Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A needs assessment in English and language arts conducted for the Native Indian Teacher Education Program.. Clinton, Sally 1981

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1981_A8 C54.pdf [ 7.99MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078293.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078293+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078293.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078293+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078293+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078293+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0078293 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0078293.txt
Citation
1.0078293.ris

Full Text

A NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN ENGLISH AND LANGUAGE ARTS CONDUCTED FOR THE NATIVE INDIAN TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY  OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  by  SALLY CLINTON B . E d . , The U n i v e r s i t y  of B r i t i s h  Columbia,  1975  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  1n  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f Language Education)  We accept t h i s to the  t h e s i s as conforming  required  THE UNIVERSITY  standard  OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  April  1981  (£) Sally CIinton, 1981  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree at the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t  the L i b r a r y s h a l l make  it  and  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be  department o r by h i s o r her  granted by  the head of  representatives.  my  It i s  understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not  be  allowed without my  permission.  Department o f  Language E d u c a t i o n  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  DE-6  (2/79)  Columbia  written  A NEEDS ASSESSMENT  IN ENGLISH AND LANGUAGE ARTS CONDUCTED CONDUCTED FOR  THE NATIVE INDIAN TEACHED EDUCATION PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA  ABSTRACT  The p u r p o s e o f students  this  in t h e NITEP program w i t h  language a r t s . university  of  instructors,  purpose.  as d e m o n s t r a t e d  more s k i l l s two g r o u p s for  n e e d s on  capability  teaching  involve  needing  instruments  in s k i l l s  in the  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e indicated that  improvement  than  perceived s i m i l a r needs. and e x p o s i t o r y  improvement.  In  responding to  language a r t s  in student  and use o f  needs  E n g l i s h and  college  specifically  and  for  perceptions  and w r i t t e n  expression  teaching.  language a r t s  students  designed  rank o r d e r t h e i r of oral  of  were  I terns included  questionnaire.  coursework  argumentive  the q u a l i t y  regard for  i n a c a d e m i c c o u r s e w o r k and s t u d e n t  responses to  in u n i v e r s i t y  educational  s p o n s o r t e a c h e r s , and s e n i o r and j u n i o r  teaching competencies  in the s t u d e n t The  particular  Respondents were asked to  NITEP s t u d e n t s '  describing  identify  The s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o  in a s s e s s i n g s t u d e n t s ' this  s t u d y was t o  concerning language although  instructors  did students, In  competency  particular,  for  identified  t h e most p a r t  the s k i l l s  the  required  e s s a y w r i t i n g w e r e s e e n as n e e d i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  c o n c e r n i n g E n g l i s h and  teaching, sponsor teachers  v o i c e which were not  p e r c e i v e d needs  p e r c e i v e d by t h e  in  students.  i ii Students and sponsor teachers b o t h , however, in general  knowledge o f  children's  saw needs f o r  l i t e r a t u r e and e a r l y  improvement  language  background. Some o f  the  recommendations  assessment are the  following:  E n g l i s h should be i d e n t i f i e d their  needs.  ask the E n g l i s h Department  of this  needs  1. Students who may need e x t r a h e l p  courses at  to o f f e r  and s t u d e n t s '  attendance  in NITEP s c h e d u l i n g o f  5. Language a r t s  admission.  agencies  3- NITEP should  a NITEP E n g l i s h 100 s e c t i o n  concurrently,  rather  than  l i t e r a t u r e and n a t i v e and i n s t r u c t o r s of quality  at  children's  6. The program s t a f f ,  s h o u l d be p r o v i d e d . instructors  instructors  and program s t a f f  for their  s p e c i f i c problems with language.  own c o u r s e s .  the s t u d e n t s '  differ  from year to  program. to meet  tutoring  students'  11. An assessment o f s t u d e n t s '  English  Since t h e r e are new  and the program is f r e q u e n t l y  needs with year.  7- Speech  10. E n g l i s h  respond to  competency s h o u l d be an ongoing process in NITEP.  sites,  question  9. Study s k i l l s s h o u l d be taught by  programs s h o u l d be expanded when n e c e s s a r y to  NITEP students every y e a r ,  advisors,  teaching.  the b e g i n n i n g o f Year One in the  for all  high  offered  in Speech A r t s , s h o u l d meet t o c o n s i d e r the  8. More o p p o r t u n i t i e s  NITEP  courses s h o u l d be  respect to student  the  practica.  c o n s e c u t i v e l y , and i n c l u d e m o r e  and use o f v o i c e with  whenever  in them given  courses and t e a c h i n g  Indian c o n t e n t .  A r t s s h o u l d be o f f e r e d  individual  and p a r t i c i p a t i o n  and reading methodology  to  s h o u l d be c o u n s e l l e d  c o l l e g e s o r through  I n s t i t u t e before  in  alerted  4. Academic E n g l i s h courses should be s c h e d u l e d in  day-time,  together  in l i g h t  2. Whenever p o s s i b l e such students  such as the Open Learning  priority  forward  on admission and i n s t r u c t o r s  to take E n g l i s h improvement  feasible.  put  offered  at  new  regard to E n g l i s h and language a r t s  may  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT  ii  LIST OF TABLES  vi. i i  LIST OF FIGURES  x  CHAPTER: 1.  INTRODUCTION Purpose, o f  2.  1 .  .  .  .  .  1  Need f o r the Study . S i g n i f i c a n c e o f the Study Assumptions . . Research Questions . Scope o f the Study . L i mi t a t ions . . D e f i n i t i o n s o f Terms . O r g a n i z a t i o n o f the Study  the  Study  .  .  . .  . .  3 5 6 7 7 7 8 '9  . .  . .  . . . .  . . . . .  .  .  .  . . . . .  . . . . .  .  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  10  The PI ace. o f .Engl ish and Language A r t s Native Education . . .  in .  .  Native Languages in Native Indian Education . . . . . E n g l i s h as a F a c t o r in Native Indian Education . . . . . Recent P s y c h o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s in N a t i v e Indian Education . . . . Recent L i n g u i s t i c S t u d i e s in N a t i v e Indian Education . . . . Summary  .  .  .  .  .  .  Summary  . .  . .  10  .  12  .  13  .  14  .  17  .  19  An Examination o f the S p e c i a l Nature o f N a t i v e Indian Teacher P r e p a r a t i o n Programs with P a r t i c u l a r Regard to E n g l i s h and Language A r t s Int roduct ion Background Current S i t u a t i o n Problems in Native  .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indian Teacher Education  .  20 20 21 22 23 29  V  PAGE 2.  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE (Cont.) Needs Assessment: An I n v e s t i g a t i v e Technique f o r C o n s i d e r i n g E n g l i s h and Language A r t s in NITEP Introduction . . . . The Process o f Needs Assessment . D i f f i c u l t i e s in Needs Assessment . A d a p t a t i o n o f Needs Assessment . Summary  3.  .  .  .  .  .  . . . .  30 30 32 33  .  35  36 .  . .  .  . .  .  . . . . Information  . .  ANALYSIS OF THE DATA  Coursework Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  . .  . .  . .  52 53  .  .  .  5^  Oral E x p r e s s i o n in the Academic Student R o l e : Research Question One . . . . . Oral E x p r e s s i o n in U n i v e r s i t y Coursework as P e r c e i v e d by I n s t r u c t o r s . . Oral E x p r e s s i o n in U n i v e r s i t y Coursework as P e r c e i v e d by S e n i o r Students . . Summary . . . . . . W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n in the Academic Student Role: Research Question Two . . . .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  56  56  .  W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n in U n i v e r s i t y Coursework as P e r c e i v e d by I n s t r u c t o r s . . . W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n in U n i v e r s i t y Coursework as P e r c e i v e d by S e n i o r Students . . . Summary . . . . . . . Student T e a c h i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  36 37 38 ^8 50 *  52  Treatment o f the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s Response to the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s University  30  . . . .  DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY D e c i s i o n and Planning . . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Participants D e f i n i n g the Needs . . Measuring the P r i o r i t i e s . I n t e r p r e t i n g and Reporting the  4.  .  .  59 61  64  64 69 72 76  vi  PAGE k.  ANALYSIS OF THE DATA (Cont.) Oral E x p r e s s i o n in Student T e a c h i n g : Research Question Three . . . .  .  Oral E x p r e s s i o n in Student Teaching as P e r c e i v e d by Sponsor Teachers . . Oral E x p r e s s i o n in Student Teaching as P e r c e i v e d by J u n i o r Students . . S umma ry . . . . . . W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n in Student T e a c h i n g : Research Question Four . . . .  79  .  .  .  80  . .  82 82  .  85  W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n in Student Teaching as P e r c e i v e d by Sponsor Teachers . . . W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n in Student Teaching as P e r c e i v e d by J u n i o r Students . . . Summary . . . . . . . S e l e c t e d Competencies in Teaching Language Research Question F i v e . .  Arts: .  86 86 88  Language A r t s Teaching Competencies in Student Teaching as P e r c e i v e d by Sponsor Teachers . . . . . . . Language A r t s Teaching Competencies in Student Teaching as P e r c e i v e d by J u n i o r Students . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . Comments from the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . . .  5.  SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Findings of  the  Summary o f the  .  Research Questions F i n d i n g s and T h e i r .  .  .  .  Research Question Two  .  .  Research Question Three  .  . . .  Research Question  Four  .  Research Question  Five  . .  . .  .  '.  32 93 95  96 97  .  .  .  98 98  .  .  .  .  101  .  .  .  105  . .  89  .  Implications  Research Question One  .  .  88  .  . .  108  . .  .  109  VI I  PAGE SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations A r i s i n g from the and Impli cat ions Problems and Suggestions f o r Future Needs Assessment . Suggestions  for  Conclusion  Further  .  Findings 111  Change in Any 117  Research  .  (Cont.)  .  118 119  BIBLIOGRAPHY  120  APPENDIX  132  A.  PROPOSAL  1 32  B.  PROGRESS REPORT  135  C.  QUESTIONNAIRES  137  D.  COVER LETTER TO RESPONDENTS  155  E.  LETTER TO SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT  159  F.  TABLES  162  viii  LIST OF TABLES PAGE TABLE: 1.  2.  3-  h.  5.  6.  7.  8.  9.  10.  11.  12.  13-  \k.  Aspects o f Language Related to the Academic Student Role . . . . . . Aspects o f Language Related to Student Performance . . . . .  43  .  Teaching .  Items in Oral E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Concerns by I n s t r u c t o r s . . . . .  .  Items in Oral E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Concerns by E n g l i s h ^ S e n i o r Students . .  58  .  Items in Oral E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Concerns by S e n i o r Students . . . . .  kj,  60  .  .  63  Items in W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Concerns by I n s t r u c t o r s . . . . . .  65  Items in W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Concerns by S e n i o r Students . . . .  .  70  Summary o f T a b l e s 6 and 1 Showing Comparison o f Items I d e n t i f i e d as Concerns by Both I n s t r u c t o r s and S e n i o r Students . . . . . . .  73  Items in W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Concerns by E n g l i s h ^ S e n i o r Students . .  .  75  I terns in Oral E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Concerns by Sponsor Teachers . . . .  .  81  Items in Oral E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Concerns by J u n i o r Students . . . .  .  83  Items in W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Concerns by Sponsor Teachers . . . . .  87  Items in W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Concerns by J u n i o r Students . . . . .  87  Teaching Competencies Ranked as Concerns by Sponsor Teachers . . . . . .  90  .  ix  PAGE TABLE 15.  16.  17'  18.  19.  20.  21.  22.  23.  CCont.) Teaching Competencies Ranked as Concerns byJ u n i o r Students . . . . .  .  Summary o f Items in Oral E x p r e s s i o n I d e n t i f i e d as Needing Improvement by Both I n s t r u c t o r s and S e n i o r Students Based on T a b l e s 3 and 4 . .  .  91  .  99  Summary o f I terns in Oral E x p r e s s i o n I d e n t i f i e d as Needing Improvement by I n s t r u c t o r s Only Based on T a b l e s 3 and k .  100  Summary o f I terns in W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n I d e n t i f i e d as Needing Improvement by Both I n s t r u c t o r s and S e n i o r Students Based on T a b l e s 6 and 7 •  •  102  Summary o f Items in W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n I d e n t i f i e d as Needing Improvement by I n s t r u c t o r s Only Based on T a b l e s 6 and 7 . . . . . .  .  103  Summary o f Items in Oral E x p r e s s i o n I d e n t i f i e d as Needing Improvement by Sponsor Teachers Only Based on T a b l e s 10 and 11 . . . . .  .  106  Summary o f Items in Oral E x p r e s s i o n I d e n t i f i e d as Needing Improvement by J u n i o r Students Only Based on T a b l e s 10 and 11 . . . . .  .  106  Summary o f Items in Oral E x p r e s s i o n I d e n t i f i e d as Needing Improvement by Both Sponsor Teachers and J u n i o r Students Based on Tables 10 and 11 .  .  107  Summary o f Teaching Competencies I d e n t i f i e d as Needing Improvement by Both Sponsor Teachers and J u n i o r Students Based on T a b l e s 14 and 15 .  .  110  LIST OF FIGURES  FIGURE: 1.  Aspects o f o r a l e x p r e s s i o n r e l a t e d to performance in u n i v e r s i t y coursework  student  2.  Aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n r e l a t e d performance in u n i v e r s i t y coursework  to  3.  Aspects o f o r a l e x p r e s s i o n r e l a t e d to student t e a c h i n g performance . . . . . .  k.  Aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n r e l a t e d to t e a c h i n g performance . . . .  student  student . .  x"i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I wish to take t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y a s s i s t a n c e of Dr.  to acknowledge the  the members of my t h e s i s committee,  Thelma S. Cook, and Dr.  Denis Rodgers.  interest  and  Dr. Wendy K. S u t t o n ,  A s p e c i a l word of  thanks  due Dr. Wendy S u t t o n , the committee c h a i r p e r s o n and my a d v i s o r , f o r untiring  enthusiasm f o r the p r o j e c t  I would a l s o l i k e  to r e c o g n i z e help and d i r e c t i o n a f f o r d e d me by  Todd Rogers; the ERIC Center s t a f f ;  Dr.  B e r n i e Mohan, P r o f . (Paddy)  and the NITEP s t a f f  Mary Ashworth, and Dr.  none of  and s t u d e n t s ;  Ruth McConnel1; and  Creber and Geoff Fox o f the U n i v e r s i t y of  And f i n a l l y ,  her  and her many kindnesses to me.  Dr.  J.W.  is  the p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h i s  Essex.  s t u d y , or the  time  spent on graduate work would have been p o s s i b l e without the s u p p o r t , understanding and help of my husband and  family.  DEDICATION  To my husband,  Alf.  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION  Purpose o f the Study  We cannot escape the need f o r s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n to E n g l i s h capability. It i l l u s t r a t e s the s p e c i a l ' s o m e t h i n g ' t h a t Indian students need. (Benham, 1975, p. 2) The e d u c a t i o n o f an Indian student depends to a very great extent on how e f f i c i e n t l y he is taught E n g l i s h and. how well he is able to l e a r n i t . Hjgher e d u c a t i o n w i l l be a v a i l a b l e to him o n l y through the medium o f E n g l i s h , and most o f the c a r e e r s open to him are dependent very l a r g e l y on h i s a b i l i t y to communicate in E n g l i s h . ( R a d u l o v i c h , 197**, p. 19) Native  Indian e d u c a t o r s , however much concerned about the  o f E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n fo r n a t i v e 5  about the q u a l i t y  of  for t h e i r  people  (National  of engendering t h i s at  every  level  Indianness  is to have n a t i v e  system, p a r t i c u l a r l y  people in the community  teachers would seem to be c r u c i a l  must themselves be very c a p a b l e .  One way  Indian, people  involved  where there  1972, p.  are a Native  28).  they are to be  to E n g l i s h c a p a b i l i t y " ,  The purpose o f t h i s  study  is  they  to  the process o f needs assessment in c o n s i d e r i n g E n g l i s h competency  and the p o t e n t i a l native  (NIB,  1-2).  in such a p l a n , and i f  charged with p r o v i d i n g " s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n  utilize  identity--  part o f the kind o f e d u c a t i o n they e n v i s a g e  Indian B r o t h e r h o o d , 1972, pp.  o f the school  number o f n a t i v e  Indian s t u d e n t s , are even more concerned  I n d i a n n e s s - - a s t r o n g sense o f c u l t u r a l  which they see as an i n t e g r a l  quality  for  its  Indian students at  development  in a teacher t r a i n i n g  the U n i v e r s i t y o f  program f o r  B r i t i s h Columbia.  2 T h i s program, the N a t i v e identified certified  as NITEP),  Indian Teacher Education Program  undertakes to produce elementary  to teach anywhere  in B r i t i s h Columbia.  NITEP compares c l o s e l y to the  r e g u l a r elementary  the demands concerning E n g l i s h are the same. r e q u i r e d to meet a l l students  the  school  (hereafter teachers  In many r e s p e c t s program, and  Students  r e g u l a r academic requirements  certainly  in NITEP are for  education  i n c l u d i n g E n g l i s h 100 and E n g l i s h 200 as part o f t h e i r  graduate program.  In a d d i t i o n ,  like  their  counterparts  program o f the F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n , students and w r i t t e n language u s e , v o i c e q u a l i t y ,  the  under-  in the  regular  receive evaluations  in o r a l  p r o j e c t i o n and f l u e n c y as part  o f the p r a c t i c u m , o r student t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e  (Faculty of Education,  For 3 2 3 , 1 9 7 9 ) . However, t h e r e are c e r t a i n the  regular  h e l d at  f e a t u r e s o f the NITEP which d i f f e r  undergraduate program.  For example,- the f i r s t  are taken at  and f o u r ;  are  student  i n c l u d e d in year one and two; the m a j o r i t y  academic courses are scheduled i n t o year three  tutoring  two y e a r s  an off-campus s i t e ; methodology courses and i n t e n s i v e  t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e are  from  of  some courses  community c o l l e g e s ; and a range of support s e r v i c e s i n c l u d i n g  and c o u n s e l l i n g are p r o v i d e d f o r students  (More S Wall i s ,  1979,  p. Several o f these program d i f f e r e n c e s have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the whole q u e s t i o n o f the NITEP s t u d e n t s ' E n g l i s h and language a r t s  competency in E n g l i s h ,  components o f t h e i r  as w e l l  program.  For example,  n o n - c r e d i t and academic E n g l i s h courses must o f t e n be taken at colleges  in c l a s s e s which may be geared to the  students from o t h e r  cultures.  Further,  interests  as the both  community  and needs o f  d u r i n g practicums sponsor t e a c h e r s  may have e x p e c t a t i o n s o f E n g l i s h competency a n d / o r t e a c h i n g  capability  3 in language a r t s which do not a l l o w f o r registered  in f i r s t  student t e a c h e r s .  o r second year; not  the  fact  t h a t the students  in t h i r d o r f i f t h year as are most  S e n i o r students s h i f t i n g  from NITEP c e n t e r s and  community c o l l e g e s may f i n d t h i r d and f o u r t h year courses formal intimidating  and may not perform as well  written expression.  as they are a b l e  These and o t h e r such matters  not o f o t h e r programs  are  typical  and  in o r a l  and  o f NITEP, but  in the F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n , r e q u i r e s p e c i a l  study.  Need f o r the Study  In Return home, watch your f a m i l y , the  researchers reported that  and s t a f f  alike,  a 1 9 7 7 study e v a l u a t i n g  i t was " g e n e r a l l y  NITEP,  r e c o g n i z e d among students  that d e f i c i e n c i e s in language s k i l l s present the  greatest  problem which must be overcome by the NITEP s t u d e n t s " (Thomas & M c i n t o s h , 1977,  p.  50).  Given the  u n i v e r s i t y students  importance o f  (U.B.C. Calendar,  E n g l i s h in the academic l i f e 1980-81  in the p r o f e s s i o n a l l i f e o f student teachers  ),  as well  (Report,  reported " d e f i c i e n c y in language s k i l l s " r e q u i r e s It  i s , however,  language  is not  to  remember that  r e s t r i c t e d to NITEP.  d e c r y i n g the s t a t e o f institutions  important  quite  literacy  regularly.  at  1979,  1979,  p-  Education  12).  importance  Rec. 7 ) , any  examination.  this  concern about  The popular press f e a t u r e s  this  p r o v i n c e ' s major  One such a r t i c l e ,  illiterates"  articles  educational  w r i t t e n by a member o f  the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia's E n g l i s h Department, u n i v e r s i t y students as the "new  as i t s  of  spoke o f  ( B e a v i s , P r o v i n c e Magazine,  The recent P r e s i d e n t ' s Review Committee on the F a c u l t y o f  recommended that "the  r e q u i r e m e n t s , " and in a d d i t i o n ,  faculty  tighten  reinstate  its  English proficiency  a s e n i o r course in b a s i c  4 composition f o r a l l  elementary  undergraduates  (Report,  1979, Rec. 7).  Such a recommendation i m p l i e s t h a t s t u d e n t s o t h e r than those in NITEP are seen to be performing u n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y Concern about A study undertaken Studies  in  English.  language s k i l l s has a l s o s u r f a c e d at the n a t i o n a l in 1975 by the ACUTE Commission on Undergraduate  in E n g l i s h found that chairmen o f E n g l i s h departments,  to a q u e s t i o n n a i r e , "the a b i l i t i e s  r e p o r t e d being at  and p r e p a r a t i o n  "deficiency  best "somewhat d i s s a t i s f i e d " with  Committee  had Thomas and Mcintosh s t u d i e d o t h e r school  (CCTE,  university  1976, p.  45).  Obviously,  t e a c h e r s , they might have found a concern f o r  question of u n i v e r s i t y students' in the near  students  programs developed to  in language s k i l l s " in them as w e l l .  many s t u d i e s  responding  in language and c o m p o s i t i o n " o f  being admitted to the u n i v e r s i t y  educate elementary  level.  It  is l i k e l y  E n g l i s h competency w i l l  that  the  be addressed in  future.  However, s i n c e NITEP is a s p e c i a l program w i t h a p r e c i s e mandate (Proposal,  1974), i t  seems important  context o f the program, t h i s  general  to c o n s i d e r s e p a r a t e l y , w i t h i n concern about  university  the  students'  language competency and to c o n s i d e r ways and means o f approaching the problem.  The a u t h o r ' s e x p e r i e n c e as a language a r t s  instructor  program suggested that such a study would be a p p r o p r i a t e Because there  i s an annual  this  the  time.  intake o f new s t u d e n t s , the NITEP p o p u l a t i o n  has changed c o n s i d e r a b l y s i n c e 1977, and t h e r e f o r e , students may be q u i t e  at  in  different  in terms o f  those i n t e r v i e w e d by Thomas and Mcintosh  the present group o f  language background than  (1977).  5 S i g n i f i c a n c e o f the Study  During the past decade almost a s c o r e o f t e a c h e r designed f o r n a t i v e  Indian students have appeared on the  (More,  1981).  in the  1972 manifesto on e d u c a t i o n ,  wherein  it  These programs are  states,  understanding o f  "Native  o f the  programs  Canadian scene  response to demands o u t l i n e d  Indian c o n t r o l o f  Indian e d u c a t i o n ,  t e a c h e r s and c o u n s e l l o r s who have an  the  p s y c h o l o g y , way o f  l e a r n i n g environment  Indian c h i l d "  o f the Canadian e d u c a t i o n a l the  in d i r e c t  Indian t r a d i t i o n s ,  are best able to c r e a t e and i n t e r e s t s  training  (NIB,  enterprise,  Indian p e o p l e s " ( M c i n t o s h ,  p.  at  habits  Faced with "the  levels,  1979, p. 22), i t  and language  s u i t e d to the  75).  all  life  intimate  in  its  failure  service  is not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t  institutions  of higher  l e a r n i n g have been persuaded to make an e f f o r t  improve t h i s  situation  by encouraging and s u p p o r t i n g these  teacher t r a i n i n g  in u n i v e r s i t y  Since fewer  than  of programs to t r a i n n a t i v e settings,  10% o f n a t i v e  necessary to use "mature  fore  fair  innovative  Indian t e a c h e r s ,  has not been achieved without students graduate  almost none from academic programs  gain admittance  (More,  difficulty.  from high s c h o o l ,  1 9 7 9 , p- 2), i t  and  has been  and s p e c i a l admission c a t e g o r i e s " in o r d e r  f o r many NITEP students  (More,  1979, p.  5).  It  is  to there-  to assume that a number o f these students may lack f a c i l i t y  English--certainly  at  the  level  and have s e r i o u s gaps in t h e i r suggesting t h i s ,  to  programs.  The e s t a b l i s h m e n t chiefly  to  o f performance expected general  in the  academic backgrounds.  university-More,  and c r i t i c i z i n g some programs f o r having f a i l e d  to terms with t h i s m a t t e r ,  says:  in  to come  6 In some programs standards are lower in academic background and f a c i l i t y in E n g l i s h . It is l a u d a b l e to admit to t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n programs students who show p o t e n t i a l but who have l a r g e gaps in t h e i r academic background. It i s i n d e f e n s i b l e to graduate such students without them having taken a s i n g l e c o l l e g e l e v e l E n g l i s h course o r adequately f i l l e d in t h e i r  academic gaps. Certainly  t e a c h e r s capable o f p r o v i d i n g the  by the National watered-down native  (1979, p- 8)  other subject.  adaptation  Indian Brotherhood f o r t h e i r  people w i l l  programs such as d e s c r i b e d by More.  children  preparation  c a l i b r e of education envisioned  requires  teachers as h i g h l y  Consequently, this  Quality  competent  educati.on  for  in E n g l i s h as in any  aspect o f the n a t i v e  programs deserves s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n .  not come from  Indian  teacher  T h i s study uses an  o f the needs assessment process as a technique f o r c o n s i d e r i n g  the q u e s t i o n o f E n g l i s h competency and the  potential  for  its  development  in  such a program.  Assumpt i ons T h i s study 1.  That  it  is based on the f o l l o w i n g assumptions: is p o s s i b l e to  identify  E n g l i s h as s a t i s f a c t o r y o r u n s a t i s f a c t o r y  and d e s c r i b e o r a l  and w r i t t e n  f o r students o f the  teaching  profession. 2.  That  it  is p o s s i b l e to  identify  E n g l i s h as s a t i s f a c t o r y o r u n s a t i s f a c t o r y of  university 3.  That  in teacher the  and w r i t t e n  f o r the academic work expected  students. it  is p o s s i b l e to  performance which  language  and d e s c r i b e o r a l  arts.  identify  and d e s c r i b e s p e c i f i c competencies  relate primarily  to s u c c e s s f u l l y t e a c h i n g  Research Questions T h i s study attempts to 1. identify 2. identify 3identify 4. students 5.  find:  Which aspects o f o r a l  e x p r e s s i o n do i n s t r u c t o r s  as concerns in the u n i v e r s i t y  and students  coursework o f NITEP s t u d e n t s ?  Which aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n do i n s t r u c t o r s as concerns in the  university  Which aspects o f o r a l  and students  coursework o f NITEP s t u d e n t s ?  e x p r e s s i o n do sponsor teachers and students  as concerns in the student t e a c h i n g o f NITEP s t u d e n t s ? Which aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n do sponsor teachers identify  as concerns in the student  t e a c h i n g o f NITEP s t u d e n t s ?  Which o f the s p e c i f i c t e a c h i n g competencies r e l a t e d to  t e a c h i n g o f the as heeding  language a r t s  and  do sponsor teachers  and students  the identify  improvement?  Scope o f the Study  T h i s study w i l l s i n c e 1977-  c o n c e n t r a t e on the NITEP as i t  The t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n  has been  structured  f o r the study c o n s i s t s o f persons who  have p a r t i c i p a t e d  in the program as sponsor t e a c h e r s , c o l l e g e and u n i v e r -  sity  students and program s t a f f .  instructors,  comes from instruments  The data used in the  study  designed f o r the s t u d y .  L i mi t a t i ons  Practicality preferred  and f e a s i b i l i t y  procedure in t h i s  study.  dictated  several  compromises with  The study was l i m i t e d  in s e v e r a l . ways :  8 1.  The general  assessments o f were present  limitations  respondents'  in the  o f an instrument  perceptions  than d i r e c t  collect  observations  questionnaire.  The r e c o g n i z e d l i m i t a t i o n s  2.  rather  designed to  as n o n - r e s p o n s e , b i a s and the  o f col 1 e c t i n g  inability  responses by mail  such  t o check responses were p r e s e n t  in th is s t u d y .  D e f i n i t i o n s o f Terms  A number o f terms interpretations.  used in t h i s  study are s u b j e c t  The s e l e c t e d d e f i n i t i o n s  Nat i ve Indi an.  The terms n a t i v e  to a v a r i e t y  are given below.  Indian,  native or  Indian r e f e r  any person who can t r a c e a part o f h i s o r her a n c e s t r y to the inhabitants  University  students,  registered  o f E d u c a t i o n , who have a p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g component to as student  Sponsor t e a c h e r s . vision sponsor  original  in the  in t h e i r  Faculty program are  teachers. Classroom t e a c h e r s who p r o v i d e c l a s s e s and s u p e r -  f o r the p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g component  in t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g  are  called  teachers.  Instructor.  For the purpose o f t h i s  i n c l u d e anyone with t e a c h i n g the  to  o f North A m e r i c a .  Student t e a c h e r s .  referred  of  s t u d y , the term i n s t r u c t o r  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y at  a community c o l l e g e o r  will at  university. Program s t a f f .  counsellors of English. language o f  The program s t a f f  refers  to the c o o r d i n a t o r s and  NITEP. English,  instruction  in the context in B r i t i s h  of this  study,  refers  to  Columbia s c h o o l s ; courses in  the composi-  9 tion,  l i t e r a t u r e o r language at  languages  in B r i t i s h  ing, oral  u n i v e r s i t y ; one o f two  official  in Canada.  Language a r t s . schools  the  The E n g l i s h language c u r r i c u l u m f o r Columbia is c a l l e d language a r t s .  elementary  It  includes  e x p r e s s i o n , r e a d i n g , w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n , study s k i l l s ,  listenchildren's  l i t e r a t u r e and language s t u d y . E n g l i s h competency. petency  For the purposes o f t h i s  is d e f i n e d as the degree o f  in the academic and p r o f e s s i o n a l educational  establishment  s t u d y , E n g l i s h com-  language s u f f i c i e n t  f o r o n e ' s needs  community as represented by  the  in B r i t i s h Columbia.  O r g a n i z a t i o n o f the Study  Chapter study.  1 has s t a t e d the p u r p o s e , need f o r ,  In a d d i t i o n ,  and l i m i t a t i o n s Chapter 2, the three s e c t i o n s : in n a t i v e for native  it  as wel1  and s i g n i f i c a n c e o f  has d e a l t with a s s u m p t i o n s , research q u e s t i o n s , as g i v i n g d e f i n i t i o n s  l i t e r a t u r e pertinent  for  relevant  to the study w i l l  terms.  be reviewed  the t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g o f E n g l i s h and language  Indian e d u c a t i o n ; the s p e c i a l nature o f teacher  training  In in arts programs  Indian p e o p l e ; the needs assessment process as a technique  d e v e l o p i n g and improving e d u c a t i o n a l Chapter 3 o u t l i n e s  this  for  programs.  the development o f the  instruments  and the  procedure used to gather  data f o r the assessment from i n s t r u c t o r s , sponsor  t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s .  The r e s u l t s o f the  in Chapter h.  Chapter 5 i n c l u d e s a general  summary o f the study and recommendations.  data c o l l e c t i o n are d i s c u s s i o n o f the  presented  findings, a  10  CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  The review o f appraisal  literature  o f the p l a c e o f  education;  (b)  relevant  an examination  a survey o f w r i t i n g s  suitable  for  reviewing  o f the  special  met the needs o f education  for  in n a t i v e  Indian  nature o f n a t i v e  Indian  in Native  population.  Indian people  is o u t l i n e d  m i s s i o n a r i e s saw an o p p o r t u n i t y  in Ashworth's  She p o i n t s out  Christian society  (pp.  government  3 1 0 ) , and then -  10-35).  education  missionaries f i r s t training  These s c h o o l s operated  1980,  p.  with  the  B e l i e v i n g , as  way to  implement  established  schools for  until  p o l i c y changed and i n t e g r a t i o n - - w h e r e i n  (Kirkness,  recent book The  Indian s o c i e t y ,  in the new w o r l d .  residential  encouraged to a t t e n d p r o v i n c i a l  provide  (and probably a duty) to e s t a b l i s h a  o f change they e n v i s i o n e d , e a r l y  students  Education  that s i n c e c o n t a c t  of  that s c h o o l i n g would be the most e f f e c t i v e  (pp.  program.  A record o f attempts to  Europeans had destroyed much o f the s t a b i l i t y  schools  arts;  Canadian e d u c a t i o n has never s u c c e s s f u l l y  f o r c e s which shaped them (1979).  did,  an  s p e c i f i c components in a t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n  native  Victorian-type  (a)  c o n c e r n i n g needs assessment as a process  setting.  its  includes  regard to E n g l i s h and language  The P l a c e o f E n g l i s h and Language A r t s  The h i s t o r i c a l  study  E n g l i s h and language a r t s  teacher e d u c a t i o n with p a r t i c u l a r and (c)  to t h i s  the e a r l y native  the.kind village  native 1950s when  c h i l d r e n were  schools—became the new hope f o r 14).  they  Indian  1.1 The change from r e s i d e n t i a l  s c h o o l s to p r o v i n c i a l  i n t e n d e d , a c c o r d i n g to K i r k n e s s (p. was made f o r the  the change" (p.  14),  1*0  s c h o o l s was w e l l  but s i n c e "no genuine  and there was no real  i m p l i c a t i o n s o f such change, the new p o l i c y f a i l e d  "bring  Indians  i n t o the mainstream o f  Unfortunately, ing s t a t i s t i c s  the  integration  c o n c e r n i n g school  unemployment amongst n a t i v e sums up the h i s t o r y o f  Canadian l i f e "  drop-out,  age-grade  people (Stanbury,  consideration of in  (p.  policy did l i t t l e  1975).  preparation  i t s attempt  to  14).  to  improve d e p r e s s -  retardation  and  (I980)  Kirkness  Indian e d u c a t i o n :  Indian people have been the v i c t i m s of an e d u c a t i o n a l system that was f o r e i g n to them. T h i s system has been allowed to c o n t i n u e from the 17th century to the present day. It is o n l y d u r i n g the l a s t ten years that Indian people have made s t r o n g demands f o r change. (p. 15) The h i s t o r i c a l  p e r s p e c t i v e on language.  long f i g u r e d as a f a c t o r part,  in a very n e g a t i v e way.  used the 1979,  in n a t i v e  combined with n a t i v e toward n a t i v e  Indian e d u c a t i o n , b u t ,  Although a few of  language of the p a r t i c u l a r  P- 9), the m a j o r i t y  The E n g l i s h language has  language s u p p r e s s i o n . it  e d u c a t i o n f o r a long p e r i o d o f  writing  speaking t h e i r  native  25 35).  o f non-Anglo c h i l d r e n  tongues  missionaries (Ashworth,  E n g l i s h language  represented, characterized time (pp.  the most  instruction  T h i s p o l i c y , and the  _  schools were r e q u i r e d to speak E n g l i s h at a l l punished f o r  the e a r l i e s t  t r i b e they were t e a c h i n g  adopted a program of  language which  for  Students  times, often  (Ashworth,  p.  attitudes  Indian in  residential  being  29).  severely  Brown,  in B r i t i s h Columbia, s a y s :  For some the s c a r s go so deep that one d e s p a i r s of t h e i r ever being e r a s e d ; the N a t i v e I n d i a n s , f o r example, here long b e f o r e white people came, s u f f e r e d the g r a v e s t i n s u l t and h u m i l i a t i o n to t h e i r language and t h e i r c u l t u r e and t h e i r pain can s t i l l be heard in the b i t t e r words, recorded h e r e i n , of a c i t i z e n s h i p judge speaking about her e x p e r iences as a p u p i l at a r e s i d e n t i a l s c h o o l . (Brown, 1979, p. iii)  12 The t o t a l English,  rejection  o f the n a t i v e  particularly  in r e s i d e n t i a l  "a profound sense o f a l i e n a t i o n p.  1978,  the heart  schooling,  from t h e i r  parents"  of  Indian s o c i e t y .  in any d i s c u s s i o n o f  Languages in N a t i v e  language in n a t i v e  suffering  Council,  family  life,  into  Indian e d u c a t i o n .  Indian E d u c a t i o n  languages suppressed (Ashworth,  1979,  E n g l i s h was imposed and pp. 25-33), i t  s u r p r i s i n g that n a t i v e  l e a d e r s a s s i g n high p r i o r i t y  and t e a c h i n g o f n a t i v e  languages  (NIB,  1972,  b i l i n g u a l ism and b i c u l t u r a l i s m in n a t i v e Native  (Canadian  T h i s s o r r y h i s t o r y must be taken  Given the h i s t o r i c a l background wherein native  l e d to c h i l d r e n  137), and t h r e a t e n e d the very e x i s t e n c e o f n a t i v e  consideration  Native  languages and the e n f o r c e d use o f  p.  is not  to the  15).  reclamation  The c a l l  Indian e d u c a t i o n  for  is s t r o n g .  language programs such as those at New Aiyansh or Mount C u r r i e  in B r i t i s h Columbia ( S p e a r s ,  197**; Wyatt, 1977b), are becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y  commonplace in North America (Andersson & B o y e r , Riffell.  1978).  (1975) s u g g e s t s , however, t h a t parents o f t e n f i n d themselves  in a "language dilemma" when faced with these programs are concerned that education  (Smith,  learning a native  1980, p. 15; Wyatt,  language w i l l  (p.  27).  interfere  Some  with  !real  1977a, p. ^07), w h i l e o t h e r s may  q u e s t i o n the v a l i d i t y  o f such programs with an argument  expressed by E p s t e i n  (1977):  s i m i l a r to  A f t e r n e a r l y nine years and more than h a l f a b i l l i o n d o l l a r s in f e d e r a l f u n d s , however, the government U . S . has not demons t r a t e d whether such i n s t r u c t i o n makes much d i f f e r e n c e in the s t u d e n t s ' achievement, in t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n o f E n g l i s h , o r in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward s c h o o l . (p. 1)  that  1  ]  (1980),  Smith  writing  in a recent e d i t i o n o f the Journal o f American  Indian E d u c a t i o n , a c t u a l l y She  condemns b i l i n g u a l  supports her c o n t e n t i o n that  grade  retardation  3  by r e f e r r i n g  it w i l l  education for native  students.  exacerbate the problem o f  age-  (1966).  to the work o f Macnamara  A f t e r reviewing more than 75 independent s t u d i e s on b i l i n g u a l ism and second language t e a c h i n g , Macnamara c o n c l u d e d , " A l l in a l l , we may t e n t a t i v e l y conclude t h a t monolinguals - those people speaking o n l y one language - are s u p e r i o r to b i l i n g u a l s in a l l l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l enumerated." ( S m i t h , 1 9 8 0 , p. 15) Regardless o f the c o n t r o v e r s y that e x i s t s c o n c e r n i n g the of b i l i n g u a l and  education, it  is n e v e r t h e l e s s e v i d e n t t h a t n a t i v e  educators are very concerned about t h e i r  proficiency  1980). issue o f  important  goal  the f a c t  native  in a l a r g e s c a l e needs assessment addressed to  in e d u c a t i o n  (Oklahoma,  that E n g l i s h is s t i l l  o f our e d u c a t i o n a l  practices  in t h i s  In t h e i r  s y s t e m , is a s e r i o u s  regard  (Reid,  1974).  