UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Inservice education in secondary reading for English teachers : a conceptual analysis Allen, Sheilah M. 1977-02-23

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A2 A44.pdf [ 12.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078347.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078347-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078347-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078347-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078347-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078347-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078347-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078347-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078347.ris

Full Text

INSERVICE EDUCATION IN SECONDARY READING FOR ENGLISH TEACHERS: A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS by SHEILAH M. ALLEN B.A., University of British Columbia, 1965 M.A., University of British Columbia, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE DEPARTMENT OF READING EDUCATION Faculty of Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard Thesis Supervisor External Examiner THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 1977 © Sheilah M. Allen, March 1977 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 ii ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to identify, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize the relevant research and professional literature to develop a rationale and a conceptual model for inservice programs in secondary reading for English teachers. Illustrative instructional modules were also developed based on the literature review and synthesis. The need for inservice education programs in secondary reading for English teachers derives from two related sources: societal concern for what is perceived to be declining literacy standards; and the changing nature of the secondary school which requires that all students remain in school longer, thus considerably increasing the range of reading abilities faced by the classroom teacher. English teachers generally are desig nated as those responsible for teaching reading, either within their English classes or within a special reading class. They are also often called upon to provide guidance in reading instruction for other content teachers. However, few English teachers have had previous training in the teaching of reading, and continuing education in the form of inservice programs is increasingly necessary. Primary, secondary, and tertiary literature sources were reviewed and documents organized by substantive content into four categories: (1) Organization of Inservice Programs—Guidelines, Needs, Goals, Roles; (2) Methodology of Inservice Programs—Structure, Activities; (3) Evaluation of Inservice Programs; and, (4) Models of Inservice Pro grams. Generalizations and practical principles were then derived based on comparisons within and between categories. Guidelines for inservice were drawn from survey and questionnaire studies on present practices and suggested improvements; reported needs-assessment studies and instru ments were examined; topics for inservice programs were drawn from an analysis of stated goals in the literature; and roles of participants were developed in fairly discrete terms. The methodology section incor porates suggestions for general structure and specific activities of in-service programs with emphasis on the workshop. The necessity of evalua tion of both inservice programs and the subsequent effect on teaching received heavy emphasis in the literature as did use of multiple evalua tion measures. Models of inservice programs were identified and synthe sized with a wide range in focus and components emerging. Several important trends in inservice programming were revealed in the literature review including: a new concern with the planning phase, a wide variety of methodological possibilities in organizing and conducting inservice programs, a recognition of the significance of evaluation, and an increased awareness of the potential of self-evaluation and teacher leader ship. The results of the literature review and synthesis were incorpor ated into the rationale and conceptual model outlining components of inservice education in reading for secondary English teachers. The components of the model include: general and specific guidelines, examples of needs-assessment instruments, detailed goals based on specific topics, many activities within a workshop structure, and multiple modes of evaluation of the effectiveness of inservice efforts. Four illustrative instructional modules are presented based on (1) Students, (2) Materials, iv (3) Teaching Strategies, and (4) Staff Development. Each module contains the rationale for content and objectives, suggested materials of instruc tion, evaluation instruments, and maintenance procedures. Guidelines and organizational principles appropriate for inservice programs in general are presented and recommendations made for further research in the theoretical development and field testing of the model and instructional modules to facilitate adaptation to other groups and levels. V TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF APPENDICES viiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. General Statement 1 B. Background of the Problem 7 C. Related Research 11 1. Preservice and Inservice 12. English Teachers and Reading 15 D. Summary 18 II. THE PROBLEM 20 A. Statement of the Problem 2B. Definition of Terms 1 C. Limitations 27 D. Sources of Materials 2E. Elements of the ProblemF. Procedures and Techniques 28 G. SummaryIII. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 30 A. Organization of Inservice Programs 30 1. Guidelines . . • 31 2. Needs 42 3. Goals , . 43 4. Roles 6 B. Methodology of Inservice Programs 49 1. Structure 42. Activities 52 C. Evaluation of Inservice Programs 58 D. Models of Inservice Programs 67 E. Summary 76 IV. A PROPOSED MODEL 8 A. Organization 71. Guidelines(a) General Guidelines 79 (b) Specific Guidelines 90 2. Needs Assessment 101 3. Goals 112 vi Chapter B. Methodology 115 C. Evaluation 120 1. General Concerns 122. Specific Suggestions 13D. Illustrative Modules 5 1. Introduction 132. Module 1—Students 137 (a) Content(b) Components 9 3. Module 2—Materials 141 (a) Content 14(b) Components 4 4. Module 3—Teaching Strategies 145 (a) Content 14(b) Components 150 5. Module 4—Staff Development 151 (a) Content • • 151 (b) Components 154 E. Summary . 