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.. 1981

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1981_A8 C54.pdf [ 7.99MB ]
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
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 Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f Language Education) We accept th is thes is as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1981 (£) Sally CIinton, 1981 MASTER OF ARTS 1 n In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Language Education The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 DE-6 (2/79) A NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN ENGLISH AND LANGUAGE ARTS CONDUCTED CONDUCTED FOR THE NATIVE INDIAN TEACHED EDUCATION PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ABSTRACT The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y was t o i d e n t i f y e d u c a t i o n a l needs o f s t u d e n t s in t h e NITEP p rog ram w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e g a r d f o r E n g l i s h and l anguage a r t s . The s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o i n v o l v e 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 , 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 s t u d e n t s in a s s e s s i n g s t u d e n t s ' needs on i n s t r u m e n t s s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n e d f o r t h i s p u r p o s e . Responden ts were a s k e d t o rank o r d e r t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f NITEP s t u d e n t s ' c a p a b i l i t y in s k i l l s o f o r a l and w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n as d e m o n s t r a t e d in 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 t e a c h i n g . I terns d e s c r i b i n g t e a c h i n g c o m p e t e n c i e s i n t h e l anguage a r t s were i n c l u d e d in t he s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The r e s p o n s e s t o t he q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n c e r n i n g l anguage competency in u n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e w o r k i n d i c a t e d t h a t a l t h o u g h i n s t r u c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d more s k i l l s n e e d i n g improvement t han d i d s t u d e n t s , f o r t he most p a r t t h e two g roups p e r c e i v e d s i m i l a r n e e d s . In p a r t i c u l a r , t he s k i l l s r e q u i r e d f o r a r g u m e n t i v e and e x p o s i t o r y e s s a y w r i t i n g were seen as n e e d i n g improvement . In r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e 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 l anguage a r t s i n s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g , s p o n s o r t e a c h e r s p e r c e i v e d needs in t he q u a l i t y and use o f v o i c e w h i c h were no t p e r c e i v e d by t he s t u d e n t s . i i i Students and sponsor teachers both , however, saw needs for improvement in general knowledge of c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e and ear ly language background. Some of the recommendations put forward in l i gh t of th is needs assessment are the fo l low ing : 1. Students who may need ext ra help in Engl ish should be i d e n t i f i e d on admission and ins t ruc tors a le r ted to t h e i r needs. 2. Whenever poss ib le such students should be counsel led to take Engl ish improvement courses at co l leges or through agencies such as the Open Learning Inst i tu te before admission. 3- NITEP should ask the Engl ish Department to o f f e r a NITEP Engl ish 100 sec t ion whenever f e a s i b l e . 4. Academic Engl ish courses should be scheduled in the day-t ime, and students ' attendance and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in them given high p r i o r i t y in NITEP schedul ing of courses and teaching p r a c t i c a . 5. Language arts and reading methodology courses should be o f fe red concurrent ly , rather than c o n s e c u t i v e l y , and inc ludemore c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e and nat ive Indian content. 6. The program s t a f f , a d v i s o r s , and ins t ruc tors in Speech A r t s , should meet to consider the quest ion of qua l i ty and use of voice with respect to student teaching. 7- Speech Arts should be o f fe red at the beginning o f Year One in the program. 8. More oppor tun i t ies for a l l ins t ruc tors and program s t a f f to meet together should be provided. 9. Study s k i l l s should be taught by ind iv idual NITEP ins t ruc tors for t h e i r own courses. 10. Engl ish tu tor ing programs should be expanded when necessary to respond to s tudents ' s p e c i f i c problems with language. 11. An assessment of s tudents ' Engl ish competency should be an ongoing process in NITEP. Since there are new NITEP students every year , and the program is f requent ly o f fe red at new s i t e s , the students ' needs with regard to Engl ish and language arts may d i f f e r from year to year . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES vi. i i LIST OF FIGURES x CHAPTER: 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose, of the Study . . . . . 1 Need for the Study . . . . . 3 S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study . . . . 5 Assumptions . . . . . . . 6 Research Questions . . . . . 7 Scope of the Study . . . . . 7 L i mi tat ions . . . . . . 7 De f in i t ions of Terms . . . . . 8 Organizat ion of the Study . . . . ' 9 2 . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 10 The PI ace. of .Engl ish and Language Arts in Native Education . . . . . . 10 Native Languages in Native Indian Education . . . . . . 12 Engl ish as a Factor in Native Indian Education . . . . . . 13 Recent Psychological Studies in Native Indian Education . . . . . 14 Recent L i n g u i s t i c Studies in Native Indian Education . . . . . 17 Summary . . . . . . . 19 An Examination of the Special Nature o f Native Indian Teacher Preparat ion Programs with P a r t i c u l a r Regard to Engl ish and Language Arts . 20 Int roduct ion . . . . . . 20 Background . . . . . . 21 Current S i tua t ion . . . . . 22 Problems in Native Indian Teacher Education 2 3 Summary 29 V PAGE 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE (Cont.) Needs Assessment: An Invest igat ive Technique for Considering Engl ish and Language Arts in NITEP . 30 Introduction . . . . . . 30 The Process of Needs Assessment . . . 30 D i f f i c u l t i e s in Needs Assessment . . . 32 Adaptation of Needs Assessment . . . 33 Summary . . . . . . . 35 3. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 36 Decision and Planning . . . . . 36 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Par t i c ipan ts . . . 37 Def ining the Needs . . . . . 38 Measuring the P r i o r i t i e s . . . . 8̂ Interpret ing and Reporting the Information . 50 * 4. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 52 Treatment of the Questionnaires . . . 52 Response to the Questionnaires . . . 53 Un ivers i ty Coursework Questionnaire . . . 5̂ Oral Expression in the Academic Student Role: Research Question One . . . . . . 56 Oral Expression in Univers i ty Coursework as Perceived by Instructors . . . 56 Oral Expression in Univers i ty Coursework as Perceived by Senior Students . . . 59 Summary . . . . . . . 61 Written Expression in the Academic Student Role: Research Question Two . . . . . 64 Written Expression in Univers i ty Coursework as Perceived by Instructors . . . 64 Written Expression in Univers i ty Coursework as Perceived by Senior Students . . . 69 Summary . . . . . . . 72 Student Teaching Questionnaire . . . . 76 v i PAGE k. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA (Cont.) Oral Expression in Student Teaching: Research Question Three . . . . . . 79 Oral Expression in Student Teaching as Perceived by Sponsor Teachers . . . 80 Oral Expression in Student Teaching as Perceived by Jun ior Students . . . 82 S umma ry . . . . . . . 82 Written Expression in Student Teaching: Research Question Four . . . . . . 85 Written Expression in Student Teaching as Perceived by Sponsor Teachers . . . 86 Written Expression in Student Teaching as Perceived by Junior Students . . . 86 Summary . . . . . . . 88 Selected Competencies in Teaching Language A r t s : Research Question Five . . . . 88 Language Arts Teaching Competencies in Student Teaching as Perceived by Sponsor Teachers . . . . . . . 89 Language Arts Teaching Competencies in Student Teaching as Perceived by Jun ior Students . . . . . . '. 32 Summary . . . . . . . 93 Comments from the Questionnaires . . . 95 5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 96 Findings of the Research Questions . . . 97 Summary of the Findings and The i r Implications . 98 Research Question One . . . . . . 98 Research Question Two . . . . . . 101 Research Question Three . . . . . . . 105 Research Question Four . . . . . . 108 Research Question Five . . . . . 109 VI I PAGE SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont.) Recommendations A r i s i n g from the Findings and Impli cat ions Problems and Suggestions for Change in Any Future Needs Assessment . Suggestions for Further Research Conclusion . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A. PROPOSAL B. PROGRESS REPORT C. QUESTIONNAIRES D. COVER LETTER TO RESPONDENTS E. LETTER TO SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT F. TABLES 111 117 118 119 120 132 1 32 135 137 155 159 162 v i i i LIST OF TABLES PAGE TABLE: 1. Aspects of Language Related to the Academic Student Role . . . . . . . 4 3 2. Aspects of Language Related to Student Teaching Performance . . . . . . . kj, 3- Items in Oral Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Instructors . . . . . . 58 h. Items in Oral Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Senior Students . . . . . . 60 5. Items in Oral Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Engl ish^ Senior Students . . . 63 6. Items in Written Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Instructors . . . . . . 65 7. Items in Written Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Senior Students . . . . . 70 8. Summary of Tables 6 and 1 Showing Comparison of Items Ident i f ied as Concerns by Both Instructors and Senior Students . . . . . . . 73 9. Items in Written Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Engl ish^ Senior Students . . . 75 10. I terns in Oral Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Sponsor Teachers . . . . . 81 11. Items in Oral Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Junior Students . . . . . 83 12. Items in Written Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Sponsor Teachers . . . . . 87 13- Items in Written Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Junior Students . . . . . 87 \k. Teaching Competencies Ranked as Concerns by Sponsor Teachers . . . . . . . 90 i x PAGE TABLE CCont.) 15. Teaching Competencies Ranked as Concerns by- Junior Students . . . . . . . 91 16. Summary o f Items in Oral Expression Ident i f ied as Needing Improvement by Both Instructors and Senior Students Based on Tables 3 and 4 . . . 99 17 ' Summary o f I terns in Oral Expression Ident i f ied as Needing Improvement by Instructors Only Based on Tables 3 and k . 100 18. Summary of I terns in Written Expression Ident i f i ed as Needing Improvement by Both Instructors and Senior Students Based on Tables 6 and 7 • • 102 19. Summary o f Items in Written Expression Ident i f i ed as Needing Improvement by Instructors Only Based on Tables 6 and 7 . . . . . . . 103 20. Summary o f Items in Oral Expression Ident i f i ed as Needing Improvement by Sponsor Teachers Only Based on Tables 10 and 11 . . . . . . 106 21. Summary of Items in Oral Expression Ident i f i ed as Needing Improvement by Jun ior Students Only Based on Tables 10 and 11 . . . . . . 106 2 2 . Summary of Items in Oral Expression Ident i f i ed as Needing Improvement by Both Sponsor Teachers and Junior Students Based on Tables 10 and 11 . . 107 2 3 . Summary of Teaching Competencies Ident i f i ed as Needing Improvement by Both Sponsor Teachers and Junior Students Based on Tables 14 and 15 . . 110 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE: 1. Aspects of ora l expression re la ted to student performance in un ive rs i ty coursework 2. Aspects of wr i t ten expression re la ted to student performance in un ivers i ty coursework 3. Aspects of ora l expression re la ted to student teaching performance . . . . . . k. Aspects of wr i t ten expression re la ted to student teaching performance . . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x"i I wish to take th is opportuni ty to acknowledge the in terest and ass is tance of the members of my thes is committee, Dr. Wendy K. Sut ton, Dr. Thelma S. Cook, and Dr. Denis Rodgers. A spec ia l word of thanks is due Dr. Wendy Sutton, the committee chairperson and my a d v i s o r , for her un t i r ing enthusiasm for the project and her many kindnesses to me. I would a l s o l i k e to recognize help and d i r e c t i o n af forded me by Dr. Todd Rogers; the ERIC Center s t a f f ; and the NITEP s t a f f and students; Dr. Bernie Mohan, Prof . Mary Ashworth, and Dr. Ruth McConnel1; and J.W. (Paddy) Creber and Geoff Fox of the Un ivers i ty of Essex. And f i n a l l y , none of the preparat ion for th is study, or the time spent on graduate work would have been poss ib le without the support , understanding and help of my husband and fami ly . DEDICATION To my husband, A l f . CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study We cannot escape the need for spec ia l a t tent ion to Engl ish c a p a b i l i t y . It i l l u s t r a t e s the specia l 'something' that Indian students need. (Benham, 1975, p. 2) The education of 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 Engl ish and. how well he is able to learn i t . Hjgher education w i l l be a v a i l a b l e to him only through the medium of E n g l i s h , and most of the careers open to him are dependent very la rge ly on his a b i l i t y to communicate in E n g l i s h . (Radulovich, 197**, p. 19) Native Indian educators , however much concerned about the q u a l i t y of Engl ish ins t ruc t ion fo5r nat ive Indian students , are even more concerned about the qua l i ty of Indianness--a strong sense of cu l tu ra l i d e n t i t y - - which they see as an integral part of the kind of education they envisage for t h e i r people (National Indian Brotherhood, 1972, pp. 1-2). One way of engendering th is Indianness is to have nat ive Indian, people involved at every level of the school system, p a r t i c u l a r l y where there are a number of nat ive people in the community (NIB, 1972, p. 28). Native teachers would seem to be c r u c i a l in such a p l a n , and i f they are to be charged with provid ing "spec ia l a t tent ion to Engl ish c a p a b i l i t y " , they must themselves be very capable. The purpose of th is study is to u t i l i z e the process of needs assessment in consider ing Engl ish competency and the potent ia l for i t s development in a teacher t r a i n i n g program for nat ive Indian students at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. 2 This program, the Native Indian Teacher Education Program (hereafter i d e n t i f i e d as NITEP), undertakes to produce elementary school teachers c e r t i f i e d to teach anywhere in B r i t i s h Columbia. In many respects the NITEP compares c l o s e l y to the regular elementary program, and c e r t a i n l y the demands concerning Engl ish are the same. Students in NITEP are required to meet a l l the regular academic requirements for education students inc luding Engl ish 100 and Engl ish 200 as part of t h e i r under- graduate program. In a d d i t i o n , l i k e t h e i r counterparts in the regular program of the Faculty of Educat ion, students receive evaluat ions in oral and wr i t ten language use, voice q u a l i t y , p ro jec t ion and f luency as part of the pract icum, or student teaching experience (Faculty of Educat ion, For 3 2 3 , 1 9 7 9 ) . However, there are cer ta in features of the NITEP which d i f f e r from the regular undergraduate program. For example,- the f i r s t two years are held at an off-campus s i t e ; methodology courses and in tensive student teaching prac t ice are included in year one and two; the majority of academic courses are scheduled into year three and four ; some courses are taken at community c o l l e g e s ; and a range of support serv ices inc luding tu tor ing and counse l l ing are provided for students (More S Wall i s , 1 9 7 9 , p. Several of these program d i f fe rences have impl icat ions for the whole question of the NITEP students' competency in E n g l i s h , as well as the Engl ish and language arts components of t h e i r program. For example, both non-credi t and academic Engl ish courses must often be taken at community co l leges in c lasses which may be geared to the in terests and needs of students from other c u l t u r e s . Fur ther , during practicums sponsor teachers may have expectat ions of Engl ish competency and/or teaching c a p a b i l i t y 3 in language arts which do not al low for the fact that the students are reg is tered in f i r s t or second year; not in t h i r d or f i f t h year as are most student teachers . Senior students s h i f t i n g from NITEP centers and community col leges may f ind t h i r d and fourth year courses formal and in t imidat ing and may not perform as well as they are able in oral and wr i t ten express ion . These and other such matters typ ica l o f NITEP, but not of other programs in the Faculty of Educat ion, require spec ia l study. Need for the Study In Return home, watch your fami ly , a 1 9 7 7 study evaluat ing NITEP, the researchers reported that i t was "genera l ly recognized 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 greatest problem which must be overcome by the NITEP students" (Thomas & Mcintosh, 1 9 7 7 , p. 5 0 ) . Given the importance of Engl ish in the academic l i f e of un ivers i ty students (U.B.C. Calendar, 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 ) , as well as i ts importance in the profess ional l i f e of student teachers (Report, 1 9 7 9 , Rec. 7 ) , any reported " d e f i c i e n c y in language s k i l l s " requires examination. It i s , however, important to remember that th is concern about language is not r e s t r i c t e d to NITEP. The popular press features a r t i c l e s decrying the state of l i t e r a c y at th is prov ince 's major educational i n s t i t u t i o n s qui te regu la r ly . One such a r t i c l e , wr i t ten by a member of the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia's Engl ish Department, spoke of un ivers i ty students as the "new i l l i t e r a t e s " (Beavis, Province Magazine, 1 9 7 9 , p- 1 2 ) . The recent P res iden t ' s Review Committee on the Faculty o f Education recommended that "the facu l ty t ighten i t s Engl ish p r o f i c i e n c y requirements," and in a d d i t i o n , re insta te a senior course in bas ic 4 composition for a l l elementary undergraduates (Report, 1979, Rec. 7). Such a recommendation implies that students other 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 in E n g l i s h . Concern about language s k i l l s has a lso surfaced at the nat ional l e v e l . A study undertaken in 1975 by the ACUTE Commission on Undergraduate Studies in Engl ish found that chairmen of Engl ish departments, responding to a ques t ionna i re , reported being at best "somewhat d i s s a t i s f i e d " with "the a b i l i t i e s and preparat ion in language and composit ion" of students being admitted to the un ive rs i ty Committee (CCTE, 1976, p. 45). Obvious ly , had Thomas and Mcintosh studied other un ivers i ty programs developed to educate elementary school teachers , they might have found a concern for "de f i c iency in language s k i l l s " in them as w e l l . It is l i k e l y that the question of un ivers i ty s tudents ' Engl ish competency w i l l be addressed in many studies in the near fu ture . However, s ince NITEP is a spec ia l program with a prec ise mandate (Proposal , 1974), i t seems important to consider s e p a r a t e l y , wi th in the context o f the program, th is general concern about un ivers i ty s tudents ' language competency and to consider ways and means o f approaching the problem. The author 's experience as a language arts i n s t r u c t o r in the program suggested that such a study would be appropriate at th is time. Because there is an annual intake of new students , the NITEP populat ion has changed considerably s ince 1977, and the re fo re , the present group of students may be qui te d i f f e ren t in terms of language background than those interviewed by Thomas and Mcintosh (1977). 5 S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study During the past decade almost a score of teacher t r a i n i n g programs designed for nat ive Indian students have appeared on the Canadian scene (More, 1981). These programs are in d i rec t response to demands o u t l i n e d in the 1972 manifesto on educat ion, Indian control of Indian educat ion , wherein i t s t a t e s , "Native teachers and counsel lors who have an intimate understanding of Indian t r a d i t i o n s , psychology, way of l i f e and language are best able to create the learning environment su i ted to the habits and in teres ts of the Indian c h i l d " (NIB, p. 75). Faced with "the f a i l u r e of the Canadian educational e n t e r p r i s e , at a l l l e v e l s , in i ts se rv ice to the Indian peoples" (Mcintosh, 1979, p. 22), i t is not s u r p r i s i n g that i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher learning have been persuaded to make an e f f o r t to improve th is s i t u a t i o n by encouraging and support ing these innovative teacher t r a i n i n g programs. The establishment of programs to t ra in nat ive Indian teachers , c h i e f l y in un ivers i ty s e t t i n g s , has not been achieved without d i f f i c u l t y . Since fewer than 10% of nat ive students graduate from high s c h o o l , and almost none from academic programs (More, 1979 , p- 2), i t has been necessary to use "mature and spec ia l admission ca tegor ies" in order to gain admittance for many NITEP students (More, 1979, p. 5). It is there- fore f a i r to assume that a number of these students may lack f a c i l i t y in E n g l i s h - - c e r t a i n l y at the level of performance expected in the u n i v e r s i t y - - and have ser ious gaps in t h e i r general academic backgrounds. More, suggesting t h i s , and c r i t i c i z i n g some programs for having f a i l e d to come to terms with th is matter, says: 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 laudable to admit to teacher education programs students who show potent ia l but who have large gaps in t h e i r academic background. It is indefens ib le to graduate such students without them having taken a s i n g l e co l lege level Engl ish course or adequately f i l l e d in t h e i r academic gaps. (1979, p- 8) Cer ta in ly teachers capable of provid ing the c a l i b r e of education envis ioned by the National Indian Brotherhood for t h e i r people w i l l not come from watered-down programs such as described by More. Qual i ty educati.on for nat ive ch i ldren requires teachers as h ighly competent in Engl ish as in any other sub ject . Consequently, th is aspect of the nat ive Indian teacher preparat ion programs deserves spec ia l a t t e n t i o n . This study uses an adaptation of the needs assessment process as a technique for consider ing the question of Engl ish competency and the potent ia l for i ts development in such a program. Assumpt i ons This study is based on the fo l lowing assumptions: 1. That i t is poss ib le to ident i fy and descr ibe oral and wr i t ten Engl ish as s a t i s f a c t o r y or unsat is fac tory for students of the teaching p r o f e s s i o n . 2. That i t is poss ib le to iden t i fy and describe ora l and wr i t ten Engl ish as s a t i s f a c t o r y or unsat is fac tory for the academic work expected of un ivers i ty s tudents . 3. That i t is poss ib le to ident i fy and descr ibe s p e c i f i c competencies in teacher performance which re la te pr imar i ly to s u c c e s s f u l l y teaching the language a r t s . Research Questions This study attempts to f i n d : 1. Which aspects of oral expression do ins t ruc tors and students ident i fy as concerns in the un ivers i ty coursework of NITEP students? 2. Which aspects of wr i t ten expression do ins t ruc tors and students ident i fy as concerns in the un ivers i ty coursework of NITEP students? 3- Which aspects of ora l expression do sponsor teachers and students ident i fy as concerns in the student teaching of NITEP students? 4. Which aspects of wr i t ten expression do sponsor teachers and students ident i fy as concerns in the student teaching o f NITEP students? 5. Which o f the s p e c i f i c teaching competencies re la ted to the teaching o f the language ar ts do sponsor teachers and students iden t i fy as heeding improvement? Scope of the Study This study w i l l concentrate on the NITEP as i t has been s t ruc tured since 1977- The target populat ion for the study cons is ts of persons who have p a r t i c i p a t e d in the program as sponsor teachers , co l lege and univer - s i t y i n s t r u c t o r s , students and program s t a f f . The data used in the study comes from instruments designed for the study. L i mi tat i ons P r a c t i c a l i t y and f e a s i b i l i t y d ic ta ted several compromises with preferred procedure in th is study. The study was l im i ted in severa l . ways : 8 1. The general l i m i t a t i o n s of an instrument designed to c o l l e c t assessments of respondents' perceptions rather than d i rec t observat ions were present in the quest ionna i re . 2. The recognized l i m i t a t i o n s of col 1ecting responses by mail such as non-response, bias and the i n a b i l i t y to check responses were present in th is study. De f in i t ions of Terms A number of terms used in th is study are subject to a var ie ty o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . The se lec ted d e f i n i t i o n s are given below. Nat i ve Indi an. The terms nat ive Indian, nat ive or Indian refer to any person who can trace a part of his or her ancestry to the o r i g i n a l inhabitants of North America. Student teachers . Un ivers i ty s tudents , reg is tered in the Facul ty of Educat ion , who have a p rac t i ce teaching component in t h e i r program are referred to as student teachers . Sponsor teachers. Classroom teachers who provide c lasses and super- v i s i o n for the p rac t i ce teaching component in teacher t r a i n i n g are c a l l e d sponsor teachers. Instructor . For the purpose of th is s tudy, the term i n s t r u c t o r w i l l include anyone with teaching r e s p o n s i b i l i t y at a community co l lege or at the u n i v e r s i t y . Program s t a f f . The program s t a f f refers to the coordinators and counsel lors of NITEP. E n g l i s h . E n g l i s h , in the context of th is study, refers to the language of ins t ruc t ion in B r i t i s h Columbia s c h o o l s ; courses in composi- 9 t i o n , l i t e r a t u r e or language at the u n i v e r s i t y ; one of two o f f i c i a l languages in Canada. Language a r t s . The Engl ish language curr iculum for elementary schools in B r i t i s h Columbia is c a l l e d language a r t s . It includes l i s t e n - i n g , oral express ion , reading, wr i t ten express ion , study s k i l l s , c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e and language study. Engl ish competency. For the purposes of th is s tudy, Engl ish com- petency is defined as the degree of language s u f f i c i e n t for one's needs in the academic and profess ional community as represented by the educational establishment in B r i t i s h Columbia. Organizat ion of the Study Chapter 1 has stated the purpose, need f o r , and s i g n i f i c a n c e of th is study. In a d d i t i o n , i t has dealt with assumptions, research quest ions , and l i m i t a t i o n s as wel1 as g iv ing d e f i n i t i o n s for relevant terms. In Chapter 2, the l i t e r a t u r e pert inent to the study w i l l be reviewed in three s e c t i o n s : the teaching and learning of Eng l ish and language arts in nat ive Indian educat ion; the spec ia l nature o f teacher t r a i n i n g programs for nat ive Indian people; the needs assessment process as a technique for developing and improving educational programs. Chapter 3 ou t l ines the development of the instruments and the procedure used to gather data for the assessment from i n s t r u c t o r s , sponsor teachers , and students . The resul ts of the data c o l l e c t i o n are presented in Chapter h. Chapter 5 includes a general d iscuss ion of the f i n d i n g s , a summary of the study and recommendations. 10 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The review of l i t e r a t u r e relevant to th is study includes (a) an appraisal of the place of Engl ish and language arts in nat ive Indian educat ion; (b) an examination of the specia l nature of nat ive Indian teacher education with p a r t i c u l a r regard to Engl ish and language a r t s ; and (c) a survey of wr i t ings concerning needs assessment as a process su i tab le for reviewing s p e c i f i c components in a teacher education program. The Place of Engl ish and Language Arts in Native Education The h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g . Canadian education has never s u c c e s s f u l l y met the needs of i ts nat ive popula t ion . A record of attempts to provide education for Indian people is o u t l i n e d in Ashworth's recent book The forces which shaped them (1979). She points out that s ince contact with Europeans had destroyed much of the s t a b i l i t y of Indian s o c i e t y , the miss ionar ies saw an opportunity (and probably a duty) to e s t a b l i s h a V i c t o r i a n - t y p e Chr is t i an soc ie ty in the new wor ld . B e l i e v i n g , as they d i d , that school ing would be the most e f f e c t i v e way to implement the .k ind of change they env is ioned , ear ly miss ionar ies f i r s t es tab l i shed v i l l a g e schools (pp. 3 - 1 0 ) , and then res iden t ia l t r a i n i n g schools for nat ive students (pp. 10-35). These schools operated unt i l the ear ly 1950s when government po l icy changed and in tegrat ion- -where in nat ive ch i ldren were encouraged to attend prov inc ia l schools—became the new hope for Indian education (Ki rkness, 1980, p. 14). 1.1 The change from r e s i d e n t i a l schools to p rov inc ia l schools was well intended, according to Kirkness (p. 1*0 but s ince "no genuine preparat ion was made for the change" (p. 14), and there was no real cons idera t ion of the impl icat ions of such change, the new p o l i c y f a i l e d in i ts attempt to "bring Indians into the mainstream of Canadian l i f e " (p. 14). Unfor tunate ly , the in tegrat ion p o l i c y did l i t t l e to improve depress- ing s t a t i s t i c s concerning school drop-out , age-grade re tardat ion and unemployment amongst nat ive people (Stanbury, 1975). Kirkness (I980) sums up the h is to ry of Indian educat ion: Indian people have been the v ic t ims of an educational system that was fore ign to them. This system has been allowed to continue from the 17th century to the present day. It is only during the las t ten years that Indian people have made strong demands for change. (p. 15) The h i s t o r i c a l perspect ive on language. The Engl ish language has long f igured as a fac tor in nat ive Indian educat ion , but , for the most par t , in a very negative way. Although a few of the e a r l i e s t miss ionar ies used the language of the p a r t i c u l a r t r i b e they were teaching (Ashworth, 1979, P- 9), the major i ty adopted a program of Engl ish language i n s t r u c t i o n combined with nat ive language suppression. This p o l i c y , and the a t t i tudes toward nat ive language which i t represented, character ized Indian education fo r a long per iod of time (pp. 25_35). Students in r e s i d e n t i a l schools were required to speak Engl ish at a l l t imes, of ten being severely punished for speaking the i r nat ive tongues (Ashworth, p. 29). Brown, wr i t ing o f non-Anglo ch i ld ren in B r i t i s h Columbia, says: For some the scars go so deep that one despairs of t h e i r ever being erased; the Native Indians, for example, here long before white people came, suf fered the gravest insu l t and humi l ia t ion to the i r language and the i r cu l tu re and the i r pain can s t i l l be heard in the b i t t e r words, recorded here in , of a c i t i z e n s h i p judge speaking about her exper- iences as a pupil at a r e s i d e n t i a l s c h o o l . (Brown, 1979, p. i i i ) 12 The to ta l re jec t ion of the nat ive languages and the enforced use of E n g l i s h , p a r t i c u l a r l y in res iden t ia l s c h o o l i n g , led to ch i ld ren s u f f e r i n g "a profound sense of a l i e n a t i o n from t h e i r parents" (Canadian C o u n c i l , 1978, p. 137), and threatened the very existence of nat ive family l i f e , the heart of Indian s o c i e t y . This sorry h is to ry must be taken into considerat ion in any d iscuss ion of language in nat ive Indian educat ion. Native Languages in Native Indian Education Given the h i s t o r i c a l background wherein Engl ish was imposed and nat ive languages suppressed (Ashworth, 1979, pp. 25-33), i t is not s u r p r i s i n g that nat ive leaders assign high p r i o r i t y to the reclamation and teaching of nat ive languages (NIB, 1972, p. 15). The c a l l for 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 nat ive Indian education is s t rong . Native language programs such as those at New Aiyansh or Mount Curr ie in B r i t i s h Columbia (Spears, 197**; Wyatt, 1977b), are becoming increas ing ly commonplace in North America (Andersson & Boyer, 1978). R i f f e l l . (1975) suggests , however, that parents often f ind themselves in a "language dilemma" when faced with these programs (p. 27). Some are concerned that learning a nat ive language w i l l in te r fe re with ! real 1 education (Smith, 1980, p. 15; Wyatt, 1977a, p. ^07), while others may question the v a l i d i t y of such programs with an argument s i m i l a r to that expressed by Epstein (1977): Af ter nearly nine years and more than h a l f a b i l l i o n do l l a rs in federal funds, however, the government U.S. has not demon- s t ra ted whether such ins t ruc t ion makes much d i f fe rence in the students ' achievement, in t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n of E n g l i s h , or in t h e i r a t t i tudes toward s c h o o l . (p. 1) ]3 Smith (1980), wr i t ing in a recent e d i t i o n of the Journal o f American Indian Educat ion, ac tua l l y condemns b i l i n g u a l education for nat ive students . She supports her contention that i t w i l l exacerbate the problem of age- grade retardat ion by r e f e r r i n g to the work of Macnamara (1966). Af ter reviewing more than 75 independent studies on b i l i n g u a l - ism and second language teach ing , Macnamara concluded, " A l l in a l l , we may ten ta t i ve ly conclude that monolinguals - those people speaking only one language - are super ior 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." (Smith, 1980, p. 15) Regardless of the controversy that e x i s t s concerning the benef i ts of b i l i n g u a l educat ion , i t is nevertheless evident that nat ive parents and educators are very concerned about t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s development of p ro f i c i ency in Engl ish (Radulovich, 1974; Foerster S L i t t l e S o l d i e r , 1980). For example, in a large sca le needs assessment addressed to the issue o f improving education for nat ive s tudents , eight of ten p a r t i c i p a n t groups (N=1618) chose the development of Engl ish s k i l l s as the most important goal in education (Oklahoma, 1976). Since nat ive people do value Engl ish competency as an educational g o a l , the fact that Engl ish is s t i l l s i n g l e d out as the ch ie f cause of nat ive c h i l d r e n ' s f a i l u r e in the school system, is a ser ious indictment of our educational p rac t ices in th is regard (Reid, 1974). Engl ish as a Factor in Native Indian Education The teaching and learning of E n g l i s h , i d e n t i f i e d as a s i g n i f i c a n t and troublesome fac tor in the education of Canadian nat ive Indian students , is d iscussed by Bowd (1977), Brooks (1978), and C l i f t o n (1977)- In t h e i r reviews of the psychologica l s tudies undertaken in th is century, they have indicated that studies before the la te 1960s were c h i e f l y 14 concerned with comparing the s c h o l a s t i c apt i tudes of nat ive and non- nat ive 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 lower apt i tude of the nat ive ch i ld ren to environmental fac tors (.Brooks, 1978 , p. 5 9 ) - Although recommendations concerning the teaching of language were common in these repor ts , they ra re ly went fur ther than recommending increased oral p rac t ice (Brooks, p. 61) or remedial a t tent ion to