identified  as a s i g n i f i c a n t  in the e d u c a t i o n of Canadian n a t i v e  is d i s c u s s e d by Bowd  indictment  Indian Education  t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g o f E n g l i s h ,  troublesome f a c t o r  students,  1976).  s i n g l e d out as the c h i e f cause o f  in the school  E n g l i s h as a F a c t o r in N a t i v e  and  participant  people do value E n g l i s h competency as an e d u c a t i o n a l  children's failure  The  the  chose the development o f E n g l i s h s k i l l s as the most  Since n a t i v e goal,  Soldier,  improving e d u c a t i o n f o r n a t i v e s t u d e n t s , e i g h t o f ten  (N=1618)  groups  parents  c h i l d r e n ' s development o f  in E n g l i s h ( R a d u l o v i c h , 1 9 7 4 ; F o e r s t e r S L i t t l e  For example,  benefits  (1977),  Brooks  (1978),  and C l i f t o n  reviews o f the p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s undertaken  they have i n d i c a t e d t h a t s t u d i e s b e f o r e the l a t e  1960s  Indian  in t h i s  were  (1977)century,  chiefly  14  concerned with comparing the s c h o l a s t i c a p t i t u d e s  of  native  c h i l d r e n , and a t t r i b u t i n g the s u b s t a n t i a l l y  native  c h i l d r e n to environmental  factors  (.Brooks,  recommendations c o n c e r n i n g the t e a c h i n g o f reports,  they  practice  ( B r o o k s , p.  pp. 3 3 6 - 3 3 9 ) .  rarely  went f u r t h e r 61)  or  than  remedial  This researcher  native  and non-  lower a p t i t u d e 1 9 7 8 , p.  59)-  to f i n d any r e p o r t s  of  these  increased oral  a t t e n t i o n to reading s k i l l s  improved E n g l i s h competency as a r e s u l t  the  Although  language were common in  recommending  has f a i l e d  of  implementing  these  (Bowd,  that  claim  two  a d d i t i o n s or changes. The Hawthorn practices  Study  (1967)  documented the f a i l u r e  then being used in n a t i v e  with the t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g of Its  authors,  the  result  in e x a c t l y  education,  of expecting  native  (Brooks,  1 9 7 8 , p.  As s t u d i e s s h i f t e d tests  became c l e a r  in Native  from measuring  e d u c a t i o n were  respond to s c h o o l i n g reflected  in p s y c h o l o g i c a l  the  studies  Indian Education  intelligence  to measuring them with n o n - v e r b a l  ing the mismatch between in l e a r n i n g  332-335).  59).  Recent P s y c h o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s  native  in n a t i v e  the same way as white m i d d l e - c l a s s c h i l d r e n ,  t h a t was then beginning to appear  verbal  1 9 7 7 , pp.  Indian c h i l d r e n to  thinking  educational  i n c l u d i n g those to do  E n g l i s h (Bowd,  in s u g g e s t i n g that many problems  of most  for native  common e d u c a t i o n a l  some c l u e s c o n c e r n -  p r a c t i c e s and the ( B r o o k s , p.  communication dominated  c h i l d r e n were much s t r o n g e r  they were in verbal  tests,  c h i l d r e n began to emerge  that w h i l e verbal  and c o g n i t i o n w i t h  in n o n - v e r b a l  s k i l l s , and c o u l d use t h e i r  their  and s p a t i a l spatial  problems  62).  It  instruction, skills  abilities  in  than  problem s o l v i n g (p. theory of n a t i v e (p.  62).  Although i t  has not been p o s s i b l e to b u i l d a  e d u c a t i o n methodology based on these or o t h e r  6 7 ) , n e v e r t h e l e s s , some recommendations which apply to E n g l i s h  t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g have been f o r t h c o m i n g . work of Bowd ( 1 9 7 2 ) , their ing  findings  Kleinfeld  recommendations f o r  (1970),  Brooks,  and McArthur  changing i n s t r u c t i o n a l  in reviewing  the  (1978) , summed up  practice  in the  follow-  statement: School l e a r n i n g would be.improved by the use of t e a c h i n g a i d s such as c h a r t s , diagrams, maps and c o n c r e t e o b j e c t s . Venn diagrams and s y m b o l i c p i c t o r i a l a i d s have been recommended f o r use in t e a c h i n g a b s t r a c t i o n s , even language concepts. (p. 65)  Such a recommendation speaks to Eng1ish curricu1um p r e p a r a t i o n instructional  methodology.  Additional  r e s e a r c h which p r o v i d e s u s e f u l  direction  i n v o l v e d in the t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g o f  English for  comes from more recent work by K l e i n f e l d  (1975).  in two n a t i v e and f i v e the e f f e c t s of native  integrated  of d i f f e r e n t  students.  The c r i t e r i a  for  native  s c h o o l s with the  intention  in s p e c i f i e d c l a s s e s .  of  students' oral  demanded good q u a l i t y  work from them.  (Dumont,  Jr.,  behavior have r e s u l t e d  1972),  it  studying  participation and w r i t t e n  students,  S i n c e teachers of E n g l i s h  have c o n s i s t e n t l y complained about s h y , withdrawn, students  of  She found t h a t students responded  best to teachers who, w h i l e e x p r e s s i n g personal warmth to actively  students  participation  she used to judge v e r b a l  and q u a l i t y  those  She observed c l a s s e s  t e a c h i n g s t y l e s on the verbal  had to do w i t h the q u a n t i t y contributions  and  nonverbal  native  may be that p r e c o n c e i v e d n o t i o n s of  in unnecessary problems f o r  In K l e i n f e l d ' s most recent work, f o r example,  teachers and s t u d e n t s . she c o n t r a s t s the  "self-  c o n f i d e n t and v e r b a l " E n g l i s h language performance of a group of Eskimo students a t t e n d i n g  a school without any s p e c i a l  language programs, w i t h  16  the " t r a d i t i o n a l "  behavior o f  native  and Eskimo students  in s c h o o l s of  (1979, p. 2). The students who; so impressed K l e i n f e l d were  any kind attending  a school which had sent an i n o r d i n a t e  number o f  students  to  the U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a s k a and thus become the focus o f an e t h n o g r a p h i c study of s u c c e s s f u l b i c u l t u r a l special  programs f o r  education.  language development  students when e n t e r i n g  Insofar  in the school (p.  the school s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  measures than d i d c o n t r o l  groups, their  success  K l e i n f e l d observes that t e a c h e r s demonstrated language w h i l e encouraging the use of in community l i f e ,  and taught  In any review of s t u d i e s in n a t i v e  interest  interesting.  in the Eskimo  E n g l i s h as an i n t e g r a t i v e  relating it  (pp.  force  in such a way  129-130).  to the t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g is  important  of  to acknowledge a  recommendation which has been a part of almost every study and w r i t t e n s i n c e the  and the  lower on language  E n g l i s h s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s  Indian e d u c a t i o n ,  14),  in E n g l i s h is  as to be in harmony with Eskimo v a l u e s and i d e a l s  English  as t h e r e were no  report  1940s. A t y p i c a l recommendation r e a d s :  The weaknesses in verbal a b i l i t y must be r e d r e s s e d by a g r e a t e r use of E n g l i s h as a Second Language programs in the j u n i o r elementary s c h o o l s and by c o n t i n u i n g them throughout the c h i l d ' s s c h o o l i n g . ( B r o o k s , 1978, p. 66) E n g l i s h as a second language methodology of the n a t i v e  teacher  training  programs  is p r e s e n t l y  i n c l u d e d in s e v e r a l  (More and Wall i s ,  1979)  definitive  s t u d i e s demonstrating e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h i s approach  English  Indian e d u c a t i o n have come to the a t t e n t i o n  A recent  in  refinement  in t h i s a r e a ,  of E n g l i s h (Johnson, 1976,  to be more e f f e c t i v e  Indian e d u c a t i o n .  area of study and r e s e a r c h .  this  the study o f methodology f o r  ing of a second d i a l e c t in  of  but no to writer. the  teach-  pp. 255-271), may prove  T h i s should be a p r o d u c t i v e  17  Recent L i n g u i s t i c S t u d i e s  in N a t i v e  Indian Education  C o n s i d e r i n g the concern w i t h language that has c h a r a c t e r i z e d psychological so few  studies  linguistic  in n a t i v e  Indian e d u c a t i o n ,  s t u d i e s have been p u b l i s h e d  it  the  is s u r p r i s i n g  in t h i s  area.  Dale  that (1975)  suggests that concern with the problems of  b l a c k Americans has led to a  dearth o f  peoples  out  information  about o t h e r m i n o r i t y  that "on the whole,  people who have been  (p.  282).  interested  He p o i n t s  in language and  the American  Indian c h i l d have focused on E n g l i s h as a second language"  (p.  s i n c e he e a r l i e r  283)  but  stated  that "we do not know how many  speakers t h e r e are f o r each Indian language, lingual the  or b i l i n g u a l  in E n g l i s h as w e l l ,  Indian languages at  questionable.  In f a c t ,  all"  (p.  Dale  leaves t h i s  the best known l i n g u i s t i c study structures  and communicative competence:  community and classroom ( P h i l i p s ,  direct  in which n a t i v e  contrast  to the way  She found that the 1.  children  education,  discuss  Part i c i pant  Warm S p r i n g s c h i l d r e n  s t u d i e s had merely  l e a r n and are  observations held  role  Indian p u p i l s were used to  t i o n of o l d e r 3.  t o p i c and moves on to  Indian p u p i l s d i d not understand the  t h e r e was no comparable a d u l t 2.  focus may be somewhat  l e a r n and are taught at  in which they  following  speak  in  1972).  P h i l i p s documented what many e a r l i e r the ways  and how many no longer  283),this  in n a t i v e  how many speakers are mono-  in the  suggested:  home are  in  taught at  school.  the t e a c h e r  since  true: r o l e of  Indian community.  learning  primarily  through o b s e r v a -  relatives.  Indian p u p i l s were r e l u c t a n t  in f r o n t of a c l a s s  for  fear  to v e r b a l l y  o f making m i s t a k e s .  respond to the  teacher  18  k.  Indian students were used to  sequences with s e l f - t e s t i n g 5.  for  learning  tasks at  home in segmented  proficiency.  Indian students d i d not share c e r t a i n  with n o n - n a t i v e s or with the t e a c h e r .  s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c assumptions  For example,  native  students  not n e c e s s a r i l y r e c o g n i z e the assumption that a q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e s  did  an  answer. Indian students worked h a p p i l y ,  6.  producing and using  language when they worked on group p r o j e c t s which were not  effective  teacher  d i rected. Work such as P h i l i p s '  is  important  in r a i s i n g the c o n s c i o u s n e s s of  educators r e s p o n s i b l e f o r n a t i v e  c h i l d r e n , and has been i n f l u e n t i a l  B r i t i s h Columbia (Wyatt,  1978).  As K l e s n e r ( I 9 8 0 )  p r a c t i c e s such as f a m i l y  grouping, individualized study,  student  tutoring  styles"  (p.  and p r o j e c t  adaptation  work " c l o s e l y match the  15) d e s c r i b e d by P h i l i p s .  not accommodate the s t u d e n t s ' to a m a j o r i t y  learning  Furthermore, s t y l e s at  dominated e d u c a t i o n a l  p.  it  in-home  native  centres,  learning  such p r a c t i c e s  setting,  will  eventual  a mistake  that  Indian students  been a b o u n t i f u l  s t u d i e s f o r n a t i v e e d u c a t i o n with regard to  English,  learning  383).  Although l i n g u i s t i c s has not h e r e t o f o r e useful  educational  the expense o f  teachers have made in the name of " h e l p i n g " t h e i r (Philips,  points out,  in  is to be hoped that with the growth of  research w i l l  be forthcoming from t h i s  discipline.  source o f  l e a r n i n g and t e a c h i n g Indian e d u c a t i o n , more  19  Summary  The m a j o r i t y  of native  parents want q u a l i t y  see as i n c l u d i n g E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y - - f o r t h e i r biculturalism, in n a t i v e  educators are w i l l i n g  Although  is no s u g g e s t i o n that parents  to s a c r i f i c e o t h e r e d u c a t i o n a l  is c o n s i d e r a b l e support  t i o n o f E n g l i s h as a s i g n i f i c a n t native  children.  they  and in many c a s e s , b i 1 i n g u a l i s m , are seen as e s s e n t i a l s  Indian e d u c a t i o n , there  There  education--which  students.  Unfortunately  in the l i t e r a t u r e  factor there  or  components f o r f o r the  them.  identifica-  in the academic achievement  is a tendency to  of  recommend the  establishment of b i l i n g u a l  o r E n g l i s h as a second language programs as  the answers to e d u c a t i o n a l  difficulties  i m p l i c a t i o n s o f such programming. not allow  f o r the many n a t i v e  the  Such recommendations, f o r example, do  students and t h e i r  d i a l e c t s of  English.  development  programs which accept s t u d e n t s '  the  It  without c o n s i d e r i n g a l l  seems apparent  there  f a m i l i e s who speak o n l y  is a need f o r  d i a l e c t s while  language providing  for  l e a r n i n g o f a second d i a l e c t - - s c h o o l E n g l i s h — w h i c h they need f o r  academic s u c c e s s . dialects  Increased  should e v e n t u a l l y  research  in the t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g  prove useful  t o those working  in  of  native  Indian e d u c a t i o n . Psychological that n a t i v e  and l i n g u i s t i c s t u d i e s p r o v i d e c o n s i d e r a b l e evidence  children learn  Unfortunately,  there  is  differently  insufficient  from n o n - n a t i v e  evidence to suggest t h a t  f i n d i n g s can s a f e l y be g e n e r a l i z e d to a l l of practices  children.  native  children.  these  The  majority  recommended in the s t u d i e s can be d e s c r i b e d as p e d a g o g i c a l 1 y  sound, however,  so there  appears to be s u f f i c i e n t  i n c l u d i n g study o f these p r a c t i c e s  justification  in E n g l i s h / l a n g u a g e a r t s  for  methodology  20 courses f o r those who plan to teach n a t i v e Overall, possible,  there  the  implications  s h o u l d be a d d r e s s e d .  this  study.  C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the  Wherever  findings  l e a r n i n g s t y l e s o f c h i l d r e n s h o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d  any course regarding the t e a c h i n g o f  language a r t s .  supports the b a s i c assumption o f t h i s arts  for  i s s u e o f E n g l i s h as a second language, o r E n g l i s h as a  second d i a l e c t regarding the  are s e v e r a l  Indian c h i l d r e n .  components o f teacher  training  The  into  literature  study that the E n g l i s h and language  programs f o r n a t i v e  Indians  deserve  a t t e n t i on. The second s e c t i o n o f t h i s the development o f t h i s preparation  review o f the  1iterature pertinent  study has to do with the n a t i v e  Indian  to  teacher  programs.  An Examination o f the S p e c i a l Native  Nature  Indian Teacher P r e p a r a t i o n  With P a r t i c u l a r  of  Programs  Regard to E n g l i s h and Language A r t s  Int roduct i on  Some students d i d i n d i c a t e t h a t they might l i k e ' t o be teachers but hastened to add that they c o u l d never a c h i e v e such a goal because they would probably not complete high school and would never get to u n i v e r s i t y . (Hawthorn, 1967, p. 124) In fact  1967  that  in  Indian students had l i t t l e  hope o f becoming t e a c h e r s ;  1980 they can do so marks a s i g n i f i c a n t  Indian e d u c a t i o n .  development  During the past decade, more than a s c o r e o f  programs f o r t r a i n i n g  native  Indian t e a c h e r s , designed to  students who may not have had the o p p o r t u n i t y  the  in university  i n c l u d e those  to complete secondary  21  s c h o o l , have been e s t a b l i s h e d in Canada (More S Wall i s , 1 9 7 9 ) -  Similar  programs have been e s t a b l i s h e d in the U n i t e d S t a t e s  1974).  (Mathieson,  Backg round  These programs have d e v e l o p e d , at the well all  documented " f a i l u r e  levels,  in  They r e f l e c t "more  its  s e r v i c e to the  Canadian e d u c a t i o n a l  at  least  Indianness--a quality frequently  where there  at  1 9 7 9 , p-  22).  involved that  in p a r t .  students.  in classrooms  them with q u a l i f i e d  to  teachers"  in p u b l i s h e d form.  a n a l y s i s by e x t e r n a l  fear  to  lack of e v a l u a t i v e  that such reports w i l l  is  (1974)  unfamiliar  u n d e r l y i n g the programs"  can undermine these hard-won a l t e r n a t i v e s On the o t h e r hand, the  evaluators  prepara-  nature  T h i s may be e x p l a i n e d by B a r n e t t ' s  with p h i l o s o p h i c a l assumptions and o b j e c t i v e s  an understandable  Indian t e a c h e r  l i t t l e o f an a n a l y t i c o r e v a l u a t i v e  suggestion that " s u p e r f i c i a l  training.  primarily  "The best way to begin  l i t e r a t u r e concerning n a t i v e  programs r e v e a l s that  29)  will  Indian l e a d e r s see as e s s e n t i a l  Indian t e a c h e r s , e s p e c i a l l y  is to p e n e t r a t e  12)  1 9 7 2 , p. 2 9 2 ) .  A review o f the  available  p.  They are based on the assumption  which n a t i v e  are numbers o f n a t i v e  (Kaltsounis,  in e d u c a t i o n " (More,  m i s s i n g from Indian e d u c a t i o n programs--wi11  I n d i a n i z e the s c h o o l s  (p.  enterprise,  Indian p e o p l e s " ( M c i n t o s h ,  Indian l e a d e r s h i p  come from the presence o f n a t i v e  tion  as a response to  Indian people in the t e a c h i n g p r o f e s s ion and the emergence o f an  redress the f a i l u r e ,  but  in p a r t ,  a s i n c e r e c o n v i c t i o n on the part o f those  even more e f f e c t i v e  that  o f the  least  regular  teacher  s t u d i e s may  be i n c o r r e c t l y  reflect  used as  22 evidence."that guidelines"  c o s t s are too high o r t h a t the program s t r a y s from o r i g i n a l  (Sterling,  1975, p.  1*0,  l e a d i n g to a b u r e a u c r a t i c d e c i s i o n  to cancel the program in q u e s t i o n . Whatever the  r e a s o n s , few s t u d i e s concerning n a t i v e  e d u c a t i o n programs have been p u b l i s h e d .  Indian  Most o f the a v a i l a b l e  teacher material  tends to be d e s c r i p t i v e and a n e c d o t a l , and programs are d i s c u s s e d general studies, Wall i s ,  terms.  Notwithstanding  the dearth o f  research o f  critical  recent monographs such as Native t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n 1979; More, 1981)  p r o v i d e a useful overview  in  (More &  relevant  to  this  study.  Current  It  Situation  is undoubtedly t r u e that although n a t i v e  "programs are b e g i n n i n g to demonstrate t h e i r they are not without problems.  Indian t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n  e f f e c t i v e n e s s " (More,  In a d d i t i o n to the  issues which may a r i s e  in any t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n program--such as a concern about the practica--there  length  of  are s p e c i a l problems, o r s p e c i a l aspects o f the usual  t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n problems which may be unique to n a t i v e More o u t l i n e s the s p e c i a l problems  some o f the problems i d e n t i f i e d by More are s t u d y , they w i l l  programs.  in a paper presented to  Canadian Education A s s o c i a t i o n Conference in September,  this  1979),  relevant  be d i s c u s s e d in terms o f n a t i v e  e d u c a t i o n programs in g e n e r a l , and in terms o f NITEP.  1979-  the Since  to the concerns o f Indian  teacher  23 Problems  in N a t i v e Teacher Education  The q u e s t i o n o f standards  in the programs.  More suggests t h a t  the  b a s i c problems with standards " a r i s e s from a misunderstanding o f e q u i v a lent (p.  standards and from an a c t u a l — b u t 7)  in some programs.  students to e n t e r  e x a g g e r a t e d — l o w e r i ng o f s t a n d a r d s "  The admission c r i t e r i a which permit  the u n i v e r s i t y without secondary school  academic background, o r the acceptance o f n a t i v e of  mature  graduation or  languages in  fulfillment  language requirements are confused w i t h l o w e r i n g program s t a n d a r d s . Given the  s u r p r i s i n g that  importance o f E n g l i s h in academic s t u d i e s , English figures  prominently  in t h i s  it  is not  issue of standards.  More admits that "some" programs have succumbed to "the f a d i s h n e s s (unfortunately) of  Indian e d u c a t i o n , the urgent  teachers, p o l i t i c a l  p r e s s u r e s and the  need f o r more  fuzzy t h i n k i n g o f  Indian  the s o - c a l l e d  ' b l e e d i n g h e a r t s ' , " and have allowed s t u d e n t s to graduate without o r completing one c o l l e g e l e v e l  E n g l i s h course o r otherwise having come  to terms with academic d e f i c i e n c i e s . practices,  they succeed o n l y  o r the "watered-down recent  However well  in m a i n t a i n i n g the  program" (p.  l i k e o t h e r programs in n a t i v e  in t h e i r  academic background.  other education students.  NITEP, part o f an e v a l u a t i o n o f a l l o f Education at  assumptions "about  1 9 7 9 , p-  7)•  Indian t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g ,  programs, NITEP demands that students f u l f i l l ments as a l l  such  idea o f the " r e d p a s s "  (More,  students who have not completed secondary school deficiencies  intentioned  7 ) , which are u n f a i r  Indian e d u c a t i o n programs in g e n e r a l "  NITEP,  taking  and who may have  U n l i k e some o f these the same E n g l i s h  A 1975 e x t e r n a l  alternative  admits  other  require-  evaluation  programs in the  of  Faculty  the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, was completed in  1975 by Worthen, Owens and Anderson. they surveyed school faculty  Using q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and  s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s , sponsor t e a c h e r s ,  students and program s t a f f  had high e x p e c t a t i o n s o f the s t u d e n t s .  p r o v i d i n g students with t u t o r i a l that t h i s  help  al.,  and program  NITEP was commended f o r  in w r i t t e n E n g l i s h ,  recommended  1975).  Thomas and Mcintosh ( 1 9 7 7 )  "I  faculty  p r a c t i c e c o n t i n u e and that a course in study s k i l l s be added  to the program (Worthen et  in t h e i r  principals,  concerned with the v a r i o u s programs.  They found the NITEP had high standards and that staff  interviews,  sample o f 90 students  had d i f f i c u l t y  in w r i t i n g  reported t h a t nine out o f ten responded a f f i r m a t i v e l y  the q u a l i t y  expected from me" (Appendix C ) .  students  to the  statement,  o f papers which my i n s t r u c t o r s  H a l f o f those  responding  affirmatively  i n d i c a t e d that t h i s matter was o f s e r i o u s concern t o them. In a d d i t i o n Mcintosh time,  to a d m i n i s t e r i n g  interviewed  the student  some i n s t r u c t o r s  and reported that these  teaching  instructors  is a problem" (p.  kb) .  in the program at  that  seemed to agree t h a t " f o r most  NITEP s t u d e n t s , as f o r most b e g i n n i n g U . B . C . program, w r i t i n g  q u e s t i o n n a i r e , Thomas and  students  irrespective  O v e r a l l , however the  of  report  states: It is g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d , among students and s t a f f a l i k e , that d e f i c i e n c i e s in language s k i l l s present the g r e a t e s t problem which must, be overcome by the NITEP s t u d e n t s , (p. 50) The s p e c i a l s t a t u s o f the programs. restricted  to n a t i v e  people  in o r d e r to meet t h e i r  misunderstood by some in the m a j o r i t y that " f o r t u n a t e l y  most educators  to t r e a t students e q u a l l y ,  The f a c t  culture.  long ago l e f t  and e n t e r e d the  i n d i v i d u a l s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r  needs" (p.  t h a t programs  "common need" i s  (More ( 1 9 7 9 ) p o i n t s the dream w o r l d o f  real world o f t r y i n g 9).  are  to  out  trying treat  25 T h i s matter o f  r e s i s t a n c e on the part o f some members o f the  c u l t u r e to s p e c i a l programs d i r e c t e d to n a t i v e be at  issue in NITEP, o r  supportive a r t i c l e s  in B r i t i s h Columbia at  people does not appear this  1 9 7 7 ; Worthen et  al. ,  in NITEP as in the  are not p r e s e n t l y to  Several  to  very  external  repute (Thomas 6  1975).  Since the E n g l i s h and language a r t s rigorous  time.  such as Ohm's "Not a Red P a s s , " and two  e v a l u a t i o n s suggest that the program is h e l d in high Mcintosh,  majority  requirements are at  r e g u l a r elementary  program^and n a t i v e  i n c l u d e d in the c u r r i c u l u m , t h e r e  language that makes NITEP d i f f e r e n t  from the  least  is l i t t l e with  regular  as languages regard  elementary  program. Control o f the programs.  The v a r i o u s groups i n v o l v e d in the  Indian t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n programs want more say in the those programs. this  development o f  Thomas and Mcintosh ( 1 9 7 7 ) d i s c u s s the d i f f i c u l t i e s  area p o i n t i n g to the autonomy which e x i s t s  r e l u c t a n c e o f the u n i v e r s i t y course p l a n n i n g .  native  in the  community to share c o n t r o l  Interestingly,  their  university  in  and the  in such areas as  example has to do with  English.  We surmise that a good deal o f f r i c t i o n would be generated i f , say the (Advisory) Committee were to p r o v i d e g u i d e l i n e s f o r the E n g l i s h 100 course taught to NITEP s t u d e n t s . This would be an i n c u r s i o n on t e r r i t o r y which is j e a l o u s l y defended by academies. (p. 88) Fortunately,  the general  support f o r NITEP in the u n i v e r s i t y  community  suggests that the A d v i s o r y Committee, o r program s u p e r v i s o r , c o u l d approach the E n g l i s h department  and ask f o r s p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n  in  meeting the needs o f NITEP s t u d e n t s . Nature o f the programs.. programs are a s s i m i l a t i v e o r enough.  This  i s s u e has to do with whether o r not  integrative:  E n g l i s h and language a r t s  whether o r not they are  curricula-,  Indian  f o r example, may be a part  of  this  p r o b l e m s i n c e t h e y may b e s e e n t o  attitudes  of  culture.  The q u e s t i o n o f  parts  of  program o f  (1977a;  e m p h a s i s on  Indian  In a d d i t i o n ,  programs so.  what  b e i n g used in  is appropriate  for  question  a high  degree o f  teaching  certificates  educational  native  Indian  do w i t h  system.  these programs?  formal  Currie  as w e l l  development  in  language  study.  degree o f  Indian-  programs  teacher  1979),  as an  training  found t h i s  not  to  as  to  considerable "uncertainty  content  in these s p e c i a l  If  reserve parents graduates of  programs w h i c h  content,  the  fact  (Wyatt,  not  that  1977b)  programs"  Given the  fact  usually  if  anything,  the  cities  programs  are  provincial in  the  t i m e h a s been g i v e n  has been e l i m i n a t e d  i n c r e a s i n g numbers o f  may c h o o s e t o s e n d t h e i r the s p e c i a l  are granted  amount o f  languages  published  and may t e a c h a n y w h e r e  that to  include native  a n s w e r e d i n any  students  a significant  concerns, what,  h a v e moved o f f - r e s e r v e ,  all  cultural  Indian  (More,  is  related  u s i n g b o o k s by and a b o u t  included native  native  Canada  there  concerning the  has t o  purely  program  those  1979).  studies,  to  t h e Mount  i n a n a l y z i n g and c o m p a r i n g t h r e e  Mcintosh suggests that  (Mcintosh,  and  about  a l l u d e s to  the t h r e e models o f  currently  One  i n any  such a program guarantees a high  (1979)  Mcintosh  representative of  rarely  studied  Indian  within  and  in E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e  this  it  language a r t s ,  in w r i t i n g  University,  for  c u r r i c u l u m and t e a c h i n g m e t h o d o l o g y  may be a s s u m e d t h a t but  but  and  the n a t i v e  and p r o v i s i o n s  English,  1978),  the values  the e x c l u s i o n o f  reports  as c o u r s e c o n t e n t  program.  ness,  be  1977b;  Simon F r a s e r  native writers  It  to  Indianness,  has b e e n d i s c u s s e d i n  Wyatt  their  culture  a program concerned w i t h  courses, way.  the m a j o r i t y  represent  ( M c K a y , 1977)  children likely  to  native or  from people  that  public schools,  t o be t e a c h i n g  over  only  onnot  native  children.  O b v i o u s l y graduates o f these programs need to be  equipped to teach a l l  children,  the s p e c i a l needs o f t h e i r The q u e s t i o n o f in  Indian e d u c a t i o n  "The n e c e s s i t y to  in a d d i t i o n  people.  Indianness, (More,  probably the most important  1 9 8 1 , p.  'Indianize'  the  and standards o f achievement the B . E d . (Elementary)  to being equipped to meet  7 1 ) , is a dominant concern in NITEP.  program without compromising the  r e q u i r e d by the  degree"  (Cook,  institution  1 9 8 0 , p. S.h), has  for this  study  in E n g l i s h and language a r t s .  majority  language, and has o f t e n h i s t o r i c a l l y been, at  o f some Indian a c t i v i s t s any study r e l a t i n g  to E n g l i s h in n a t i v e  Inuit)  least  the  in the  language a r t s .  view  teaching  in the programs.  (More,  f o r programs and t h e i r  155),  reflect  l i t e r a t u r e and a s e n s i t i v i t y people. Native  Indian  t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n programs tend to emphasize e a r l i e r  ramifications  1979).  There are  and  several  c u r r i c u l u m in terms o f E n g l i s h and  For example, the amount o f time given to t e a c h i n g method-  and the o r d e r  important  implications  Indian e d u c a t i o n needs to  Indian e d u c a t i o n  longer p e r i o d s o f student t e a c h i n g  ology,  awarding  Since E n g l i s h is  Indian e d u c a t i o n as s t a t e d by n a t i v e  An emphasis on student (and  for  rigor  " b a s i c to white supremacy" (Adams, 1 9 7 5 , p.  an awareness of the n a t i v e to the needs in  question  in which the courses are g i v e n , may be seen to be  in terms o f student  Brandon U n i v e r s i t y ' s  not be undertaken  until  pleted  197*0.  The problems to the NITEP which  An i n t e r n a l  IMPACTE program found that  teachers and students were a l l  (Loughton,  teaching.  in agreement  a language a r t s  regarding student  evaluation  faculty,  that student  done  in  cooperating teaching should  methodology course had been com-  t e a c h i n g are p a r t i c u l a r l y  relevant  i n c l u d e s extended p e r i o d s o f c l a s s r o o m t e a c h i n g  in  28 the  first  two y e a r s , as well  as one p r a c t i c a  in each o f the f i n a l  years  o f the program. One problem in NITEP has to do with the o r d e r  in which  student  t e a c h e r s take reading and language a r t s methodology, one in each o f first  two y e a r s .  language a r t s  Since sponsor teachers o f t e n  teaching units  the present arrangement  f i n d that  to teach reading they are l e s s w e l l vice versa.  a s s i g n reading and  for p r a c t i c e teaching  they w i l l  if  the  in f i r s t  year,  the s t u d e n t s are  under  prepared  prepared to teach language a r t s  Sponsor t e a c h e r s may f i n d t h i s  and  unsatisfactory.  Another area o f concern in p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g that concerns language arts  and reading has to do with the student t e a c h e r ' s  A number o f NITEP students are  likely  to have attended s c h o o l s where  were not exposed to a r i c h program o f c o n s i d e r themselves d e f i c i e n t  language background. they  language development and consequently  in such areas a s c h i l d r e n ' s  literature,  p a r t i c u l a r l y when they are p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g in s c h o o l s where the  children  have had a wide breadth o f e x p e r i e n c e . Although the Thomas and Mcintosh study d i d not make any recommendations c o n c e r n i n g E n g l i s h a n d / o r language a r t s evaluation  (wbrthen et  al.)  found t h a t s t u d e n t s and sponsor t e a c h e r s  cated concern about the speech and o r a l ably,  in student t e a c h i n g , the 1975  s k i l l s o f NITEP s t u d e n t s .  indi-  Presum-  the areas normally addressed in the F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n student  teaching  r e p o r t s - - a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s or oral  f l u e n c y and a b i l i t y  to p r o j e c t — w e r e  fact  that speech p a t t e r n s  quality of voice,  areas which l e d to t h i s concern  ( F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n , Form 3 2 3 , 1 9 7 9 ) . do with the  English,  How much o f t h i s  concern had t o  and b e h a v i o r s were d i f f e r e n t  those o f the teachers and students b e l o n g i n g to the m a j o r i t y how much had to do with a c t u a l to a s c e r t a i n .  problems in t h i s  N e v e r t h e l e s s , NITEP p r e s e n t l y  from  culture,  area would be  includes a c r e d i t  and  difficult speech a r t s  29 course f o r  first  o r second year students  in  its  program.  Summary  Given the demand f o r n a t i v e native ally  people  in t h e i r  to make a f r e e  choose"  (Sterling,  cultural  Indian e d u c a t i o n which w i l l identity,  while  choice "to a s s i m i l a t e , 1 9 7 5 , p.  preparing  integrate  support  them  intellectu-  or segregate  1 2 ) , the p l a n n i n g and development of  Indian teacher e d u c a t i o n programs  if  they  native  is understandably complex and  cha11eng i ng. The l i t e r a t u r e of n a t i v e generally  limited  information  Indian teacher e d u c a t i o n programs,  to d e s c r i p t i v e ,  the programs are  programs o f  relatively  s t u d i e s and ongoing e v a l u a t i o n .  new, understandably  with problems sometimes q u i t e teacher e d u c a t i o n , t h i s  a v a l u a b l e tool, f o r  concern f o r  the  s e n s i t i v e to  different  from the  E n g l i s h and language a r t s .  learner  and a l l  other  seems p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y attuned  outlined  in t h i s  Since external  main-stream  survey o f  the  Needs assessment with  participants  section of  this  literature,  review of  at  the  educational  problems  the same time e n a b l i n g  in the NITEP program.  the  in the program.  l i t e r a t u r e d e a l s with  process of needs assessment, and i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y E n g l i s h and language a r t s  in the  to the s i g n i f i c a n t  s p e c i f i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n of E n g l i s h and language a r t s The l a s t  arts,  r e s e a r c h e r sees needs assessment as  process,  of  little  s t u d y i n g the program from the p o i n t of view of  t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g its  r e p o r t s , and g i v i n g  about the t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g of E n g l i s h and language  supports a need f o r a n a l y t i c a l  criticism,  subjective  although  to the  the  consideration  30  Needs Assessment:  An I n v e s t i g a t i v e  Technique  C o n s i d e r i n g E n g l i s h and Language A r t s  for  in NITEP  Introduct ion  Needs assessment is a humanizing process to help make sure that we are using our time and the l e a r n e r ' s time in the most e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t manner p o s s i b l e . (Kaufman S E n g l i s h , 1 9 7 9 , p. 3 D This d e f i n i t i o n  of needs assessment must hold great  educators who are t r y i n g  to  educational  (Kaufman & E n g l i s h ,  attracted-to is s a i d to  undertakings  this particular result  improve, p l a n , change o r e v a l u a t e 1 9 7 9 , p.  31)-  needs, rather  (McNeil,  1 9 7 7 , p.  7**) •  than s c a t t e r i n g  development  (Bell,  groups (p.  in c u r r i c u l u m p l a n n i n g  Lin & Warthein,  a program  by the h u m a n i s t i c aspect  s u r p r i s i n g that educators have been e n t h u s i a s t i c about involved  identified  those who are concerned with  improve e d u c a t i o n f o r members of m i n o r i t y  they are  Some may be  resources throughout  Others may be a t t r a c t e d  of needs assessment, p a r t i c u l a r l y  whether  their  process by the c l a i m f o r e f f i c i e n c y which  from being a b l e to deploy resources to  critical  to  promise f o r  1 9 7 7 , p.  (p.  7**)the  efforts It  is not  technique,  9 0 ) , or  in program  3).  The Process of Needs Assessment  Although needs assessment is f r e q u e n t l y problems on a l a r g e s c a l e  (Bell  et  which can be used in p l a n n i n g f o r & Laosa,  1 9 7 5 , p-  26).  a l . , p.  22),  individual  Regardless of  used to c o n s i d e r s o c i e t a l it  is an a d a p t a b l e process  programs, o r courses  the s i z e of  (McNeil  the problem to be  c o n s i d e r e d , there  appears to be a b a s i c s t r u c t u r e t o needs assessment.  While the number and d e s c r i p t i o n o f steps in the process vary (Bell  et  al.,  1 9 7 7 ; C o f f i n g , 1 9 7 7 ; Kaufman S E n g l i s h ,  widely  1979; McNeil,  1977),  an overview o f a r t i c l e s by these proponents suggests the f o l l o w i n g s t e p s : 1.  The d e c i s i o n to conduct the needs assessment  2.  Identification  3-  Generation o r e l u c i d a t i o n o f goals and t h e i r  k.  D e f i n i t i o n o f needs  5.  Measurement o f  6.  I n t e r p r e t i n g and r e p o r t i n g the  7-  Implementation  The c r i t e r i a  of  participants priorities  priorities  of  results  recommendations and s o l u t i o n s  f o r success  in needs assessment ( C o f f i n g ,  1977)  relate  to the above and can i n c l u d e : 1.  Commitment to the process on the part o f those  2.  Identity of participants  and t h e i r  degree o f  involved  involvement  in  the  process 3.  Reliability,  k.  The degree to which the f i n d i n g s , recommendations and suggested  s o l u t i o n s are  validity  implemented  One reminder that  and u t i l i t y o f assessment o f needs  (Coffing,  1 9 7 7 ; Kaufman & E n g l i s h ,  1979).  runs through needs assessment l i t e r a t u r e  it  is meant to be "ongoing and c o n t i n u o u s " ("Taking  p.  7), justifying  the t i m e ,  attention  and expense that  and i n t e r n a l  that  a new l o o k , " 1 9 7 7 ,  Since the p a r t i c i p a n t s , g o a l s , needs o r the p r i o r i t i e s are s u b j e c t to many e x t e r n a l  is  it  involves.  assigned to  them  i n f l u e n c e s and c o n s e q u e n t l y ,  continuous change, assessment must be o n g o i n g .  32 Difficulties  While strategies 1 9 7 9 , pin the  in Needs Assessment  there has been a "widespread adoption of  and techniques over the past decade" (Kimpston & S t o c k t o n ,  1 6 ) , there are many u n r e s o l v e d  l i t e r a t u r e and in p r a c t i c e  the f a c t  issues c u r r e n t l y  (Monette,  1 9 7 7 , p.  ERIC d e s c r i p t o r s u n t i l  is l i t t l e  sense of a f i r m t h e o r e t i c a l  methodology  in the  more,  is a p h i l o s o p h i c a l  there  irreconcilable  1 9 7 7 , it, is not  literature  (Monette,  the  f o u n d a t i o n or  1977; G r i f f i t h s ,  technological  the use of  the f i n d i n g s of  Chow ( 1 9 7 6 ) ,  needs assessment in higher e d u c a t i o n .  instructional  development  of  the that  strong  1978).  Furthersome, an  and the " s o c i a l 1 9 7 7 , p-  the newness and q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g theory  a p p l i c a t i o n would e x p l a i n  In view  is f o r  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t " a s p e c t s of needs assessment ( M c N e i l , Certainly,  in  debated'  surprising  debate c e n t e r i n g on what  incongruence between  being  116).  that needs assessment d i d not appear as a t o p i c  Thesaurus of there  needs assessment  90).  and  in h i s study o f  He found that  agencies used i n f o r m a l ,  rather  than  formal  and s y s t e m a t i c needs assessment, because they were unable to overcome the o b s t a c l e s of  cost and c l i e n t  s t u d i e s which would e x p l o r e  simplified  He recommended f u t u r e  the u s e f u l n e s s o f needs assessment data  r e l a t i v e to the cost o f o b t a i n i n g demonstrate  reluctance.  same, as w e l l  needs assessment.  as s t u d i e s which would  Chow's work would seem to  support a study which would adopt the needs assessment f o r program development  in higher  education.  use  in  33 Adaptation  of.Needs Assessment  One of  the ongoing d i s c u s s i o n s  to do with the concept of need.  Although the d i s c r e p a n c y model o f  being the d i s c r e p a n c y between the used,  some c r i t i c s  t h i s model.  are very  Monette ( 1 9 7 7 )  In needs assessment l i t e r a t u r e has  ideal  skeptical speaks f o r  and the s t a t u s  about  quo—-is  need--  widely  needs assessment b u i l t on  them when he  writes:  The term need . . . always i m p l i e s , more or l e s s d i r e c t l y , some standard or valued s t a t e of a f f a i r s or c e r t a i n s o c i a l norms a g a i n s t which need is measured. Such standards are g e n e r a l l y taken f o r granted and l e f t unchallenged by need assessment p r o c e d u r e s . Needs assessment b a s i c a l l y favors 'adjustment . (p. 125) 1  In Monette's  view,  assumptions  needs assessment which does not q u e s t i o n  is an unacceptable  acceptance of  procedure.  