155 V. CONCLUSION 160 A. SummaryB. Implications of the Study 163 C. Recommendations for Further Study 164 BIBLIOGRAPHY 166 APPENDICES 210 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Survey of Studies Providing Guidelines for Inservice Programs 32 2. Studies Supporting the Need for Flexibility in Inservice 9 3. Variety of Workshop Functions in Inservice 53 4. Effectiveness of Selected Inservice Activities 60 5. Teacher Evaluation as a Component of Inservice 3 6. Multifaceted Components in Inservice Program Evaluation 68 7. Exemplary Inservice Models 70 8. Inservice Programs Stressing Self-Evaluation and Teacher Leadership 3 9. Summary of Models of Inservice Reading Programs 74 10. Summary of Reports Describing Teacher Education Centres 82 11. Summary of Needs Assessment as a Function of Pre planning Inservice 1012. Topics for Reading Inservice from Studies and Books . . . 116 13. Topics for Reading Inservice from Secondary Reading Textbooks 117 14. Recommendations for Reading Inservice 118 15. Evaluation of Reading Inservice Programs 132 viii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Chester, R. D., et al. "Assessing Inservice Needs in Reading." University of British Columbia, 1976 210 B. Mangrum, C. T. "Teachers Inservice Needs Assessment (TINA)." 3rd edition. University of Miami at Coral Gables, 1976 213 C. Filip, R. T., et al. "Late Summer and Academic Year Model." California, 1971 . 224 D. Strom, R. D. "Interaction Index Observation Sheet." Ohio State University, 1967 226 E. Hoehn, L. P. "Student-Opinion Questionnaire." Detroit, 1969 227 F. Lavin, R. J., and E. M. Schuttenberg. "Staff Development Program Feedback Sheet." Merrimack Education Center, 1972 229 G. Means, Don. "Evaluation Inservice Education Programs." Clarion State College, Penn., 1973 230 H. Model for Reading Inservice: PIE. "Over-all Rating of Inservice Program." Missouri, 1973 233 I. Westby-Gibson, Dorothy. "A Flow Chart of Procedures for Implementation of Inservice Programs." Far West Laboratory, 1967 235 J. Model for Reading Inservice: PIE. "Flow Chart Model for Reading Inservice." Missouri, 1973 236 ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A dissertation does not exist in isolation. My appreciation extends to the following: Dr. E. G. Summers, major professor and adviser, who has been instigator, inspiring force, and guide. His professionalism and personal enthusiasm have sustained me throughout my degree, and will serve as a model in my career. The members of my committee—Dr. R. Bentley, Dr. R. Chester, Dr. H. Covell— who have provided concrete criticism, positive suggestions, and continued support. Dr. Margaret Early, external examiner, who has proferred the academic and practical expertise of a noted educator. My fellow graduate students—-especially Joyce Matheson—who have made the whole experience more than bearable. My families—particularly my daughter, Janna Chere—who have exhibited their loyalty and faith over the years. My typist, Nina Thurston, who has been dependable and conscientious through out". My thanks to all for their unique and essential contributions. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. General Statement That a gulf exists between research and classroom practice, between institutions of higher education and schools, has become an educational truism. One attempt to bridge this gap is through expanded efforts at inservice training and continuing education. Traditionally, most univer sities have served four functions: (1) discovery and generation of new knowledge through research and other scholarly activities; (2) accumulation and storage of knowledge in books, libraries, and computers; (3) dissemination of the accumulated knowledge through teaching, publications, films, and service activities; (4) application of the knowledge and skills to specific situations (Haygood, 1970). Universities, and in particular their professional schools, are becoming increasingly involved in continuing education in furthering the above func tions, although such involvement is not without controversy (Stirzaker, 1974). Havelock, 1973, strongly supported the involvement of university professional schools in continuing professional education. Barber, 1963, put the matter succinctly: The university professional school has as one of its functions the transmission to students of the generalized and systematic knowledge that is the basis of professional performance. Not only the substan tive knowledge itself, but knowledge of how to keep up with continuing advances in professional knowledge is what the university school seeks to give its students. Where the body of professional knowledge is changing very rapidly, the university professional school may take a direct role in promoting the "adult" education of its profession through post-professional training courses, seminars and institutes.(p. 674)_ 1 2 Mayhew and Ford, 1974, synthesized the views of a number of authors deal ing with the purposes of higher education who urged that recurrent educa tion is essential to the growth of a society; that better delivery sys tems for such education must be implemented; that greater cooperation between sponsors of recurrent education must emerge; that institutions of higher education should lead in the expansion of continuing education; and that financial barriers should not stand in the way of participation in continuing education (Mayhew, 1970; Kline, 1971; Schein, 1972; Gould, 1973; Mayhew, 1973; Benson and Hodgkinson, 1974). The need to generate better models and delivery systems to provide inservice and continuing education is by no means confined to education. Continuing education is gaining impetus and significance in law, medicine, agriculture, indeed throughout the various fields in which constant interpretation of new theories and derivation of practical outcomes is needed. Any professional who wishes to keep pace with developments in his field must turn to