for content are tes ted . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences observed between teachers ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and t h e i r preferences for content i n profes s iona l development. When teachers' preferences for s tructure i n profess iona l development were analyzed with teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s showed s i g n i f i c a n c e . These were " leve l taught by 150 teachers" and "current profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s " . While the n u l l hypothesis stated above cannot be rejected for eleven of the t h i r t e e n teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i d e n t i f i e d by t h i s study, i t can be rejected for the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " leve l taught" and "current profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s " . "Level taught" re fers to whether respondents teach FSL at the elementary or the secondary l e v e l . Information was c o l l e c t e d on the l e v e l teachers were present ly teaching and the l e v e l they have taught i n the past . Of the eleven governance and relevance v a r i a b l e s analyzed through t h i s teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , only one v a r i a b l e showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between categor ies . This was presentat ion . I t would appear that elementary teachers f ee l a greater need for a d i r e c t i v e s tructure of presentat ion than do secondary teachers. I t should be noted, however, that the majority of both elementary and secondary teachers chose a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure of presentat ion. The other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c to show s ign i f i cance was "current profes s iona l development a c t i v i t i e s " . This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a c t u a l l y groups together s ix d i f f e r e n t aspects of profess iona l development. A l l s i x of these aspects showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between categories es tabl i shed through t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and teachers' preferences for s t ruc ture . Table 44 presents an overview of teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s showing s i g n i f i c a n c e through b i - v a r i a t e ana lys i s with teachers' 151 preferences for s t ruc ture . (Teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are presented i n the f i r s t column. Governance var iab le s showing s ign i f i cance when analyzed with t h i s teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c are presented i n the second column.) Table 44 Summary of Results of B i - v a r i a t e Analys i s Teacher C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Governance Var iab les 1) Level Taught Presentat ion 2) Current Profess ional Development A v a i l a b i l i t y of A c t i v i t i e s Coaching Evaluat ion Frequency of A c t i v i t i e s Coaching I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Needs Coaching Evaluat ion I n i t i a t i o n of A c t i v i t i e s P r i o r i t y of Needs Presentat ion Coordinat ion Coaching R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Coordination P r i o r i t y of Needs Coordinat ion Presentat ion Coaching Attendance at A c t i v i t i e s P r i o r i t y of Needs 152 To summarize the f indings of t h i s sec t ion , i t was found that : 1) A s i g n i f i c a n t number of elementary teachers preferred a d i r e c t i v e s tructure of presentat ion . A s i g n i f i c a n t number of secondary teachers preferred a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t ruc ture . This f ind ing was consistent when grade l e v e l present ly teaching and grade l e v e l taught i n the past were examined. 2) The r e s u l t s of analys i s of current profes s iona l development revealed two pat terns . A s i g n i f i c a n t number of teachers , who have l i t t l e or no profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s , ind icated a preference for a non-d irec t ive s tructure for some aspects of pro fes s iona l development. This was observed i n the case of teachers with no profess ional development a c t i v i t i e s : a s i g n i f i c a n t number preferred a non-d irec t ive s tructure for coaching and evaluat ion . I t was a l so observed i n the case of teachers with only one or two profess ional development a c t i v i t i e s a year: a s i g n i f i c a n t number preferred a non-d irec t ive s tructure for coaching. The other pattern to be revealed shows a poss ib le l i n k between teachers' current degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n profes s iona l development a c t i v i t i e s and preferences for s t ruc ture . Three c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o l l e c t e d information on teachers' current degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y : 153 1) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of profess iona l development needs 2) I n i t i a t i o n of profess ional development a c t i v i t i e s 3) Coordinat ion of profess ional development a c t i v i t i e s Three poss ib le ro les i n current profess iona l development were used to create categories . These were 1) r e s p o n s i b i l i t y l i e s with a supervisor; 2) r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s shared between a supervisor and teachers; 3) r e s p o n s i b i l i t y l i e s with teachers. I t would appear that a s i g n i f i c a n t number of teachers that already have a high degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for t h e i r current profes s iona l development would prefer a non-d irec t ive s t ruc ture . Teachers with a low degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n t h e i r current pro fes s iona l development would appear to pre fer a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture . Other teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i d not show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between categories . This does not e l iminate the p o s s i b i l i t y that they are i n d i r e c t l y in f luenc ing teachers choices . This w i l l be discussed i n the fo l lowing chapter, as w i l l be the impl icat ions of the r e s u l t s of b i - v a r i a t e analys i s and d e s c r i p t i v e ana lys i s . 154 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Chapter Five w i l l present a b r i e f overview of the research problem and methodology. A summary of f indings w i l l then be presented, followed by the conclusions drawn from the f indings , and t h e i r impl icat ions for theory and p r a c t i c e . Research Problem and Research Methods Two theories propose a developmental framework for teacher education. Conceptual Systems theory proposes that i n d i v i d u a l d i f ferences among adults are a funct ion of one's conceptual system. Development, within t h i s theory, i s described i n terms of increas ing complexity i n handling information and increas ing s e l f - r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (Hunt, 1974). Stages of Concern theory i s based on the assumption that teachers' concerns change as they acquire experience ( F u l l e r , 1970). Both theories describe lower l eve l s of development as being character ized by " p r a c t i c a l " , concrete concerns and a need for d i r e c t i o n from a supervisory f i gure . Higher l eve l s of development are character ized by greater s e l f - r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and more complex concerns. I t i s hypothesized that teachers' l eve l s of development w i l l be re f l ec t ed i n the content that they consider relevant and i n t h e i r need for r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Guidel ines and a framework for teacher education have been 155 proposed using these assumptions from developmental theory as a foundation (Santmire, 1979). I t i s suggested that profess ional development programs need to provide a range of l earning environments and a range of content and a c t i v i t i e s that w i l l accommodate the developmental l e v e l s of p a r t i c i p a t i n g teachers. Profess ional development programs should provide a h igh ly s tructured l earn ing environment with p r a c t i c a l content for teachers at lower l eve l s of development. The learning environment should be loose ly s tructured with more complex content for teachers at higher l e v e l s . Suggestions are given for the content and learning environment for the four l eve l s of development. Research on Conceptual Systems theory has shown that the majori ty of teachers are at lower l eve l s of conceptual development. When t h i s f ind ing i s appl ied to the profess iona l development guide l ines suggested by Santmire, i t can be expected that the majori ty of teachers w i l l prefer a d i r e c t i v e s tructure of profess iona l development and content that addresses p r a c t i c a l concrete concerns. Based on the guidel ines for profess iona l development (proposed by in terpre ta t ions of developmental t h e o r i e s ) , a survey instrument was designed to c o l l e c t information on FSL (French as a Second Language) teachers' preferences for s tructure and 156 content i n profess iona l development. The f i r s t purpose of the study was to examine how FSL teachers perceived s tructure and content i n profess iona l development. The fo l lowing research questions were posed: 1) Do teachers have var i ed preferences for decision-making ro l e s i n profess iona l development? Do the majori ty of FSL teachers prefer to leave r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for decision-making with a supervisory f igure? 