reading s k i l l s (Bowd, pp. 3 3 6 - 3 3 9 ) . This researcher has f a i l e d to f ind any reports that claim improved Engl ish competency as a resu l t of implementing these two addi t ions or changes. The Hawthorn Study (1967) documented the f a i l u r e of most educational p rac t ices then being used in nat ive educat ion , inc luding those to do with the teaching and learning of Engl ish (Bowd, 1977 , pp. 3 3 2 - 3 3 5 ) . Its authors , in suggesting that many problems in nat ive education were the resu l t of expecting nat ive Indian c h i l d r e n to respond to school ing in exact ly the same way as white midd le -c lass c h i l d r e n , r e f l e c t e d the th inking that was then beginning to appear in psychologica l studies (Brooks, 1978 , p. 5 9 ) . Recent Psychological Studies in Native Indian Education As studies s h i f t e d from measuring i n t e l l i g e n c e and cogni t ion with verbal tes ts to measuring them with non-verbal t e s t s , some clues concern- ing the mismatch between common educational p rac t ices and the problems in learning for nat ive ch i ld ren began to emerge (Brooks, p. 6 2 ) . It became c lea r that while verbal communication dominated t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n , nat ive ch i ld ren were much stronger in non-verbal and spa t i a l s k i l l s than they were in verbal s k i l l s , and could use the i r spa t i a l a b i l i t i e s in problem so lv ing (p. 6 2 ) . Although i t has not been poss ib le to b u i l d a theory of nat ive education methodology based on these or other f ind ings (p. 6 7 ) , never the less , some recommendations which apply to Eng l ish teaching and learning have been forthcoming. Brooks, in reviewing the work of Bowd ( 1 9 7 2 ) , K l e i n f e l d ( 1 9 7 0 ) , and McArthur (1978) , summed up t h e i r recommendations for changing ins t ruc t iona l p r a c t i c e in the fo l low- ing statement: School learning would be.improved by the use of teaching aids such as c h a r t s , diagrams, maps and concrete o b j e c t s . Venn diagrams and symbolic p i c t o r i a l a ids have been recommended for use in teaching a b s t r a c t i o n s , even language concepts. (p. 65) Such a recommendation speaks to Eng1 ish curricu1um preparat ion and ins t ruc t iona l methodology. Addi t ional research which provides useful d i r e c t i o n for those involved in the teaching and learning of Engl ish for nat ive students comes from more recent work by K l e i n f e l d ( 1 9 7 5 ) . She observed c lasses in two nat ive and f i v e integrated schools with the intent ion of studying the e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t teaching s t y l e s on the verbal p a r t i c i p a t i o n of nat ive students. The c r i t e r i a she used to judge verbal p a r t i c i p a t i o n had to do with the quanti ty and qua l i t y of students ' ora l and wr i t ten cont r ibut ions in s p e c i f i e d c l a s s e s . She found that students responded best to teachers who, while expressing personal warmth to s tudents , a c t i v e l y demanded good qua l i t y work from them. Since teachers of Engl ish have c o n s i s t e n t l y complained about shy, withdrawn, nonverbal nat ive students (Dumont, J r . , 1 9 7 2 ) , i t may be that preconceived notions of behavior have resul ted in unnecessary problems for teachers and students . In K l e i n f e l d ' s most recent work, for example, she contrasts the " s e l f - conf ident and verba l " Engl ish language performance of a group of Eskimo students attending a school without any specia l language programs, with 16 the " t r a d i t i o n a l " behavior of nat ive and Eskimo students in schools of any kind (1979, p. 2). The students who; so impressed K l e i n f e l d were attending a school which had sent an inordinate number of students to the Un ivers i ty of Alaska and thus become the focus of an ethnographic study of successfu l b i c u l t u r a l educat ion. Insofar as there were no specia l programs for language development in the school (p. 14), and the students when enter ing the school scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on language measures than did control groups, the i r success in Engl ish is i n t e r e s t i n g . K l e i n f e l d observes that teachers demonstrated in terest in the Eskimo language while encouraging the use of Engl ish as an in tegra t ive force in community l i f e , and taught Engl ish s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s in such a way as to be in harmony with Eskimo values and ideals (pp. 129-130). In any review of studies r e l a t i n g to the teaching and learning of Engl ish in nat ive Indian educat ion , i t is important to acknowledge a recommendation which has been a part of almost every study and report wr i t ten s ince the 1940s. A t y p i c a l recommendation reads: The weaknesses in verbal a b i l i t y must be redressed by a greater use of Engl ish as a Second Language programs in the j u n i o r elementary schools and by cont inuing them throughout the c h i l d ' s s c h o o l i n g . (Brooks, 1978, p. 66) Engl ish as a second language methodology is present ly included in several of the nat ive teacher t r a i n i n g programs (More and Wall i s , 1979) but no d e f i n i t i v e studies demonstrating e f fec t i veness of th is approach to Engl ish in Indian education have come to the a t tent ion of th is w r i t e r . A recent refinement in th is a rea , the study of methodology for the teach- ing of a second d i a l e c t of Engl ish (Johnson, 1976, pp. 255-271), may prove to be more e f f e c t i v e in Indian educat ion. This should be a product ive area of study and research. Recent L i n g u i s t i c Studies in Native Indian Education 17 Considering the concern with language that has character i zed the psychologica l studies in nat ive Indian educat ion, i t is s u r p r i s i n g that so few l i n g u i s t i c studies have been publ ished in th is area . Dale (1975) suggests that concern with the problems of black Americans has led to a dearth of information about other minor i ty peoples (p. 2 8 2 ) . He points out that "on the whole, people who have been interested in language and the American Indian c h i l d have focused on Engl ish as a second language" (p. 283) but s ince he e a r l i e r stated that "we do not know how many speakers there are for each Indian language, how many speakers are mono- l ingual or b i l i n g u a l in Eng l ish as w e l l , and how many no longer speak the Indian languages at a l l " (p. 2 8 3 ) , t h i s focus may be somewhat quest ionable . In f a c t , Dale leaves th is top ic and moves on to d iscuss the best known l i n g u i s t i c study in nat ive educat ion, Part i c i pant s t ructures and communicative competence: Warm Springs ch i ld ren in community and classroom ( P h i l i p s , 1 9 7 2 ) . P h i l i p s documented what many e a r l i e r s tudies had merely suggested: the ways in which nat ive ch i ld ren learn and are taught at home are in d i r e c t contrast to the way in which they learn and are taught at s c h o o l . She found that the fo l lowing observat ions held t rue: 1. Indian pupi ls did not understand the ro le of the teacher s ince there was no comparable adult ro le in the Indian community. 2 . Indian pupi ls were used to learning pr imar i ly through observa- t ion of o lder r e l a t i v e s . 3 . Indian pupi ls were re luctant to ve rba l l y respond to the teacher in f ront of a c lass for fear of making mistakes. 18 k. Indian students were used to learning tasks at home in segmented sequences with s e l f - t e s t i n g for p r o f i c i e n c y . 5. Indian students did not share ce r ta in s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c assumptions with non-natives or with the teacher. For example, nat ive students did not necessar i l y recognize the assumption that a quest ion requires an answer. 6. Indian students worked h a p p i l y , producing and using e f f e c t i v e language when they worked on group projects which were not teacher d i rec ted . Work such as P h i l i p s ' is important in r a i s i n g the consciousness of educators responsib le for nat ive c h i l d r e n , and has been i n f l u e n t i a l in B r i t i s h Columbia (Wyatt, 1 9 7 8 ) . As Klesner ( I 980 ) points out , educational p rac t ices such as family grouping, i n d i v i d u a l i z e d study, learning cen t res , student tu tor ing and project work " c l o s e l y match the in-home learning s t y l e s " (p. 15) descr ibed by P h i l i p s . Furthermore, such prac t ices w i l l not accommodate the students ' learning s t y l e s at the expense of eventual adaptation to a majori ty dominated educational s e t t i n g , a mistake that teachers have made in the name of "he lp ing" the i r nat ive Indian students ( P h i l i p s , p. 3 8 3 ) . Although l i n g u i s t i c s has not heretofore been a bount i fu l source of useful studies for nat ive education with regard to learning and teaching E n g l i s h , i t is to be hoped that with the growth of Indian educat ion , more research w i l l be forthcoming from th is d i s c i p l i n e . 19 Summary The majority of nat ive parents want qua l i ty educat ion--which they see as including Engl ish p r o f i c i e n c y - - f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Although b i c u l t u r a l i s m , and in many cases , 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 in nat ive Indian educat ion , there is no suggestion that parents or educators are w i l l i n g to s a c r i f i c e other educational components for them. There is considerable support in the l i t e r a t u r e for the i d e n t i f i c a - t ion of Engl ish as a s i g n i f i c a n t fac tor in the academic achievement of nat ive students. Unfortunately there is a tendency to recommend the establishment of b i l i n g u a l or Engl ish as a second language programs as the answers to educational d i f f i c u l t i e s without consider ing a l l the impl icat ions of such programming. Such recommendations, for example, do not allow for the many nat ive students and t h e i r fami l ies who speak only d i a l e c t s of E n g l i s h . It seems apparent there is a need for language development programs which accept students ' d i a l e c t s while provid ing for the learning of a second d i a l e c t - - s c h o o l Engl ish—which they need for academic success. Increased research in the teaching and learn ing o f d i a l e c t s should eventual ly prove useful to those working in nat ive Indian educat ion. Psychological and l i n g u i s t i c studies provide considerable evidence that nat ive ch i ldren learn d i f f e r e n t l y from non-nat ive c h i l d r e n . Unfor tunate ly , there is i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to suggest that these f ind ings can sa fe ly be genera l ized to a l l nat ive c h i l d r e n . The majority of p rac t ices recommended in the studies can be descr ibed as pedagogical1y sound, however, so there appears to be s u f f i c i e n t j u s t i f i c a t i o n for inc luding study of these prac t ices in Engl ish/ language arts methodology 20 courses for those who plan to teach nat ive Indian c h i l d r e n . O v e r a l l , there are several impl icat ions for th is study. Wherever p o s s i b l e , the issue of Engl ish as a second language, or Engl ish as a second d ia lec t should be addressed. Considerat ion of the f indings regarding the learning s t y l e s of ch i ldren should be incorporated into any course regarding the teaching of language a r t s . The l i t e r a t u r e supports the bas ic assumption of th is study that the Engl ish and language arts components of teacher t r a i n i n g programs for nat ive Indians deserve attent i on. The second sect ion of th is review of the 1 i tera ture pert inent to the development of th is study has to do with the nat ive Indian teacher preparat ion programs. An Examination of the Special Nature of Native Indian Teacher Preparat ion Programs With P a r t i c u l a r Regard to Engl ish and Language Arts Int roduct i on Some students did indicate that they might l i k e ' t o be teachers but hastened to add that they could never achieve 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 1967 Indian students had l i t t l e hope of becoming teachers; the fact that in 1980 they can do so marks a s i g n i f i c a n t development in Indian educat ion. During the past decade, more than a score of un ivers i ty programs for t r a i n i n g nat ive Indian teachers , designed to include those students who may not have had the opportunity to complete secondary 21 s c h o o l , have been es tab l i shed in Canada (More S Wall i s , 1979) - S i m i l a r programs have been es tab l i shed in the United States (Mathieson, 1 9 7 4 ) . Backg round These programs have developed, at least in p a r t , as a response to the well documented " f a i l u r e of the Canadian educational e n t e r p r i s e , at a l l l e v e l s , in i t s serv ice to the Indian peoples" (Mcintosh, 1979 , p- 2 2 ) . They r e f l e c t a s incere convic t ion on the part of those involved that "more Indian people in the teaching profess ion and the emergence o f an even more e f f e c t i v e Indian leadership in educat ion" (More, p. 12) w i l l redress the f a i l u r e , at least in par t . They are based on the assumption that Indianness--a qua l i t y which nat ive Indian leaders see as essen t ia l but f requent ly missing from Indian education programs--wi11 p r imar i ly come from the presence of nat ive Indian teachers , e s p e c i a l l y in classrooms where there are numbers of nat ive s tudents . "The best way to begin to Indianize the schools is to penetrate them with q u a l i f i e d teachers" (Ka l tsoun is , 1972 , p. 2 9 2 ) . A review of the l i t e r a t u r e concerning nat ive Indian teacher prepara- t ion programs reveals that l i t t l e of an a n a l y t i c or eva luat ive nature is a v a i l a b l e in publ ished form. This may be explained by Barnet t 's (1974) suggestion that " s u p e r f i c i a l ana lys is by external evaluators unfami l ia r with ph i losophica l assumptions and ob jec t ives underlying the programs" (p. 29) can undermine these hard-won a l t e r n a t i v e s to regular teacher t r a i n i n g . On the other hand, the lack of eva luat ive studies may r e f l e c t an understandable fear that such reports w i l l be i n c o r r e c t l y used as 22 evidence." that costs are too high or that the program st rays from o r i g i n a l g u i d e l i n e s " ( S t e r l i n g , 1975, p. 1*0, leading to a bureaucrat ic dec is ion to cancel the program in quest ion . Whatever the reasons, few studies concerning nat ive Indian teacher education programs have been publ ished. Most of the a v a i l a b l e material tends to be d e s c r i p t i v e and anecdota l , and programs are discussed in general terms. Notwithstanding the dearth of research o f c r i t i c a l s t u d i e s , recent monographs such as Native teacher education (More & Wall i s , 1979; More, 1981) provide a useful overview relevant to th is study. Current S i tua t ion It is undoubtedly true that although nat ive Indian teacher education "programs are beginning to demonstrate t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s " (More, 1979), they are not without problems. In addi t ion to the issues which may a r ise in any teacher education program--such as a concern about the length of p r a c t i c a - - t h e r e are spec ia l problems, or spec ia l aspects of the usual teacher education problems which may be unique to nat ive programs. More o u t l i n e s the specia l problems in a paper presented to the Canadian Education Assoc ia t ion Conference in September, 1979- Since some of the problems i d e n t i f i e d by More are relevant to the concerns of th is study, they w i l l be discussed in terms of nat ive Indian teacher education programs in genera l , and in terms of NITEP. 23 Problems in Native Teacher Education The question of standards in the programs. More suggests that the bas ic problems with standards " a r i s e s from a misunderstanding of equiva- lent standards and from an actual—but exaggerated—loweri ng of standards" (p. 7) in some programs. The admission c r i t e r i a which permit mature students to enter the u n i v e r s i t y without secondary school graduation or academic background, or the acceptance of nat ive languages in f u l f i l l m e n t o f language requirements are confused with lowering program standards. Given the importance of Engl ish in academic s t u d i e s , i t is not s u r p r i s i n g that Engl ish f igures prominently in th is issue of standards. More admits that "some" programs have succumbed to "the fadishness (unfortunately) of Indian educat ion , the urgent need for more Indian teachers , p o l i t i c a l pressures and the fuzzy th ink ing of the s o - c a l l e d 'b leeding h e a r t s ' , " and have allowed students to graduate without taking or completing one co l lege level Engl ish course or otherwise having come to terms with academic d e f i c i e n c i e s . However well intent ioned such p r a c t i c e s , they succeed only in maintaining the idea of the "red pass" or the "watered-down program" (p. 7 ) , which are unfa i r assumptions "about recent Indian education programs in genera l" (More, 1979 , p- 7 ) • NITEP, l i k e other programs in nat ive Indian teacher t r a i n i n g , admits students who have not completed secondary school and who may have d e f i c i e n c i e s in t h e i r academic background. Unlike some of these other programs, NITEP demands that students f u l f i l l the same Engl ish requi re - ments as a l l other education students . A 1975 external evaluat ion of NITEP, part of an evaluat ion of a l l a l t e r n a t i v e programs in the Facul ty of Education at the Univers i ty o f B r i t i s h Columbia, was completed in 1975 by Worthen, Owens and Anderson. Using quest ionnaires and in terv iews, they surveyed school super intendents , sponsor teachers , p r i n c i p a l s , f acu l ty students and program s t a f f concerned with the various programs. They found the NITEP had high standards and that facu l ty and program s t a f f had high expectat ions of the s tudents . NITEP was commended for provid ing students with t u t o r i a l help in wr i t ten E n g l i s h , recommended that th is p rac t i ce continue and that a course in study s k i l l s be added to the program (Worthen et a l . , 1 9 7 5 ) . Thomas and Mcintosh (1977) reported that nine out of ten students in t h e i r sample of 90 students responded a f f i r m a t i v e l y to the statement, "I had d i f f i c u l t y in wr i t ing the qua l i ty of papers which my ins t ruc tors expected from me" (Appendix C). Half o f those responding a f f i r m a t i v e l y indicated that th is matter was of ser ious concern to them. In addi t ion to administer ing the student quest ionna i re , Thomas and Mcintosh interviewed some ins t ruc tors teaching in the program at that t ime, and reported that these ins t ruc tors seemed to agree that " f o r most NITEP students , as for most beginning U.B.C. students i r r e s p e c t i v e of program, wr i t ing is a problem" (p. kb) . O v e r a l l , however the report s t a t e s : It is general ly recognized, 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 greatest problem which must, be overcome by the NITEP students , (p. 50) The specia l status of the programs. The fact that programs are r e s t r i c t e d to nat ive people in order to meet t h e i r "common need" is misunderstood by some in the majori ty c u l t u r e . (More (1979) points out that " for tunate ly most educators long ago l e f t the dream world of t ry ing to t reat students e q u a l l y , and entered the real world of t ry ing to t reat ind iv idua ls according to t h e i r needs" (p. 9 ) . 25 This matter of res is tance on the part of some members of the majori ty cu l ture to specia l programs d i rec ted to nat ive people does not appear to be at issue in NITEP, or in B r i t i s h Columbia at th is t ime. Several very support ive a r t i c l e s such as Ohm's "Not a Red P a s s , " and two external evaluat ions suggest that the program is held in high repute (Thomas 6 Mcintosh, 1977 ; Worthen et a l . , 1 9 7 5 ) . Since the Engl ish and language arts requirements are at least as rigorous in NITEP as in the regular elementary program^and nat ive languages are not present ly included in the curr icu lum, there is l i t t l e with regard to language that makes NITEP d i f f e ren t from the regular elementary program. Control of the programs. The various groups involved in the nat ive Indian teacher education programs want more say in the development of those programs. Thomas and Mcintosh (1977) d iscuss the d i f f i c u l t i e s in th is area point ing to the autonomy which e x i s t s in the un ivers i ty and the reluctance of the un ive rs i ty community to share control in such areas as course p lanning. I n te res t ing ly , t h e i r example has to do with E n g l i s h . We surmise that a good deal of f r i c t i o n would be generated i f , say the (Advisory) Committee were to provide guide l ines for the Engl ish 100 course taught to NITEP students . This would be an incursion 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) For tunate ly , the general support for NITEP in the un ivers i ty community suggests that the Advisory Committee, or program s u p e r v i s o r , could approach the Engl ish department and ask for spec ia l considerat ion in meeting the needs of NITEP students. Nature of the programs.. This issue has to do with whether or not programs are a s s i m i l a t i v e or i n t e g r a t i v e : whether or not they are Indian enough. Engl ish and language arts cur r icu la - , for example, may be a part o f t h i s p r o b l e m s i n c e t h e y may be seen t o r e p r e s e n t t h e v a l u e s and a t t i t u d e s o f t he m a j o r i t y c u l t u r e t o t he e x c l u s i o n o f t he n a t i v e I n d i a n c u l t u r e . The q u e s t i o n o f I n d i a n n e s s , and p r o v i s i o n s f o r i t w i t h i n t h o s e p a r t s o f a p rogram c o n c e r n e d w i t h E n g l i s h , l anguage a r t s , and r e l a t e d c o u r s e s , has been d i s c u s s e d in r e p o r t s but r a r e l y s t u d i e d in any f o r m a l way . Wyat t (1977a; 1977b; 1 9 7 8 ) , in w r i t i n g about t h e Mount C u r r i e p rogram o f Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , a l l u d e s t o u s i n g books by and abou t n a t i v e w r i t e r s as c o u r s e c o n t e n t i n E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e as w e l l as an emphas is on I n d i a n c u r r i c u l u m and t e a c h i n g me thodo logy deve lopmen t i n t h e i r p r o g r a m . In a d d i t i o n , t h i s p rog ram i n c l u d e d n a t i v e l anguage s t u d y . It may be assumed t h a t such a p rogram g u a r a n t e e s a h i g h deg ree o f I n d i a n - n e s s , but M c i n t o s h (1979) 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 programs r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t he t h r e e mode ls o f n a t i v e I n d i a n t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g programs c u r r e n t l y b e i n g used i n Canada ( M o r e , 1 9 7 9 ) , f ound t h i s n o t t o be s o . M c i n t o s h s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e " u n c e r t a i n t y as t o what i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r c u l t u r a l c o n t e n t i n t h e s e s p e c i a l p r o g r a m s " ( M c i n t o s h , 1 9 7 9 ) . One q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t he programs w h i c h i n c l u d e n a t i v e l a n g u a g e s and a h i g h deg ree o f I n d i a n c o n t e n t , no t answered i n any p u b l i s h e d s t u d i e s , has t o do w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t s t u d e n t s a r e g r a n t e d p r o v i n c i a l t e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t e s ( W y a t t , 1977b) and may t e a c h anywhere in t h e e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m . I f a s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f t i m e has been g i v e n o v e r t o p u r e l y n a t i v e c o n c e r n s , w h a t , i f a n y t h i n g , has been e l i m i n a t e d f r om t h e s e p rog rams? G i v e n t h e f a c t t h a t i n c r e a s i n g numbers o f n a t i v e p e o p l e have moved o f f - r e s e r v e , u s u a l l y t o t he c i t i e s (McKay , 1977) o r t h a t o n - r e s e r v e p a r e n t s may choose t o send t h e i r c h i l d r e n t o p u b l i c s c h o o l s , no t a l l g r a d u a t e s o f t h e s p e c i a l p rograms a r e l i k e l y t o be t e a c h i n g o n l y nat ive c h i l d r e n . Obviously graduates of these programs need to be equipped to teach a l l c h i l d r e n , in addi t ion to being equipped to meet the specia l needs o f t h e i r people. The question of Indianness, probably the most important question in Indian education (More, 1 9 8 1 , p. 7 1 ) , is a dominant concern in NITEP. "The necessi ty to ' Ind ian ize ' the program without compromising the r igor and standards of achievement required by the i n s t i t u t i o n for awarding the B.Ed. (Elementary) degree" (Cook, 1980 , p. S.h), has impl ica t ions for th is study in Engl ish and language a r t s . Since Engl ish is the majority language, and has often h i s t o r i c a l l y been, at least in the view of some Indian a c t i v i s t s " b a s i c to white supremacy" (Adams, 1 9 7 5 , p. 1 5 5 ) , any study r e l a t i n g to Engl ish in nat ive Indian education needs to r e f l e c t an awareness of the nat ive Indian education l i t e r a t u r e and a s e n s i t i v i t y to the needs in Indian education as stated by nat ive people. An emphasis on student teaching in the programs. Native Indian (and Inuit) teacher education programs tend to emphasize e a r l i e r and longer periods of student teaching (More, 1 9 7 9 ) . There are several rami f ica t ions for programs and t h e i r curr iculum in terms of Engl ish and language a r t s . For example, the amount of time given to teaching method- o logy , and the order in which the courses are g i v e n , may be seen to be important in terms of student teaching. An internal evaluat ion done in Brandon U n i v e r s i t y ' s IMPACTE program found that f a c u l t y , cooperat ing teachers and students were a l l in agreement that student teaching should not be undertaken unt i l a language arts methodology course had been com- pleted (Loughton, 197 * 0 . The problems regarding student teaching are p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant to the NITEP which includes extended periods of classroom teaching in 28 the f i r s t two years , as well as one p r a c t i c a in each of the f i n a l years of the program. One problem in NITEP has to do with the order in which student teachers take reading and language arts methodology, one in each of the f i r s t two years . Since sponsor teachers often assign reading and language arts teaching units for p rac t ice teaching in f i r s t year , under the present arrangement they w i l l f ind that i f the students are prepared to teach reading they are less well prepared to teach language arts and v ice versa . Sponsor teachers may f i n d t h i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . Another area of concern in p rac t ice teaching that concerns language arts and reading has to do with the student teacher 's language background. A number of NITEP students are l i k e l y to have attended schools where they were not exposed to a r ich program of language development and consequently consider themselves d e f i c i e n t in such areas a s c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y when they are p rac t i ce teaching in schools where the ch i ld ren have had a wide breadth o f exper ience. Although the Thomas and Mcintosh study did not make any recommendations concerning Engl ish and/or language arts in student teach ing , the 1975 evaluat ion (wbrthen et a l . ) found that students and sponsor teachers i n d i - cated concern about the speech and oral s k i l l s of NITEP students . Presum- a b l y , the areas normally addressed in the Faculty of Education student teaching repor ts - -appropr ia teness or ora l E n g l i s h , q u a l i t y of v o i c e , f luency and a b i l i t y to project—were areas which led to th is concern (Faculty of Educat ion, Form 3 2 3 , 1 9 7 9 ) . How much of th is concern had to do with the fact that speech patterns and behaviors were d i f f e r e n t from those of the teachers and students belonging to the majori ty c u l t u r e , and how much had to do with actual problems in th is area would be d i f f i c u l t to a s c e r t a i n . Never the less , NITEP present ly includes a c red i t speech arts 29 course for f i r s t or second year students in i t s program. Summary Given the demand for nat ive Indian education which w i l l support nat ive people in the i r c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y , while preparing them i n t e l l e c t u - a l l y to make a f ree choice "to a s s i m i l a t e , integrate or segregate i f they choose" ( S t e r l i n g , 1975 , p. 1 2 ) , the planning and development of nat ive Indian teacher education programs is understandably complex and cha11eng i ng. The l i t e r a t u r e of nat ive Indian teacher education programs, although genera l ly l imi ted to d e s c r i p t i v e , sub ject ive r e p o r t s , and g iv ing l i t t l e information about the teaching and learning of Engl ish and language a r t s , supports a need for a n a l y t i c a l s tudies and ongoing eva lua t ion . Since the programs are r e l a t i v e l y new, understandably s e n s i t i v e to external c r i t i c i s m , with problems sometimes qui te d i f f e r e n t from the main-stream programs of teacher educat ion , th is researcher sees needs assessment as a valuable tool, for studying the program from the point of view of teaching and learning Engl ish and language a r t s . Needs assessment with i ts concern for the learner and a l l other p a r t i c i p a n t s in the educational process , seems p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y attuned to the s i g n i f i c a n t problems out l ined in th is survey of the l i t e r a t u r e , at the same time enabl ing the s p e c i f i c considerat ion of Engl ish and language ar ts in the program. The las t sect ion of th is review of the l i t e r a t u r e deals with the process of needs assessment, and i ts a p p l i c a b i l i t y to the considerat ion of Engl ish and language ar ts in the NITEP program. 30 Needs Assessment: An Invest igat ive Technique for Considering Engl ish and Language Arts 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 , 1979 , p. 3 D This d e f i n i t i o n of needs assessment must hold great promise for educators who are t ry ing to improve, p l a n , change or evaluate the i r educational undertakings (Kaufman & E n g l i s h , 1979 , p. 3 1 ) - Some may be a t t r a c t e d - t o th is p a r t i c u l a r process by the c la im fo r e f f i c i e n c y which is said to resu l t from being able to deploy resources to i d e n t i f i e d c r i t i c a l needs, rather than sca t te r ing resources throughout a program (McNeil , 1977 , p. 7**) • Others may be a t t rac ted by the humanistic aspect of needs assessment, p a r t i c u l a r l y those who are concerned with e f f o r t s to improve education for members of minor i ty groups (p. 7**)- It is not 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 the technique, whether they are involved in curr iculum planning (p. 9 0 ) , or in program development ( B e l l , Lin & Warthein, 1977 , p. 3 ) . The Process of Needs Assessment Although needs assessment is f requent ly used to consider soc ie ta l problems on a large sca le (Bell et al . , p. 2 2 ) , i t is an adaptable process which can be used in planning for ind iv idual programs, or courses (McNeil & Laosa, 1975 , p- 2 6 ) . Regardless of the s i z e of the problem to be considered , there appears to be a b a s i c s t ruc ture to needs assessment. While the number and descr ip t ion of steps in the process vary widely (Bell et a l . , 1 9 7 7 ; C o f f i n g , 1 9 7 7 ; Kaufman S E n g l i s h , 1 9 7 9 ; McNei l , 1 9 7 7 ) , an overview of a r t i c l e s by these proponents suggests the fo l lowing s teps : 1. The dec is ion to conduct the needs assessment 2. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of pa r t i c ipan ts 3- Generation or e l u c i d a t i o n of goals and t h e i r p r i o r i t i e s k. D e f i n i t i o n of needs 5. Measurement o f p r i o r i t i e s 6. Interpret ing and report ing the resu l ts 7- Implementation of recommendations and so lu t ions The c r i t e r i a for success in needs assessment ( C o f f i n g , 1977) re la te to the above and can inc lude: 1. Commitment to the process on the part of those involved 2. Identity of pa r t i c ipan ts and t h e i r degree of involvement in the process 3. R e l i a b i l i t y , v a l i d i t y and u t i l i t y o f assessment o f needs k. The degree to which the f i n d i n g s , recommendations and suggested so lu t ions are implemented ( C o f f i n g , 1 9 7 7 ; Kaufman & E n g l i s h , 1 9 7 9 ) . One reminder that runs through needs assessment l i t e r a t u r e is that i t is meant to be "ongoing and continuous" ("Taking a new look , " 1977 , p. 7 ) , j u s t i f y i n g the t ime, a t tent ion and expense that i t invo lves . Since the p a r t i c i p a n t s , g o a l s , needs or the p r i o r i t i e s assigned to them are subject to many external and internal inf luences and consequently, continuous change, assessment must be ongoing. 32 D i f f i c u l t i e s in Needs Assessment While there has been a "widespread adoption of needs assessment s t ra teg ies and techniques over the past decade" (Kimpston & Stockton, 1979 , p- 1 6 ) , there are many unresolved issues cur rent ly being debated' in the l i t e r a t u r e and in p rac t i ce (Monette, 1977 , p. 1 1 6 ) . In view of the fact that needs assessment did not appear as a top ic in the Thesaurus of ERIC descr ip tors un t i l 1977 , it, is not s u r p r i s i n g that there is l i t t l e sense of a f i rm theore t i ca l foundation or strong methodology in the l i t e r a t u r e (Monette, 1977 ; G r i f f i t h s , 1 9 7 8 ) . Further- more, there is a ph i losophica l debate center ing on what is for some, an i r r e c o n c i l a b l e incongruence between the technological and the " s o c i a l reconstruct i o n i s t " aspects of needs assessment (McNei l , 1977 , p- 9 0 ) . C e r t a i n l y , the newness and questions concerning theory and a p p l i c a t i o n would expla in the f ind ings of Chow ( 1 9 7 6 ) , in his study of the use of needs assessment in higher educat ion. He found that ins t ruc t iona l development agencies used in formal , rather than formal and systematic needs assessment, because they were unable to overcome the obstac les of cost and c l i e n t re luctance . He recommended future studies which would explore the usefulness of needs assessment data r e l a t i v e to the cost of obta in ing same, as well as studies which would demonstrate s i m p l i f i e d needs assessment. Chow's work would seem to support a study which would adopt the needs assessment for use in program development in higher educat ion. 33 Adaptation of.Needs Assessment One of the ongoing d iscuss ions In needs assessment l i t e r a t u r e has to do with the concept of need. Although the discrepancy model of need- - being the discrepancy between the ideal and the status quo—-is widely used, some c r i t i c s are very skept ica l about needs assessment b u i l t on th is model. Monette (1977) speaks for them when he w r i t e s : The term need . . . always impl ies , more or less d i r e c t l y , some standard or valued state of a f f a i r s or c e r t a i n soc ia l norms against which need is measured. Such standards are genera l ly taken for granted and l e f t unchallenged by need assessment procedures. Needs assessment b a s i c a l l y favors 'ad justment 1 . (p. 125) In Monette's view, needs assessment which does not question bas ic assumptions is an unacceptable procedure. He argues that the too ready acceptance of standards or norms prevents the uncovering of real needs. I n te res t ing ly , Kaufman and Eng1 i sh , foremost of the wr i te rs support ing needs assessment as a technologica l t o o l , agree that the t ruest form of needs assessment "accepts few givens" and "no sacred cows in terms of personnel , h is tory - or even e x i s t i n g laws" (p. 5 6 ) , s t a r t i n g without any pre-conceived not ions . Cross ( 1 9 7 9 ) , on the other hand, has suggested that needs a s s e s s - ments can be very useful in c losed systems where there is a problem which may be i n t e r f e r i n g with the l ea rner ' s in ten t ion . He sees the "search for program components that w i l l meet the needs of i d e n t i f i e d target groups" (p. 19) as a f u l l y j u s t i f i e d use of needs assessment. Kaufman and Engl ish a lso recognize that pragmatic considerat ions f requent ly require needs assessments which do not question " r u l e s , p o l i c i e s , goals and ob jec t i ves of the o rgan iza t ion" (p. 60) with which the learners are involved, but ra ther , set out to ascer ta in s p e c i f i e d 34 needs which are deemed necessary to "a t ta in learner growth" (p. 2 3 8 ) . This is the version of needs assessment which they c a l l the Beta-type needs assessment. Although Kaufman and Engl ish repeatedly s t ress the narrowness of the Beta-type assessment, they nevertheless claim some s p e c i a l values for i t (p. 2 2 1 ) . For example, they see the process as one which provides an unusual opportunity for p a r t i c i p a n t s in an educational program to focus on p lanning. In a d d i t i o n , they suggest that the exerc ise o f taking part in a Beta-type assessment can resul t in the development of group cohesiveness among p a r t i c i p a n t s . The Beta-type needs assessment (Kaufman, 1977 , p. 60) lends i t s e l f to th is study because i t is " focus ing exerc ise for a more ra t iona l approach to planning" which promotes the development of "a conscious and c o l l e c t i v e group i d e n t i t y " (Kaufman S E n g l i s h , 1979 , p. 2 2 1 ) . Since "program-as-community" is valued in the NITEP (Ohm, 1978 , p. 1 3 ) , i t seems appropriate to use a process such as the Beta-type needs assess - ment in consider ing the problem of Engl ish and the potent ia l for i t s development wi thin the program. Cross (1979) points out that needs assessments that are designed to solve problems, "moving toward the search for program components that w i l l meet the needs of i d e n t i f i e d target groups," may prove in the long run to "make more s i g n i f i c a n t contr ibut ions to education (p. 19) than other more ambitious forms of needs assessment described in the l i t e r a t u r e . A c c o r d i n g l y , th is s tudy 's focus on Engl ish competency and the program components re lated to i t s development is not too narrow and should prove- informative and u s e f u l . U t i l i t y is recognized as the f i n a l test of successfu l needs assessment (Cof f ing , 1 9 7 7 , p. 1 8 3 ; Kaufman S E n g l i s h , 1979 , p p . 