continuing education. Kidd (in Shorey, 1970) even claimed "a profession 'is characterized by [the fact that] its members continue to educate themselves and extend their knowledge and competence"1 (p. 2). The ever-increasing necessity for such intellectual perseverance was explained by McGlothlin, 1972. At one time, perhaps we may have thought that competence once won would live on unnurtured throughout the length of a career, since personal experience, professional meetings, the advice of colleagues, and the casual reading of a journal or two would be enough to assure steady and dependable growth. What a person learned while a student in the professional school could stand in good stead throughout much of his career. He could depend on the past to lead him into the future. But no longer. If he does not find ways to increase his compe tence as knowledge expands and situations change, his knowledge and skill can rapidly become obsolete, declining from competence into relative incompetence. From there it is not far to the extremes of incompetence which are quackery and fraud. Any professional who 3 continues to practice with less than the best that he can learn is a danger to the society he is expected to benefit. He retains the title and the form of the professional but he lacks the substance. He misleads and exploits his clientele because he has not been wil ling to maintain the competence, that special competence, which makes the professional significant. (p. 7) The concept of professional obsolescence is becoming commonplace in the seventies. Dubin, 1971, focused on defining professional obsol escence, particularly in relation to business management. Four types of obsolescence are ability, attitudinal, creeping, and abrupt. Leslie and Morrison, 1974, considered the implications of professional obsolescence for professional education, advocating the revamping of service modes and delivery systems. Those entering a profession do so with a knowledge base which is already partially obsolete. Lindsay et al., 1974, expanded the conceptual framework of professional obsolescence by incorporating the concept of 'half-life'. The rapid obsolescence of professional competence is a phenomenon of our times. The accelerating pace of information generation, rapid advances in technology, and changes in educational, social, economic, and political institutions have made it increasingly difficult for members of today's society to keep abreast of developments which affect their lives. This difficulty is especially acute for the professional, because he works with ideas and knowledge that are subject to rapid change and obsolescence. The concept of 'half-life', a term from nuclear physics, has been employed to estimate the extent of professional obsolescence in vari ous fields. Estimates have been made of the half-life of profes sional competence: the time after completion of formal training when, because of new developments, practicing professionals have become roughly half as competent to meet the changing demands of their pro fessions. For example, Dr. Edward C. Rosenew, Jr., Vice President of the American College of Physicians, recently estimated the half-life of medical knowledge to be only five years. And Professor J. Lukasiewicz of Charleston University in Ottawa has stated that 'while the half-life of a 1940 engineering graduate was 12 years, it has shrunk to just five years for today's graduate.' (pp. 3-4) The consequences to education of this state of affairs was recog nized by Devore, 1971. 4 When a society is in a stage of rapid and constant change, education is conceived as a factor of change and challenge. And the critical variable in the change process is the teacher. If educational pro grams are to be changed, then the personnel of the system must be changed. If education is to serve the constantly changing social milieu, we must realize the problem is social and psychological in nature and of significant consequences. (p. 1) Unfortunately, as emphasized by Goodlad (1969), education is perhaps the only large-scale enterprise that does not provide for systematic updating of the skills and abilities of its members. Teachers are largely on their own in continuing professional development and little in their undergraduate training prepares them for continued learning growth. And Simpson, 1966, noted, "Improvement in teaching does not come automatically, and the teacher who continues year after year to rely almost exclusively on what he learned in his undergraduate teacher training is bound to fall farther and farther behind from a professional standpoint" (p. 1.). Therefore, inservice education offers opportunities for bridging the widening gap between the current state of knowledge and the practitioner in the field.''' It is only realistic to acknowledge that teachers, like other pro fessionals, will need incentives to participate in professional development. The medical and dental professions have used such levers as relicensing and recertification: these are not granted without evidence of continuing education. Pearlman, 1974, recognized that although professionals support the concept of continuing education, they are opposed to any legislative mandate. He predicted, however, that the relicensure pattern and a continuing education requirement will soon become fixtures of all Toffler's statements (1970) concerning the obsolescence of products apply equally to personnel: obsolescence occurs when a product literally deteriorates to the point at which it can no longer fulfill its functions; when some new product arrives on the scene to perform these functions more eff ectively; or when the needs of the consumer change, when the functions to be performed are themselves altered. 