standards or norms prevents  Interestingly,  Kaufman and E n g 1 i s h ,  needs assessment as a t e c h n o l o g i c a l  He argues  tool,  t h a t the  the uncovering of  foremost  of  basic  real  the w r i t e r s  agree that the  too  ready needs.  supporting  t r u e s t form of  needs assessment " a c c e p t s few g i v e n s " and "no sacred cows in terms personnel, history any p r e - c o n c e i v e d Cross  - o r even e x i s t i n g  ments can be very  useful  in c l o s e d systems where there  19)  as a f u l l y  Kaufman and E n g l i s h a l s o r e c o g n i z e  the  learner's  program components that w i l l  t a r g e t groups" (p.  policies,  require  are  without  intention.  He sees  meet the needs of  justified  use of  that pragmatic  involved,  but  of  set out  the  identified  needs assessment. considerations  the o r g a n i z a t i o n "  rather,  assess-  is a problem  needs assessments which do not q u e s t i o n  goals and o b j e c t i v e s  learners  5 6 ) , starting  hand, has suggested that needs  which may be i n t e r f e r i n g with the  frequently  (p.  notions.  ( 1 9 7 9 ) , on the o t h e r  "search for  laws"  of  (p.  "rules,  60) with which  to a s c e r t a i n  specified  34 needs which are deemed necessary to " a t t a i n This  is the  learner  v e r s i o n o f needs assessment which they  growth" call  (p.  the  238).  Beta-type  needs assessment. Although Kaufman and E n g l i s h repeatedly the  Beta-type  for  it  (p.  assessment, they n e v e r t h e l e s s  221).  For example,  an unusual o p p o r t u n i t y focus on p l a n n i n g . taking  part  In a d d i t i o n ,  group cohesiveness among  to t h i s  see the  for participants  in a B e t a - t y p e  The B e t a - t y p e  they  they  s t r e s s the narrowness c l a i m some s p e c i a l  values  process as one which  in an e d u c a t i o n a l  provides  program  suggest that the e x e r c i s e  assessment can r e s u l t  of  to  of  in the development  of  participants.  needs assessment (Kaufman,  study because i t  is " f o c u s i n g e x e r c i s e  1 9 7 7 , p. 60) f o r a more  lends  itself  rational  approach to p l a n n i n g " which promotes the development o f "a c o n s c i o u s and collective  group i d e n t i t y "  (Kaufman  Since "program-as-community" it  seems a p p r o p r i a t e  ment  S English,  1 9 7 9 , p.  221).  is valued in the NITEP  (Ohm, 1 9 7 8 , p.  to use a process such as the B e t a - t y p e  in c o n s i d e r i n g the  needs  problem o f E n g l i s h and the p o t e n t i a l  development w i t h i n the program.  Cross  ( 1 9 7 9 ) p o i n t s out  for  search f o r program components that w i l l target  g r o u p s , " may prove  contributions  to education  in the (p.  meet the needs o f  long run to "make more  19)  needs assessment d e s c r i b e d in the  Utility  is  (Coffing,  significant  1 9 7 7 , p.  final  forms  related  is not too narrow and s h o u l d prove- i n f o r m a t i v e recognized as the  the  Accordingly, this  focus on E n g l i s h competency and the program components development  its  identified  than o t h e r more ambitious literature.  assess-  t h a t needs  assessments that are designed to s o l v e problems, "moving toward  to  of  study's its  and u s e f u l .  t e s t o f s u c c e s s f u l needs assessment  1 8 3 ; Kaufman S E n g l i s h ,  1979, p p . 4 , 88).  If  13),  the  35 needs assessment r e s u l t s are assessment  useful  to the  d e c i s i o n makers, the needs  is c o n s i d e r e d worthwhi1e.  S umma ry  Needs assessment, best known as a useful long term e d u c a t i o n a l  technique  p l a n n i n g , can play an e f f e c t i v e  in l a r g e  role  s p e c i f i c concerns such as the E n g l i s h and language a r t s ongoing program such as NITEP. literature,  is adaptable  p r o v i d i n g that  it  for  The b a s i c t e c h n i q u e ,  use in a v a r i e t y  meets c e r t a i n  criteria,  Because needs assessment is several  issues concerning its  t h a t there  theory  is no f i r m d i r e c t i o n  ing an e d u c a t i o n a l  problem.  relatively  in c o n s i d e r i n g  components in an  as o u t l i n e d  of educational  particularly  in  that o f  utility.  new, and i n c r e a s i n g l y  f o r those adopting t h i s  popular,  T h i s means  method o f  the B e t a - t y p e  the  situations  and a p p l i c a t i o n e x i s t .  Despite t h i s ,  scale,  study-  needs assessment,  a form o f needs assessment e s p e c i a l l y adapted to be used in ongoing programs, p r o v i d e s a model which g i v e s s u f f i c i e n t credibility  in a study such as  Chapter 3 w i l l  direction  to  ensure  this.  d e s c r i b e the design and methodology o f a  Beta-type  needs assessment used to c o n s i d e r program components in NITEP with particular  regard to E n g l i s h competency and the p o t e n t i a l  development.  for  its  36  CHAPTER 3 DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY  The needs assessment process to be u t i l i z e d s y n t h e s i s o f the d i r e c t i o n s (Coffing,  study  p r o v i d e d in two models from the  1 9 7 7 , pp. 1 8 9 - 1 9 0 ;  The process i n c l u d e s the  in t h i s  Kaufman & E n g l i s h , 1 9 7 9 , pp.  following  five  1.  D e c i s i o n and p l a n n i n g  2.  Identification of  3-  D e f i n i n g the  k.  Measuring the p r i o r i t i e s  5.  I n t e r p r e t i n g and r e p o r t i n g  is a  literature  202-203).  stages:  participants  needs o f needs the  information  D e c i s i o n and Planning  The i n i t i a l  proposal  to conduct a needs assessment w i t h i n NITEP was  sent to the program's A d v i s o r y Committee The proposal was d i s c u s s e d at Committee. instructors, their  S i n c e the  o f the  include:  initial (a)  participant  o f the b a s i c premise by r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s  o f the  acceptance o f the needs a s s e s s o r in that The approval  approved by  the  community  as d e c i s i o n making u n i v e r s i t y  in f u l f i l l i n g  These c r i t e r i a  premise by r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s  and then  1979 (Appendix A ) .  included students, native  as well  acceptance was c r i t i c a l  needs assessment.  some length  Committee  and t e a c h e r s  in November,  o f the A d v i s o r y Committee  role  criteria  personnel,  for successful  the acceptance o f  groups,  (b)  the  the  basic  acceptance  d e c i s i o n makers, and (Coffing,  members,  1 9 7 7 , pp.  (c)  186-187).  p r o v i d e d the necessary a c c e p t a n c e .  37 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of  Participants  The t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n f o r a needs assessment i n c l u d e s those identified  as p a r t n e r s  in the e d u c a t i o n a l  enterprise  l e a r n e r s , e d u c a t o r s , and community members Although the  initial  proprosal  a somewhat broader p o p u l a t i o n , Indian e d u c a t i o n a l  study  i n c l u d i n g members of  the g r e a t e r  continued to be i n v o l v e d  university  The A d v i s o r y Committee  (see Appendix B f o r an  groups had been  In h i s work d e v e l o p i n g a conceptual  identified,  it  that "the  framework  (p.  separately  became  "important 1 9 7 8 , p.  7).  tendency o f needs a s s e s s o r s has been identified  and  c o n s i d e r the needs of s p e c i f i c subgroups"  7). For the purpose of t h i s  of  reports  f o r needs assessment,  not to be s p e c i f i c enough about whose needs are being a n a l y z e d , and to not  the  example).  to be very c l e a r about whose needs were of c o n c e r n " ( L e n n i n g ,  Lenning makes the p o i n t  it  Committee, and through progress  which were c a l l e d f o r p e r i o d i c a l l y Once the p a r t n e r  native  directly  in the process through those members of  groups who served on the  187) -  c o n s t r a i n t s made  sponsor t e a c h e r s , c o l l e g e and  students and program s t a f f .  p.  (Appendix A) e n v i s i o n e d  the p o p u l a t i o n to those groups most  i n v o l v e d with the program:  partner  this  (Kaufman & E n g l i s h ,  community, time and f i n a n c i a l  necessary to r e s t r i c t  instructors,  for  under s t u d y :  the NITEP s t u d e n t s .  students  s t u d y , needs to be c o n s i d e r e d were those  S i n c e the s t r u c t u r e of  i n t o two subgroups, those f i r s t  the program d i v i d e s  and second year students  in an e x t e n s i v e student t e a c h i n g p r o c e s s , and the t h i r d students who are p r i m a r i l y apparent  concerned with academic work,  and f o u r t h it  involved year  became  that the needs of the two groups would lend themselves to being  considered separately.  This  is not to suggest that j u n i o r  not concerned about academic m a t t e r s ,  nor  students are not concerned with student an a r b i t r a r y program.  is  since it  to suggest that  teaching.  d i v i s i o n based on the present  Furthermore,  it  It  s t r u c t u r e of the  unrecognized subgroups in the program e x i s t s - - f o r  much r e l e v a n t subsequently  senior  represents NITEP  significant  example,  are  but  students  would be necessary to gather  personal background i n f o r m a t i o n identify  merely  is p o s s i b l e that o t h e r  having E n g l i s h as a second l a n g u a g e — i t  students  as p o s s i b l e in order  as  to  other subgroups.  D e f i n i n g the Needs  The primary  task  in needs assessment is the  o r the development of a need model  (Bell,  A c c e p t i n g the premise that an e d u c a t i o n a l  identification  Lin & Warheit,  1 9 7 7 , p.  is and what ought to be (Knowles,  p.  r e s e a r c h e r undertook a s e r i e s o f u n s t r u c t u r e d  with members of the p a r t n e r was g e n e r a l l y  groups in o r d e r  suggested by the m a j o r i t y  of  and w r i t t e n E n g l i s h ' n o r m a l l y '  in the t e a c h i n g p r o f e s s i o n .  those  students,  s t r e s s e d that  expected at  Most of those  'lower'  or  1 9 7 7 , p.  to gather  'ought to be' was that students should e x h i b i t oral  need, *0 •  need is the d i s c r e p a n c y  between what 7**), t h i s  of  their  interviewed  the l e v e l  of  interviews views.  It  that what facility  the u n i v e r s i t y  interviewed,  'different'  8 6 ; McNeil, 1977,  level  in and  including  standards would be  unacceptab1e. D i s c u s s i o n concerning what  i s - - t h e general  level  E n g l i s h d i s p l a y e d by NITEP students — uncovered f a r the p a r t i c i p a n t s .  Although no one claimed that a l l  of competence  in  l e s s concensus among NITEP students were  39 at a s a t i s f a c t o r y suggested that  l e v e l o f competency, some i n s t r u c t o r s  in t h i s  r e s p e c t the NITEP students d i d not d i f f e r  o t h e r students they had taught Others expressed the b e l i e f and s e r i o u s d e f i c i e n c i e s  quality  from  in c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y programs.  that some NITEP students had more deep seated  in t h e i r  Eng1ish background than would normally  by expected of u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s . range of  interviewed  The concerns mentioned—a whole  language c o m p e t e n c i e s — i n c l u d e d v o c a b u l a r y development, v o i c e and p r o j e c t i o n , essay w r i t i n g and many o t h e r a s p e c t s of o r a l  w r i t t e n language.  In a d d i t i o n , some of  those interviewed  q u e s t i o n o f a few s t u d e n t s whose d i f f i c u l t i e s  raised  assessment,  the  might have more to do w i t h  inadequate concept development and background f o r a b s t r a c t S i n c e the q u e s t i o n f a l l s  and  thought.  o u t s i d e the parameters o f the proposed needs  t h i s area of concern was not a c t i v e l y  pursued by t h i s  researcher. As a r e s u l t of  the  i n t e r v i e w s with p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  the problem became  to d e s c r i b e the recommended l e v e l o f competency in s u f f i c i e n t encompass those areas  identified  detail  to  as c o n c e r n s , and then to ensure that  p a r t i c i p a n t s would have an o p p o r t u n i t y  to express themselves  all  in a way  which c o u l d be q u a n t i f i e d and d i s c u s s e d . Planning the  instruments.  using s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s in E n g l i s h . validity  C o n s i d e r a t i o n was given at  to gather  time to  data c o n c e r n i n g s t u d e n t s ' competency  Kaufman ( 1 9 7 9 ) p o i n t s out that such data would  of a program needs assessment (pp.  295 304). _  limitations  of such t e s t i n g , such as the d i f f i c u l t i e s  right  tests  ( N . C . T . E . , 1 9 7 6 , p.  cost,  d i d not permit  this  this  2 7 ) , and c o n s t r a i n t s  kind of measurement.  improve  Unfortunately, of  finding  the the  the  imposed by time and  Eyentually, out  s i n c e the p a r t i c i p a n t s  in NITEP would be spread  the p r o v i n c e during the time allowed  taken to use a m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e  for  for  the s t u d y ,  the d e c i s i o n was  data c o l l e c t i o n .  Although  can be s e r i o u s problems with a mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e - - c h i e f l y non-response l e a d i n g inability  device"  it  reports  can be a "most a p p r o p r i a t e  ( 1 9 7 7 , p.  The f i r s t  issue,  that there  ( 1 9 7 8 , p.  is support  rather  between  99)-  low,  He f u r t h e r  data  gathering  (1978).  in the r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e f o r identity,  demonstrate  such as the minimal  states  that  if  the  representative  if  convergence e x i s t s ,  groups f o r  a l l o w "a h i g h e r  which tend to be supported.',  1  groups — sponsor teachers instructors; junior  comparisons between  two groups  "response respondents"  intensity  convergence of o p i n i o n ,  dichotomies  in the  NITEP c o l l e g e and  students and s e n i o r s t u d e n t s — a 11 ow f o r in any one c a t e g o r y .  from one d i s t r i c t  sponsor teachers  from a second d i s t r i c t  For example,  had a very  low response  rate, if  their  similar.  instruments.  mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e  if  had a very high response r a t e and  i t would be p o s s i b l e to make c o n c l u s i o n s with high p r o b a b i l i t y  D e v i s i n g the  will,  of making c o n c l u s i o n s  from two school d i s t r i c t s ;  sponsor teachers  compared responses were  notion  response i s expected t o be  probability  The n a t u r a l  He  participant  having more than one group and then comparing the  responses of  university  and u s e f u l  r e s p o n d e n t s , non-respondents and l a t e  of  partner  the  397)--Best  n o n - r e s p o n s e , is d i s c u s s e d by O r l i c h  in the NITEP program, w i l l  differences  to  158).  that p o p u l a t i o n s with a common group groups  1 9 6 6 , p.  there  related  to b i a s e d samples, and to a l e s s e r d e g r e e ,  to check responses ( K e r l i n g e r ,  points out,  through-  The d e c i s i o n to c o l l e c t  necessitated further  data  c o n s i d e r a t i o n of  through a  this  study's  41  objectives. students'  To answer the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g concerns about  language use and t e a c h i n g c o m p e t e n c i e s , and to c o l l e c t  r e g a r d i n g the program's p o t e n t i a l i m p l i e d a lengthy and d e t a i l e d detailed (Best,  f o r d e v e l o p i n g Eng1ish competency,  questionnaire.  questionnaires "frequently  1 9 7 7 , p-  166),  brevity  Using the c r i t e r i a  find their  Because lengthy and way  i n t o the  and c o n c i s e n e s s became of b r e v i t y  wastebasket"  important.  and c o n c i s e n e s s ,  d i f f e r e n t models  of E n g l i s h competency were examined and a s s e s s e d as to t h e i r ness and  data  appropriate-  suitability.  For example, a f a i r l y p u b l i c school a s p e c t s of  typical  c u r r i c u l a r model developed by a  system f o r a language  improvement  language breaking down i n t o  a manageable number.  program l i s t e d  185 s k i l l s  (BUILD,  Another model developed by P e t t y ,  and Skeen ( 1 9 7 7 ) , appeared b r i e f  and c o n c i s e but  in f a c t  six  1977),  Petty,  major  hardly  Newman  1 i.sted competen-  c i e s so complex that c o n s i d e r a b l e a n a l y s i s would have been necessary to reach the stage o f s p e c i f i c i t y necessary f o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e  development.  The problem o f d e s c r i b i n g E n g l i s h competency—what ought to b e ,  in  the  needs assessment process—was addressed in a more c o n c i s e manner by researchers  responsible for  the B r i t i s h Columbia assessment of  e x p r e s s i o n (Conry & Rodgers, 1 9 7 8 ) . seventy-four  Their  forms o f w r i t i n g " l i k e l y  have completed grade twelve" (Summary, forty-three s k i l l competent w r i t i n g "  written  r e s e a r c h team a n a l y z e d  to be met by average a d u l t s who 1 9 7 8 , p.  1 3 ) , and then  isolated  areas which grouped i n t o s i x "component a b i l i t i e s (Summary,  S i n c e t h i s model o f  1 9 7 8 , p.  in  16).  language d e s c r i p t i o n r e f l e c t e d  in w r i t t e n language expected o f grade twelve g r a d u a t e s , provide a s u i t a b l e baseline for  the  the competencies it  seemed to  d e s c r i b i n g the competencies in w r i t t e n  hi  e x p r e s s i o n expected of u n i v e r s i t y brevity  undergraduates.  and c o n c i s e n e s s , and the f a c t  in b e h a v i o r a l  terms, adds to  Validity  is present  i t was g a t h e r e d ,  (Coffing, greatly  1977).  d e s c r i b e d language b e h a v i o r  in needs assessment when those the  and then use i t  information  to  implement  terms and t h e r e  are a b l e to  is l i t t l e  (1977,  Further  p.  as  necessary change for v a l i d i t y  identify  their  is  needs  chance f o r " l o s s of meaning  the t r a n s m i s s i o n o f needs" between the p a r t i c i p a n t makers  identified  and the process by  A c c o r d i n g to C o f f i n g , the o p p o r t u n i t y  improved when the p a r t i c i p a n t s  in b e h a v i o r a l  it  its  its usefulness.  d e c i s i o n makers are a b l e to e v a l u a t e which  that  Furthermore,  in  groups and the d e c i s i o n  188).  c o n s i d e r a t i o n suggested t h a t the model p r o v i d e d  in  Conry and Rodgers study c o u l d be adapted to d e s c r i b e not o n l y competency expected o f u n i v e r s i t y  students  in the a r e a o f  language, but a l s o to d e s c r i b e a s p e c t s of competency expected o f student  teachers.  It  that the Conry and Rodgers model c o u l d a l s o be u s e f u l d e s c r i p t i o n of competency in o r a l o t h e r assessments which  written  to t h i s  language researcher  in c r e a t i n g a  language f o r both g r o u p s .  i n c l u d e d an o r a l  the  in w r i t t e n  soon became apparent  the  A review  language component such as  Assess ing pupi1 progress ( 1 9 7 6 ) ; and Language, B . C . ( 1 9 7 6 ) ; as w e l l study of a model developed by P e t t y , provided further of teachers  direction.  inclusion  Petty,  The g u i d e , A statement  and w r i t t e n  prepared f o r  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  on the  in t h i s  preparation  development.  language competency s e l e c t e d  in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e are shown in Tables  d e s c r i b i n g the v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f o r a l  as  Newman and Skeen ( 1 9 7 7 ) ,  ( N . C . T . E . , 1 9 7 6 ) , was a l s o h e l p f u l  r e s u l t i n g a s p e c t s of o r a l  of  1 and 2 .  I terns  and w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n were  (see F i g u r e s ! , 2 , 3 and  h).  The for  A3 Table 1 Aspects of Language Related to Academic Student Oral Quality  b.  Interpersonal  W r i t t e n Language  and use of v o i c e communication  behav i o r c.  Role  language  a.  Sensitivity  the  a.  Conventions of  b.  B a s i c d e s c r i p t i o n and r e c o r d i n g  c.  Sensitivity  to words and a r r a n g e -  ments of words d.  A p p r o p r i a t e usage and  dialect  e.  Listening  f.  A c h i e v i n g s p e a k e r ' s purpose  format  to words and word  sequences d.  Response to  experience  e.  A c h i e v i n g the w r i t e r ' s  purpose:  e x p o s i t i o n and argument  capabilities f.  A c h i e v i n g the w r i t e r ' s narration  and  purpose  characterization  Table 2 Aspects of Language Related  to  Student Teaching Performance Oral  language  a.  Quality  b.  Interpersonal  W r i t t e n Language  and use o f v o i c e communication  behavior c.  Sensitivity  to words and a r r a n g e -  ments of words d.  A p p r o p r i a t e usage and  dialect  e.  Listening  f.  A c h i e v i n g s p e a k e r ' s purpose  capabilities  a.  Conventions of  b.  B a s i c d e s c r i p t i o n and r e c o r d i n g  c.  Sensitivity sequences  format  to words and word  A.  Q u a l i t y and use of vo i ce  Interpersonal communication . . . behav tor  S e n s i t i v i t y to words and arrangements o f words  E.  F.  1 . Speaks d i s t i n c t l y ,  articulates  sound c l e a r l y  2.  Projects voice e f f e c t i v e l y  3.  Speaks without undue extraneous e x p r e s s i o n s such a  k. 5.  Takes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as a member of group d i s c u s s i o n .. , , , , uses conventional nonverbal behavior  6.  C o n f i d e n t l y expresses d i v e r g e n t  7.  Uses wide ranging vocabulary  8.  Shows awareness of f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s  9.  Uses e f f e c t i v e  r  r e l a t i v e to audience s i z e  in meaning  imagery  Demonstrates c o n t r o l of  11.  Uses l e v e l of language a p p r o p r i a t e g i v i n g , d i s c u s s i n g , debating  Listening capab i 1 i t i es  12.  L i s t e n s a t t e n t i v e l y with comprehension  13.  Questions p e r c e p t i v e l y  14.  Expresses and supports o p i n i o n s reasonably  15.  Reports main ideas with s u f f i c i e n t  16.  Organizes ideas  Aspects of o r a l  'er'  opinion  10.  F i g u r e 1.  and  t  A p p r o p r i a t e usage and d i a l e c t  Achieves speaker's pu rpose  'uh  expression related  standard E n g l i s h usage  in order  to s i t u a t i o n ;  e.g.,  report  to understand  detail  in a coherent manner  to student  performance  in u n i v e r s i t y  coursework.  A.  Conventions of  format  B.  B a s i c d e s c r i p t i o n and record i ng  1 . S p e l l s , punctuates, c a p i t a l i z e s c o r r e c t l y 2. Uses q u o t a t i o n marks and a s s o c i a t e d punctuation c o r r e c t l y Proofreads e f f e c t i v e l y 3. 4. Uses c o r r e c t mechanics of b i b l i o g r a p h i e s , c i t a t i o n s and f o o t n o t e s  5. 6.  C.  Sensitivity  to words  7.  8. q. 10. 11.  D.  Response to  experience  12,  13. 14.  E.  A c h i e v i n g the w r i t e r ' s purpose: e x p o s i t i o n and argument  F i g u r e 2.  Uses v a r i e t y in sentence length Uses imagery e f f e c t i v e l y S e l e c t s words to r e i n f o r c e a s p e c i f i c mood or impression Shows awareness of f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s in word meanings Understands and uses grammatical terms in d i s c u s s i n g w r i t i n g  Expresses own v o i c e e f f e c t i v e l y Shows f l u e n c y in ideas and a s s o c i a t i o n s Responds to readings with p e r c e p t i o n  20. 21.  22. 23. 24.  D i s p l a y s coherence and u n i t y of tone and impressionOrganizes events in a p l a u s i b l e sequence Conveys p e r s o n a l i t y through s e l e c t e d d e t a i l  17. 19.  A c h i e v i n g the w r i t e r ' s purpose: n a r r a t i o n and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n  brief  D i s t i n g u i s h e s between e s s e n t i a l and p e r i p h e r a l d e t a i l Focuses on one t o p i c or event A d j u s t s tone to audience E l a b o r a t e s an o p i n i o n , makes a judgment S e l e c t s d e t a i l to support a viewpoint Summarizes and paraphrases Organizes complex e s s a y s / r e p o r t s ; uses c o n n e c t i v e s , t r a n s i t i o n s  15. 16. 18.  F.  Gives b a s i c information c l e a r l y , e . g . , answering q u e s t i o n s , reports D e s c r i b e s p e o p l e , t h i n g s with s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l  Aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n r e l a t e d to student performance in u n i v e r s i t y coursework (Adapted from B r i t i s h Columbia assessment of w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n by R. Conry and D. Rodgers, 1978).  U1  A.  Qua 1i ty and use of vo i ce  B.  C.  1nterpersona1 communication behav ior  S e n s i t i v t y to use of words, and a r r a n g e ment of words  1 . Speaks d i s t i n c t l y ,  A p p r o p r i a t e usage and d i a l e c t  sounds c l e a r l y  2.  Projects voice s u f f i c i e n t l y  3-  Uses v o i c e e f f e c t i v e l y in v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s giving directions, etc.  4.  Uses conventional  5.  Recognizes need of a l l o t h e r s ' ideas  6.  Uses language with c o n f i d e n c e  7-  Uses  8.  Rephrases  interesting,  nonverbal  f o r classroom needs  behavior  such as s t o r y  telling,  effectively  c h i l d r e n to be heard; modesl r e s p e c t  varied  information  for  vocabulary  in v a r i e t y of ways whenever necessary  Q j • Demonstrates c o n t r o l of rhythm and rhyme; e . g . , p o e t r y , exercises,  D.  articulates  rhyming  etc.  10.  Demonstrates adequate c o n t r o l of standard E n g l i s h usage  11.  Recognizes d i a l e c t a l d i f f e r e n c e s in o t h e r s ' stands c h i l d r e n s language use  language; e . g . ,  under-  1  E.  F.  Listening  Achieving  capabilities  speaker's  purpose  F i g u r e 3-  Aspects of o r a l  12.  Chooses l e v e l  of  language a p p r o p r i a t e  13.  I d e n t i f i e s and d i s c r i m i n a t e s a l l  14.  Listens attentively,  15.  Uses language to set a scene, c r e a t e a mood  16.  Uses language e f f e c t i v e l y pup i 1 s  e x p r e s s i o n r e l a t e d to student  to  situation  speech sounds (as  in phonics)  responds a p p r o p r i a t e l y  to maximize p o s i t i v e  teaching  performance.  interaction  with  the  A.  B.  C.  Conventions of  format  B a s i c d e s c r i p t i o n and record i ng  S e n s i t i v i t y to words and word sequences  F i g u r e k.  1.  Spel1s cor r e c t i y  2.  Uses c o r r e c t punctuation and  3.  Proofreads  *t.  Uses common a b b r e v i a t i o n s  5.  Gives simple d i r e c t i o n s  6.  Uses t e r s e , t e l e g r a p h i c s t y l e e f f e c t i v e l y where s u i t a b l e  7.  Shows awareness of f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s  in word meanings  8.  Uses grammatical  in t a l k i n g about w r i t i n g  capitalization  effectively  Aspects of w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n r e l a t e d  correctly  clearly  terms a p p r o p r i a t e l y  to student  f o r chalkboard notes  teaching performance.  .c-  48 Measuring t h e P r i o r i t i e s  An important ease with which the  researcher  o f Needs  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f good q u e s t i o n n a i r e  design is the  i t can be completed by the respondent and t a b u l a t e d by (Best,  1977, p p . 166-167)-  One way t o accomplish t h i s  is to have respondents assess needs and a s s i g n p r i o r i t i e s one s t e p .  Therefore,  a summated three  point  rating  t o them in  s c a l e was adopted.  It was p o s t u l a t e d that such a s c a l e would be a c c e p t a b l e s i n c e items were being t r e a t e d as though o f equal  value,  and t h a t s u f f i c i e n t  o f o p i n i o n was p e r m i t t e d with the f o l l o w i n g  categories:  diversity  satisfactory or  b e t t e r ; needs some improvement; needs c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement. the necessary f e a t u r e s allowance  o f items being t r e a t e d as o f equal  in b e h a v i o r a l  In o r d e r to overcome the e r r o r o f c e n t r a l appears when r a t e r s  are not f a m i l i a r  recommends a l l o w i n g  f o r greater  raters  v a l u e , and  f o r d i v e r s i t y o f o p i n i o n , K e r l i n g e r says that the summated  r a t i n g s c a l e i s " t h e most u s e f u l  allowed  Given  in q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . know the s u b j e c t  tendency which  with the s u b j e c t  variance  However,  research"  (1966, p. 487). typically  under s t u d y , he  in response than sometimes  in t h i s  s t u d y , the degree t o which  s h o u l d overcome any such tendency  (Kerlinger,  1966, p. 517). To accommodate the v a r i o u s aspects o f language major areas o f student different written third the  life,  student  t e a c h i n g and academic coursework,  v e r s i o n s o f two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were p r e p a r e d . in the f i r s t  person f o r j u n i o r  f o r sponsor t e a c h e r s .  The f i r s t ,  person f o r s e n i o r s t u d e n t s , was r e w r i t t e n  person f o r i n s t r u c t o r s and program s t a f f .  first  i n v o l v e d in the two  The s e c o n d , w r i t t e n in  s t u d e n t s , was r e w r i t t e n  Instructions  in the  in the t h i r d  person  f o r each s e c t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ,  invitations  to make comments, and ample space to do s o , as well  as  the  q u e s t i o n s needed to a s c e r t a i n demographic, p r o f e s s i o n a l and personal i n f o r m a t i o n , were added.  Care was t a k e n ,  through the  p r o v i s i o n o f an  i n t r o d u c t i o n to each s e c t i o n , to develop a context w i t h i n which pants c o u l d respond to the v a r i o u s q u e s t i o n s . q u e s t i o n n a i r e s by E n g l i s h e d u c a t i o n and two f i r s t terms.  members, graduate  the  students  year A r t s s t u d e n t s , minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s were made in  The f i n a l  p r i o r to m a i l i n g .  be the "most  c o p i e s were typed and the m a t e r i a l s  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  A d m i n i s t e r i n g the  the  important  was c a r e f u l l y  S i n c e the  single factor  in determining  designed to e x p l a i n  the need f o r the The l e t t e r s  were sent to the school  districts  connected with the  an important  factor  1 9 7 9 , p.  first  and the time c o n s t r a i n t s .  letterhead  and i n c l u d e d the name o f letters  and  their  (Appendix E ) .  participants  in the middle o f J u n e ,  addressed e n v e l o p e s , a procedure o f t e n  c i t e d as  in g a i n i n g response to a mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s not yet (Appendix D).  in the study  follow-up  study,  s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s o f the two school  3 0 3 ; B e s t , 1 9 7 7 , p-  mailing,  of  3 0 2 ) , each  program r e q u e s t i n g p e r m i s s i o n f o r  m a i l i n g s to a l l  i n c l u d e d stamped return  percentage  1 9 7 9 , p-  P r i o r to any m a i l i n g s ,  materials  The o r i g i n a l  the  may  the purpose and importance o f the  were typed on u n i v e r s i t y  teachers to p a r t i c i p a t e  l e t t e r of transmittal  (Borg & G a l l ,  respondent's p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,  a f a c u l t y member (Appendix D).  photocopied  can be seen in Appendix C.  instruments.  responses" to a mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e  the  F o l l o w i n g review o f  Most commonly t h i s was the a d d i t i o n o f a few more words o f  description.  & Gall,  faculty  partici-  168).  Approximately  post cards r e q u e s t i n g the  r e c e i v e d were sent to  ten days a f t e r  return o f  instructors  (Borg  those  and students  S i n c e sponsor teachers were no longer a v a i l a b l e  at  their  schools,  and home addresses were unknown, n o t h i n g f u r t h e r  to o b t a i n t h e i r  participation.  In m i d - J u l y the needs a s s e s s o r was  notified  that c e r t a i n students had moved and had not  naires.  D u p l i c a t e m a t e r i a l s were sent to those students  addresses were Further  received questionf o r whom new  available.  discussion,  in the NITEP, w i l l  appear  s p e c i f i c to measuring the p r i o r i t i e s in  o f needs  Chapter.k.  I n t e r p r e t i n g and Reporting the  The four  c o u l d be done  Information  instruments were coded in o r d e r that the data c o u l d be  t r a n s c r i b e d onto cards f o r p r o c e s s i n g in the Michigan Terminal the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia computing c e n t r e . and k i n d o f would be the  responses to important  the S t a t i s t i c a l  cies,  relative  arithmetic  o f those  a n a l y s i s , the c o n s u l t a n t s t a t i s t i c i a n (Kita,  1978)  as the b a s i c  f r e q u e n c i e s , a d j u s t e d f r e q u e n c i e s , cumulative  means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s  f o r al1  In a d d i t i o n , s i n c e i t was l i k e l y  would be able to  respond to every  program which would allow f o r a l l  item,  frequen-  items on the  that not a l l  respondents  computations to be based o n l y on the  r e p o r t i n g o f the needs assessment data w i l l  occur  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n and in Chapter 5.  Chapter 3 has d e s c r i b e d the design and methodology the needs assessment process in m o t i o n . administration,  fre-  i t was necessary to d e v i s e a  number o f coded responses f o r each item.  instruments, t h e i r  items  recommended  Programs were d e v i s e d which would produce  questionnaires.  actual  S i n c e the number  items and the p r i o r i t y  package f o r s o c i a l s c i e n c e s  source f o r programming. quencies,  individual  System at  r e q u i r e d to  set  The development o f the s t u d y ' s  and the plans f o r data a n a l y s i s have  been d e s c r i b e d .  Criteria  have a l s o been d i s c u s s e d . a n a l y s i s o f the d a t a , o r ,  f o r m o n i t o r i n g the needs assessment process Chapter k w i l l  present the treatment and  in needs assessment t e r m i n o l o g y , w i l l  the needs and d i s c u s s the p r i o r i t i e s  o f those n e e d s .  describe  52  CHAPTER k ANALYSIS OF THE DATA  The purpose o f t h i s the p o t e n t i a l  for  its  assessment p r o c e s s .  study was to c o n s i d e r E n g l i s h competency and  development  in NITEP, through the  As part o f t h i s  p r o c e s s , q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were developed  and mailed to people who had been i d e n t i f i e d in any year s i n c e 1 9 7 7 sponsor teachers established; taught  The p a r t i c i p a n t  from two school  use o f the needs  as p a r t i c i p a n t s  groups  in the  program  in the survey i n c l u d e d :  d i s t r i c t s where NITEP centers had been  c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y  i n s t r u c t o r s o r program s t a f f  s t u d e n t s ; and s e n i o r and j u n i o r  who had  students who were r e g i s t e r e d  in  the  program in September, 1 9 8 0 . In t h i s  chapter the  data  f o l l o w i n g the sequence o f the to a d d r e s s . language  In a d d i t i o n  from the mail  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s are  presented  research q u e s t i o n s which they were designed  to the d a t a ,  tables o u t l i n i n g  the aspects o f  i n v o l v e d in each q u e s t i o n , and d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the  participant  groups who responded to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , are p r o v i d e d .  Treatment  o f the  Questionnaires  Returned q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were marked with the date o f d e l i v e r y it  became necessary to study l a t e  were then coded and the and computer f i l e s . c o u n t s , number o f  respondents as a s e p a r a t e  information  transferred  group.  in case They  to data p r o c e s s i n g cards  Computer programs were run to e s t a b l i s h  r e s p o n s e s , means and standard d e v i a t i o n s  frequency  f o r each  item.  53 Secondary programs were run on the student data E n g l i s h as a second language  in o r d e r to c o n s i d e r the  variable.  Response to the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  The use o f mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s of  return.  Although Borg and G a l l  i s necessary f o r v a l i d i t y  r a i s e d the  (1979,  p.  issue o f a c c e p t a b l e  377) argue t h a t an 80% return  when using a m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  r e p o r t i n g on a survey o f the  literature  rates  relevant  to the  Curtis  issue,  (1978),  wrote:  There would appear to be no concensus among those who have d i s c u s s e d mail survey in the l i t e r a t u r e about what p e r c e n t age o f returns are necessary f o r a v a l i d a n a l y s i s . (p. 369) He p o i n t s out that s e v e r a l going as low as 9 . 6 5 % , Phillips  p u b l i s h e d s t u d i e s have ranged w e l l  and c i t e s a v a r i e t y  of studies  below 50%,  i n c l u d i n g both  ( 1 9 ^ 1 ) and Babbie ( 1 9 7 3 ) who argue that 50% return  is  sufficient  f o r g e n e r a l i z i n g about a p o p u l a t i o n . As p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d in Chapter 3 , o t h e r that when p a r t i c i p a n t  r e s e a r c h e r s have found  groups have a common purpose o r some k i n d o f  ment to an u n d e r t a k i n g , no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s respondents, non-respondents o r l a t e participants  commit-  are found between  respondents ( O r l i c h ,  1978).  Since  in NITEP would seem to have such a common purpose and commit-  ment—Thomas and Mcintosh a l l u d e d to t h i s  in t h e i r  be argued that a response f a l l i n g below the  ideal  1977 s t u d y — i t of  could  80% o r b e t t e r would  be a c c e p t a b l e . The o v e r a l l  response rate  f a l l i n g below a 50% return  in t h i s  study was 6 9 - 3 % , with no group  (see T a b l e E , Appendix F ) .  It  is  interesting  to note that the f i g u r e s move from a low o f 53% f o r one group o f teachers who d i d not  r e c e i v e the q u e s t i o n n a i r e u n t i l  sponsor  the middle o f J u n e ,  5k to a high o f 90% f o r a group  and who c o u l d not be c o n t a c t e d t h e r e a f t e r , of  students  to whom f o l l o w - u p  Un i v e r s i t y  Characteristics of  post cards c o u l d be s e n t .  Coursework Quest ionnai re  instructors  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were sent to a l l lists  responding to the  i n s t r u c t o r s whose names appeared on 1977  c o v e r i n g the p e r i o d September,  seven c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y  instructor's The f i r s t  returned  information  involvement with NITEP  1979-  to September,  instructors  Eight q u e s t i o n s asked f o r  questionnaire.  usable  staff  Twenty-  questionnaires.  c o n c e r n i n g the nature  of  the  (Table A , Appendix F ) .  two q u e s t i o n s asked i n s t r u c t o r s  to  respond to t h r e e o p t i o n s  d e s c r i b i n g the courses which they had taught to NITEP s t u d e n t s .  Five  instructors  course  i n d i c a t e d that they had taught more than one k i n d o f  to NITEP s t u d e n t s .  Four o f the  had taught n o n - c r e d i t  courses in a d d i t i o n  i n s t r u c t o r had taught an a r t s Questions t h r e e , amount o f e x p e r i e n c e  four, that  particularly  interested  and e i g h t  instructors  majority of  c o u r s e s , w h i l e one  as a n o n - c r e d i t  identify  course.  had to do with the k i n d and  had had with the NITEP. those  in E n g l i s h .  Questions  i n s t r u c t o r s who might,  The m a j o r i t y o f  characterized  their  and w r i t t e n E n g l i s h ; o n l y f o u r  courses as not  to education  question  by  t e a c h i n g assignment o r p r o f e s s i o n a l background, be  ing to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e in o r a l ,  responding t o the  course as well  five  s i x and seven were intended to reason o f t h e i r  instructors  particularly  instructors  demanding  identified  their  courses as being  instructors  in o r a l  instructors  described  demanding their  or w r i t t e n E n g l i s h .  professional  respond-  The  responsibility  as  55 i n c l u d i n g the t e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h . o r as h a v i n g , teaching of  Questions to e l i c i t  questionnaires  (Appendix C ) .  q u e s t i o n s appear  information  the b e g i n n i n g o f t h e i r  The data c o l l e c t e d in  s e n i o r students  questionnaire. from both  junior  respective  response to  those  f o r whom addresses were a v a i l a b l e  whom q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were m a i l e d , e i g h t Seven o f the e i g h t  respondents  returned  identified  and t o  usable forms f o r a n a l y s i s .  themselves as having been  in f o u r t h y e a r during 1 9 7 9 , and there was one t h i r d y e a r  student  group.  Four o f the e i g h t the  remaining  learning English.  language u n t i l Insofar  It  claimed E n g l i s h as t h e i r  i n d i c a t e d that t h e i r  first  Indian language  language,  before  appeared that two o f the f o u r students had not they attended s c h o o l ,  s i n c e they  they were seven o r e i g h t years o f  as t h e i r  the t i m e , w h i l e  students  f o u r had spoken a n a t i v e  learned English u n t i l  their  i n c l u d e d the  in T a b l e B, Appendix F.  Of t h i r t e e n  while  responding to the  p r o f e s s i o n a l and personal  and s e n i o r students were p l a c e d at  in the  past,  English.  