4 , 8 8 ) . If the 35 needs assessment resu l ts are useful to the dec is ion makers, the needs assessment is considered worthwhi1e. S umma ry Needs assessment, best known as a useful technique in large s c a l e , long term educational p lann ing , can play an e f f e c t i v e role in consider ing s p e c i f i c concerns such as the Engl ish and language arts components in an ongoing program such as NITEP. The bas ic technique, as o u t l i n e d in the l i t e r a t u r e , is adaptable for use in a var ie ty of educat ional s i t u a t i o n s provid ing that i t meets cer ta in c r i t e r i a , p a r t i c u l a r l y that of u t i l i t y . Because needs assessment is r e l a t i v e l y new, and increas ing ly popular , several issues concerning i ts theory and a p p l i c a t i o n e x i s t . This means that there is no f i rm d i r e c t i o n for those adopting th is method of study- ing an educational problem. Despite t h i s , the Beta-type needs assessment, a form of needs assessment e s p e c i a l l y adapted to be used in ongoing programs, provides a model which gives s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c t i o n to ensure c r e d i b i l i t y in a study such as t h i s . Chapter 3 w i l l describe the design and methodology o f a Beta-type needs assessment used to consider program components in NITEP with p a r t i c u l a r regard to Eng l ish competency and the potent ia l for i t s development. 36 CHAPTER 3 DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The needs assessment process to be u t i l i z e d in th is study is a synthesis of the d i r e c t i o n s provided in two models from the l i t e r a t u r e ( C o f f i n g , 1977 , pp. 1 8 9 - 1 9 0 ; Kaufman & E n g l i s h , 1 9 7 9 , pp. 2 0 2 - 2 0 3 ) . The process includes the fo l lowing f i v e s tages: 1. Decision and planning 2 . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of pa r t i c ipan ts 3- Def ining the needs k. Measuring the p r i o r i t i e s o f needs 5. Interpret ing and report ing the information Decision and Planning The i n i t i a l proposal to conduct a needs assessment wi th in NITEP was sent to the program's Advisory Committee in November, 1979 (Appendix A) . The proposal was discussed at some length and then approved by the Committee. Since the Committee included s tudents , nat ive community members, i n s t r u c t o r s , and teachers as well as dec is ion making un ivers i ty personnel , t h e i r acceptance was c r i t i c a l in f u l f i l l i n g i n i t i a l c r i t e r i a for successfu l needs assessment. These c r i t e r i a inc lude: (a) the acceptance of the b a s i c premise by representat ives o f the par t ic ipant groups, (b) the acceptance of the b a s i c premise by representat ives of the dec is ion makers, and (c) acceptance of the needs assessor in that role ( C o f f i n g , 1 9 7 7 , pp. 1 8 6 - 1 8 7 ) . The approval of the Advisory Committee provided the necessary acceptance. 37 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of P a r t i c i p a n t s The target populat ion fo r a needs assessment includes those i d e n t i f i e d as partners in the educational en terpr ise under study: l e a r n e r s , educators , and community members (Kaufman & E n g l i s h , p. 187) - Although the i n i t i a l proprosal for th is study (Appendix A) envis ioned a somewhat broader popu la t ion , inc luding members of the greater nat ive Indian educational community, time and f i n a n c i a l const ra in ts made i t necessary to r e s t r i c t the populat ion to those groups most d i r e c t l y involved with the program: sponsor teachers , co l l ege and u n i v e r s i t y i n s t r u c t o r s , students and program s t a f f . The Advisory Committee continued to be involved in the process through those members of the partner groups who served on the Committee, and through progress reports which were c a l l e d for p e r i o d i c a l l y (see Appendix B for an example). Once the partner groups had been i d e n t i f i e d , i t became "important to be very c lea r about whose needs were of concern" (Lenning, 1978 , p. 7 ) . In his work developing a conceptual framework for needs assessment, Lenning makes the point that "the tendency of needs assessors has been not to be s p e c i f i c enough about whose needs are being i d e n t i f i e d and analyzed, and to not separately consider the needs of s p e c i f i c subgroups" (p. 7 ) . For the purpose of th is study, needs to be considered were those of the NITEP students. Since the s t ructure of the program d iv ides students into two subgroups, those f i r s t and second year students involved in an extensive student teaching process , and the t h i r d and fourth year students who are p r imar i l y concerned with academic work, i t became apparent that the needs of the two groups would lend themselves to being considered separa te ly . This is not to suggest that j u n i o r students are not concerned about academic matters , nor is i t to suggest that senior students are not concerned with student teaching. It merely represents an a r b i t r a r y d i v i s i o n based on the present s t ruc ture of the NITEP program. Furthermore, s ince i t is poss ib le that other s i g n i f i c a n t but unrecognized subgroups in the program e x i s t s - - f o r example, students having Engl ish as a second language—it would be necessary to gather as much relevant personal background information as poss ib le in order to subsequently ident i fy other subgroups. Defining the Needs The primary task in needs assessment is the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of need, or the development of a need model ( B e l l , L in & Warheit , 1977 , p. *0 • Accepting the premise that an educational need is the discrepancy between what is and what ought to be (Knowles, 1977 , p. 8 6 ; McNei l , 1977 , p. 7**), th is researcher undertook a ser ies of unstructured interviews with members of the partner groups in order to gather the i r views. It was genera l ly suggested by the majori ty of those interviewed that what 'ought to be' was that students should exh ib i t the level of f a c i l i t y in oral and wr i t ten Engl ish 'normal ly ' expected at the u n i v e r s i t y level and in the teaching p r o f e s s i o n . Most of those interviewed, inc luding students, s t ressed that ' lower ' or ' d i f f e r e n t ' standards would be unacceptab1e. Discussion concerning what i s - - t h e general level of competence in Engl ish d isplayed by NITEP students — uncovered far less concensus among the p a r t i c i p a n t s . Although no one claimed that a l l NITEP students were 39 at a s a t i s f a c t o r y level of competency, some ins t ruc tors interviewed suggested that in th is respect the NITEP students did not d i f f e r from other students they had taught in c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y programs. Others expressed the b e l i e f that some NITEP students had more deep seated and ser ious d e f i c i e n c i e s in the i r Eng1 ish background than would normally by expected of un ive rs i ty students. The concerns mentioned—a whole range of language competencies—included vocabulary development, vo ice q u a l i t y and p r o j e c t i o n , essay wr i t ing and many other aspects of ora l and wr i t ten language. In a d d i t i o n , some of those interviewed ra ised the question of a few students whose d i f f i c u l t i e s might have more to do with inadequate concept development and background for abstract thought. Since the question f a l l s outs ide the parameters of the proposed needs assessment, th is area of concern was not a c t i v e l y pursued by th is researcher . As a resu l t of the interviews with p a r t i c i p a n t s , the problem became to descr ibe the recommended level of competency in s u f f i c i e n t de ta i l to encompass those areas i d e n t i f i e d as concerns, and then to ensure that a l l pa r t i c ipan ts would have an opportunity to express themselves in a way which could be quant i f i ed and d i s c u s s e d . Planning the instruments. Considerat ion was given at th is time to using standardized tes ts to gather data concerning students ' competency in E n g l i s h . Kaufman (1979) points out that such data would improve the v a l i d i t y of a program needs assessment (pp. 2 9 5 _ 3 0 4 ) . Unfor tunate ly , the l i m i t a t i o n s of such t e s t i n g , such as the d i f f i c u l t i e s of f ind ing the r ight tests ( N . C . T . E . , 1976 , p. 2 7 ) , and const ra in ts imposed by time and c o s t , did not permit th is kind of measurement. Eyentua l ly , s ince the pa r t i c ipan ts in NITEP would be spread through- out the province during the time allowed for the study, the dec is ion was taken to use a mailed quest ionnaire for data c o l l e c t i o n . Although there can be ser ious problems with a mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e - - c h i e f l y re la ted to non-response leading to biased samples, and to a lesser degree, the i n a b i l i t y to check responses ( K e r l i n g e r , 1966 , p. 3 9 7 ) - - B e s t points out , i t can be a "most appropr iate and useful data gathering device" ( 1 9 7 7 , p. 1 5 8 ) . The f i r s t i ssue , non-response, is d iscussed by O r l i c h ( 1 9 7 8 ) . He reports that there is support in the research l i t e r a t u r e for the notion that populat ions with a common group i d e n t i t y , such as the p a r t i c i p a n t groups in the NITEP program, w i l l demonstrate minimal "response d i f fe rences between respondents, non-respondents and late respondents" ( 1 9 7 8 , p. 9 9 ) - He fur ther s ta tes that i f response is expected to be rather low, having more than one group and then comparing the in tens i ty of responses of representat ive groups for convergence of o p i n i o n , w i l l , i f convergence e x i s t s , al low "a higher p r o b a b i l i t y of making conclusions which tend to be supported.', 1 The natural dichotomies in the NITEP partner groups — sponsor teachers from two school d i s t r i c t s ; c o l l e g e and un ive rs i ty i n s t r u c t o r s ; j u n i o r students and senior students—a 11 ow for comparisons between two groups in any one category. For example, i f sponsor teachers from one d i s t r i c t had a very high response rate and sponsor teachers from a second d i s t r i c t had a very low response r a t e , i t would be poss ib le to make conclusions with high p r o b a b i l i t y i f t h e i r compared responses were s i m i l a r . Devising the instruments. The dec is ion to c o l l e c t data through a mailed quest ionnaire necessi ta ted fur ther considerat ion of th is s tudy 's 41 o b j e c t i v e s . To answer the research quest ions regarding concerns about s tudents ' language use and teaching competencies, and to c o l l e c t data regarding the program's potent ia l for developing Eng1 ish competency, implied a lengthy and de ta i l ed quest ionna i re . Because lengthy and de ta i l ed quest ionnaires " f requent ly f ind the i r way into the wastebasket" (Best , 1977 , p- 166), b rev i ty and conciseness became important. Using the c r i t e r i a of brev i ty and conc iseness , d i f f e r e n t models of Eng l ish competency were examined and assessed as to t h e i r appropr ia te - ness and s u i t a b i l i t y . For example, a f a i r l y t y p i c a l c u r r i c u l a r model developed by a pub l ic school system for a language improvement program l i s t e d s i x major aspects of language breaking down into 185 s k i l l s (BUILD, 1 9 7 7 ) , hardly a manageable number. Another model developed by Pet ty , Pe t ty , Newman and Skeen ( 1 9 7 7 ) , appeared b r i e f and concise but in fac t 1 i.sted competen- c ies so complex that considerable ana lys is would have been necessary to reach the stage of s p e c i f i c i t y necessary fo r quest ionnai re development. The problem of descr ib ing Engl ish competency—what ought to be, in the needs assessment process—was addressed in a more concise manner by the researchers responsib le for the B r i t i s h Columbia assessment of wr i t ten expression (Conry & Rodgers, 1 9 7 8 ) . The i r research team analyzed seventy- four forms of wr i t ing " l i k e l y to be met by average adul ts who have completed grade twelve" (Summary, 1978 , p. 1 3 ) , and then i so la ted f o r t y - t h r e e s k i l l areas which grouped into s i x "component a b i l i t i e s in competent w r i t i n g " (Summary, 1978 , p. 16). Since th is model of language d e s c r i p t i o n r e f l e c t e d the competencies in wr i t ten language expected of grade twelve graduates, i t seemed to provide a s u i t a b l e base l ine for descr ib ing the competencies in wr i t ten hi expression expected of u n i v e r s i t y undergraduates. Furthermore, i ts b rev i ty and conc iseness , and the fact that i t descr ibed language behavior in behavioral terms, adds to i ts usefu lness . V a l i d i t y is present in needs assessment when those i d e n t i f i e d as dec is ion makers are able to evaluate the information and the process by which i t was gathered, and then use i t to implement necessary change ( C o f f i n g , 1 9 7 7 ) . According to C o f f i n g , the opportunity for v a l i d i t y is grea t ly improved when the p a r t i c i p a n t s are able to ident i fy the i r needs in behavioral terms and there is l i t t l e chance for " l o s s of meaning in the transmission of needs" between the p a r t i c i p a n t groups and the d e c i s i o n makers ( 1 9 7 7 , p. 1 8 8 ) . Further considerat ion suggested that the model provided in the Conry and Rodgers study could be adapted to descr ibe not only the competency expected of u n i v e r s i t y students in the area of wr i t ten language, but a l s o to descr ibe aspects of competency in wr i t ten language expected of student teachers. It soon became apparent to th is researcher that the Conry and Rodgers model could a lso be useful in creat ing a d e s c r i p t i o n of competency in oral language for both groups. A review of other assessments which included an ora l language component such as Assess ing pupi1 progress ( 1 9 7 6 ) ; and Language, B .C. ( 1 9 7 6 ) ; as well as study of a model developed by Pet ty , Pe t ty , Newman and Skeen ( 1 9 7 7 ) , provided fur ther d i r e c t i o n . The guide, A statement on the preparat ion of teachers ( N . C . T . E . , 1 9 7 6 ) , was a l s o helpfu l in th is development. The resu l t ing aspects of oral and wr i t ten language competency se lected for inc lus ion in the quest ionnaire are shown in Tables 1 and 2 . I terns descr ib ing the var ious aspects of ora l and wr i t ten expression were prepared for the quest ionnaires (see F i g u r e s ! , 2 , 3 and h). A3 Table 1 Aspects of Language Related to the Academic Student Role Oral language Writ ten Language a . Qual i ty and use of vo ice a . Conventions of format b. Interpersonal communication b. Basic d e s c r i p t i o n and recording behav ior c . S e n s i t i v i t y to words and word c. S e n s i t i v i t y to words and arrange- sequences ments of words d. Response to experience d. Appropriate usage and d i a l e c t e. Achieving the w r i t e r ' s purpose: e. L is ten ing c a p a b i l i t i e s expos i t ion and argument f . Achieving speaker 's purpose f . Achieving the w r i t e r ' s purpose narrat ion and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n Table 2 Aspects of Language Related to Student Teaching Performance Oral language Writ ten Language a. Qual i ty and use of vo ice a . Conventions of format b. Interpersonal communication b. Basic d e s c r i p t i o n and recording behavior c . S e n s i t i v i t y to words and word c. S e n s i t i v i t y to words and arrange- sequences ments of words d. Appropriate usage and d i a l e c t e. L is ten ing c a p a b i l i t i e s f . Achieving speaker 's purpose A. Qual i ty and use of vo i ce 1 . 2. 3. Speaks d i s t i n c t l y , a r t i c u l a t e s sound c l e a r l y Pro jects voice e f f e c t i v e l y r e l a t i v e to audience s ize Speaks without undue extraneous expressions such a 'uh and ' e r ' Interpersonal k. Takes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as a member of group d iscuss ion communication r .. , t , , , . . . 5. uses conventional nonverbal behavior behav tor 6. Conf ident ly expresses divergent opinion S e n s i t i v i t y to words and arrangements of words 7. Uses wide ranging vocabulary 8. Shows awareness of f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in meaning 9. Uses e f f e c t i v e imagery Appropr iate usage and d i a l e c t 10. Demonstrates control of standard Engl ish usage 11. Uses level of language appropriate to s i t u a t i o n ; e . g . , report g i v i n g , d i s c u s s i n g , debating E. L is ten ing capab i 1 i t i es 12. L is tens a t t en t i ve ly with comprehension 13. Questions percept ive ly in order to understand F. Achieves speaker 's pu rpose 14. Expresses and supports opinions reasonably 15. Reports main ideas with s u f f i c i e n t de ta i l 16. Organizes ideas in a coherent manner Figure 1. Aspects of oral expression re lated to student performance in un ivers i ty coursework. A. Conventions of format 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 quotat ion marks and associated punctuation c o r r e c t l y 3. Proofreads e f f e c t i v e l y 4. Uses correct 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 footnotes B. Basic d e s c r i p t i o n and 5. Gives basic information c l e a r l y , e . g . , answering quest ions , b r i e f record i ng reports 6. Describes people, things with s u f f i c i e n t de ta i l C. S e n s i t i v i t y to words 7. Uses var ie ty in sentence length 8. Uses imagery e f f e c t i v e l y q. Se lects words to re in force a s p e c i f i c mood or impression 10. Shows awareness of f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in word meanings 11. Understands and uses grammatical terms in d iscussing wr i t ing D. Response to experience 12, Expresses own voice e f f e c t i v e l y 13. Shows f luency in ideas and assoc ia t ions 14. Responds to readings with perception E. Achieving the w r i t e r ' s 15. D is t inguishes between essent ia l and peripheral deta i l purpose: expos i t ion 16. Focuses on one topic or event and argument 17. Adjusts tone to audience 18. Elaborates an op in ion , makes a judgment 19. Selects deta i l to support a viewpoint 20. Summarizes and paraphrases 21. Organizes complex essays / repor ts ; uses connect ives, t r a n s i t i o n s F. Achieving the w r i t e r ' s 22. Displays coherence and unity of tone and impression- purpose: narra t ion 23. Organizes events in a p laus ib le sequence and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n 24. Conveys personal i ty through selected de ta i l Figure 2. Aspects of wr i t ten expression re lated to student performance in un ivers i ty coursework (Adapted from B r i t i s h Columbia assessment of wri t ten expression by R. Conry and D. Rodgers, 1978). U1 A. Qua 1i ty and use of 1 . Speaks d i s t i n c t l y , a r t i c u l a t e s sounds c l e a r l y vo i ce 2. 3- Projects voice s u f f i c i e n t l y for classroom needs Uses voice e f f e c t i v e l y in various s i tua t ions such as story t e l l i n g , g iv ing d i r e c t i o n s , e tc . B. 1nterpersona1 communication behav ior 4. 5. 6. Uses conventional nonverbal behavior e f f e c t i v e l y Recognizes need of a l l ch i ld ren to be heard; modesl respect for o thers ' ideas Uses language with confidence C. S e n s i t i v t y to use of words, and arrange- ment of words 7- 8 . Q j • Uses i n t e r e s t i n g , var ied vocabulary Rephrases information in va r ie ty of ways whenever necessary Demonstrates control of rhythm and rhyme; e . g . , poetry, rhyming e x e r c i s e s , e tc . D. Appropr iate usage and d i a l e c t 10. 11. 12. Demonstrates adequate control of standard Engl ish usage Recognizes d i a l e c t a l d i f fe rences in o thers ' language; e . g . , under- stands c h i l d r e n s 1 language use Chooses level of language appropriate to s i t u a t i o n E. L is ten ing c a p a b i l i t i e s 13 . 14. Ident i f i es and d iscr iminates a l l speech sounds (as in phonics) L is tens a t t e n t i v e l y , responds appropr ia te ly F. Achieving speaker 's 15. Uses language to set a scene, create a mood purpose 16. Uses language e f f e c t i v e l y to maximize p o s i t i v e in teract ion with the pup i 1 s Figure 3- Aspects of oral expression re la ted to student teaching performance. A. Conventions of format 1. Spel1s cor rec t iy 2. Uses correct punctuation and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n 3. Proofreads e f f e c t i v e l y *t. Uses common abbreviat ions c o r r e c t l y B. Basic d e s c r i p t i o n and record i ng 5. Gives simple d i r e c t i o n s c l e a r l y 6. Uses te rse , te legraphic s ty le e f f e c t i v e l y for chalkboard notes where su i tab le C. S e n s i t i v i t y to words and word sequences 7. Shows awareness of f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in word meanings 8. Uses grammatical terms appropr ia te ly in ta lk ing about wr i t ing Figure k. Aspects of wr i t ten expression re lated to student teaching performance. .c- 48 Measuring the P r i o r i t i e s of Needs An important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of good quest ionnaire design is the ease with which i t can be completed by the respondent and tabulated by the researcher (Best , 1977, pp. 166-167)- One way to accomplish th is is to have respondents assess needs and assign p r i o r i t i e s to them in one s tep . Therefore , a summated three point rat ing sca le was adopted. It was postulated that such a sca le would be acceptable s ince items were being t reated as though of equal va lue , and that s u f f i c i e n t d i v e r s i t y of opinion was permitted with the fo l lowing ca tegor ies : s a t i s f a c t o r y or b e t t e r ; needs some improvement; needs considerable improvement. Given the necessary features of items being t reated as o f equal va lue , and allowance for d i v e r s i t y o f o p i n i o n , Ker l inger says that the summated rat ing s c a l e is "the most useful in behavioral research" (1966, p. 487). In order to overcome the e r ro r o f central tendency which t y p i c a l l y appears when raters are not f a m i l i a r with the subject under s tudy , he recommends al lowing for greater var iance in response than sometimes allowed in quest ionna i res . However, in th is study, the degree to which raters know the subject should overcome any such tendency ( K e r l i n g e r , 1966, p. 517). To accommodate the various aspects of language involved in the two major areas of student l i f e , student teaching and academic coursework, d i f f e ren t versions o f two quest ionnaires were prepared. The f i r s t , wr i t ten in the f i r s t person for senior s tudents , was rewritten in the t h i r d person for ins t ruc tors and program s t a f f . The second, wr i t ten in the f i r s t person for j u n i o r s tudents , was rewritten in the t h i r d person for sponsor teachers. Instruct ions for each sect ion of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , i n v i t a t i o n s to make comments, and ample space to do s o , as well as the questions needed to ascer ta in demographic, profess ional and personal in format ion, were added. Care was taken, through the prov is ion o f an in t roduct ion to each s e c t i o n , to develop a context wi th in which p a r t i c i - pants could respond to the various quest ions . Following review of the quest ionnaires by Engl ish education facu l ty members, graduate students and two f i r s t year Arts s tudents , minor modi f icat ions were made in the terms. Most commonly th is was the addi t ion of a few more words o f d e s c r i p t i o n . The f ina l copies were typed and the mater ia ls photocopied p r i o r to ma i l ing . The quest ionnaires can be seen in Appendix C. Administer ing the instruments. Since the l e t t e r o f t ransmi t ta l may be the "most important s i n g l e fac tor in determining the percentage of responses" to a mailed quest ionnaire (Borg & G a l l , 1 9 7 9 , p- 3 0 2 ) , each was c a r e f u l l y designed to expla in the purpose and importance of the s tudy, the need for the respondent's p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and the time c o n s t r a i n t s . The l e t t e r s were typed on un ive rs i ty le t terhead and included the name of a facu l ty member (Appendix D). P r i o r to any m a i l i n g s , l e t t e r s and mater ia ls were sent to the school superintendents of the two school d i s t r i c t s connected with the program requesting permission for t h e i r teachers to p a r t i c i p a t e in the study (Appendix E ) . The o r i g i n a l mai l ings to a l l pa r t i c ipan ts in the middle of June, included stamped return addressed envelopes, a procedure often c i t e d as an important fac tor in gaining response to a mailed quest ionnaire (Borg & G a l l , 1979 , p. 3 0 3 ; Best , 1 9 7 7 , p- 168). Approximately ten days a f t e r the f i r s t m a i l i n g , fo l low-up post cards requesting the return o f those quest ionnaires not yet received were sent to ins t ruc tors and students (Appendix D). Since sponsor teachers were no longer a v a i l a b l e at t h e i r s c h o o l s , and home addresses were unknown, nothing fur ther could be done to obta in t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . In mid-July the needs assessor was n o t i f i e d that ce r ta in students had moved and had not received quest ion- n a i r e s . Dupl icate mater ia ls were sent to those students for whom new addresses were a v a i l a b l e . Further d i s c u s s i o n , s p e c i f i c to measuring the p r i o r i t i e s of needs in the NITEP, w i l l appear in Chapter.k. Interpret ing and Reporting the Information The four instruments were coded in order that the data could be t ranscr ibed onto cards for processing in the Michigan Terminal System at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia computing centre . Since the number and kind of responses to ind iv idua l items and the p r i o r i t y o f those items would be the important a n a l y s i s , the consultant s t a t i s t i c i a n recommended the S t a t i s t i c a l package for s o c i a l sciences ( K i t a , 1978) as the b a s i c source for programming. Programs were devised which would produce f r e - quencies, r e l a t i v e f requencies , adjusted f requenc ies , cumulative frequen- c i e s , a r i thmet ic means and standard deviat ions for al1 items on the quest ionna i res . In a d d i t i o n , s ince i t was l i k e l y that not a l l respondents would be able to respond to every item, i t was necessary to devise a program which would allow for a l l computations to be based only on the actual number of coded responses for each item. Interpretat ion and report ing o f the needs assessment data w i l l occur in Chapter 5. Chapter 3 has descr ibed the design and methodology required to set the needs assessment process in motion. The development of the s tudy 's instruments, t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and the plans for data ana lys is have been descr ibed . C r i t e r i a for monitoring the needs assessment process have a lso been d iscussed . Chapter k w i l l present the treatment and ana lys is of the data , o r , in needs assessment terminology, w i l l descr ibe the needs and discuss the p r i o r i t i e s of those needs. 52 CHAPTER k ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The purpose of th is study was to consider Eng l ish competency and the potent ia l for i ts development in NITEP, through the use of the needs assessment process. As part o f th is process , quest ionnaires were developed and mailed to people who had been i d e n t i f i e d as p a r t i c i p a n t s in the program in any year s ince 1977- The p a r t i c i p a n t groups in the survey inc luded: sponsor teachers from two school d i s t r i c t s where NITEP centers had been e s t a b l i s h e d ; co l lege and un ive rs i ty ins t ruc tors or program s t a f f who had taught s tudents; and senior and j u n i o r students who were reg is tered in the program in September, 1980. In th is chapter the data from the mail quest ionnaires are presented fo l lowing the sequence o f the research questions which they were designed to address. In addi t ion to the data, tables o u t l i n i n g the aspects of language involved in each quest ion , and descr ip t ions o f the par t i c ipan t groups who responded to the ques t ionna i res , are provided. Treatment of the Questionnaires Returned quest ionnaires were marked with the date of de l ivery in case i t became necessary to study late respondents as a separate group. They were then coded and the information t rans fer red to data processing cards and computer f i l e s . Computer programs were run to e s t a b l i s h frequency counts, number o f responses, means and standard deviat ions for each item. 53 Secondary programs were run on the student data in order to consider the Engl ish as a second language v a r i a b l e . Response to the Questionnaires The use of mailed quest ionnaires ra ised the issue of acceptable rates of return. Although Borg and Gall ( 1 9 7 9 , p. 377) argue that an 80% return is necessary for v a l i d i t y when using a mailed quest ionna i re , Cur t is ( 1 9 7 8 ) , report ing on a survey o f the l i t e r a t u r e relevant to the i s s u e , wrote: There would appear to be no concensus among those who have discussed mail survey in the l i t e r a t u r e about what percent- age of returns are necessary for a v a l i d a n a l y s i s . (p. 369) He points out that several publ ished studies have ranged well below 50%, going as low as 9 . 65%, and c i t e s a var ie ty of s tudies inc luding both P h i l l i p s (19^1) and Babbie (1973) who argue that 50% return is s u f f i c i e n t for genera l i z ing about a popula t ion . As prev ious ly discussed in Chapter 3 , other researchers have found that when par t i c ipan t groups have a common purpose or some kind o f commit- ment to an undertaking, no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe rences are found between respondents, non-respondents or la te respondents ( O r l i c h , 1 9 7 8 ) . Since p a r t i c i p a n t s in NITEP would seem to have such a common purpose and commit- ment—Thomas and Mcintosh a l luded to th is in t h e i r 1977 s t u d y — i t could be argued that a response f a l l i n g below the ideal of 80% or bet ter would be acceptable . The overa l l response rate in th is study was 6 9 - 3 % , with no group f a l l i n g below a 50% return (see Table E, Appendix F ) . It is i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the f igures move from a low of 53% fo r one group o f sponsor teachers who did not receive the quest ionnaire unt i l the middle o f June, 5k and who could not be contacted t h e r e a f t e r , to a high of 90% for a group of students to whom fol low-up post cards could be sent . Un ivers ity Coursework Quest ionnai re C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of ins t ruc tors responding to the quest ionna i re . Questionnaires were sent to a l l ins t ruc tors whose names appeared on s t a f f l i s t s covering the per iod September, 1977 to September, 1979- Twenty- seven co l lege and un ivers i ty ins t ruc tors returned usable ques t ionna i res . Eight questions asked for information concerning the nature of the i n s t r u c t o r ' s involvement with NITEP (Table A, Appendix F ) . The f i r s t two questions asked ins t ruc tors to respond to three opt ions descr ib ing the courses which they had taught to NITEP students . Five ins t ruc tors indicated that they had taught more than one kind of course to NITEP students. Four of the ins t ruc tors responding to the quest ion had taught non-cred i t courses in addi t ion to education courses , while one ins t ruc to r had taught an ar ts course as well as a non-cred i t course. Questions th ree , four , f i v e and eight had to do with the kind and amount of experience that ins t ruc tors had had with the NITEP. Questions s i x and seven were intended to ident i fy those ins t ruc tors who might, by reason of t h e i r teaching assignment or profess iona l background, be p a r t i c u l a r l y in terested in E n g l i s h . The majority of ins t ruc tors respond- ing to the quest ionnaire character ized t h e i r courses as being demanding in o r a l , and wr i t ten E n g l i s h ; only four ins t ruc tors descr ibed t h e i r courses as not p a r t i c u l a r l y demanding in ora l or wr i t ten E n g l i s h . The majori ty o f ins t ruc tors i d e n t i f i e d t h e i r pro fess iona l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as 55 inc luding the teaching of Engl ish. or as hav ing, in the pas t , included the teaching of E n g l i s h . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sen ior students responding to the quest ionna i re . Questions to e l i c i t profess ional and personal information from both j u n i o r and sen ior students were placed at the beginning of t h e i r respect ive quest ionnaires (Appendix C) . The data c o l l e c t e d in response to those questions appear in Table B, Appendix F. Of th i r teen senior students for whom addresses were a v a i l a b l e and to whom quest ionnaires were mai led , e ight returned usable forms for a n a l y s i s . Seven o f the eight respondents i d e n t i f i e d themselves as having been reg is tered in fourth year during 1 9 7 9 , and there was one t h i r d year student in the group. Four o f the eight students claimed Engl ish as t h e i r f i r s t language, while the remaining four had spoken a nat ive Indian language before learning E n g l i s h . It appeared that two of the four students had not learned Engl ish unt i l they attended s c h o o l , s ince they did not learn the language unt i l they were seven or e ight years o f age. Insofar as t h e i r fami l ies were concerned, f i v e of the eight students indicated that t h e i r fami 1 ies spoke an Indian language at least some of the t ime, while s i x of the eight students reported that the people in t h e i r home communities spoke a nat ive tongue at least part of the time. 56 Oral Expression in the Academic Student Role: Research Question One The f i r s t research question in th is study asks: Wh i ch aspects o f oral expression do ins t ruc tors and students iden t i f y as concerns in the un ivers i ty coursework of NITEP students? Par t i c ipan ts were asked to respond to 16 items concerning ora l expression on a sca le which included three o p t i o n s : s a t i s f a c t o r y or b e t t e r ; needs some improvement; needs considerable improvement. Instructors were asked to r e f l e c t on t h e i r assessment of ora l language competence of a l l s tudents , and then, cons ider - ing the NITEP students whom they had taught s ince 1977, to respond to the descr ip t ions o f oral language behavior using the sca le provided. Students were asked to consider t h e i r own use of ora l language in t h e i r academic c lasses and to evaluate themselves accord ing ly . The aspects of ora l language which were cons idered , and descr ip to rs which led to the actual items on the ques t ionna i res , are shown in Table 4. The quest ionnaires sent to ins t ruc tors and sen ior students appear in Appendix C. Oral Expression in Un ivers i ty Coursework as Perceived by Instructors The data c o l l e c t e d from the i n s t r u c t o r group in response to the 16 items regarding ora l expression in academic coursework are presented in Table 3- The table l i s t s the items ranked in order o f p r i o r i t y as es tab- l i s h e d by means and standard deviat ions obtained from summing a l l responses. It a lso reports the actual responses to each item inc lud ing 57 the number of respondents who did not answer. The tota l number of respon- dents to the quest ionnaire is a l s o inc luded. Because the ranking of items was ascer ta ined by the means and standard deviat ions based on the tota l response to each item, the f igures representing frequency of response may not fol low one another in the expected order . For example, in Table 3, 24 ins t ruc tors expressed concern about item 8, the a b i l i t y to make f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in word meanings. Since th is itern was accorded the highest mean rat ing o f a l l items in ora l express ion , 2 .39, i t ranked f i r s t as a matter of concern, even though item 7, demonstration of a wide ranging vocabulary , was i d e n t i f i e d as a concern by 25 of the ins t ruc tors responding. The reason fo r th is apparent discrepancy is that 12 ins t ruc tors chose the needs considerable improve- ment response to item 8 whi le only nine of the ins t ruc tors responding to item 7 chose that response. I tern 15, the a b i l i t y to report main ideas with s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l , ranked t h i r d , and was a matter of concern to 21 of the responding ins t ruc tors with a mean response of 2.08. The fourth ranked concern, item 1 3 , the a b i l i t y to question p e r c e p t i v e l y , was i d e n t i - f i e d as a matter of concern by 20 of the ins t ruc tors responding and given a mean response of 2.08. Twenty-one of the ins t ruc tors answering the quest ionnaire expressed concern about some students ' control of standard Engl ish and item 10 was accorded a mean response of 2.04, and ranked f i f t h . Twenty-six of the ins t ruc tors assigned the same mean to item 14, the a b i l i t y to express and support o p i n i o n s , ranking i t in s ix th p l a c e , while the seventh ranking concern, item 16, the a b i l i t y to organize ideas coherent ly , was i d e n t i f i e d as being of some concern to 19 of the respon- dents but given a s l i g h t l y lower mean response of 2.00 by 26 of them. 58 Table 3 I terns in Oral Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Instructors N = 27 I tern Responses Rank Number Language descr ip to r 1 2 3 NA Total X S Order 8 Made f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s in vocabulary 2 12 12 1 27 2.39 .63 1 7 Showed breadth of vocabulary 1 16 9 1 27 2.31 .55 2 15 Reported main ideas 4 15 6 2 27 2 .08 .64 3 13 Asked useful questions 5 13 7 2 27 2 .08 • 70 4 10 Contro l led standard Engl ish 5 15 6 1 27 2.04 .66 5 14 Supported opinions 7 11 8 1 27 2.04 .77 6 16 Organized ideas coherent ly 6 14 6 1 27 2.00 .69. 7 2 Projected vo ice adequately 8 11 7 1 27 1 .96 .77 8 1 1 Chose appropr ia te l eve ls of language 5 18 3 1 27 1 . 92 .56 9 12 Listened and comprehended 7 14 4 2 27 1 .88 .67 10 9 Used e f f e c t i v e imagery 7 13 4 3 27 1 .88 .67 10 4 A c t i v e l y pa r t i c ipa ted in d i scuss ion 9 13 4 1 27 1.81 .69 12 6 Conf ident ly expressed divergent op i n ions 9 11 3 4 27 1.74 .69 13 1 Demonstrated correct a r t i c u l a t i o n and pro jec t ion 10 13 3 1 27 1 .73 .67 14 3 Spoke f1uent ly 8 16 1 2 27 1.72 .54 15 5 Used conventional nonverbal 15 6 1 5 27 1.36 .58 16 1 = s a t i s f a c t o r y or better 2 = needed improvement 3 = needed considerable improvement 59 O v e r a l l , seven items were accorded a mean response of 2 . 00 or greater by the ins t ruc tors responding to the items. Since a response between 2 . 00 and 3 -00 had been es tab l i shed as ind ica t ing a need for improvement on the quest ionna i re , these seven items deserve p a r t i c u l a r attent ion. Five of the seven items with a mean response of 2 . 00 or greater represent concerns about only two aspects o f ora l express ion: s e n s i t i v i t y to words and arrangements of words, and achieving the speaker 's purpose. In addi t ion to these two aspects of ora l express ion , two others were represented by one item each: appropriate usage and d i a l e c t , and . l i s t e n i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s . It is in te res t ing to note that other items d e s c r i p t i v e of oral expression 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 ins t ruc tors without r e g i s t e r i n g the mean response ind ica t ing that the item is perceived as a need. I tern 2, projected voice e f f e c t i v e l y ; item 11, chose appropriate l eve ls of language; item 12, l i s t e n e d and comprehended; item 9 , used e f f e c t i v e imagery; item k, a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e d in d i s c u s s i o n ; and item 3 , spoke f l u e n t l y , had mean responses of 1 . 9 6 , 1 . 9 2 , 1.88, 1.88, 1.81, and 1 .72 r e s p e c t i v e l y , but were perceived as being of some concern to at least G0% of the ins t ruc tors responding to the quest ionna i re . Oral Expression in Un ivers i ty Coursework as Perceived by Senior Students The data c o l l e c t e d from the quest ionnaires sent to senior students are reported in Table h. They were rank ordered by summing the number of 1, 2, and 3 responses to each item. I tern 9 , the use of e f f e c t i v e 60 Table 4 I terns in Oral Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Senior Students N = 8 1 tern no. Responses 3 Rank o rde r Language descr ip tor 1 2 3 N/A Total 9 Used e f f e c t i v e imagery 2 4 2 8 1 10 Contro l led standard Engl ish 3 2 3 8 2 7 Showed breadth of vocabulary 2 5 1 8 3 8 Made f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in vocabul ary 3 3 2 8 4 3 Spoke f l u e n t l y 3 4 1 8 5 11 Chose appropriate l e v e l s of language 3 4 1 8 5 13 Asked useful questions 3 4 1 8 5 16 Organized ideas coherently 3 4 1 8 5 5 Used conventional nonverbal behavior 3 5 - 8 9 12 Listened and comprehended 3 5 - 8 9 1 Used correct a r t i c u l a t i o n 3 4 1 8 11 2 Projected voice adequately 5 2 1 8 12 14 Supported opinions 5 2 1 8 12 4 A c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e d in d iscuss ion 5 3 - 8 14 6 Conf ident ly expressed d ive r - gent opinions 5 3 - 8 14 15 Reported main ideas 5 3 - 8 14 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 cons ider - able improvement. 61 imagery, was i d e n t i f i e d as needing improvement by s i x of the e ight students responding and was the f i r s t ranked concern. Five students i d e n t i f i e d item 10, the control o f standard E n g l i s h , as being of some concern and ranked i t second. Item 7, the a b i l i t y to use a breadth of vocabulary , was i d e n t i f i e d as being of some concern to s i x of the eight s tudents , but ranked t h i r d . S i m i l a r l y , item 8, the a b i l i t y to make f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in vocabu la r ly , was i d e n t i f i e d as being an area o f concern to f i v e out o f e ight students and ranked four th . S umma ry Although students did not reg is te r the same degree o f concern as ins t ructors about items re la t ing to s e n s i t i v i t y to words and word sequences, the ranking of items suggested more s i m i l a r i t y in t h e i r perception of concerns about th is aspect of ora l expression than might appear to be the case. Two of the three items ranked s i m i l a r l y . Item 8, made f ine d i s - t i n c t i o n s in vocabulary , and item 7, d isplayed a breadth o f vocabulary, were ranked f i r s t and second by ins t ruc tors and fourth and t h i r d by students. There is considerable d i f f e r e n c e , however, in the ranking o f the t h i r d item in th is category. Item 9, used e f f e c t i v e imagery, was ranked f i r s t by students and eleventh by i n s t r u c t o r s . Another d i f fe rence between the two groups emerged from t h e i r response to two o f the items representing that aspect o f ora l expression c a l l e d achieving the speaker 's purpose. I tern 15, the a b i l i t y to report main ideas with s u f f i c i e n t deta i l to be comprehensible and i n t e r e s t i n g , was ranked t h i r d by ins t ruc tors and sixteenth by s tudents , while item 14, the a b i l i t y to support o p i n i o n s , was ranked s ix th by ins t ruc tors and 62 twelf th by students. Instructors and students appeared to be much c l o s e r to one another in t h e i r perception of the students ' a b i l i t y to organize ideas coherent ly . Item 16 was ranked seventh by ins t ruc tors and f i f t h by students. With the fur ther exception of item 3, spoke f l u e n t l y without using extraneous expressions unduly, which was ranked f i f t e e n t h by ins t ruc tors and f i f t h by s tudents , and item 5, used conventional nonverbal behavior , ranked s ixteenth by ins t ruc tors but ninth by s tudents , the remaining items showed minor d i f fe rences in the rankings, suggesting that o v e r a l l , with the exceptions already noted, ins t ruc tors and students were r e l a t i v e l y s i m i l a r in t h e i r perceptions consider ing NITEP students ' ora l Engl ish competency in un ivers i ty coursework. Oral expression in un ivers i ty coursework as perceived by sen ior students with Engl ish as a second language. When the computer program was run to analyze the oral language data dependent on whether students had Engl ish as a f i r s t or second language, four of e ight sen ior students were in each group: English^ and E n g l i s h ^ . Although the sample is s m a l l , the resul ts are included here and w i l l be discussed b r i e f l y in Chapter 5- In Table k, sen ior students ranked only two items, numbers 9, use of e f f e c t i v e imagery, and 10, control of standard E n g l i s h , as matters o f concern. When the data were analyzed with p a r t i c u l a r a t tent ion to Engl ish students , only one of those items, number 9, the use of e f f e c t i v e imagery, was i d e n t i f i e d as a concern. The sen ior students for whom Engl ish was a second language, however, responded quite d i f f e r e n t l y from those who had spoken Engl ish as t h e i r f i r s t language (Table 5)• Senior students for whom Engl ish was a second language i d e n t i f i e d concerns in f ive d i f f e ren t aspects o f ora l language, a l l but l i s t e n i n g 6 3 T a b l e 5 I terns i n O r a l E x p r e s s i o n Ranked as P e r c e i v e d Conce rns by E n g l i s h , , S e n i o r S t u d e n t s I tern n o . Language d e s c r i p t o r Responses Rank N/A T o t a l , o r d e r 3 Spoke f l u e n t l y 7 Showed b r e a d t h o f v o c a b u l a r y 1 0 C o n t r o l l e d s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h 5 Used c o n v e n t i o n a l n o n v e r b a l b e h a v i o r 8 Made 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 1 6 O r g a n i z e d i d e a s c o h e r e n t l y 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 4 k 4 h 3 k 5 5 1 = S a t i s f a c t o r y o r b e t t e r ; 2 = Needed imp rovemen t ; 3 = Needed c o n s i d e r - a b l e improvement . c a p a b i l i t i e s . The f i r s t ranked c o n c e r n s , i t e m 3 , t h e a b i l i t y t o speak f l u e n t l y , and i t e m 7 , c o n t r o l o f a b r e a d t h o f v o c a b u l a r y , were i d e n t i f i e d as n e e d i n g improvement by a l l f o u r s t u d e n t s . The t h i r d ranked i t e m , t h e c o n t r o l o f s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h , was i d e n t i f i e d as b e i n g o f c o n c e r n t o o n l y t h r e e o f the f o u r s t u d e n t s . A l l f o u r s t u d e n t s i d e n t i f i e d i t e m 5, t h e use o f c o n v e n t i o n a l n o n v e r b a l b e h a v i o r , as n e e d i n g some improvement and ranked i t f o u r t h . The same i t e m had been ranked n i n t h by t he r e s p o n s e s o f a l l t he s e n i o r s t u d e n t s and s i x t e e n t h by t h e i n s t r u c t o r s ' r e s p o n s e s ( T a b l e s 3 and h). E n g l i s h ^ s t u d e n t s and i n s t r u c t o r s were in a c c o r d w i t h r e s p e c t t o c o n c e r n s abou t v o c a b u l a r y , o r g a n i z i n g i d e a s , and t he s t u d e n t s ' use o f s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h . 64 Written Expression in the Academic Student Role: Research Question Two The second research question in th is study asks: Which aspects of wr i t ten expression do ins t ruc tors and students ident i fy as concerns in the un ivers i ty coursework of NITEP students? Since wr i t ten expression tends to be an important fac tor in the evaluat ion of co l lege and univer - s i t y s tudents , 2k items were chosen to represent s i x aspects of language re lated to wr i t ten expression (Figure 2 , p. 4 5 ) . These items appeared in Part 3 of the ins t ruc to r and senior student quest ionnaires (see Appendix C). The responses were ca lcu la ted and are reproduced in the same format as the tables deal ing with oral expression in academic coursework. Because of the number of concerns i d e n t i f i e d in wr i t ten express ion , responses to the items are discussed in the context of the s i x aspects of language pert inent to wr i t ten expression as de ta i led in Table 2 (p. 4 3 ) . Written Expression in Univers i ty Coursework as Perceived by Instructors A. Conventions of format. A l l items used to descr ibe th is aspect of wr i t ten language were i d e n t i f i e d as being of some concern to the majority of ins t ruc tors responding to the quest ionnaire (Table 6 ) . Items descr ib ing the conventions o f format inc luded: the t h i r d ranked item 3 , e f f e c t i v e proof reading , seen as a concern by 23 of the respondents, and given a mean rat ing of 2.42; the f i f t h ranked concern, item 4, correct use of 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 as a concern by 22 o f p a r t i c i p a t i n g ins t ruc tors and rated 2 . 3 8 ; item 1, the a b i l i t y to s p e l l , 65 Table 6 Items in Written Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Instructors N = 27 1 tern Respo a nses Rank number Language descr ip tor 1 2 3 N/A Total x S order 21 Organized essays e f f e c t i v e l y 0 11 12 4 27 2 • 52 .51 1 11 Used grammatical terms c o r r e c t l y 2 8. 12 5 27 2 .46 .67 2 3 Proofread e f f e c t i v e l y 1 12 11 .3 27 2 .42 . 5 8 3 10 Made d i s t i n c t i o n s in vocabulary 1 12 11 3 27 2 .42 .58 3 4 Used mechanics c o r r e c t l y 2 1 1 11 3 27 2 . 3 8 . 6 5 5 22 Showed coherence and unity 2 10 9 6 27 2 • 38. . 66 6 9 Created moods, impressions 2 ]k 7 4 27 2 .22 .60 7 13 Displayed f luency 2 14 " 7 4 27 2 .22 .60 7 14 Responded to readings 2 15 7 3 27 2 .21 . 5 8 9 1 S p e l l e d , punctuated c o r r e c t l y 3 13 8 3 27 2 .21 .66 10 2 Contro l led mechanics o f .quota t ion 2 16 6 3 2 7 2 .17 . 5 7 11 17 Adjusted tone for audience 1 14 4 8 27 2 .16 .50 12 7 Varied sentence length k 13 7 3 27 2 • 13 . 6 8 13 15 Selected d e t a i l s for emphasis k 14 6 3 27 2 .08 . 65 14 20 Summarized and paraphrased readings6 8 7 6 27 2 .05 .81 15 5 Gave bas ic information c l e a r l y k 15 4 4 27 2 .00 .60 16 19 Supported viewpoint with d e t a i l s 5 11 5 6 27 2 .00 • 71 17 8 Used imagery in descr ip t ion 5 13 4 5 27 1 . 96 . 6 5 18 24 Conveyed p e r s o n a l i t i e s 6 9 4 8 2 ? 1 .90 • Ik 19 16 Focused on s i n g l e / t o p i c event 7 12 4 4 2 7 1 . 8 7 .69 20 6 Described with s u f f i c i e n t deta i l 6 13 3 5 27 1 .86 .64 21 18 Elaborated when necessary 8 11 4 4 27 1 . 8 3 • 72 22 23 Sequenced events p laus ib ly 8 11 3 5 27 1 • 77 .69 23 12 Expressed s e l f 9 10 3 5 27 1 • 73 .70 24 a l = Sa t i s fac to ry or bet ter 2. = Needed improvement 3 = Needed considerable improvement 66 capitalize, and punctuate correctly, identified 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 in this category registered a mean response of 2 . 0 0 . Item 5, the ability to give basic information clearly as required for answering questions or writing brief reports, was accorded a mean response of 2 . 0 0 , and identified as a concern by 19 of the instructors responding. Since it 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 of written expression does not appear to be a matter of particular concern. C. Sensitivity to words and word sequences. Four out of five items relating to this aspect of written expression, sensitivity to words and word sequences, were identified by a majority of the instructors as being of some concern. I tern 1 1 , the ability to use grammatical terms correctly in discussing writing, although identified as a concern by only 20 of the instructors, was the second highest ranked item because of its mean response of 2.46. I tern 1 0 , the ability to make fine distinctions in vocabulary, ranking third, was identified as being of some concern by 23 of the instructors but only to the degree represented by a mean response of 2 . 4 2 . Other concerns relating to the category of words and sequences of words, were registered with the seventh ranking of item 9 , the ability to select words to reinforce a specific mood or impression, and the thirteenth ranking of item 7 , the ability to use variety in sentence length, with means of 2 . 2 2 and 2 . 1 3 respectively. 67 D. Response to experience. In th is category, a pa i r of d e s c r i p t o r s , item 1 3 , d isp lays f luency , and item 14, percept ive response to reading, ranked seventh and ninth in p r i o r i t y based on mean responses o f 2 . 2 2 and 2.21 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Twenty-one ins t ruc tors saw item 13 as needing improve- ment while 22 ins t ruc tors saw item 14 as needing improvement. E. Achieving the w r i t e r ' s purpose: expos i t ion and argument. Of the 24 items l i s t e d as descr ip tors of wr i t ten expression in academic course- work, 17 items were i d e n t i f i e d by some ins t ruc tors as being of concern (Table 6 ) . The f i r s t ranked item, i d e n t i f i e d as a concern by a l l o f the ins t ructors responding to the item, and given a mean rat ing o f 2 . 5 2 , was item 2 1 , the a b i l i t y to organize essays e f f e c t i v e l y . Four other i tems, re la t ing as does item 21 to the aspect o f language descr ibed as achieving the w r i t e r ' s purpose in expos i t ion and argument, were i d e n t i f i e d as being of at least some concern to the majority of responding i n s t r u c t o r s . Item 17 , the a b i l i t y to adjust tone of wr i t ing for a s p e c i f i c audience, was i d e n t i f i e d as a concern by 18 respondents and assigned a mean ra t ing of 2 . 1 6 , thus ranking twe l f th . The fourteenth ranked item, number 1 5 , the a b i l i t y to se lec t d e t a i l s for emphasis, was given a mean response o f 2 . 0 8 and i d e n t i f i e d as a concern by 20 of the 24 ins t ruc tors responding to the i tern. Item 2 0 , the a b i l i t y to summarize and paraphrase readings, although i d e n t i f i e d as being o f concern by only 15 of the ins t ruc tors answering the quest ionna i re , was accorded a mean response of 2 . 0 5 , thus ranking f i f t e e n t h , two rankings ahead of item 1 9 , the a b i l i t y to support view- point with d e t a i l s , with i ts mean response o f 2 . 0 0 . O v e r a l l , f i ve o f the seven items represent ing the aspect o f wr i t ten expression r e l a t i n g to achieving the w r i t e r ' s purpose in expos i t ion and argument were i d e n t i f i e d 68 as being o f some concern to more than h a l f the ins t ruc to rs responding to the quest ionnai re . F. Achieving the w r i t e r ' s purpose: narra t ion and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . One item d e s c r i p t i v e of th is aspect of wr i t ten express ion , item 22, the a b i l i t y to d isplay coherence and unity o f tone, was rated 2.33 and ranked s ix th by the i n s t r u c t o r s . It was seen as a matter of concern to 19 of 21 i ns t ruc tors responding to the item. With the exception of two s i n g l e items, numbers 5 and 22, a l l other items with a mean response of 2.00 or g rea ter , tended to c l u s t e r into four aspects of wr i t ten express ion . Conventions of format, s e n s i t i v i t y to words and word sequences, response to experience and achiev ing the w r i t e r ' s purpose: exposi t ion and argument, were the aspects of wr i t ten expression about which ins t ruc tors had the most concern with regard to t h e i r NITEP students. It should be noted, however, that although the remaining seven items in Table 6 were accorded means of less than 2.00, they were i d e n t i f i e d as being of some concern to at least h a l f of the ins t ruc tors responding to the given items. The items which f e l l into th is category were: item 8, uses imagery in d e s c r i p t i o n ; item 2k, conveys persona l i ty through se lec ted d e t a i l s ; item 16, focuses on s i n g l e t o p i c / e v e n t ; item 6, descr ibes with s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l ; item 18, e laborates 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 voice e f f e c t i v e l y . 69 Written Expression in Coursework as Perceived by Senior Students Table 7 shows several items as being o f some concern to at least h a l f o f the eight students who responded to the quest ionna i re . Since the i n s t r u c t o r s ' concerns were discussed in the order o f the s i x aspects o f language to which they re ferred (Figure 2 , p. 4 5 ) , the student response w i l l be discussed in the same order . Only one item categor ized as a convention of format was seen as a matter of concern by the senior students . Item 3 , the a b i l i t y to proof- read e f f e c t i v e l y , was i d e n t i f i e d as a concern to s i x students and ranked second. Five students were concerned about item 6 , the a b i l i t y to describe people and things with s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l , and ranked the item s i x t h on t h e i r l i s t . The other item categor ized as b a s i c descr ip t ion and record ing , item 5 , the a b i l i t y to give b a s i c information c l e a r l y when answering questions or wr i t ing repor ts , was seen as a matter o f some concern to h a l f the students but ranked f i f t e e n t h . When consider ing the aspect of wr i t ten expression c a l l e d s e n s i t i v i t y to words and word sequences, item 1 1 , using grammatical terms c o r r e c t l y in d iscuss ing w r i t i n g , was seen as a matter of some concern by s i x of the responding students and ranked second. I tern 9 , s e l e c t i n g words to re in force a s p e c i f i c mood or impression, was seen as a concern by f i v e students and ranked s i x t h . One other item in th is category perceived as a concern by h a l f the students responding to the quest ionnaire was itern 1 0 , the a b i l i t y to make f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s using vocabulary , which ranked n i n t h . S i m i l a r l y , item 1 2 , the expression of s e l f in w r i t i n g , and item 1 3 , demonstration of 70 T a b l e 7 I tems i n 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 C o n c e r n s By S e n i o r S t u d e n t s I tem Responses 3 , R g n k no . Language d e s c r i p t o r 1 2 3 N/A T o t a l o r d e r 15 S e l e c t e d e s s e n t i a l d e t a i l 1 6 1 8 1 3 P r o o f r e a d e f f e c t i v e l y 2 5 1 8 2 11 Used g r a m m a t i c a l te rms c o r r e c t l y 2 5 1 8 2 21 O r g a n i z e d e s s a y s e f f e c t i v e l y 2 6 _ 8 4 23 Sequenced i d e a s p l a u s i b l y 3 4 1 8 5 6 D e s c r i b e d w i t h s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l 3 5 - 8 6 9 C r e a t e d moods, i m p r e s s i o n s 3 5 8 6 24 Conveyed p e r s o n a l i t i e s 3 5 - 8 6 10 Made d i s t i n c t i o n s in v o c a b u l a r y 4 3 1 8 9 12 E x p r e s s e d s e l f 4 3 1 8 9 13 D i s p l a y e d f l u e n c y 4 3 1 8 9 16 F o c u s e d on s i n g l e t o p i c / e v e n t 4 3 1 8 9 22 Showed c o h e r e n c e and u n i t y 4 3 1 8 9 k Used m e c h a n i c s c o r r e c t l y 5 1 2 8 14 5 Gave b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n c l e a r l y 4 4 - 8 15 17 A d j u s t e d t o n e f o r a u d i e n c e 4 4 - 8 15 18 E l a b o r a t e d when n e c e s s a r y 4 4 - 8 15 14 Responded t o r e a d i n g s 5 2 1 8 18 20 Summar ized and p a r a p h r a s e d r e a d i ngs 5 2 1 8 18 1 S p e l l e d , p u n c t u a t e d c o r r e c t l y 5 3 - 8 20 8 Used imagery i n d e s c r i p t i o n 5 3 - 8 20 19 S u p p o r t e d v i e w p o i n t w i t h d e t a i l s 5 3 - 8 -.̂  20 7 V a r i e d s e n t e n c e l e n g t h 6 1 1 8 23 2 C o n t r o l l e d m e c h a n i c s o f q u o t a t i o n 7 1 - 8 24 S a t i s f a c t o r y o r b e t t e r Needed improvement Needed c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement 71 f luency in ideas and a s s o c i a t i o n s , ranked n i n t h , i d e n t i f i e d as concerns by h a l f the students responding. Five of the seven items descr ib ing s k i l l s used in w r i t i n g expos i t ion and argument were s i n g l e d out as being of some concern to at least h a l f the sen ior students responding to the quest ionna i re . Item 1 5 , the a b i l i t y to se lec t essent ia l from per ipheral d e t a i l , was i d e n t i f i e d as a concern by a l l but one of the senior students and ranked f i r s t . I tern 2 1 , the a b i l i t y to organize essays e f f e c t i v e l y , was seen as a matter o f concern to s ix of eight students and therefore ranked four th . Half the students indicated some concern about item 16 , focusing on a s i n g l e top ic o r event; item 17 , the a b i l i t y to adjust tone for an audience; and item 18 , the a b i l i t y to e laborate an opinion or make a judgment. Academic students responded to a l l three items descr ib ing s k i l l s in wr i t ing narrat ion with some ind ica t ion of concern. I tern 2 3 , o rgan iz ing events in p l a u s i b l e sequence; item 2k, conveying persona l i ty through se lec ted d e t a i l s ; and item 2 2 , d isp lay ing coherence and unity of tone and impression, ranked . f i f t h , s ix th and ninth r e s p e c t i v e l y , and were i d e n t i - f i e d as needing improvement by at least h a l f of the s tudents . Of the twenty-four i tems, the two items ranked l a s t and presumably o f l i t t l e or no concern to s tudents , were item 7 , the a b i l i t y to vary sentence length, and item 2 , the a b i l i t y to control the mechanics of quotat ion. Since these two items were ranked th i r teenth and eleventh respect ive ly by i n s t r u c t o r s , there is some ind ica t ion here that i n s t r u c - tors and sen ior students d i f f e r with regard to NITEP students ' competency in these items. 72 S umma ry Table 8 summarizes Tables 6 and 7 and l i s t s the highest ranking concerns in wr i t ten expression as i d e n t i f i e d by ins t ruc tors and sen ior students. It suggests that students and ins t ruc tors perceive student competency in wr i t ten expression somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y , at least in the number of items i d e n t i f i e d as needing improvement. Instructors i d e n t i - f i e d 17 items as needing improvement while h a l f or more of the sen ior students expressed concern regarding only e ight items. The most obvious d i f fe rence between the two groups, as shown in Table 8 , has to do with that aspect of wr i t ten expression often c a l l e d the mechanics of w r i t i n g . Referred to in th is study as conventions of format, th is aspect of wr i t ten expression was represented by four items on the quest ionnai re . Half or more o f the ins t ruc tors p a r t i c i p a t i n g i d e n t i f i e d the four items as concerns, and a l l four items had a mean response of 2.17 or greater . Students i d e n t i f i e d only one item in th is category, item 3 , e f f e c t i v e proof read ing , as being of some concern and ranked i t second. Instructors and students appear to be c l o s e r together when responding to the aspects of wr i t ten expression c a l l e d b a s i c descr ip t ion and record- ing , and s e n s i t i v i t y to words and sequences of words. The two groups do not seem to d i f f e r markedly in t h e i r perception of s tudents ' competency in these two categor ies o f wr i t ten express ion , with the exception of one item in the former, item 6 , the a b i l i t y to descr ibe with s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l , ranked twenty - f i rs t by ins t ruc tors but s ix th by s tudents; and two items in the l a t t e r , item 7, the a b i l i t y to vary sentence length , ranked t h i r - teenth by ins t ruc tors and twenty- th i rd by sen ior s tudents ; and item 10, 73 Table 8 Summary of Tables 6 and 1 Showing Comparison of Items Ident i f ied as Concerns by Both Instructors and Senior Students Items ranked a as concerns Aspects of wr i t ten expression 1 nst ructors Sen iors A. Conventions of format 1, 2 , 3 , 4 3 B. Basic descr ip t ion and recording 5 6 C. S e n s i t i v i t y to words and word sequences 7, 9 , 10, 11 9 , 11 D. Response to experience 1 3 , 14 - E. Achieving the w r i t e r ' s purpose: exposi t ion and argument 1 5 , 1 7 , 19 2 0 , 21 1 5 , 21 F. Achieving the w r i t e r ' s purpose: narrat ion and charac te r i za t ion 22 2 3 , 24 a 1tem numbers on 1y. the a b i l i t y to make f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in vocabulary , ranked th i rd by ins t ructors but ninth by sen ior students. With regard to response to exper ience , the fourth aspect of wr i t ten expression represented in the ques t ionna i re , there were two items to which ins t ruc tors and students responded qui te d i f f e r e n t l y . Item 12, expresses own voice e f f e c t i v e l y , was ranked twenty-fourth by ins t ruc tors but n inth by students , while item 14, responds to readings e f f e c t i v e l y , was ranked ninth by ins t ruc tors and eighteenth by students . The f i f t h aspect of wr i t ten expression included in the ques t ionna i re , achieving the w r i t e r ' s purpose: exposi t ion and argument, included three items on which students and ins t ruc tors var ied considerably in t h e i r Ik rank ings.of the items even though ha l f the students i d e n t i f i e d them as needing improvement. 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 peripheral d e t a i l , was ranked fourteenth by the i n s t r u c t o r s ' responses but f i r s t by the students ' responses. I tern 18, e laborates an o p i n i o n , was ranked twenty-second by ins t ructors and f i f t e e n t h by students . I tern 16, focuses on s i n g l e t o p i c / e v e n t , was ranked twentieth by ins t ruc tors and ninth by students. Other items in th is aspect of wr i t ten expression were ranked s i m i l a r l y by both groups. The last aspect of wr i t ten expression considered was descr ibed as achieving the w r i t e r ' s purpose: narrat ion and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . Two. of the three items in th is category d isplayed considerable variance between the two groups' perception of competency. Item 2 3 , sequences ideas p l a u s i b l y , ranked twenty- th i rd on the i n s t r u c t o r s ' l i s t but f i f t h on the students ' l i s t . I tern 2k, conveys p e r s o n a l i t i e s through se lec ted d e t a i l s , was ranked nineteenth by ins t ruc tors and s ix th by students . It would appear that , o v e r a l l , ins t ruc tors and students d i f f e r most in the areas of conventions of format, response to exper ience, and achiev- ing the wri t e r ' s purpose: narra t ion and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . In the other three aspects of wr i t ten express ion , bas ic descr ip t ion and record ing , s e n s i t i v i t y to words and word sequences and achieving the w r i t e r ' s purpose: exposi t ion and argument, there appear to be more s i m i l a r i t i e s than d i f fe rences in responses. to items by the two groups. Written expression in un ive rs i ty coursework as perceived by students with Engl ish as a second language. When the data concerning wr i t ten expression were analyzed with regard to Engl ish as a second language, the English^ students i d e n t i f i e d only one item as a matter of concern. They ranked item 19, the a b i l i t y to proofread assignments e f f e c t i v e l y , as t h e i r primary concern amongst the items o f f e r e d . In c o n t r a s t , the four E n g l i s h , 7 5 students ' responses to items of wr i t ten expression i d e n t i f i e d seven items about which at least three out of the four students were concerned. Table 9 contains the data concerning the seven items in quest ion . At least three of the four sen ior students who spoke Engl ish as a second language expressed a need for some improvement in seven items d e s c r i p t i v e of aspects of wr i t ten express ion . Given the small sample, the resu l ts are of l im i ted value insofar as the study is concerned. Never theless, as ind ica tors of what may be a s i g n i f i c a n t fac tor in NITEP p lanning, they are discussed b r i e f l y here. Table 9 I terns in Written Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by E n g l i s l ^ Senior Students N = k 1 tern no. Res ponses 3 Rank order Language descr ip tor 1 2 3 N/A Total 1 5 Selected d e t a i l s for emphasis -• 3 1 k 1 10 Made f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in vocabul ary 1 2 1 k 2 11 Used grammatical terms correct 1 y 1 2 1 k 2 20 Summarized and paraphrased readings 1 2 1 2 22 Showed coherence and unity 1 2 1 2 23 Sequenced ideas p l a u s i b l y 1 2 1 k 2 k Used mechanics of scho la rsh ip 2 - 2 k 7 1 = Sa t i s fac to ry of b e t t e r ; 2 = Needed improvement; 3 = Needed cons ider - able improvement. 76 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e E n g l i s h ^ s t u d e n t s e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n s w i t h r e g a r d t o seven i t e m s , and s i x o f t h o s e i tems were t h o s e i d e n t i f i e d by i n s t r u c t o r s as shown in T a b l e 6. In p a r t i c u l a r , i t e m 11, t he a b i l i t y t o use g r a m m a t i c a l te rms i n d i s c u s s i n g w r i t i n g ; i t e m 10, t h e a b i l i t y t o make f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s i n v o c a b u l a r y ; i t e m k, t h e a b i l i t y t o use t he m e c h a n i c s o f s c h o l a r s h i p ; and i t em 22, t h e a b i l i t y t o w r i t e w i t h c o h e r e n c e and u n i t y o f t o n e and i m p r e s s i o n , were seen as i tems o f c o n c e r n t o bo th g roups . S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Q u e s t i o n s t h r e e , f o u r and f i v e were d e s i g n e d t o c o n s i d e r s t u d e n t l anguage p e r f o r m a n c e in t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g s i t u a t i o n w i t h some p a r t i c u - l a r r e f e r e n c e t o t he t e a c h i n g o f l anguage a r t s . The d a t a were c o l l e c t e d f rom g roups 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 and j u n i o r s t u d e n t s . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s p o n s o r t e a c h e r s r e s p o n d i n g t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . In o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h a b a c k g r o u n d a g a i n s t w h i c h t o v i e w the d a t a c o n c e r n - i n g s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g , d e m o g r a p h i c , p r o f e s s i o n a l and p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n was c o l l e c t e d and c o l l a t e d ( T a b l e s C and D, A p p e n d i x F ) . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were s e n t t o 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 rog ram l i s t s c o v e r i n g the p e r i o d Sep tember 1977 t o September 1979- S i x t y - t h r e e t e a c h e r s , s l i g h t l y more than s i x t y p e r c e n t o f t h o s e t o whom q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were s e n t , r e t u r n e d u s a b l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . They answered ten q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r t e a c h i n g b a c k g r o u n d s , a s s i g n m e n t s and e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ( T a b l e C, A p p e n d i x F ) . 