5 professional statutes. Mathieson, 1971, and McLeish, 1970, provide an American and Canadian illustration of this point. In many states, teach ing certificates become invalid if a teacher does not attend a certain number of summer classes within a specific time span. It is becoming increasingly apparent that teacher training institutions must shift their emphasis to also include inservice education. As Edson, 1974, noted: Colleges that have prepared students for entry level school positions now are turning their attention to the development of continuing pro fessional education programs. If the educational needs and expecta tions of employed school personnel are to be satisfied, program development will require a new kind of interaction between schools and colleges. (p. 1) That the British Columbia Department of Education is aware of the need for inservice is evidenced by public statements and establishment of committees. For instance, the Education Minister stated in October, 1975, that more inservice training must be made available to teachers in British Columbia "'to equip them with updated knowledge and new techniques which are essen tial if we are to develop the quality educational system that we are all striving to attain.'" She continued, "'It is apparent . . . that the development of a quality educational system is predicated on the teachers' ability to deal with changing social and economic factors which are deeply influencing the teachers' function. . . . The teacher is engaged more and more today in the implementation of new education procedures, taking advantage of all the resources of modern educational devices and methods'" ("Inservice Education Must Expand—Minister," p. 1). Further, the Joint Board of Teacher Education was established to coordinate with the Universities Council and the Department of Education. One of its current concerns is with "the preparation of a policy/plan for coordinating and making more effective teacher inservice education in 6 British Columbia" ("Education Forum," p. 2). A position paper Inservice  Education for British Columbia Teachers (Mullen, 1975), specified the role of the Joint Board in inservice education, and provided some enlightened guidelines for inservice. Four projects sponsored by the Joint Board in concert with the Educational Research Institute of British Columbia are concerned with what is presently being done in inservice, what agencies are providing what service and what resources are presently being allo cated. In addition, exemplary practices and programs in other jurisdic tions and other professions were studied, resulting in the Summers-Chester 1976 project ("Coordinated Inservice Project Plan for B.C.," p. 3). The professional organization of provincial teachers, the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, is also stressing the importance of contin uing education. The chairperson of the teacher education committee commented: 'As public awareness and involvement in the education system increase, there is an ever-growing demand on the part of the public to have teachers examine and improve their professional performance. In order to achieve a unified approach to the on-going professional development of teachers, I believe that there must be a cooperative effort on the part of teachers, citizens, trustees, universities, and the department of education officials to ensure that the needs of students, communities and teachers are indeed being met.' ("Summer Schools Host Teachers," 1976, p. 1). The British Columbia English Teachers Association publication UPDATE recently contained an article which made the following points: One of the three important issues in British Columbia concerns the professional development needs ,of teachers and administrators; "'We must take the inservice function more seriously than we have in the past"1 (p. 13); important considerations are duration of inservice programs, financial support, released time, planning, on-going evaluation (Pedersen, 1976). The rationale for this study's focus on inservice in reading, the 7 English teacher, and the secondary school is contained in the following sections as well as in chapter IV. Briefly, the current public concern for standards of literacy, particularly of adolescents (even high school graduates), has brought pressure to bear on the school system generally. The junior high years are extremely important because for some students they represent the final contact with the educational system. For many of these students, these years constitute the last opportunity for devel oping functional literacy. Although the English teacher cannot and should not accept full responsibility for this endeavor, he will probably act in a leadership or consultant capacity. Hence the strands of the problem are interrelated, calling for the inservice development of English teachers to prepare them for the task of effectively teaching secondary reading. In order to suggest the most effective kinds of inservice for a particular situation, it is necessary to review the approaches that have been taken to inservice generally. By synthesizing the procedural aspects from the literature, it is possible to derive selectively the elements appropriate to the specific problem area: reading in the secon dary school. Thus a general-to-specific, analytic, deductive technique was followed in the study, with the aim of arriving at a viable model for inservice in reading for English teachers. B. Background of the Problem The controversial issue of declining standards of literacy cannot be dealt with by traditional methods. For instance, comparison of standardized reading scores from the fifties, sixties, and seventies reveals only part of the picture. Moreover, it is doubtful that much 8 confidence can be placed in such scores due to differences in samples tested, cultural changes over time invalidating items, and contradictory results (e.g., a Florida survey by J. L. Larsen et al., 1976, showed no significant drop in students' reading achievement between 1960 and 1970). Knowledgeable individuals caution against over-reaction to complaints voiced by schools, employers, and institutions of higher education and exaggerated by the media. For instance, Abraham Carp stated, "The inci dence of reading problems in grades K through 12 has been demonstrated, but the extent of the problem depends on definitions, measures, and popu lations" (p. 58 of chapter 3 of Corder's The Information Base for Reading, 1971). Tuinman et al.'s recent article (March 1976) pronounced only tenta tive, conservative conclusions resulting from a national reading survey. The major conclusion to be drawn is that between 1940 and 1965 there was a steady improvement in reading