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s e n i o r students  registered  in the  d i d not  learn  age.  f a m i l i e s were c o n c e r n e d , f i v e o f the e i g h t fami 1ies spoke an Indian language at  s i x o f the e i g h t  students  home communities spoke a n a t i v e  least  students some o f  reported t h a t the people  tongue at  the  least  part o f the  in time.  56 Oral  E x p r e s s i o n in the Academic Student  Role:  Research Question One  The f i r s t oral  research q u e s t i o n  e x p r e s s i o n do i n s t r u c t o r s  in t h i s  study a s k s :  and students  university  coursework o f NITEP s t u d e n t s ?  respond to  16 items c o n c e r n i n g o r a l  three o p t i o n s : considerable  identify  Wh i ch aspects o f as concerns in  the  P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to  e x p r e s s i o n on a s c a l e which  included  s a t i s f a c t o r y o r b e t t e r ; needs some improvement; needs  improvement.  assessment o f o r a l  Instructors  were asked to  language competence of a l l  ing the NITEP students whom they had taught descriptions of oral  reflect  students,  s i n c e 1977,  on  their  and t h e n , to  consider-  respond to  language b e h a v i o r using the s c a l e p r o v i d e d .  were asked to c o n s i d e r t h e i r own use o f o r a l c l a s s e s and to e v a l u a t e The a s p e c t s o f o r a l which led t o the a c t u a l  language  in t h e i r  the  Students  academic  themselves a c c o r d i n g l y . language which were c o n s i d e r e d , and d e s c r i p t o r s items on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , are shown in T a b l e 4.  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s sent to  instructors  and s e n i o r students appear  in  Appendix C.  Oral  E x p r e s s i o n in U n i v e r s i t y  as P e r c e i v e d by  Coursework  Instructors  The data c o l l e c t e d from the items  regarding o r a l  T a b l e 3-  The t a b l e  i n s t r u c t o r group in response to the  16  e x p r e s s i o n in academic coursework are presented  in  l i s t s the  items  ranked in o r d e r o f p r i o r i t y  as e s t a b -  l i s h e d by means and standard d e v i a t i o n s o b t a i n e d from summing a l l responses.  It  also reports  the actual  responses to each item i n c l u d i n g  57 the number o f  respondents who d i d not answer.  dents to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e Because the  ranking o f  frequency o f  expected o r d e r . about  items was a s c e r t a i n e d by the means and  Since t h i s  it  concern by 25 o f the  ment  is t h a t  response to  with s u f f i c i e n t o f the  to make f i n e  distinctions  ranked f i r s t  instructors  detail,  responding.  I tern 15,  instructors to  responding to  report  instructors  main  instructors  The  ranking c o n c e r n , item 16,  21  fourth  answering  control of and  identi-  it  the a b i l i t y  the  standard  ranked  a s s i g n e d the same mean to  to express and support o p i n i o n s , ranking  the seventh  ideas  responding and given  E n g l i s h and item 10 was accorded a mean response o f 2 . 0 4 ,  while  improve-  to q u e s t i o n p e r c e p t i v e l y , was  q u e s t i o n n a i r e expressed concern about some s t u d e n t s '  the a b i l i t y  apparent  and was a matter o f concern to  Twenty-one o f the  instructors  as a  The reason f o r t h i s  the a b i l i t y  f i e d as a matter o f concern by 20 o f the  T w e n t y - s i x o f the  in o r a l  identified  responding i n s t r u c t o r s with a mean response o f 2 . 0 8 .  ranked c o n c e r n , item 1 3 , the a b i l i t y  fifth.  items  chose the needs c o n s i d e r a b l e  ranked t h i r d ,  a mean response o f 2 . 0 8 .  the  in word meanings.  ranging v o c a b u l a r y , was  12 i n s t r u c t o r s  response.  in  figures  as a matter o f c o n c e r n , even though  item 8 w h i l e o n l y nine o f the  item 7 chose that  the  in T a b l e 3, 24 i n s t r u c t o r s expressed concern  demonstration o f a wide  discrepancy  f o l l o w one another  itern was accorded the h i g h e s t mean r a t i n g o f a l l  expression, 2.39, item 7,  response to each item,  response may not  For example,  item 8, the a b i l i t y  number o f r e s p o n -  is a l s o i n c l u d e d .  standard d e v i a t i o n s based on the t o t a l representing  The t o t a l  in s i x t h  item 14, place,  to o r g a n i z e  ideas  c o h e r e n t l y , was i d e n t i f i e d  as being o f some concern to  19 o f the r e s p o n -  dents but given a s l i g h t l y  lower mean response o f 2.00  by 26 o f  them.  58 Table 3 I terns  in Oral  E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Concerns by  Instructors  N = 27 I tern Number  Language d e s c r i p t o r  8  Made f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s vocabulary  7  Showed breadth of  in  vocabulary  Responses 2 NA 3  Total  X  S  Rank Order  2  12  12  1  27  2.39  .63  1  1  16  9  1  27  2.31  .55  2  4  15  6  2  27  2.08  .64  3  5  13  7  2  27  2.08  • 70  4  5  15  6  1  27  2.04  .66  5  15  Reported main  13  Asked u s e f u l  10  Controlled  14  Supported o p i n i o n s  7  11  8  1  27  2.04  .77  6  16  Organized  2  ideas  1  questions  standard  English  ideas  coherently  6  14  6  1  27  2.00  .69.  7  Projected voice  adequately  8  11  7  1  27  1 .96  .77  8  5  18  3  1  27  1 .92  .56  9  1 1  Chose a p p r o p r i a t e language  12  L i s t e n e d and comprehended  7  14  4  2  27  1 .88  .67  10  9  Used e f f e c t i v e  7  13  4  3  27  1 .88  .67  10  4  Actively participated d i scuss ion  in  9  13  4  1  27  1.81  .69  12  6  Confidently op i n ions  divergent  9  11  3  4  27  1.74  .69  13  1  Demonstrated c o r r e c t and p r o j e c t i o n  10  13  3  1  27  1 .73  .67  14  3  Spoke f 1 u e n t l y  8  16  1  2  27  1.72  .54  15  5  Used c o n v e n t i o n a l  15  6  1  5  27  1.36  .58  16  levels  of  imagery  expressed  articulation  nonverbal  1 = s a t i s f a c t o r y or b e t t e r 2 = needed improvement 3 = needed c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement  59 Overall, greater  seven items were accorded a mean response o f 2 . 0 0 o r  by the  instructors  responding to the  items.  Since a response  between 2 . 0 0 and 3 - 0 0 had been e s t a b l i s h e d as i n d i c a t i n g a need f o r improvement on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  these seven items deserve  particular  attent ion. F i v e o f the seven items w i t h a mean response o f 2 . 0 0 o r represent  concerns about o n l y two a s p e c t s o f o r a l  greater  expression:  sensitivity  to words and arrangements o f words, and a c h i e v i n g the s p e a k e r ' s purpose. In a d d i t i o n  to these two a s p e c t s o f o r a l  e x p r e s s i o n , two o t h e r s were  represented by one item e a c h :  appropriate  usage and d i a l e c t ,  and .  listening capabilities.  interesting  to note t h a t o t h e r  items  d e s c r i p t i v e of oral  It  is  e x p r e s s i o n were i d e n t i f i e d  as being o f some concern  to more than 60% o f the p a r t i c i p a t i n g  i n s t r u c t o r s without  the mean response i n d i c a t i n g that the  item is p e r c e i v e d as a need.  I tern 2 ,  projected voice e f f e c t i v e l y ;  levels of  language;  effective  imagery;  item 12, item k,  item 3 , spoke f l u e n t l y , 1.81,  and 1.72  to at  least  Oral  participated  had mean responses o f  in d i s c u s s i o n ;  1.96,  1.92,  1.88,  and 1.88,  but were p e r c e i v e d as being o f some concern  instructors  E x p r e s s i o n in U n i v e r s i t y  chose a p p r o p r i a t e  l i s t e n e d and comprehended; item 9 , used  actively  respectively,  G0% o f the  item 11,  registering  responding to the  questionnaire.  Coursework  as P e r c e i v e d by S e n i o r Students  The data c o l l e c t e d from the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s sent to s e n i o r students are of  reported 1, 2,  in T a b l e h.  They were rank o r d e r e d by summing the number  and 3 responses to each item.  I tern 9 , the use o f  effective  60 Table 4 I terns  in Oral  E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as  P e r c e i v e d Concerns by S e n i o r  Students  N = 8 Responses  1 tern no.  3  Rank o rde r  1  2  3  2  4  2  8  1  Controlled standard English  3  2  3  8  2  7  Showed breadth o f  2  5  1  8  3  8  Made f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s vocabul ary  3  3  2  8  4  3  4  1  8  5  3  4  1  8  5  3  4  1  8  5  3  4  1  8  5  3  5  -  8  9  L i s t e n e d and comprehended  3  5  -  8  9  1  Used c o r r e c t  3  4  8  11  2  Projected voice  5  2  1  8  12  5  2  1  8  12  5  3  -  8  14  5  3  -  8  14  5  3  -  8  14  9 10  3 11  Language d e s c r i p t o r  Used e f f e c t i v e  Spoke  Chose a p p r o p r i a t e language Asked useful  16  Organized  12  14 4  6  15  vocabulary  levels  of  questions  ideas  coherently  Used c o n v e n t i o n a l behavior  nonverbal  articulation adequately  Supported o p i n i o n s Actively participated discussion  in  C o n f i d e n t l y expressed gent o p i n i o n s  diver-  Reported main  1 = Satisfactory a b l e improvement.  ideas  Total  in  fluently  13  5  imagery  N/A  1  o r b e t t e r ; 2 = Needed improvement;  3 = Needed c o n s i d e r -  61 imagery, was i d e n t i f i e d  as needing improvement by s i x o f the e i g h t  responding and was the f i r s t  ranked c o n c e r n .  item 10, the c o n t r o l o f s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h , ranked i t  second.  identified  Item 7, the a b i l i t y  F i v e students  Similarly,  identified  as being o f some concern and  to use a breadth o f v o c a b u l a r y , was  as being o f some concern to s i x o f the e i g h t  ranked t h i r d .  students  item 8, the a b i l i t y  s t u d e n t s , but  to make f i n e  distinctions  in v o c a b u l a r l y , was i d e n t i f i e d as b e i n g an area o f concern to f i v e out o f eight  students and ranked  fourth.  S umma ry  Although s t u d e n t s d i d not r e g i s t e r i n s t r u c t o r s about the  items  relating  the same degree o f concern as  to s e n s i t i v i t y  ranking o f items suggested more s i m i l a r i t y  concerns about t h i s case.  aspect o f o r a l  Two o f the three  tinctions  in t h e i r  perception of  e x p r e s s i o n than might appear to be the  ranked s i m i l a r l y .  Item 8, made f i n e  dis-  in v o c a b u l a r y , and item 7, d i s p l a y e d a breadth o f v o c a b u l a r y ,  were ranked f i r s t students. the t h i r d  items  to words and word s e q u e n c e s ,  There  and second by i n s t r u c t o r s and f o u r t h is c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e ,  item in t h i s  ranked f i r s t  category.  however,  and t h i r d by in the ranking o f  Item 9, used e f f e c t i v e  imagery, was  by students and e l e v e n t h by i n s t r u c t o r s .  Another d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups emerged from t h e i r to two o f the items  r e p r e s e n t i n g that aspect o f o r a l  a c h i e v i n g the s p e a k e r ' s purpose. ideas with s u f f i c i e n t  detail  expression c a l l e d  I tern 15, the a b i l i t y  t o report  main  t o be comprehensible and i n t e r e s t i n g , was  ranked t h i r d by i n s t r u c t o r s and s i x t e e n t h the a b i l i t y  response  by s t u d e n t s , w h i l e  item 14,  to support o p i n i o n s , was ranked s i x t h by i n s t r u c t o r s and  62 t w e l f t h by s t u d e n t s . to one another  Instructors  in t h e i r  ideas c o h e r e n t l y .  and students appeared to be much c l o s e r  p e r c e p t i o n o f the s t u d e n t s '  ability  to  organize  Item 16 was ranked seventh by i n s t r u c t o r s and f i f t h by  students. With the f u r t h e r  exception of  item 3, spoke f l u e n t l y  without  extraneous e x p r e s s i o n s u n d u l y , which was ranked f i f t e e n t h by and f i f t h by s t u d e n t s , and item 5, ranked s i x t e e n t h  showed minor d i f f e r e n c e s the e x c e p t i o n s a l r e a d y similar  in t h e i r  in the  noted,  Oral  was run to analyze the o r a l  the  r e s u l t s are  o r second language,  English^  and 10,  When the  as a c o n c e r n .  second language, however,  concerns  in f i v e  o f standard E n g l i s h ,  as matters  of  number 9,  the  The s e n i o r students  language  aspects o f oral  to E n g l i s h  use o f e f f e c t i v e  imagery,  f o r whom E n g l i s h was a  differently  (Table  attention  from those who had  5)•  f o r whom E n g l i s h was a second language  different  5-  use o f  responded q u i t e  first  in Chapter  numbers 9,  When the data were analyzed with p a r t i c u l a r items,  students  items,  concern.  s t u d e n t s , o n l y one o f those  senior  be d i s c u s s e d b r i e f l y  ranked o n l y two  control  students  Although the sample is s m a l l ,  imagery,  S e n i o r students  English  computer program  four of eight  and E n g l i s h ^ .  i n c l u d e d here and w i l l  spoken E n g l i s h as t h e i r  oral  coursework as p e r c e i v e d by s e n i o r  effective  identified  with  relatively  language data dependent on whether  In T a b l e k, s e n i o r students  was  items  coursework.  students w i t h E n g l i s h as a second language.  were in each group:  remaining  i n s t r u c t o r s and students were  e x p r e s s i o n in u n i v e r s i t y  had E n g l i s h as a f i r s t  behavior,  r a n k i n g s , s u g g e s t i n g that o v e r a l l ,  p e r c e p t i o n s c o n s i d e r i n g NITEP s t u d e n t s '  competency in u n i v e r s i t y  instructors  used c o n v e n t i o n a l nonverbal  by i n s t r u c t o r s but n i n t h by s t u d e n t s , the  using  language, a l l  but  identified listening  6 3  Table 5 I terns  in Oral  E x p r e s s i o n R a n k e d as  P e r c e i v e d C o n c e r n s by E n g l i s h , , S e n i o r S t u d e n t s  Responses  I tern no.  Language  descriptor  3  Spoke  7  Showed b r e a d t h o f  10  fluently vocabulary  Controlled standard English  5  Used c o n v e n t i o n a l behavi or  8  Made f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s vocabul ary  16  Organized ideas  capabilities. fluently,  The f i r s t  conventional  it  fourth.  students.  of  four  All  concerns about  students.  identified four  behavior,  and s i x t e e n t h  English^ students  1  2  4  3  5 h  to  v o c a b u l a r y , were The t h i r d  as b e i n g o f  students  by t h e  instructors'  and i n s t r u c t o r s  were  identified  concern to  the  only  i t e m 5, t h e and  responses of  use  ranked all  responses (Tables  in a c c o r d w i t h  i d e a s , and t h e  speak  ranked i t e m ,  identified  r a n k e d n i n t h by t h e  5  3 = Needed c o n s i d e r -  as n e e d i n g some i m p r o v e m e n t  vocabulary, organizing  standard Engli sh.  k  item 3 , the a b i l i t y  a breadth of  The same i t e m h a d been  senior students  and h).  by a l l  nonverbal  1  2  ranked c o n c e r n s ,  s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h , was  of  3  2 = Needed improvement;  control  four  4  2  improvement  the  1  in  as n e e d i n g  three of  3  k  coherently  and i t e m 7 , c o n t r o l  of  Rank order  Total,  nonverbal  1 = Satisfactory or better; a b l e improvement.  the  N/A  students'  respect use  of  3 to  64 W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n in the Academic Student  Role:  Research Question Two  The second research q u e s t i o n w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n do i n s t r u c t o r s the  university  and students  factor  to w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n  Part  3 o f the  C).  The responses were c a l c u l a t e d and are  as the t a b l e s  instructor  d e a l i n g with o r a l  Because o f the number o f responses to the of  items  language p e r t i n e n t  A.  expression  are d i s c u s s e d  effective  These items  univerlanguage  appeared  in  (see Appendix  reproduced in the  same format  in academic coursework. in w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n , context  o f the s i x a s p e c t s in T a b l e 2 (p.  43).  Instructors  instructors  format.  All  items  used to d e s c r i b e t h i s  as being o f some concern to  responding to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  conventions o f  proofreading,  format  included:  fifth  aspect  the 6).  Items  ranked item 3 ,  r e s p o n d e n t s , and  ranked c o n c e r n , item 4, c o r r e c t  use o f the mechanics o f s c h o l a r s h i p , i d e n t i f i e d instructors  (Table  the t h i r d  seen as a concern by 2 3 o f the  given a mean r a t i n g o f 2.42; the  participating  in  Coursework  o f w r i t t e n language were i d e n t i f i e d  d e s c r i b i n g the  s i x aspects o f  to w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n as d e t a i l e d  Conventions o f  majority of  in the  o f c o l l e g e and  questionnaires  concerns i d e n t i f i e d  W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n in U n i v e r s i t y as P e r c e i v e d by  45).  and s e n i o r student  as concerns  Since w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n  represent  ( F i g u r e 2 , p.  Which a s p e c t s o f  identify  in the e v a l u a t i o n  s t u d e n t s , 2k items were chosen to  related  study a s k s :  coursework o f NITEP students?  tends to be an important sity  in t h i s  as a concern by 22 o f  and rated 2 . 3 8 ; item 1 , the  ability  to  spell,  65 Table 6 Items in W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Concerns by  Instructors  N = 27  1 tern number  Language d e s c r i p t o r  21  Organized essays  11  Used grammatical  terms  correctly  3  0  11  2  8.  x  S  Rank order  N/A  Total  12  4  27  2 • 52 .51  1  12  5  27  2 .46  .67  2  11  .3  27  2 .42  .58  3  1  12  11  3  27  2 .42  .58  3  2  1 1  11  3  27  2 .38  .65  5  unity  2  10  9  6  27  2 • 38. .66  6  Created moods, impressions  2  ]k  7  4  27  2 .22  .60  7  13  Displayed  2  14  " 7  4  27  2 .22  .60  7  14  Responded to  2  15  7  3  27  2 .21  .58  9  3  13  8  3  27  2 .21  .66  10  2  16  6  3  2  7  2 .17  .57  11  1  14  4  8  27  2 .16  .50  12  k  13  7  3  27  2 • 13 . 6 8  13  k  14  6  3  27  2 .08  .65  14  readings6  8  7  6  27  2 .05  .81  15  k  15  4  4  27  2 .00  .60  16  5  11  5  6  27  2 .00  • 71  17  5  13  4  5  27  1.96  .65  18  6  9  4  8  2  ?  1 .90  • Ik  19  7  12  4  4  27  1. 8 7  .69  20  6  13  3  5  27  1.86  .64  21  4 22 9  effectively  2  12  10  Proofread  effectively  1  a  1  3  Made d i s t i n c t i o n s Used mechanics  in  Showed coherence and  fluency readings  Spelled,  2  C o n t r o l l e d mechanics  7  vocabulary  correctly  1  17  punctuated  A d j u s t e d tone  for  V a r i e d sentence  correctly of.quotation  audience  length  15  Selected details  20  Summarized and paraphrased  5 19 8  a  Respo nses  f o r emphasis  Gave b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n Supported viewpoint Used imagery  in  clearly  with  details  description  24  Conveyed  personalities  16  Focused on s i n g l e / t o p i c  event  6  D e s c r i b e d with s u f f i c i e n t  18  E l a b o r a t e d when necessary  8  11  4  4  27  1.83  • 72  22  23  Sequenced events  8  11  3  5  27  1 • 77 . 6 9  23  12  Expressed  9  10  3  5  27  1 • 73 .70  24  detail  plausibly  self  l = Satisfactory or better 2. = Needed improvement 3 = Needed c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement  66 c a p i t a l i z e , and punctuate  correctly, i d e n t i f i e d by 21 of the respondents  as a concern and rated 2 . 2 1 ; and the eleventh ranked  item 2 , control of  the mechanics of quotation, seen as being of some concern to 22 of the instructors but rating a mean response of 2 . 1 7 . B.  Basic description and recording.  One of the two items  category registered a mean response of 2 . 0 0 .  in this  Item 5, the a b i l i t y to give  basic information clearly as required for answering questions or writing b r i e f reports, was accorded a mean response of 2 . 0 0 , and i d e n t i f i e d as a concern by 19 of the instructors responding.  Since i t was one of two  items describing basic description and recording in written expression, the second of which ranked twenty-first in the ranking, this aspect o f written expression does not appear to be a matter of particular C.  S e n s i t i v i t y to words and word sequences.  concern.  Four out of five  items  relating to this aspect of written expression, s e n s i t i v i t y to words and word sequences, were i d e n t i f i e d by a majority of the instructors as being of some concern.  I tern 1 1 , the a b i l i t y to use grammatical terms correctly  in discussing writing, although  i d e n t i f i e d as a concern by only 20 of the  instructors, was the second highest ranked  item because of i t s mean  response of 2.46. I tern 1 0 , the a b i l i t y to make fine distinctions in vocabulary, ranking t h i r d , was i d e n t i f i e d as being of some concern by 2 3 of the instructors but only to the degree represented by a mean response of 2 . 4 2 . concerns  Other  relating to the category of words and sequences of words, were  registered with the seventh  ranking of item 9 , the a b i l i t y to select words  to reinforce a s p e c i f i c mood or impression, and the thirteenth ranking of item 7 , the a b i l i t y to use variety in sentence and 2 . 1 3 respectively.  length, with means of 2 . 2 2  67 D.  Response to e x p e r i e n c e .  item 1 3 , d i s p l a y s f l u e n c y , ranked seventh and n i n t h 2.21  respectively.  ment w h i l e E. 24  work,  in p r i o r i t y  a pair of descriptors, response t o r e a d i n g ,  based on mean responses o f 2 . 2 2 and  i n s t r u c t o r s saw item 13 as needing  saw item 14 as needing  A c h i e v i n g the w r i t e r ' s  items  category,  and item 14, p e r c e p t i v e  Twenty-one  22 i n s t r u c t o r s  In t h i s  purpose:  improve-  improvement.  e x p o s i t i o n and argument.  Of the  l i s t e d as d e s c r i p t o r s o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n in academic c o u r s e -  17 items were i d e n t i f i e d  by some i n s t r u c t o r s  (Table 6 ) .  The f i r s t  instructors  responding t o the item, and given a mean r a t i n g o f 2 . 5 2 , was  item 2 1 , the a b i l i t y relating  ranked item,  as a concern by a l l o f the  t o o r g a n i z e essays e f f e c t i v e l y .  Four o t h e r  items,  as does item 21 to the aspect o f language d e s c r i b e d as a c h i e v i n g  the w r i t e r ' s o f at l e a s t  purpose in e x p o s i t i o n and argument, were i d e n t i f i e d some concern to the m a j o r i t y  Item 1 7 , t h e a b i l i t y was i d e n t i f i e d o f 2 . 1 6 , thus ability  identified  as being o f concern  o f responding i n s t r u c t o r s .  tone o f w r i t i n g  f o r a s p e c i f i c audience,  as a concern by 1 8 respondents and a s s i g n e d a mean ranking t w e l f t h .  to s e l e c t  and i d e n t i f i e d  to a d j u s t  as being  details  The f o u r t e e n t h  ranked item,  rating  number 1 5 , the  f o r emphasis, was given a mean response o f 2 . 0 8  as a concern by 20 o f the 24 i n s t r u c t o r s  responding to the  i tern. Item 2 0 , the a b i l i t y identified  t o summarize and paraphrase r e a d i n g s ,  as being o f concern by o n l y  15 o f the i n s t r u c t o r s  answering  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , was accorded a mean response o f 2 . 0 5 , thus fifteenth,  two rankings ahead o f item 1 9 , the a b i l i t y  point with d e t a i l s , with seven  items  i t s mean response o f 2 . 0 0 .  although  ranking  to support Overall,  view-  f i v e o f the  r e p r e s e n t i n g the aspect o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n r e l a t i n g  a c h i e v i n g the w r i t e r ' s  purpose in e x p o s i t i o n and argument were  to  identified  68 as b e i n g o f some concern to more than h a l f the  instructors  responding t o  questionnaire. F.  A c h i e v i n g the w r i t e r ' s  One item d e s c r i p t i v e o f t h i s ability  purpose:  narration  and  characterization.  aspect o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n , item 22,  to d i s p l a y coherence and u n i t y o f t o n e , was rated 2.33  s i x t h by the 21  the  instructors.  instructors  It  and ranked  was seen as a matter o f concern to  responding to the  19 o f  item.  With the e x c e p t i o n o f two s i n g l e items with a mean response o f 2.00 aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n .  items,  numbers 5 and 22, a l l  or greater,  Conventions o f  tended to c l u s t e r format,  other  into  sensitivity  e x p o s i t i o n and argument,  about which  four  to  words and word s e q u e n c e s , response t o e x p e r i e n c e and a c h i e v i n g the purpose:  the  writer's  were the aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n  i n s t r u c t o r s had the most concern with  regard to t h e i r  NITEP  students. It  s h o u l d be n o t e d , however,  t h a t although the  in T a b l e 6 were accorded means o f  l e s s than 2.00,  being o f some concern to at  half  the given uses  items.  imagery  details;  least  The items which f e l l  o f the  into this  item 18, e l a b o r a t e s  category were:  item 8, selected  item 6, d e s c r i b e s with  an o p i n i o n ; item 23, sequences  ideas p l a u s i b l y ; and item 12, expresses own v o i c e  as  responding to  in d e s c r i p t i o n ; item 2k, conveys p e r s o n a l i t y through  detail;  items  they were i d e n t i f i e d  instructors  item 16, focuses on s i n g l e t o p i c / e v e n t ;  sufficient  remaining seven  effectively.  69 W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n in Coursework as P e r c e i v e d by S e n i o r Students  T a b l e 7 shows s e v e r a l  items as being o f some concern to at  least  half  o f the e i g h t  students who responded to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  instructors'  concerns were d i s c u s s e d in the o r d e r o f the s i x a s p e c t s o f  language to which they  referred  ( F i g u r e 2 , p.  S i n c e the  4 5 ) , the student  response w i l l  be d i s c u s s e d in the same o r d e r . Only one item c a t e g o r i z e d as a convention o f matter o f concern by the s e n i o r s t u d e n t s . read e f f e c t i v e l y ,  was i d e n t i f i e d  format was seen as a  Item 3 , the a b i l i t y  to  proof-  as a concern to s i x students and  ranked  second. F i v e students were concerned about people and t h i n g s with s u f f i c i e n t their  list.  The o t h e r  item 5 , the a b i l i t y  detail,  and ranked the  to  item s i x t h on  c l e a r l y when answering  r e p o r t s , was seen as a matter o f some concern to  the students but  ranked  fifteenth.  When c o n s i d e r i n g the aspect o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n c a l l e d to words and word sequences, item 1 1 , using grammatical in d i s c u s s i n g w r i t i n g ,  ranked s i x t h . half  to make f i n e  correctly  I tern 9 , s e l e c t i n g words to  i m p r e s s i o n , was seen as a concern by f i v e  One o t h e r  the students  terms  sensitivity  was seen as a matter o f some concern by s i x o f  responding students and ranked second. a s p e c i f i c mood o r  describe  item c a t e g o r i z e d as b a s i c d e s c r i p t i o n and r e c o r d i n g ,  to g i v e b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n  questions or w r i t i n g half  item 6 , the a b i l i t y  item in t h i s  reinforce  students and  category p e r c e i v e d as a concern by  responding to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was itern 1 0 , the  d i s t i n c t i o n s using v o c a b u l a r y , which ranked n i n t h .  item 1 2 , the e x p r e s s i o n o f s e l f  the  in w r i t i n g ,  ability  Similarly,  and item 1 3 , demonstration  of  70 Table 7 Items  in W r i t t e n  E x p r e s s i o n Ranked a s  P e r c e i v e d C o n c e r n s By S e n i o r  Students  Item  Responses  no.  15 3  Language d e s c r i p t o r  Selected essential Proofread  Used g r a m m a t i c a l  21  Organized essays  23  Sequenced  6  Described with  9  C r e a t e d moods,  n  k  8  1  5  1  8  2  correctly 2  5  1  8  2  2  6  _  8  4  3  4  1  8  5  detail 3  5  -  8  6  3  5  8  6  3  5  -  8  6  4  3  1  8  9  effectively  ideas  g  1  detail  terms  R  order  plausibly sufficient impressions  1  2  3  1  6  2  N/A  , Total  effectively  11  3  24  Conveyed  10  Made d i s t i n c t i o n s  12  Expressed  self  4  3  1  8  9  13  Displayed  fluency  4  3  1  8  9  16  F o c u s e d on s i n g l e  4  3  1  8  9  22  Showed c o h e r e n c e and  4  3  1  8  9  5  1  2  8  14  4  4  -  8  15  4  4  -  8  15  4  4  -  8  15  5  2  1  8  18  5  2  1  8  18  5  3  -  8  20  5  3  -  8  20  details 5  3  -  8 -.^  20  personalities  k  Used m e c h a n i c s  5  Gave b a s i c  18  E l a b o r a t e d when  14  Responded to  20  S u m m a r i z e d and read ings  8  Used  19  topic/event unity  information  Adjusted  Spelled,  vocabulary  correctly  17  1  in  tone  for  audience  necessary  readings paraphrased  punctuated  imagery  clearly  in  correctly  description  Supported viewpoint  with  7  Varied sentence  6  1  1  8  23  2  C o n t r o l l e d mechanics of quotation 7  1  -  8  24  length  S a t i s f a c t o r y or better Needed i m p r o v e m e n t Needed c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement  71 fluency  in  ideas and a s s o c i a t i o n s , ranked n i n t h ,  by h a l f  the students r e s p o n d i n g .  F i v e o f the seven items d e s c r i b i n g s k i l l s and argument were s i n g l e d out  identified  used in w r i t i n g  as being o f some concern to at  the s e n i o r students  responding to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  to s e l e c t e s s e n t i a l  from p e r i p h e r a l  by a l l  but one o f the  ability  s e n i o r students and ranked f i r s t .  students and t h e r e f o r e  i n d i c a t e d some concern about  ranked f o u r t h .  ability  an o p i n i o n o r make a judgment.  writing events  narration  tone  impression,  responded to a l l  three  items  with some i n d i c a t i o n o f c o n c e r n .  I tern 2 1 , the  Half  the  students  ranked . f i f t h ,  Of the t w e n t y - f o u r  quotation.  least  i t e m s , the two  respectively,  h a l f o f the items  and item 2 , the a b i l i t y  Since these two  through  and were  students.  ranked l a s t  to c o n t r o l  identi-  and presumably to  vary  the mechanics o f  items were ranked t h i r t e e n t h and e l e v e n t h  t o r s and s e n i o r students d i f f e r items.  in  I tern 2 3 , o r g a n i z i n g  conveying p e r s o n a l i t y  s i x t h and n i n t h  r e s p e c t i v e l y by i n s t r u c t o r s , there  in these  the  describing s k i l l s  l i t t l e o r no concern to s t u d e n t s , were item 7 , the a b i l i t y  sentence l e n g t h ,  event;  and item 2 2 , d i s p l a y i n g coherence and u n i t y o f tone and  f i e d as needing improvement by at  of  ability  as a concern  f o r an a u d i e n c e ; and item 1 8 ,  in p l a u s i b l e sequence; item 2k,  selected d e t a i l s ;  half  item 1 6 , f o c u s i n g on a s i n g l e t o p i c o r  to a d j u s t  Academic students  least  was seen as a matter o f concern t o  item 1 7 , the a b i l i t y to e l a b o r a t e  exposition  Item 1 5 , the  d e t a i l , was i d e n t i f i e d  to o r g a n i z e essays e f f e c t i v e l y ,  six of eight  as concerns  is some i n d i c a t i o n here t h a t  with  regard to NITEP s t u d e n t s '  instruccompetency  72 S umma ry  T a b l e 8 summarizes T a b l e s 6 and 7 and l i s t s concerns  in w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n as i d e n t i f i e d  the h i g h e s t  by i n s t r u c t o r s  students.  It  competency  in w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y ,  number o f fied  17  suggests t h a t students and i n s t r u c t o r s  items  identified  items as needing  as needing  improvement.  improvement w h i l e  between  and s e n i o r  perceive at  student  least  Instructors  h a l f o r more o f the  students expressed concern regarding o n l y e i g h t The most obvious d i f f e r e n c e  ranking  format,  this  the  four  in t h i s  H a l f o r more o f the  category,  item 3 , e f f e c t i v e  ranked i t  second.  Instructors  Students  senior  called  study as conventions o f represented by f o u r  instructors  items as c o n c e r n s , and a l l  response o f 2.17 o r g r e a t e r .  identi-  the two g r o u p s , as shown in  aspect o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n was  on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . identified  R e f e r r e d to  the  items.  T a b l e 8 , has to do with that aspect o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n o f t e n the mechanics o f w r i t i n g .  in  four  identified  items  participating  items had a mean  o n l y one item in  this  p r o o f r e a d i n g , as being o f some concern and  and students appear to be c l o s e r t o g e t h e r when responding  to the aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n c a l l e d b a s i c d e s c r i p t i o n and r e c o r d i n g , and s e n s i t i v i t y not seem to d i f f e r  to words and sequences o f words.  markedly  in t h e i r  perception of students'  in these two c a t e g o r i e s o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n , item in the former,  The two groups do  item 6 , the a b i l i t y  competency  with the e x c e p t i o n o f one  to d e s c r i b e with s u f f i c i e n t  ranked t w e n t y - f i r s t by i n s t r u c t o r s but s i x t h by s t u d e n t s ; and two item 7,  the a b i l i t y  to vary sentence l e n g t h ,  ranked  detail,  items  in the  latter,  thir-  teenth  by i n s t r u c t o r s and t w e n t y - t h i r d by s e n i o r s t u d e n t s ; and item 10,  73 Table 8 Summary o f T a b l e s 6 and 1 Showing Comparison o f I d e n t i f i e d as Concerns by Both  Instructors  and S e n i o r  Items Aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n  Conventions o f  B.  B a s i c d e s c r i p t i o n and  C.  S e n s i t i v i t y to words and word sequences  format  1, 2 , recording  ranked as concerns  Response to  experience  E.  A c h i e v i n g the w r i t e r ' s purpose: e x p o s i t i o n and argument  3, 4  3 6  10,  13,  a  Sen i o r s  5  7, 9,  D.  a  Students  1 nst r u c t o r s  A.  F.  Items  11  9,  11  -  14  1 5 , 1 7 , 19 2 0 , 21  15,  21  22  23,  24  A c h i e v i n g the w r i t e r ' s purpose: n a r r a t i o n and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n  1tem numbers on 1y.  the a b i l i t y  to make f i n e  i n s t r u c t o r s but n i n t h With regard to expression instructors  by s e n i o r  in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  and students  own v o i c e e f f e c t i v e l y ,  responded q u i t e  was  item 14,  n i n t h by i n s t r u c t o r s  ranked th i rd by  students.  response to e x p e r i e n c e ,  represented  by s t u d e n t s , w h i l e  d i s t i n c t i o n s in v o c a b u l a r y ,  the  fourth  aspect o f  t h e r e were two  differently.  and e i g h t e e n t h  items on which students  purpose:  to which  Item 12, expresses  readings e f f e c t i v e l y ,  but was  ninth ranked  by s t u d e n t s .  The f i f t h aspect o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n i n c l u d e d in the a c h i e v i n g the w r i t e r ' s  items  ranked t w e n t y - f o u r t h by i n s t r u c t o r s responds to  written  exposition  and i n s t r u c t o r s  and argument,  varied  questionnaire,  included three  considerably  in  their  Ik rankings.of needing  improvement.  peripheral but  the items even though h a l f  detail,  first  the students  identified  them as  Item 15, d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between e s s e n t i a l and  was ranked f o u r t e e n t h  by the s t u d e n t s '  responses.  by the i n s t r u c t o r s ' I tern 18, e l a b o r a t e s  responses  an o p i n i o n ,  was ranked twenty-second by i n s t r u c t o r s  and f i f t e e n t h by s t u d e n t s .  I tern 16, focuses on s i n g l e t o p i c / e v e n t ,  was ranked t w e n t i e t h by  and n i n t h  by s t u d e n t s .  were ranked s i m i l a r l y The l a s t  Other  in t h i s  aspect o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n c o n s i d e r e d was d e s c r i b e d as  items  purpose:  in t h i s  category  narration  and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n .  Two. o f  displayed considerable variance  between  the two groups' p e r c e p t i o n o f competency. plausibly, students'  aspect o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n  by both g r o u p s .  a c h i e v i n g the w r i t e r ' s the three  items  instructors  Item 2 3 , sequences  ranked t w e n t y - t h i r d on the i n s t r u c t o r s ' list.  I tern 2k,  was ranked nineteenth  conveys p e r s o n a l i t i e s  by i n s t r u c t o r s  It would appear t h a t , o v e r a l l ,  instructors  narration  but f i f t h on the  through s e l e c t e d  details,  and s i x t h by s t u d e n t s .  in the areas o f conventions o f format, ing the wri t e r ' s purpose:  list  ideas  and students  differ  response to e x p e r i e n c e ,  and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n .  most  and a c h i e v -  In the o t h e r  three aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n , b a s i c d e s c r i p t i o n and r e c o r d i n g , sensitivity  to words and word sequences and a c h i e v i n g the w r i t e r ' s  e x p o s i t i o n and argument, differences  there appear t o be more s i m i l a r i t i e s  purpose:  than  in r e s p o n s e s . t o items by the two g r o u p s .  W r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n in u n i v e r s i t y with E n g l i s h as a second language.  coursework as p e r c e i v e d by students When the data c o n c e r n i n g w r i t t e n  e x p r e s s i o n were analyzed with regard to E n g l i s h as a second language, the English^ ranked primary  students  identified  item 19, t h e a b i l i t y  o n l y one item as a matter o f c o n c e r n . to p r o o f r e a d assignments e f f e c t i v e l y ,  concern amongst the items o f f e r e d .  In c o n t r a s t ,  the four  They as t h e i r English,  75  students'  responses to  about which at  least  three out of the  T a b l e 9 contains the least  t h r e e o f the  items o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n  data c o n c e r n i n g the seven items  items  in q u e s t i o n .  At  four s e n i o r students who spoke E n g l i s h as a second  o f aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n . limited  seven  four students were concerned.  language expressed a need f o r some improvement  are o f  identified  value  Given the small  i n s o f a r as the study  as i n d i c a t o r s o f what may be a s i g n i f i c a n t are d i s c u s s e d b r i e f l y  in seven  items  sample, the  is concerned. factor  descriptive results  Nevertheless,  in NITEP p l a n n i n g ,  they  here.  Table 9 I terns  in W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as  P e r c e i v e d Concerns by E n g l i s l ^ S e n i o r N =  Students  k Res p o n s e s  3  Total  Rank order  1  k  1  2  1  k  2  1  2  1  k  2  Summarized and paraphrased readings  1  2  1  2  22  Showed coherence and  1  2  1  2  23  Sequenced ideas  1  2  1  k  2  2  -  2  k  7  1 tern no.  15  10  11  20  k  Language  descriptor  Selected details  for  emphasis  Made f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s vocabul ary Used grammatical correct 1 y  2  3  -•  3  1  N/A  in  terms  unity  plausibly  Used mechanics o f s c h o l a r s h i p  1 = Satisfactory a b l e improvement.  1  o f b e t t e r ; 2 = Needed improvement;  3 = Needed c o n s i d e r -  76 It  is  interesting  to  concerns with  regard to  identified  instructors  the  by  ability  to  note  seven  to  make f i n e  use t h e  mechanics of  the  items,  as shown  use g r a m m a t i c a l  ability  that  and s i x o f  i n T a b l e 6.  terms  distinctions  in  students those  expressed  items were  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  discussing writing;  in v o c a b u l a r y ;  s c h o l a r s h i p ; and  c o h e r e n c e and u n i t y o f  English^  i t e m 22, t h e  ability  t o n e a n d i m p r e s s i o n , w e r e s e e n as  item  item  i t e m k, t h e  those 11, the  10,  ability  to w r i t e items o f  to with  concern  to both groups .  Student  Questions  three,  four  Teaching  and f i v e w e r e d e s i g n e d t o  language performance  in t h e s t u d e n t  lar  teaching of  reference  from groups  to  the  to  of  sponsor teachers  teaching,  demographic,  was c o l l e c t e d and c o l l a t e d were sent covering  to the  teachers, were s e n t ,  language a r t s .  (Tables  w i t h some  to  the  and p e r s o n a l  slightly  more t h a n  returned  sixty  percent  usable q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .  concerning t h e i r  teaching backgrounds,  student  (Table  teachers  C, A p p e n d i x F ) .  of  1979-  data  concern-  information  Questionnaires  s p o n s o r t e a c h e r s whose names a p p e a r e d on p r o g r a m September  collected  questionnaire.  view the  C and D, A p p e n d i x F ) .  p e r i o d S e p t e m b e r 1977 t o  particu-  students.  responding to  professional  student  The d a t a w e r e  and j u n i o r  e s t a b l i s h a background against which  ing student  consider  teaching situation  d e s c r i b e d as s p o n s o r t e a c h e r s  Characteristics In o r d e r  Questionnaire  lists  Sixty-three  t h o s e t o whom q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  They a n s w e r e d t e n  questions  a s s i g n m e n t s and e x p e r i e n c e s  with  77 The sponsor t e a c h e r s  i n v o l v e d in t h i s  Columbia school d i s t r i c t s c u r r e n t l y t i e s and s u p e r v i s i o n f o r  study came from two B r i t i s h  providing p r a c t i c e teaching o p p o r t u n i -  NITEP students^  Of the s i x t y - t h r e e  responding to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h i r t y - o n e and t h i r t y were t e a c h i n g at More than two t h i r d s of  the  were t e a c h i n g primary grades  intermediate  level.  