77 The sponsor teachers involved in th is study came from two B r i t i s h Columbia school d i s t r i c t s cur ren t ly providing p r a c t i c e teaching oppor tun i - t i e s and superv is ion for NITEP students^ Of the s i x t y - t h r e e teachers responding to the quest ionna i re , t h i r t y - o n e were teaching primary grades and t h i r t y were teaching at the intermediate l e v e l . Two were undesignated. More than two th i rds of the group held profess iona l teaching c e r t i f i c a t e s and with one except ion, the minimum amount of teaching experience was f i v e years . The major i ty of respondents had from f i v e to 15 years teaching experience. Over ha l f the respondents had taken general education courses / for the i r p ro fess iona l concent ra t ion . Many of the respondents did not ident i fy an academic concent ra t ion , but of those who d i d , 16 indicated that Engl ish was the i r major area of study, Given a l i s t of pro fess iona l member- s h i p s , 2k teachers indicated that they belonged to the B r i t i s h Columbia Primary Teachers ' A s s o c i a t i o n . None of the responding teachers indicated memberships in groups pr imar i l y concerned with the teaching of E n g l i s h , language a r ts or reading. When asked, the majori ty of teachers indicated that they had super- v ised only one NITEP student while twenty-nine respondents had supervised two or more. F i f t een teachers indicated that they had been involved with NITEP in 1977 or before , while three times as many indicated that they had worked with the program since 1978. Since the responses c i r c l e d in answer to question eight did not always balance with the responses to question nine, concerning year(s) of involvement with the program, i t may be that one or e i ther of the questions was ambiguous or mis lead ing . In a d d i t i o n , a few teachers indicated by comments or question marks that they could not remember the pert inent dates. 78 The last question had to do with experience in superv is ing non-NITEP student teachers , and while 20 teachers indicated that they had f requent ly supervised student teachers outs ide NITEP, the major i ty , 35 teachers , had o c c a s i o n a l l y supervised other student teachers . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of j u n i o r students responding to the quest ionna i re . Questionnaires were sent to a l l j u n i o r students reg is tered in the program as of May, 1979- Twenty usable quest ionnaires were returned g iv ing a return of 8h%. Junior students were asked for the same information as senior students. These data are presented in Table D, Appendix F. Of the twenty students responding to the ques t ionna i re , ten were in f i r s t year , nine in second year and one was u n c l a s s i f i e d . Several students d id not respond to the questions concerning academic and profess iona l concen- t ra t ions ind ica t ing that they had not yet made t h e i r cho ice . More than ha l f the students were in terested in teaching in the primary grades. Questions regarding f i r s t language, family language and community language were answered by a l l the j u n i o r students responding to the quest ionna i re . Thir teen students had Engl ish as t h e i r f i r s t language while seven students spoke a nat ive language f i r s t . Half the students indicated that t h e i r fami l ies spoke Engl ish a l l the t ime, while nine of twenty students indicated that the i r fami l ies spoke Engl ish only some of the time. One student indicated that his or her family rare ly or never spoke E n g l i s h . S l i g h t l y more than h a l f the students i d e n t i f i e d t h e i r home communities as speaking Engl ish only some of the time while the remainder i d e n t i f i e d t h e i r home communities as Eng l ish -speak ing . 79 Oral Expression In Student Teaching: Research Question Three The t h i r d research question in t h i s study asks: Which aspects o f oral expression do sponsor teachers and students ident i fy as concerns in the student teaching of NITEP students? Because oral language plays such an important part in the performance of the teaching r o l e , s ixteen items concerned with oral expression were included in the sponsor teacher and student teacher quest ionna i res . Sponsor teachers were asked to respond to the quest ionnaire in terms of the NITEP student or students whom they had supervised and student teachers were asked to think about t h e i r own oral language behavior , remembering any comments they might have received from those superv is ing them. The aspects of ora l language which were considered , and descr ip tors which became the items on the ques t ionna i re , are shown in Figure 3 (p. 46). The actual quest ionnaires sent to sponsor teachers and j u n i o r students appear in Appendix C. The degree of concern for each item was es tab l i shed using the same process as that used for the ins t ruc to r ques t ionna i res ; that i s , c a l c u l a t - ing numerical means and standard deviat ions from the sum of al 1 responses to any given item. The resu l t ing f igures were used to assign p r i o r i t y ranking to each item. The response columns in the table show the responses to each item and include a no answer category. Because the ranking of items is c o n t r o l l e d f i r s t by the means and, in the event o f a t i e , by the standard d e v i a t i o n s , the response f igures may not always fol low in the expected sequence. 80 Oral Expression in Student Teaching as Perceived by Sponsor Teachers Sixteen items having to do with ora l expression in student teaching were included in the sponsor teacher and student teacher ques t ionna i res . The items were designed to gather data from which to answer the t h i r d research quest ion: Which aspects o f ora l expression do sponsor teachers and students iden t i fy as concerns in the student teaching o f NITEP students? The items re la ted to oral language in student teaching were ranked using the same procedures as had been used in analyzing the data for research questions one and two. Accord ing ly , the responses were l i s t e d in rank order of concern as perceived by the respondent group (Table 1 0 ) . F i f t y - o n e of the 63 sponsor teachers responding to the quest ionnaire i d e n t i f i e d item 2 , projected voice s u f f i c i e n t l y for classroom needs, as being of concern. Its mean rat ing of 2 . 0 8 es tab l i shed i t as the f i r s t ranking concern of the sponsor teachers . Item 1, spoke d i s t i n c t l y and a r t i c u l a t e d sounds c l e a r l y , ranked second with a mean response of 2 . 0 5 - These two items, combined with item 3 , used voice e f f e c t i v e l y in various s i t u a t i o n s such as story t e l l i n g and g iv ing d i r e c t i o n s , which ranked eighth and was seen as being of some concern by kk of the respondents, combine to make up the aspect o f ora l expression c a l l e d qua l i t y and use of vo ice . The t h i r d and fourth ranked items o f concern to responding sponsor teachers were from the aspects of language having to do with interpersonal communication behavior and appropriate usage and d i a l e c t . Item 6 , spoke with conf idence, and item 1 0 , c o n t r o l l e d informal standard E n g l i s h , had 81 Table 10 Items in Oral Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Sponsor Teachers N = 63 Item Responses Rank No. Language descr ip to r 1 2 3 N/A Total X S orde 2 Projected vo ice s u f f i c i e n t l y 12 34 17 - 63 2 08 .68 1 1 Spoke d i s t i n c t l y , a r t i c u l a t e d 15 30 18 - 63 2 05 .73 2 c 1 ea r 1 y 6 Spoke with confidence 15 31 16 1 63 2 02 .71 3 10 Contro l led informal standard 15 31 15 2 63 2 00 .71 4 Engl ish 9 Demonstrated control of rhyme 13 33 12 5 63 1 98 .66 5 8 Rephrased information when 16 33 14 - 63 1 97 • 70 6 necessary 7 Showed breadth of vocabulary 17 33 13 - 63 1 94 .69 7 3 Used voice e f f e c t i v e l y 19 29 15 - 63 1 94 .74 8 15 Created scenes, moods 18 32 10 3 63 1 87 .68 9 13 Contro l led a l l speech sounds 17 31 8 7 63 1 84 .65 10 16 Used language e f f e c t i v e l y 21 34 8 - 63 79 .65 11 4 Used appropr iate nonverbal 25 28 6 4 63 1 68 .66 12 .. language 12 Chose appropr iate level of 31 28 4 - 63 1 57 .62 13 1 anguage 11 Recognized d i a l e c t a l d i f f e rences 37 18 4 4 63 1 44 .62 14- 5 Modelled good l i s t e n i n g 42 19 1 1 63 1 34 .51 15 14 Listened and responded 49 13 - 1 63 1 21 .41 16 S a t i s f a c t o r y or better Needed improvement Needed considerable improvement mean responses o f 2 . 0 2 and 2 . 0 0 . The other items which descr ibe these two aspects of language, however, ranked no higher than twe l f th . An aspect of ora l expression which more than 7Q% of the responding sponsor teachers indicated was of some concern was s e n s i t i v i t y to words and arrangement of words. Item 9 , demonstrated control o f rhyme and rhythm, item 8 , rephrased in format ion, and item 7 , showed breadth o f vocabulary, ranked f i f t h , s ix th and seventh even though t h e i r mean responses were 1 . 9 8 , 1 . 9 7 and 1 . 9 4 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Oral Expression in Student Teaching as Perceived by Junior Students Junior s tudents , those pr imar i ly concerned with student teach ing , did not ident i fy any items of ora l expression with a mean ranking of greater than 1 . 9 5 (Table 1 1 ) . The items ranked f i r s t and second were number 7 , the use of in te res t ing and var ied vocabulary, and number 9 , the a b i l i t y to control rhythm and rhyme as in poetry and rhyming e x e r c i s e s . These items were perceived as needing improvement by 1 7 and 1 5 of the responding students r e s p e c t i v e l y . Summary The items in ora l expression i d e n t i f i e d as being of most concern to sponsor teachers were not i d e n t i f i e d as concerns by the majority o f students responding to the student teaching quest ionna i re . Items 1 and 2 , the items concerning q u a l i t y and use of v o i c e , and o f prime concern to the sponsor teachers , were ranked tenth and fourteenth on the student 83 Table 11 I terns in Oral Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Junior Students N = 20 Item Rank no. Language descr ip to r 1 2 3 N/A Total X S orde 7 Showed Breadth of vocabulary 3 15 2 20 1 .95 .51 1 9 Demonstrated control of rhyme and 5 12 3 — 20 1.90 .64 2 rhythm 13 Contro l led speech sounds 6 1 1 3 - 20 1.85 .67 3 10 Contro l led informal standard 6 12 2 — 20 1 . 80 .62 4 Eng1i sh 6 Spoke with confidence 7 10 3 20 1 . 80 .70 5 16 Used language e f f e c t i v e l y fn 91 10 1 - 20 1 .60 .60 6 i nteract ion 4 Used appropr ia te nonverbal language^ 1 1 - 1 20 1 .58 • 51 7 3 Used vo ice e f f e c t i v e l y 10 1.0 - - 20 1 .50 .51 8 15 Created scenes, moods 10 10 - - 20 1 .50 .51 8 1 Spoke d i s t i n c t l y 11 8 1 - 20 1 .50 .61 10 8 Rephrased information when 11 8 1 - 20 1 .50 .61 10 necessary 5 Modelled good l i s t e n i n g 14 4 2 - 20 1 .40 .68 12 11 Understood d i a l e c t a l d i f f e rences 13 7 - - 20 1 .35 .49 13 2 Projected vo ice s u f f i e n t l y 14 5 1 - 20 1 .35 .59 14 12 Chose appropr iate level of 14 5 1 - 20 1 .35 .59 14 1 anguage 14 Listened and responded 16 2 1 1 20 1 .21 .54 16 appropr i a t e l y S a t i s f a c t o r y or better Needed improvement Needed considerable improvement 8k l i s t and i d e n t i f i e d as needing improvement by only nine and s i x of the twenty students r e s p e c t i v e l y . Obv ious ly , there were considerable d i f f e r - ences in the perceptions of the two groups with regard to items 1 and 2. Two items about which sponsor teachers and student teachers appeared to hold s i m i l a r rather than d i f f e ren t perceptions were item 10, the control of standard E n g l i s h , ranked fourth by approximately 70% of both groups, and item 6, the a b i l i t y to speak with conf idence , ranked t h i r d by 75% o f the sponsor teachers responding to the quest ionnaire and f i f t h by 65% of the j u n i o r students responding. Agreement between sponsor teachers and student teachers was a lso evident in those items ranked lowest by both groups. Two of the items, numbers 11 and 12, re lated to appropriate usage and d i a l e c t . I tern 11, the a b i l i t y to recognize d i a l e c t a l d i f fe rences in o thers ' language, was ranked fourteenth by sponsor teachers and th i r teenth by students. Item 12, the a b i l i t y to choose the level of language appropriate to a s i t u a t i o n , was ranked th i r teenth by sponsor teachers and fourteenth by students . A t h i r d item, l i s t e n i n g a t t e n t i v e l y and responding a p p r o p r i a t e l y , was i d e n t i f i e d with a mean response o f 1.21 by both groups. Inasmuch as the data suggest that sponsor teachers o f NITEP students and NITEP students are f requent ly in agreement regarding the s tudents ' use o f oral expression in the teaching s i t u a t i o n , those aspects o f language about which t h e i r perceptions o f need d i f f e r take on an added s i g n i f i c a n c e . The sponsor teachers ' evident concern regarding the students ' q u a l i t y and use of voice in the classroom, and the students ' lack o f concern about th is matter, are in d i rec t cont ras t . It is i n t e r e s t i n g to note that while the students ' percept ion of need regarding vocabulary is not seen as a prime need by sponsor teachers , sponsor teacher response supports the 85 students ' perception that there is some need of improvement in t h i s aspect o f ora l express ion . Oral expression in student teaching as perceived by students with Engl ish as a second language. When the data from the j u n i o r student quest ionnaires were analyzed taking f i r s t language into account, i t was found that students with Engl ish as a f i r s t language i d e n t i f i e d item 13, control of speech sounds as necessary for a phonics program, as needing improvement. Item 7 , uses i n t e r e s t i n g , var ied vocabulary , and item 9 , demonstrates control of rhythm and rhyme as in poetry and rhyming e x e r c i s e s , were i d e n t i f i e d as needing improvement by s i x of the seven Eng l ish^ students responding to the j u n i o r student quest ionna i re . It is in te res t ing that the responses from the Eng l ish^ students in the j u n i o r student group d i f f e r e d so l i t t l e from those of the Engl ish^ s tudents , e s p e c i a l l y in l i gh t of the marked d i f fe rences between Engl ish^ and Engl ish^ senior students with regard to oral expression in academic coursework. Written Expression in Student Teaching: Research Question Four The fourth research question in th is study asked: Which aspects o f wr i t ten expression do sponsor teachers and students ident i fy as concerns in the student teaching o f NITEP students? Since oppor tun i t ies for student teachers to demonstrate c a p a b i l i t i e s in wr i t ten expression may be l im i ted by factors such as grade l e v e l , shortage of blackboard space, or the use of commercial ly-prepared m a t e r i a l s , only e ight items r e l a t i n g to wr i t ten expression were included on the student teaching vers ion of the 86 quest ionnaire (Appendix C). The aspects of wr i t ten expression and the d e s c r i p t i v e items for wr i t ten expression in student teaching appear in Figure k, p. hj. Written Expression in Student Teaching as Perceived by Sponsor Teachers In response to eight items descr ib ing wr i t ten expression in student teach ing , sponsor teachers accorded mean rat ings o f no higher than 1 . 8 8 to any item (Table 1 2 ) . Since th is is somewhat lower than the 2 . 0 0 which has general ly been adopted as an ind ica to r o f need in th is study, i t would appear that wr i t ten expression in NITEP student teaching is not a matter o f concern to sponsor teachers . However, 'it should be noted that item 8 , the a b i l i t y to use grammatical terms appropr ia te ly in t a l k i n g about w r i t i n g , and item 7 , the a b i l i t y to make f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in vocabulary, were i d e n t i f i e d as being of some concern to more than 60% of the teachers responding to the quest ionna i re . Mean responses o f 1 . 8 8 and 1 . 8 5 suggest that these items are not seen as matters of p a r t i c u l a r concern at th is time. Written Expression in Student Teaching as Perceived by Junior Students Junior s tudents , those NITEP students presumably most concerned with student teaching s ince they spend a large proport ion of t h e i r time in teaching p r a c t i c a , i d e n t i f i e d one item of wr i t ten expression as a matter of concern (Table 1 3 ) - This item, number 8 , the a b i l i t y to use grammatical 87 Table 12 I terns in Written Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Sponsor Teachers N = 63 Item Responses^ _ R a n | < no. Language descr ip to r 1 2 3 N/A Total x S order 8 Used grammatical terms appropr ia te ly 18 29 11 5 63 1 .88 .70 1 7 Made f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in vocabulary 17 33 8 5 63 1 .85 .64 2 6 Used s t y l e appropriate to note making 18 24 6 15 63 1 • 75 • 67 3 4 Used common abbreviat ions c o r r e c t l y 25 25 5 8 63 1 • 73 • 72 4 5 Gave simple d i rec t ions cl ea r ly 25 29 6 3 63 1 .68 .65 5 2 Punctuated and cap i ta l zed c o r r e c t l y 31 25 6 1 63 1 .60 .66 6 1 Spel 1 ed cor rect i y 31 27 5 - 63 1 •59 .64 7 3 Proofread mater ia ls 38 17 9 4 63 1 • 31 .47 8 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 considerable improvement Table 13 Items in Written Expression Ranked as Perceived Concerns by Jun ior Students N = 20 1 tern Responses 3 Rank no. Language descr ip to r 1 2 3 N/A Total X S order 8 Used grammatical terms appropr ia te ly 2 16 2 - 20 2 .00 • .46 1 7 Made f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in vocabulary 7 11 2 - 20 1 • 75 .64 2 3 Proofread mater ia ls 8 12 - - 20 1 .60 .50 3 6 Used s ty le - appropriate to-.note making 9 9 1 1 20 1 .58 .61 4 2 Punctuated and c a p i t a l i z e d c o r r e c t l y 14 3 3 - 20 1 .45 • 76 5 4 Used common abbreviat ions c o r r e c t l y 14 4 2 - 20 1 .40 .68 6 1 Spel led c o r r e c t l y 14 5 1 - 20 1 .35 .59 7 5 Gave simple d i r e c t i o n s c l e a r l y 16 4 - - 20 1 .20 .41 8 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 considerable improvement 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 as a concern by 18 of the 20 students responding to the quest ionna i re . Other items which were i d e n t i f i e d as being of some concern to more than h a l f the students but which did not have a mean rat ing of 2.00 or g rea ter , were item 7 , the a b i l i t y to make f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in vocabulary, and item 3 , the a b i l i t y to proofread mater ia ls e f fec t i v e l y . Summary Although NITEP students ' wr i t ten expression in the teaching s i t u a t i o n does not appear to be a matter of prime concern at th is t ime, i t should not be overlooked that both sponsor teachers and student teachers ranked item 8 , the a b i l i t y to use grammatical terms appropr ia te ly and item 7 , the a b i l i t y to make f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in vocabulary , f i r s t and second. Analys is of the data concerning wr i t ten expression from the perspec- t i v e of Engl ish as a f i r s t or second language revealed no d i f fe rences in the j u n i o r students' perceptions of t h e i r performance in wr i t ten expres- s i o n . Selected Competencies in Teaching Language A r t s : Research Question Five Because student teaching is a major emphasis in the f i r s t two years of NITEP, and language arts dominates the elementary school cur r icu lum, the dec is ion was made to include items concerning language arts teaching competencies in the quest ionnaires developed to consider student teaching (Appendix C). Sixteen items representing s p e c i f i c teaching competencies 89 were designed to answer the f i f t h research ques t ion : What s p e c i f i c competencies in teaching language arts do sponsor teachers and student teachers ident i fy as needing improvement? The data were t reated exact ly the same as the data c o l l e c t e d from those parts o f the quest ionnai re having to do with ora l and wr i t ten express ion . Teaching competencies were ranked in order o f perceived concern derived from the mean response and standard deviat ion ca lcu la ted for each item. In addi t ion to the rankings, the numerical means and the standard d e v i a t i o n s , the tables include a breakdown of the to ta l responses to each item inc luding a no-answer column (Tables 14 and 15). Language Arts Teaching Competencies in Student Teaching as Perceived by Sponsor Teachers Seventy percent or more o f the responding sponsor teachers i d e n t i f i e d f i ve teaching competencies as being o f some concern, ass igning a mean response o f 2 . 0 0 or greater to three o f them (Table 14). The f i r s t ranked concern, i d e n t i f i e d as such by 49 o f the 63 respondents, had to do with the student teacher 's 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 . This item had a mean response o f 2 . 0 8 . The second . ranked item, the a b i l i t y to model correct pronunciat ion and speech patterns was i d e n t i f i e d as a concern by more sponsor teachers , 51 of those responding, but received a mean rat ing of 2 . 0 5 - Item 5 , the competency having to do with quest ioning s k i l l s , was ranked t h i r d because o f a mean rat ing of 2 . 0 0 . The fourth and f i f t h ranked items, demonstrating f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s language background, and the a b i l i t y to give c l e a r , sequenced i n s t r u c t i o n s , received lower means o f 1 .95 and .1 .92 r e s p e c t i v e l y . They were i d e n t i f i e d as matters o f concern, Table 1 4 Teaching Competencies Ranked as Concerns by Sponsor Teachers N = 63 I tern number Descri ptor Responses N/A Total Rank order 4 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 11 3 3 1 6 3 63 2 . 0 8 . 6 7 1 6 Models correct pronunciat ion and speech patterns 1 2 36 1 5 - 63 2 . 0 5 . 6 6 2 5 Shows a b i l i t y to use d i f f e r e n t l eve ls of questions 1 5 32 1 5 1 63 2 . 0 0 • 7 0 3 7 Demonstrates-fami 1 i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s language background 1 6 31 13 3 63 1 • 9 5 • 7 0 4 2 Gave c l e a r , sequenced i n s t r u c t i o n s 1 4 4 0 9 - 63 1 . 9 2 . 6 0 5 1 6 Designs and moderates group or c lass d iscussion 2 3 2 8 1 1 1 63 1 . 8 1 . 7 2 6 3 Reads aloud with expression and enjoyment 2 5 27 1 1 - 63 1 • 7 8 • 7 3 7 13 . Demonstrates a b i l i t y to assess and evaluate student 's progress 2 3 2 9 9 2 63 1 • 7 7 . 6 9 8 1 5 Involves ch i ldren 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 arts usage 2 1 3 5 4 3 63 1 • 72 • 5 9 9 1 2 Constructs useful charts and other learning aids . 27 2 8 7 1 63 1 . 6 8 • 6 7 1 0 1 1 Uses media such as photographs, models, f i l m s , e t c . 2 9 2 6 4 2 63 1 . 3 9 . 6 2 11 1 4 Demonstrates abi 1 i ty -to • incorporate c h i l d r e n ' s in te res ts in lessons 30 2 5 4 4 63 1 . 5 6 . 6 2 1 2 9 Understands and uses teaching manuals 36 23 3 1 63 1 . 4 7 . 5 9 1 3 1 0 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 center 3 7 2 1 4 1 63 1 • 4 7 . 6 2 1 4 1 Pr in ts and wri tes adequately on chalk board 4 2 2 1 - - 63 1 • 3 3 . 4 8 1 5 8 Models good l i s t e n i n g behavior 4 8 1 2 2 1 63 1 . 2 6 . 5 1 1 6 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 considerable improvement Table 15 Teaching Competencies Ranked as Concerns by Junior Students N = 20 1 tern Responses 3 Rank n umb e r Descri ptor 1 2 3 N/A Total X S order 7 Demonstrates fami1 ia r i ty with c h i l d r e n ' s language background 2 13 5 20 2 .15 .59 1 4 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 3 15 2 20 1 • 95 .51 2 13 Demonstrates ab i1 i t y to assess and evaluate student progress 6 13 1 20 1 • 75 .55 3 11 Uses media such as photographs, models, f i l m s , e tc . 9 8 3 20 1 • 70 • 73 4 15 Involves ch i ldren in a c t i v i t i e s showing in te r re la ted - ness of language arts 8 11 1 20 1 .65 .59 5 12 Constructs useful charts and other learning aids 9 9 2 20 1 .65 .67 6 5 Shows a b i l i t y to use d i f f e r e n t l eve ls of questions 9 11 - 20 1 .56 • 51 7 10 Demonstrates knowledge o f , and a b i l i t y to use the 14 1 ibrary or resource center 10 10 - 20 1 .50 • 51 8 Demonstrates a b i l i t y to incorporate c h i l d r e n ' s in terest in lessons 11 8 1 20 1 • 50 .61 9 6 Models correct pronunciat ion and speech patterns 11 9 - 20 1 .45 .51 10 2 Gave c l e a r , sequenced ins t ruc t ions 11 9 - 20 1 .45 .51 10 16 Designs and moderates group o r c lass d iscussion 12 7 1 20 1 .45 .61 12 1 Pr in ts and wri tes adequately on chalk board 13 6 1 20 1 .40 .60 13 3 Reads aloud with expression and enjoyment 14 6 - 20 1 • 30 .47 14 9 Understands and uses teaching manuals appropr iate ly 15 4 1 20 1 .30 .51 15 8 Models good 1 istening behavior 18 2 — 20 1 .10 .31 16 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 considerable improvement however, to kk and hS of those responding. 92 Language Arts Teaching Competencies in Student Teaching as Perceived by Junior Students Junior s tudents , those students in the NITEP most concerned with student teach ing , assigned only the f i r s t ranked teaching competency a mean rat ing over 2 . 0 0 (Table 1 5 ) ; that i s , ninety percent of the respond- ing students reg is tered concern about item 7 , demonstrating f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s language background. Moreover, i t had a mean ra t ing of 2 . 1 5 . The second ranked item, according to responses from j u n i o r s tudents , was number k, demonstrating 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 . E i g h t y - f i v e percent of the students i d e n t i f i e d the item as being of concern, although the item had a mean response of only 1 .95 - Item 1 3 , the a b i l i t y to assess and evaluate student p rogress , was i d e n t i f i e d as a concern by seventy percent o f the respondents but received a mean rat ing of 1 .75 - Four other teaching competencies were i d e n t i f i e d as causing concern by more than h a l f the responding students , but the degree o f concern, as indicated by the mean response o f the j u n i o r students respond- ing to the ques t ionna i re , d id not exceed a mean response of 1 . 7 0 . These items had to do with a b i l i t i e s in the fo l low ing : use of media such as photographs, models, f i l m s ; invo lv ing ch i ldren in a c t i v i t i e s showing in terre la tedness of language a r t s ; construct ion of useful charts and other learning a i d s ; quest ioning s k i l l s . Certa in teaching competencies were i d e n t i f i e d as being of concern to fewer than one t h i r d of the responding s tudents . Item 3 , reads aloud with expression and enjoyment, item 9 , understands and uses teaching 93 manuals a p p r o p r i a t e l y , and item 8, models good l i s t e n i n g behavior , ranked four teenth , f i f t e e n t h and s ixteenth r e s p e c t i v e l y . The las t mentioned, item 8, was i d e n t i f i e d as a matter of concern by only 2 of the students responding to the teaching competencies. Summary Sponsor teachers and j u n i o r students appeared to be in accord with regard to concerns about the NITEP student teachers ' f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s 1anguage background and c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e . Item k, demon- s t r a t i n g 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 , was ranked f i r s t by sponsor teachers and second by j u n i o r s tudents . Item 7, demonstrates f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s language background, was ranked f i r s t by j u n i o r students and fourth by sponsor teachers. It would appear, however, that sponsor teachers and j u n i o r students did not hold s i m i l a r opinions about other items descr ib ing s p e c i f i c teaching competencies. For example, sponsor teachers ranked item 6, models correct pronunciat ion and speech pa t te rns , second on the l i s t o f sixteen competencies while j u n i o r students ranked the same item tenth . Other items about which they did not seem to be in agreement were the a b i l i t y to give c l e a r , sequenced i n s t r u c t i o n s , ranked f i f t h by teachers and tenth by students , the ab i1 i ty to design and moderate c lass d i s c u s s i o n , ranked s ix th by teachers and twelf th by students , and the a b i l i t y to read aloud with expression and enjoyment, ranked s ix th by sponsor teachers and fourteenth by student teachers . Items which seemed to concern j u n i o r students more than sponsor teachers , at least in terms of the rankings, were items 11, the a b i l i t y Sh to use media, and item 1 0 , knowledgeabi1 i ty about the l i b r a r y or resource center . I terns about which sponsor teachers and j u n i o r students seemed to hold s i m i l a r views were item 5 , shows a b i l i t y to use d i f f e r e n t l eve ls of quest ions , item 1 3 , demonstrates a b i l i t y to assess and evaluate s tudents ' progress, and item 8 , models good l i s t e n i n g behavior . The f i r s t two items were ranked, in o rder , t h i r d and eighth by sponsor teachers , and seventh and t h i r d by j u n i o r students. The t h i r d item, modell ing good l i s t e n i n g behavior was ranked las t by both groups. Teaching competencies in student teaching of language arts as perceived by j u n i o r students with Engl ish as a second language. The ana lys is of data concerning s p e c i f i c teaching competencies in language arts consider ing the f i r s t language var iab le resul ted in l i t t l e new informat ion. Responses from those students i d e n t i f y i n g themselves as speakers of Engl ish as a f i r s t language p a r a l l e l e d those reported in Table 2 0 , d i f f e r i n g only in the s i z e o f the mean responses. For example, the f i r s t ranked item 7 , f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s language background, reg is tered a mean response of 2 . 0 0 instead of 2 . 1 5 , while item k, 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 had a mean response of 1.92 fo r Engl ish as a f i r s t language speakers as compared with 1 .95 for those who spoke Engl ish as a second language. A l l students for whom English.was a second language i d e n t i f i e d item 7 , demonstrates f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s language background, as being of concern. In a d d i t i o n , they responded to item 4 , f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s 1 i t e ra ture by ass igning i t a mean response of 2 . 0 0 . It would appear that the f i r s t language var iab le is not a fac tor which obviously d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between E n g l i s h , and E n g l i s h , j u n i o r students when they are doing t h e i r student teaching. Comments from the Questionnaires Several oppor tun i t ies were included in the quest ionnaires for p a r t i c i p a n t s to e laborate on t h e i r responses to s p e c i f i c items or to make general comments. Comments from the quest ionnaires considered p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant to an in te rpre ta t ion o f the data , or the ensuing d iscuss ion w i l l be c i t e d in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 w i l l contain a summary of the f ind ings o f th is study, together with conclusions on the bas is o f the information and data presented. In a d d i t i o n , recommendations for fur ther study w i l l be presented. 96 CHAPTER F TVE SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study was designed to consider the questions of Engl ish competency and the potent ia l for i t s development wi thin NITEP, the Natfve Indian Teacher Education Program in the Faculty of Educat ion, Un ive rs i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Since student competency in Engl ish has ranked as a matter of concern throughout u n i v e r s i t y communities increas ing ly during recent years , and internal and external evaluat ions of NITEPhave s ingled out c e r t a i n problems in the program re la ted to E n g l i s h , a review of the present s i t u a t i o n regarding Engl ish and language ar ts in NITEP seemed timely and worthwhile. Needs assessment, a process which: can be adapted to focus on one aspect of a program in order to locate s p e c i f i c areas of concern, seemed to o f fe r a ra t iona l approach to the problem. The intent of th is process is to ident i fy 1earners' needs- -d iscrepanc Tes between the ideal and the status quo learning s i tua t ion—and to e s t a b l i s h p r i o r i t y amongst the revealed needs, involv ing as many relevant persons as p o s s i b l e . Because there was l i t t l e usable data a v a i l a b l e from which to draw conclusions concerning NITEP students 1 , competency, and tes t ing was impract ical at th is t ime, an a l t e r n a t i v e was sought. This researcher bel ieved that program p a r t i c i p a n t s in NITEP would have f a i r l y f i rm percept ions of NITEP students ' Engl ish competency and an adequate sampling of these percept ions would be useful in determining the needs of students. The dec is ion was taken to design a quest ionnaire which would encourage 97 part ic ipants; , to ind icate the i r percept ion of NITEP students ' Engl ish competency in such a way that the data could Be quant i f i ed and ranked in p r i o r i t y of perceived need. Covering l e t t e r s , quest ionnaires and stamped addressed envelopes were sent to people who had been involved with the program since 1977 and for whom addresses were a v a i l a b l e . Returns representing 69% of the tota l sample to whom quest ionnaires were mailed were subsequently analyzed. The quest ionnai re r e s u l t s were presented in text and tables in Chapter h of th is study. The in terpre ta tTon, impl ica t ions and recommen- dat ions a r i s i n g from the data are presented here wi th in the context of the research quest Tons which were addressed by th is needs assessment. F indings of the Research Questions The needs assessment process in th is study addressed f i v e research questions through two quest ionna i res ! one concerned with NITEP students pr imar i ly involved with u n i v e r s i t y coursework, and the second concerned with NITEP students who are pr imar i ly involved in student teaching. Items designed to e l i c i t data for the purpose of answering Research Questions One and Two were asked of c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y ins t ruc tors who were present ly teaching or had taught in NITEP, and senior students in the th i rd and fourth year of the program. S i m i l a r l y , items were designed to c o l l e c t answers to Research Questions Three, Four and Five from sponsor teachers now or recent ly involved in the superv is ion of NITEP students, and from jun ior students in the f i r s t or second year of the program. 98 Responses to Research Questions One and Two indicated that although ins t ruc tors i d e n t i f i e d more s k i l l s in ora l and wr i t ten express ion which needed improvement than did s tudents , for the most part the two groups' perceptions of needs appeared to be s i m i l a r . On the other hand,, the resu l ts o f the quest ionnaire d i rec ted to answer- ing Research Question Three found that sponsor teachers and j u n i o r students d i f f e r e d considerably in t h e i r perception of an important aspect o f the student teachers ' performance in ora l express ion . Sponsor teachers per- ceived a real need in the area o f qua l i t y and use o f voice whi le student teachers reg is tered 1 i t t 1 e concern about th is aspect of ora l express ion . Research Question Four, designed to consider wr i t ten expression in student teaching p r a c t i c e , revealed that both sponsor teachers and j u n i o r students were in agreement that wr i t ten expression presented no real concerns. Research Q u e s t i o n F i v e found that sponsor teachers and student teachers i d e n t i f i e d some important common concerns about problems re la ted to the teaching o f language arts but once again d i f f e r e d in t h e i r percept ion concerning teaching competencies involv ing the qua l i ty and use of vo ice . Summary of the Findings and The i r Implications Research Question One Which aspects o f ora l expression do ins t ruc tors and students ident i fy as concerns in the un ivers i ty coursework of un ivers i ty students? Eight items descr ib ing aspects of ora l expression were i d e n t i f i e d by ins t ructors and sen ior students as concerns. Three of the items represent 99 a concern common to ins t ruc tors and students, four of the items: were only i d e n t i f i e d by ins t ruc tors and one item was seen as a concern only by students (Tables 16 and 17). Ta&le 16 Summary of Items in Oral Expression Ident i f ied as Needing Improvements by Both Inst ructors and Senior Students Based on Tables 3 and k. I tern Descr iptor 8. Showed awareness of f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s in vocabulary 7, Showed breadth of vocabulary 10. Contro l led standard Engl ish a Needing improvement represents a mean response of 2.00 or greater on the part of the ins t ruc tors and a major i ty of responses ind ica t ing a need for improvement on the part of the students. In viewing expressed needs of th i rd and fourth year students it is important to remember that few oppor tun i t i es ex is t for NITEP planners or d i r e c t o r s to inf luence or control the educational experiences of th i rd and fourth year NITEP students. At the present t ime, only the f i r s t two years of NITEP lend themselves to change because the present s t ruc ture of the program integrates th i rd and fourth year students into the main-stream of the u n i v e r s i t y and away from d i r e c t involvement with NITEP. Therefore , the ch ie f value of these f ind ings is in the impl icat ions they present with regard to f i r s t and second year students. For example, i t should be poss ib le to e s t a b l i s h whether or not there are courses or support serv ices in f i r s t or second year which might address d e f i c i e n c i e s such as those i d e n t i f i e d in Table 16. Since both ins t ruc tors and students share the same concerns, such a process should not Be d i f f i c u l t . It might be more d i f f i c u l t tO' in terest students in concerning themselves with s k i l l s 100 Tdent ff i ed as concerns only by ins t ruc tors such as those 1 isted in Table 17 Table 17 Summary of Items in Oral Expression Ident i f ied as Needing Improvement3 by 1nstructors Only Based on Tables 3 and 4. 