2) Do teachers have var i ed preferences for content and type of profess iona l development a c t i v i t y ? Do the majority prefer p r a c t i c a l concrete content? The framework for profess ional development proposed by developmental theory i s based on the assumption that teachers' preferences for r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and content are d i c ta ted by t h e i r l e v e l of development. The intent of t h i s study was to examine teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , other than t h e i r developmental l e v e l , poss ib ly in f luenc ing teachers' preferences. The fol lowing research question was posed: 3) Are there teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s p e c i f i c to the FSL teaching context, that are poss ib ly in f luenc ing teachers' preferences for s tructure and content i n profess ional development programs? This research question was examined through a t e s t of the fo l lowing hypothesis: 157 There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences observed between teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and teachers' preferences for s tructure and content i n profess iona l development. To examine these research questions, data was c o l l e c t e d from a survey instrument. One hundred and t h i r t y two teachers from twelve school d i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia responded to the survey. Summary of Findings and Conclusions Teachers' Preferences for Structure To c o l l e c t information on teachers' preferences for s tructure i n profess ional development, s i x v a r i a b l e s examining decision-making ro les were i d e n t i f i e d . For each of these s ix v a r i a b l e s , teachers were asked to ind icate a preference for the fo l lowing s tructures : 1) A d i r e c t i v e s tructure ( r e s p o n s i b i l i t y l i e s with a supervisor) 2) A c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure ( r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s shared between teachers and a supervisor) 3) A non-d irec t ive s tructure (teachers assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y while rece iv ing support and information from a supervisor) The r e s u l t s of the study showed that not a l l teachers have the same preferences for r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n decision-making r o l e s . However, for a l l s i x decision-making v a r i a b l e s , the majori ty of 158 teachers preferred a co l l abora t ive s tructure (percentages ranged from 46.5% to 62.2% across the s ix v a r i a b l e s ) . For four of the s ix var iab le s (needs i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , choosing the p r i o r i t y of needs, presentat ion and coaching) ,a pat tern i n teachers' preferences can be observed. Two var iab le s do not f i t into t h i s pat tern: coordinat ion and eva luat ion . Evaluat ion of the impact of profess ional development was one decision-making r o l e that teachers f e l t they could assume. For t h i s v a r i a b l e , a large percentage of teachers (51.9%) opted for a non-d irec t ive s t ruc ture . Only 1.6% of respondents chose a d i r e c t i v e s tructure for t h i s v a r i a b l e . Coordination was the one aspect of profess iona l development that teachers seemed the l eas t w i l l i n g to assume. For t h i s v a r i a b l e only, a large group indicated a preference for a d i r e c t i v e s tructure (37.8%). Only 9.4% chose a non-d irec t ive s t ruc ture . I f these two var iab le s are excluded from i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a c l e a r pattern can be observed i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of teachers' preferences. As prev ious ly s tated, the majori ty of teachers prefer a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure (between 56.0% and 62.2% for the four remaining v a r i a b l e s ) . Roughly a t h i r d of respondents preferred a non-d irec t ive s tructure (percentages ranged from 159 27.3% to 33.6%). Only a small group preferred a d i r e c t i v e s tructure (percentages range from 5.5% to 16.4%). The v a r i a t i o n found i n teachers' preferences for d e c i s i o n -making ro les supports one of the guide l ines for profess ional development proposed by developmental theory. A profess iona l development program should be designed to al low for d i f f e r e n t degrees of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n decision-making. In a developmental framework for profess iona l development, i t i s assumed that the majority of teachers w i l l prefer a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture , leaving r e s p o n s i b i l i t y with a supervisor . The f indings from t h i s study do not support t h i s assumption. For a l l decision-making r o l e s , the majority of respondents indicated a preference for a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t ruc ture . To summarize, the f indings showed that 1) teachers do have d i f f e r e n t preferences for decision-making r o l e s ; 2) teachers do not prefer to leave r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for d e c i s i o n -making to a supervisor . The majority ind icated a preference for a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t ruc ture . Teachers' Preferences for Content To c o l l e c t information on teachers' preferences for content and types of a c t i v i t i e s i n profess ional development, f ive 160 v a r i a b l e s were i d e n t i f i e d . For each of these f i ve v a r i a b l e s , teachers were asked to ind icate a preference for options which r e f l e c t e d lower l e v e l and higher l e v e l concerns. Four var iab le s were kept for d i scuss ion . One v a r i a b l e was rejected because of a poss ib le b ias i n the wording of the item. The r e s u l t s of the study showed that teachers' preferences for content were d i s t r i b u t e d across opt ions . Teachers d id not express a c l e a r preference for e i ther low l e v e l or high l e v e l content. This f ind ing supports one guide l ine for profess iona l development proposed by developmental theory. Teachers have d i f f e r e n t concerns that are re f l ec t ed i n what they consider re levant wi th in a profess ional development program and how they w i l l prefer content to be presented. In a developmental framework for profess iona l development, i t i s expected that the majority of teachers, being at lower l e v e l s of development, w i l l prefer content and a c t i v i t i e s aimed at lower l e v e l concerns. This study does not support t h i s assumption. While there i s a v a r i a t i o n i n the content and type of a c t i v i t y that teachers pre fer , responses were d i s t r i b u t e d across options and were not concentrated i n options l inked to lower l e v e l concerns. 161 To summarize, the study showed that 1) teachers do have d i f f e r e n t preferences for content and type of a c t i v i t y i n a profess ional development program; 2) teachers d i d not ind icate a preference for lower l e v e l content and presentat ion opt ions . Teacher C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Teachers Preferences The second purpose of the study was to examine c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s p e c i f i c to the FSL teaching context that might be in f luenc ing teachers' preferences. The fo l lowing hypothesis was tested: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences observed between teachers ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and teachers' preferences for s tructure and content i n profess ional development. The r e s u l t s of the study showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between teachers' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and teachers' preferences for content i n profess iona l development. The study d id show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between c e r t a i n teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and teachers' preferences for s tructure i n profess iona l development. Of t h i r t e e n teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s examined, two showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences : 1) Grade l e v e l taught by FSL teachers (e i ther elementary or secondary) 2) Current profess iona l development opportunit ies 162 Grade Level There were s ix decision-making var iab le s i n the study. Only one v a r i a b l e , presentat ion, showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences when analyzed with the teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "current teaching l e v e l " . Elementary teachers indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t preference for a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture . Secondary teachers ind icated a s i g n i f i c a n t preference for a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t ruc ture . A very s i m i l a r r e s u l t was found when the teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "level taught i n the past" was examined. I t should be noted that some elementary FSL teachers are teaching French at the request of t h e i r school boards, with l i t t l e or no s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g . This might be the factor underlying t h i s d i f ference between elementary and secondary teachers . I t should a lso be noted that while an important number of elementary teachers preferred a d i r e c t i v e s tructure of presentat ion, the majority preferred a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t ruc ture . However, the need for a more d i r e c t i v e s tructure of presentat ion for some elementary FSL teachers should be considered. The teaching l e v e l of teachers d i d not seem to be a factor i n any of the other var iab le s analyzed. 163 Current Profess ional Development A c t i v i t i e s S ix items c o l l e c t e d data on teachers' current profess ional development a c t i v i t i e s . F ive of these s ix items showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences when analyzed with decision-making v a r i a b l e s . For ease of d i scuss ion , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of current profess iona l development are d iv ided into two groups: 1) Frequency of profess ional development a c t i v i t i e s 2) Degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n current profes s iona l development Frequency of A c t i v i t i e s The r e s u l t s of the study showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between teachers who have opportunit ies for profess ional development and teachers who have no opportuni t i e s . Two decision-making v a r i a b l e s , coaching and eva luat ion , showed s i g n i f i c a n c e . For these two v a r i a b l e s , teachers who have no profes s iona l development i n t h e i r school d i s t r i c t s , ind icated a preference for a non-d irec t ive s tructure i n numbers greater than were expected. S ign i f i cance was a lso found between the frequency of profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s and teachers' preferences for coaching. Teachers, who only have one or two profess iona l a c t i v i t i e s a year, indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t preference for a non-d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture . 164 These f indings suggest that teachers, who have l i t t l e or no profess iona l a c t i v i t i e s ava i l ab l e to them i n t h e i r school d i s t r i c t s , would be w i l l i n g to assume a greater degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for some aspects of PD than teachers who have a profess iona l development i n f r a s t r u c t u r e . Degree of R e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n Current Profess ional Development Analys i s of teachers' current degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n profess iona l development and t h e i r preferences for profess ional development y ie lded in tere s t ing f ind ings . There would appear to be a l i n k between these two v a r i a b l e s . Teachers, who already have a high degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , ind icated a preference for non-d irec t ive s tructures of profess ional development. Teachers, who have a low degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n t h e i r current a c t i v i t i e s , ind icated a preference for d i r e c t i v e s tructures of profess iona l development. This f ind ing was consistent over nine t e s t s for s i g n i f i c a n c e . I t would appear that teachers that have had previous r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for decision-making i n profess iona l development preferred a non-d irec t ive s tructure i n greater numbers than were s t a t i s t i c a l l y expected. Implicat ions of Study for Prac t i ce The f indings for t h i s study support some of the assumptions of a developmental approach to profess ional development and not 165 others . Developmental theory assumes that teachers are at d i f f e r e n t developmental l e v e l s , and that t h i s i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i r need for r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and i n t h e i r capaci ty to handle complex information. In a d e s c r i p t i o n of impl ica t ions for t r a i n i n g , Santmire (1979) proposed a profess iona l developmental framework that could accommodate the developmental l eve l s of p a r t i c i p a t i n g teachers by prov id ing a range of l earning environments and content. The r e s u l t s from t h i s study would support such an approach to the profess iona l development of FSL teachers. Some research i n developmental theory has shown that the majori ty of teachers are at lower conceptual l e v e l s . I f t h i s f ind ing i s appl ied to developmental frameworks for profess iona l development, i t could be expected that the majority of teachers would prefer a d i r e c t i v e s tructure and p r a c t i c a l content i n t h e i r profess iona l development programs. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study do not support t h i s assumption. While a profess iona l development s tructure should attempt to accommodate the needs of some teachers for more d i r e c t i o n and the needs of other teachers for more autonomy and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , the study showed that the majority of teachers pre fer a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s tructure of decision-making. This would appear to be the appropriate b u i l d i n g stone for an approach to profess iona l development. 166 The study d i d not support the assumption that the majority of teachers w i l l prefer p r a c t i c a l and concrete content. Teachers' preferences for content were d iv ided between the d i f f e r e n t content options suggested. A profes s iona l development s tructure should accommodate teachers' needs for content. The f indings do not ind icate a need for a profes s iona l development s tructure that meets mainly lower l e v e l concerns. I t i s important to r e c a l l that one of the primary object ives of developmental approaches to education i s to encourage growth from an i n d i v i d u a l ' s current l e v e l of development to higher l e v e l s . Developmental theory i s based on the notion that while growth i s spurred from wi th in , i t r e l i e s on stimulus provided by the environment. I t i s be l ieved that the l earn ing environment can encourage or discourage growth. A developmental approach to teacher education i s founded on these not ions . Teachers' current l e v e l of development must be addressed, but at the same time, the l earn ing environment and content should st imulate growth to the next l e v e l of development. One f ind ing from t h i s study supports these developmental assumptions. When teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were examined as factors poss ib ly in f luenc ing teachers' preferences for s tructure and content, one category of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s showed s i g n i f i c a n c e : teachers' current profess ional development a c t i v i t i e s . 167 One of the conclusions drawn from t h i s f ind ing was that the degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y current ly experienced by teachers would seem to inf luence t h e i r preferences for r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . A s i g n i f i c a n t number of teachers, who have no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for current profess iona l development programs, chose a d i r e c t i v e s t ruc ture . A s i g n i f i c a n t number of teachers who have a high degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n current profes s iona l development programs chose a non-d irec t ive s t ruc ture . This f ind ing would support the developmental assumption that behaviour i s the r e s u l t of i n t e r a c t i o n between the i n d i v i d u a l and the environment. While i t i s not poss ib le to produce growth with in the i n d i v i d u a l , i t i s poss ib le to create a l earn ing environment that st imulates growth. Giv ing teachers greater r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for decision-making i n t h e i r own profess ional development would seem to be one way of s t imulat ing growth. The study also showed that a s i g n i f i c a n t number of elementary teachers f ee l the need for a more d i r e c t i v e s tructure of presentat ion . This supports an assumption of t h i s study, that c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s other than conceptual l e v e l may be in f luenc ing teachers' preferences. The confidence, or lack of confidence, of some FSL teachers i n t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c competence or t r a i n i n g should be taken into cons iderat ion by those organiz ing the profess iona l development of elementary FSL teachers. 168 There i s a r i s k inherent to the adoption of a developmental approach to profess ional development. When using a developmental framework to understand teachers' concerns and needs, i t should be remembered that i n d i v i d u a l s are more complex than the descr ip t ions provided by one or more developmental theor ies . Hunt's caut ion should be kept i n mind at a l l t imes: "Conceptual l e v e l as a s ing le v a r i a b l e , provides an incomplete d e s c r i p t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l and needs to be considered as one part of the whole (Hunt, 1983, p .8)". Impl icat ion of the Study for Further Research Previous research (Harvey et a l . , 1968, Murphy and Brown, 197 0) reported that the majority of teachers were at the lower l eve l s of conceptual development. I t can be assumed from there that the majority of teachers w i l l prefer a d i r e c t i v e form of profess iona l development and p r a c t i c a l content. The f indings from t h i s study c l e a r l y d id not support such an assumption. One recent study (Konke, 1983) showed that teachers express a strong degree of i n t e r e s t i n assuming t h e i r profess iona l growth. The study would support such a f i n d i n g . Another assumption that i s sometimes found i n developmental theory i s that stage of development i s the determining fac tor in teachers preferences for s tructure and content. This study cannot disprove t h i s assumption but i t has shown that further inves t iga t ion of teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s c a l l e d for , before such a conclusion can be made. Teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that 169 showed a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p with teachers' preferences were the fo l lowing: 1) Level taught 2) Current profess iona l development a c t i v i t i e s A pattern was found across items c o l l e c t i n g data on teachers ' current profess ional development a c t i v i t i e s and teachers ' preferences for s t ruc ture . The pat tern was strong enough to ind icate to both p r a c t i t i o n e r s and researchers a l i k e a need for further i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Teachers' environment wi th in a profes s iona l development context needs to be explored and more research that looks s p e c i f i c a l l y at Lewin's B-P-E formula (behaviour = funct ion of the person and the environment) i s c a l l e d f o r . These factors w i l l require more prec i se research. Some of the assumptions of developmental theory should be treated with caut ion by p r a c t i t i o n e r s u n t i l t h i s research has lead to more conclus ive statements. From what has been l earnt from t h i s study, i t can be concluded that further research into the a p p l i c a t i o n of developmental theories to teacher education would be use fu l . More research w i l l be needed 1) i n ac tua l profess ional development contexts; 2) l i n k i n g teachers' preferences for profess iona l development 170 s tructure and content more c l e a r l y to teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; 3) l i n k i n g teachers' preferences for profess iona l development to t h e i r stages of development, as defined by the developmental theories of Hunt, H a l l and F u l l e r . The e f fec t of actual profess ional development context (environment) on s t imulat ing the profess iona l growth and developmental growth of teachers would seem the most promising area for further inves t i ga t ion . The importance of environment i s the one v a r i a b l e to show a pattern of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between groups of teachers. The importance of further explor ing teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the FSL teaching context i s s t i l l f e l t to be v a l i d . I t should be remembered that developmental theory s ing les out c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of development and change, and ignores others . I t s in tent ion i s to provide a means of bet ter understanding human growth. "The adoption of a developmental