The m a j o r i t y  experience. for  their  identify  an academic c o n c e n t r a t i o n , but o f major area of s t u d y ,  2k t e a c h e r s  to  15 years  the respondents had taken general Many of  i n d i c a t e d that  certificates  teaching e x p e r i e n c e was  respondents had from f i v e  professional concentration.  E n g l i s h was t h e i r ships,  of  Over h a l f  Two were u n d e s i g n a t e d .  the group held p r o f e s s i o n a l t e a c h i n g  and with one e x c e p t i o n , the minimum amount of years.  teachers  the respondents d i d not  those who d i d ,  Given a l i s t  16 i n d i c a t e d  they belonged to the B r i t i s h Columbia  memberships  concerned with the t e a c h i n g of  of  teachers  v i s e d o n l y one NITEP student w h i l e Fifteen  teachers  NITEP in 1977 or b e f o r e , w h i l e  answer to q u e s t i o n e i g h t  indicated English,  of  a few teachers  they had s u p e r -  respondents had s u p e r v i s e d  i n d i c a t e d that they had been i n v o l v e d with three  times as many i n d i c a t e d that  they  S i n c e the responses c i r c l e d  in  d i d not always balance with the responses to  q u e s t i o n n i n e , c o n c e r n i n g y e a r ( s ) of be that one o r e i t h e r  i n d i c a t e d that  twenty-nine  had worked w i t h the program s i n c e 1 9 7 8 .  addition,  the responding t e a c h e r s  reading.  When a s k e d , the m a j o r i t y  two or more.  that  of p r o f e s s i o n a l member-  None of  language a r t s o r  teaching  education courses /  Primary T e a c h e r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n . in groups p r i m a r i l y  five  involvement with the program,  i t may  the q u e s t i o n s was ambiguous or m i s l e a d i n g . i n d i c a t e d by comments or q u e s t i o n marks that  they c o u l d not remember the p e r t i n e n t  dates.  In  78 The l a s t q u e s t i o n had t o do with e x p e r i e n c e student t e a c h e r s , and w h i l e  20 teachers  in s u p e r v i s i n g non-NITEP  i n d i c a t e d t h a t they had  s u p e r v i s e d student t e a c h e r s o u t s i d e NITEP, the m a j o r i t y ,  frequently  35 t e a c h e r s , had  o c c a s i o n a l l y s u p e r v i s e d o t h e r student t e a c h e r s . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of j u n i o r  students  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were sent to a l l as of May,  1979-  return o f 8h%.  registered  Twenty usable q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were  in the  program  returned g i v i n g a  These data are presented in T a b l e D, Appendix F.  the twenty students  not  students  J u n i o r students were asked f o r the same i n f o r m a t i o n as  senior students.  y e a r , nine  junior  responding to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  responding to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , ten were  in second year and one was u n c l a s s i f i e d .  Several  in  first  students  respond to the q u e s t i o n s concerning academic and p r o f e s s i o n a l  trations half  i n d i c a t i n g t h a t they had not yet made t h e i r  the students were Questions  interested  regarding f i r s t  language were answered by a l l questionnaire. while  Thirteen  language, the j u n i o r  twenty students the time.  spoke E n g l i s h .  More than  responding to  language f i r s t .  families  Half  the  identified  their  the  language students  the t i m e , w h i l e  nine o f  spoke E n g l i s h o n l y some o f  i n d i c a t e d that h i s o r her f a m i l y  S l i g h t l y more than h a l f  first  the students  r a r e l y o r never  identified  home communities as speaking E n g l i s h o n l y some o f the time w h i l e remainder  concen-  language and community  students  spoke E n g l i s h a l l  i n d i c a t e d that t h e i r  One student  family  students had E n g l i s h as t h e i r  families  did  in t e a c h i n g in the primary g r a d e s .  seven students spoke a n a t i v e  i n d i c a t e d that t h e i r  choice.  Of  home communities as E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g .  their the  79  Oral  E x p r e s s i o n In Student T e a c h i n g : Research Question Three  The t h i r d oral  research q u e s t i o n  study a s k s :  e x p r e s s i o n do sponsor t e a c h e r s and students  the student  t e a c h i n g o f NITEP students?  an important  part  student  Which a s p e c t s o f  identify  Because o r a l  in the performance o f the t e a c h i n g  concerned with o r a l  as concerns in  language p l a y s such role,  sixteen  e x p r e s s i o n were i n c l u d e d in the sponsor teacher  teacher q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .  to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  items and  Sponsor teachers were asked to respond  in terms o f the NITEP student o r students whom they  had s u p e r v i s e d and student oral  in t h i s  language b e h a v i o r ,  teachers were asked to t h i n k about t h e i r  remembering any comments they might  have  own  received  from those s u p e r v i s i n g them. The a s p e c t s o f o r a l which became the The actual appear  language which were c o n s i d e r e d , and d e s c r i p t o r s  items on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  are shown in F i g u r e 3 (p.  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s sent to sponsor teachers and j u n i o r  46).  students  in Appendix C.  The degree o f concern f o r each item was e s t a b l i s h e d using the same process as that ing numerical to any given  used f o r the  i n s t r u c t o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ; that  means and standard d e v i a t i o n s item.  The r e s u l t i n g  ranking to each item.  f i g u r e s were used to a s s i g n  priority  The response columns in the t a b l e show the responses  is c o n t r o l l e d f i r s t  standard d e v i a t i o n s , the expected sequence.  calculat-  from the sum o f al 1 responses  to each item and i n c l u d e a no answer c a t e g o r y . items  is,  Because the  ranking o f  by the means a n d , in the event o f a t i e , response f i g u r e s may not always  follow  in  by the  the  80 Oral  E x p r e s s i o n in Student Teaching as  P e r c e i v e d by Sponsor Teachers  Sixteen  items having to do with o r a l  were i n c l u d e d in the sponsor teacher The items were designed t o gather research q u e s t i o n : and students  and student  teacher  teaching  questionnaires.  data from which to answer the t h i r d  Which a s p e c t s o f o r a l  identify  e x p r e s s i o n in s t u d e n t  e x p r e s s i o n do sponsor teachers  as concerns in the student  t e a c h i n g o f NITEP  students? The items  r e l a t e d to o r a l  language  in student  t e a c h i n g were  ranked  using the same procedures as had been used in a n a l y z i n g the data f o r research q u e s t i o n s one and two.  A c c o r d i n g l y , the responses were  listed  in rank o r d e r o f concern as p e r c e i v e d by the respondent group (Table 1 0 ) . F i f t y - o n e o f the 6 3 sponsor teachers identified  item 2 , p r o j e c t e d v o i c e s u f f i c i e n t l y  being o f c o n c e r n .  sounds c l e a r l y ,  These two i t e m s , situations  f o r c l a s s r o o m needs, as  Its mean r a t i n g o f 2 . 0 8 e s t a b l i s h e d i t as the  ranking concern o f the sponsor t e a c h e r s . articulated  responding to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  first  Item 1, spoke d i s t i n c t l y and  ranked second with a mean response o f 2 . 0 5 -  combined with  item 3 , used v o i c e e f f e c t i v e l y  such as s t o r y t e l l i n g  and g i v i n g d i r e c t i o n s , which  in v a r i o u s ranked  e i g h t h and was seen as being o f some concern by kk o f the r e s p o n d e n t s , combine to make up the aspect o f o r a l  expression c a l l e d quality  and use  of v o i c e . The t h i r d  and f o u r t h  ranked  items o f concern to responding sponsor  t e a c h e r s were from the aspects o f language having to do with communication b e h a v i o r and a p p r o p r i a t e  usage and d i a l e c t .  with c o n f i d e n c e , and item 1 0 , c o n t r o l l e d informal  interpersonal  Item 6 , spoke  s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h , had  81 T a b l e 10 Items in Oral  E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as  P e r c e i v e d Concerns by Sponsor Teachers N = 63  Item No.  Responses N/A T o t a l  Rank orde  1  2  3  12  34  17  -  63  2 08  .68  1  15  30  18  -  63  2 05  .73  2  15  31  16  1  63  2 02  .71  3  15  31  15  2  63  2 00  .71  4  13  33  12  5  63  1  98  .66  5  16  33  14  -  63  1 97  • 70  6  7  Rephrased i n f o r m a t i o n when necessary Showed breadth of v o c a b u l a r y  17  33  13  -  63  1  94  .69  7  3  Used v o i c e  19  29  15  -  63  1 94  .74  8  Language d e s c r i p t o r  2  Projected voice  1  Spoke d i s t i n c t l y , a r t i c u l a t e d c 1 ea r 1 y Spoke w i t h c o n f i d e n c e  6 10 9 8  sufficiently  C o n t r o l l e d informal standard English Demonstrated c o n t r o l of rhyme  effectively  X  S  15  Created s c e n e s , moods  18  32  10  3  63  1 87  .68  9  13  Controlled a l l  17  31  8  7  63  1 84  .65  10  16  Used language  21  34  8  -  63  79  .65  11  Used a p p r o p r i a t e nonverbal .. language Chose a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l of 1 anguage Recognized d i a l e c t a l d i f f e r e n c e s  25  28  6  4  63  1 68  .66  12  31  28  4  -  63  1 57  .62  13  37  18  4  4  63  1  44  .62  14-  Modelled good  42  19  1  1  63  1 34  .51  15  49  13  -  1  63  1 21  .41  16  4 12 11 5 14  speech sounds effectively  listening  L i s t e n e d and responded  S a t i s f a c t o r y or b e t t e r Needed improvement Needed c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement  mean responses o f 2 . 0 2 two aspects o f  and 2 . 0 0 .  language, however,  An aspect o f o r a l sponsor teachers  twelfth.  i n d i c a t e d was o f some concern was s e n s i t i v i t y to words  ranked f i f t h ,  responses were 1 . 9 8 ,  Oral  ranked no h i g h e r than  Item 9 , demonstrated c o n t r o l o f  item 8 , rephrased i n f o r m a t i o n ,  vocabulary,  items which d e s c r i b e these  e x p r e s s i o n which more than 7Q% o f the responding  and arrangement o f words. rhythm,  The o t h e r  1.97  rhyme and  and item 7 , showed breadth  s i x t h and seventh even though t h e i r and 1 . 9 4  of  mean  respectively.  E x p r e s s i o n in Student Teaching as  P e r c e i v e d by J u n i o r Students  J u n i o r s t u d e n t s , those p r i m a r i l y d i d not  identify  greater  than  any items o f o r a l  1.95  (Table  number 7 , the use o f ability  to c o n t r o l  11).  concerned with student t e a c h i n g ,  e x p r e s s i o n with a mean ranking o f  The items  interesting  ranked f i r s t  and second were  and v a r i e d v o c a b u l a r y , and number 9 , the  rhythm and rhyme as in poetry  and rhyming e x e r c i s e s .  These items were p e r c e i v e d as needing improvement by 1 7 and 1 5 o f responding students  the  respectively.  Summary  The items  in o r a l  expression i d e n t i f i e d  sponsor t e a c h e r s were not  identified  as being o f most concern to  as concerns by the m a j o r i t y  students responding to the student t e a c h i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e . 2,  the  items concerning q u a l i t y  of  Items 1 and  and use o f v o i c e , and o f prime concern  to the sponsor t e a c h e r s , were ranked tenth and f o u r t e e n t h  on the  student  83 Table I terns in Oral  11  E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as  P e r c e i v e d Concerns by J u n i o r Students N = 20  Item no.  Language d e s c r i p t o r  1  2  3  7  Showed Breadth of v o c a b u l a r y  3  15  2  9  Demonstrated c o n t r o l of rhyme and rhythm C o n t r o l l e d speech sounds  5  12  3  6  C o n t r o l l e d informal standard Eng1i sh Spoke with c o n f i d e n c e  N/A  Total  X  S  Rank orde  20  1 .95  .51  1  —  20  1.90  .64  2  1 1 3  -  20  1.85  .67  3  6  12  2  —  20  1 . 8 0 .62  4  7  10  3  20  1 .80  .70  5  10  1  -  20  1 .60  .60  6  4  Used language e f f e c t i v e l y fn 91 i n t e r a c t ion Used a p p r o p r i a t e nonverbal language^  1 1  1  20  1.58  • 51  7  3  Used v o i c e  10  1.0  -  -  20  1 .50  .51  8  Created s c e n e s , moods  10  10  -  -  20  1 .50  .51  8  1  Spoke  11  8  1  -  20  1 .50  .61  10  8  Rephrased i n f o r m a t i o n when necessary Modelled good l i s t e n i n g  11  8  1  -  20  1 .50  .61  10  14  4  2  20  1 .40  .68  12  Understood d i a l e c t a l  13  7  -  -  20  1 .35  .49  13  14  5  1  -  20  1 .35  .59  14  14  5  1  -  20  1 .35  .59  14  16  2  1  1  20  1 .21  .54  16  13 10 6 16  15  5 11 2 12 14  effectively  distinctly  Projected voice  differences  suffiently  Chose a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l 1 anguage L i s t e n e d and responded appropr i a t e l y  of  S a t i s f a c t o r y or b e t t e r Needed improvement Needed c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement  8k list  and i d e n t i f i e d  twenty students ences  as needing improvement by o n l y nine and s i x o f  respectively.  O b v i o u s l y , t h e r e were c o n s i d e r a b l e  in the p e r c e p t i o n s o f the two groups with regard to  items  rather  of standard E n g l i s h , and item 6,  responding to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and f i f t h by 65% o f  in those items  to  fourteenth ability  70% o f both g r o u p s ,  students r e s p o n d i n g .  numbers 11 and 12, ability  teachers was a l s o  ranked lowest by both groups.  r e l a t e d to a p p r o p r i a t e  recognize d i a l e c t a l  Two o f the  usage and d i a l e c t .  differences  in o t h e r s '  to choose the  level  of  listening attentively  with a mean response o f  I tern 11,  the  ranked  Item 12,  the  language a p p r o p r i a t e to a s i t u a t i o n , was by s t u d e n t s .  and responding a p p r o p r i a t e l y , was  1.21  items,  language, was  by sponsor t e a c h e r s and t h i r t e e n t h by s t u d e n t s .  ranked t h i r t e e n t h by sponsor teachers and f o u r t e e n t h item,  control  to speak with c o n f i d e n c e , ranked t h i r d by 75% o f  Agreement between sponsor teachers and student evident  appeared  p e r c e p t i o n s were item 10, the  ranked f o u r t h by approximately  the a b i l i t y  the sponsor t e a c h e r s the j u n i o r  than d i f f e r e n t  differ-  1 and 2.  Two items about which sponsor teachers and student t e a c h e r s to h o l d s i m i l a r  the  A third  identified  by both g r o u p s .  Inasmuch as the data suggest that sponsor teachers o f NITEP s t u d e n t s and NITEP s t u d e n t s are f r e q u e n t l y use o f o r a l  in agreement  r e g a r d i n g the s t u d e n t s '  e x p r e s s i o n in the t e a c h i n g s i t u a t i o n ,  about which t h e i r  p e r c e p t i o n s o f need d i f f e r  The sponsor t e a c h e r s '  evident  use o f v o i c e in the c l a s s r o o m , t h i s m a t t e r , are the s t u d e n t s '  in d i r e c t  those aspects o f  take on an added s i g n i f i c a n c e .  concern r e g a r d i n g the s t u d e n t s ' and the s t u d e n t s '  contrast.  It  is  language  and  lack o f concern about  interesting  p e r c e p t i o n o f need r e g a r d i n g vocabulary  prime need by sponsor t e a c h e r s , sponsor t e a c h e r  quality  to note t h a t  while  is not seen as a  response supports the  85 students'  p e r c e p t i o n t h a t there  is some need o f  improvement  in t h i s  aspect  of oral expression. Oral e x p r e s s i o n in student t e a c h i n g as p e r c e i v e d by students with E n g l i s h as a second language.  When the  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were a n a l y z e d t a k i n g  data from the j u n i o r  first  language  found t h a t students with E n g l i s h as a f i r s t  student  into a c c o u n t ,  language i d e n t i f i e d  i t was item  13,  c o n t r o l o f speech sounds as necessary f o r a phonics program, as needing improvement.  Item 7 , uses i n t e r e s t i n g ,  demonstrates c o n t r o l o f were i d e n t i f i e d students It  v a r i e d v o c a b u l a r y , and item 9 ,  rhythm and rhyme as in poetry  as needing improvement by s i x o f the seven E n g l i s h ^  responding to the j u n i o r student is  i n t e r e s t i n g that the  in l i g h t  s e n i o r students with  questionnaire.  responses from the E n g l i s h ^ students  j u n i o r student group d i f f e r e d so l i t t l e especially  and rhyming e x e r c i s e s ,  from those o f the E n g l i s h ^  o f the marked d i f f e r e n c e s between regard to o r a l  English^  in  the  students,  and E n g l i s h ^  e x p r e s s i o n in academic coursework.  W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n in Student T e a c h i n g : Research Question Four  The f o u r t h  research q u e s t i o n in t h i s  study asked:  w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n do sponsor teachers and students in the student t e a c h i n g o f NITEP s t u d e n t s ? student teachers to demonstrate c a p a b i l i t i e s  Which aspects o f  identify  as concerns  Since o p p o r t u n i t i e s  for  in w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n may be  l i m i t e d by f a c t o r s such as grade l e v e l , shortage o f b l a c k b o a r d s p a c e ,  or  the use o f c o m m e r c i a l l y - p r e p a r e d m a t e r i a l s , o n l y e i g h t  to  items  relating  w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n were i n c l u d e d on the student t e a c h i n g v e r s i o n o f  the  86  questionnaire descriptive F i g u r e k,  (Appendix C ) .  items  p.  The a s p e c t s o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n and the  f o r w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n in student t e a c h i n g appear  in  hj.  W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n in Student Teaching as P e r c e i v e d by Sponsor Teachers  In  response to e i g h t  items d e s c r i b i n g w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n in student  t e a c h i n g , sponsor teachers accorded mean r a t i n g s o f no h i g h e r than 1 . 8 8 to any item  (Table  12).  which has g e n e r a l l y  Since t h i s  is somewhat lower than the 2 . 0 0  been adopted as an i n d i c a t o r o f need in t h i s  study,  i t would appear t h a t w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n in NITEP student t e a c h i n g is not a matter that  o f concern to sponsor t e a c h e r s .  item 8 , the a b i l i t y  about w r i t i n g ,  the teachers  identified  this  s h o u l d be noted  terms a p p r o p r i a t e l y  to make f i n e  distinctions  in  talking  in  as being o f some concern to more than 60% o f  responding to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  1 . 8 5 suggest that these concern at  to use grammatical  and item 7 , the a b i l i t y  v o c a b u l a r y , were  However, 'it  Mean responses o f  items are not seen as matters o f  1 . 8 8 and  particular  time.  W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n in Student Teaching as P e r c e i v e d by J u n i o r Students  J u n i o r s t u d e n t s , those NITEP s t u d e n t s presumably most concerned with student t e a c h i n g s i n c e they spend a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e i r teaching p r a c t i c a , o f concern (Table  time  in  i d e n t i f i e d one item o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n as a matter 13)-  T h i s item,  number 8 , the a b i l i t y  to use grammatical  87 Table I terns  12  in W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as  P e r c e i v e d Concerns by Sponsor Teachers N = 63 Item no.  Language d e s c r i p t o r  Responses^  _  N/A  Total  x  1  2  3  18  29  11  5  63  17  33  8  5  making 18  24  6  25  25  25  terms a p p r o p r i a t e l y  R a n | <  S  order  1 .88  .70  1  63  1 .85  .64  2  15  63  1 • 75  • 67  3  5  8  63  1 • 73  • 72  4  29  6  3  63  1 .68  .65  5  31  25  6  1  63  1 .60  .66  6  8  Used grammatical  7  Made f i n e  6  Used s t y l e  4  Used common a b b r e v i a t i o n s  5  Gave simple  2  Punctuated and  1  Spel 1 ed cor r e c t i y  31  27  5  -  63  1 •59  .64  7  3  Proofread  38  17  9  4  63  1 • 31  .47  8  d i s t i n c t i o n s in  vocabulary  a p p r o p r i a t e to note  correctly  d i r e c t i o n s cl ea r l y c a p i t a l zed  correctly  materials  1 = Satisfactory improvement  o r b e t t e r ; 2 = Needed improvement;  Table  3 = Needed c o n s i d e r a b l e  13  Items in W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Concerns by Jun i o r Students N = 20  1 tern no.  Responses Language d e s c r i p t o r terms  1  2  3  appropriately  2  16  2  in  7  11  2  8  12  -  -  9  9  1  1  14  3  3  14  4  2  14  5  16  4  8  Used grammatical  7  Made f i n e  distinctions  3  Proofread  materials  6  Used s t y l e - a p p r o p r i a t e  2  Punctuated and c a p i t a l i z e d  4  Used common a b b r e v i a t i o n s  1  Spelled  5  Gave simple d i r e c t i o n s  vocabulary  to-.note  correctly correctly  correctly  1 = Satisfactory improvement  making  clearly  1  -  o r b e t t e r ; 2 = Needed improvement;  N/A  Total  3  X  S  Rank order  20  2 .00  • .46  1  20  1 • 75  .64  2  20  1 .60  .50  3  20  1 .58  .61  4  -  20  1 .45  • 76  5  20  1 .40  .68  6  -  20  1 .35  .59  7  -  20  1 .20  .41  8  3 = Needed c o n s i d e r a b l e  88 terms a p p r o p r i a t e l y , was i d e n t i f i e d responding to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  as a concern by 18 o f the 20 s t u d e n t s  Other  being o f some concern to more than h a l f a mean r a t i n g o f 2.00 distinctions  or greater,  items which were i d e n t i f i e d as the students but which d i d not have  were item 7 , the a b i l i t y  in v o c a b u l a r y , and item 3 , the a b i l i t y  to make  fine  to p r o o f r e a d  materials  Although NITEP s t u d e n t s ' w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n in the t e a c h i n g  situation  effect i vely.  Summary  does not appear to be a matter o f prime concern at  this  time,  not be o v e r l o o k e d that both sponsor teachers and student item 8 , the a b i l i t y ability  to make f i n e  to use grammatical distinctions  should  teachers  terms a p p r o p r i a t e l y  in v o c a b u l a r y , f i r s t  it  ranked  and item 7 ,  the  and second.  A n a l y s i s o f the data c o n c e r n i n g w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n from the p e r s p e c t i v e o f E n g l i s h as a f i r s t the j u n i o r  students'  o r second language r e v e a l e d no d i f f e r e n c e s  perceptions of t h e i r  in  performance in w r i t t e n e x p r e s -  sion.  S e l e c t e d Competencies in Teaching Language A r t s : Research Question F i v e  Because student t e a c h i n g o f NITEP, and language a r t s the d e c i s i o n was made to competencies (Appendix C ) .  is a major emphasis in the  dominates the elementary  first  school  two years  curriculum,  i n c l u d e items c o n c e r n i n g language a r t s  in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s developed to c o n s i d e r student Sixteen  items  teaching teaching  r e p r e s e n t i n g s p e c i f i c t e a c h i n g competencies  89 were designed to answer the competencies teachers the  in t e a c h i n g  identify  same as the  What s p e c i f i c  do sponsor t e a c h e r s  improvement?  and  student  The data were t r e a t e d  data c o l l e c t e d from those parts o f and w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n .  the  exactly  questionnaire  Teaching competencies were  in o r d e r o f p e r c e i v e d concern d e r i v e d from the mean response and  standard d e v i a t i o n the  research q u e s t i o n :  language a r t s  as needing  having to do with o r a l ranked  fifth  numerical  calculated  14 and  In a d d i t i o n  means and the s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s ,  breakdown o f the t o t a l (Tables  f o r each item.  to the  the t a b l e s  rankings,  include a  responses to each item i n c l u d i n g a no-answer  column  15).  Language A r t s Teaching Competencies  in  Student  Teaching as P e r c e i v e d by Sponsor Teachers  Seventy percent o r more o f the five  responding sponsor t e a c h e r s  identified  t e a c h i n g competencies as being o f some c o n c e r n , a s s i g n i n g a mean  response o f 2 . 0 0 o r g r e a t e r concern,  identified  the student  to three o f them (Table  teacher's  f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s  pronunciation  Item 5 , the  ranked t h i r d items,  51 o f those  was  literature. item,  ranked  r e s p o n d i n g , but  This  the a b i l i t y  identified  item  to model  as a concern by  r e c e i v e d a mean  rating  competency having to do with q u e s t i o n i n g s k i l l s , was  because o f a mean r a t i n g o f 2 . 0 0 .  demonstrating  the a b i l i t y  The second . ranked  and speech p a t t e r n s  more sponsor t e a c h e r s , of 2 . 0 5 -  The f i r s t  as such by 49 o f the 6 3 r e s p o n d e n t s , had to do with  had a mean response o f 2 . 0 8 . correct  14).  The f o u r t h  f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s  to give c l e a r ,  1.95 and.1.92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  ranked  language background, and  sequenced i n s t r u c t i o n s , They were i d e n t i f i e d  and f i f t h  r e c e i v e d lower means o f as matters o f c o n c e r n ,  Table 1 4 Teaching Competencies Ranked as Concerns by Sponsor Teachers N = 63  I tern number  4 6 5 7  2 16 3  13 . 15  12 11 14  9 10  1 8  Responses Descri p t o r  N/A  Demonstrates f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e Models c o r r e c t p r o n u n c i a t i o n and speech patterns Shows a b i l i t y to use d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f q u e s t i o n s Demonstrates-fami 1 i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s language background Gave c l e a r , sequenced i n s t r u c t i o n s Designs and moderates group o r c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n Reads aloud with e x p r e s s i o n and enjoyment Demonstrates a b i l i t y to assess and e v a l u a t e s t u d e n t ' s progress Involves c h i l d r e n in. a c t i v i t i e s showing i n t e r r e l a t e d ness o f language a r t s usage C o n s t r u c t s useful c h a r t s and o t h e r l e a r n i n g aids Uses media such as photographs, models, f i l m s , e t c . Demonstrates abi 1 i t y -to • i n c o r p o r a t e c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t s in lessons Understands and uses t e a c h i n g manuals Demonstrates knowledge o f , and a b i l i t y to use the l i b r a r y . o r resource c e n t e r P r i n t s and w r i t e s adequately on chalk board Models good l i s t e n i n g b e h a v i o r  1 = S a t i s f a c t o r y o r b e t t e r ; 2 = Needed improvement;  11  33  12  36 32  15  -  15  1  15  .  16  3  Rank order  Total 63 63 63  2 . 0 8  . 6 7  1  2 . 0 5  . 6 6  2  2 . 0 0  • 70  3  1 • 9 5  • 70  4  1 .92  . 6 0  5  1 .81  .72  6  1 • 78  • 73  7  .69  8  16  31  13  14  40  9  -  2 3  28  11  1  25  27  11  -  63 63 63 63  23  29  9  2  63  1 • 77  21  35  4  3  2 8  7  1  29  26  4  2  63 63 63  1  27  25  4  4  23  3  1  30 36  3  37  21  4  1  42  21  -  4 8  12  -  2  1  3 = Needed c o n s i d e r a b l e  • 72  • 59  9  1 . 6 8  • 6 7  10  1 . 3 9  .62  11  63 63  1 . 5 6  . 6 2  12  1 . 4 7  . 5 9  13  63 63 63  1 • 4 7  .62  14  1 • 33  . 4 8  15  1 . 2 6  .51  16  improvement  Table 15 Teaching Competencies Ranked as Concerns by J u n i o r Students N = 20  1 tern n umb e r 7 4 13 11 15 12 5 10 14 6 2 16 1 3 9 8  Responses Descri p t o r Demonstrates f a m i 1 i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s language background Demonstrates f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e Demonstrates a b i 1 i t y to assess and e v a l u a t e student progress Uses media such as photographs, models, f i l m s , e t c . Involves c h i l d r e n in a c t i v i t i e s showing i n t e r r e l a t e d ness o f language a r t s C o n s t r u c t s useful c h a r t s and o t h e r l e a r n i n g aids Shows a b i l i t y to use d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f questions Demonstrates knowledge o f , and a b i l i t y to use the 1 i b r a r y o r resource c e n t e r Demonstrates a b i l i t y to i n c o r p o r a t e c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t in lessons Models c o r r e c t p r o n u n c i a t i o n and speech patterns Gave c l e a r , sequenced i n s t r u c t i o n s Designs and moderates group o r c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n P r i n t s and w r i t e s adequately on chalk board Reads a l o u d w i t h e x p r e s s i o n and enjoyment Understands and uses t e a c h i n g manuals a p p r o p r i a t e l y Models good 1 i s t e n i n g b e h a v i o r  1 = S a t i s f a c t o r y o r b e t t e r ; 2 = Needed improvement;  3  S  Rank order  2 .15 1 • 95  .59 .51  1 2  20 20  1 • 75 1 • 70  .55 • 73  3 4  1 2  -  20 20 20  1 .65 1 .65 1 .56  .59 .67 • 51  5 6 7  10  -  20  1 .50  • 51  8  8 9 9 7 6 6 4 2  1  20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20  1 • 50 1 .45 1 .45 1 .45 1 .40 1 • 30 1 .30 1 .10  .61 .51 .51 .61 .60  9 10 10 12 13 14 15 16  1  2  3  2 3  13 15  5 2  20 20  6 9  13 8  1 3  8 9 9  11 9 11  10 11 11 11 12 13 14 15 18  3 = Needed c o n s i d e r a b l e  -  1 1  -  1  —  N/A  Total  improvement  X  .47 .51 .31  92 however,  to kk and hS o f those r e s p o n d i n g .  Language A r t s T e a c h i n g Competencies in Student Teaching as P e r c e i v e d by J u n i o r Students  J u n i o r s t u d e n t s , those students student  t e a c h i n g , a s s i g n e d o n l y the f i r s t  mean r a t i n g over 2 . 0 0 (Table ing students  registered  1 5 ) ; that  The second ranked  item,  was number k, demonstrating Eighty-five  ranked t e a c h i n g competency a  i s , ninety  concern about  with c h i l d r e n ' s language background. 2.15.  in the NITEP most concerned with  percent o f the respond-  item 7 , demonstrating Moreover,  i t had a mean r a t i n g o f  a c c o r d i n g to responses from j u n i o r  familiarity  percent o f the students  with c h i l d r e n ' s  identified  to assess and e v a l u a t e  literature.  1.95-  Item 1 3 ,  student p r o g r e s s , was i d e n t i f i e d  concern by seventy percent o f the respondents but r e c e i v e d a mean of  1.75-  Four o t h e r  t e a c h i n g competencies were i d e n t i f i e d  concern by more than h a l f  photographs, models, f i l m s ;  other  rating  as c a u s i n g  students  d i d not exceed a mean response o f 1 . 7 0 .  items had to do with a b i l i t i e s  interrelatedness  as a  the responding s t u d e n t s , but the degree o f  c o n c e r n , as i n d i c a t e d by the mean response o f the j u n i o r ing to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  students,  the item as being o f  c o n c e r n , although the item had a mean response o f only the a b i l i t y  familiarity  in the f o l l o w i n g :  involving children  o f language a r t s ;  respondThese  use o f media such as  in a c t i v i t i e s  c o n s t r u c t i o n o f useful  showing  c h a r t s and  learning a i d s ; questioning s k i l l s . C e r t a i n t e a c h i n g competencies were i d e n t i f i e d  to fewer  than one t h i r d o f the responding s t u d e n t s .  with e x p r e s s i o n and enjoyment,  as being o f concern Item 3 , reads a l o u d  item 9 , understands and uses t e a c h i n g  93 manuals a p p r o p r i a t e l y , fourteenth,  and item 8, models good l i s t e n i n g b e h a v i o r ,  f i f t e e n t h and s i x t e e n t h  item 8, was i d e n t i f i e d  respectively.  The l a s t  ranked  mentioned,  as a matter o f concern by o n l y 2 o f the s t u d e n t s  responding to the t e a c h i n g competencies.  Summary  Sponsor teachers and j u n i o r  students appeared to be in a c c o r d with  regard t o concerns about the NITEP student t e a c h e r s ' children's strating  1anguage background and c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e .  familiarity  with c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e ,  sponsor teachers and second by j u n i o r s t u d e n t s . familiarity junior  with  Item k, demon-  was ranked f i r s t by Item 7, demonstrates  with c h i l d r e n ' s language background, was ranked f i r s t by  students and f o u r t h by sponsor t e a c h e r s .  It would a p p e a r , however,  that sponsor t e a c h e r s and j u n i o r  d i d not h o l d s i m i l a r o p i n i o n s about o t h e r t e a c h i n g competencies.  For example, sponsor t e a c h e r s  s i x t e e n competencies w h i l e j u n i o r students items about which they  ability  t o give c l e a r ,  students  items d e s c r i b i n g s p e c i f i c  models c o r r e c t p r o n u n c i a t i o n and speech p a t t e r n s ,  Other  familiarity  ranked item 6 ,  second on the l i s t  of  ranked the same item t e n t h .  d i d not seem to be in agreement were the  sequenced i n s t r u c t i o n s , ranked f i f t h by t e a c h e r s  and tenth by s t u d e n t s , the a b i 1 i t y  t o design and moderate c l a s s  discussion,  ranked s i x t h by teachers and t w e l f t h by s t u d e n t s , and the a b i l i t y  to  read aloud with e x p r e s s i o n and enjoyment,  teachers  and f o u r t e e n t h  ranked s i x t h by sponsor  by student t e a c h e r s .  Items which seemed to concern j u n i o r t e a c h e r s , at l e a s t  students more than  in terms o f the r a n k i n g s , were items  sponsor  11, the  ability  Sh to use media, and item 1 0 , k n o w l e d g e a b i 1 i t y about the  l i b r a r y o r resource  center. I terns about which sponsor teachers and j u n i o r s t u d e n t s seemed to h o l d s i m i l a r views were questions, progress, were  item 5 , shows a b i l i t y  to use d i f f e r e n t  item 1 3 , demonstrates a b i l i t y  to assess and e v a l u a t e  and item 8 , models good l i s t e n i n g b e h a v i o r .  ranked,  in o r d e r ,  and t h i r d by j u n i o r  levels  of students'  The f i r s t  two  items  t h i r d and e i g h t h by sponsor t e a c h e r s , and seventh  students.  The t h i r d  i t e m , m o d e l l i n g good l i s t e n i n g  b e h a v i o r was ranked l a s t by both groups. Teaching competencies in s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g o f  language a r t s  as  p e r c e i v e d by j u n i o r students with E n g l i s h as a second language. a n a l y s i s o f data concerning s p e c i f i c t e a c h i n g competencies in arts  c o n s i d e r i n g the  information.  first  language v a r i a b l e  Responses from those s t u d e n t s  speakers o f E n g l i s h as a f i r s t  identifying  themselves as  language p a r a l l e l e d those r e p o r t e d  in the s i z e o f the mean r e s p o n s e s .  the f i r s t  familiarity  with c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e  E n g l i s h as a f i r s t  in  For example,  with c h i l d r e n ' s language background,  r e g i s t e r e d a mean response o f 2 . 0 0 i n s t e a d o f 2 . 1 5 , w h i l e familiarity  language  r e s u l t e d in l i t t l e new  Table 2 0 , d i f f e r i n g only ranked item 7 ,  The  item  had a mean response o f  language speakers as compared with 1 . 9 5 f o r  k, 1.92  for  those  who spoke E n g l i s h as a second language. All  students f o r whom E n g l i s h . w a s a second language  item 7 , demonstrates f a m i l i a r i t y as being o f c o n c e r n .  with c h i l d r e n ' s language background,  In a d d i t i o n , they  responded to  with c h i l d r e n ' s 1 i t e r a t u r e by a s s i g n i n g i t would appear that the obviously  first  differentiates  English,  item 4 ,  familiarity  a mean response o f 2 . 0 0 .  language v a r i a b l e  between  identified  It  is not a f a c t o r which  and E n g l i s h , j u n i o r  students  when they  are doing t h e i r  Comments from the  student  Questionnaires  Several o p p o r t u n i t i e s participants  to e l a b o r a t e  make general  comments.  particularly  relevant  discussion will  were i n c l u d e d in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s on t h e i r  to an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  o f the  c o n t a i n a summary o f the  presented.  In a d d i t i o n ,  to  considered  d a t a , o r the ensuing  in Chapter 5.  with c o n c l u s i o n s on the b a s i s o f the  presented.  for  responses to s p e c i f i c items o r  Comments from the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  be c i t e d  Chapter 5 w i l l together  teaching.  recommendations  for  findings of this information further  study,  and data  study w i l l  be  96  CHAPTER F TVE SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS  T h i s study was designed to c o n s i d e r the q u e s t i o n s of and the p o t e n t i a l Teacher  for  i t s development w i t h i n NITEP, the Natfve  Education Program in the F a c u l t y of  B r i t i s h Columbia.  E n g l i s h competency Indian  E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of  S i n c e student competency in E n g l i s h has ranked as a  matter of concern throughout u n i v e r s i t y communities i n c r e a s i n g l y d u r i n g recent y e a r s , and i n t e r n a l  and e x t e r n a l  e v a l u a t i o n s of NITEPhave s i n g l e d  out c e r t a i n problems in the program r e l a t e d present s i t u a t i o n timely  and  t o E n g l i s h , a review of  r e g a r d i n g E n g l i s h and language a r t s  the  in NITEP seemed  worthwhile.  Needs assessment, a process which: can be adapted to f o c u s on one aspect o f a program in o r d e r to to o f f e r is to  a rational  identify  approach to the problem.  1earners'  s t a t u s quo l e a r n i n g  l o c a t e s p e c i f i c areas of c o n c e r n , seemed The i n t e n t of  n e e d s - - d i s c r e p a n c T e s between the  s i t u a t i o n — a n d to e s t a b l i s h p r i o r i t y  r e v e a l e d needs, i n v o l v i n g as many r e l e v a n t  t h i s process  ideal  and the  amongst  the  persons as p o s s i b l e .  Because there was l i t t l e u s a b l e data a v a i l a b l e from which to draw c o n c l u s i o n s concerning NITEP s t u d e n t s i m p r a c t i c a l at  this  time,  competency, and t e s t i n g was  an a l t e r n a t i v e  b e l i e v e d that program p a r t i c i p a n t s p e r c e p t i o n s o f NITEP s t u d e n t s ' of  1,  was sought.  in NITEP would  This researcher  have f a i r l y  firm  E n g l i s h competency and an adequate sampling  these p e r c e p t i o n s would be u s e f u l  in determining  the needs of  students.  The d e c i s i o n was taken to d e s i g n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e which would encourage  97 participants;, competency priority  to  indicate  in such a way that  p e r c e p t i o n of NITEP s t u d e n t s '  the data c o u l d Be q u a n t i f i e d  English  and ranked  in  o f p e r c e i v e d need.  Covering l e t t e r s , sent  their  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and stamped addressed envelopes were  to people who had been involved with the program s i n c e 1977 and f o r  whom a d d r e s s e s were a v a i l a b l e .  Returns r e p r e s e n t i n g  69% of  the  total  sample to whom q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were mailed were subsequently a n a l y z e d . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s u l t s were presented Chapter h of  this  study.  The i n t e r p r e t a t T o n ,  in t e x t and t a b l e s  in  i m p l i c a t i o n s and recommen-  d a t i o n s a r i s i n g from the data a r e presented here w i t h i n the context of r e s e a r c h quest Tons which were addressed by t h i s  F i n d i n g s of  needs assessment.  the Research Q u e s t i o n s  The needs assessment process in t h i s  study addressed f i v e  research  q u e s t i o n s through two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ! one concerned with NITEP  students  primarily  i n v o l v e d with u n i v e r s i t y  coursework, and the second concerned  with NITEP students who a r e p r i m a r i l y designed to e l i c i t  data f o r  involved  in student  teaching or had taught  t h i r d and f o u r t h year of  teaching.  i n s t r u c t o r s who were  in NITEP, and s e n i o r students  the program.  Similarly,  in  the  items were designed  to c o l l e c t answers to Research Questions T h r e e , Four and F i v e from sponsor teachers now or r e c e n t l y students, program.  and from j u n i o r  Items  the purpose of answering Research Questions  One a n d Two were asked of c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y presently  the  involved  students  in the s u p e r v i s i o n of  in the f i r s t  NITEP  or second year of  the  98 Responses to Research Questions One and Two i n d i c a t e d t h a t instructors  i d e n t i f i e d more s k i l l s  needed improvement  in o r a l  than d i d s t u d e n t s ,  although  and w r i t t e n express ion which  f o r the most part the two groups'  p e r c e p t i o n s o f needs appeared to be s i m i l a r . On the o t h e r hand,, the  r e s u l t s o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  d i r e c t e d to  ing Research Question Three found t h a t sponsor t e a c h e r s and j u n i o r differed  c o n s i d e r a b l y in t h e i r  student t e a c h e r s ' c e i v e d a real teachers  performance  p e r c e p t i o n o f an important in o r a l  expression.  