1 tern Descr i ptor 15 . Contro l led main ideas 13, Asked useful questions- 14. Supported op in ions 15 . Organized ideas coherent ly Needing improvement represents a mean response of 2 . 0 0 or greater on the part of the i n s t r u c t o r s . Reviewing the NITEP program from the point of view of student oppor- t u n i t i e s to learn and p r a c t i c e the s k i l l s of oral composition ra ises some in te res t ing quest ions . Do c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y ins t ruc tors accept the stereotype of q u i e t , shy nat ive students and therefore not press these student to perform well in ora l expression? Do students re in fo rce the stereotype by not putt ing themselves forward in c l a s s and avoiding oral assignments? One senior student reported that her ora l expression was d i f f i c u l t to assess s ince her "oral con t r ibu t ion in c l a s s was minimal" . A l s o , i f ins t ruc tors f ind the i r students inadequate in some areas of ora l express ion , are they l i k e l y to g ive the time necessary for the ins t ruc t ion required to improve the s i t u a t i o n ? Are they not more l i k e l y to simply change the i r ins t ruc t iona l s t ra teg ies to avoid the areas in which the students are not cont r ibu t ing at the expected leve l? One ins t ruc tor commented on the quest ionnaire 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 , while another reported that nei ther debates nor s imulat ion 101 games worked w e l l . It may not Be unreasonable to assume that such a c t i v i t i e s were abandoned rather than g iv ing c l a s s time for i n s t r u c t i o n which might make them work. Only one item, the use of e f f e c t i v e imagery, was i d e n t i f i e d as needing improvement By students and not by i n s t r u c t o r s . In the view of th is researcher , the wording of t h i s item may have d ic ta ted the response, and s ince the item was re lated to the genera l ly accepted concern aBout vocabu- la ry , the concern w i l l be included in that d i s c u s s i o n . Research" Quest ion "Two Which aspects of wr i t ten expression do ins t ruc tors and students iden t i fy as concerns in the u n i v e r s i t y coursework of NITEP students? Research Question Two es tab l ished that although senior students did not perceive as many needs in wr i t ten express ion , they seemed to agree with the ins t ruc tors that wr i t ten expression is an area of NITEP student performance which needs improvement, The concerns about which ins t ruc tors and students shared s im i la r percept ions are shown in Table 18. Three of the items about which both ins t ruc tors and sen ior students were concerned, numbers 21, 3 and 15, re late to essay w r i t i n g . These f indings concerning wri t ten expression suggest that both students and ins t ructors recognize that developing and improving s k i l l s in essay wr i t ing would be worthwhile. The program cannot do much to improve the s i t u a t i o n for the sen ior students but can make s i g n i f i c a n t change insofar as j u n i o r students are concerned. It might be worthwhile to provide 102 Table 18 Summary of items in Written Expression i d e n t i f i e d as Needing Improvement3 by both ins t ruc tors and Senior Students Based on Tables 6 and 7- 1 tern Descr iptor 21 . Organized essays e f f e c t i v e l y 1 1 . Used grammatical terms c o r r e c t l y 3. Proofread e f f e c t i v e l y 9. Created moods, impressions with words 15. Selected essent ia l d e t a i l s 3 Needing improvement represents a mean response of 2.00 or greater on the part of the ins t ruc tors and a majority of responses ind ica t ing a need on the part of the students . oppor tun i t ies for senior students to share with j u n i o r students the need to prepare themselves for the r igours o f academic coursework, p a r t i c u l a r l y essay w r i t i n g . Opportuni t ies for such communicat ion might come about during the annual "Or ien ta t ion" v i s i t to campus or through the regular exchange of newsletters from center to center . Although ins t ruc tors may repeatedly point out the need for improving one's essay wr i t ing s k i l l s , the advice of other students is more l i k e l y to be heeded, and to provide the motivat ion needed to tack le the number of s k i l l s required for e f f e c t i v e essay w r i t i n g . Since sen ior students appear to have a f a i r l y r e a l i s t i c idea of t h e i r need for improvement in wr i t ten express ion , i t seems reasonable to assume that in the "community" s p i r i t of NITEP they would be wi11ing to share t h e i r perceptions and observat ions . Although sen ior students and ins t ruc tors shared a general perception of need in wr i t ten express ion , ins t ruc tors alone i d e n t i f i e d several s k i l l s that needed improvement. These s k i l l s are l i s t e d in Table 19. 103 Table 19 Summary of Items in Written Expression Ident i f i ed as Needing Improvement3 by Instructors Only Based on Tables 6 and 7. 1 tern Descri ptor 10. Made f ine d i s t i n c t i o n s in vocabulary 4. Used mechanics of scho larsh ip 22. Showed coherence and unity of ideas 13- Displayed f luency in ideas 14. Responded to readings percept ive ly 1. S p e l l e d , c a p i t a l i z e d , punctuated c o r r e c t l y 2. Contro l led mechanics of quotation 17. Adjusted tone for audience 7. Varied sentence length 20. Summarized and paraphrased readings 5. Gave b a s i c information c l e a r l y 19. Supported viewpoint with d e t a i l s Needs improvement represents a mean response of 2.00 or greater on the part of the i n s t r u c t o r s . The concerns i d e n t i f i e d by ins t ruc tors only appeared to center almost e n t i r e l y on the s k i l l s necessary for successfu l exposi tory essay w r i t i n g . Since th is is not only the primary mode of wr i t ten expression in un ive rs i ty c lasses but is probably a lso one of the important veh ic les for student eva lua t ion , i t is not s u r p r i s i n g that ins t ruc tors would be most concerned about th is p a r t i c u l a r form of wr i t ten express ion . The concerns apparent in the response patterns of the ins t ruc tors implied i n s u f f i c i e n t control of the conventions of format, an inadequate vocabulary , a weakness in 104 i n t e r n a l i z i n g and expressing new ideas , and recognizable d i f f i c u l t i e s in the composing of exposi t ion and argument. Since these s k i l l s are r e q u i s i t e in essay w r i t i n g , and, as pointed out by Conry and Rodgers (1978) , the secondary schools have not always provided the necessary i n s t r u c t i o n to enable most students to master these s k i l l s , what can NITEP do to provide i ts students with th is capabi1 i ty? Again , remembering that few oppor tun i t ies e x i s t to change the t h i r d and fourth years of NITEP, and that general un ivers i ty p o l i c y does not support the teaching of remedial Engl ish as a recognized part of a un ive rs i ty educat ion , the problem for program planners in NITEP becomes twofold. F i r s t l y , they must ensure ear ly i d e n t i f i c a t ion and help for those students who meet the c r i t e r i a for acceptance into the program but are d e f i c i e n t in E n g l i s h . Secondly, they must determine ways in which to ensure that prov is ions are made to help a l l students who want to improve in such s k i l l s in using the mechanics of scho la rsh ip or summarizing and paraphrasing readings. Conry and Rodgers (1978) suggested, a f te r f ind ing ser ious weaknesses in twelf th grade wr i t ing in t h e i r province-wide assessment of wr i t ten express ion , that nothing would change unless students received ins t ruc t ion in p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l s and then had oppor tun i t ies to wr i te in s i tua t ions geared to improve w r i t i n g . They fur ther suggested that students would benef i t from teaching s t ra teg ies such as p re -wr i t ing and student e d i t i n g groups. These suggestions have i n t e r e s t i n g impl icat ions for the NITEP program s ince i t is e n t i r e l y poss ib le that some of those 1978 grade twelve students are present ly in NITEP. One. in te res t ing s i del ight on the data regarding ora l and wr i t ten expression in un ivers i ty coursework came from analyzing the responses of those students who i d e n t i f i e d themselves as speakers of Engl ish as a second language. Unfortunately the s i z e of 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 observat ions appear to be in order . Compared with the student group as a whole, Engl ish^ students indicated more concern about aspects of t h e i r Engl ish competency than did Engl ish^ students. In several cases the E n g l i s l ^ students echoed the responses of the i n s t r u c t o r s . Since NITEP is opening amore nor ther ly center next year , th is quest ion .o f Engl ish as a second language may be important and should be addressed in the p lanning. Research Question Three Which aspects of ora l expression do sponsor teachers and students ident i fy as concerns in the student teaching of NITEP students? Responses gathered to answer Research Question Three found that sponsor teachers and j u n i o r students perceived a d i f f e ren t p r i o r i t y o f needs with regard to NITEP students performing in t h e i r role as student teachers . The sponsor teachers who responded to the quest ionnaires saw the q u a l i t y and use of voice as the prime aspect of ora l expression requir ing improvement, whereas j u n i o r students were concerned about needs in the areas of vocabulary development and the control of rhyme and rhythm in speech (Table 20 and 21). Since the e f f e c t i v e and appropriate use of the voice can be an important fac tor in successfu l teach ing , the fact that sponsor teachers ranked th is aspect of oral expression as t h e i r prime concern whi le student teachers did not, cannot be ignored. If NITEP students perceive t h e i r use and qua l i ty of voice as s a t i s f a c t o r y , i t may be d i f f i c u l t for ins t ruc tors in student teaching seminars or in speech arts c lasses to motivate students to 106 Table 20 Summary of Items in Oral Expression Ident i f i ed as Needing 1mp rovement 3 by Sponsor Teachers Only Based on Tables 10 and 11. Item Descr iptor 2. Projected voice s u f f i c i e n t l y 1. Spoke d i s t i n c t l y , a r t i c u l a t e d c l e a r l y aNeeds improvement represents a mean response of 2.00 or of the i n s t r u c t o r s . greater on the part Table 21 Summary of Items in Oral Expression Ident i f ied as Needing 1mprovement3 by Junior Students Only Based on Tables 10 and 11. Item Descr ip tor 7- Showed breadth of vocabulary 9. Demonstrated control of rhyme and rhyth m a Although items 7 and 9 were not accorded means of 2.00 or greater by the students , they are l i s t e d here because 15 of the 20 students indicated a need for improvement in these areas. improve these s k i l l s . Since real improvement in pro jec t ion and a r t i c u l a t i o n r e l i e s on considerable p r a c t i c e , lack of strong motivation could be an important block to const ruct ive change. Factors which might be at work in th is question of qua l i ty and use of voice include the prev iously discussed matter of the teacher 's perception that a majority cu l ture voice is best for the classroom. On the other hand, i t may r e f l e c t a general acceptance of the s t e r e o t y p i c a l idea tha t , in the words of one teacher responding to the quest ionna i re , "By nature most 107 Natives are qui te shy and qu ie 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 over ly p ro tec t ive of the fee l ings of t h e i r nat ive Indian student teachers , and are therefore reluctant to comment f ree ly on such personal matters as voice pro ject ion and a r t i c u l a t i o n . If th is is so i t would not be the f i r s t time that members o f a minori ty group have been impeded by good in ten t ions . On the other hand, i t may be that student teachers have not rea l i zed the potent ia l benef i ts o f a good voice in terms of classroom management and i n s t r u c t i o n and are not therefore moved to acquire these benef i ts for themselves. It is in te res t ing to note in Table 21 that j u n i o r students share a concern o f t h e i r sen ior counterparts concerning the need for development of a broader vocabulary. Although sponsor teachers did not share t h i s concern, or a concern about the control of rhyme and rhythm in ora l express ion , they did share s i m i l a r perceptions with students about need with regard to two other items from the student teaching quest ionna i re . These items appear in Table 22. Table 22 Summary of Items in Oral Expression Ident i f ied as Needing Improvement3 by Both Sponsor Teachers and Junior Students Based on Tables 10 and 11. 1 tern Descr i ptor 10. Cont rol1ed informal standard Engl ish 6. Spoke with con f i den ce Needs improvement represents a mean response of 2.00 or greater on the part of the i n s t r u c t o r s . Although items 10 and 6 were not accorded means of 2.00 or greater by the s tudents , they are included here because 14 of the 20 students indicated a need for improvement in these areas. It seems poss ib le that i f students are concerned about t h e i r use of 108 informal standard Engl ish th is may be one fac tor r e f l e c t e d in an i n a b i l i t y to speak, with conf idence. Since both teachers and students are concerned about these aspects of oral expression in the classroom, i t should not be d i f f i c u l t to make prov is ions in student teaching and re la ted s i t u a t i o n s for encouraging improvement in these areas. As open d iscuss ion about these aspects of language behavior in the Sponsor Teacher Workshops preceding student teaching could enable students to ask for help during p r a c t i c a a n d teachers to give i t . Research Question Four Which aspects of wr i t ten expression do sponsor teachers and students ident i fy as concerns in the student teaching o f NITEP students? Responses c o l l e c t e d to answer Research Quest ion Four did not reveal any aspects of wr i t ten expression in the student teaching s i t u a t i o n which t rans la ted into a need requi r ing spec ia l a t tent ion or change in NITEP. It would appear at th is time that the program is provid ing the students with whatever is needed for them to funct ion reasonably well in th is area. This reseacher has observed that the program s t a f f places considerable emphasis on wri t ten lesson plans during the student teaching y e a r s , and had frequent ly noted during the May 1980 practicum the kind of response indicated by one teacher who wrote on the ques t ionna i re , " . . . wr i t ten plans were de ta i l ed and very thorough." In t h e i r comments on wr i t ten expression most sponsor teachers re i te ra ted prev iously stated concerns about ora l language and general s a t i s f a c t i o n 109 concerning wr i t ten express ion . For example, one teacher s a i d , " A l l my students needed a great deal of work with spoken E n g l i s h - - w r i t t e n was mainly s a t i s f a c t o r y . " Another s t a t e d , "Written Engl ish much more f luent than oral E n g l i s h . " On the other hand, one teacher commented that "They (NITEP students) should have more f a c i l i t y with the wr i t ten language," while another commented on language and s p e l l i n g s k i l l s as the "biggest downfa l l . " Obvious ly , some teachers did have concerns about wr i t ten language, but overa l l the sponsor teacher responses on the student teaching quest ionnaires suggest that aspects of ora l expression are viewed as concerns more often than aspects of wr i t ten express ion . Research Question Five Which of the s p e c i f i c teaching competencies re la ted to the teaching o f language arts do sponsor teachers and students ident i fy as needing improvement? Reseach Question Five found that sponsor teachers and j u n i o r students were concerned about d e f i c i e n c i e s in the student teachers ' knowledge of c h i l d r e n ' s language background and t h e i r knowledge of c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a t u r e (Table. 2 3 ) . Since these concerns about a lack of knowledge of 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 language background were perceived by both groups as~ inadequacies needing improvement, i t appears that present course content in language arts methodology is not provid ing what some students require in th is area. It seems that the regular content of language arts - - as suggested by 110 Table 23 Summary of Teaching Competencies Ident i f ied as Needing Improvement by Both Sponsor Teachers and Junior Students Based on Tables 14 and 15. I tern Descr iptor 4. 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 7- Demonstrates f a m i l i a r i t y with c h i l d r e n ' s language background a Although item 4 was not accorded a mean response o f 2.00 or greater by the students , i t was i d e n t i f i e d as needing improvement by 17 of 20 s tudents . S i m i l a r l y , item 7 was not accorded a mean response of 2.00 or greater by sponsor teachers but was i d e n t i f i e d as needing improvement by 44 out of 60 sponsor teachers . course ou t l ines and student teachers language ar ts methodology texts — assumes that student teachers come to teacher education with a knowledge of c h i l d r e n ' s books and the content of a " t y p i c a l " white midd le -c lass c h i l d ' s language background as a d i rec t resul t o f t h e i r own upbringing and educat ion. Considering the ever growing numbers of non-majority cu l ture students e n r o l l e d in teacher educat ion , th is seems to be a f a l l a c i o u s assumption of which the f u l l impl icat ions have not been considered. This c e r t a i n l y appears to be the case for nat ive Indian students . It seems quite unreasonable to expect that nat ive Indian students w i l l a r r i v e at the un ivers i ty equipped with a strong background in c h i l d r e n ' s book and language experiences such as nursery rhymes and games. Questions concerning t h e i r need for such a background and the oppor tun i t ies for acqui r ing i t need to be addressed by those involved in the presentat ion of reading and language arts methodology. It is a lso poss ib le that other course in the program d i r e c t l y re la ted to the student teaching component o f NITEP Ill could assume some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in th is area. It was in te res t ing to note that only two teaching competencies, modell ing correct pronunciat ion and the a b i l i t y to use d i f f e ren t l eve ls of questions in language arts i n s t r u c t i o n , were s ing led out by sponsor teachers but not by j u n i o r students. Since one of these items seems to be re la ted to the sponsor teachers ' general perception about qua l i ty and use of v o i c e , i t would appear that the s i n g l i n g out of th is item simply re i te ra tes the degree to which sponsor teachers ' hold th is percept ion . Recommendations A r i s i n g from the Findings and Implications The fo l lowing recommendations are based upon the data drawn by the needs assessment and the resu l t ing conclusions and impl icat ions that have jus t been d iscussed . The recommendations are organized into categories r e l a t i n g to various admin is t ra t ive aspects of the NITEP program: Admission; Academic Component; Education Component; and Support S e r v i c e s . Admi ss ion. It is recommended that ear ly i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of those students who may be less p r o f i c i e n t in E n g l i s h , and the t ransmission of th is information to those ins t ruc tors and/or program s t a f f who are in a pos i t ion to a s s i s t these students , should be a s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of those who do the screening interviews p r i o r to students ' acceptance into the program. Since the program is expanding to a northern community th is year , i t may be that there w i l l be an increase in the number o f students who speak Engl ish as a second language, or a non-standard d i a l e c t , and ear ly i n d e n t i f i c a t i o n of these students would expedite attending to any spec ia l needs. It is recommended that i f any student 's Engl ish background appears to 1 1 2 w a r r a n t such i n t e r v e n t i o n , i n t e r v i e w e r s s h o u l d c o n s i d e r c o u n s e l l i n g s t u d e n t s t o t a k e s p e a k i n g , w r i t i n g a n d / o r r e a d i n g improvement c o u r s e s p r i o r t o e n t r y i n t o t h e p rog ram. S i n c e such c o u r s e s a r e o f t e n o f f e r e d a t communi ty c o l l e g e s and t h r o u g h t he Open L e a r n i n g I n s t i t u t e and a r e t h e r e f o r e a v a i l a b l e t o most s t u d e n t s , t h i s m igh t p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e i r l anguage s k i l l s and t hus u p g r a d i n g e a s e t h e s t u d e n t s ' e n t r y i n t o t he p r o g r a m . The NITEP A d v i s o r y Commi t tee m igh t u n d e r t a k e t o i n v e s t i g a t e p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s o f f u n d i n g f o r p r e - N I T E P e d u c a t i o n such as t h i s as a n o t h e r way o f e n s u r i n g t h a t s t u d e n t s a r e e n c o u r a g e d t o t a k e such c o u r s e s . Academ ic component . I t i s recommended t h a t NITEP make e v e r y e f f o r t t o g a i n p e r m i s s i o n and a p p r o v a l t o e n a b l e t h e p rogram t o o f f e r E n g l i s h 100 o r an e q u i v a l e n t c o u r s e w i t h i n t h e p rogram wheneve r e n r o l l m e n t j u s t i f i e s t h i s a c t i o n . Such a c o u r s e w o u l d f a c i l i t a t e o n g o i n g i n s t r u c t i o n no t o n l y i n such a r e a s as e x p o s i t o r y e s s a y w r i t i n g but i n o t h e r l anguage s k i l l s w i t h i n a c o n t e x t w h i c h c o u l d c a p i t a l i z e on t h e s t u d e n t s ' common b a c k g r o u n d s and i n t e r e s t s w h i l e a t t e n d i n g t o t h e i r i d e n t i f i e d n e e d s . A d h e r e n c e t o r e g u l a r e x a m i n a t i o n s t a n d a r d s and o t h e r p r o c e d u r e s s h o u l d e n s u r e a c c e p t a n c e o f such a c o u r s e in te rms o f t he u n i v e r s i t y and E n g l i s h depar tmen t r e g u l a t i o n s . I t i s f u r t h e r recommended t h a t no e f f o r t be s p a r e d t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e s t u d e n t s ' o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s u c c e s s i n E n g l i s h 100 o r 200. The a c k n o w l e d g e d heavy demands o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g and o t h e r s p e c i a l a s p e c t s o f t he p rog ram must no t be a l l o w e d t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h t he s t u d e n t s ' E n g l i s h s t u d i e s as t h e y p r e s e n t l y do . E v e r y e f f o r t s h o u l d be made t o f i n d ways in w h i c h t h e s e c o u r s e s can be s c h e d u l e d d u r i n g t h e d a y , pe rhaps a t NITEP c e n t e r s , and be f r e e f rom i n t e r r u p t i o n s due t o NITEP o b l i g a t i o n s . H a v i n g t o a t t e n d E n g l i s h c l a s s e s a t n i g h t , a f t e r a t t e n d i n g NITEP c l a s s e s o r p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g a l l d a y , p l a c e s an u n f o r t u n a t e s t r a i n on s t u d e n t s , one t h a t i s r e c o g n i z e d by i n s t r u c t o r s . F o r e x a m p l e , one w r o t e , "One g roup ( o f NITEP s t u d e n t s ) , I 113 r e c a l l , did. not have time to eat dinner before a r r i v i n g at the Co l lege . They were very, very t i r e d and were p h y s i c a l l y and mentally at a very low ebb". Education component. It is recommended that Education 30k, Curriculum and Instruct ion in the Language A r t s , and Education 305, Curriculum and Instruct ion in Developmental Reading in the Elementary S c h o o l , be o f fe red as two one and one-ha l f unit courses during each of the f i r s t two years in NITEP, rather than consecut ive ly and for three units each in f i r s t or second year as is present ly the case. Since language arts dominates the curr iculum of the elementary s c h o o l , i t is not s u r p r i s i n g that student teachers are expected to teach language a r t s , a good deal of which includes reading, in t h e i r e a r l i e s t pract icum. To send them out without any preparat ion in e i t h e r area is unreasonable. A recent melding of the two facu l ty of education departments of Engl ish Education and Reading into one Department of Language Education should f a c i l i t a t e at least a reorganizat ion i f not an in tegrat ion o f the reading and language arts methodology courses. Such development would be in keeping with the expressed philosophy o f the new p r o v i n c i a l curr iculum guide ( B . C . , 1 9 7 8 ) . It is recommeded that ins t ruc tors of Education 30k and 305 be asked to provide more than the usual oppor tun i t ies for 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 inger p l a y s , and a l l the myriad of experiences with which, an e f f e c t i v e teacher of Engl ish language arts should be f a m i l i a r . In a d d i t i o n , i t is recommended that such ins t ruc tors be asked to incorporate information and teaching mater ia ls r e l a t i n g to the specia l needs of nat ive Indian ch i ldren in Engl ish language a r t s , paying p a r t i c u l a r a t tent ion to the new Language arts guide for nat ive ch i ld ren 114 (Klesner, 1979). It is recommended that Education 216, Speech Education Oi u n i t s ) , be o f fe red at the beginning of f i r s t year , and that the i n s t r u c t o r be appr ised of the pert inent resul ts of th is needs assessment. Consul tat ion with nat ive Indian program s t a f f and advisors regarding the whole question of v o i c e , and how much change may be des i rab le or necessary , should be he lp fu l in planning th is course. Since speech arts courses are provided through the Department of Language Educat ion, oppor tun i t ies for incorporat ing some aspects of 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 ear ly language background into th is course could be considered by the appropriate i n s t r u c t o r s . It is recommended that the program extend i ts recognized concept of "a NITEP community" to include ins t ruc tors and sponsor teachers to a greater degree. Both these groups might benef i t from an increased sense o f belonging to the program and to expect as a part o f t h e i r involvement to meet for an exchange o f views and informat ion. NITEP sponsor teachers present ly attend occasional workshops. It seems that an extension of these workshops might provide oppor tun i t ies to explore the p o s s i b i l i t i e s inherent in student teaching superv is ion for improving student teacher performance in those areas that have been i d e n t i f i e d by the assessment as needing improvement. Problems such as those a r i s i n g from teachers ' reluctance to expect enough of the student teachers through misguided kindness could be addressed in such meetings. Instructors c e r t a i n l y should be encouraged to meet together regular ly as a part of t h e i r commitment to NITEP. This is not an unusual expectat ion s ince facu l ty p a r t i c i p a t i n g in other a l te rnate programs present ly do so. Among other things such regular and ongoing contact between ins t ruc tors and program s t a f f would f a c i l i t a t e a concern fo r Engl ish across the curr iculum 115 and enable the development of Engl ish p r o f i l e s for each students. Three such meetings have been held in North Vancouver t h i s year and program s t a f f and ins t ruc tors have been very p o s i t i v e in the i r comments about th is experiment. Because NITEP espouses p r i n c i p l e s of community, i t is a l s o important that every e f f o r t be made to have representat ion from students at such meetings. For example, in North Vancouver th is year , students drafted l i s t s o f "things they needed to know" a f te r the f i r s t practicum and these were issued to i n s t r u c t o r s . Such communication reportedly proved - useful to i n s t r u c t o r s . Support s e r v i c e s . It is recommended that the present arrangement which provides jun ior students with a study s k i l l s course for at least one week in September be d iscont inued . Although the basic premise of equipping students with s p e c i f i c s k i l l s in reading tex ts , taking tests and other such s k i l l s is a good one, some data from the needs assessment suggest that the e f fec t iveness of the present p rac t i ce is quest ionable . Many of the needs perceived by ins t ruc tors and senior students could be more e f f e c t i v e l y addressed by NITEP ins t ruc tors given extra time to teach s p e c i f i c study s k i l l s re la ted to the i r own course content and teaching s t y l e . In add i t ion to apport ioning the time made a v a i l a b l e by such a move, i t is recommended that the program d e c i s i o n makers consider using some of the funds spent purchasing a general study s k i l l s course from a community co l l ege to provide i n - s e r v i c e for NITEP ins t ruc tors on e f f e c t i v e methods for teaching the i r own study ski 11s. It is recommended that some form of Engl ish and language a r ts needs assessment be an ongoing process in NITEP. With an annual intake of students and regular changes to the program, i t may be expected that students ' needs w i l l change cons iderab ly . The fo l lowing comment from a sponsor teacher supports the content ion of t h i s researcher that focusing the a t ten t ion of program p a r t i c i p a n t s on Engl ish can in and of i t s e l f be 116 a worthwhile endeavor. In the words of the teacher, "These areas we are asked to evaluate have always been a d e f i n i t e problem with almost a l l my NITEP students - - I'm glad to be able to respond to a survey such as th is - - as I fee l that i f people are aware of these d e f i c i e n c i e s , they w i l l be improved upon." Although t h i s research 's experience in NITEP has not led her to the conclus ion that "almost a l l " NITEP students have problems in language i t is important to r e a l i z e that i f people have such percept ions concerning NITEP students ' competency, these perceptions w i l l inf luence the i r r e l a t i o n - ship with the program and with the students. There is no question that some NITEP students have had ser ious problems with the Engl ish language. One senior student expressed her personal f r u s t r a t i o n s with Engl ish when she wrote, " E n g l i s h a l s o is not c l e a r , has many twisted sounds and is confus ing . A f te r four years , I haven't gotten f a r . " It is in te res t ing that the same needs assessment produced a sponsor teacher who s a i d , "I have been very fortunate in having such students — the i r standards have been very h i g h . " The value of a needs assessment such as th is one is that i t provides an opportuni ty for everyone to be " l i s t e n e d to" and to a f f e c t the development of a program. Such procedures o f f e r program p a r t i c i p a n t s a degree of contro l which they value (More, 1979 , p. 1 0 ) . It is recommended that remedial Eng l ish i n s t r u c t i o n , including reading, be a v a i l a b l e for students who are permitted to enter the program and then found to have s i g n i f i c a n t gaps in the i r Engl ish background. An assessment of the most e f f e c t i v e way in which to provide such i n s t r u c t i o n should be undertaken by an appropr ia te person or agency under the superv is ion of the NITEP Advisory Committee. Because Engl ish tutor ing has been provided at var ious times and in var ious ways in an attempt to improve students ' w r i t i n g , i t should probably be included in such an assessment. Since Engl ish tutor ing 117 as i t has been provided has not included a concern for ora l Engl ish but has concentrated"on w r i t i n g , i t may be that such a serv ice is too l imi ted to meet the needs of students as i d e n t i f i e d by the program p a r t i c i p a n t s reported in th is study. Problems and Suggestions for Change in Any Future Needs Assessment The problems encountered in th is needs assessment were l inked with the timing of the survey and weaknesses in the instruments. Doing the needs assessment in June necessi ta ted sending quest ionnaires to teachers at what may be the busiest time of the year for them. In a d d i t i o n , i t meant that students and ins t ruc tors were f requent ly not at the i r respect ive i n s t i t u t i o n s and were d i f f i c u l t to contact . March and A p r i l would seem to be better months in which to c o l l e c t data for such a needs assessment. The February practicum would be f i n i s h e d but teachers would s t i l l be in school and a v a i l a b l e for fo l low-up of any kind while ins t ruc tors and students could be interviewed or be included in data-producing s i t u a t i o n s by the needs assessor jus t pr ior to the conclus ion of the i r courses. Such procedures would almost guarantee an improved sampling of the popula t ion . Subsequently i t should a lso be poss ib le to broaden the sample base to include nat ive Indian teachers and other nat ive educators. Increased r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the quest ionnaires should increase the usefulness of the needs assessment data. The inc lus ion of student test r e s u l t s in a needs assessment such as th is should improve v a l i d i t y while extensive p re - tes t ing of quest ionnaire items and ins t ruc t ions should improve 118 r e l i a b i l i t y ' ' n a d d i t i o n , random arrangement of items on the quest ionnaire and subsequent a n a l y s i s to check internal v a l i d i t y would be worthwhile, as fo l low-up interviews of randomly se lected p a r t i c i p a n t s . F i n a l l y , doing a s im i la r study in another nat ive Indian teacher education program would be a good measure of u t i l i t y of the instruments and the en t i re needs assessment. Suggestions for Further Research 1. A review of recent research into the teaching of academic wr i t ing to those sometimes re ferred to as " b a s i c " wr i ters and a subsequent study to measure the e f fec t iveness of the most promising techniques. 2. A study to measure the e f fec t i veness of speech a r ts t ra in ing in improving student performance in student teaching. 3. A comparison of the Eng l ish and language a r ts components in NITEP and in the other nat ive Indian and Inuit teacher preparat ion programs in Canada. k. A needs assessment study in Engl ish and language a r t s in an a l t e rna te program other than NITEP. 5. An examination of reading competencies of NITEP students with p a r t i c u l a r regard for those students who may not be performing at the level genera l ly accepted as necessary for success in a u n i v e r s i t y . 6. A study to determine what would c o n s t i t u t e an adequate knowledge 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 for an e f f e c t i v e language ar ts teacher. 7. An a lpha- type needs assessment focusing on nat ive Indian teacher preparat ion. 8. An examination and subsequent l i s t i n g of mater ia ls r e l a t i n g to the improvement of teaching and learning for nat ive Indian students. 119 9. The development of NITEP student p r o f i l e s in order that students' progress may be fol lowed and evaluated cont inuous ly . 