achievement. . . . The most con clusive statement that can be made is that the children of the present are reading better (or at least scoring higher on tests) than children of twenty or more years ago. Moreover, these differences appear to be quite significant. . . . (And) it appears that between 1960 and 1965 there may have been a slight rise in the test performance of the students in most of the school systems. Generally, however, the 1970 level of performance is slightly lower than that of 1960 or 1965 with the actual discrepancies differing from school system to school system. Such discrepancies are greater at the upper grade levels than they are at the lower grade levels. (pp. 460, 461, 459) Their comment that "it is extremely difficult for anyone interested in evaluating trends in literacy to obtain adequate data" (p. 461) was taken up by Bentley (March 1976). So, inevitably, we have been faced with the results of standardized tests, with all their scientific accoutrements of objectivity, norm-ing, reliability, validity. These tests have produced the scores. That it is almost impossible to make any reliable statements or gen eralizations on these scores and on what is happening to this thing called literacy—whether it is improving or declining—merely provides the opportunity for emotional debate rather than rational discussion, (p. 13) 9 In another article (January 1976) Bentley conceded: We shall hear the cry (Back to the 3 R's) again because obviously there are problems of language competence and performance in a society that is undergoing rapid change, that has more students staying in school longer and continuing to university, and that has accepted an increasing number of people whose first language is not English, (p. 1) On the local level, the Vancouver, British Columbia, School Board, largely as a result of public pressure, recommended in its Report of the Task Force on English, 1975: That the Vancouver School Board be selective in its choice of teachers of English by hiring those who have competence in all aspects of Eng lish, particularly language and developmental reading. That effec tive Sept., 1976, the School Board in hiring secondary teachers of English give priority to those who have completed course work in . . . Reading, including remedial and developmental reading. (p. 11) And in February, 1976, the Vancouver School Board proposed Project BUILD: Bringing Unity Into Language Development, a system-wide project involving considerable professional development in reading and the other language arts for all teachers in the system. Provincially, the Department of Education is committed to extending the literacy assessment initiated in 1975 as the Language Arts Survey ("Over 100 Recommendations Contained in English Language Arts Assessment," p. 67). That there are students with reading problems cannot and indeed should not be denied. J. E. Allen's original concerns about illiteracy were not ignored. In The Right to Read?—Target for the 70's, Allen noted that in the United States, nationwide, one out of every four students had significant reading deficiencies; in large city school systems, up to half of the students read below expectation; about half of the unem ployed youth, ages 16 to 21, were functionally illiterate; three quarters of the juvenile offenders in New York City were two or more years retarded in reading (Address to the National Association of School Boards of Education, Sept. 23, 1969). On Allen's initiative, a commission under took to report on the reading problem. The resulting document Toward a  Literate Society: The Report of the Committee on Reading of the National  Academy of Education (eds. J. B. Carroll and J. S. Chall, 1975), gave results of the 1973 Brief Test of Literacy: '"4.8 percent of the approx imately 23 million noninstitutionalized youths 12-17 years old in the United States are illiterate, i.e., they cannot read at the beginning fourth grade level'" ("Literacy Among Youths 12-17 years, United States," Washington, D.C, D.H.E.W., Dec. 1973, p. 64). As part of a national strategy to extend literacy, the document (i) proposed more extensive and improved inservice and preservice training of teachers, reading special ists and paraprofessionals, (ii) called for the involvement of every teacher .and principal in the reading program, and (iii) called also for the continuation of reading instruction into the high-school years. (See R. C. Preston's review, Journal of Reading, 19-5, Feb. 1976, 414-19). However, it is a comparable British report A Language for Life (Bullock, 1975), which points up the real issue: whether or not reading scores are higher or lower is insignificant in the face of evidence that in present-day society literacy demands are greater than ever before. Thus, even maintaining standards of the past is insufficient; students must be taught to read and write more effectively in order to function successfully in their adult lives. "It may be true that in commerce, industry, and higher education alike comparisons with past standards are misleading, but the clear implication is that standards need to be raised to fulfil the demands that are being made upon them" (p. 4). Instead of quibbling about real or imaginary shifts in scores, concern should be for immediate improvement of the educational system throughout. For the Bullock Report, this means better teacher education. Indeed a full chapter is devoted to inservice education. The relationship between preservice and inservice education and the particular strengths and weaknesses of each have received increasing attention in the literature, as the following section shows. Research on preservice and inservice education in secondary reading focuses on the role of the teacher generally and the English teacher particularly. The Bullock Report reaffirmed the teacher's importance: "The importance of methods, materials, patterns of organization, pupil-teacher ratios, and in fact all other factors, pale in importance when compared to the compe tency and attitude of the teacher responsible for language instruction. 