need in the area o f q u a l i t y  registered  1itt1e  students  aspect o f  the  Sponsor teachers  and use o f v o i c e w h i l e  concern about t h i s  answer-  per-  student  aspect o f o r a l e x p r e s s i o n .  Research Question F o u r , designed to c o n s i d e r w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n student  teaching p r a c t i c e ,  students were in agreement  in  r e v e a l e d that both sponsor t e a c h e r s and j u n i o r that w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n presented no  real  concerns. Research Q u e s t i o n F i v e found that sponsor teachers and student identified  some important  teaching of  common concerns about problems  language a r t s  but once again d i f f e r e d  in t h e i r  concerning t e a c h i n g competencies i n v o l v i n g the q u a l i t y  Summary o f the F i n d i n g s and T h e i r  related  teachers  to  the  perception  and use o f  voice.  Implications  Research Question One  Which aspects o f o r a l  e x p r e s s i o n do  and students  as concerns in  university  Eight  identify  coursework o f  university  items d e s c r i b i n g aspects o f o r a l  instructors  instructors the students?  e x p r e s s i o n were i d e n t i f i e d  and s e n i o r students as c o n c e r n s .  Three o f the  items  by  represent  99 a concern common to identified students  i n s t r u c t o r s and s t u d e n t s ,  four of  the  items: were o n l y  by i n s t r u c t o r s and one item was seen as a concern o n l y by  (Tables  16 and  17).  Ta&le Summary of  Items in Oral  Both I n s t r u c t o r s  16  E x p r e s s i o n I d e n t i f i e d as Needing  Improvements  and S e n i o r Students Based on T a b l e s 3 and  k.  I tern  Descriptor  8.  Showed awareness of f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s in v o c a b u l a r y  7,  Showed breadth of v o c a b u l a r y  10.  by  C o n t r o l l e d standard E n g l i s h  N e e d i n g improvement r e p r e s e n t s a mean response of 2.00 or g r e a t e r on the p a r t of the i n s t r u c t o r s and a m a j o r i t y o f responses i n d i c a t i n g a need f o r improvement on the p a r t of the s t u d e n t s .  a  In viewing important  expressed needs of  to remember  d i r e c t o r s to  third  and f o u r t h year  that few o p p o r t u n i t i e s e x i s t  i n f l u e n c e or c o n t r o l  the e d u c a t i o n a l  and f o u r t h year NITEP s t u d e n t s .  At the present  for  students  of  t h i r d and f o u r t h year  the u n i v e r s i t y and away from d i r e c t  the c h i e f v a l u e of these f i n d i n g s regard  to f i r s t  and second year  p o s s i b l e to e s t a b l i s h whether in f i r s t  is  two  structure  of  i n t o the  main-stream  involvement with NITEP.  Therefore,  in the  students.  students  third  only the f i r s t  years of NITEP lend themselves to change because the present the program i n t e g r a t e s  is  NITEP p l a n n e r s or  e x p e r i e n c e s of time,  it  implications For example,  they present with it  should be  or not t h e r e are courses o r support s e r v i c e s  or second year which might address d e f i c i e n c i e s such as those  identified  in T a b l e  16.  S i n c e both  i n s t r u c t o r s and s t u d e n t s share the same  concerns,  such a process should not Be d i f f i c u l t .  difficult  tO' interest  students  It  might  in concerning themselves with  be more skills  100 Tdent ff i ed as concerns o n l y by i n s t r u c t o r s s u c h as those 1 i s t e d  in T a b l e 17  T a b l e 17 Summary of  Items in Oral  E x p r e s s i o n I d e n t i f i e d as Needing Improvement  3  by  1 n s t r u c t o r s Only Based on T a b l e s 3 and 4. 1 tern  Descr i p t o r  15.  C o n t r o l l e d main  ideas  13,  Asked u s e f u l questions-  14.  Supported o p i n i o n s  15.  Organized  ideas c o h e r e n t l y  Needing improvement r e p r e s e n t s a mean response of 2 . 0 0 or g r e a t e r part of the i n s t r u c t o r s .  on the  Reviewing the NITEP program from the p o i n t of view of student o p p o r tunities  to  l e a r n and p r a c t i c e the s k i l l s of o r a l  interesting questions. s t e r e o t y p e of q u i e t , student  Do c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y  shy n a t i v e  to perform well  in o r a l  s t e r e o t y p e by not p u t t i n g assignments? difficult Also, oral  expression?  instructors find their  e x p r e s s i o n , a r e they  i n s t r u c t i o n r e q u i r e d to to simply change t h e i r  likely  Do students r e i n f o r c e  contribution students  e x p r e s s i o n was  in c l a s s was m i n i m a l " .  inadequate  improve the s i t u a t i o n ?  the students a r e not c o n t r i b u t i n g at  the  in c l a s s and a v o i d i n g o r a l  in some a r e a s of  to g i v e the time necessary f o r  instructional  the  not press these  reported that her o r a l  to a s s e s s s i n c e her " o r a l if  i n s t r u c t o r s accept  s t u d e n t s and t h e r e f o r e  themselves forward  One s e n i o r student  c o m p o s i t i o n r a i s e s some  strategies  the  Are they not more to avoid the a r e a s  the expected l e v e l ?  likely in which  One i n s t r u c t o r  commented on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e that small d i s c u s s i o n groups were not s u c c e s s f u l , w h i l e another  r e p o r t e d that n e i t h e r  debates nor  simulation  101 games worked w e l l .  It  were abandoned r a t h e r  may not Be unreasonable to assume that such than g i v i n g c l a s s time f o r  activities  i n s t r u c t i o n which might  make  them work. Only one item,  the use of  effective  imagery,  improvement  By students and not by i n s t r u c t o r s .  researcher,  the wording of  s i n c e the lary,  this  item was r e l a t e d  the concern w i l l  was  identified  In the view of  item may have d i c t a t e d  to the g e n e r a l l y  be included  in that  as  needing  this  the r e s p o n s e , and  accepted concern aBout v o c a b u discussion.  Research" Quest ion "Two  Which a s p e c t s of w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n do i n s t r u c t o r s and students in the u n i v e r s i t y  identify  as concerns  coursework of NITEP  Research Question Two e s t a b l i s h e d  that although  s e n i o r students  not p e r c e i v e as many needs in w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n , they with the  instructors  that w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n  performance which needs and students  improvement,  shared s i m i l a r  Three o f the  items  findings  seemed to  is an area of  p e r c e p t i o n s are  3 and 15,  shown in T a b l e  instructors  student  instructors  18.  and s e n i o r  r e l a t e to essay w r i t i n g .  students These  concerning w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n suggest that both students  instructors  recognize that  w r i t i n g would be w o r t h w h i l e .  developing and improving s k i l l s The program cannot  f o r the s e n i o r students but  can make s i g n i f i c a n t  as j u n i o r  students  might  are concerned.  It  and  in essay  do much to  situation  did  agree  NITEP  The concerns about which  about which both  were c o n c e r n e d , numbers 2 1 ,  students?  improve change  be worthwhile to  the  insofar  provide  102 Table Summary o f by both  items  18  in W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n i d e n t i f i e d  instructors  as Needing  Improvement  3  and S e n i o r Students Based on T a b l e s 6 and 7-  1 tern  Descriptor  21 .  Organized essays  1 1 .  Used grammatical  effectively terms  correctly  3.  Proofread  effectively  9.  Created moods, impressions with words Selected essential  15.  details  N e e d i n g improvement represents a mean response o f 2.00 o r g r e a t e r on the part o f the i n s t r u c t o r s and a m a j o r i t y o f responses i n d i c a t i n g a need on the part o f the s t u d e n t s .  3  opportunities  f o r s e n i o r students to share with j u n i o r  to prepare themselves essay w r i t i n g .  f o r the  Opportunities  during the annual  repeatedly  p o i n t out  f o r such communicat ion might visit  the need f o r  effective  essay w r i t i n g .  realistic  idea o f t h e i r  regular  i n s t r u c t o r s may  improving o n e ' s essay w r i t i n g  is more l i k e l y  needed to t a c k l e  Although  particularly  come about  to campus o r through the  from c e n t e r to c e n t e r .  the a d v i c e o f o t h e r students the m o t i v a t i o n  r i g o u r s o f academic coursework,  "Orientation"  exchange o f n e w s l e t t e r s  students the need  skills,  to be heeded, and to  the number o f s k i l l s  required  for  Since s e n i o r students appear to have a need f o r  improvement  in the "community" s p i r i t  would be wi11ing  p e r c e p t i o n s and o b s e r v a t i o n s .  Although s e n i o r students and i n s t r u c t o r s  o f NITEP  shared a general  o f need in w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n , i n s t r u c t o r s  alone  that needed improvement.  listed  These s k i l l s are  fairly  in w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n ,  seems reasonable to assume t h a t to share t h e i r  provide  identified in T a b l e  they  perception  several 19.  it  skills  103 Table Summary o f by  Items  Instructors  in W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n I d e n t i f i e d as Needing  Made f i n e  4.  in  vocabulary  Used mechanics o f s c h o l a r s h i p Showed coherence and unity  13-  Displayed fluency  14.  Responded to  in  readings  2.  C o n t r o l l e d mechanics o f  capitalized,  for  V a r i e d sentence  7.  20.  punctuated  audience  length  Gave b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n  19.  Supported viewpoint  Needs improvement represents part o f the i n s t r u c t o r s .  The concerns i d e n t i f i e d  evaluation,  it  the conventions o f  mode o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n  a l s o one o f the  o f the  format,  on the  e x p o s i t o r y essay  important  vehicles  in  for  almost  writing. university  student  i n s t r u c t o r s would be most concerned  form o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n .  response p a t t e r n s  or greater  by i n s t r u c t o r s o n l y appeared to c e n t e r  is not s u r p r i s i n g that  particular  details  a mean response o f 2.00  is not only the primary is probably  readings  clearly  with  on the s k i l l s necessary f o r s u c c e s s f u l  c l a s s e s but  correctly  quotation  Summarized and paraphrased  5.  ideas  perceptively  Spelled,  A d j u s t e d tone  of  ideas  1.  17.  in the  distinctions  22.  about t h i s  3  Descri p t o r  10.  Since t h i s  Improvement  Only Based on T a b l e s 6 and 7.  1 tern  entirely  19  instructors  an inadequate  implied  The concerns  apparent  insufficient  control  v o c a b u l a r y , a weakness  in  of  104 internalizing  and e x p r e s s i n g new i d e a s , and r e c o g n i z a b l e d i f f i c u l t i e s  the composing o f e x p o s i t i o n and argument. in essay w r i t i n g ,  Since these s k i l l s are  in  requisite  a n d , as p o i n t e d out by Conry and Rodgers ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,  the  secondary s c h o o l s have not always p r o v i d e d the necessary i n s t r u c t i o n enable most students to master these s k i l l s , what can NITEP do to its  students with t h i s Again,  remembering that  support the t e a c h i n g o f  few o p p o r t u n i t i e s  remedial  they must ensure e a r l y  in E n g l i s h .  exist  to change the  university  p o l i c y does not  in NITEP becomes t w o f o l d .  i d e n t i f i c a t ion and h e l p f o r those students  f o r acceptance i n t o the program but are  S e c o n d l y , they must determine  p r o v i s i o n s are made to help a l l  third  E n g l i s h as a r e c o g n i z e d part o f a u n i v e r s i t y  e d u c a t i o n , the problem f o r program planners  who meet the c r i t e r i a  provide  capabi1ity?  and f o u r t h years o f NITEP, and that general  Firstly,  to  ways  deficient  in which to ensure that  students who want to  improve  in such  skills  in using the mechanics o f s c h o l a r s h i p o r summarizing and p a r a p h r a s i n g readings.  Conry and Rodgers (1978) s u g g e s t e d , a f t e r  weaknesses  in t w e l f t h grade w r i t i n g  in t h e i r  finding serious  province-wide  assessment o f  w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n , t h a t n o t h i n g would change unless students instruction situations  in p a r t i c u l a r geared to  would b e n e f i t editing  s k i l l s and then had o p p o r t u n i t i e s  improve w r i t i n g .  from t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s  groups.  is e n t i r e l y  twelve students are p r e s e n t l y One. i n t e r e s t i n g  second language.  students  and student  implications  for  the  p o s s i b l e t h a t some o f those 1978 grade  on the data  regarding o r a l  and w r i t t e n  coursework came from a n a l y z i n g the  those students who i d e n t i f i e d  in  in NITEP.  si delight  in u n i v e r s i t y  to w r i t e  suggested t h a t  such as p r e - w r i t i n g  These s u g g e s t i o n s have i n t e r e s t i n g  NITEP program s i n c e i t  expression  They f u r t h e r  received  responses o f  themselves as speakers o f E n g l i s h as a  Unfortunately  the s i z e o f the sample is; too small  to  10.5 support g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s , but a few o b s e r v a t i o n s appear to be in o r d e r . Compared with the student  group as a w h o l e ,  more concern about aspects o f t h e i r students. o f the year,  In s e v e r a l  instructors. this  English^ students  indicated  E n g l i s h competency than d i d E n g l i s h ^  cases the E n g l i s l ^ students echoed the responses Since NITEP is opening amore n o r t h e r l y  center  next  q u e s t i o n . o f E n g l i s h as a second language may be important  and  should be addressed in the p l a n n i n g .  Research Question Three  Which aspects o f o r a l  e x p r e s s i o n do sponsor  teachers and students  identify  the student  as concerns in  t e a c h i n g o f NITEP s t u d e n t s ?  Responses gathered to answer Research Question Three found t h a t teachers and j u n i o r students p e r c e i v e d a d i f f e r e n t regard to NITEP students performing  in t h e i r  priority  o f needs with  r o l e as student  teachers.  The sponsor teachers who responded to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s saw the and use o f v o i c e as the prime aspect o f o r a l  sponsor  quality  expression requiring  improvement,  whereas j u n i o r students were concerned about needs in the areas o f vocabulary development and the c o n t r o l Since the e f f e c t i v e important  factor  ranked t h i s  of  rhyme and rhythm in speech (Table 20 and  and a p p r o p r i a t e  in s u c c e s s f u l  aspect o f o r a l  and q u a l i t y  use o f the v o i c e can be an  t e a c h i n g , the  fact  e x p r e s s i o n as t h e i r  teachers d i d not, cannot be i g n o r e d . o f v o i c e as s a t i s f a c t o r y ,  student t e a c h i n g seminars o r  If it  21).  t h a t sponsor t e a c h e r s  prime concern w h i l e  student  NITEP students p e r c e i v e t h e i r may be d i f f i c u l t  in speech a r t s  for  use  instructors  c l a s s e s to motivate  students  in to  106 Table 20 Summary o f  Items in Oral  E x p r e s s i o n I d e n t i f i e d as Needing 1mp rovement  3  by Sponsor Teachers Only Based on T a b l e s 10 and 11. Item  Descriptor  2.  Projected voice  sufficiently  1.  Spoke d i s t i n c t l y ,  articulated  clearly  Needs improvement represents a mean response o f 2.00 o r g r e a t e r o f the i n s t r u c t o r s . a  on the part  T a b l e 21 Summary o f Items in Oral  E x p r e s s i o n I d e n t i f i e d as Needing 1mprovement  3  by J u n i o r Students Only Based on T a b l e s 10 and 11. Item  Descriptor  7-  Showed breadth o f vocabulary  9.  Demonstrated c o n t r o l  o f rhyme and rhyth m  A l t h o u g h items 7 and 9 were not accorded means o f 2.00 o r g r e a t e r by the s t u d e n t s , they are l i s t e d here because 15 o f the 20 students i n d i c a t e d a need f o r improvement in these a r e a s . a  improve these s k i l l s .  Since real  r e l i e s on c o n s i d e r a b l e p r a c t i c e , important  improvement  lack o f s t r o n g m o t i v a t i o n  and a r t i c u l a t i o n c o u l d be an  b l o c k t o c o n s t r u c t i v e change.  F a c t o r s which might be at work in t h i s voice  in p r o j e c t i o n  question of q u a l i t y  i n c l u d e the p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d matter o f the t e a c h e r ' s  that a m a j o r i t y c u l t u r e i t may r e f l e c t  a general  words o f one t e a c h e r  v o i c e i s best  f o r the c l a s s r o o m .  acceptance o f the s t e r e o t y p i c a l  responding to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  and use o f perception  On the o t h e r hand, idea t h a t ,  in the  "By nature most  107 Natives  are q u i t e shy and q u i e t " .  In a d d i t i o n , there  is a p o s s i b i l i t y  that sponsor teachers are being o v e r l y p r o t e c t i v e o f the native  Indian student  freely  on such personal matters  If  this  i s so i t  t e a c h e r s , and are t h e r e f o r e  first  group have been impeded by good i n t e n t i o n s . that student teachers have not v o i c e in terms o f c l a s s r o o m  is  interesting  concern o f t h e i r  to note  time that members o f a m i n o r i t y On the o t h e r hand, i t  r e a l i z e d the p o t e n t i a l  may be  b e n e f i t s o f a good therefore  f o r themselves. in T a b l e 21 t h a t j u n i o r students share a development  Although sponsor teachers d i d not share  c o n c e r n , o r a concern about the c o n t r o l o f expression,  and a r t i c u l a t i o n .  s e n i o r c o u n t e r p a r t s c o n c e r n i n g the need f o r  o f a broader v o c a b u l a r y .  their  to comment  management and i n s t r u c t i o n and are not  moved to a c q u i r e these b e n e f i t s It  reluctant  as v o i c e p r o j e c t i o n  would not be the  feelings of  this  rhyme and rhythm in o r a l  they d i d share s i m i l a r p e r c e p t i o n s with s t u d e n t s about need  with regard to two o t h e r  items from the student  These items appear in T a b l e  teaching questionnaire.  22.  Table 22 Summary o f  Items in Oral  E x p r e s s i o n I d e n t i f i e d as Needing  Improvement  3  by Both Sponsor Teachers and J u n i o r Students Based on T a b l e s 10 and 11. 1 tern  10. 6.  Descr i p t o r  Cont r o l 1 e d informal  standard English  Spoke with con f i den ce  Needs improvement r e p r e s e n t s a mean response o f 2.00 o r g r e a t e r on the p a r t o f the i n s t r u c t o r s . Although items 10 and 6 were not accorded means o f 2.00 o r g r e a t e r by the s t u d e n t s , they are i n c l u d e d here because 14 o f the 20 students i n d i c a t e d a need f o r improvement in these a r e a s .  It  seems p o s s i b l e t h a t  if  students are concerned about t h e i r  use o f  108 informal  standard E n g l i s h t h i s  to speak, with c o n f i d e n c e .  e x p r e s s i o n in the  to make p r o v i s i o n s in student  f o r encouraging improvement these aspects o f p r e c e d i n g student  reflected  in an  Since both teachers and students  about these aspects o f o r a l difficult  may be one f a c t o r  t e a c h i n g and r e l a t e d  in these a r e a s .  language b e h a v i o r  classroom, it  inability  are concerned s h o u l d not be situations  As open d i s c u s s i o n about  in the Sponsor Teacher Workshops  t e a c h i n g c o u l d enable students to ask f o r h e l p  p r a c t i c a a n d teachers to g i v e  during  it.  Research Question Four  Which aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n do sponsor teachers and students the student  identify  as concerns in  t e a c h i n g o f NITEP s t u d e n t s ?  Responses c o l l e c t e d to answer Research Quest ion Four d i d not any aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n in the student translated  reasonably w e l l  reseacher has observed that the program s t a f f l e s s o n plans during the student  noted d u r i n g the May 1980  in t h i s  area.  It  This  p l a c e s c o n s i d e r a b l e emphasis  t e a c h i n g y e a r s , and had  p r a c t i c u m the k i n d o f  t e a c h e r who wrote on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , " . . . very  which  time that the program is p r o v i d i n g the students with  is needed f o r them to f u n c t i o n  on w r i t t e n  teaching s i t u a t i o n  i n t o a need r e q u i r i n g s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n o r change in NITEP.  would appear at t h i s whatever  reveal  frequently  response i n d i c a t e d by one  w r i t t e n plans were d e t a i l e d  and  thorough." In t h e i r  comments on w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n most sponsor t e a c h e r s  p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d concerns about o r a l  language and general  reiterated  satisfaction  109 concerning written e x p r e s s i o n . students needed a great mainly s a t i s f a c t o r y . " than o r a l  English."  (NITEP s t u d e n t s )  For example, one t e a c h e r s a i d ,  deal o f work with spoken E n g l i s h - - w r i t t e n was Another s t a t e d , " W r i t t e n E n g l i s h much more  s h o u l d have more f a c i l i t y  O b v i o u s l y , some teachers  language, but o v e r a l l  with the w r i t t e n  language," "biggest  d i d have concerns about w r i t t e n  the sponsor t e a c h e r  responses on the student  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s suggest that aspects o f o r a l concerns more o f t e n  fluent  On the o t h e r hand, one t e a c h e r commented that "They  w h i l e another commented on language and s p e l l i n g s k i l l s as the downfall."  " A l l my  teaching  e x p r e s s i o n are viewed as  than aspects o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n .  Research Question F i v e  Which o f the s p e c i f i c t e a c h i n g competencies  related  to the t e a c h i n g o f  teachers  and students  language a r t s  identify  do sponsor  as needing improvement?  Reseach Question F i v e found t h a t sponsor teachers and j u n i o r were concerned about children's  d e f i c i e n c i e s in the student  language background and t h e i r  teachers'  students  knowledge o f  knowledge o f c h i l d r e n ' s  literature  (Table. 2 3 ) . Since these concerns about a lack o f knowledge o f c h i l d r e n ' s  literature  and c h i l d r e n ' s language background were p e r c e i v e d by both groups as~ inadequacies needing improvement,  it  appears t h a t present  course content  language a r t s methodology is not p r o v i d i n g what some students area.  It  seems that the  r e g u l a r content o f  language a r t s  --  require  in  in this  as suggested by  110 T a b l e 23 Summary o f Teaching Competencies I d e n t i f i e d as Needing  Improvement  by Both  Sponsor Teachers and J u n i o r Students Based on T a b l e s 14 and 15. I tern  Descriptor  4.  Demonstrates  familiarity  with c h i l d r e n ' s  literature  7-  Demonstrates background  familiarity  with c h i l d r e n ' s  language  A l t h o u g h item 4 was not accorded a mean response o f 2.00 o r g r e a t e r by the s t u d e n t s , i t was i d e n t i f i e d as needing improvement by 17 o f 20 s t u d e n t s . S i m i l a r l y , item 7 was not accorded a mean response o f 2.00 o r g r e a t e r by sponsor teachers but was i d e n t i f i e d as needing improvement by 44 out o f 60 sponsor t e a c h e r s . a  course o u t l i n e s  and student  assumes that student  teachers  teachers  language a r t s  methodology t e x t s  —  come to t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n with a knowledge  of  c h i l d r e n ' s books and the content o f a " t y p i c a l " white m i d d l e - c l a s s c h i l d ' s language background as a d i r e c t  result  of their  own u p b r i n g i n g and e d u c a t i o n .  C o n s i d e r i n g the ever growing numbers o f n o n - m a j o r i t y enrolled  in t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n , t h i s  which the  full  arrive  seems q u i t e at  the  that n a t i v e  acquiring it  rhymes and games.  need to be addressed by those i n v o l v e d in the  in the program d i r e c t l y  methodology.  related  It  Questions for  presentation  is a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t o t h e r  to the student  will  children's  need f o r such a background and the o p p o r t u n i t i e s  reading and language a r t s  appears  Indian students  equipped with a s t r o n g background in  book and language e x p e r i e n c e s such as nursery concerning t h e i r  This c e r t a i n l y  Indian s t u d e n t s .  unreasonable to expect  university  students  seems to be a f a l l a c i o u s assumption o f  i m p l i c a t i o n s have not been c o n s i d e r e d .  to be the case f o r n a t i v e It  culture  t e a c h i n g component o f  of course  NITEP  Ill c o u l d assume some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y It  was  interesting  modelling correct of questions  of  p r o n u n c i a t i o n and the a b i l i t y  in language a r t s  it  students.  Since one o f these  general  perception  degree to which sponsor t e a c h e r s '  Recommendations A r i s i n g from the  The f o l l o w i n g  resulting  been d i s c u s s e d . relating  items  seems to be  perception.  Implications  data drawn by  c o n c l u s i o n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s  administrative  and use  item simply  hold this  F i n d i n g s and  The recommendations  to v a r i o u s  levels  about q u a l i t y  recommendations are based upon the  needs assessment and the  categories  to use d i f f e r e n t  would appear that the s i n g l i n g out o f t h i s  r e i t e r a t e s the  have j u s t  competencies,  i n s t r u c t i o n , were s i n g l e d out by sponsor  to the sponsor t e a c h e r s '  voice,  area.  to note that o n l y two t e a c h i n g  t e a c h e r s but not by j u n i o r related  in t h i s  are o r g a n i z e d  the  that  into  aspects o f the NITEP  program:  A d m i s s i o n ; Academic Component; Education Component; and Support S e r v i c e s . Admi ss i o n .  It  is  recommended that e a r l y  students who may be l e s s p r o f i c i e n t this  information  to those  in E n g l i s h ,  instructors  a p o s i t i o n to a s s i s t these s t u d e n t s ,  s h o u l d be a s p e c i f i c  this  year,  it  prior  of  to s t u d e n t s '  who are  be an i n c r e a s e  in  responsibility acceptance  Since the program is expanding to a northern  may be that there w i l l  those  and the t r a n s m i s s i o n o f  a n d / o r program s t a f f  o f those who do the s c r e e n i n g i n t e r v i e w s i n t o the program.  identification  community  in the number o f  students who speak E n g l i s h as a second language, o r a n o n - s t a n d a r d and e a r l y special It  indentification  o f these students would e x p e d i t e  attending  dialect, to any  needs. is  recommended that  if  any s t u d e n t ' s  E n g l i s h background appears  to  112  warrant  such i n t e r v e n t i o n ,  to  speaking, w r i t i n g and/or  take  i n t o the  program.  and t h r o u g h students, skills  this  might  NITEP A d v i s o r y  that  for  provide  upgrading  Committee might  It  s u c h a r e a s as e x p o s i t o r y  to enable the  facilitate  c o u l d c a p i t a l i z e on t h e  interests  while  attending  a course  in terms o f  It  is  students' heavy  be a l l o w e d t o  presently courses  do.  teaching  interfere  Every e f f o r t  at  interruptions night,  after  instructors.  students'  in  only  in  common b a c k g r o u n d s  and  Adherence to  be s p a r e d t o  special  regular  facilitate  perhaps at  on s t u d e n t s ,  acknowledged the  in which  program  Having to practice  (of  is  as  they  these  NITEP c e n t e r s ,  one t h a t  "One group  The  the  English studies  f i n d ways  such  regulations.  aspects of  students'  NITEP c l a s s e s o r  F o r e x a m p l e , one w r o t e ,  this  within  E n g l i s h 100 o r 200.  day,  or  100  language s k i l l s  needs.  NITEP o b l i g a t i o n s .  strain  not  to  should ensure acceptance of  and o t h e r  the  effort  justifies  and E n g l i s h d e p a r t m e n t  w i t h the  attending  d a y , p l a c e s an u n f o r t u n a t e  of  ensuring  English  instruction  in o t h e r  s h o u l d be made t o  due t o  The  possible sources  NITEP make e v e r y  ongoing  no e f f o r t  success  can be s c h e d u l e d d u r i n g  from  classes  student  most  language  program.  program to o f f e r  procedures  university  for  their  as a n o t h e r way o f  identified  recommended t h a t  opportunities  demands o f  must n o t  free  further  their  and o t h e r the  colleges  a v a i l a b l e to  program whenever e n r o l l m e n t  which  standards  entry  community  i n t o the  investigate  recommended t h a t  a context  examination  at  strengthening  entry  to  e s s a y w r i t i n g but  to  offered  to  take such c o u r s e s .  the  Such a c o u r s e w o u l d  students'  s u c h as t h i s  is  course w i t h i n  for  students  courses p r i o r  and a r e t h e r e f o r e  undertake  are encouraged to  g a i n p e r m i s s i o n and a p p r o v a l  action.  improvement  opportunities  ease the  Academic component.  an e q u i v a l e n t  reading  Institute  pre-NITEP education  students  should consider counselling  S i n c e such courses are o f t e n  t h e Open L e a r n i n g  and t h u s  funding  interviewers  and be  attend  English  teaching  all  r e c o g n i z e d by  NITEP s t u d e n t s ) ,  I  113 recall,  did. not have time to eat  They were v e r y ,  very t i r e d  d i n n e r b e f o r e a r r i v i n g at the C o l l e g e .  and were p h y s i c a l l y and mentally  at a very  low  ebb". Education component. and I n s t r u c t i o n Instruction  in Developmental  rather  is recommended that E d u c a t i o n 30k, C u r r i c u l u m  in the Language A r t s , and Education 305, C u r r i c u l u m and  as two one and o n e - h a l f NITEP,  It  unit  Reading in the Elementary S c h o o l , be o f f e r e d courses d u r i n g each o f the  than c o n s e c u t i v e l y and f o r three  second year as is p r e s e n t l y the c a s e . c u r r i c u l u m o f the elementary  school,  it  in t h e i r e a r l i e s t  preparation  in e i t h e r  area  practicum.  two y e a r s  u n i t s each in f i r s t  Since language a r t s  in  or  dominates  is not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t  teachers are expected t o teach language a r t s , reading,  first  the  student  a good deal o f which i n c l u d e s  To send them out without any  is unreasonable.  A recent melding o f the two f a c u l t y o f e d u c a t i o n departments o f E n g l i s h Education and Reading i n t o one Department facilitate  at  least  a reorganization  if  and language a r t s methodology c o u r s e s .  o f Language Education s h o u l d  not an i n t e g r a t i o n  o f the  reading  Such development would be in keeping  with the expressed p h i l o s o p h y o f the new p r o v i n c i a l  c u r r i c u l u m guide  (B.C.,  1978). It  is  recommeded that  p r o v i d e more than the  i n s t r u c t o r s o f Education 30k and 305 be asked to  usual o p p o r t u n i t i e s  f o r NITEP students to become  f a m i l i a r with c h i l d r e n ' s books, poems, word games, f i n g e r myriad o f e x p e r i e n c e s with which, an e f f e c t i v e arts  should be f a m i l i a r .  be asked to special  incorporate  needs o f n a t i v e  particular  attention  In a d d i t i o n , information  it  is  recommended that such  instructors  relating  in E n g l i s h language a r t s ,  to the new Language a r t s  the  t e a c h e r o f E n g l i s h language  and t e a c h i n g m a t e r i a l s  Indian c h i l d r e n  p l a y s , and a l l  guide f o r n a t i v e  to  the  paying  children  114  1979).  (Klesner, It  is  recommended that  be o f f e r e d at  the b e g i n n i n g o f  a p p r i s e d o f the p e r t i n e n t with n a t i v e  Education 216, first  Speech Education O i  year,  results of this  Indian program s t a f f  and that the  units),  i n s t r u c t o r be  needs assessment.  Consultation  and a d v i s o r s regarding the whole q u e s t i o n  o f v o i c e , and how much change may be d e s i r a b l e o r n e c e s s a r y , s h o u l d be helpful  in p l a n n i n g t h i s  through the Department  course.  Since speech a r t s  courses are p r o v i d e d  o f Language E d u c a t i o n , o p p o r t u n i t i e s  some aspects o f c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e and c h i l d r e n ' s e a r l y background into t h i s It  is  incorporating  language  course c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d by the a p p r o p r i a t e  recommended that the program extend  "a NITEP community" to degree.  for  its  instructors.  r e c o g n i z e d concept o f  i n c l u d e i n s t r u c t o r s and sponsor teachers to a g r e a t e r  Both these groups might b e n e f i t  from an i n c r e a s e d sense o f  b e l o n g i n g to the program and to expect as a part o f t h e i r meet f o r an exchange o f views and  involvement  to  information.  NITEP sponsor teachers p r e s e n t l y a t t e n d o c c a s i o n a l workshops.  It  seems that an e x t e n s i o n o f these workshops might  provide opportunities  to e x p l o r e the p o s s i b i l i t i e s inherent  in student  teaching supervision for  improving student t e a c h e r performance  in those areas that have been  i d e n t i f i e d by the assessment as needing improvement. arising  from t e a c h e r s '  Problems such as those  r e l u c t a n c e to expect enough o f the student  teachers  through misguided kindness c o u l d be addressed in such meetings. Instructors  certainly  as a part o f t h e i r since faculty  should be encouraged to meet t o g e t h e r  commitment to NITEP.  participating  This  is not an unusual  regularly expectation  in o t h e r a l t e r n a t e programs p r e s e n t l y  Among o t h e r t h i n g s such r e g u l a r and ongoing contact between program s t a f f would f a c i l i t a t e  do s o .  i n s t r u c t o r s and  a concern f o r E n g l i s h across the  curriculum  115 and enable the development o f E n g l i s h p r o f i l e s f o r such meetings have been held staff  positive  in t h e i r  comments about  experiment. Because NITEP espouses p r i n c i p l e s of community,  every e f f o r t  be made  to  have r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  For example, in North Vancouver t h i s needed to know" a f t e r  the f i r s t  Such communication r e p o r t e d l y Support s e r v i c e s . provides j u n i o r  It  it  is a l s o important  from students at  students  drafted  to  in reading  is a good one, some data the present  texts,  to t h e i r  to a p p o r t i o n i n g the  taking  in-service for  which  equipping  t e s t s and o t h e r  practice  is q u e s t i o n a b l e .  such  Many of  effectively  own c o u r s e content and t e a c h i n g s t y l e .  time made a v a i l a b l e  the needs  time to teach s p e c i f i c study  by such a move,  the program d e c i s i o n makers c o n s i d e r u s i n g some of  purchasing a general  instructors.  from the needs assessment suggest that  addressed by NITEP i n s t r u c t o r s g i v e n e x t r a related  it  In  addition  i s recommended  the funds spent  study s k i l l s c o u r s e from a community c o l l e g e to  NITEP i n s t r u c t o r s on e f f e c t i v e  methods f o r  provide  teaching  their  E n g l i s h and language a r t s  needs  own study ski 11s. It  is recommended that some form of  assessment be an ongoing process in NITEP. students and r e g u l a r  changes to the  students'  change c o n s i d e r a b l y .  needs w i l l  sponsor teacher the a t t e n t i o n  they  l e a s t one week  Although the b a s i c premise of  p e r c e i v e d by i n s t r u c t o r s and s e n i o r students c o u l d be more  skills  "things  instructors.  students with a study s k i l l s course f o r at  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f  listsof  practicum and these were issued to useful  that  such m e e t i n g s .  is recommended that the present arrangement  students with s p e c i f i c s k i l l s skills  year,  proved -  in September be d i s c o n t i n u e d .  that  Three  in North Vancouver t h i s year and program  and i n s t r u c t o r s have been very  this  each s t u d e n t s .  With an annual  program,  it  of program p a r t i c i p a n t s  may be expected  The f o l l o w i n g  supports the c o n t e n t i o n of t h i s  intake  of  that  comment from a  researcher  that f o c u s i n g  on E n g l i s h can in and of  itself  be  116 a worthwhile  endeavor.  In the words of  the t e a c h e r ,  asked to e v a l u a t e  have always been a d e f i n i t e  NITEP students - -  I'm  as  people a r e aware o f  I feel  that  if  "These areas we are  problem with almost a l l my  g l a d to be a b l e to respond to a survey such as t h i s these d e f i c i e n c i e s , they w i l l  --  be  improved u p o n . " Although t h i s  r e s e a r c h ' s e x p e r i e n c e in NITEP has not l e d her to  the  c o n c l u s i o n that "almost a l l " NITEP students have problems in language is  important  to r e a l i z e  that  if  it  people have such p e r c e p t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g  NITEP s t u d e n t s ' competency, these p e r c e p t i o n s w i l l s h i p with the program and w i t h the s t u d e n t s .  influence their  There  relation-  is no q u e s t i o n t h a t  some NITEP students have had s e r i o u s problems with the E n g l i s h language. One s e n i o r student expressed her personal f r u s t r a t i o n s with E n g l i s h when she wrote, confusing.  " E n g l i s h a l s o is not c l e a r , After  four y e a r s ,  I haven't  has many t w i s t e d gotten f a r . "  sounds and  It  is  interesting  the same needs assessment produced a sponsor teacher who s a i d , "I been very f o r t u n a t e very h i g h . "  in having such s t u d e n t s — t h e i r  Such procedures o f f e r  degree of c o n t r o l which they v a l u e  (More,  i s recommended that remedial  be a v a i l a b l e f o r  the most e f f e c t i v e  10).  to enter  including reading,  the program and then  E n g l i s h background.  An assessment  way in which to p r o v i d e such i n s t r u c t i o n should be  undertaken by an a p p r o p r i a t e person or agency under the s u p e r v i s i o n of NITEP A d v i s o r y Committee.  Because E n g l i s h t u t o r i n g  v a r i o u s times and in v a r i o u s ways in an attempt to it  the  program p a r t i c i p a n t s a  1 9 7 9 , p.  s t u d e n t s who a r e p e r m i t t e d  it  to" and to a f f e c t  English instruction,  found to have s i g n i f i c a n t gaps in t h e i r of  have  The v a l u e of a needs assessment such as t h i s one i s that  development of a program.  that  standards have been  p r o v i d e s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r everyone to be " l i s t e n e d  It  is  the  has been p r o v i d e d at improve s t u d e n t s '  should probably be included in such an assessment.  writing,  Since English tutoring  117 as  it  has been provided has not  concentrated"on w r i t i n g ,  it  may be that  meet the needs o f students as reported  in t h i s  included a concern f o r o r a l such a s e r v i c e  identified  by the  E n g l i s h but has  is too  program  limited  to  participants  study.  Problems and Suggestions f o r  Change  in Any Future Needs Assessment  The problems encountered timing o f  in t h i s  the survey and weaknesses  assessment  needs assessment were l i n k e d with  in the  instruments.  in June n e c e s s i t a t e d sending q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  may be the b u s i e s t students and  time o f  the year  for  them.  i n s t r u c t o r s were f r e q u e n t l y  and were d i f f i c u l t  to  not at  their  while  of t h e i r  be in school and a v a i l a b l e  situations  courses.  sampling of  meant  respective  that  institutions  in which to c o l l e c t  The February practicum would be f i n i s h e d for  i n s t r u c t o r s and students c o u l d be interviewed  data-producing  it  what  contact.  such a needs assessment.  teachers would s t i l l  needs  to t e a c h e r s at  In a d d i t i o n ,  March and A p r i l would seem to be b e t t e r months for  Doing the  the  by the needs a s s e s s o r j u s t  f o l l o w - u p of any or be included prior  Such procedures would almost guarantee  the p o p u l a t i o n .  broaden the sample base to  Subsequently include native  it  data but  kind  in  to the c o n c l u s i o n an  improved  should a l s o be p o s s i b l e to  Indian t e a c h e r s and other  native  educators. Increased  reliability  the u s e f u l n e s s of results  and v a l i d i t y  of  the needs assessment d a t a .  in a needs assessment such as t h i s  extensive  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  pre-testing  of q u e s t i o n n a i r e  The i n c l u s i o n of  should  student  should improve v a l i d i t y  items and i n s t r u c t i o n s  increase test  while  should  improve  118 reliability'  '  addition,  n  random arrangement  and subsequent a n a l y s i s to check i n t e r n a l follow-up similar  interviews  study in another n a t i v e  A review o f recent  to those sometimes r e f e r r e d  the  would be w o r t h w h i l e ,  instruments and the e n t i r e  needs assessment.  F u r t h e r Research  to as " b a s i c " w r i t e r s  the most promising t e c h n i q u e s .  