10. An examination of Engl ish as a second language as a fac tor in post-secondary education for nat ive Indian students in B r i t i s h Columbia. Conclusion This needs assessment has concerned i t s e l f with reviewing the Engl ish and language a r ts components of NITEP in order to ensure that the program is provid ing maximum oppor tun i t ies for NITEP students to develop and strengthen Engl ish competency. F a i r l y wide-ranging suggestions for change in many areas of the program have been recommended. Such extensive change is ra re ly easy, but the strong sense of purpose and commitment that runs through NITEP should enable the program to assess the value of these changes and to incorporate those that appear to be warranted. 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, H. Prison of grass . Toronto: New P r e s s , 1975- Aldous, M., Barnet t , D., S King, C. ( E d s . ) . Teacher education programs for nat ive people. Saskatoon: Un ivers i ty of Saskatchewan, Col lege of Education Research Resources Centre, 1974. Andersson, T. & Boyer, M. B i l i n g u a l school ing in the United States (2nd e d . ) . A u s t i n , Texas: National Educational Laboratory P u b l i s h e r s , Inc . , 1978. Ashworth, M. The forces which shaped them. Vancouver: New Star Books, 1979. Ashwor th ,M. Language development and the Ahousaht Ch i ld ren . In G.H. Cannon (Ed . ) . The Ahousaht education study. North Vancouver: Clare Educational Development Inc . , 1980. Assessing pupil progress in E n g l i s h . Towson, Maryland: Board of Education of Baltimore County, 197&- Aurbach, H.A. and Fuchs, E. The status of American Indian educat ion. Un ivers i ty Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania S ta te , 1970. Bamberg, B. Composition ins t ruc t ion does make a d i f f e r e n c e : A compari- son of the high school preparat ion o f co l lege freshmen in regular and remedial Engl ish c l a s s e s . Research in the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 1978, 12 ( 1 ) , 47-59. Barnet t , D.C. P r i n c i p l e s and issues underlying the Indian teacher educa- t ion program at the Univers i ty o f Saskatchewan. Monograph No. 4 Indian and Northern Education Program. Saskatoon: Saskatchewan Univers i ty Indian and Northern Curriculum Resources Centre, 1975- Beavis , R. "The new i l l i t e r a t e s . . . can they be cured?" Magazi ne, Sunday Prov ince , October 14, 1979, pp. 12-13- B e l l , R . A . , L i n , E. & Warheit , J . J . Issues in need assessment data c o l l e c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s . A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological 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 Service No. ED 149 208) Benham, W.J. A philosophy of Indian educat ion. Journal o f American Indian Educat ion, 1975, ]_5 ( 0 1-3- Bergman, R. et a l . Problems of c r o s s - c u l t u r a l education research and e v a l u a t i o n : the Rough Rock Demonstration School . Minneapol is: Un ivers i ty of Minnesota, 19&9- 121 Berwick, R.F. Assessing needs in e thn ic communit?es.and planning for s p e c i f i c purpose i n s t r u c t i o n . Unpublished graduating essay , Un iver is ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977- Best , J.W. Research in education•(3rd e d . ) . Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c - H a l l , Inc., 1977- Blanchard, J . D . & Reedy, R. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of a test o f Engl ish as a second language to measures of achievement and s e l f concept in a sample of American Indian students. Paper presented at American Psychological Assoc ia t ion Convention, Miami Beach, F l o r i d a , 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 147 090) Borg, W. 6 Gal 1, M.D. Educational research: An in t roduct ion (3rd e d . ) . New York: David McKay, 1979. Bowd, A.D. Ten years a f te r the Hawthorn report : changing psychologica l impl icat ions for the education of Canadian nat ive peoples. Canad i an Psychological Review, 1977, 18 (4), 332-345. Brai thwai te , R.L. Increasing minor i ty 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 Educational Research A s s o c i a t i o n P r e - S e s s i o n , Toronto, 1978. Brooks, I.R. Native education in Canada and the United S ta tes : a b i b l i o - graphy. CiTgary: O f f i c e of Educational Development, Indian Students Univers i ty Program S e r v i c e s , Un ivers i ty of Calgary , 1976. Brooks, I.R. Teaching nat ive c h i l d r e n : lessons from cogn i t ive psychology. Journal of Educational Thought, 1978, ]2_ ( l ) , 56-67. Brown, R. Introduction to M. Ashworth's The forces which shaped them. Vancouver: New Star Books, 19 79 - Bringing unity into language development, Report 3. Vancouver: Vancouver School Board, 1977- Burnaby, B. Languages and t h e i r roles in educating nat ive c h i l d r e n . Informal Ser ies 116. Toronto, Ontar io : Inst i tu te for Studies in Educat ion, 1980. Canadian Council of Chi ldren 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. Toronto: Canadian Council of Chi ldren 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 , Teachers' Co l l ege , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1978). D i s s e r t a - t ion Abstracts In te rna t iona l , 1979, 39_, 39/12A. (Univers i ty Micro- f i lms No. 79-1 3187) Cannon, G.H. The Ahousaht education study. North Vanouver, B . C . : Clare Educational Development Inc . , 1980. C a r d i n a l , D. "Educators . . . your systems have f a i l e d . " Education Canada, 1970, 40, 21-22. 122 C a r d i n a l , H . , The r e b i r t h o f C a n a d a ' s I n d i a n s . Edmonton : H u r t i g , 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 rograms f o r t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s o f u rban I n d i a n y o u t h . M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y o f M i n n e s o t a , 1971- (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No . ED 052 969) C a z d e n , C. e t a l . F u n c t i o n s o f l a n g u a g e . New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s ' C o l l e g e P r e s s , C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. 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 needs a s s e s s m e n t and i t s r o l e i n t h r e e i n s t r u c t i o n a l deve lopmen t a g e n c i e s i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . ( 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. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m No. 77-9846) C l i f t o n , R . A . F a c t o r s w h i c h a f f e c t t h e e d u c a t i o n o f C a n a d i a n I n d i a n s t u d e n t s . In R . A . C a r l t o n , L . A . Co l l e y & N . J . MacK innon ( E d s . ) , E d u c a t i o n , Change and S o c i e t y . T o r o n t o : Gage E d u c a t i o n a l P u b l i s h i n g , 1977- C 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 & ".. r 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 F r e e P r e s s , 1977- 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 p r e s c r i p - t 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 and m e a s u r i n g n e e d s . ' P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t he 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.> (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No . ED 095 654) Commit tee o f the Canad ian 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 l a n g u a g e e d u c a t i o n i n Canada . S t . J o h n , New B r u n s w i c k : 1976. Common s e n s e and t e s t i n g in E n g l i s h . U r b a n a , I l l i n o i s : N a t i o n a l 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 , 1975. C o n r y , R. & R o d g e r s , D. B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a A s s e s s m e n t o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n : Summary r e p o r t . A r e p o r t t o t h e M i n i s t r y o f 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 C o l u m b i a , 1978. Cook , T. 1979-1980 Annua l r e p o r t p r e s e n t e d t o t he NITEP A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1980. C r o s s , P . K . The s t a t e o f t he a r t i n needs a s s e s s m e n t . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t the 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 . A k r o n , O h i o : 1979- (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No . ED 181 032) C u r t i s , C.K1 Con tempora ry communi ty p rob lems 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). ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Utah 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 I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1978, 39, 2864. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No . 78-21119) D a l e , P . Language d e v e l o p m e n t : s t r u c t u r e and f u n c t i o n (2nd e d . ) . H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n C o . , 1975- 123 Decker, D. Indian outreach program needs assessment survey. P r e s c o t t , Ar izona: ' Yavapai Co l l ege , 1979 . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 176 919) Deever, R.M. , Abraham, W. , G i l l , G . A . , Sundwall , H.W. S Gianopulos, P.G. (Eds . ) . American Indian educat ion. Tempe, Ar i zona: Ar izona State Un ivers i t y , 1974. Department of Indian a f f a i r s and northern development. 5 , 000 1 i t t1e Indians went to s c h o o l . Ottawa: Canadian Education Branch, 1 9 7 1 , 7 _ _ 7 _ ; Derr ick , J . Language needs of minori ty group c h i l d r e n . Windsor, Berks: NFER Pub. Co. L t d . , 1977- Dick, W. & Carey, L.M. Needs assessment and ins t ruc t iona l design. Educational Technology, 1977 , JT. ( l l ) , 5 3 - 5 9 - Dumont, F . J . Report of an assessment of educational needs of Northern A lber tans . A lber ta Educational Planning and Research Branch, 1978 . Dumont, R.V. J r . Learning Engl ish and how to be s i l e n t : Studies in Sioux and Cherokee classrooms. In C. Cazden et a l . ( E d s . ) , Funct i ons of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers' Col lege P r e s s , 1972. Educational technology: D e f i n i t i o n and glossary of terms. V o l . 1. Washington, D . C . : Assoc ia t ion for Educational Communications and Technology, 1977- Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Guide. V i c t o r i a , . B . C . : Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Min is t ry o f Educat ion, 1978 . Elementary language arts - k indergarten. A teacher quest ionna i re . V i c t o r i a , B . C . : Department o f Educat ion , 1975- E n g l i s h , F.W. & Kaufman, R.A. Needs assessment: a focus for curr iculum development. Washington, D . C : Assoc ia t ion for Supervis ion and Curriculum Development, 1975- E p s t e i n , N. Language, e t h n i c i t y and the schoo ls . Washington, D . C : Inst i tu te for Educational Leadership , The George Washington U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. Faculty of Educat ion, Un ivers i ty o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Form 3 2 3 , Rev. 1979. F a v e l , F. Integration or a s s i m i l a t i o n . B.C. School T r u s t e e , 1970 , 26 ( 2 ) , 18 . ~ ~ Foers te r , L.M. & L i t t l e S o l d i e r , D. Classroom communication and the Indian c h i l d . Language A r t s , 1980 , 57 0 ) , 4 5 - 4 9 . Fox, R.P. Essays on teaching Engl ish as a second language and as a second d i a l e c t . Urbana, 1 1 1 . : NCTE Committee on Publ ica t ions , 1973- 124 Fuchs, E. & Havighurst , R . J . To l i v e on th is ear th : American Indian educat ion. Garden C i t y , N.Y. : Doubleday, 1972. Gi l lam, M.R. American Indians as student teachers. Paper presented to National Council for the Socia l S t u d i e s , San F r a n c i s c o , 1973- (ERIC Document Reproduction Serv ice No. ED 092 298) G i l l i e , B.C. A poss ib le s o l u t i o n for some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s faced by Indian and Eskimo people. Learn Newsletter , 1974 , 6_ ( 3 ) , 5 _ 7 • Goodson, W.D. The e f fec t of a f ive-week p r e - c o l l e g e o r i e n t a t i o n program for Indian students. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction Serv ice No. ED 063 99 l ) Grambs, J . D . Mu l t i cu l tu ra l educat ion: Issues without answers. Education D igest , 1979 , 45 (4) 4 5 - 4 7 . G r i f f i t h , W.S. Educational needs: d e f i n i t i o n , assessment and u t i l i z a t i o n . School Review, 1978 , 8 6 , 3 8 2 - 3 9 . Hawthorn, H.B. A survey of the contemporary Indians of Canada. Vol IT? Ot t . : Indian A f f a i r s , 1967- Head, C V . J r . Academic achievement in Engl ish of j u n i o r co l l ege t rans fe r students and nat ive students at the Un ivers i ty of M i s s i s s i p p i . (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Un ivers i ty of M i s s i s s i p p i , 1 9 7 1 ) . D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts In te rna t iona l , 1972 , 3 4 , 3720 . (Univers i ty Microf i lms No. 72 -3925) Hook, J . N . , Jacobs, P.H. & C r i s p , R.D. What every Engl ish teacher should know. Urbana, 1 1 1 . : National Council of Teachers of E n g l i s h , 1970. Hopkins, T .R . Teaching Engl ish to American Indians. Eng l i sh Record, 1 9 7 1 , 21 ( 4 ) , 24 - 31 . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 053 603) Hunter, W.A. M u l t i c u l t u r a l education through competency based teacher educat ion. Washington, D . C : American Assoc ia t ion of Col lege Teacher Educat ion, 1974. (ERIC Document Reproduction Serv ice No. ED 120 173) Indian and Northern education program. Saskatoon: Univers i ty of Saskatchewan, 1974. Indian educat ion: an era of change. Canadian Assoc ia t ion in Support of Native Peoples B u l l e t i n , 1 9 7 5 , 16 (2) 4 - 7 . Indian teachers to teach Indians. B .C . Teacher, 1976 , 55. ( 4 ) , 135 . Jackson, C E . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of unique features in education at American Indian Schools . San F ranc isco : R & E Research A s s o c . , 1974. Jensen, K.D. & Jensen, S. Factors in co l l ege education for Indian students . Improving College and Un ivers i ty Teaching, 1970 , _1J5, 5 2 - 5 4 . 125 John, V . P . . S t y l e s of learn ing - s t y l e s o f teaching: r e f l e c t i o n s on the education of Navajo c h i l d r e n . In C. Cazden et al . (Eds.) . , Funct ions o f language in the classroom. New York: Teachers ' Col 1ege! Press , 1972. Jones, V. T ra in ing teachers of Engl ish for A laska 's Native c h i l d r e n . Elementary Engl i s h , 1 9 7 1 , 48., 1 9 8 - 2 0 2 . Johnson, N.A. Current top ics in language. Cambridge, Mass. : Winthrop P u b l i s h e r s , Inc. , 1976- Kaegi , Gerda. A comprehensive view of Indian educat ion . Toronto: Can. Assoc. in Support of Native Peoples, 1974. Ka l tsoun is , T. The need to Indianize Indian s c h o o l s . Phi Delta Kappan, 1972 , 53 ( 5 ) , 2 9 1 - 2 9 3 - Kaufman, R. A poss ib le taxonomy of needs assessment. Educat i onal Technology, 1977 , 27 ( 1 1 ) , 60-64. Kaufman, R.A. Educational system planning. Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1972 . Kaufman, R. & E n g l i s h , F.W. Needs assessment: concept and a p p l i c a t i o n . Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : Educational Technology P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1979- K e r l i n g e r , F.N. Foundations o f behavioral research. New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Kimpston, R.D. & Stockton, W.S. Needs assessment: a problem of p r i o r i t i e s . Educational Technology, 1 9 7 9 , 19 ( 6 ) , 1 6 - 2 1 . King, A.R. Indian educat ion. Canadian Journal o f Native Educat ion, 1979 , 6 ( 4 ) , 8 - 1 1 . Kirkness, V . J . Change is a long time coming. Canada and the World, March 1980 , 14-15- K i t a , S. UBC SPSS: s t a t i s t i c a l package for the s o c i a l sc iences version 7.01 (under MTST"! Vancouver, B.C. : Computing Centre, Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1978 . K l e i n f e l d , J . Eskimo school on the Andreafsy: a study of e f f e c t i v e b i c u l t u r a l educat ion. New York: Praeger P u b l i s h e r s , 1979- K l e i n f e l d , J . E f f e c t i v e teachers of Eskimo and Indian c h i l d r e n . School Review, 1 9 7 5 , 8 3 , 3 0 1 - 3 4 4 . K l e i n f e l d , J . P o s i t i v e s te reo typ ing: the cu l tu ra l r e l a t i v i s t in the classroom. Nor th ian , 1976 , 12 ( 1 ) , 2 0 - 2 5 . K l e i n f e l d , J . & Kohout, K.L. Increasing the co l lege success o f Alaska na t i ves . Journal of Ameri can Indi an Educat ion , 1974 , 1 3 ( 3 ) , 26 -31 . 126 Klesner , M.A. L is ten to what I r e a l l y say! (A p r a c t i c a l guide to the teaching of language ar ts to nat ive Indian students K-7) . Draft No. V. V i c t o r i a , B. C. ::: Mi n i s:t ry of Educat ion , 1979- Knowles, M.S. The modern p rac t i ce of adult education (2nd e d . ) . New York: Assoc ia t ion P r e s s , 1977- Koenig, D.M. Northern people and higher educat ion: r e a l i t i e s and p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Ottawa: Assoc ia t ion of U n i v e r s i t i e s and Col leges of Canada, 1975- Lane, B. F ive years l a t e r . B.C. School T rus tee , 1970, 26 (2), 13-14. Language B . C . : An assessment in the Engl ish language a r t s . The Department of E d u c a t i o n , P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia,1976. La Roque, E. Defeathering the Indian. Ag incour t , O n t . : The Book Society of Canada L t d . , 1975. Lenning, O.T. A conceptual framework for iden t i f y ing and assessing needs in post secondary educat ion. A paper presented at the Annual Assoc ia t ion for Ins t i tu t iona l Research Forum at Houston, Texas, May, 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Serv ice No. ED 161 341) Locke, P. Higher educat ion: background and impl icat ions for American Indians. Boulder , Colo: Western Insterstate Commission for Higher Education,1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Serv ice No. ED 085 160) Loughton, A . J . Indian Metis project for careers in teacher education ( I .M.P.A.C.TTE . ) An internal e v a l u a t i o n . Manitoba: Brandon Un ivers i t y , 1974. (ERIC Document Reproduction Serv ice No. ED 139 562) MacLean, H. A review of Indian education in North America (Rev. e d . ) . Toronto: Ontar io Teachers ' Federa t ion , 1973- Macnamara, J . B i l i n g u a l ism and primary educat ion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univers i ty P r e s s , I966. Mart in , I. Facing the real problems of nat ive language educat ion . Canadian Assoc ia t ion f o r Support of Native Peoples, 1975, J_6_ (2) , 10-1 1. Mathi'eson, M.B. A b r i e f b ib l iography on teacher education and American I nd i ans. Wash i ngton , D . C : Nat iona 1 Ins t i tu te of Educat ion , 1974. McArthur, R.S. Ecology, cu l ture and cogn i t ive development: Canadian nat ive youth. In L. Driedger (ed. ) ,The Canadian Ethnic Mosaic. Toronto: McLelland and Stewart, 1978. Mcintosh, G. Teacher education for Native Indians. Cha11enge i n Educational Admin is t ra t ion , 1979 , 1 8 , 2 1 - 3 1 . 127 McKay, A .A . Meeting the needs of the nat ive Indian student . Paper presented at Education of the Urban and Migrat ing Indian conference, Vancouver, 1977- McNei l , J . D . Curr iculum: a comprehensive in t roduc t ion . Toronto: L i t t l e , Brown S C o . , 1977. McNei l , J . D . & Laosa, L. Needs assessment and c u l t u r a l p lu ra l i sm in schools . Educational Technology, 1 9 7 5 , 25_ ( 1 2 ) , 2 5 - 2 8 . M i t c h e l l , Mar jor ie . The message of s i l e n c e : language and the Indian c h i l d . B.C. Teacher, 1974 , 5_3 ( 5 ) , 163 -166. Monette, M.L. Needs assessment: a c r i t i q u e of ph i losophica l assumptions. Adult Educat ion , 1 9 7 9 , 29 ( 2 ) , 8 3 - 9 5 - Monette, M.L. The concept of educational need: an ana lys is of se lec ted l i t e r a t u r e . Adult Educat ion , 1977 , ]J_ ( 2 ) , 116 -127 - Monette, M.L. Paulo F r i e r e and other unheard v o i c e s . Rel ig ious Educat ion , 1979 , 7 4 , 5 4 3 - 5 5 4 . More, A . J . Indian teacher education in Canada. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Education A s s o c i a t i o n , Winnipeg, 1979- More, A . J . Native teacher educat ion: A survey of nat ive Indian and Inuit teacher education pro jects in Canada. Vancouver: Canadian Indian Teacher Education Projects (CITEP) Conference, February, 1-981 . <) ' . More, A . J . & W a l l i s , J.W. Native teacher educat ion: a survey of nat ive Indian teacher education projects in Canada. Vancouver, B . C . : Canadian Indian Teacher Education Projects (CITEP) Conference, 1979- Morgan, L. 6 Feldman, D. Needs assessment in higher educat ion: the Mott Foundation Community Col lege model. Educational Technology, 27 ( 1 1 ) , 48-52. Morse, J . L . The drop-out , the s c h o o l , and the community. Eng1 ish Journal , 1972 , 6J_ ( 8 ) , 1 2 3 2 - 1 2 3 8 . Murphy, D.M. Opin ionna i re : se lec ted teacher corps programs. Anchorage, A laska: 1973- NCTE Standing Committee on Teacher Preparat ion and C e r t i f i c a t i o n . /\ statement on the preparat ion of teachers of Engl ish and the language a r t s . Urbana, 1 1 1 . : 1976. Native education in the province of A l b e r t a . A lber ta Government, 1972 . National Indian Brotherhood. Indian control of Indian educat ion . Ottawa: The Brotherhood, 1972. 128 Nisyok, Jean. I would l i k e to become a teacher: Indian Education Newsletter. 1 9 7 9 , 3 (.10), 9- Ohannessian, S. The study of the problems of teaching Eng l i sh to American Indians. Washington, D . C : Center for Appl ied L i n g u i s t i c s , JseT- Ohm, V. NITEP: Not a red pass but a red passageway. U .B .C . Alumni Chron i c l e . Summer, 1978 , 1 2 - 1 6 . Oklahoma Indian education needs assessment p ro jec t . V o l . IV. Appendixes S t i l l w a t e r , O k l a . : Oklahoma State U n i v e r s i t y , 1976. Over tur f , L . L . , et a l . Problems faced in higher education by American Indians. Col lege and U n i v e r s i t y , 1972 , kj_, 3 1 6 - 3 1 8 . Oppenheim, A .N . Quest ionnaire design and a t t i tude measure. New York: Basic Books I n c . , 1 9 6 6 . O r l i c h , D.C. Designing Sensib le Surveys. P Ieasantv i11e, N.Y. : Redgrove Pub. C o . , 13/T. Parne l1 , Ted. Bar r ie rs to educat ion. Yukon Assoc. of Non-Status Indians Whitehorse: 1976. Pet ty , W.T . , Pe t ty , D . C , Newman, A . P . & Skeen, E.M. Language competenci essent ia l for coping in our s o c i e t y . In J . R . Squire ( E d . ) , The teaching of E n g l i s h . The seventy -s ix th yearbook o f the National Society for the Study of Educat ion. Chicago: 1 9 7 7 , 6 6 - 9 5 - P h i l i p s , S .U . Par t ic ipant s t ructures and communicative competence: Warm Springs ch i ldren in community and classroom. In C. Cazden et a l . ( E d s . ) , Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers' Col lege P r e s s , 1972 . Pol icy statement on Indian educat ion. Schools Department C i r c u l a r . V i c t o r i a , B . C . : Min is t ry of Educat ion , Science and Technology, October, 1979 - Pooley, R . C The teaching of Engl ish usage. Urbana, 1 1 1 . : National Council of Teachers of E n g l i s h , 1 9 7 4 . Powel l , J.W. Indian l i n g u i s t i c fami l i es of America North of Mexico. L i n c o l n , Neb.: Un ivers i ty of Nebraska P r e s s , 1966. Proposal presented to Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Senate, for nat ive Indian teacher education program, 1974. Radulovich, M.L. Teaching Engl ish to Indian c h i l d r e n . T . E . S . L . T a l k , 1974 , 5 , 1 4 - 1 9 - Reid , G. Indian education as I see i t . Speech to Kit imat D i s t r i c t Teachers and Education 479 c l a s s . Reprinted in Indian Educat ion , 1974 , 4 (6 & 7) , H - 1 4 . 129 Report of the P res iden t ' s review committee on the facu l ty of educat ion. The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, February, 1979. Richburg, J .R . & R ice , M.J. A c c o u n t a b i l i t y in minor i ty teacher t r a i n i n g : Un ivers i ty of Georgia Indian Teacher Tra in ing Program. Paper presented to the C . U . F . A . s e c t i o n , Annual Meeting of the National Council for Soc ia l S t u d i e s , Boston, Mass . , 1972. [ERIC Document Reproduction Serv ice No. ED 076 466) R i f f e l , J . A . Education for the people: towards a systematic.approach to assessing the educational needs of Indian communities. Nor th ian , 1 9 7 5 , n . CD 2 6 - 3 1 . Roberts, W.K. , Daubek, K.M. & Johnston, J . C . The use of needs assessment techniques for e s t a b l i s h i n g t r a i n i n g programs responsive to the U.S. Army's r o l e . Educational Technology, 1977 , J_7 ( l l ) , 41 -42 . Robinson, H.A. & Burrows, A . T . Teacher e f fec t iveness in elementary language a r t s : a progress report . Urbana, 1 1 1 . : National Conference on Research in E n g l i s h , 1974. ~ Rubidge, N.A. The e f f e c t s of learning and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e congruence in an adult education learning environment. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979- Ryberg, R.F. £ Belock, M.V. Explora t ion in the h is tory and soc io logy of American Indian educat ion. Meerut, India: Sadha Prakashan, 1973- Sandstrom, R.H. Clash of c u l t u r e s : a report of the i n s t i t u t e on the American Indian student in higher educat ion. Canton, N .Y . : S t . Lawrence U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. S a v i l l e , M.R. First -1anguage inf luences on e thn ic d i a l e c t s : Spanish and Navajo. In N. Johnson ( E d . ) , Current top ics in language. Cambridge, Mass. : Winthrop P u b l i s h e r s , Inc. , 1976, 157-163. Sawyer, D. Schools have treated Indian students shameful ly . B .C . Teacher , 1976, 56 ( 2 ) , 42-45. Scoon, A.R. A f f e c t i v e inf luences on Engl ish language learning among Indian students. TESOL Quar te r ly , 1971, 5 (4) 2 8 5 - 2 9 1 . Sealey , D.B. "The Met is: s c h o o l s , ident i ty and c o n f l i c t . " In A. Chaiton & N. McDonald ( E d s . ) , Canadian Schools and Canadian Ident i ty . Toronto: Gage Educational Publ ish ing L t d . , 1977- Select ions from Dist inguished Speaker Ser ies for the NITEP Think- in /Workshop. Native Indian Teacher Education Program, Faculty of Educat ion , The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1980. Shaw, M.E. & Wright , J . M . From sca les fo r the measurement of a t t i t u d e s . New York: McGraw-Hi l l , I 9 6 7 . 130 Shrestha, G.M. An i n s t i t u t i o n a l needs assessment approach to teacher education programs with spec ia l reference to Nepal . (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 ) - D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts In te rna t iona l , 1978 , 3 8 , 7127 -7128A . (Univers i ty Micro- f i1ms No. 78 08424) Simon, R . I . , Shebib, F . , L i t t l e Bear , L. & Shewan, K. Iropacte: a descr ip t ion report and evaluat ion of the f i r s t 1 8 months: Indian and Metis project for careers through teacher educat ion. Ottawa: Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development, 1973- Smith, J . C . When is a disadvantage a handicap? Journal of American Indian Educat ion , 1 9 8 0 , ]3_ (2) 1 3 - 1 7 . Spears, J . Learning in Nishga. The Prov ince , October 2 6 , 1974 , p. 5- Stanbury, W.T. Comparison of bn-and-of f reserve educational achievements. Journal of American Indian Educat ion , 1973 , j_2 ( 3 ) , 2 4 - 3 3 . Stanbury, W.T. Success and f a i l u r e : Indians in urban s o c i e t y . U .B .C . Press , 1975- S t e r l i n g , R. Native Indian education in B r i t i s h Columbia. Canadian Assoc ia t ion for Support of Native Peoples, 1 9 7 5 , J_6 ( 2 ) , 1 2 - 1 4 Summary report of the task force on the educational needs of nat ive peoples of Ontar io . Toronto: 1976. Szasz, M.C. Education and the American Indian (2nd e d . ) . Albuquerque: Univers i ty of New Mexico P r e s T ^ 1974. Taking a new look at . . . needs assessment. The P r a c t i t i o n e r . National Assoc ia t ion of Secondary School P r inc ipa l s , 1 9 7 7 , 4_ (2) , 1 - 1 1 . Taking the Un ivers i ty 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 corps model. Journal of Teacher Educat ion , 1 9 7 5 , 2 6 _ (2) 1 2 3 - 4 . Thomas, W.G. & Mcintosh, R.G. Return home, watch your fami ly . Edmonton: Department of Indian A f f a i r s , 1977- Touchie , B. L i n g u i s t i c s and educat ion: a nat ive s tudent 's perspect ive . Canadian Journal of Indian Educat ion , 1979 , 6̂  ( 4 ) , 1 4 - 1 7 - Travers , R.M.W. An int roduct ion to educational research ( 4 t h e d . ) . New York: Macmillan Pub. Co. Inc . , 1978 . Undergraduate handbook, educat ion. Vancouver, B . C . : Faculty of Educat ion , Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 . Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia calendar 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 . Vancouver, B . C . : Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. 131 W i l l i a m s , A.M. An assessment of the educational needs of minor i ty students as perceived by parents , s tudents , and s t a f f . (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Washington State U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 5 ) . D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts In te rna t iona l , 1976 , 37 j 2043A-2044A. (Un ivers i ty Microf i lms No. 76-21 404) W i l l i a m s , T .R. Leadership issues for Canadian educat ion. Toronto: Canadian Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1979- Wise, J . E . Nordberg, R.B. & R e i t z , D . J . Methods of research in educat ion. Boston: Heath & C o . , 1967. Worthen, B . R . , Owens, T .R. & Anderson, B. Native Indian teacher educa- t ion program eva lua t ion . In Evaluat ion of the a l t e r n a t i v e teacher education programs of the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975- Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory , 60 -94 . Wyatt, J . D . Native involvement in curr iculum development: the nat ive teacher as cu l tu ra l broker. In M.L. Kovacs (Ed.) Ethnic Canadians: cu l ture and educat ion. Regina: Canadian P la ins Research Centre, 1978. Wyatt, J . D . Se l f -de terminat ion through educat ion: a Canadian Indian example. Phi Delta Kappan, 1 9 7 7 a , 5JB, 405-408; 423- Wyatt, J . D . Native teacher education in a community s e t t i n g : the Mount Curr ie program. Canadian Journal of Educat ion , 1977b , 2_ (3) , 1-14. Z i e l i n s k i , W.G. Achievement of Grade VII compound and coordinate Cree as Engl ish-speak ing b i l i n g u a l s in Northland School D iv is ion No. 61. (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Un ivers i ty of Montana, 1 9 7 1 ) . D isser ta t ion Abstracts In te rna t iona l , 1 9 7 1 , 3_3, 132A. (Univers i ty Microf i lms No. 72 -19974) APPENDIX A ORIGINAL PROPOSAL PRESENTED TO THE NITEP ADIVSORY COMMITTEE t. 13'* REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STUDY A p p r o v a l n e c e s s a r y t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e U . B . C . P o l i c y f o r R e s e a r c h on Human S u b j e c t s . 1 . A c c e s s t o s t u d e n t r e c o r d s i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e : a . E n g l i s h P l a c e m e n t r e s u l t s b. G rade 1 1 and 1 2 c o u r s e wo rk c . P o s t s e c o n d a r y c o u r s e work 2. P e r m i s s i o n t o t e s t s t u d e n t s f o r : a . R e a d i n g c o m p e t e n c e b. L a n g u a g e f l u e n c y , o r a l and w r i t t e n 3. 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 a p p r o a c h t h e f o l l o w i n g g r o u p s 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 a s r e l a t e d t o t h i s s t u d y : a . P r e s e n t and p a s t N ITEP s t u d e n t s b . T e a c h e r s - p r a c t i c u m s p o n s o r s , N a t i v e I n d i a n t e a c h e r s , t e a c h e r s i n s c h o o l s p r e d o m i n a n t l y N a t i v e I n d i a n i n p o p u l a t i o n c . E n g l i s h / L a n g u a g e A r t s s u p e r v i s o r s i n s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s o r i n t h e M i n i s t r y d . U n i v e r s i t y t e a c h e r s , c o u n s e l l o r s , c o l l e g e i n s t r u c t o r s , c o u n s e l l o r s e . O t h e r N a t i v e I n d i a n i n d i v i d u a l s o r g r o u p s a s a p p r o p r i a t e 4. A c c e s s t o r e p o r t s , r e c o r d s e t c . APPENDIX B PROGRESS REPORT PRESENTED TO THE NITEP ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRES SENT TO INSTRUCTORS, SENIOR STUDENTS, SPONSOR TEACHERS, JUNIOR STUDENTS Univers i ty Coursework Quest ionnaire Ins t ruc tor 's Version 1 P a r t 1. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION Please choose your answer and put the corresponding l e t t e r i n the space provided. 1.1 i n s t r u c t e d NITEP students i n (a)an ARTS course; (b)an EDUCATION course; ( c ) a n o n - c r e d i t course. 2.1 taught the students 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)an 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 students; ( b ) i n c l u d e d other students. 4. The l e n g t h of the course was (a)one semester or less;(b)two semesters. 5.1 have i n s t r u c t e d a course that 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 that my course (a)made heavy demands i n o r a l English;(b)made heavy demands i n w r i t t e n English;(c)made heavy demands i n o r a l and w r i t t e n English;(d)was not 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 teaching E n g l i s h ; ( b ) d o e s not now, but once d i d i n c l u d e - t e a c h i n g E n g l i s h ; ( c ) h a s never i n c l u d e d teaching E n g l i s h . • 8.1 have taught(a)fewer than 5 NITEP students; ( b ) 5 - l 5 NITEP s t u d e n t s ; ( c ) l 6 - 2 5 NITEP students; (d)more than 25 NITEP students. Part 2. ORAL EXPRESSION During c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s , question 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 other o r a l a c t i v i t i e s , you undoubtedly assess the o r a l language competence of a l l your students. At t h i s time we would l i k e you to consider the NITEP students that you have taught during or since the academic year 1977-1978, and to respond to the l i s t of o r a l language competencies, u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e . 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 considerable improvement In t h e i r o r a l expression the NITEP students: 1. Spoke d i s t i n c t l y , a r t i c u l a t e d sounds c l e a r l y . 1 2 3 2. P r o j e c t e d v o i c e s adequately f o r intended audiences 1 2 3 3- Spoke without undue use of extraneous expressions such as "uh" and " e r " . 1 2 3 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 groups. 1 2 3 5- Used conventional nonverbal language. 1 2 3 6. C o n f i d e n t l y expressed divergent o p i n i o n s . 1 2 3 7. Used wide ranging vocabulary. 1 2 3 8. Showed awareness of f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s i n meaning. 1 2 3 9- Used e f f e c t i v e imagery i n d e s c r i p t i o n . 1 2 3 10. Demonstrated c o n t r o l of standard E n g l i s h . 1 2 3 11. Used a l e v e l of language appropriate to the s i t u a t i o n ; e.g. r e p o r t i n g , conversation, debate. 1 2 3 12. L i s t e n e d a t t e n t i v e l y with comprehension. 1 2 3 13. Questioned p e r c e p t i v e l y i n order to understand. 1 2 3 Ik. Supported opinions reasonably w e l l . 1 2 3 15. Reported main ideas with s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l to be comprehensible and i n t e r e s t i n g . 1 2 3 0rp|ani.7.p(i i d e a s i n a coherent manner. 1 2 P a r t 3. WRITTEN EXPRESSION 2 The q u a l i t y of student w r i t i n g i s of some concern 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 assess the w r i t i n g competencies of your students as you read t h e i r essays, r e p o r t s , examinations and o t h e r v / r i t t e n assignments. I n t h i s p a r t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e we would l i k e you to c o n s i d e r a l l of the NITEP students t h a t you have taught d u r i n g and s i n c e the academic year I 9 7 7 - I 9 7 8 , and to respond to the l i s t o f w r i t i n g competencies 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 students as a group, I would e v a l u a t e the f o l l o w i n g aspects of WRITTEN EXPRESSION as: 1 = S a t i s f a c t o r y o r b e t t e r 2 = Of some concern 3 = Of s e r i o u s concern Please c i r c l e the number which r e p r e s e n t s your assessment o f the s t u d e n t s ' performance of the competency d e s c r i b e d . 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 and c a p i t a l i z e d c o r r e c t l y . 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 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 . 1 2 3 5. 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. answering q u e s t i o n s , r e p o r t s . 1 2 3 6 . D e s c r i b e d people 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 7 . Used v a r i e t y i n sentence l e n g t h . 1 2 3 8. Used imagery e f f e c t i v e l y . 1 2 3 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 2 3 1 0 . Showed awareness of f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s i n word meanings. 1 2 3 11. Understood and used grammatical terms i n d i s c u s s i n g w r i t i n g . 1 2 3 12. Expressed s e l f i n w r i t i n g s t y l e . 1 2 3 1 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 readings v/ith p e r c e p t i o n and judgement. 1 2 3 1 5 . 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 . 1 2 3 1 6 . Focused on one t o p i c or event i f necessary. 