'We have urged throughout that the most important single factor is the teacher' (p. 336)" (Pikulsky, 1976, p. 410).2 And it is the English teacher who is most likely to be allocated the responsibility for teaching reading in the secondary school. In addition, the English teacher is most likely to have had a preservice course in reading. Thus, the elements of the problem mesh: inservice in secondary reading for the English teacher. C. Related Research 1. Preservice and Inservice Prior to an in-depth analysis of the literature on inservice educa tion, some consideration of preservice education should be taken due to the historical and natural link between the two. Although there is 2 To reinforce this point, a survey of the main topics of sessions and their frequency at the 1975 International Reading Association Conven tion revealed that #1 was "The Teacher as a Variable in the Reading Pro cess—Methods of Improving the Competency of the Reading Teacher (Pre service and Inservice Techniques)" (Stallard, 1976). 12 evidence to support both sides of the argument concerning the value of preservice training, the emerging compromise—considering preservice and inservice training on a continuum of educational experience—appears most productive. Studies related to reading (Tetley, 1964; Rush, 1970; Sabin, 1973) provide support for the effectiveness of preservice training in secondary reading on subsequent classroom behavior. In proposing a new model for inservice training in 1971, Filip and others reported that "the current status of inservice training is far less satisfactory than the preservice training provided for most teachers" (p. 51). However, there are those who consider preservice training inadequate or insufficient. In a Michigan survey "teachers felt their preservice training was less than adequate in equipping them to cope with the kinds of reading situations they actually were facing" (McGinnis, 1961, p. 101). Dolores Durkin stated, "In my opinion, the very best of preservice courses, even when they concentrate exclusively on reading, can make only a small contribution to the development of expertness in teaching" (from Figurel, 1968, p. 309). L. J. Rubin even claimed, "'In the making of a teacher, it is highly probable that inservice training is infinitely more important than preservice training'" (from Anderson et al., 1973, p. 4). Lest this be taken as a criticism of teacher training institutions, it is important to recall that the adjustment of new teachers and the development of experienced teachers, with the ensuing and diverse needs of both groups, occur after classroom experience. Therefore, "regardless of the quality of preservice programs, such programs are inadequate and insufficient to maintain the teacher on the job. A comprehensive inservice 13 3 program will still be needed" (Moburg, 1972, p. 7). Moreover, "Many understandings and techniques related to the successful teaching of readin, can best be learned while teachers are on the job" (J. N. Abernathy, p. 7, from D. Russell, 1967). Two analogies may clarify this point. Preservice education, however well designed, can only equip a teacher . . . with the basic tools of his trade. All the skills of the art that raise the educator beyond the journeyman level depend upon learning in the situational context of his work. (Bessent et al., 1967, p. 5) and Preservice training is not enough to appropriately prepare the teacher for many aspects of his role that can only be internalized after he has accepted a teaching post. Preservice is, at best, a kind of introduction to the tasks; it is analogous in medicine to the young physician who is ready to intern because . . . true practice must ^ await placement in a real position. (Monahan and Miller, 1970, p. 1) As H. J. James, 1972, noted, it is only after classroom management and lesson planning have been mastered that techniques of teaching reading skills can be successfully learned and implemented. And, as those who espouse the view of education as a continuum (Childress, 1965; Austin, 1971; Schumer, 1973; Brimm and Tollett, 1974; Moon, 1975), note, if education is truly a life process, teachers will always need educational input, or inservice education. The Canadian point of view on the relation between preservice and inservice education, well referenced by the Canadian Teachers Federation "An example of a high quality preservice reading course was described by Goudey, 1970. It incorporated the lecture, small group discussion, and microteaching. Dulin, 1971, gave a comprehensive list of topics to be covered in a preservice secondary reading course. Ramsey, 1975, suggested improvement of preservice by increasing practical experiences. 4 One attempt to improve preservice training is the initiation of the intern system of extensive on-site experience (Joyce 1969; Burdin and Lanzillotti, 1970; Duffy, 1971; Snow, 1972), as opposed to the short-term, limited-value practicum (Haubrich, 1968). Results have proven beneficial to supervising as well as student teachers (Professional Growth Inservice  of the Supervising Teacher, 1966). 14 (Continuing Education for Teachers, 1975), reveals the historical develop ment which has taken place. Whereas initially inservice programs compen sated for preservice deficiencies, they now have reached the stage of complementing preservice, updating rather than upgrading. "It is not the function of inservice activities to supply gaps in knowledge which should have been filled by the preservice program. Inservice educational activities must not be considered as a replacement but as an addition to preservice education" (The Continuing Education of Teachers and Other Pro fessional Personnel in the Province of Newfoundland, 1974, p. 40). "Preservice training is only the start of professional training and growth for a teacher. . . . Regular inservice training is essential to stimulate continuous growth and professional renewal, thereby rendering the educa tional system more vital and responsive to change" (Partnership for Pro fessional Renewal, 1973, p. 46). "Preservice teacher education can be viewed only as the starting point for the teacher's career in learning. The need for continuous teacher learning is also supported by research suggesting that the teacher who continues to learn is also the teacher who teaches best. . . . [Therefore] the teacher preservice education program [should] be