improving student performance in student  and in the other  native  writing  and a subsequent study  A study to measure the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of speech a r t s  A comparison of  as  F i n a l l y , doing a  r e s e a r c h i n t o the t e a c h i n g of academic  to measure the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  3.  validity  questionnaire  Indian teacher e d u c a t i o n program would be  Suggestions f o r  2.  items on the  of randomly s e l e c t e d p a r t i c i p a n t s .  a good measure o f u t i l i t y of  1.  of  training  in  teaching.  the E n g l i s h and language a r t s components in NITEP Indian and I n u i t teacher  p r e p a r a t i o n programs  in  Canada. k.  A needs assessment study  a l t e r n a t e program o t h e r 5.  regard f o r  reading competencies of  NITEP students with  those students who may not be performing at  g e n e r a l l y accepted as necessary f o r 6.  success  the  level  in a u n i v e r s i t y .  A study to determine what would c o n s t i t u t e an adequate  of c h i l d language and c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e f o r an e f f e c t i v e arts  in an  than NITEP.  An examination of  particular  in E n g l i s h and language a r t s  knowledge  language  teacher. 7.  An a l p h a - t y p e needs assessment f o c u s i n g on n a t i v e  Indian teacher  preparat i o n . 8.  An examination and subsequent l i s t i n g of m a t e r i a l s  improvement o f  teaching and l e a r n i n g f o r  native  relating  Indian s t u d e n t s .  to  the  119 9.  The development of NITEP student  profiles  in o r d e r t h a t  students'  progress may be f o l l o w e d and e v a l u a t e d c o n t i n u o u s l y . 10.  An examination of E n g l i s h as a second language as a f a c t o r  post-secondary education for  native  Indian students  in  in B r i t i s h Columbia.  Conclusion  T h i s needs assessment has concerned i t s e l f and language a r t s components of NITEP in order i s p r o v i d i n g maximum o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r strengthen E n g l i s h competency.  with reviewing  the E n g l i s h  to ensure that the program  NITEP students to develop and  F a i r l y wide-ranging  s u g g e s t i o n s f o r change  in many areas of the program have been recommended.  Such e x t e n s i v e change  is r a r e l y  e a s y , but the s t r o n g sense of purpose and commitment that  through NITEP should enable the program to a s s e s s the v a l u e o f changes and to  i n c o r p o r a t e those that appear to be w a r r a n t e d .  these  runs  120  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Adams, H.  Prison of grass.  Toronto:  New P r e s s , 1975-  A l d o u s , M., B a r n e t t , D . , S K i n g , C. ( E d s . ) . Teacher e d u c a t i o n programs for native people. Saskatoon: U n i v e r s i t y o f Saskatchewan, C o l l e g e o f Education Research Resources C e n t r e , 1974. Andersson, T . & B o y e r , M. B i l i n g u a l s c h o o l i n g in the United States (2nd e d . ) . A u s t i n , Texas: National E d u c a t i o n a l Laboratory P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . , 1978. Ashworth, M. 1979.  The f o r c e s which shaped them.  Vancouver:  New S t a r Books,  Ashworth,M. Language development and the Ahousaht C h i l d r e n . In G.H. Cannon ( E d . ) . The Ahousaht e d u c a t i o n s t u d y . North Vancouver: Clare E d u c a t i o n a l Development I n c . , 1980. A s s e s s i n g p u p i l progress in E n g l i s h . o f Baltimore County, 197&-  Towson, Maryland:  Board o f  Education  A u r b a c h , H.A. and Fuchs, E. The s t a t u s o f American Indian e d u c a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y Park, P e n n s y l v a n i a : P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e , 1970. Bamberg, B. Composition i n s t r u c t i o n does make a d i f f e r e n c e : A comparison o f the high school p r e p a r a t i o n o f c o l l e g e freshmen in r e g u l a r and remedial E n g l i s h c l a s s e s . Research in the Teaching o f E n g l i s h , 1 9 7 8 ,  12 ( 1 ) , 47-59.  B a r n e t t , D.C. P r i n c i p l e s and i s s u e s u n d e r l y i n g the Indian t e a c h e r educat i o n program at the U n i v e r s i t y o f Saskatchewan. Monograph No. 4 Indian and Northern Education Program. Saskatoon: Saskatchewan U n i v e r s i t y Indian and Northern C u r r i c u l u m Resources C e n t r e , 1975B e a v i s , R. "The new i l l i t e r a t e s . . . P r o v i n c e , October 14, 1979, pp.  can they be cured?"  12-13-  Magazi ne,  Sunday  B e l l , R . A . , L i n , E. & W a r h e i t , J . J . Issues in need assessment data collection strategies. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting o f the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , San F r a n c i s c o , 1977- (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 149 2 0 8 ) Benham, W . J . A p h i l o s o p h y o f Indian e d u c a t i o n . Indian E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 7 5 , ]_5 ( 0 1-3-  Journal  of  American  Bergman, R. et a l . Problems o f c r o s s - c u l t u r a l education research and evaluation: the Rough Rock Demonstration S c h o o l . Minneapolis: U n i v e r s i t y o f M i n n e s o t a , 19&9-  121 Berwick, R . F . A s s e s s i n g needs in e t h n i c communit?es.and p l a n n i n g f o r s p e c i f i c purpose i n s t r u c t i o n . Unpublished graduating e s s a y , U n i v e r i s t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 7 7 B e s t , J.W. Research in education•(3rd e d . ) . P r e n t i c - H a l l , Inc., 1977-  Englewood C l i f f s ,  N.J.:  B l a n c h a r d , J . D . & Reedy, R. The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f a t e s t o f E n g l i s h as a second language to measures o f achievement and s e l f concept in a sample o f American Indian s t u d e n t s . Paper presented at American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n C o n v e n t i o n , Miami Beach, F l o r i d a , 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 147 090) B o r g , W. 6 Gal 1, M.D. Educational New York: David McKay, 1979.  research:  An i n t r o d u c t i o n  (3rd e d . ) .  Bowd, A . D . Ten years a f t e r the Hawthorn r e p o r t : changing p s y c h o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the education o f Canadian n a t i v e p e o p l e s . Canad i an P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1977, 18 (4), 332-345. Braithwaite, R.L. Increasing m i n o r i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n in research and development through survey research methodology. Paper presented at American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n P r e - S e s s i o n , T o r o n t o , 1978. Brooks, I.R. Native education in Canada and the United S t a t e s : a bibliography. CiTgary: O f f i c e o f E d u c a t i o n a l Development, Indian Students U n i v e r s i t y Program S e r v i c e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l g a r y , 1976. Brooks, I.R. Teaching n a t i v e c h i l d r e n : lessons from c o g n i t i v e Journal o f E d u c a t i o n a l Thought, 1978, ]2_ ( l ) , 56-67.  psychology.  Brown, R. I n t r o d u c t i o n to M. Ashworth's The f o r c e s which shaped them. Vancouver: New S t a r Books, 19 79 B r i n g i n g u n i t y i n t o language School Board, 1977-  development,  Report  3.  Vancouver:  Vancouver  Burnaby, B. Languages and t h e i r r o l e s in e d u c a t i n g n a t i v e c h i l d r e n . Informal S e r i e s 116. Toronto, Ontario: I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies in E d u c a t i o n , 1980. Canadian Council o f C h i l d r e n and Youth. Admittance r e s t r i c t e d : the c h i l d as c i t i z e n in Canada. T o r o n t o : Canadian Council o f C h i l d r e n and Youth,  1978. Canine, J . K . The American Indian and the community c o l l e g e . (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , T e a c h e r s ' C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1978). Dissertat i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1979, 39_, 39/12A. (University Microf i l m s No. 79-1 3187) Cannon, G.H. The Ahousaht e d u c a t i o n s t u d y . E d u c a t i o n a l Development I n c . , 1980. Cardinal,  D.  "Educators  1970, 40, 21-22.  ...  North Vanouver,  your systems have f a i l e d . "  B.C.:  Clare  Education Canada,  122 Cardinal,  H.,  The r e b i r t h o f  Canada's Indians.  Edmonton:  Hurtig,  1977-  C a v e n d e r , C. S u g g e s t e d e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s f o r t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s urban I n d i a n y o u t h . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1971(ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e N o . ED 052 969) C a z d e n , C. e t a l . Functions of P r e s s , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y ,  language. 1972.  New Y o r k :  Teachers'  of  College  Chow, C . H . M . An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e c o n c e p t o f n e e d s a s s e s s m e n t and i t s r o l e in t h r e e i n s t r u c t i o n a l development a g e n c i e s in h i g h e r education. ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , S y r a c u s e U n i v e r s i t y , 1976). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1977, 37:8 6921-A. (University  M i c r o f i l m N o . 77-9846)  C l i f t o n , R.A. students. Education,  Factors which a f f e c t the education of Canadian Indian In R . A . C a r l t o n , L . A . C o l l e y & N . J . M a c K i n n o n ( E d s . ) , Change and S o c i e t y . Toronto: Gage E d u c a t i o n a l P u b l i s h i n g ,  1977C o f f i n g , R.T. C l i e n t need a s s e s s i n g . In G. Z a l t m a n , D. F l o r i o & ".. L. S i l o r s k i ( E d s . ) , Dynamic e d u c a t i o n a l c h a n g e . New Y o r k : The Free P r e s s , 1977r  C o f f i n g , R.T. & H u t c h i s o n , T . E . Needs a n a l y s i s m e t h o d o l o g y : A prescript i v e s e t o f r u l e s and p r o c e d u r e s f o r i d e n t i f y i n g , d e f i n i n g a n d measuring needs. 'Paper presented at the annual meeting of the A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , C h i c a g o , 1974.> ( E R I C Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e N o . ED 095 654) Committee o f the Canadian C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h . R e p o r t on E n g l i s h language e d u c a t i o n in Canada. S t . J o h n , New B r u n s w i c k : Common s e n s e and t e s t i n g i n E n g l i s h . of Teachers of E n g l i s h , 1975. C o n r y , R. & R o d g e r s , D. British Summary r e p o r t . A report to B r i t i s h Columbia, 1978.  Urbana,  Illinois:  National  1976.  Council  Columbia Assessment of w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n : the M i n i s t r y of Education, Province of  Cook, T. 1979-1980 A n n u a l r e p o r t p r e s e n t e d t o University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1980.  the  NITEP A d v i s o r y  Cross, P.K. The s t a t e o f t h e a r t i n n e e d s a s s e s s m e n t . t h e C o n f e r e n c e on L i f e l o n g L e a r n i n g . Akron, Ohio: Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e N o . ED 181 032)  Committee,  Paper presented 1979(ERIC  at  C u r t i s , C.K1 Contemporary community p r o b l e m s i n c i t i z e n s h i p e d u c a t i o n f o r s l o w - l e a r n i n g s e c o n d a r y s t u d e n t s ( V o l s . 1 & 2). (Doctoral dissertation, U t a h S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1977). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s International, 1978, 39, 2864. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s N o . 78-21119) D a l e , P. Language d e v e l o p m e n t : structure R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n C o . , 1975-  and f u n c t i o n  (2nd  ed.).  Holt,  123 Decker, D. Indian outreach program needs assessment s u r v e y . Prescott, A r i z o n a : ' Yavapai C o l l e g e , 1 9 7 9 . (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 176 9 1 9 ) Deever, R . M . , Abraham, W. , G i l l , G . A . , S u n d w a l l , H.W. S G i a n o p u l o s , P . G . (Eds.). American Indian e d u c a t i o n . Tempe, A r i z o n a : Arizona State Un i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 4 . Department o f Indian a f f a i r s Indians went to s c h o o l . __ _ 7  7  ;  and n o r t h e r n development. 5,000 1i tt1e Ottawa: Canadian Education B r a n c h , 1 9 7 1 ,  Derrick, J . Language needs o f m i n o r i t y group c h i l d r e n . NFER Pub. Co. L t d . , 1977-  Windsor,  D i c k , W. & Carey, L.M. Needs assessment and i n s t r u c t i o n a l Educational T e c h n o l o g y , 1 9 7 7 , JT. ( l l ) , 53-59-  Berks:  design.  Dumont, F . J . Report o f an assessment o f e d u c a t i o n a l needs o f Northern Albertans. A l b e r t a E d u c a t i o n a l Planning and Research B r a n c h , 1 9 7 8 . Dumont, R.V. J r . L e a r n i n g E n g l i s h and how to be s i l e n t : S t u d i e s in Sioux and Cherokee c l a s s r o o m s . In C. Cazden et a l . ( E d s . ) , Funct i ons o f language in the c l a s s r o o m . New York: Teachers' College P r e s s , 1972. Educational technology: D e f i n i t i o n and g l o s s a r y o f terms. V o l . 1. Washington, D . C . : A s s o c i a t i o n f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Communications and Technology, 1977Elementary Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m Guide. Victoria,.B.C.: B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 7 8 . Elementary language a r t s - k i n d e r g a r t e n . A teacher Victoria, B.C.: Department o f E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 7 5 -  Province  of  questionnaire.  E n g l i s h , F.W. & Kaufman, R.A. Needs assessment: a focus f o r c u r r i c u l u m development. Washington, D . C : A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S u p e r v i s i o n and C u r r i c u l u m Development, 1 9 7 5 E p s t e i n , N. Language, e t h n i c i t y and the s c h o o l s . Washington, D . C : I n s t i t u t e f o r E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p , The George Washington U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. Faculty of  Education, University  of  British  F a v e l , F. 18.  Integration or a s s i m i l a t i o n .  Columbia.  Form 3 2 3 , Rev.  B . C . School T r u s t e e ,  F o e r s t e r , L.M. & L i t t l e S o l d i e r , D. Classroom communication Indian c h i l d . Language A r t s , 1 9 8 0 , 57 0 ) , 45-49.  1979.  1 9 7 0 , 26 ( 2 ) , ~~ and the  Fox, R.P. Essays on t e a c h i n g E n g l i s h as a second language and as a second dialect. Urbana, 1 1 1 . : NCTE Committee on P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1 9 7 3 -  124  Fuchs, E. & H a v i g h u r s t , R . J . To l i v e on t h i s e a r t h : education. Garden C i t y , N.Y. : Doubleday, 1972.  American  Indian  G i l lam, M.R. American Indians as student t e a c h e r s . Paper presented to National Council f o r the S o c i a l S t u d i e s , San F r a n c i s c o , 1 9 7 3 (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 092 298) G i l l i e , B.C. A p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n f o r some o f the d i f f i c u l t i e s faced by Indian and Eskimo p e o p l e . Learn N e w s l e t t e r , 1 9 7 4 , 6_ ( 3 ) , 5 7 • _  Goodson, W.D. The e f f e c t o f a f i v e - w e e k p r e - c o l l e g e o r i e n t a t i o n program f o r Indian s t u d e n t s . P r o v o , Utah: Brigham Young U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 2 . (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 0 6 3 9 9 l ) Grambs, J . D . Multicultural education: D i g e s t , 1 9 7 9 , 45 (4) 4 5 - 4 7 .  Issues without answers.  G r i f f i t h , W.S. E d u c a t i o n a l needs: definition, School Review, 1 9 7 8 , 8 6 , 3 8 2 - 3 9 . Hawthorn, H.B. A survey of Indian A f f a i r s , 1967-  the contemporary  assessment and  Indians of  Education  utilization.  Canada. Vol  IT? O t t . :  Head, C V . J r . Academic achievement in E n g l i s h of j u n i o r c o l l e g e t r a n s f e r students and n a t i v e students at the U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s s i s s i p p i . (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of M i s s i s s i p p i , 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 34, 3720. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 7 2 - 3 9 2 5 ) Hook, J . N . , J a c o b s , P.H. & C r i s p , R.D. What every E n g l i s h teacher should know. Urbana, 1 1 1 . : National Council of Teachers o f E n g l i s h , 1 9 7 0 . Hopkins, T.R. Teaching E n g l i s h to American Indians. E n g l i s h R e c o r d , 1 9 7 1 , 21 ( 4 ) , 2 4 - 3 1 . (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 053 603) Hunter, W.A. M u l t i c u l t u r a l e d u c a t i o n through competency based t e a c h e r educat i o n . Washington, D . C : American A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g e Teacher Education, 1974. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 120 173) Indian and Northern e d u c a t i o n Saskatchewan, 1 9 7 4 . Indian e d u c a t i o n : an era o f N a t i v e Peoples B u l l e t i n , Indian teachers  to teach  program.  Saskatoon:  University  of  change. Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n in Support 1 9 7 5 , 16 (2) 4 - 7 .  Indians.  B.C. Teacher,  1 9 7 6 , 55. ( 4 ) ,  of  135.  Jackson, C E . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of unique f e a t u r e s in e d u c a t i o n at American Indian S c h o o l s . San F r a n c i s c o : R & E Research A s s o c . , 1 9 7 4 . J e n s e n , K.D. & J e n s e n , S. F a c t o r s in c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n f o r Indian Improving C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y T e a c h i n g , 1 9 7 0 , _1J5, 5 2 - 5 4 .  students.  125 John, V . P . . S t y l e s o f l e a r n i n g - s t y l e s o f t e a c h i n g : r e f l e c t i o n s on the education o f Navajo c h i l d r e n . In C. Cazden et al . ( E d s . ) . , Funct ions o f language in the c l a s s r o o m . New York: T e a c h e r s ' Col 1ege! P r e s s , 1 9 7 2 . J o n e s , V. T r a i n i n g teachers o f E n g l i s h f o r A l a s k a ' s N a t i v e Elementary Engl i s h , 1 9 7 1 , 48., 1 9 8 - 2 0 2 . Johnson, N.A. Current t o p i c s P u b l i s h e r s , Inc. , 1 9 7 6 -  in language.  Cambridge, M a s s . :  K a e g i , Gerda. A comprehensive view o f Indian e d u c a t i o n . A s s o c . in Support o f N a t i v e P e o p l e s , 1 9 7 4 . K a l t s o u n i s , T. The need to 1 9 7 2 , 53 ( 5 ) , 2 9 1 - 2 9 3 -  Indianize  Indian s c h o o l s .  Kaufman, R. A p o s s i b l e taxonomy o f needs assessment. Technology, 1 9 7 7 , 2 7 ( 1 1 ) , 6 0 - 6 4 . Kaufman, R.A. Educational Prentice-Hall, 1972.  system p l a n n i n g .  Kaufman, R. & E n g l i s h , F.W. Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . :  Winthrop  Toronto:  Can.  Phi D e l t a Kappan,  Educat i onal  Englewood C l i f f s ,  N.J.:  Needs assessment: concept and a p p l i c a t i o n . Educational Technology P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1 9 7 9 -  Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations o f b e h a v i o r a l Rinehart and Winston, 1 9 6 6 .  research.  Kimpston, R.D. & S t o c k t o n , W.S. Needs assessment: Educational Technology, 1 9 7 9 , 19 ( 6 ) , 1 6 - 2 1 . King, A.R. Indian e d u c a t i o n . 6 (4), 8-11.  children.  New York:  Holt,  a problem o f  priorities.  Canadian Journal o f N a t i v e E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 7 9 ,  K i r k n e s s , V . J . Change is a long time coming. March 1 9 8 0 , 14-15-  Canada and the W o r l d ,  K i t a , S. UBC SPSS: s t a t i s t i c a l package f o r the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s v e r s i o n 7.01 (under MTST"! Vancouver, B . C . : Computing C e n t r e , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 7 8 . Kleinfeld, J . bicultural  Eskimo school on the A n d r e a f s y : a study o f e f f e c t i v e education. New York: Praeger P u b l i s h e r s , 1 9 7 9 -  Kleinfeld, J . E f f e c t i v e teachers o f Eskimo and Indian c h i l d r e n . Review, 1 9 7 5 , 8 3 , 3 0 1 - 3 4 4 .  School  Kleinfeld, J . classroom.  the  Positive stereotyping: the c u l t u r a l N o r t h i a n , 1 9 7 6 , 12 ( 1 ) , 2 0 - 2 5 .  relativist  in  K l e i n f e l d , J . & Kohout, K . L . Increasing the c o l l e g e success o f A l a s k a natives. Journal o f Ameri can Indi an Educat i o n , 1 9 7 4 , 1 3 ( 3 ) , 2 6 - 3 1 .  126  K l e s n e r , M.A. L i s t e n to what I r e a l l y say! (A p r a c t i c a l guide to the t e a c h i n g of language a r t s to n a t i v e Indian students K-7) . Draft No. V. V i c t o r i a , B. C. ::: Mi n i s:t ry o f E d u c a t i o n , 1979Knowles, M.S. The modern p r a c t i c e o f a d u l t York: A s s o c i a t i o n P r e s s , 1977-  education  (2nd e d . ) .  New  K o e n i g , D.M. Northern people and higher e d u c a t i o n : r e a l i t i e s and possibilities. Ottawa: A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t i e s and C o l l e g e s o f Canada, 1975Lane, B.  F i v e years  later.  B . C . School T r u s t e e ,  1970,  26  Language B . C . : An assessment in the E n g l i s h language a r t s . of E d u c a t i o n , P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia,1976. La Roque, E. D e f e a t h e r i n g the I n d i a n . S o c i e t y o f Canada L t d . , 1975.  Agincourt, Ont.:  (2), 13-14. The  Department  The Book  L e n n i n g , O.T. A conceptual framework f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and a s s e s s i n g needs in post secondary e d u c a t i o n . A paper presented at the Annual A s s o c i a t i o n f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research Forum at Houston, T e x a s , May, 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 161 341) L o c k e , P. Higher e d u c a t i o n : background and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r American Indians. B o u l d e r , C o l o : Western I n s t e r s t a t e Commission f o r Higher Education,1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 085 160) Loughton, A . J . Indian Metis p r o j e c t f o r c a r e e r s in teacher e d u c a t i o n (I.M.P.A.C.TTE.) An i n t e r n a l e v a l u a t i o n . Manitoba: Brandon Un i v e r s i t y , 1974. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 139  562)  MacLean, H. A review of Indian e d u c a t i o n in North America (Rev. Toronto: O n t a r i o T e a c h e r s ' F e d e r a t i o n , 1973Macnamara, J . University  B i l i n g u a l ism and primary e d u c a t i o n . P r e s s , I966.  M a r t i n , I. Facing the real problems o f n a t i v e Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Support of N a t i v e  Edinburgh:  ed.).  Edinburgh  language e d u c a t i o n . P e o p l e s , 1975, J_6_ (2) ,  10-1 1. Mathi'eson, M.B. A b r i e f b i b l i o g r a p h y on teacher e d u c a t i o n and American I nd i a n s . Wash i ngton , D . C : Nat iona 1 I n s t i t u t e of E d u c a t i o n , 1974. McArthur, R.S. E c o l o g y , c u l t u r e and c o g n i t i v e development: Canadian native youth. In L. Driedger ( e d . ) , T h e Canadian E t h n i c M o s a i c . Toronto: McLelland and S t e w a r t , 1978. M c i n t o s h , G. Teacher e d u c a t i o n f o r Native I n d i a n s . Educational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1 9 7 9 , 1 8 , 2 1 - 3 1 .  Cha11enge i n  127  McKay, A . A . Meeting the needs of the n a t i v e Indian s t u d e n t . Paper presented at Education of the Urban and M i g r a t i n g Indian c o n f e r e n c e , Vancouver, 1977McNeil, J . D . C u r r i c u l u m : a comprehensive i n t r o d u c t i o n . L i t t l e , Brown S C o . , 1 9 7 7 .  Toronto:  M c N e i l , J . D . & L a o s a , L. Needs assessment and c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s m schools. E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y , 1 9 7 5 , 25_ ( 1 2 ) , 2 5 - 2 8 . M i t c h e l l , Marjorie. The message o f s i l e n c e : language and the child. B . C . T e a c h e r , 1 9 7 4 , 5_3 ( 5 ) , 1 6 3 - 1 6 6 . Monette, M.L. Needs assessment: a c r i t i q u e Adult E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 7 9 , 29 ( 2 ) , 8 3 - 9 5 -  Paulo F r i e r e and o t h e r 543-554.  Indian  of p h i l o s o p h i c a l assumptions.  Monette, M.L. The concept of e d u c a t i o n a l need: literature. Adult E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 7 7 , ]J_ ( 2 ) , Monette, M.L. 1979, 7 4 ,  in  an a n a l y s i s o f 116-127-  unheard v o i c e s .  selected  Religious Education,  More, A . J . Indian teacher e d u c a t i o n in Canada. Paper presented at meeting o f the Canadian Education A s s o c i a t i o n , W i n n i p e g , 1 9 7 9 -  the  More, A . J . N a t i v e teacher e d u c a t i o n : A survey o f n a t i v e Indian and I n u i t teacher e d u c a t i o n p r o j e c t s in Canada. Vancouver: Canadian Indian Teacher Education P r o j e c t s (CITEP) C o n f e r e n c e , F e b r u a r y , 1-981 .  <) '  .  More, A . J . & W a l l i s , J.W. N a t i v e teacher e d u c a t i o n : a survey o f n a t i v e Indian teacher e d u c a t i o n p r o j e c t s in Canada. Vancouver, B . C . : Canadian Indian Teacher E d u c a t i o n P r o j e c t s (CITEP) C o n f e r e n c e , 1 9 7 9 Morgan, L. 6 Feldman, D. Needs assessment in higher e d u c a t i o n : the Mott Foundation Community C o l l e g e model. E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y , 27 ( 1 1 ) , 48-52. Morse, J . L . The d r o p - o u t , Journal , 1 9 7 2 , 6J_ ( 8 ) ,  the s c h o o l , and the community. 1232-1238.  Murphy, D.M. Opinionnaire: Alaska: 1973-  s e l e c t e d teacher  Eng1ish  corps programs.  Anchorage,  NCTE Standing Committee on Teacher P r e p a r a t i o n and C e r t i f i c a t i o n . /\ statement on the p r e p a r a t i o n o f teachers o f E n g l i s h and the language arts. Urbana, 1 1 1 . : 1 9 7 6 . Native e d u c a t i o n  in the p r o v i n c e o f A l b e r t a .  National Indian Brotherhood. The B r o t h e r h o o d , 1 9 7 2 .  Indian c o n t r o l  Alberta of  Government, 1 9 7 2 .  Indian e d u c a t i o n .  Ottawa:  128  Nisyok, Jean. I would l i k e to become a t e a c h e r : Newsletter. 1 9 7 9 , 3 (.10), 9-  Indian E d u c a t i o n  Ohannessian, S. The study of the problems of t e a c h i n g E n g l i s h to American I n d i a n s . Washington, D . C : Center f o r A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s ,  JseTOhm, V. NITEP: Not a red pass but a red passageway. Chron i c l e . Summer, 1 9 7 8 , 1 2 - 1 6 .  U.B.C.  Oklahoma Indian education needs assessment p r o j e c t . Vol. Stillwater, Okla.: Oklahoma S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 6 .  Alumni  IV.  Appendixes  O v e r t u r f , L . L . , et a l . Problems faced in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n by American Indians. C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 2 , kj_, 3 1 6 - 3 1 8 . Oppenheim, A . N . B a s i c Books  Questionnaire Inc.,1966.  design and a t t i t u d e measure.  O r l i c h , D.C. Designing S e n s i b l e S u r v e y s . Pub. C o . , 13/T. P a r n e l 1 , Ted. Barriers Whitehorse: 1976.  to e d u c a t i o n .  Petty, W.T., Petty, D . C , e s s e n t i a l f o r coping teaching o f E n g l i s h . S o c i e t y f o r the Study  PIeasantvi11e,  New Y o r k :  N.Y. :  Yukon A s s o c . o f Non-Status  Redgrove  Indians  Newman, A . P . & Skeen, E.M. Language competenci in our s o c i e t y . In J . R . S q u i r e ( E d . ) , The The s e v e n t y - s i x t h yearbook o f the N a t i o n a l of Education. Chicago: 1977, 66-95-  P h i l i p s , S.U. P a r t i c i p a n t s t r u c t u r e s and communicative competence: Warm Springs c h i l d r e n in community and c l a s s r o o m . In C. Cazden et a l . ( E d s . ) , Functions o f language in the c l a s s r o o m . New Y o r k : Teachers' Col lege P r e s s , 1 9 7 2 . P o l i c y statement on Indian e d u c a t i o n . Schools Department C i r c u l a r . V i c t o r i a , B . C . : M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n , S c i e n c e and T e c h n o l o g y , O c t o b e r , 1979 Pooley, R . C The teaching of E n g l i s h usage. Council o f Teachers o f E n g l i s h , 1 9 7 4 .  Urbana,  111.:  National  P o w e l l , J.W. Indian l i n g u i s t i c f a m i l i e s o f America North of Mexico. L i n c o l n , Neb.: U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska P r e s s , 1 9 6 6 . Proposal presented to U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia S e n a t e , n a t i v e Indian teacher e d u c a t i o n program, 1 9 7 4 . Radulovich, 1974,  5,  M.L.  Teaching E n g l i s h to  Indian c h i l d r e n .  for  T.E.S .L.  Talk,  14-19-  R e i d , G. Indian e d u c a t i o n as I see i t . Speech to K i t i m a t District Teachers and Education 479 c l a s s . Reprinted in Indian E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 7 4 , 4 (6 & 7) , H - 1 4 .  129  Report of the P r e s i d e n t ' s review committee on the f a c u l t y The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, F e b r u a r y , 1 9 7 9 .  of  education.  Richburg, J.R. & Rice, M.J. A c c o u n t a b i l i t y in m i n o r i t y teacher t r a i n i n g : U n i v e r s i t y of Georgia Indian Teacher T r a i n i n g Program. Paper presented to the C . U . F . A . s e c t i o n , Annual Meeting o f the N a t i o n a l Council f o r S o c i a l S t u d i e s , B o s t o n , M a s s . , 1972. [ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 076 466) Riffel, J.A. Education f o r the p e o p l e : towards a s y s t e m a t i c . a p p r o a c h to a s s e s s i n g the e d u c a t i o n a l needs of Indian communities. Northian, 1 9 7 5 , n . CD 2 6 - 3 1 . R o b e r t s , W . K . , Daubek, K.M. & J o h n s t o n , J . C . The use of needs assessment techniques f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g t r a i n i n g programs r e s p o n s i v e to the U.S. Army's r o l e . E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y , 1 9 7 7 , J_7 ( l l ) , 41-42. Robinson, H.A. & Burrows, A . T . Teacher e f f e c t i v e n e s s in elementary language a r t s : a progress r e p o r t . Urbana, 1 1 1 . : N a t i o n a l Conference on Research in E n g l i s h , 1 9 7 4 . ~ Rubidge, N.A. The e f f e c t s of l e a r n i n g and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e congruence in an a d u l t e d u c a t i o n l e a r n i n g environment. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 7 9 Ryberg, R . F . £ B e l o c k , M.V. E x p l o r a t i o n in the h i s t o r y and s o c i o l o g y o f American Indian e d u c a t i o n . Meerut, I n d i a : Sadha Prakashan, 1 9 7 3 Sandstrom, R.H. Clash of c u l t u r e s : a report o f the i n s t i t u t e on the American Indian student in higher e d u c a t i o n . Canton, N . Y . : St. Lawrence U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. S a v i l l e , M.R. F i r s t - 1 a n g u a g e i n f l u e n c e s on e t h n i c d i a l e c t s : Navajo. In N. Johnson ( E d . ) , Current t o p i c s in language. M a s s . : Winthrop P u b l i s h e r s , Inc. , 1976, 157-163.  Spanish and Cambridge,  Sawyer,  B.C. Teacher,  D.  Schools have t r e a t e d Indian students s h a m e f u l l y .  1976, 56 ( 2 ) ,  42-45.  Scoon, A . R . A f f e c t i v e i n f l u e n c e s on E n g l i s h language l e a r n i n g among Indian students. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 1971, 5 (4) 2 8 5 - 2 9 1 . S e a l e y , D.B. "The M e t i s : s c h o o l s , i d e n t i t y and c o n f l i c t . " In A. Chaiton & N. McDonald ( E d s . ) , Canadian Schools and Canadian I d e n t i t y . Toronto: Gage E d u c a t i o n a l P u b l i s h i n g L t d . , 1 9 7 7 S e l e c t i o n s from D i s t i n g u i s h e d Speaker S e r i e s f o r the NITEP T h i n k - i n / W o r k s h o p . N a t i v e Indian Teacher Education Program, F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 8 0 . Shaw, M.E. & W r i g h t , J . M . From s c a l e s f o r the measurement o f New Y o r k : McGraw-Hill, I 9 6 7 .  attitudes.  130  S h r e s t h a , G.M. An i n s t i t u t i o n a l needs assessment approach to teacher e d u c a t i o n programs w i t h s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e to N e p a l . (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Pennsylvania State U n i v e r s i t y , 1977)Dissertation Abstracts International, 1978, 3 8 , 7127-7128A. (University Microf i 1 m s No. 78 0 8 4 2 4 ) Simon, R . I . , S h e b i b , F . , L i t t l e B e a r , L. & Shewan, K. Iropacte: a d e s c r i p t i o n report and e v a l u a t i o n of the f i r s t 1 8 months: Indian and Metis p r o j e c t f o r c a r e e r s through teacher e d u c a t i o n . Ottawa: Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development, 1 9 7 3 S m i t h , J . C . When is a disadvantage a handicap? Indian E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 8 0 , ]3_ (2) 1 3 - 1 7 . Spears, J .  Learning  in N i s h g a .  J o u r n a l of  American  The P r o v i n c e , October 2 6 , 1 9 7 4 , p.  5-  Stanbury, W.T. Comparison o f b n - a n d - o f f r e s e r v e e d u c a t i o n a l achievements. J o u r n a l of American Indian E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 7 3 , j_2 ( 3 ) , 2 4 - 3 3 . S t a n b u r y , W.T. Success and f a i l u r e : P r e s s , 1975-  Indians  in urban s o c i e t y .  U.B.C.  S t e r l i n g , R. N a t i v e Indian e d u c a t i o n in B r i t i s h Columbia. Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Support o f N a t i v e P e o p l e s , 1 9 7 5 , J_6 ( 2 ) , 1 2 - 1 4 Summary report o f the task f o r c e on the e d u c a t i o n a l peoples of O n t a r i o . Toronto: 1976.  needs o f  S z a s z , M.C. Education and the American Indian ( 2 n d e d . ) . U n i v e r s i t y of New Mexico P r e s T ^ 1 9 7 4 .  native  Albuquerque:  Taking a new look at . . . needs assessment. The P r a c t i t i o n e r . National A s s o c i a t i o n o f Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s , 1 9 7 7 , 4_ (2) , 1 - 1 1 . Taking the U n i v e r s i t y  to the  reserve.  North ian News,  1974, 4 0 : 4 - 6 .  Thompson, T . A . American Indian teacher t r a i n i n g : teacher Journal o f Teacher E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 7 5 , 2 6 _ (2) 1 2 3 - 4 .  corps model.  Thomas, W.G. & M c i n t o s h , R.G. Return home, watch your f a m i l y . Department o f Indian A f f a i r s , 1 9 7 7 -  Edmonton:  T o u c h i e , B. L i n g u i s t i c s and e d u c a t i o n : a native student's perspective. Canadian Journal of Indian E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 7 9 , 6^ ( 4 ) , 1 4 - 1 7 T r a v e r s , R.M.W. An i n t r o d u c t i o n to e d u c a t i o n a l New Y o r k : Macmillan Pub. Co. I n c . , 1 9 7 8 .  research  Undergraduate handbook, e d u c a t i o n . Vancouver, B . C . : U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia c a l e n d a r U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia.  1980-81.  (4th  ed.).  F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n ,  Vancouver, B . C . :  131  W i l l i a m s , A.M. An assessment of the e d u c a t i o n a l needs o f m i n o r i t y students as p e r c e i v e d by p a r e n t s , s t u d e n t s , and s t a f f . (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Washington S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 5 ) . Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, 37j 2043A-2044A. (University M i c r o f i l m s No. 76-21 404) Williams, T.R. L e a d e r s h i p issues f o r Canadian e d u c a t i o n . Canadian E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , 1979W i s e , J . E . Nordberg, R.B. & R e i t z , D . J . Methods o f educat i o n . B o s t o n : Heath & C o . , 1 9 6 7 .  Toronto:  research  in  Worthen, B . R . , Owens, T . R . & A n d e r s o n , B. N a t i v e Indian teacher educat i o n program e v a l u a t i o n . In E v a l u a t i o n of the a l t e r n a t i v e t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n programs o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 7 5 Northwest Regional E d u c a t i o n a l L a b o r a t o r y , 6 0 - 9 4 . Wyatt, J . D . N a t i v e involvement in c u r r i c u l u m development: the n a t i v e teacher as c u l t u r a l b r o k e r . In M.L. Kovacs (Ed.) E t h n i c Canadians: c u l t u r e and e d u c a t i o n . Regina: Canadian P l a i n s Research C e n t r e , 1 9 7 8 . Wyatt, J . D . example.  S e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n through e d u c a t i o n : a Canadian Phi Delta Kappan, 1 9 7 7 a , 5JB, 405-408; 423-  Wyatt, J . D . Native C u r r i e program.  Indian  teacher e d u c a t i o n in a community s e t t i n g : the Mount Canadian Journal of E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 7 7 b , 2_ (3) , 1-14.  Z i e l i n s k i , W.G. Achievement of Grade VII compound and c o o r d i n a t e Cree as E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g b i l i n g u a l s in Northland School D i v i s i o n No. 61. (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Montana, 1 9 7 1 ) . Dissertation Abstracts International, 1 9 7 1 , 3_3, 132A. (University Microfilms No. 7 2 - 1 9 9 7 4 )  APPENDIX A ORIGINAL PROPOSAL PRESENTED TO THE NITEP ADIVSORY COMMITTEE  t.  13*' REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STUDY Approval  1.  2.  3.  4.  necessary to  Access  to  comply w i t h the  student  records  U.B.C.  Policy for  in order  to  a.  E n g l i s h Placement  b.  Grade 1 1 and 1 2 c o u r s e work  c.  P o s t s e c o n d a r y c o u r s e work  Permission to  test  students  R e s e a r c h on Human S u b j e c t s .  determine:  results  for:  a.  Reading competence  b.  Language f l u e n c y ,  oral  and w r i t t e n  S i n c e we w i l l be v i e w e d a s r e p r e s e n t i n g NITEP, we r e q u e s t p e r m i s s i o n t o approach the f o l l o w i n g groups f o r p o s s i b l e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n as r e l a t e d to this study:  Access  a.  P r e s e n t and p a s t NITEP  b.  Teachers - practicum sponsors, Native Indian t e a c h e r s , teachers in schools predominantly Native Indian i n population  c.  English/Language Arts i n the M i n i s t r y  d.  University teachers, counsellors, college counsellors  e.  Other Native  to  reports,  students  supervisors  Indian individuals  records  etc.  or  in  school  districts  or  instructors,  groups as  appropriate  APPENDIX B PROGRESS REPORT PRESENTED TO THE NITEP ADVISORY COMMITTEE  APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRES INSTRUCTORS,  SENT TO  SENIOR STUDENTS,  SPONSOR TEACHERS, JUNIOR STUDENTS  University  Coursework Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  Instructor's  Version  1 Part  1.  BACKGROUND AND  GENERAL INFORMATION  P l e a s e choose y o u r answer and p u t the space p r o v i d e d .  the c o r r e s p o n d i n g l e t t e r  in  1.1 i n s t r u c t e d NITEP s t u d e n t s i n ( a ) a n ARTS c o u r s e ; ( b ) a n EDUCATION c o u r s e ; ( c ) a n o n - c r e d i t c o u r s e . 2.1 t a u g h t the s t u d e n t s a t ( a ) a community c o l l e g e ; (b)the u n i v e r s i t y ; ( c ) a n off-campus s i t e . 3. My c l a s s (a) was r e s t r i c t e d to NITEP s t u d e n t s ; (b)included other students. 4. The l e n g t h o f the c o u r s e was (a)one s e m e s t e r o r l e s s ; ( b ) t w o semesters. 5.1 have i n s t r u c t e d a c o u r s e t h a t i n c l u d e d NITEP students (a)once;(b)twice;(c)more than twice. 6.1 c o n s i d e r t h a t my c o u r s e (a)made heavy demands i n o r a l E n g l i s h ; ( b ) m a d e heavy demands i n w r i t t e n E n g l i s h ; ( c ) m a d e heavy demands i n o r a l and w r i t t e n E n g l i s h ; ( d ) w a s n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y demanding i n o r a l and w r i t t e n E n g l i s h . 7.My p r o f e s s i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ( a ) i n c l u d e s t e a c h i n g E n g l i s h ; ( b ) d o e s n o t now, b u t once d i d i n c l u d e teaching E n g l i s h ; ( c ) h a s never i n c l u d e d teaching English. • 8.1 have t a u g h t ( a ) f e w e r t h a n 5 NITEP s t u d e n t s ; ( b ) 5 - l 5 NITEP s t u d e n t s ; ( c ) l 6 - 2 5 NITEP s t u d e n t s ; (d)more than 25 NITEP s t u d e n t s . -  Part  2. ORAL EXPRESSION  D u r i n g c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s , q u e s t i o n and answer p e r i o d s , i n t e r v i e w s , r e p o r t g i v i n g and o t h e r o r a l a c t i v i t i e s , you u n d o u b t e d l y a s s e s s the o r a l language competence o f a l l y o u r s t u d e n t s . At t h i s time we would l i k e you to c o n s i d e r the NITEP s t u d e n t s t h a t you have t a u g h t d u r i n g o r s i n c e the academic y e a r 1977-1978, and to r e s p o n d to the l i s t o f o r a l language c o m p e t e n c i e s , u s i n g the following scale. 1 = S a t i s f a c t o r y or b e t t e r 2 = Needed  improvement  3 = Needed c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement In t h e i r o r a l  e x p r e s s i o n the NITEP  students:  1. 2.  Spoke d i s t i n c t l y ,  3-  Spoke w i t h o u t undue use as "uh" and " e r " .  k.  Took p a r t r e s p o n s i b l y i n d i s c u s s i o n g r o u p s .  56.  Used c o n v e n t i o n a l n o n v e r b a l  7. 8.  Used wide r a n g i n g  Projected  articulated  voices adequately  Confidently  expressed  sounds  clearly.  f o r intended  of extraneous  audiences  expressions  language.  divergent opinions.  vocabulary.  Showed awareness o f f i n e  distinctions  i n meaning.  Used e f f e c t i v e imagery i n d e s c r i p t i o n . 910. D e m o n s t r a t e d c o n t r o l o f s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h .  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  such  11. Used a l e v e l o f language a p p r o p r i a t e to the situation;  e.g.  reporting, conversation,  12. L i s t e n e d a t t e n t i v e l y w i t h 13. Q u e s t i o n e d Ik.  Supported  comprehension.  p e r c e p t i v e l y i n o r d e r to opinions reasonably  i d e a s  i n  a coherent  understand.  well.  15. R e p o r t e d main i d e a s w i t h s u f f i c i e n t c o m p r e h e n s i b l e and i n t e r e s t i n g . 0rp|ani.7.p(i  debate.  detail  manner.  