1 2 3 1 7 . A d j u s t e d tone o f w r i t i n g to s p e c i f i c audience. 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 1 9 . S e l e c t e d d e t a i l to support a v i e w p o i n t . 1 2 3 2G. Summarized and paraphrased when i n d i c a t e d . 1 2 3 21. Organized 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 . 1 2 3 22. D i s p l a y e d coherence and u n i t y of tone and i m p r e s s i o n . 1 2 3 2 3 . Organized events i n p l a u s i b l e sequence. . 1 2 3 2U. Conveyed p e r s o n a l i t i e s through s e l e c t e d d e t a i l s . 1 2 3 IF YOU WISH TO ELABORATE ON ANY ITEM, OR TO MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT ORAL OR WRITTEN EXPRESSION, PLEASE DO SO HERE OR ON THE BACK OF THE PAGE. Part h. COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY COURSEWORK 3 You may have found that 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 in improved o r a l language performance. Please rank 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 performance, u s i n g number 1 to represent most e f f e c t i v e , number 2 as next most e f f e c t i v e etc . a. small d i s c u s s i o n groups b. question and answer periods c. o r a l r e p o r t s d. panel d i s c u s s i o n s e. r o l e p l a y i n g f . r eading aloud g. general c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n There are many o r a l a c t i v i t i e s not l i s t e d here. Please l i s t any that you may have found e f f e c t i v e i n working with NITEP students. You may have found that v/ritten performance improved 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 . Please rank the f o l l o w i n g as you d i d the above. a. 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 b. frequent, short papers i n s t e a d of one or two lengthy ones _____ c. r e v i s i n g and e d i t i n g o f papers i n groups d. w r i t i n g e x e r c i s e s such as sentence combining or expanding e. responding to a u d i o - v i s u a l s t i m u l i f. seeing examples of w r i t i n g expected g. c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n o f w r i t i n g e r r o r s There v / i l l be s e v e r a l s i t u a t i o n s or s t r a t e g i e s not l i s t e d here which you may f i n d e f f e c t i v e i n improving w r i t i n g . Please l i s t them here. During the f i r s t two years of NITEP, students p r e s e n t l y take a number of c l a s s e s and courses which might be construed as being h e l p f u l i n improving E n g l i s h . Please rank the f o l l o w i n g as to your p e r c e p t i o n of how h e l p f u l they might be. Reading and study s k i l l s course E n g l i s h ( n o n - c r e d i t preparatory) Speech A r t s . E n g l i s h ( 1 s t 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 E n g l i s h t u t o r i n g (weekly group) , Perhaps you havo so™'"' id-:-a.~ about the kinds of things which would be r e a l l y h e l p f u l to those NITEP students who are e x p e r i e n c i n g some d i f f i c u l t y at u n i v e r s i t y r e l a t e d to language use, o r a l or w r i t t e n . We would very much appreciate your t a k i n g the time to write out your ideas i n the space provided or on the back of t h i s page. 142 U n i v e r s i t y Coursework Q u e s t i o n n a i r e S e n i o r S t u d e n t ' s V e r s i o n P a r t 1. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION Dat9: Year i n the program: 1 2 3 ^ 5 (Please c i r c l e the number of the year you e n r o l l e d f o r i n Sept. '79) • Teaching c o n c e n t r a t i o n : "Academic co n c e n t r a t i o n : What grade or grades are you most i n t e r e s t e d i n teaching? Please c i r c l e : K 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 Secondary school Was E n g l i s h your f i r s t language? Please c i r c l e : YES NO I f E n g l i s h was NOT your f i r s t language, please name the language you f i r s t spoke. , I f E n g l i s h was NO'T your f i r s t language at what age d i d you begin to speak English?_ Do your f a m i l y speak E n g l i s h : (a) a l l of the time, (b) some of the time, or (c) r a r e l y or never? Please i n d i c a t e your answer by c i r c l i n g a, b, or c. Do the people i n your home community speak E n g l i s h : (a) a l l of the time, (b) some of the time, or (c) r a r e l y or never. Please i n d i c a t e your answer by c i r c l i n g a, b, or c CONSENTS , Part 2. LANGUAGE ARTS CURRICULUM In t h i s p a r t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e we would l i k e you to t h i n k about which aspects of the language a r t s c u rriculum you f e e l most ready to teach. Please rank the f o l l o w i n g l i s t by number with number 1 meaning "I f e e l 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 P a r t 2. ORAL EXPRESSION I n your u n i v e r s i t y coursework you may have had to take 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 , read a l o u d , debate o r gi v e speeches. I n t h i s p a r t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e we would l i k e you to c o n s i d e r your use of o r a l language i n those c l a s s e s , remembering the response 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 then to e v a l u a t e y o u r s e l f i n o r a l language, u s i n g the 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 EXPRESSION, I : 1. Spoke d i s t i n c t l y , pronouncing 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 to the audience. 1 3. Spoke w i t h o u t u s i n g too many e x p r e s s i o n s such as 'uh' and 'er' and without too many h e s i t a t i o n s . 1 k. Took 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 ; 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 to keep on t o p i c . 1 5. Used nonverbal language when necessary to make myself understood. 1 6. 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 d i f f e r e d from those o f o t h e r people. .1 7. Used a wide r a n g i n g , w e l l developed o r a l v o c a b u l a r y . 1 8. Used the most a p p r o p r i a t e words; e.g. was able to f i n d the best words to express my i d e a s . 1 9. Used e f f e c t i v e imagery t h a t helped people to see what I meant. 1 10. Demonstrated my c o n t r o l o f standard E n g l i s h usage; e.g. r a r e l y made "grammatical" e r r o r s . 1 11. Used l e v e l s o f language a p p r o p r i a t e to s i t u a t i o n s ; f ormal r e p o r t s , t a k i n g p a r t i n i n f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n s . 1 12. L i s t e n e d a t t e n t i v e l y , understanding most o f what I heard. 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 people c l a r i f y i n g t h e i r meaning. 1 lk. Expressed my o p i n i o n s and supported them w i t h good reasons. 1 15. Reported main ideas 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 people understood and v/ere i n t e r e s t e d . 1 16. Organized my ideas i n a coherent manner; e.g. connected my ideas l o g i c a l l y and reasonably, 1 so t h a t people c o u l d f o l l o w my t h i n k i n g . 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ABOUT ORAL LANGUAGE PLEASE FEEL FREE TO USE THE BACK OF THIS PAGE P a r t 3. WRITTEN EXPRESSION You have u n d o u b t e d l y s p e n t a g ood d e a l o f y o u r t i m e i n N I TEP 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 . 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 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 work y o u have done, 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 t h e p h r a s e w h i c h b e s t d e s c r i b e s y o u r w r i t i n g . 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 n e e d e d some i m p r o v e m e n t 3 = 1 n e e d e d c o n s i d e r a b l e i m p r o v e m e n t P l e a s e c i r c l e t h e number v/hich b e s t d e s c r i b e s y o u r w r i t i n g . I n my WRITTEN EXPRESSION, I : 1. S p e l l e d , p u n c t u a t e d a n d c a p i t a l i z e d c o r r e c t l y . 1 2 3 2. U s e d 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 my w r i t t e n a s s i g n m e n t s e f f e c t i v e l y . 1 2 3 k. U s e d c o r r e c t m e c h a n i c s 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 . 1 2 3 5. 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. i n a n s w e r i n g w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n s and r e p o r t s . 1 2 3 6. D e s c r i b e d p e o p l e a n d / o r 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 7. U s e d v a r i e t y i n t h e l e n g t h o f my s e n t e n c e s . 1 2 3 8. Used i m a g e r y when t r y i n g t o d e s c r i b e s o m e t h i n g c l e a r l y . 1 2 3 9 . 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 t o c r e a t e a n i m p r e s s i o n . 1 2 3 10. S e n s e d f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s i n word m e a n i n g s , e.g. t r i e d t o f i n d t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e word. 1 2 3 11. 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 t o d i s c u s s w r i t i n g ; e.g. c l a u s e s , c o n j u n c t i o n s e t c . 1 2 . 3 12. E x p r e s s e d my p e r s o n a l i t y i n w r i t i n g s t y l e . 1 2 3 13. Moved e a s i l y f r o m one i d e a t o a n o t h e r i n w r i t i n g . 1 2 3 lk. U n d e r s t o o d v/hat I r e a d and c o u l d d i s c u s s i n w r i t i n g t h e a u t h o r ' s p o i n t o f v i e w , a t t i t u d e s , p u r p o s e o r s t y l e . 1 2 3 15- S e l e c t e d t h e most i m p o r t a n t d e t a i l s f o r e m p h a s i s . 1 2 3 16. L i m i t e d m y s e l f t o one t o p i c o r e v e n t when n e c e s s a r y . 1 2 3 17. 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 a u d i e n c e s ; 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 . 1 2 3 18. D e v e l o p e d and 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 r e a s o n s f o r a g r e e i n g o r d i s a g r e e i n g . 1 2 3 19. S e l e c t e d d e t a i l s t o s u p p o r t my v i e w p o i n t . 1 2 3 20. S u m m a r i z e d o r p a r a p h r a s e d m a t e r i a l f r o m b o o k s o r a r t i c l e s c l e a r l y a nd c o n c i s e l y . 1 2 3 21. O r g a n i z e d c o m p l e x 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 w o r d s s u c h a s f u r t h e r m o r e , on t h e o t h e r hand, 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 . 1 2 3 22. Wrote 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 and 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 . 1 2 3 23. 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 a b l e 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 . 1 2 3 2k. S e l e c t e d d e t a i l s t h a t b r o u g h t p e r s o n a l i t i e s t o l i f e i n my w r i t i n g . 1 2 3 I F YOU WISH TO COMMENT ABOUT WRITING PLEASE FEEL FREE TO USE THE BACK OF THIS PAGE. P a r t U. COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY EXPERIENCE 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 i m p r o v e d y o u r 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 t h e 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 y o u . Rank u s i n g number 1 a s 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 e t c . a. s m a l l d i s c u s s i o n g r o u p s b. q u e s t i o n and a n s w e r p e r i o d s c. o r a l r e p o r t s d. p a n e l d i s c u s s i o n s e. r o l e p l a y i n g f . r e a d i n g a l o u d g. g e n e r a l c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n 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 a n y o t h e r s t h a t may have been h e l p f u l t o y o u . You may a l s o have 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 i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s o r f o l l o w i n g c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s . P l e a s e r a n k t h e f o l l o w i n g as you d i d t h e a b o v e . a. e x t e n d e d d i s c u s s i o n o f t o p i c s b e f o r e w r i t i n g b. f r e q u e n t , s h o r t p a p e r s i n s t e a d o f one o r two l e n g t h y o n e s c. r e v i s i n g and e d i t i n g y o u r work i n a g r o u p d. w r i t i n g e x e r c i s e s s u c h 'as s e n t e n c e c o m b i n i n g o r e x p a n d i n g e. r e s p o n d i n g t o p i c t u r e s o r m o v i e s f . s e e i n g e x a m p l e s o f t h e k i n d o f w r i t i n g e x p e c t e d g. c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n o f w r i t i n g e r r o r s _____ T h e r e may have been s e v e r a l s i t u a t i o n s o r a c t i v i t i e s n o t l i s t e d v/hich were h e l p f u l t o y o u . P l e a s e l i s t them h e r e . S i n c e e n t e r i n g NITEP, y o u have t a k e n s e v e r a l c o u r s e s a n d 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 have h e l p e d you i m p r o v e y o u r o r a l a n d w r i t t e n E n g l i s h . P l e a s e r a n k t h e 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 t o 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 a n d 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 c o u r s e E n g l i s h ( n o n - c r e d i t ) S p e e c h A r t s E n g l i s h ( 1 s t 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 R e a d i n g methods _ _ _ _ E n g l i s h t u t o r i n g T h e r e may have been o t h e r t h i n g s t h a t have been h e l p f u l t o y o u . F o r e x a m p l e , you may have l e a r n e d a s t u d y t e c h n i q u e d u r i n g 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 us 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 have h f i l p e d t o i m p r o v e y o u r o r a l a n d / o r v / r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n . 147 Student Teaching Questionnaire Sponsor Teacher 's Version P a r t 1. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION P l e a s e choose the answer t h a t r e p r e s e n t s your s i t u a t i o n i n ' 7 9 - ' 8 Q . 1. L o c a t i o n : a. North Vancouver b. Vancouver c. Kamloons d. Other 2. Teaching assignment: K I 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 Other 3. Teaching c e r t i f i c a t e : P r o f e s s i o n a l Standard _ _ _ L i c e n s e P l e a s e complete each item. i i . T e aching experience ( i n c l u d i n g ' 7 9 - "80) y e a r s . 5* P r o f e s s i o n a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n t e a c h e r 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: B.C. Primary Teachers ; I.R.A. _; P r o v i n c i a l I n t e r m e d i a t e Assoc. 5 C.C.T.E. ; N.C.T.E. ; Other P l e a s e c i r c l e the answer t h a t a p p l i e s to you. 8. Number o f NITEP students s u p e r v i s e d i n c l u d i n g ' 7 9 - ' 8 0 : 1 2 3 4 5 More than 5 9. The y e a r s i n which I s u p e r v i s e d NITEP students i n c l u d e d : «7iu_ • 75 -75_«76 '76-'?7 ' 7 7 - '78 ' 7 8 - ' 7 9 ' 7 9 - ' 8 0 10. Have you s u p e r v i s e d o t h e r student t e a c h e r s ? a. F r e q u e n t l y b. O c c a s i o n a l l y c. Never P a r t 2. LANGUAGE ARTS METHODOLOGY REQUIREMENTS Si n c e NITEP s t u d e n t s , u n l i k e t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n the o t h e r U.B.C. E d u c a t i o n programs, p r a c t i c e teach from the b e g i n n i n g o f t h e i r f i r s t y e a r , i t would be u s e f u l f o r us to 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 l a n g u a g 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 rank the f o l l o w i n g l i s t i n the o r d e r which you t h i n k methodology would b e n e f i t a NITEP s t u d e n t t e a c h e r i n your classroom. P l e a s e rank u s i n g number 1 as most h e l p f u l , 2 as next most h e l p f u l e t c . LISTENING ORAL EXPRESSION READING WRITTEN EXPRESSION STU'CY S K I L L S P a r t 3. ORAL AND WHT'i'TEfJ EXPRESSION I n the 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 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.zua 5 n the c l a s s r o o m . 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 a r e i n tc-rer; t e d i n y o u r a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e o r a l and w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e o f a l l t h e N I T E P s t u d e n t s y o u may have 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 t o 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 . I n a s s e s s i n g my NITEP s t u d e n t ( s ) , I w o u l d e v a l u a t e t h e f o l l o w i n g a s p e c t s o f t h e i r o r a l e x p r e s s i o n a s : 1 = S a t i s f a c t o r y o r b e t t e r 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 ORAL LANGUAGE i n t h e c l a s s r o o m , t h e NITEP s t u d e n t ( s ) : 1. S p o k e d i s t i n c t l y , a r t i c u l a t e d s o u n d s c l e a r l y . 1 2 2. P r o j e c t e d v o i c e s s u f f i c i e n t l y f o r g i v e n a u d i e n c e . 1 2 3. U s e d v o i c e s 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 , i n t r o d u c i n g a t o p i c , e n c o u r a g i n g s t u d e n t s . 1 2 U. U s e d c o n v e n t i o n a l n o n v e r b a l b e h a v i o u r e f f e c t i v e l y . 1 2 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 h e a r d ; m o d e l l e d r e s p e c t f o r o t h e r s ' i d e a s . 1 2 6. U s e d l a n g u a g e w i t h c o n f i d e n c e ; s p o k e w i t h e a s e . 1 2 7. U s e d i n t e r e s t i n g , v a r i e d v o c a b u l a r y . 1 2 8. 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 ways when n e c e s s a r y . 1 2 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 a n d w r i t i n g p o e t r y . 1 2 10. D e m o n s t r a t e d a d e q u a t e c o n t r o l o v e r i n f o r m a l s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h ( r e c o g n i z e d a n d 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 u s a g e ) . 1 2 11. R e c o g n i z e d 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 ' l a n g u a g e ; e . g . was a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d them. 1 2 12. C h o s e l e v e l o f l a n g u a g e a p p r o p r i a t e t o 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 . ( d i d n o t o v e r u s e c o l l o q u i a l i s m s ) 1 2 13. I d e n t i f i e d a n d d i s c r i m i n a t e d a l l s p e e c h s o u n d s ; e.g. a s r e q u i r e d i n a p h o n i c s p r o g r a m . 1 2 l U . L i s t e n e d a t t e n t i v e l y , r e s p o n d e d a p p r o p r i a t e l y t o t h e c h i l d r e n . 1 2 15- U s e d l a n g u a g e t o s e t a s c e n e , c r e a t e a mood. 1 2 16.. U s e d l a n g u a g e e f f e c t i v e l y t o 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 . 1 2 When u s i n g WRITTEN LANGUAGE t h e NITEP s t u d e n t ( s ) : 1. S p e l l e d c o r r e c t l y . 1 2 2. U s e d c o r r e c t p u n c t u a t i o n a n d c a p i t a l i z a t i o n . 1 2 3. P r o o f r e a d ' m a t e r i a l s c a r e f u l l y b e f o r e d i s t r i b u t i o n . 1 2 h. U s e d common a b b r e v i a t i o n s c o r r e c t l y . 1 2 5. Gave s i m p l e d i r e c t i o n s c l e a r l y . 1 2 6. U s e d 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 i n m a k i n g b l a c k b o a r d n o t e s . 1 2 7. Showed a w a r e n e s s o f 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 . 1 2 8. U s e d g r a m m a t i c a l t e r m s 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 w r i t i n g . 1 2 I F YOU WISH TO ELABORATE ON ANY ITEM, OR TO MAKE ADDITIONAL COKflbNTS ABOUT ORAL OR WRITTEN EXPRESSION, P L E A S E FEET. FREE TO USE THE BACK OF THIS PAGE. 3 Part 4. LANGUAGE ARTS TEACHING When te a c h i n g the language a r t s , student teachers need to develop any number of teaching competencies. Please c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g l i s t o f s e l e c t e d teaching competencies and respond i n terms o f the NITEP student(s) you have supervised, by c i r c l i n g the number which best represents your assessment. In a s s e s s i n g the NITEP student(s) I have su p e r v i s e d I would evaluate the f o l l o w i n g t e a c h i n g competencies as: 1 = S a t i s f a c t o r y or b e t t e r 2 = Needs) some improvement 3 = Need{s) considerable improvement When te a c h i n g language a r t s , the NITEP student(s) I sponsored: 1. P r i n t e d and/or v/rote on the chalkboard with reasonable speed and l e g i b i l i t y . 1 2. Gave c l e a r , w e l l sequenced 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 . 3. Read aloud to c h i l d r e n with expression and enjoyment. k. Demonstrated 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 . 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 questions; e.g. r e c a l l , explanation, p r e d i c t i o n , judgement. 6. Modelled 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 . 7. 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. 8. Modelled good l i s t e n i n g behaviour. 9 . Understood and used teaching manuals a p p r o p r i a t e l y . 10. Demonstrated knowledge of, and a b i l i t y to use, the l i b r a r y o r resource centre. 11. Used media such as photographs, models, f i l m s t r i p s and tape r e c o rders v/ith some ease. 12. Constructed u s e f u l c h a r t s and o t h e r l e a r n i n g a i d s . 13- Demonstrated a b i l i t y to assess and evaluate students' progress. 1^. 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 concerns and i n c o r p o r a t e them i n t o language a r t s l e s s o n s or u n i t s . 15. Involved c h i l d r e n i n a c t i v i t i e s that show the i n t e r - r e l a t e d n e s s of the language a r t s ; 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 dramatizing. 16. Designed and moderated group or c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n e f f e c t i v e l y . 150 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 ,3 .3 . 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 IF YOU WISH TO ELABORATE ON ANY ITEM, OR TO MAKE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT TEACHING COMPETENCIES IN LANGUAGE ARTS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TC USE THE BACK OF THIS PAGE. Student Teaching Questionnaire Junior Student 's Version Part 1. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION Date: . . Year in the program: 1 2 3 ' 5 (Please circle the number of the year you enrolled for in Sept. "79). Teaching concentration: . , Academic concentration: . , What grade or grades are you most interested in teaching? Please circle: K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Secondary school Was English your f i r s t language? Please circle: YES NO If 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, (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. " . Do the people in 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 circling a, b, or c COi'uviENTS • - *' ' ; ] ' _ Part 2. LANGUAGE ARTS CURRICULUM In this part of the questionnaire we v/ould like you to think about which aspects of the language arts curriculum you feel 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 feel next most ready to teach" etc. LISTENING . . .  • ORAL EXPRESSION READING WRITTEN EXPRESSION STUDY SKILLS CHILDREN'S LITERATURE LANGUAGE STUDY 2 P a r t 3. ORAL AND WRITTEN EXPRESSION 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 have no d o u b t become a w a r e o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f l a n g u a g e i n t h e 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 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 o r a l a n d 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 a n y comments o r s u g g e s t i o n s t h a t y o u may have had a b o u t y o u r us e o f l a n g u a g e , and t o e v a l u a t e y o u r s e l f , u s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g s c a l e . 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 n e e d e d some improvement 3 = 1 n e e d e d c o n s i d e r a b l e i m p r o v e m e n t 153 When u s i n g ORAL LANGUAGE i n t h e c l a s s r o o m , I: 1. Spoke d i s t i n c t l y , a r t i c u l a t e d a l l sounds c l e a r l y . 2. P r o j e c t e d my v o i c e s u f f i c i e n t l y f o r my i n t e n d e d a u d i e n c e . 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 , i n t r o d u c i n g a t o p i c , e n c o u r a g i n g s t u d e n t s . U s e d n o n v e r b a l b e h a v i o u r t h a t e v e r y o n e u n d e r s t o o d . k. 5- 6. 7. 10. 11 . 12. 13- 14. 15- 16. 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 h e a r d ; m o d e l l e d r e s p e c t f o r o t h e r s ' i d e a s . U s e d l a n g u a g e w i t h c o n f i d e n c e ; s p o k e w i t h e a s e . U s e d i n t e r e s t i n g , v a r i e d v o c a b u l a r y . 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 ways when n e c e s s a r y 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 . : 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 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 p o e t r y . : D e m o n s t r a t e d a d e q u a t e c o n t r o l o v e r i n f o r m a l s t a n d a r d 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 e r r o r s " ) . R e c o g n i z e d 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 l a n g u a g e ; e . g . 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 . C h o s e l e v e l o f l a n g u a g e a p p r o p r i a t e t o 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 , ( d i d n o t o v e r u s e c o l l o q u i a l i s m s o r s l a n g ) . I d e n t i f i e d a nd d i s c r i m i n a t e d a l l s p e e c h s o u n d s ; e.g. a s r e q u i r e d i n a p h o n i c s p r o g r a m . L i s t e n e d a t t e n t i v e l y , r e s p o n d e d a p p r o p r i a t e l y t o t h e c h i l d r e n . U s e d l a n g u a g e t o s e t a s c e n e , c r e a t e a mood. U s e d l a n g u a g e e f f e c t i v e l y t o 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 t h r o u g h l a n g u a g e . When u s i n g WRITTEN LANGUAGE, I 1. S p e l l e d c o r r e c t l y . 2 . U s e d c o r r e c t p u n c t u a t i o n and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n . 3. P r o o f r e a d m a t e r i a l s c a r e f u l l y b e f o r e d i s t r i b u t i o n . 4. U s e d common a b b r e v i a t i o n c o r r e c t l y . 5 . Gave s i m p l e d i r e c t i o n s c l e a r l y . 6. U s e d 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 i n m a k i n g b l a c k b o a r d n o t e s . 7. Showed a w a r e n e s s o f f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s i n word m e a n i n g s . 8. U s e d g r a m m a t i c a l t e r m s 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 w r i t i n g . 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 I F YOU WISH TO ELABORATE ON ANY ITEM, OR TO MAKE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS A":C'!T ORAL OR WRITTEN EXPRESSION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO USE THE BACK OF THIS PAGE. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 P a r t k. TEACHING LANGUAGE ARTS I n o r d e r t o i n s t r u c t s u c c e s s f u l l y i n t h e l a n g u a g e a r t s , s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s n e e d t o d e v e l o p a number o f t e a c h i n g c o m p e t e n c i e s . 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 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 y o u r p e r f o r m a n c e i n t h e s e a r e a s , u s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g s c a l e . 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 n e e d some i m p r o v e m e n t 3 = 1 n e e d c o n s i d e r a b l e i m p r o v e m e n t When TEACHING LANGUAGE AR T S , I : 1. P r i n t e d a n d / o r w r o t e on t h e c h a l k b o a r d v / i t h r e a s o n a b l e s p e e d and l e g i b i l i t y . 1 2 3 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 f o r o r a l a n d w r i t t e n a c t i v i t i e s . 1 2 3 3- Read a l o u d t o c h i l d r e n w i t h e x p r e s s i o n and e n j o y m e n t . 1 2 3 k. D e m o n s t r a t e d 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 ; e . g . t i t l e s , a u t h o r s . 1 2 3 5. 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 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 and judgement. 1 2 3 6. M o d e l l e d c o r r e c t p r o n u n c i a t i o n and s p e e c h p a t t e r n s f o r c h i l d r e n . 1 2 3 ?. D e m o n s t r a t e d 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 a n g u a g e b a c k g r o u n d s u c h as s o n g s , g a m e s . v e r s e s , n u r s e r y rhymes e t c . 1 2 3 8. M o d e l l e d good l i s t e n i n g b e h a v i o u r f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . 1 2 3 9- U n d e r s t o o d and u s e d t e a c h i n g m a n u a l s a p p r o p r i a t e l y . 1 2 3 10. D e m o n s t r a t e d k n o w l e d g e o f , and a b i l i t y t o u s e , t h e l i b r a r y o r r e s o u r c e c e n t r e . 1 2 3 11. Used m e d i a 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 s t r i p s and t a p e r e c o r d e r s w i t h some e a s e . 1 2 3 12. C o n s t r u c t e d u s e f u l c h a r t s a nd o t h e r l e a r n i n g a i d s . 1 2 3 13. D e m o n s t r a t e d a b i l i t y t o a s s e s s and e v a l u a t e s t u d e n t s ' p r o g r e s s . 1 2 3 14. D e m o n s t r a t e d a b i l i t y t o 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 l e s s o n s o r u n i t s . 1 2 3 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 t h e i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s o f t h e l a n g u a g e arts,-e.g.-' w r i t i n g a nd 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 16. D e s i g n e d and m o d e r a t e d g r o u p o r c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n e f f e c t i v e l y . 1 2 3 I F YOU WISH TO EXPLAIN AN ANSWER OR ANSWERS, OR TO MAKE ANY COMMENT ABOUT TEACHING LANGUAGE ARTS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO USE THE BACK OF THIS PAGE. APPENDIX D COVER LETTERS SENT TO PARTICIPANTS 159 APPENDIX E LETTER TO SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2075 WESBROOK MALL VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6T 1W5 D e p t . o f E n g l i s h E d u c a t i o n F A C U L T Y OF EDUCATION A p r i l 1 1 , 1 9 8 0 D r . W i c k s t r o m S u p e r i n t e n d e n t N o r t h V a n c o u v e r S c h o o l D i s t r i c t #44 7 2 1 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 D e a r D r . W i c k s t r o m : D r . W e n d y K . S u t t o n a n d I a r e c u r r e n t l y p r e p a r i n g a r e p o r t f o r t h e N I T E P A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l o n t h e E n g l i s h / l a n g u a g e a r t s c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e p r o g r a m . G i v e n t h e f a c i l i t y i n E n g l i s h s o n e c e s s a r y i n t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e , a s w e l l a s i n u n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e w o r k , i t i s i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h i s p a r t o f t h e N I T E P p r o g r a m b e r e v i e w e d a n d a s s e s s e d a s t o i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s . A l t h o u g h t h e t e a c h e r s i n y o u r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t h a v e a l r e a d y c o n t r i b u t e d a g r e a t d e a l t o N I T E P t h r o u g h t h e i r / s p o n s o r s h i p o f s t u d e n t s , t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n o u r n e e d s a s s e s s m e n t w o u l d b e 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 h a v e f o r s p o n s o r t e a c h e r s a s k t h e m t o r e f l e c t o n t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h N I T E P s t u d e n t s a n d t o r e s p o n d t o : 1 . a s e c t i o n o n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e s t u d e n t s ' l a n g u a g e u s e , a n d 2 . a s e c t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e e m p h a s e s t h a t t h e y w o u l d r e c o m m e n d f o r l a n g u a g e a r t s m e t h o d o l o g y c o u r s e s . 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 s e n t t o t h e t e a c h e r s i f y o u g i v e p e r m i s s i o n . A s w e a r e s o r a p i d l y m o v i n g t o w a r d t h e e n d o f t h e s c h o o l y e a r , I w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e h e a r i n g f r o m y o u a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e . T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s m a t t e r . Y o u r s s i n c e r e l y , 160 V S C / c j k E n c l . S a l l y C l i n t o n G r a d u a t e T e a c h i n g A s s i s t a n t , N I T E P 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 P a r t i c i p a t i n g Instructors Quest ion Number of Optional responses respondents 1. Course d e s c r i p t i o n Ar ts 9 Educat ion 1 6 Non-cred i t 7 2 . Locat ion Community co l lege 11 Un i vers i ty 7 Off-campus center 13 3- Identity of students in NITEP only 1 7 c lasses NITEP plus others 10 4 . Length of courses One semester or less 17 Two semesters 9 5 . Number of courses taught One 8 which have included NITEP students Two 6 More than two 13 6 . Nature of courses Demanding in o r a l . E n g l i s h 4 Demanding in wr i t ten Engl ish 4 Demanding in ora l and wr i t ten Engl ish 15 Not demanding in oral or wr i t ten Engl ish 4 7. Teaching role Engl ish teacher 11 Former Engl ish teacher 7 Never an Engl ish teacher 9 8. Number of NITEP students Fewer than 5 1 taught 5 to 15 12 1 6 to 25 4 More than 25 10 TABLE B 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 Senior Students Number of Quest ion Optional responses. respondents 1. Year in the program Th i rd year 1 Fourth, year 7 Unclass i f led 0 2. Teaching concentrat ion 1 ntermed i ate h Primary 3. Academic concentrat ion Anthropology 2 Physical education 1 Theatre 1 Eng1i sh 1 Soc iology 3 k. Grade in terest Pr imary 5 1ntermed iate 2 Other 1 5. F i r s t language Engl ish k Native Indian language 1 Ca r r i e r 1 N i shga 1 Thompson 1 6. Age at wh i ch Engl ish 3 to k years 2 was learned 5 to 6 years 0 7 to 8 years 2 7. Family speaks Engl ish Al1 of the t ime 3 Some of the time k Rarely or never 1 8. Community speaks Engl ish Al1 of the time 2 Some of the time 5 Rarely or never 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 Junior Students Number of Q.ues.t i.on Optional responses. respondents 1. Year in the program F i r s t year 10 Second year 9 Unci ass i f i ed 1 2 . Teaching concentrat ion Socia l s tudies education 2 Special educat ion 1 Native Indian education k Primary education 2 Reading education 1 Young c h i l d r e n education 1 3- Academic concentrat ion Sociology 2 Theatre 1 Anthropology 5 4 . Grade interest Pr imary 12 1ntermed i ate 6 Other 0 5 . F i r s t language Engl i sh 13 Carr ie r 2 C h i l c o t i n 1 Thompson 1 Coast S a l i sh 1 Cow i chan 1 Ha ida 1 6. Age at which Engl ish 3 to k years 2 was learned 5 to 6 years 2 7 to 8 years 3 7. Family speaks Engl ish A l l the time 10 Some of the time 9 Rarely or never 1 8 . Community speaks Engl ish Al1 the t ime 9 Some of the time 1.1 Rarely or never 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 Sponsor Teachers. Number of Questions Optional responses respondents 1. School d i s t r i c t s D i s t r i c t A 29 D i s t r i c t B 34 2 . Teaching Assignment Primary 31 Intermediate 30 Other 2 3 . Teaching c e r t i f i c a t e s Profess ional 43 L icense 18 Standard 2 4 . Teaching experience 1 to 2 years 1 3 to 4 years 0 5 to 6 years 16 7 to 10 years 15 11 to 15 years 13 16 to 20 years 6 21. to 25 years 6 26 to 30 years 3 31 years and over 2 5 . Profess ional concentra-r Art 2 t ion Eng1 i sh 5 Intermediate 9 L i brary 2 Mus ic 2 Physical education 3 Pr imary 22 Read i ng 1 Secondary 1 Socia l studies 3 Special education 5 Young c h i l d r e n 4 (No response) 4 TABLE D (Continued) Number of Quest ions Optional responses respondents 6. Academic concentrat ion Anthropology 2 Canadian studies 1 Fine ar ts h French 2 General sc ience 1 Geography 1 H i story 9 Engl i sh 16 Mathemat i cs 1 Physical education 2 Psychology 6 Science 1 (No response) 17 7. Professional memberships B.C. Primary Assoc ia t ion 2k Intermediate Assoc ia t ion 5 N.C.T. Engl ish 0 C . C . T . Eng1i sh 0 Int. Reading Assoc ia t ion 1 8. Total number of NITEP One 33 students supervised Two \h Three 7 Four 5 Fi ve 2 More than Five 1 9- Year of involvement in Up to and inc luding 1977 15 the program From 1978 to I98O 47 10. Student teaching super- Frequently 20 v i s i o n outs ide NITEP Occas iona l ly 35 Never 8 TABLE E D i s t r i b u t i o n and Return of Questionnaires Part ic ipant groups Number sent Number returned Percentage returned Number not ana 1yzed Number ana 1yzed Percentage analyzed Sponsor teachers Group 1 Group 2 Junior Students Group 1 Group 2 I ns t ructors Group 1 Group 2 Senior Students Tota ls 39 64 11 13 17 23 13 30 34 10 11 10 19 8 180 122 77 53 90 85 59 83 62 73 28 33 10 10 10 17 8 116 72 51 91 77 59 74 62 69 This includes quest ionnaires returned because ind iv idua ls were erroneously i d e n t i f i e d as being in the program; returned as undel iverable 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 3 0
France 3 0
Japan 3 0
Canada 2 0
Germany 1 1
China 1 15
City Views Downloads
Unknown 19 1
Tokyo 3 0
Vancouver 2 0
Mountain View 1 0
Beijing 1 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items