approach e n t a i l s a p a r t i c u l a r strategy for s e l ec t ing and descr ib ing foca l changes. Thus i t provides a way of i s o l a t i n g a few of the myriad changes that occur, presenting an incomplete p ic ture of change that makes the i s o l a t e d changes more comprehensible." (Floden and Feiman, 1981, p.5) 171 BIBLIOGRAPHY A l a t i s , James E . , Stern, H.H. and Strevens, Peter (eds . ) .Gurt '83:  Appl ied L i n g u i s t i c s and the Preparation of Second Language Teachers: Towards a Rat ionale . Washington, D . C . : Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1983. Andrews, Frank M . , Klem, Laura, Davidson, Terrence N . , O'Malley, P a t r i c k and Rodgers, Wi l l iam L . A Guide For Se lec t ing  S t a t i s t i c a l Techniques For Analyzing S o c i a l Science Data. Ann Arbor , M i c h . : Ins t i tu te for S o c i a l Research, Un ivers i ty of Michigan, 1981. Andrews, T . E . E d i t o r i a l . CBTE Newsletter. February, 1983. p .8 . Arends, Richard, Hersch, Richard, and Turner, Jack. Conditions  for Promoting E f f e c t i v e S ta f f Development. Washington, D . C . : E r i c Clearinghouse On Teacher Education, 1980. Arends, Richard . Concepts for Guiding Responsive Inservice  Education i n the Schools. (Responsive Inservice Education Ser i e s , Volume 2) . Eugene, O r . : Teacher Corps Youth Advocacy Projec t , 1980. Bentzen, M.M. Changing Schools: The Magic Feather P r i n c i p l e . New York: McGraw H i l l , 1974. Bergeron, Jocelyne. "Pour un plan coherent de formation en cours de s e r v i c e . " In Boucher, Anne-Marie, Duplantie Monique and Leblanc, Raymond (eds . ) . Propos sur l a pedagogie de l a  communication en langues secondes. Que.: Centre Educat i f et C u l t u r e l et CEPCEL, 1986. Berman, Barbara and Friedewitzer , Fredda. "A Pragmatic Approach to Inservice Educat ion." Act ion i n Teacher Educat ion. 3, 1, 1981. pp.51-58. Berman, P. and McLaughlin, M. "Federal Programs Supporting Educat ional Change." V o l . V l l l : Implementing and Sustaining  Innovations. Santa Monica, C a l i f . : The Rand Corporat ion, 1978. B i l e n k i , Judy, Carter , J e f f , Deniset, Rachel , Druwe, Simone, F l u e t t e , C l a i r e , Lentz, Francois , Maurice, L u c i l l e , Rosset, G i l b e r t , S o t i r i a d i s , Caterina et Toupin, Lynne. "Le renouveau c u r r i c u l a i r e : vecteur pour l a formation continue des enseignants." Contact. 5, 2, 1986. pp.8-10. Borg, Walter R. and G a l l , Meredith D. Educat ional Research: An  Introduct ion . (Fourth Edi t ion) New York: Longman, 1983. 172 Boyer, Joan and Booth, Joyce. "Preparation of Teachers o f / i n French at the Un ivers i ty of Saskatchewan." Canadian Modern  Language Review. 41, 5, 1985. pp. 917-927. B r i t t e n , Donald. "Teacher T r a i n i n g i n E L T . " Language Teaching. 18, (2 and 3), A p r i l and J u l y , 1985. Brumfit , Christopher and Rossner, R. "The Decis ion Pyramid and Teacher T r a i n i n g for E L T . " Eng l i sh Language Teaching J o u r n a l , 36, 4, J u l y , 1982. pp.226-231. Brundage, Donald H. and MacKeracher, Dorothy. Adult Learning  P r i n c i p l e s and The ir A p p l i c a t i o n to Program Planning. Toronto, Ontario: M i n i s t r y of Education, 1980. Burden, Paul R. "Implications of Teacher Career Development: New Roles for Teachers, Adminis trators , and Professors ." Paper presented at the National Summer Workshop of the Assoc ia t ion of Teacher Educators, S l ippery Rock, P a . , August, 1982. 12p. (ED 223 609) B u r r e l l o , Leonard C. and Orbaugh, Tim. "Reducing the Discrepancy between the Known and the Unknown." Phi Delta Kappan. 63, 6, February, 1982. pp.385-388. Caldwel l , Sarah D. and Marsha l l , Jon C. "Staff Development - Four Approaches Described, Assessed for P r a c t i t i o n e r , T h e o r e t i c i a n . " NAASP B u l l e t i n . 66, 51, February, 1982. pp.25-35. Calve, P i e r r e . "Les programmes de base: des pr inc ipes a l a r e a l i t e . " Canadian Modern Language Review. 42, 2, 1985. pp. 263-287. C a r r i e r e , Raymond E . A Second Language Inservice Model for Small  School D i s t r i c t s . Vancouver, B . C . : Educat ional Research I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1980. CASLT Nat ional Survey of the Profess ional Development of Core French Teachers. Mimeographed report , Dr.R.Roy, Language Education, Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1987. Chicker ing , A . K . "The Educational Needs of New Learners: Impl ica-t ions for L i b e r a l Arts Col leges ." Paper presented at the East Centra l Colleges Consortium Conference on the New Learners , December, 1974. Christensen, J u d i t h et a l . Stages of Teachers' Careers: Impl ica- t i ons for Profess ional Development. Washington, D . C . : ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, February, 1983. (ED 227 054) 173 C l a r k , John L . "Curriculum Renewal i n Second Language Learning: An Overview." Canadian Modern Language Review. 42, 2, 1985. pp.342-360. Corr igan , D . , Haberman, M . , and Howey, K. Adult Learning and  Development: Implicat ions for Inservice Teacher Education. P a r i s : Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (Project on Inservice Education and T r a i n i n g for Teachers) , 1979. Dewey, J . Experience and Education. New York: C o l l i e r , 1963. D i l l on -Pe ter son , Betty (ed. ) . S ta f f Development/Organizational  Development. Alexandria , V a . : Assoc ia t ion for Supervis ion and Curriculum Development, 1981. E d e l f e l t , R .A . Inservice Education: C r i t e r i a for and Examples of  Local Programs. Bellingham, Western Washington U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. E d e l f e l t , R .A . In-serv ice Teacher Education: Sources i n the ERIC  System. Washington, D . C . : ERIC Clearinghouse On Teacher Education, 1975. E l i f s o n , K i r k W., Punyon Richard P. and Haber, Audrey. Fundamen- t a l s of S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s . Don M i l l s , Ont . : Addison Wesley, 1982. Emrick, John A. Evaluat ion of the National D i f fus ion Network:  Study Design and Analys i s Plan. Washington, D . C . : Of f i ce of Education (Department of Health, Education and Welfare) , 1976. (ED 152 808) Ewert, D.M. " Involving Adult Learners i n Program Planning." In Merriam, S .B. (ed. ) . New Direc t ions for Continuing Education l i n k i n g Philosophy and P r a c t i c e . San Francisco: Jossey Bass I n c . , 1982. Feiman, Sharon and Floden, Robert E . "A Consumer's Guide to Teacher Development." East Lansing: Michigan I n s t i t u t e for Research on Teaching (College of Education, Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y ) , J u l y , 1981. 36p. (ED 207 970) Floden, Robert E . and Feiman, Sharon. "A Developmental Approach to the Study of Teacher Change: What's to be Gained?" East Lansing: Michigan I n s t i t u t e for Research on Teaching (Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y ) , February, 1981. 32p. (ED 204 342) 174 F r e i b e r g , H. Jerome, Buckley, Pamela, K. and Townsend, Karen S. (n.d.) "Does Inservice Make a Difference?" Unpublished manuscript. F u l l a n , M. The Meaning of Educational Change. Toronto, Ont . : OISE Press , 1982. F u l l a n , M. CERI Project on the Inservice Education and Tra in ing  (INSET) for Teachers. Area 2: The Canadian Experience. P a r i s : Centre for Educational REsearch and Innovation, 1981. F u l l a n , M. "Overview of the Innovative Process and the User." Interchange. 3, 2-3, 1972. p.1-68. F u l l a n , M. School-focused In-Service Education i n Canada. Toronto, Ont . : Prepared for CERI (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation) OECD Project on Inservice Education for Teachers. 1979. F u l l a n M. and Pomfret, A. "Research on Curriculum and Ins truct ion Implementation." Review of Research. 47, 1, Winter, 1977. pp.335-397. F u l l e r , F . F . "Concerns of Teachers: A Developmental Conceptual izat ion ." American Educational Research Journa l , 6, 2, 1969. pp.207-226. Gleave, Doug. S ta f f Development Propos i t ions . Saskatoon, Sask.: Saskatoon Board of Education, 1981. Glickman, C a r l . Developmental Supervis ion: A l t e r n a t i v e Pract ices  for Helping Teachers to Improve I n s t r u c t i o n . Alexandria , V a . : Assoc ia t ion for Supervis ion and Curriculum Development, 1981. Goddu, Roland. "Pursuing Continuing Education as a Foreign Language Teacher: An Overview." In J a r v i s , G i l b e r t ( E d . ) . An  Integrat ive Approach to Foreign Language Teaching: Choosing  Among the Options. The ACTFL Review of Foreign Language Education, V o l . 8 . Skokie, 111.: National Textbook C o . , 1976. G r i f f i n , Gary A. S ta f f Development. Paper presented for the NIE Teaching Synthesis Conference. A i r l i e House, V a . , 1982. H a l l , G. and Loucks, S. " Innovations Conf igurat ions: Analyzing the Adaptations of Innovations." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educat ional Research Assoc ia t ion , Toronto, 1978. Harvey, O . J . Hunt, D . E . and Schroder, H.M. Conceptual Systems  a n d P e r s o n a l i t v Organizat ion. New York: John Wiley, 1961. 175 Heffernan, Peter J . "A French Inservice Program for Regular Elementary Classroom Teachers." Newfoundland Teachers  Assoc ia t ion J o u r n a l . 68, 2, 1978-79. pp.31-33. Howey, Kenneth and Joyce, Bruce. "A Data Base for Future Direc t ions i n Inservice Educat ion." Theory Into P r a c t i c e . 27, 3, 1978. pp.206-211. Hunt, D . E . and Joyce, B.R. "Teacher Trainee Persona l i ty and I n i t i a l Teaching S t y l e . " American Educat ional Research  J o u r n a l , 4, 1967. pp.253-259. Hunt, D. and S u l l i v a n , E . Between Psychology and Education. Hinsdale , 111.: Dryden, 1974. Hutson, Harry M. "Inservice Best Prac t i ces : The Learnings of General Educat ion." Journal of Research and Development in  Education. 14, 2, 1981. pp.1-10. Hamburger, V. "The Concept of 'Development' i n Bio logy ." In D.B. H a r r i s (Ed.) The Concept of Development: An Issue i n the  Study of Human Behaviour. Minneapolis: U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota Press, 1957. Hamlyn, D.W. "The Concept of Development." Proceedings of the  Philosophy of Education Society of Great B r i t a i n , 9, 1975. pp.26-39. Harout in ian , S. "Piaget: Adaptation and E q u i l i b r a t i o n . " Harvard  Educat ional Review. 49, 1979. pp.93-100. Hunt, David E . "A Conceptual Level Matching Model For Coordinating Learner C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with Educational Approaches." Interchange. 