specifically designed to lead students to the point where they are able to begin setting the learning goals which will be gradually realized during their teaching careers" (Channon, 1975, p. 1 and p. 10). The need for inservice education in reading has been examined from various points of view. Studies have explored teachers' attitudes toward their competencies to teach reading (Patterson, 1958; Hargrove, 1973; Usova, 1973) and deficiencies of new or experienced teachers (Tetley, 1964; Inservice Education of Teachers: Research Summary, 1966; Dahl, 1970; R. J. Harsh in Corder, 1971; Devore, 1971; Bader, 1972; Cunningham, 1972) as well as the reading problems of students (Allen, 1969; Carp in Corder, 1971). The findings of these studies can be summarized as follows: The work of making good teachers must be carried forward steadily because of the immaturity of teachers on entering the profession, the unevenness of their preparation, the singular lack of external stimulus connected with practice of the profession, .the complex nature of the work that must be intrusted to even the poorest teacher, the profound injury that results when the work is badly done, the constant change in methods and curriculum. (C. D. Lowry from Henry, 1957, p. ix) 2. English Teachers and Reading The central position of the English teacher as the recipient of inservice education in reading is justified by the literature. Although the statement every teacher a teacher of reading seems a cliche, it is apparent that in reality such is not the case. Responsibility for the teaching of reading has been and continues to be largely the responsibil ity of the English teacher. As Thomas Estes stated, "an overwhelming percentage of English teachers are at some time asked to teach reading, wherever reading is introduced into the secondary curriculum, the English department is given consideration as the logical shoulder on which to lay the responsibility" (1972, p. 2). Unfortunately, however, most English teachers are no better prepared than any other teacher by preservice train ing or attitudinal inclination to teach reading. Corder's The Information  Base for Reading, 1971, noted that the majority of secondary teachers in the United States were not required to take a reading course, since only 6% of teacher training institutions required such a course, while 59% offered a course. G. K. McGuire's national survey of English teachers, 1969, revealed that 84% of the public high school teachers of English responding had not taken a course at the undergraduate level in the teaching of reading and that they felt it was their major area of incompetence, the one in which they most needed instruction. A 1970 survey by Farr et al. of Indiana secondary schools indicated that of the schools responding, 73% assigned responsibility for reading instruction to regular English teachers, the majority of whom had no reading background. Other surveys (Hutchinson, 1961; Simmons, 1963; Gibson, 1971; Fahy, 1972; Jenkins, 1972; Means, 1974; Hill, 1975; Rafferty, 1975) confirm this bleak picture, in spite of L. A. Bader's optimism that 35% of states now require secondary reading preparation for certification (Journal of  Reading, Dec. 1975). Morrison and Austin, 1976, reported that Recommen dation 9 of The Torchlighters: Tomorrow's Teachers of Reading, 1961, "that a course in basic reading instruction be required of all prospective secondary school teachers" has since been put into effect "by only 24.8 percent of the responding schools . . . the large majority of these responses . . . [apply] only to students majoring in English" (p. 650). The teacher training institutions most frequently mentioned as a future need "that a course in reading instruction be required of all prospective teachers majoring in secondary education" (p. 651).^ The state of reading instruction in English classes was exposed by Squire and Applebee in their 1968 survey of superior high school English departments. Of 112 departments, 16 accepted great responsibility for teaching reading, 37 some responsibility, 14 no responsibility. Thirty-three claimed teaching of reading was the responsibility of a special teacher or program. Fifty per cent of the schools employed reading ^Farmer, 1975, examining trends in the professional education of English teachers between 1963 and 1973 noted a broadening of curriculum to include listening, speaking, reading, writing, and the humanistic concept of comprehensive communication competencies. 17 specialists, usually in the English department. Well-developed develop mental reading programs existed in only 17% of the schools. In the class rooms observed, reading received some attention in only 10%, justifying the conclusion that "the average English teacher does not consider a con scious effort to teach reading a significant aspect of the English program" (p. 155). Chronister and Ahrendt reported in 1968 that of 216 British Columbia secondary schools, only 33 had a Developmental Reading Program, and teaching in these fell primarily on English teachers. Kinzer, 1976, pro vided more recent data. In a survey of all British Columbia secondary schools, 88.8% responding, Developmental Reading Programs existed in 21.5% of the schools, with teachers generally untrained in the teaching of reading. Of secondary reading instructors, only 10% meet IRA minimum requirements for secondary reading teachers. Lack of personnel was the primary reason given for the absence of a secondary reading program. In order to combat situations such as those revealed by Chronister and Ahrendt, suggestions have ranged from stricter course requirements for certification (Viall et al., 1967; Estes, 1972; Getz and Kennedy, 1972; Redd, 1972; Ohio Right to Read Materials, 1974) to inservice in the form of summer programs, laboratory courses, intern programs, social science studies, and so on (Suloway and Shugrue, 1963; Karls, 1970; Brown, 1972; Catalini, 1972). Suggested topics for English teachers were: critical reading, word recognition, vocabulary development, rate adjustment, study skills, comprehension, oral reading (Littrell, 1968); and reading achieve ment and programs, the reading process, evaluation and diagnosis, materials, the directed reading