to  be  P a r t 3. WRITTEN EXPRESSION  2  The q u a l i t y o f s t u d e n t w r i t i n g i s o f some c o n c e r n i n B.C. c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . No doubt you a s s e s s the w r i t i n g c o m p e t e n c i e s o f y o u r s t u d e n t s as you r e a d t h e i r e s s a y s , r e p o r t s , e x a m i n a t i o n s and o t h e r v / r i t t e n a s s i g n m e n t s . I n t h i s p a r t o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e we w o u l d l i k e you to c o n s i d e r a l l o f the NITEP s t u d e n t s t h a t you have t a u g h t d u r i n g and s i n c e the academic y e a r I 9 7 7 - I 9 7 8 , and to r e s p o n d to the l i s t o f w r i t i n g c o m p e t e n c i e s u s i n g the s c a l e p r o v i d e d . A s s e s s i n g a l l the NITEP s t u d e n t s as a g r o u p , I w o u l d the f o l l o w i n g a s p e c t s o f WRITTEN EXPRESSION a s :  evaluate  1 = S a t i s f a c t o r y or better 2 = Of some  concern  3 = Of s e r i o u s  concern  P l e a s e c i r c l e the number w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s y o u r a s s e s s m e n t o f s t u d e n t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e o f the competency d e s c r i b e d .  the  I n t h e i r v / r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n , the NITEP s t u d e n t s : 1.  S p e l l e d , punctuated  1 2  3  2.  Used q u o t a t i o n marks and a s s o c i a t e d p u n c t u a t i o n c o r r e c t l y .  1 2  3  3.  P r o o f r e a d w r i t t e n assignments e f f e c t i v e l y .  1 2  3  k.  Used c o r r e c t m e c h a n i c s o f b i b l i o g r a p h i e s , c i t a t i o n s and f o o t n o t e s . Gave b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n c l e a r l y ; e.g. a n s w e r i n g q u e s t i o n s ,  1 2  3  reports.  1 2  3  5.  and  capitalized correctly.  6.  Described people  7.  Used v a r i e t y i n s e n t e n c e l e n g t h .  and/or o b j e c t s w i t h s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l .  1 2  3  1 2  3 3  8.  Used i m a g e r y e f f e c t i v e l y .  1 2  9.  S e l e c t e d words to r e i n f o r c e a s p e c i f i c mood o r i m p r e s s i o n .  1  10.  Showed awareness o f f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s i n word meanings.  1 2  3  1 1 . U n d e r s t o o d and u s e d g r a m m a t i c a l  1 2  3  self i n writing style.  1 2  3  Showed f l u e n c y i n i d e a s and a s s o c i a t i o n s .  1 2  3  14. Responded to r e a d i n g s v/ith p e r c e p t i o n and 15.  3  terms i n d i s c u s s i n g  writing. 12. Expressed 13.  2  judgement.  D i s t i n g u i s h e d between e s s e n t i a l and p e r i p h e r a l d e t a i l .  16.  F o c u s e d on one  17.  Adjusted  t o p i c or event i f necessary.  tone o f w r i t i n g to s p e c i f i c a u d i e n c e .  1 2  3  1 2  3  1 2  3  1 2  3  18. E l a b o r a t e d on an o p i n i o n , made a judgement.  1 2  3  19.  1 2  3  1 2  3  1 2 1 2  3 3  S e l e c t e d d e t a i l to s u p p o r t a v i e w p o i n t .  2G. Summarized and p a r a p h r a s e d  when i n d i c a t e d .  21.  O r g a n i z e d complex e s s a y s / r e p o r t s u s i n g c o n n e c t i v e s and t r a n s i t i o n s . 2 2 . D i s p l a y e d c o h e r e n c e and u n i t y o f tone and i m p r e s s i o n . 23.  Organized  events  i n p l a u s i b l e sequence.  2U. Conveyed p e r s o n a l i t i e s t h r o u g h I F YOU  WISH TO  ABOUT ORAL OR THE  BACK OF  ELABORATE ON ANY  .  ITEM, OR  PAGE.  1 2  TO MAKE COMMENTS  WRITTEN EXPRESSION, PLEASE DO  THE  1  selected details.  SO HERE OR  ON  2  3 3  P a r t h.  COLLEGE AND  UNIVERSITY COURSEWORK  3  You may have f o u n d t h a t c e r t a i n c l a s s a c t i v i t i e s r e s u l t e d i n improved o r a l l a n g u a g e p e r f o r m a n c e . P l e a s e r a n k the f o l l o w i n g s i t u a t i o n s as to t h e i r p o t e n t i a l f o r improved p e r f o r m a n c e , u s i n g number 1 to r e p r e s e n t most e f f e c t i v e , number 2 as n e x t most e f f e c t i v e etc. a.  s m a l l d i s c u s s i o n groups  b.  q u e s t i o n and answer p e r i o d s  c.  oral  reports  d.  panel discussions  e.  role  playing  f.  reading aloud  g.  general class  discussion  T h e r e a r e many o r a l a c t i v i t i e s n o t l i s t e d h e r e . P l e a s e l i s t any t h a t you may have found e f f e c t i v e i n w o r k i n g w i t h NITEP s t u d e n t s .  You may have f o u n d t h a t v / r i t t e n p e r f o r m a n c e i m p r o v e d i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s or with c e r t a i n teaching s t r a t e g i e s . P l e a s e r a n k the f o l l o w i n g as you d i d the above. a. b.  extended d i s c u s s i o n o f t o p i c s before writing frequent, or  two  s h o r t p a p e r s i n s t e a d o f one  l e n g t h y ones  c.  r e v i s i n g and  d.  writing  _____  e d i t i n g o f papers i n groups  exercises  such as s e n t e n c e  combining or expanding e.  r e s p o n d i n g to a u d i o - v i s u a l  stimuli  f.  seeing  expected  examples  of writing  g. class discussion of writing errors T h e r e v / i l l be s e v e r a l s i t u a t i o n s o r s t r a t e g i e s n o t l i s t e d you may f i n d e f f e c t i v e i n i m p r o v i n g w r i t i n g . Please l i s t  here which them h e r e .  D u r i n g t h e f i r s t two y e a r s o f NITEP, s t u d e n t s p r e s e n t l y t a k e a number o f c l a s s e s and c o u r s e s w h i c h m i g h t be c o n s t r u e d as b e i n g h e l p f u l i n improving E n g l i s h . P l e a s e r a n k the f o l l o w i n g as t o y o u r p e r c e p t i o n o f how h e l p f u l t h e y m i g h t be. R e a d i n g and s t u d y s k i l l s  course  English(non-credit preparatory) Speech A r t s  .  English  (1st yr. credit)  English  (2nd y r . c r e d i t )  Language A r t s methods R e a d i n g methods English  tutoring  (weekly group)  ,  Perhaps you havo so™'"' id-:-a.~ about the k i n d s o f t h i n g s which would be r e a l l y h e l p f u l to t h o s e NITEP s t u d e n t s who a r e e x p e r i e n c i n g some d i f f i c u l t y a t u n i v e r s i t y r e l a t e d to l a n g u a g e u s e , o r a l o r written. We would v e r y much a p p r e c i a t e y o u r t a k i n g the time t o w r i t e out y o u r i d e a s i n the space p r o v i d e d o r on the back o f t h i s page.  142  University  Coursework  Senior Student's  Questionnaire Version  Part  1.  BACKGROUND AND  GENERAL INFORMATION  Dat9: Year  (Please  circle  2  1  i n the program:  ^ 5  3  the number o f the y e a r you  enrolled  f o r i n Sept.  '79) •  Teaching concentration: "Academic c o n c e n t r a t i o n : What grade o r g r a d e s a r e you most i n t e r e s t e d Please Was If you  K  circle:  1  2  E n g l i s h your f i r s t E n g l i s h was first  NOT  3  language?  your f i r s t  spoke.  If  E n g l i s h was  to  speak  Do  your f a m i l y  ^  5  6  i n teaching?  7  Secondary  Please c i r c l e :  language,  YES  school  NO  p l e a s e name the  language  ,  NO'T  your f i r s t  language  a t what age  d i d you  begin  English?_ speak  English:  (a) a l l o f the time,  time, o r (c) r a r e l y o r never?  (b) some o f the  P l e a s e i n d i c a t e y o u r answer by  circling  a, b, o r c. Do  the p e o p l e  time,  i n y o u r home community speak  (b) some o f the t i m e , o r ( c ) r a r e l y  English: or never.  (a) a l l o f t h e Please  indicate  y o u r answer by c i r c l i n g a, b, o r c CONSENTS  ,  Part In  2.  LANGUAGE ARTS CURRICULUM  t h i s p a r t o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e we  about which a s p e c t s o f the l a n g u a g e r e a d y to t e a c h .  arts  would l i k e  P l e a s e rank the f o l l o w i n g l i s t  number 1 meaning " I f e e l  you  c u r r i c u l u m you  LISTENING ORAL EXPRESSION READING WRITTEN EXPRESSION STUDY SKILLS CHILDREN'S  LITERATURE  LANGUAGE STUDY  think most  by number w i t h  most r e a d y to t e a c h " , number 2,  n e x t most r e a d y to t e a c h " e t c .  to  feel "I  feel  P a r t 2. ORAL EXPRESSION I n y o u r u n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e w o r k you may have had t o t a k e p a r t i n c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s , make o r a l r e p o r t s , r e a d a l o u d , debate o r g i v e speeches. I n t h i s p a r t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e we would l i k e you t o c o n s i d e r y o u r use o f o r a l language i n t h o s e c l a s s e s , remembering t h e r e s p o n s e you r e c e i v e d from i n s t r u c t o r s o r o t h e r s , and t h e n t o e v a l u a t e y o u r s e l f i n o r a l l a n g u a g e , u s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g numbers, and t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s . 1=1  was s a t i s f a c t o r y o r b e t t e r  2=1  needed some improvement  3=1  needed c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement  I n my ORAL d EXPRESSION, Spoke i s t i n c t l y , pIr o:n o u n c i n g a l l words c o r r e c t l y . 1. 2. P r o j e c t e d my v o i c e . e f f e c t i v e l y a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a u d i e n c e . 3. k.  5.  1  Spoke w i t h o u t u s i n g t o o many e x p r e s s i o n s s u c h a s 'uh' and ' e r ' and w i t h o u t t o o many h e s i t a t i o n s . Took r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as a member o f group d i s c u s s i o n ; p a r t i c i p a t e d s u f f i c i e n t l y , l i s t e n e d c a r e f u l l y , helped t o keep on t o p i c .  1 1  Used n o n v e r b a l l a n g u a g e when n e c e s s a r y t o make 1  myself understood. 6.  1  F e l t c o n f i d e n t i n e x p r e s s i n g an o p i n i o n t h a t  differed  3 3 3 3  from t h o s e o f o t h e r p e o p l e .  .1  7.  Used a wide r a n g i n g , w e l l d e v e l o p e d o r a l v o c a b u l a r y .  1  3  8.  Used t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e words; e.g. was a b l e t o f i n d 1  3  9.  the b e s t words t o e x p r e s s my i d e a s . Used e f f e c t i v e i m a g e r y t h a t h e l p e d p e o p l e t o see what I meant.  1  10.  Demonstrated  my c o n t r o l o f s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h  usage;  e.g. r a r e l y made " g r a m m a t i c a l " e r r o r s . 11. Used l e v e l s o f language a p p r o p r i a t e t o s i t u a t i o n s ;  1  formal reports, taking part i n informal discussions.  1  12.  L i s t e n e d a t t e n t i v e l y , u n d e r s t a n d i n g most o f what I h e a r d .  1  13.  Asked  s e n s i b l e q u e s t i o n s which r e s u l t e d i n o t h e r  p e o p l e c l a r i f y i n g t h e i r meaning.  1  lk.  E x p r e s s e d my o p i n i o n s and s u p p o r t e d them w i t h good r e a s o n s .  1  15.  R e p o r t e d main i d e a s w i t h s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l so t h a t  16.  p e o p l e u n d e r s t o o d and v/ere i n t e r e s t e d . LANGUAGE PLEASE FEEL FREE OI rF g aYOU n i z eWISH d my TOi d COMMENT e a s i n aABOUT c o h e r eORAL n t manner; e.g. c o n nUSE e c t eTHE d my i d e OF a s THIS l o g i c aPAGE l l y and r e a s o n a b l y , TO BACK so t h a t p e o p l e c o u l d f o l l o w my t h i n k i n g .  1 1  3 3 3 3 3 3 3  3.  Part  WRITTEN  EXPRESSION  You have u n d o u b t e d l y s p e n t a good d e a l o f y o u r t i m e i n NITEP w r i t i n g e s s a y s , r e p o r t s , exams, and o t h e r a s s i g n m e n t s . In this p a r t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e we w o u l d l i k e y o u t o t h i n k a b o u t a l l t h e w r i t t e n w o r k y o u h a v e d o n e , t h e k i n d o f r e s p o n s e y o u may have r e c e i v e d f r o m i n s t r u c t o r s o r a d v i s o r s , and t h e n t o e v a l u a t e y o u r s e l f , c h o o s i n g the phrase which best d e s c r i b e s your w r i t i n g . 1=1  was  2=1  n e e d e d some  3=1  needed c o n s i d e r a b l e  satisfactory  P l e a s e c i r c l e t h e number v/hich b e s t I n my WRITTEN E X P R E S S I O N , I : 1.  S p e l l e d , p u n c t u a t e d and  better improvement  describes  capitalized  your  writing.  correctly.  2.  Used q u o t a t i o n  3.  Proofread  k.  Used c o r r e c t mechanics f o r b i b l i o g r a p h i e s , i d e n t i f y i n g s o u r c e s and m a k i n g p r o p e r f o o t n o t e s . G a v e b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n c l e a r l y ; e.g. i n a n s w e r i n g  5.  written  my  marks and  or  improvement  associated punctuation  w r i t t e n assignments  questions  and  correctly.  effectively.  12  3  12  3  12  3  9.  11.  S e l e c t e d s p e c i a l w o r d s t o r e i n f o r c e a s p e c i f i c mood o r to c r e a t e an i m p r e s s i o n . S e n s e d f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s i n w o r d m e a n i n g s , e.g. tried to f i n d the b e s t p o s s i b l e word. U n d e r s t o o d and u s e d g r a m m a t i c a l t e r m s when n e c e s s a r y  12.  E x p r e s s e d my  personality in writing style. f r o m one  10.  to  discuss  writing;  e.g.  13.  Moved e a s i l y  lk.  U n d e r s t o o d v/hat I author's  point of view,  15-  Selected  the  clauses,  idea  read  and  conjunctions  details  1  etc.  in writing.  discuss  in writing  a t t i t u d e s , purpose or  most i m p o r t a n t  1  sentences.  to another could  style.  f o r emphasis.  Limited myself  17. 18.  A d j u s t e d t h e t o n e o f my w r i t i n g t o s p e c i f i c audiences; e.g. t e a c h e r , c h i l d r e n , o t h e r s t u d e n t s . D e v e l o p e d a n d s u p p o r t e d my o p i n i o n , e x p l a i n i n g my  19.  Selected  20.  Summarized o r paraphrased m a t e r i a l from books o r a r t i c l e s c l e a r l y and c o n c i s e l y . O r g a n i z e d complex e s s a y s / r e p o r t s u s i n g t r a n s i t i o n words s u c h as f u r t h e r m o r e , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r e f o r e , and m o v i n g s m o o t h l y f r o m one p a r a g r a p h t o t h e n e x t . W r o t e c o h e r e n t l y so t h a t e v e r y t h i n g seemed t o f i t t o g e t h e r a n d t h e t o n e was c o n s i s t e n t t h r o u g h o u t . O r g a n i z e d e v e n t s i n r e a s o n a b l e s e q u e n c e ; e . g . was able t o a v o i d j u m p i n g a r o u n d i n my w r i t i n g . S e l e c t e d d e t a i l s t h a t brought p e r s o n a l i t i e s to l i f e i n my w r i t i n g .  reasons  21. 22. 23. 2k.  I F YOU USE  THE  f o r agreeing details  WISH TO BACK OF  to  topic or  or  e v e n t when n e c e s s a r y .  disagreeing.  support  my  viewpoint.  COMMENT ABOUT W R I T I N G P L E A S E F E E L F R E E T H I S PAGE.  2  3  2.3  12  3  12  3  12  3  12  3  12  3  12  3  the  16.  t o one  3  something c l e a r l y .  Used  sufficient  describe  12  3  Used v a r i e t y i n the  to  3  3  8.  l e n g t h o f my  3  12  12  7.  i m a g e r y when t r y i n g  12  12  Described  with  3  detail.  reports.  6.  people and/or objects  1 2  TO  12  3  12  3  12  3  12  3  12  3  12  3  12  3  Part  U.  C O L L E G E AND  UNIVERSITY  EXPERIENCE  Y o u may h a v e f o u n d t h a t c e r t a i n c l a s s a c t i v i t i e s i m p r o v e d your oral^language performance. P l e a s e rank the f o l l o w i n g s i t u a t i o n s as t o t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r you. Rank u s i n g number 1 as m o s t e f f e c t i v e , number 2 as n e x t most e f f e c t i v e e t c . a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  small d i s c u s s i o n groups q u e s t i o n and a n s w e r p e r i o d s oral reports panel discussions role playing reading aloud general class discussion  T h e r e a r e many o r a l a c t i v i t i e s n o t l i s t e d h e r e . o t h e r s t h a t may h a v e b e e n h e l p f u l t o you.  Please  list  any  Y o u may a l s o h a v e f o u n d t h a t y o u r w r i t t e n p e r f o r m a n c e i m p r o v e d in c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s or following c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s . Please rank the f o l l o w i n g as you d i d the above. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. T h e r e may h a v e b e e n were h e l p f u l to you.  extended d i s c u s s i o n of t o p i c s before w r i t i n g frequent, short papers instead o f one o r two l e n g t h y o n e s r e v i s i n g and e d i t i n g y o u r work i n a group w r i t i n g exercises such 'as sentence combining or expanding responding to p i c t u r e s o r movies s e e i n g examples o f the k i n d of w r i t i n g expected class discussion of w r i t i n g errors _____ s e v e r a l s i t u a t i o n s or a c t i v i t i e s not l i s t e d P l e a s e l i s t them h e r e .  v/hich  S i n c e e n t e r i n g NITEP, you have t a k e n s e v e r a l c o u r s e s and p a r t i c i p a t e d i n c l a s s e s w h i c h may h a v e h e l p e d y o u i m p r o v e y o u r o r a l and w r i t t e n E n g l i s h . P l e a s e r a n k the f o l l o w i n g l i s t o f c o u r s e s and c l a s s e s as to t h e i r h e l p f u l n e s s i n d e v e l o p i n g l a n g u a g e s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s , u s i n g number 1 as most h e l p f u l e t c . R e a d i n g and s t u d y s k i l l s English (non-credit) Speech A r t s E n g l i s h (1st y r . c r e d i t ) E n g l i s h (2nd y r . c r e d i t ) Language A r t s methods Reading methods English tutoring  course  ____  T h e r e may h a v e b e e n o t h e r t h i n g s t h a t h a v e b e e n h e l p f u l t o you. F o r e x a m p l e , y o u may h a v e l e a r n e d a s t u d y t e c h n i q u e during a n o t h e r c o u r s e , o r have had h e l p f r o m a c o o r d i n a t o r o r c o u n s e l l o r . P l e a s e t e l l u s a b o u t a n y t h i n g t h a t y o u t h i n k may h a v e h f i l p e d t o improve your o r a l and/or v/ritten expression.  147  Student Teaching  Questionnaire  Sponsor T e a c h e r ' s  Version  P a r t 1.  BACKGROUND AND  GENERAL INFORMATION  P l e a s e c h o o s e t h e answer t h a t r e p r e s e n t s y o u r s i t u a t i o n i n '79-'8Q. 1.  Location:  a.  North Vancouver  d.  Other  2.  Teaching  assignment:  3.  Teaching  certificate:  2  K I  b.  3  ^  Vancouver  5  6  Professional  7  c.  Kamloons  Other  Standard  ___  License P l e a s e c o m p l e t e each i t e m . experience  ( i n c l u d i n g ' 7 9 - "80)  ii.  Teaching  5*  P r o f e s s i o n a l concentration i n teacher t r a i n i n g  6.  Academic major o r c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n t r a i n i n g  7.  P r o f e s s i o n a l memberships: I.R.A.  B.C.  Primary Teachers  ; N.C.T.E.  9.  10.  5  you.  Number o f NITEP s t u d e n t s s u p e r v i s e d i n c l u d i n g 3  4  5  ;  ; Other  P l e a s e c i r c l e t h e answer t h a t a p p l i e s t o  1 2  __  _; P r o v i n c i a l I n t e r m e d i a t e A s s o c .  C.C.T.E.  8.  years.  '79-'80:  More t h a n 5  The  y e a r s i n w h i c h I s u p e r v i s e d NITEP s t u d e n t s i n c l u d e d :  «7iu_  • 75  Have you a.  -75_«76  '76-'?7  '77-'78  supervised other student  Frequently  P a r t 2.  b.  '78-'79  '79-'80  teachers?  Occasionally  c.  Never  LANGUAGE ARTS METHODOLOGY REQUIREMENTS  Since NITEP students, u n l i k e t h e i r counterparts i n the  other  U.B.C. E d u c a t i o n programs, p r a c t i c e t e a c h from t h e b e g i n n i n g  of  t h e i r f i r s t y e a r , i t w o u l d be u s e f u l f o r us t o know i n what o r d e r you  t h i n k methodology r e g a r d i n g the v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f the  languag  a r t s s h o u l d be i n t r o d u c e d .  Would you p l e a s e r a n k t h e  list  t h i n k methodology would b e n e f i t a  NITEP  i n t h e o r d e r w h i c h you  student teacher i n your classroom.  P l e a s e r a n k u s i n g number  1 as most h e l p f u l , 2 as n e x t most h e l p f u l e t c . LISTENING  ORAL E X P R E S S I O N READING WRITTEN E X P R E S S I O N STU'CY S K I L L S  following  Part  3.  O R A L AND WHT'i'TEfJ E X P R E S S I O N  I n t h e r e g u l a r , w r i t t e n ' j v a l u a t i o n o f r-:tudont t e a c h e r s , y o u ua la>. (• j . : i L u «;«>n_idei-atiwi'i t h e i r u.-c c f o r a l _ r . ' i '.vrit tor. V\v.z n the c l a s s r o o m . I n t h i s p a r t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e we a r e i n tc-rer; t e d i n y o u r assessment o f the o r a l and w r i t t e n language o f a l l t h e NITEP s t u d e n t s y o u may h a v e s u p e r v i s e d . We w o u l d l i k e y o u t o c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g l i s t o f o r a l a n d w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e c o m p e t e n c i e s a n d to r e s p o n d , u s i n g t h e s c a l e p r o v i d e d , by c i r c l i n g t h e number w h i c h b>;st r e p r e s e n t s y o u r o p i n i o n . 5  In aspects  a s s e s s i n g my N I T E P s t u d e n t ( s ) , I w o u l d of their oral expression as:  evaluate  the f o l l o w i n g  1 = Satisfactory or better 2 = Need's) some i m p r o v e m e n t 3 - Neod(s) c o n s i d e r a b l e i m p r o v e m e n t When u s i n g O R A L 1.  Spoke  LANGUAGE  distinctly,  2.  Projected voices  3.  Used v o i c e s  U.  Used c o n v e n t i o n a l  5-  Recognized  dictation,  respect  i n the classroom,  articulated sufficiently  effectively  the NITEP s t u d e n t ( s ) :  sounds c l e a r l y .  1  2  f o rgiven  1  2  1  2  1  2  audience.  f o rstory telling,  introducing a topic, nonverbal  giving  encouraging  behaviour  students.  effectively.  n e e d o f a l l c h i l d r e n t o be h e a r d ;  f o rothers'  6.  Used  language with  7.  Used  interesting,  modelled 1 2  ideas. confidence;  spoke w i t h  ease.  varied vocabulary.  8.  Rephrased  9.  D e m o n s t r a t e d c o n t r o l o f rhyme a n d r h y t h m i n l a n g u a g e ; e.g. r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g poetry. Demonstrated adequate c o n t r o l over i n f o r m a l standard E n g l i s h ( r e c o g n i z e d and c o r r e c t e d o c c a s i o n a l e r r o r s i n usage). Recognized d i a l e c t a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n c h i l d r e n s ' language; e . g . was a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d them. Chose l e v e l o f language a p p r o p r i a t e to s i t u a t i o n ; e.g. i n s t r u c t i o n , f o r m a l s p e e c h , c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h p u p i l s . (did not overuse c o l l o q u i a l i s m s )  10.  11. 12.  information i n a variety  o f ways when n e c e s s a r y .  13.  I d e n t i f i e d and d i s c r i m i n a t e d a l l speech r e q u i r e d i n a phonics program.  lU.  Listened attentively,  15-  Used  16..  Used ** w i t h  responded  sounds;  e.g. as  to s e t a scene,  language e f f e c t i v e l y the class.  When u s i n g W R I T T E N  LANGUAGE  1.  Spelled correctly. Used c o r r e c t punctuation  3.  Proofread'materials  h.  Used  5.  Gave s i m p l e  6.  Used  create  to increase  a mood. positive  1  2  1  2  1  2  1  2  1  2  1  2  1  2  1  2  1  2  interaction  and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n .  carefully  before  distribution.  1  2  1  2  1  2  abbreviations correctly.  1  2  directions clearly.  1  2  1  2  1  2  telegraphic style  blackboard  2  the NITEP s t u d e n t ( s ) :  2.  common  2  1  appropriately to the  children. language  1  effectively  i n making  notes.  7.  Showed a w a r e n e s s o f f i n e  8.  Used grammatical terms a p p r o p r i a t e l y i n d i s c u s s i n g writing. 1 I F YOU WISH TO E L A B O R A T E ON ANY I T E M , OR TO MAKE A D D I T I O N A L COKflbNTS ABOUT O R A L OR WRITTEN E X P R E S S I O N , P L E A S E FEET. F R E E TO U S E T H E B A C K OF T H I S P A G E .  distinctions  i n word meanings.  2  3 P a r t 4. When t e a c h i n g develop the in the  any  the  language a r t s ,  student  teachers  number o f t e a c h i n g c o m p e t e n c i e s .  following l i s t t e r m s o f the  NITEP s t u d e n t ( s )  I n a s s e s s i n g the the  Please  need  you  have s u p e r v i s e d ,  represents your  150  to  consider  o f s e l e c t e d t e a c h i n g c o m p e t e n c i e s and  number w h i c h b e s t  evaluate  LANGUAGE ARTS TEACHING  by  respond circling  assessment.  NITEP s t u d e n t ( s )  I have s u p e r v i s e d  f o l l o w i n g t e a c h i n g competencies  I would  as:  1 = S a t i s f a c t o r y or better 2 = Needs) some improvement 3 = Need{s) c o n s i d e r a b l e When t e a c h i n g  language a r t s ,  improvement  the NITEP s t u d e n t ( s )  1.  P r i n t e d a n d / o r v/rote on s p e e d and l e g i b i l i t y .  2.  Gave c l e a r , w e l l s e q u e n c e d i n s t r u c t i o n s written a c t i v i t i e s .  3.  Read a l o u d  the  to c h i l d r e n w i t h  chalkboard  expression  with  I  sponsored:  reasonable  for oral  1  and 2  and  enjoyment.  2  k.  Demonstrated f a m i l i a r i t y with  childrens' literature.  2  5.  Showed a b i l i t y to use d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f q u e s t i o n s ; e.g. r e c a l l , e x p l a n a t i o n , p r e d i c t i o n , judgement.  2  6.  Modelled  2  7.  Demonstrated f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h c h i l d r e n s ' language b a c k g r o u n d s u c h as s o n g s , games, v e r s e s .  2  8.  Modelled  2  9.  U n d e r s t o o d and  10.  D e m o n s t r a t e d knowledge o f , and l i b r a r y or resource centre.  11.  U s e d media s u c h as p h o t o g r a p h s , m o d e l s , f i l m and t a p e r e c o r d e r s v/ith some e a s e .  12.  Constructed  13-  Demonstrated a b i l i t y progress.  1^.  D e m o n s t r a t e d a b i l i t y to r e c o g n i z e c h i l d r e n s ' i n t e r e s t s and c o n c e r n s and i n c o r p o r a t e them i n t o l a n g u a g e a r t s lessons or u n i t s .  15.  I n v o l v e d c h i l d r e n i n a c t i v i t i e s t h a t show the r e l a t e d n e s s o f t h e l a n g u a g e a r t s ; w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g and d r a m a t i z i n g .  16.  D e s i g n e d and effectively.  correct pronunciation  good l i s t e n i n g used  and  speech p a t t e r n s .  behaviour.  t e a c h i n g manuals a p p r o p r i a t e l y .  u s e f u l c h a r t s and to a s s e s s  ability  to use,  evaluate  3 ,3  .3. 3 2 3  the  strips  3 3  other learning aids. and  3 3 3  students'  interlistening, 2  3  2  3  m o d e r a t e d group o r c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n  I F YOU WISH TO ELABORATE ON ANY ITEM, OR TO MAKE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT TEACHING COMPETENCIES IN LANGUAGE ARTS, P L E A S E F E E L FREE TC USE THE BACK OF THIS PAGE.  Student Teaching  Questionnaire  Junior Student's  Version  Part 1.  BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION  Date:  .  Year i n the program:  1  2  .  3  '  5  (Please c i r c l e the number of the year you enrolled for i n Sept. "79). Teaching concentration:  .  ,  Academic concentration:  .  ,  What grade or grades are you most interested i n teaching? Please c i r c l e : K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Secondary school Was English your f i r s t language?  Please c i r c l e :  YES  NO  I f English was NOT your f i r s t language, please name the language you f i r s t spoke.  :.  If. English was NOT your f i r s t language at what age did you begin to.speak English? Do your family speak English:  (a) a l l of the time,  time., or (c) rarely or never?  Please indicate your answer by c i r c l i n g  a, b, or c.  (b) some of the  " .  Do the people i n your home community speak' English:  (a) a l l of the  time, (b) some of the time, or (c) rarely or never.  Please indicate  your answer by c i r c l i n g a, b, or c COi'uviENTS  • - *'  '  Part 2.  ;  ]  '  LANGUAGE ARTS CURRICULUM  In this part of the questionnaire we v/ould l i k e you to think about which aspects of the language arts curriculum you f e e l most ready to teach. Please rank the following l i s t by number v/ith number 1 meaning "I feel most ready to teach", number 2, "I f e e l next most ready to teach" etc. LISTENING . .  .. •  ORAL EXPRESSION READING WRITTEN EXPRESSION STUDY SKILLS CHILDREN'S LITERATURE LANGUAGE STUDY  _  2 Part  3.  ORAL AND  WRITTEN  EXPRESSION  153  D u r i n g y o u r p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g , y o u h a v e no d o u b t b e c o m e a w a r e o f the importance o f language i n the classroom. In t h i s part of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e we w o u l d l i k e y o u t o t h i n k a b o u t y o u r own oral and v / r i t t e n l a n g u a g e , r e m e m b e r i n g any comments o r s u g g e s t i o n s that y o u may h a v e h a d a b o u t y o u r u s e o f l a n g u a g e , a n d t o e v a l u a t e y o u r s e l f , u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e . 1=1  was  2=1  needed  3=1  needed c o n s i d e r a b l e  satisfactory some  When u s i n g ORAL LANGUAGE i n t h e  or  better  improvement  classroom,  improvement I:  1.  Spoke  2.  Projected  3-  U s e d my v o i c e e f f e c t i v e l y f o r s t o r y t e l l i n g , g i v i n g d i c t a t i o n , introducing a topic, encouraging students.  k.  Used nonverbal  5-  R e c o g n i z e d n e e d o f a l l c h i l d r e n t o be respect f o r others' ideas.  6. 7.  distinctly, my  articulated  voice  behaviour  Used language w i t h Used  interesting,  a l l sounds  sufficiently  that  3 3  clearly.  intended  everyone  confidence; varied  f o r my  audience.  3 3  understood. heard;  spoke w i t h  modelled  3 3 3  ease.  vocabulary.  R e p h r a s e d i n f o r m a t i o n i n a v a r i e t y o f w a y s when so t h a t c h i l d r e n m i g h t u n d e r s t a n d .  necessary  D e m o n s t r a t e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g and a b i l i t y t o use rhyme and r h y t h m i n l a n g u a g e ; e.g. r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g p o e t r y .  :  3  :  3  10.  Demonstrated adequate c o n t r o l over i n f o r m a l standard E n g l i s h , ( r e c o g n i z e d and c o r r e c t e d o c c a s i o n a l " g r a m m a t i c a l errors").  3  11 .  Recognized d i a l e c t a l differences i n children's language; was a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e c h i l d r e n ' s s p e e c h .  3  12.  Chose l e v e l of language a p p r o p r i a t e to s i t u a t i o n ; e.g. i n s t r u c t i o n , formal speech, conversation with p u p i l s , ( d i d not overuse c o l l o q u i a l i s m s or s l a n g ) .  3  13-  I d e n t i f i e d and d i s c r i m i n a t e d a l l s p e e c h r e q u i r e d i n a phonics program.  3  14.  Listened attentively, children.  1516.  Used  language  to  responded  set a  scene,  e.g.  a p p r o p r i a t e l y to  create  a  as  the  mood.  Used language e f f e c t i v e l y to i n c r e a s e p o s i t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e c l a s s ; c o n v e y e d my i n t e r e s t i n t h e c h i l d r e n through language.  When u s i n g  W R I T T E N LANGUAGE,  1.  Spelled  2.  Used  3.  Proofread  4.  Used  common a b b r e v i a t i o n  5.  Gave  simple  6.  Used t e l e g r a p h i c s t y l e blackboard notes.  7.  Showed a w a r e n e s s o f  8.  Used  IF  sounds;  e.g.  YOU  WISH TO THIS  and  capitalization.  carefully  before  distribution.  correctly.  directions clearly.  grammatical  A":C'!T O R A L OR B A C K OF  materials  effectively  fine  in  distinctions  making i n word  meanings.  terms a p p r o p r i a t e l y i n d i s c u s s i n g  E L A B O R A T E ON  ANY  I T E M , OR  TO  writing.  MAKE A D D I T I O N A L COMMENTS  WRITTEN E X P R E S S I O N , P L E A S E F E E L F R E E TO PAGE.  3 3  2  3  2 2 2 2 2  3 3 3 3 3  2 2 2  3 3 3  I  correctly.  correct punctuation  2 2  USE  THE  P a r t k. T E A C H I N G LANGUAGE ARTS I n order to i n s t r u c t s u c c e s s f u l l y i n the language a r t s , s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s need to d e v e l o p a number o f t e a c h i n g competencies. Some o f t h e s e c o m p e t e n c i e s a r e l i s t e d h e r e . P l e a s e r e s p o n d t o t h e l i s t by c i r c l i n g t h e number w h i c h b e s t represents your assessment of your performance i n these a r e a s , u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e . 1=1 2=1 3=1  was s a t i s f a c t o r y o r b e t t e r n e e d some i m p r o v e m e n t need c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement  When T E A C H I N G LANGUAGE 1. 2. 3k. 5.  6. ?.  8. 9-  ARTS,I:  P r i n t e d and/or wrote r e a s o n a b l e speed and  on t h e c h a l k b o a r d legibility.  1 2  3  Gave c l e a r , w e l l s e q u e n c e d i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r o r a l and w r i t t e n a c t i v i t i e s .  1 2  3  Read a l o u d enjoyment.  1 2  3  Demonstrated f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n s ' literature;e.g.titles,authors.  1 2  3  Showed a b i l i t y t o use d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f questions;e.g.recall,explanation.prediction and judgement.  1 2  3  Modelled correct pronunciation patterns for children.  1 2  3  Demonstrated f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n s ' language background such as songs,games.verses, n u r s e r y rhymes e t c .  1 2  3  M o d e l l e d good children.  1 2  3  1 2  3  1 2  3  1 2  3  1  3  to c h i l d r e n  with expression  and  l i s t e n i n g b e h a v i o u r f o r the  U n d e r s t o o d and used appropriately.  11. Used media s t r i p s and  teaching  manuals  15-  16.  to use,  such as p h o t o g r a p h s . m o d e l s , f i l m t a p e r e c o r d e r s w i t h some e a s e .  12. C o n s t r u c t e d u s e f u l aids.  14.  and  speech  10. D e m o n s t r a t e d k n o w l e d g e o f , a n d a b i l i t y the l i b r a r y o r r e s o u r c e c e n t r e .  13.  v/ith  c h a r t s and  Demonstrated a b i l i t y students' progress.  other  t o a s s e s s and  learning 2  evaluate 1  2  3  Demonstrated a b i l i t y to recognize c h i l d r e n s ' i n t e r e s t s and c o n c e r n s and i n c o r p o r a t e them i n t o language a r t s lessons or u n i t s .  1 2  3  I n v o l v e d c h i l d r e n i n a c t i v i t i e s t h a t show t h e i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s o f the l a n g u a g e arts,-e.g.-' w r i t i n g and l i s t e n i n g , r e a d i n g and d r a m a t i z i n g  1 2  3  D e s i g n e d and moderated effectively.  1 2  3  group  or class  discussion  I F YOU WISH TO E X P L A I N AN ANSWER OR ANSWERS, OR TO MAKE ANY COMMENT ABOUT T E A C H I N G LANGUAGE A R T S , P L E A S E F E E L F R E E TO USE THE BACK OF T H I S P A G E .  APPENDIX D COVER LETTERS SENT TO PARTICIPANTS  159  APPENDIX E LETTER TO SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT  160 THE UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH COLUMBIA 2075 WESBROOK MALL  Dept.  of  English  VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6T 1W5 Education  V  FACULTY OF EDUCATION  April Dr. Wickstrom Superintendent North Vancouver School D i s t r i c t 721 C h e s t e r f i e l d A v e . N o r t h V a n c o u v e r , B . C . V 7 N 2M5 Dear  Dr.  1 1 , 1980  #44  Wickstrom:  D r . Wendy K. S u t t o n a n d I a r e c u r r e n t l y preparing a r e p o r t f o r the NITEP A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l on the E n g l i s h / language arts components of the program. Given the f a c i l i t y in English so necessary i n teaching p r a c t i c e , as w e l l as i n university coursework, i t i s important that this part of the NITEP program be reviewed and a s s e s s e d as to i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Although the teachers i n your school d i s t r i c t have a l r e a d y c o n t r i b u t e d a great d e a l to NITEP through t h e i r / sponsorship of students, their participation i n our needs assessment would be i n v a l u a b l e . T h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w h i c h we have f o r sponsor teachers a s k them t o r e f l e c t o n t h e i r experience w i t h NITEP students and to respond t o : 1.  a s e c t i o n on t h e i r language u s e , and  perception  of  the  students'  2.  a s e c t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h the emphases t h a t they w o u l d recommend f o r language a r t s methodology courses.  I am e n c l o s i n g a c o p y o f e v e r y t h i n g t h a t w o u l d b e sent to the teachers i f you give permission. A s we a r e s o r a p i d l y moving toward the end of the school year, I would appreciate hearing from you as soon as p o s s i b l e . Thank y o u for your attention to this matter. Yours  sincerely,  Sally Clinton Graduate Teaching NITEP SC/cjk Encl.  Assistant,  162  APPENDIX  F  TABLES DESCRIBING RESPONDENTS AND RESPONSE  TABLE A C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  Quest ion 1.  Course  Participating  Optional  description  Instructors  Number o f respondents  responses  Arts  9  Educat ion  16  Non-cred i t 2.  Locat ion  Community  7 college  11  Un i vers i ty  7  Off-campus 3-  4.  5.  6.  Identity of classes  students  in  Number o f courses taught which have i n c l u d e d NITEP students  courses  13  only  NITEP plus  Length of courses  Nature o f  NITEP  center  17  others  One semester o r  10  less  17  Two semesters  9  One  8  Two  6  More than  two  Demanding  in o r a l . E n g l i s h  4  Demanding  in w r i t t e n E n g l i s h  4  13  Demanding in o r a l and written English Not demanding in o r a l written English 7.  Teaching  role  English  students  Fewer than 5 5 to 15 16  to 25  More than 25  4 11  teacher  Never an E n g l i s h Number of NITEP taught  or  teacher  Former E n g l i s h  8.  15  teacher  7 9 1 12 4 10  TABLE B Characteristics  Quest ion 1.  2.  Year  in the  Teaching  of P a r t i c i p a t i n g  Optional program  concentration  Third  Senior  Students  responses.  year  Number of respondents 1  Fourth, year  7  Unclass i f led  0  1 ntermed i ate  h  Primary 3.  k.  5.  Academic  Grade  First  concentration  interest  language  Anthropology  2  Physical  1  Theatre  1  Eng1i sh  1  Soc i o l o g y  3  Pr imary  5  1ntermed i a t e  2  Other  1  English  k  Native  6.  7.  Age at wh i ch E n g l i s h was learned  Family speaks E n g l i s h  education  Indian  1  N i shga  1  Thompson  1  3 to k years  2  5 to 6 years  0  7 to 8 years  2  Al1 o f  3  the  Al1 of Some o f  t ime  the  Rarely o r Community speaks E n g l i s h  1  Ca r r i e r  Some o f  8.  language  k  never  1  time  2  the the  Rarely o r  time  time  never  5 1  TABLE C C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of P a r t i c i p a t i n g  Q.ues.t i.on  1.  2.  Year  in the  Teaching  Optional responses.  program  concentration  First  year  Unci ass i f i ed  1  Social  studies  5.  6.  7.  Grade  First  interest  language  Age at which E n g l i s h was learned  Family speaks E n g l i s h  Indian e d u c a t i o n  1  k 2  Reading e d u c a t i o n  1  Young c h i l d r e n  1  education  Sociology  2  Theatre  1  Anthropology  5  Pr imary  12  1ntermed i ate  6  Other  0  E n g l i sh  13  Carrier  2  Chilcotin  1  Thompson  1  Coast S a l i sh  1  Cow i chan  1  Ha ida  1  3 to k years  2  5 to 6 years  2  7 to 8 years  3  All  the  time  Rarely o r Community speaks E n g l i s h  2  education  Some of the  8.  education  educat ion  Primary  4.  10 9  Native  Academic c o n c e n t r a t i o n  Number of respondents  Second year  Special  3-  J u n i o r Students  time  never  Al1 the  t ime  Some of  the  Rarely o r  10 9 1 9 time  never  1.1 0  TABLE D C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of P a r t i c i p a t i n g  Questions 1.  School  2.  Optional  districts  Sponsor Teachers.  responses  Number of respondents  District A District B  29 34  Teaching Assignment  Primary Intermediate Other  31 30 2  3.  Teaching  certificates  P r o f e s s ional L icense Standard  43 18 2  4.  Teaching  experience  1 to 2 years 3 to 4 years 5 to 6 years 7 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years 21. to 25 years 26 to 30 years 31 years and over  1 0 16 15 13 6 6  5.  Professional t ion  concentra-r  Art Eng1i sh Intermediate L i brary Mus i c Physical education Pr imary Read i ng Secondary Social studies Special education Young c h i l d r e n (No response)  3 2  2 5 9 2 2 3 22 1 1 3 5 4 4  TABLE D  (Continued)  Quest ions  6.  Academic  7.  Professional  8.  9-  Optional  concentration  Number o f respondents  responses  Anthropology Canadian s t u d i e s Fine a r t s French General s c i e n c e Geography H i story E n g l i sh Mathemat i cs Physical education Psychology Science (No response)  2 1 h 2 1 1 9 16 1 2 6 1 17  B . C . Primary A s s o c i a t i o n Intermediate A s s o c i a t i o n N.C.T. English C . C . T . Eng1i sh Int. Reading A s s o c i a t i o n  2k 5 0 0 1  T o t a l number o f NITEP students s u p e r v i s e d  One Two Three Four Fi ve More than F i v e  33 \h 7 5 2 1  Year o f involvement the program  Up to and i n c l u d i n g From 1978 to I98O  memberships  10. Student t e a c h i n g vision outside  in  superNITEP  Frequently Occasionally Never  1977  15 47  20 35 8  TABLE E Distribution  Part i c i p a n t groups  and Return of  Number sent  Number returned  Percentage returned  Group 1  39  30  Group 2  64  Group 1 Group 2  Questionnaires  Number ana 1yzed  Percentage analyzed  77  28  72  34  53  33  51  11  10  90  10  91  13  11  85  10  77  Group 1  17  10  59  10  59  Group 2  23  19  83  17  74  13  8  62  8  62  180  122  73  116  69  Sponsor  Junior  Number not ana 1yzed  teachers  Students  I nstructors  Senior  Students  Totals  T h i s i n c l u d e s q u e s t i o n n a i r e s returned because i n d i v i d u a l s were e r r o n e o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d as being in the program; returned as u n d e l i v e r a b l e by post o f f i c e ; where the responses could not be coded. Percentages are  rounded numbers.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Russia 15 0
United States 7 0
China 3 15
Japan 3 0
France 3 0
Canada 2 0
Germany 1 3
City Views Downloads
Unknown 21 3
Tokyo 3 0
Ashburn 2 0
Vancouver 2 0
Plano 1 0
Atlanta 1 0
Beijing 1 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
Mountain View 1 0
Westminster 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078293/manifest

Comment

Related Items