1, 3, 1970. pp.68-82. Hunt, David E . , Joyce, Bruce K . , Greenwood, JoAnn, Noy, E . Joyce, Reid , Roma, and Wei l , Marsha. "Student Conceptual Level and Models of Teaching: Theore t i ca l and Empir i ca l Coordination of Two Models." Interchange. 5, 3, 1974. pp.19-30. Hunt, D. and S u l l i v a n , E . Between Psychology and Educat ion. New York: Dryden Press, 1974. Inservice Education. P r a c t i c a l Appl i ca t ions of Research: Newsletter of Phi Delta Kappa's Center on Evaluat ion ,  Development, and Research. 5, 3, March, 1983. pp.1-4 . J o l i f f e , F . R. Survey Design and A n a l y s i s . New York: E l l i s Horwood, 1986. 176 Joyce, B. In - serv ice : New Perspectives on an Old Term. Paper presented at a conference held at Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , Burnaby, B . C . , 1979. Joyce, Bruce R . , Brown, Clark C. and Peck, Lucy (Eds . ) . An Excursion into the Nature of Teaching and Training;. New York: Longman I n c . , 1981. Joyce, Bruce, Hersch, Richard, and McKibbin, M. The Structure of  School Improvement. New York: Longman, 1983. Joyce, B . , Howey K . , and Yarger, S. Issues to Face. Report One:  In Service Teacher Education. Palo A l t o , C a l i f o r n i a : Education Research and Development Center, 1976. Joyce, Bruce and Showers, Beverly . "Improving Inservice T r a i n i n g ; The Messages of Research." Educat ional Research, 37, 5, February, 1984. pp.379-384. Keirnes-Young, Barbara. S ta f f Development: A P o s i t i o n Paper. Eugene, O r . : Eugene School D i s t r i c t 4J , 1981. Keirnes-Young, Barbara. In-Service Education. Presentat ion at Curriculum and Ins truct ion Review, Fort San, Fort Qu'Appel le , Saskatchewan, June, 1983. Klopf , G. Needs of Adult Learners. Pos i t i on Paper, 1979. Knowles, M. The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species . Houston: Gul f , 1978. Korinek, Lore and Schmid, Rex. "Inservice Types and Best Prac-t i c e s . " Journal of Research and Development i n Education, 18, 2, 1985. Krashen, Stephen D. P r i n c i p l e s and Prac t i ce i n Second Language  A c q u i s i t i o n . New York: Pergamon I n s t i t u t e of Eng l i sh Press, 1982. Kohlberg, L . "The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral Judgement." Journal of Philosophy, 70, 1973. pp.630-646. Kohlberg, L . "Moral development, Ego Development, and Psychoeducational P r a c t i c e s . " In G.D. M i l l e r (Ed.) Developmental Theory and i t s A p p l i c a t i o n i n Guidance  Programs: Systemic E f f o r t s to Promote Personal Growth.  Spec ia l Issue Pup i l Personnel Services J o u r n a l . 6, 1, 1977. 177 Kohlberg, L . "Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to S o c i a l i z a t i o n . 1 1 In D.A. G o s l i n (Ed.) Handbook of  S o c i a l i z a t i o n Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969. Kohlberg L . and Mayer R. "Development as the Aim of Education. Harvard Educational Review. 42, 1972. pp.449-496. Kuhn, D. "The A p p l i c a t i o n of P iaget ' s Theory of Cognit ive Development to Educat ion." Harvard Educat ional Review. 49, 1979. pp.340-360. Kuhn, D . , Langer J . , Kohlberg, L . , and Haan N. The Development of Formal Operational Thought: I t s Re la t ion to Moral Judgment. Unpublished Mimeograph Cambridge, 1971. L a i , C a l v i n . UBC SPSSX: S t a t i s t i c a l Package for S o c i a l Sciences  Extended Vers ion 2.0 (MTS). Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1986. Lamarre, P a t r i c i a . Profess ional Development of Core French  Teachers. Nat ional Core French Study. (ACPLS/CASLT). Winnipeg: Manitoba, 1986. Lawrence, Gordon. "Patterns of E f f e c t i v e Inservice Education: A State of The A r t Summary of Research on Mater ia l s and Procedures for Changing Teachers Behaviors i n Inservice Educat ion." Tal lahassee , F l . : F l o r i d a State Department of Education, (ERIC Document ED 176 424) Lazuruk, Wally . "Considerations for Implementing E f f e c t i v e Core French Programs." Canadian Modern Language Review. 42, 2, 1985. pp. 452-462. Leblanc, Clarence . "The Core French Program: Proposals for Change." Education Canada. 24, 2, 1984. pp.5-11. Lewin, K. A Dynamic Theory of Persona l i ty . New York: McGraw-Hill 1935. Loevinger, J . Ego Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 197 6. Loucks, Susan F . and Zigarmi , P a t r i c i a . "Effect ive S t a f f Develop-ment." Educat ional Considerat ions . 8, 2, Winter, 1981. pp. 4-8. Lyons, Caro l A. and Languis, M a r l i n L . "Cognitive Science and Teacher Educat ion." Theory Into P r a c t i c e . 24, 4, 1985. pp. 127-130. Massey, Michae l . "Direct ions i n ESL Curr iculum." Canadian Modern  Language Review, 42, 2, 1985. pp. 263-270. 178 McDowell, S t e r l i n g . "Professional Development i n Canada." Phi  Delta Kappan. 64, 1983. pp.32-38. McLaughlin, Mi lbrey and Marsh, David D. "Staff Development and School Change." Teachers Col lege Record, 80, 1, September, 1978. pp.69-94. M i l l e r , A l a n . "Conceptual Matching Models and In terac t iona l Research i n Educat ion." Review of Educat ional Research. 51, 1, 1981. pp. 33-84. Mohan, Mar i lyn E . An Overview of In- serv ice Education and  T r a i n i n g of Teachers (INSET) i n the Provinces of Canada. Toronto: Counci l of Min i s t ers of Education, 1982. Murphy, P a t r i c i a D. and Marjor ie M. Brown "Conceptual Systems and Teaching S ty l e s ." American Educational Research J o u r n a l , 7, 4, 1970. pp.529-540. Nagel, E . "Determinism and Development." In D . B . H a r r i s (ed. ) , The  Concept of Development: An Issue i n the Study of Human  Behaviour. Minneapolis: Un ivers i ty of Minnesota Press, 1957. Nat ional Education Assoc ia t ion Research D i v i s i o n , Inservice  Education of Teachers: Research Summary 1966-S1. (ERIC Document ED 022 728) Neimark, E . D . "Inte l l ec tua l Development During Adolescence." In F.D.Horowitz , Review of C h i l d Development Research, 4, Chicago: Un ivers i ty of Chicago Press, 1975. Nicholson, Alexander M. , Joyce, Bruce R. , Parker, Donald W. and Waterman, Floyd T. The L i t e r a t u r e on Inservice Teacher  Education: An A n a l y t i c a l Review. (ISTE Report 111) Washington, D . C . : National Centre for Educat ional S t a t i s t i c s and Teacher Corps, 1976. (ERIC Document ED129 734) Oja , S .N. and S p r i n t h a l l N.A. "Psychological and Moral Development for Teachers: Can you Teach Old Dogs New T r i c k s ? " In N.A. S p r i n t h a l l and R . L . Mosher (Eds.) Value  Development as the Aim of Education. New York: Character Research Press, 1978. Olson, W.C. "Developmental Theory i n Educat ion." In D.B. Harr i s (Ed.) The Concept of Development: An Issue i n the Study of  Human Behaviour. Minneapolis: U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota Press , 1957. O r l i c h , Donald. "Some Considerations for E f f e c t i v e In-serv ice Educat ion." The Clearinghouse, 54, 5, 1983. pp.227-230. 179 Piaget , Jean. Science of Education and the Psychology of the  C h i l d . New York: V i k i n g , 197 0. Poyen, Janet . "Core French Programs Across Canada: An Overview." Canadian Modern Language Review. 42, 2, 1985. pp. 243-262. Rathbone, C. "Teachers' Information Handling Behaviour when Grouped with Students by Conceptual L e v e l . " D i s ser ta t ion  Abstracts In ternat iona l . 32, 1971. pp.798. Rubin, Lou i s . The Inservice Education of Teachers: Trends,  Processes and P r e s c r i p t i o n s . Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, 1978. R u s s e l l , T . L . A L i t e r a t u r e Survey on Teacher Education: F i n a l  Report on In-Service Teacher Education. Kingston, Ont . : Queen's U n i v e r s i t y , 1986. Ryor, John, Shanker, A l b e r t , Sandefin, J . T . "Three Perspectives on Inservice Educat ion." 30, 1, 1979. pp.13 Salyachvin , S."Change i n Internat ional Understanding as a Function of Perceived S i m i l a r i t y , Conceptual L e v e l , and Primary E f f e c t . " Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Un ivers i ty of Toronto, 1972. Sanders, Wi l l iam B. and Piney, Thomas K. The Conduct of S o c i a l  Research. New York: Ho l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1985. Santmire, T . E . Developmental Differences i n Adult Learners:  Implicat ions for Staf f Development. Pos i t i on paper, 1979. Sarason, Seymour. The Culture of the School and the Problem of  Change. Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, 1982. Sax, G i l b e r t . Empir ica l Foundations of Educat ional Research. Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : Prent ice H a l l , 1968. Schaf farz ick , J . "The Consideration of Curriculum at the Local L e v e l . " D i s ser ta t ion Abstracts i n t e r n a t i o n a l . 36, 197 6. Schroder, H.M."Conceptual Complexity and Personal i ty Organizat ion ." In H.M. Schroder and P. Suedf ie ld (eds.) Personal i ty Theory and Information Process ing. New York: Ronald Press, 1971 Schroder, H . M . , D r i v e r , M . J . and Steufert , S. Human Information  Process ing. New York: Ho l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1967 Schutes, R . E . "Needed: A Theory of Teacher Educat ion." In Texas  Tech Journal of Education. 2, 1975. pp.94-101. 180 Schmid, Rex and Korinek, L o r i . "Three Models for the Presentat ion of Inservice Educat ion." Col lege Student  J o u r n a l . 19, 2, 1985. pp. 167-178. Selman, R. "A Developmental Approach to Interpersonal and Moral Awareness i n Young C h i l d r e n . " i n T . Hennessey (Ed.) Values  and Moral Development. New York: P a u l i s t Press , 1976. pp.142-166 Shanker, A l b e r t . "Teachers Must Take Charge." Educat ional  Leadership. 44, 1, 1986. pp. 12-13. Sheaffer, Richard L . , Mendenhall, Wi l l iam and Lyman, Ot t . Elementary Survey Sampling. Boston: Duxbury Press , 1986. Sonquist , John A. and Dunkelberg, Wil l iam C. Survey and Opinion  Research. Procedures for Processing and A n a l y s i s . Toronto: Prent ice H a l l , 1977. Spiker , C . S . "The Concept of Development: Relevant and Irre levant Issues." Monographs of the Society for Research i n C h i l d  Development.31. 1966. pp.40-54. S p r i n t h a l l , N.A. and Mosher, Ralph L . "John Dewey Rev i s i t ed : A Framework for Developmental Educat ion." In N.A. S p r i n t h a l l and R. Mosher (eds.) Value Development as the Aim for  Education. Shenectady, N . Y . : Character Research Press , 1978. Stern , H .H. "Core and/or Immersion" Contact. 3, 3, 1984. pp.2-3 . Stern , H .H. "Movements, Projects and Core French Today." Canadian Modern Language Review. 42, 2, 1985. p.324-341. Strother , D.B. (Ed.) P r a c t i c a l Appl i ca t ions of Research:  Inservice Education. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Center on Evaluat ion , Development and Research, March, 1983. Thompson, Lora ine . Inservice Education: A Review of the  L i t e r a t u r e . The Saskatchewan Interagency Profess ional Development Committee, 1984. Thorndike, Robert M. C o r r e l a t i o n a l Procedures for Research. New York: Gardner Press, 1978. Tomlinson-Keasey, C. "Formal Operations i n Females From Eleven to F i f t y - F o u r Years of Age." Developmental Psychology. 6, 1972 Tomlinson-Keasey, C. and Keasey, C . B . "The Mediating Role of Cognit ive Development i n Moral Judgment". C h i l d Development. 45, 1974. pp.291-299. 181 Toulml in , S. "The Concept of 'Stages' i n Psychological Development." In T. Michael (ed.) Cognit ive Development and  Epistemology. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Ullmann, Rebecca and Geva, Esther . "Expanding Our Evaluat ion Perspect ive: What Can Classroom Evaluat ion T e l l Us About Core French Programs?" Canadian Modern Language Review. 42, 2, 1985. pp. 307-323. Ullmann, Rebecca and Stern, H .H. Core French Across Canada: A  Se l ec t ive Review of Recent Wri t ings . Winnipeg, Manitoba: The Canadian Assoc ia t ion of Second Language Teachers, 1985. Wade, Ruth K. "What makes a Difference i n Inservice Teacher Education? A Meta-Analysis of Research." Educational  Research. 42, 4, 1984-85. pp. 392-396. Watts, H e i d i . "Start ing Out, Moving On, Running Ahead or How Teacher Centers Can Attend to Stages i n Teachers' Development." San Francisco , C a l i f . : Teachers Center Exchange. November, 1980. 13p. (ED 200 604) Wideen, Marvin F . and Andrews, Ian (eds . ) . S ta f f Development for  School Improvement. New York: Falmer Press, 1987. Wilen, Wi l l iam W. and Kindsva l ter , Richard, "Implications for Research for E f f e c t i v e Inservice Educat ion." The Clear ing  House. 51, 8, A p r i l , 1 9 7 8 . pp.392-396. Witkins , H.A. Personal i ty through Perception. New York: Harper. 1953. Witte , Robert S. S t a t i s t i c s . (Second E d i t i o n ) . New York: Ho l t , Rinehart , and Winston, 1985. Wood, Fred H . , Frank O. McQuarrie J r . and Steven R. Thompson. "Prac t i t ioners and Professors Agree on E f f e c t i v e Staf f Development." Educational Leadership. 40, October, 1982, pp.28-31. Wood, Fred H. and Thompson, Steven, R. "Guidelines for Better S t a f f Development." Educational Leadership. 37, 5, February, 1980. pp.374-378. Wood, Fred, H. Thompson, Steven and Russe l l F . "Designing E f f e c t i v e S ta f f Development Programs." i n Betty D i l l o n -Peterson (Ed.) S ta f f Development/Organizational Development. Alexandr ia , V A . : Assoc ia t ion for Supervis ion and Curriculum Development, 1981. 182 Yalden, Jan ice . "Training Needs i n the '80's: The ESL Teacher i n Canada." Canadian Modern Language Review. 40, 1, 1983. pp.19-22. Yarger, S . J . and Mertens S .K. "Testing the Waters of School-Based Teacher Educat ion." i n Corrigan D. and Howey K. (eds). Concepts to Guide the Teaching of Teachers of Teachers. Reston, V a . : Counci l for Exceptional C h i l d r e n , 1980. Yarger, S . J . , Howey, K.R. and Joyce, B.R. Inservice Teacher  Educat ion. Palo A l t o , C a l i f . : Booksend Laboratory, 1980. Young, E r r o l . "Inservice Education: A Guide to E f f e c t i v e P r a c t i c e . " Unpublished Manuscript, 1982. Yore, L . D . and others . "Multi-Agency Planning for Continuing Profess ional Education of Teachers." Report presented at CAUCE Annual Conference. H a l i f a x , Nova Sco t ia : June, 1983. (ED 258 927) 183 APPENDIX A: PILOT-TESTED QUESTIONNAIRES "THE STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: PERCEPTIONS OF FSL TEACHERS." ***************************************************** BY ANSWERING AND MAILING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU AGREE TO LET THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE PROVIDED HERE BE USED IN THE STUDY. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY WILL BE RESPECTED. YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO GIVE YOUR NAME OR THE NAME OF YOUR SCHOOL. PLEASE RETURN THIS OJJESTIONNAIRE TO: PATRICIA IAMARRE PONDEROSA E (A STAMPED AND ADDRESSED ENVELOPE HAS BEEN STAPLED TO THE BACK OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE) ******************************************************************************** INSTRUCTIONS: This is a two-part questionnaire. The f irst part serves to collect demographic information. The second section is concerned with teachers' preferences for professional development. ESTIMATED TIME TO ANSWER QUESTIONNAIRE: 15 - 20 MINUTES. ******************************************************************************** THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR VALUED COOPERATION. 184 PART A: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ******************************************* SECTION ONE: YEARS OF EXPERIENCE (please answer both items) 1. I have been a teacher for years. 2. I have been an FSL teacher for years. SECTION TWO: LEVEL TAUGHT 1. I am presently teaching FSL to grades: (please circle a l l the grades that you are presently teaching) K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2. In the past, I have taught FSL to grades: (please circle a l l the grades that you have taught in the past) K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SECTION THREE: SUBJECTS TAUGHT (please circle one of the following) I am currently teaching: 1. Only FSL. 2. FSL and French Immersion. 3. FSL and other subjects. (please specify how much of your teaching time per week goes to FSL programs: minutes per week) SECTION FOUR: SCHOOL DISTRICT (please circle one of the following) I teach: 1. In the Vancouver area. 2. In the Victoria area. 3. Neither in the Vancouver area or the Victoria area. 185 SECTION FIVE: CONTACT WITH FSL TEACHERS (please answer both items) 1. There are FSL teachers (full time and part time) in the school where I teach. 2. I belong to school district . There are FSL teachers in my school district . SECTION SIX: AGE (please circle one) 1. 20 to 29 years old 2. 30 to 39 years old 3. 40 to 49 years old 4. 50 to 59 years old 5. 60 + SECTION SEVEN: GENDER (please circle one) 1. Female 2. Male SECTION EIGHT: ACADEMIC BA0O3CUND (please circle one) 1. No completed university degree. 2. B.A. 3. B.Sc. 4. B.Ed. 5. M.A. 6. M.Ed. 7. Ph.D. 8. Other (please specify): 186 SECTION NINE: B.C. CERTIFICATION (please circle one) I hold: 1. A B.C. standard teaching certificate 2. A B.C. professional teaching certificate At the following level: (please circle one answer) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Other: (please specify) SECTION TEN: FIRST LANGUAGE (please circle one) My f irst language is: 1. English 2. French 3. Other (please specify): SECTION ELEVEN: SPECIALIZATION IN FRENCH (please circle any of the following which are appropriate) 1. I attended a French language elementary school, (please specify number of years: ) 2. I attended a French language high school, (please specify number of years: ) 3. I was taught FSL in elementary school. 4. I was taught FSL in high school. 5. I took French at university. (please specify number of courses: type of program: proportion of courses given in French: % courses for anglophones or francophones: ) SECTION TWELVE: SPECIALIZATION IN FSL (please circle any of the following which are appropriate) 1. I have received specialized training in FSL methodology, please specify number of courses: 2. I have not received specialized training in FSL methodology. 187 SECTION THIRTEEN: CURRENT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT A. Are there specific p.d. activities for FSL teachers available to you in your school or district? 1. No. 2. Yes B. To whom are these p.d. activities primarily addressed? 1. FSL teachers from one grade level. 2. FSL teachers from different grade levels. 3. FSL teachers with similar needs (ie. beginning teachers). 4. A l l FSL teachers (ie. beginning and experienced teachers). 5. FSL and French Immersion teachers. C. What are the primary objectives pursued by these p.d. activities in FSL? 1. Transmission of new information. 2. An introduction to new textbooks, new courses or new programs. 3. The updating of teaching ski l ls in FSL. 4. The maintenance and upgrading of teachers' French language ski l l s . 5. The exploration of organizational ski l ls , e.g. grouping. 6. The sharing of teacher expertise D. Hew are p.d. needs identified? 1. Teachers' assessed needs. 2. Teachers' assumed needs. 3. Teachers' expressed needs. E. Who initiates the p.d. activities in FSL? 1. A supervisor (program superintendent, subject supervisor, coordinator, consultant, department head). 188 2. A group of classroom teachers. 3. A group of classroom teachers (self-directed). 4. An outside agent or agency (please specify): F. With wham does the responsibility for co-ordinating (planning, organizing) the p.d. activities lie? 1. A committee of teachers under supervisory guidance. 2. A committee of teachers. 3. A classroom teacher (nominated). 4. A supervisory off ic ial . 5. An outside agent or agency (please specify): G. How often do your p.d. activities in FSL take place? 1. Once a (school) year. 2. Twice a (school) year. 3. Three times a (school) year. 4. Four times a (school) year. 5. Five times a (school) year. 6. More than five times a (school) year (please specify): H. Generally, when do p.d. activities in FSL take place? 1. During school hours. 2. After school. 3. During week-ends. 4. On off ic ial p.d. days. 189 I. Hew is teacher attendance at p.d. activities regarded? 1. Attendance is optional. 2. Attendance is encouraged. 3. Attendance is monitored. PART B: TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNING PREFERENCES FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT *************************************************************** While answering this questionnaire, please keep in mind that the professional development under discussion is: - locally available, either school or district based. ( p r o f e s s i o n a l development available at professional association conferences, or at universities is not included in this discussion) - a long-term program, extending over the school year and including p.d. days with release time and p.d. given after class hours. - only for FSL teachers who are in-service (presently teaching). NOTE: Supervisor in this questionnaire refers to any person or persons responsible at an administrative level for FSL programs and teachers: coordinators, consultants, staff development specialists, etc. Professional development wi l l be abbreviated to "p.d. 1 1 . INSTRUCTIONS: Please read each section carefully. Each section proposes different professional development structures and roles. Please choose the one item in the section which is closest to your own preference for professional development. There are no right or wrong answers. Indicate the way you really feel about each topic, not the way others feel or the way you think you should feel. *********************************** SECTION ONE: PARTICIPATION IN SCHOOL/DISTRICT BASED P.D. (Please circle one of the options) 1. I would like to participate in a school or district based professional development program for FSL teachers. 2. I don't feel the need for school or district based professional development for FSL teachers. 3. I don't feel the need for school or district based professional development for FSL teachers because I prefer to pursue my professional development through self-directed study. 190 SECTION TWO: WHO SHOULD IDENTIFY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS? (Please circle one of the options) 1. Teachers, with support and information from their supervisors. 2. A supervisor (consultant, coordinator, subject supervisor, department head.) 3. Teachers and supervisors working in concert. 4. Supervisors should consult teachers through a questionnaire. SECTION THREE: WHO SHOULD CHOOSE WHICH OF THE IDENTIFIED NEEDS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN A P.D. PROGRAM? (Please circle one of the options) 1. Teachers, with support and information from their supervisors. 2. Teachers and supervisors working in concert. 3. A supervisor. SECTION FOUR: WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COORDINATTON (PLANNING, ORGANIZING) OF P.D. PROGRAMS? (Please circle one of the options) 1. The supervisor. 2. Teachers and their supervisor(s) working in concert. 3. Teachers, with information and support from their supervisor(s). SECTION FIVE: WHAT SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY GOAL OF P.D. PROGRAMS? (Please circle one of the options) 1. To help me as a teacher understand the theoretical reasons underlying teaching and learning that affect the way a student learns. 2. To provide me with practical information on existing curricula and materials. 3. To improve my ski l l s as a teacher. 191 SECTION SIX: WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESENTATION DURING P.D. PROGRAMS? (Please circle one of the options) 1. Teachers and supervisors. (ie. occasionally the supervisors presents an information session or workshop, occasionally a teacher or group of teachers present — or an agreement is reached as to guest specialists). 2. The supervisor (either presenting the sessions or inviting guest specialists). 3. Teachers, with support and information from their supervisors (either giving sessions themselves or inviting guest specialists or supervisors). SECTION SEVEN: WHAT SHOULD BE THE CONTENT OF P.D. PROGRAMS? (Please circle one of the options) 1. Discussion of situations and tasks that I encounter in my classroom. 2. Exploration of the consequences (both positive and negative) of teaching on the student. 3. Information on existing materials and curricula followed by practical examples relevant to my actual classroom situation. SECTION EIGHT: HOW MANY OPTIONS SHOULD BE PRESENTED IN A P.D. PROGRAM? (Please circle one of the options) 1. A number of alternative ways to teach a s k i l l or a topic. 2. One way to teach a s k i l l or a topic. SECTION NINE: P.D. PROGRAMS SHOULD OFFER INFORMATION AND CONTENT: (Please circle one of the options) 1. That is immediately applicable to my classroom. 2. On second language teaching and learning, even i f this information is not immediately applicable to my classroom. SECTION TEN: WHICH GROUPS SHOULD A P.D. PROGRAM ADDRESS? (Please circle one of the options) 1. Different groups of teachers (ie. beginning and experienced teachers, teachers from different grade levels). 2. Specific groups with common needs, (ie. p.d. for beginning teachers, p.d. for teachers from same grade level). 192 SECTION ELEVEN: IN A P.D. PROGRAM WHICH SERVES TO INTRODUCE A NEW OJRRICUIJJM, NEW MATERIAL OR A NEW APPROACH, WOULD YOU PREFER COACHING (OBSERVATION AND FEEDBACK): (Please circle one option) 1. That was supportive. 2. That was both supportive and evaluative. 3. That was evaluative. SECTION TWELVE: IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW CURRIOULUM, NEW MATERIALS OR A NEW TEACHING APPROACH , WHO WOULD YOU PREFER TO BE COACHED BY (OBSERVATION AND FEEDBACK)? (Please circle one of the options) 1. Supervisor(s). 2. By both other teachers and a supervisor. 3. By other FSL teachers.. SECTION THIRTEEN: WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EVALUATION OF P.D. PROGRAMS: (Please circle one of the options) 1. Teachers and supervisors. 2. Teachers, with support and information from their supervisors. 3. Supervisors. **********************************************^ PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTTONNATRE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: PATRICIA IAMARRE PONDEROSA E LANGUAGE EDUCATION A STAMPED AND ADDRESSED RETURN ENVELOPE HAS BEEN STAPLED TO THE BACK OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. ******************************************** 193 APPENDIX B: POST-PILOT TEST SURVEY Was i t c l e a r throughout the quest ionnaire that the PD being discussed was: only for FSL teachers? - part of a long term program (a school year)? d i s t r i c t or school based (not PD a c t i v i t i e s at a u n i v e r s i t y or at a profess ional assoc ia t ion conference? What do you th ink i s the purpose of the study? What are the d i f f e r e n t ro les for supervisors and teachers being discussed? What are the d i f f e r e n t models for organiz ing PD being discussed? Did you get the f ee l ing from the quest ionnaire that one model was bet ter than another? Does the survey instrument touch on elements of PD that you f ee l are important? Which ones? Any comments on the questionnaire? Any comments on profess ional development? 194 APPENDIX C: LETTER TO COORDINATORS Dear col league, You are i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a study on profess ional development e n t i t l e d "The Structure and Organizat ion of Profess ional Development: Perceptions of FSL Teachers". The study i s concerned with inves t iga t ing FSL teachers' perception of profess ional development and the demographic factors which inf luence these preferences. At the present time, there i s a great deal of research being conducted on profess ional development i n general . There have been few studies on how these research f indings r e l a t e to s p e c i f i c groups of teachers. We would s incere ly appreciate having you, as an experienced FSL teacher, p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study, which hopes to provide d i r e c t i o n for research and for the long-term planning of profess ional development programs for FSL teachers. The study i s being conducted by P a t r i c i a Lamarre, a graduate student i n the Department of Language Education, at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia I f you agree to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study, please f i l l i n the two-part survey questionnaire included with t h i s l e t t e r and mail i t back i n the stamped return envelope. We are h ighly apprec iat ive of the time you w i l l spend on the questionnaire (approximately 15 to 20 minutes). We would a lso welcome any a d d i t i o n a l comments that you might have concerning the organizat ion and planning of profess ional development for FSL teachers. Your c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y w i l l be respected. You are under no ob l iga t ion to give your name or the name of your school . The returned questionnaire w i l l be given a code number which w i l l serve to ident i fy i t during the compilat ion and analys i s of the information. The questionnaires themselves w i l l be destroyed once the f i n a l report of the study has been completed. Thank you very much for your valued c o l l a b o r a t i o n . Yours s i n c e r e l y , Robert R. Roy, Ph.D. Modern Language Education Department of Language Education P a t r i c i a Lamarre Graduate student 195 The Structure and Organization of Professional Development: Perceptions of FSL Teachers. Consent Form I agree to l e t P a t r i c i a Lamarre, a graduate student i n the Department of Language Education, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, conduct a survey i n the school board. I understand that: t h i s survey consists of a written questionnaire which pa r t i c i p a n t s may f i l l i n at t h e i r convenience and mail back to the researcher the survey i s addressed only to FSL teachers (elementary and secondary) teachers are under no obligation to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study teachers are under no obligation to i d e n t i f y themselves or t h e i r schools and that c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y w i l l be respected there are no costs involved, either to the teacher or the school board: stamped return envelopes w i l l be included with a l l questionnaires. Under the above conditions, I agree to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study "The Structure and Organization of Professional Development: Perceptions of FSL teachers" by d i s t r i b u t i n g the questionnaires to a l l FSL teachers i n my d i s t r i c t . Signature: School Board: Date: Number of FSL teachers/elementary: Number of FSL teachers/secondary:_ 196 APPENDIX D: COVERING LETTER. Dear col league, You are i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a study on profess ional development e n t i t l e d "The Structure and Organizat ion of Profess ional Development: Perceptions of FSL Teachers". The study i s concerned with inves t iga t ing FSL teachers' perception of profess ional development and the demographic factors which inf luence t h e i r preferences. At the present time, there i s a great deal of research being conducted on profess ional development i n general . There have been few studies on how these research f indings re la t e to s p e c i f i c groups of teachers. We would s i n c e r e l y appreciate having you, as an experienced FSL teacher, p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study, which hopes to provide d i r e c t i o n for research and for the long-term planning of profess ional development programs for FSL teachers. The study i s being conducted by P a t r i c i a Lamarre, a graduate student i n the Department of Language Education, at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia I f you agree to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study, please f i l l i n the two-part survey questionnaire included with t h i s l e t t e r and mail i t back i n the stamped return envelope. We are h ighly apprec iat ive of the time you w i l l spend on the questionnaire (approximately 15 to 2 0 minutes). We would a lso welcome any add i t i ona l comments that you might have concerning the organizat ion and planning of profess ional development for FSL teachers. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study i s completely voluntary and w i l l not a f fec t your job or profess ional status i n any way. Your c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y w i l l be respected. You are under no ob l iga t ion to give your name or the name of your school . The returned questionnaire w i l l be given a code number which w i l l serve to i d e n t i f y i t during the compilation and analys i s of the information. The questionnaires themselves w i l l be destroyed once the f i n a l report of the study has been completed. Thank you very much for your valued cooperation. Yours s i n c e r e l y , Robert R. Roy, Ph.D. Department of Language Education P a t r i c i a Lamarre Graduate student 197 APPENDIX E : QUESTIONNAIRE THE STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERCEPTIONS OF FSL TEACHERS By answering and mai l ing t h i s quest ionnaire , i t i s understood that you agree to l e t the information you have provided be used i n the study. Please return the questionnaire to: P a t r i c i a Lamarre Ponderosa E 2034 Lower M a l l U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia V6Y 1Z5 T e l : 228-3745 A stamped and addressed return envelope has been s tapled to the back of the quest ionnaire . PART A: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION  Please answer ALL items. A. I have been a teacher for years . I have been a FSL teacher for years . B. I am present ly teaching FSL to grades: K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 In the past , I taught FSL to grades: K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 C. I teach for school board. In my school , there are FSL teachers ( f u l l - time and p a r t - t i m e ) . Please c i r c l e only ONE answer. D. Gender: 1. Female 2. Male E . Age: 1. 20 to 29 2. 30 to 39 3. 40 to 49 4. 50 to 59 5. 60 + 198 H . K. F i r s t Language: 1. 2. 3 . I was brought up i n : Language of schooling: Academic background: FSL teacher t r a i n i n g : I present ly teach: Eng l i sh French Other (Please spec i fy ) : 1. An Eng l i sh speaking community 2. A French speaking community 3. Both of the above 4. None of the above 1. Eng l i sh 2. French 3. Both of the above.(Please speci fy the number of years spent i n each l e v e l and l e v e l of i n s t r u c t i o n ) : 1. No completed u n i v e r s i t y degree 2. B .A. 3. B . E d . 4. B .Sc . 5. M.A. 6. M.Ed. 1. I have not received s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g i n FSL methodology. 2. I have received s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g i n FSL methodology. (Please spec i fy ) : 1. Only FSL 2. Only French Immersion 3. FSL and French Immersion 4. FSL and other subjects (Please spec i fy ) : minutes per week Please c i r c l e ALL appropriate answers. (Profess ional development w i l l be abbreviated to PD) L . Are there s p e c i f i c PD a c t i v i t i e s for FSL teachers ava i l ab l e  to vou i n your school or d i s t r i c t ? 1. Yes 2. No 199 M. In g e n e r a l , t o whom are PD a c t i v i t i e s p r i m a r i l y addressed? 1. FSL te a c h e r s from one grade l e v e l 2. FSL t e a c h e r s from d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s 3. FSL t e a c h e r s with s i m i l a r needs (eg.: b e g i n n i n g teachers) 4. A l l FSL te a c h e r s 5. FSL and French Immersion t e a c h e r s N. In g e n e r a l , how are PD needs i d e n t i f i e d ? 1. Teachers' assessed needs 2. Teachers' assumed needs 3. Teachers' expressed needs 0. In g e n e r a l , who i n i t i a t e s PD a c t i v i t i e s ? 1. A s u p e r v i s o r 2. A group of classroom t e a c h e r s and a s u p e r v i s o r 3. A group o f t e a c h e r s ( s e l f - d i r e c t e d ) 4. An o u t s i d e agent o r agency (please s p e c i f y ) : P. In g e n e r a l . w i t h whom does the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r  c o o r d i n a t i n g (planning, o r g a n i z i n g ) the PD a c t i v i t i e s l i e ? 1. A committee o f t e a c h e r s under s u p e r v i s o r y guidance 2. A committee of te a c h e r s ( s e l f - d i r e c t e d ) 3. A classroom t e a c h e r (nominated) 4. A s u p e r v i s o r y o f f i c i a l 5. An o u t s i d e agent o r agency (please s p e c i f y ) : Q. How o f t e n do your PD a c t i v i t i e s i n FSL take p l a c e i n a  sc h o o l year? 1. Once a s c h o o l year 2. Twice a s c h o o l year 3. Three times a s c h o o l year 4. Four times a sch o o l year 5. More than f o u r times a sch o o l year R. In g e n e r a l , how i s te a c h e r attendance a t PD a c t i v i t i e s  regarded? 1. Attendance i s o p t i o n a l 2 . Attendance i s encouraged 3. Attendance i s monitored 200 PART B: THE STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERCEPTIONS OF FSL TEACHERS Please note that the profess ional development under d iscuss ion i s : - only for FSL teachers - l o c a l l y a v a i l a b l e , e i ther school or d i s t r i c t based - extends over a school year inc lud ing profess iona l development days with re lease time and the a c t i v i t i e s given a f t er c lass hours D e f i n i t i o n s : Profess ional development w i l l be abbreviated to PD. Supervisor re fers to any person responsible at the adminis trat ive l e v e l for FSL programs and teachers: coordinators , consultants , department heads, subject supervisors , profess ional development s p e c i a l i s t s . Ins truct ions : Please read each sect ion c a r e f u l l y and choose the one option which i s c loses t to your preference for profes s iona l development. There are no r i g h t or wrong answers. Please c i r c l e ONE opt ion. A. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n school or d i s t r i c t based PD 1. I would l i k e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a school or d i s t r i c t based PD program for FSL teachers. 2. I would not l i k e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a school or d i s t r i c t based PD program for FSL teachers. 3. I would not l i k e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a school or d i s t r i c t based PD program for FSL teachers because I prefer to pursue my profess iona l development through s e l f - d i r e c t e d s tudies . B. Who should i d e n t i f y the PD needs of FSL teachers? 1. Teachers, with support and information from t h e i r supervisor(s) 2 . A supervisor 3. Supervisors who have consulted teachers through a quest ionnaire 201 C. Who should choose which of the i d e n t i f i e d needs are t o be  addressed i n a PD program f o r FSL t e a c h e r s ? 1. Teachers w i t h support and i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r ( s ) 2. Teachers and t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r ( s ) working i n c o n c e r t 3. S u p e r v i s o r ( s ) D. Who should be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the c o o r d i n a t i o n ( p l a n i n g ,  o r g a n i z a t i o n ) of PD a c t i v i t i e s f o r FSL t e a c h e r s ? 1. S u p e r v i s o r ( s ) 2. Teachers and t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r ( s ) working i n c o n c e r t 3. Teachers, w i t h support and i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r ( s ) E. What should be the primary g o a l of a PD program f o r FSL  t e a c h e r s ? 1. To p r o v i d e me w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n on m a t e r i a l s , r e s o u r c e s and c u r r i c u l a 2. To improve the impact of my t e a c h i n g on students 3. To improve my s k i l l s as a t e a c h e r F. Who should be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n d u r i n g a PD  s e s s i o n ? 1. Teachers and t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r ( s ) ( o c c a s i o n a l l y the s u p e r v i s o r p r e s e n t s an i n f o r m a t i o n s e s s i o n or workshop, o c c a s i o n a l l y a t e a c h e r or group of t e a c h e r s present, agreement i s reached as t o guest s p e c i a l i s t s ) 2. S u p e r v i s o r ( s ) ( e i t h e r p r e s e n t i n g the s e s s i o n s or i n v i t i n g guest s p e c i a l i s t s ) 3. Teachers, w i t h support and i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r ( s ) ( e i t h e r g i v i n g s e s s i o n s themselves or i n v i t i n g guest s p e c i a l i s t s ) 202 G. What should be the content of a PD program for FSL teachers? 1. Information on c u r r i c u l a , materia ls and resources followed by examples 2. Explorat ion of the impact of teaching on students (evaluation of students' performance and competence, changes needed to improve student outcomes) 3. Discuss ion focused on s i tua t ions and teaching tasks encountered i n the classroom (organizat ion, grouping, management) H. How many options should be presented i n a PD session? I . A number of a l t e r n a t i v e ways to teach a language s k i l l or s tructure 2. One way to teach a language s k i l l or s tructure I . PD programs should o f fer information and content on second  language teaching; 1. I f i t i s immediately appl icable to the classroom 2. Even i f i t i s not immediately appl i cab le to the classroom J . Which FSL group should be addressed by a PD program? 1. D i f f erent groups of FSL teachers (beginning and experienced teachers , teachers from d i f f e r e n t grade leve ls ) 2. S p e c i f i c groups with common needs (PD for beginning teachers , PD for teachers form one grade leve l ) K. In the implementation of a new curr iculum, new mater ia ls or  a new approach (eg. a communicative approach). who would you  pre fer to be coached by (observation and feedback)? 1. A supervisor 2. Other FSL teachers and a supervisor 3. Other FSL teachers 203 L . Who should be responsible for the evaluat ion of a PD program  for FSL teachers? 1. Teachers and t h e i r supervisor(s) 2. Teachers, with support and information form t h e i r supervisor(s) 3 . Supervisor(s) Thank you for answering t h i s survey. Please return the questionnaire as soon as poss ib le to: P a t r i c i a Lamarre Department of Language Education Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia A stamped and addressed return envelope has been stapled to the quest ionnaire . 204 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078270/manifest

Comment

Related Items