lesson, readability and remediation (Roberts, 1972). As for evaluation of the effectiveness of inservice education, 18 several studies (Ashley, 1967; James, 1969; Almase, 1973; Ciaglla, 1973; Stephens, 1973; Thompson, 1973; Young, 1973; Bean, 1974; Archer, 1975) confirm that inservice programs can produce desired changes in teachers and their students. These findings are reassuring, because in the past inservice has suffered from lack of success resulting in negative attitudes by teachers toward inservice (Tilley, 1971; Edwards, 1975). As Rubin, 1971b, stated, "Inservice education has indeed been virtually a lost cause . . . teacher professional growth has not been taken seriously, it lacks systematic methodology, and it has been managed with astonishing clumsiness. It is not surprising, therefore, that teachers have grown accustomed to its impotence and that administrators have come to regard it as a routine exercise in futility" (p. 245). One reason for improved results is improved status, that is, recognition of the importance of and need for inservice. This awareness has led to consideration of the factors, organizational and methodological, which affect good inservice programs. A review of these follows in chapter III. D. Summary The need for continuing education exists throughout the professions. University professional schools, in particular, are increasing involvement in continuing professional education. Rapid changes within society as well as within disciplines require updating. For educators, this can be accomplished through inservice programs. Recognition of the particular needs of teachers is evidenced by concern from the public as well as the government and the profession. Within this context is the focus of pro fessional development related to literacy. Although cautions must be exercised in comparing past and present standards of literacy, there is no question that literacy demands have increased, thus necessitating higher standards. But preservice education, however excellent in quality, cannot adequately prepare teachers for the task they face in the class room. Therefore, preservice and inservice training should complement one another on a continuum of teacher education. The responsibility for improving literacy, that is, teaching reading, generally falls to the English teacher even though he is often ill-prepared. To better enable him to teach reading, inservice education is essential. Thus, this chapter has moved from a general situation (the need of professionals for continuing education) to a specific problem (the competence of English teachers to improve standards of literacy), providing the background and rationale for the study. CHAPTER II THE PROBLEM A. Statement of the Problem To date, with the exception of works by Harris and Bessent (1969), Johnston (1971), Rubin (1971), and the classic 56th Yearbook of the  National Society for the Study of Education (Henry, 1957), few books have been written concerning inservice education as one type of continuing education for teachers. Particularly within the past decade, a rich primary literature has emerged with hundreds of articles on inservice education, staff development, instructional technology and models for inservice education appearing. However, this literature is widely scattered and requires careful analysis and synthesis before its substan tive content can be effectively used in applied situations. The purpose of this study is to identify, to collect, to critically analyze, to evaluate, and to synthesize the research and professional literature on inservice education generally and on secondary reading and inservice in particular. From this evaluation and synthesis will be generated the conceptual framework for a model for inservice education in secondary reading for English teachers. Selected instructional modules will also be presented to illustrate elements of the inservice model. An important subsidiary purpose of the study is to provide a source of information that can be turned to by others in planning and implementing effective inservice programs. The purpose and methodology of the study 20 21 derive from concepts emphasized by Glass (1976) in his presidential address to the American Educational Research Association: Before what has been found can be used, before it can persuade skep tics, influence policy, affect practice, it must be known. Someone must organize it, integrate it, extract the message. A hundred dis sertations are mute. Someone must read them and discover what they say. ... In our field review is the intellectual equivalent of original research. ... In educational research we need more schol arly effort concentrated on the problem of finding the knowledge that lies untapped in completed research studies. We are too heavily involved in pedestrian reviewing where verbal synopses of studies are strung out in dizzying lists. The best minds are needed to integrate the staggering number of individual studies. This endeavor deserves higher priority now than adding a new experiment or survey to the pile, (pp. 4-5) Effective analysis and synthesis of information can illustrate trends and priorities in inservice education. It can also serve to pin-point gaps in knowledge and areas where the state-of-the-art is weak. Systematic review and synthesis also decreases the time lag in the introduction of new ideas into education practice. Finally, synthesis can serve the important function of identifying those variables which appear to be im portant in instituting inservice programs preparatory to developing hypo theses for further research and development activities in the area. B. Definition of Terms Inservice Education has been variously called inservice training, growth-in-service activities, staff or professional development, profes sional growth, continuing education. It has been described as formal or informal by D. J. Johnston, 1971. Inservice education may consist of carefully planned, sustained work over a lengthy period leading to a further qualification in the form of an advanced certificate, diploma, or higher degree; it may equally well be casual study, pursued irregularly in the evenings or during vacations, and in no sense leading to measurable recognition for purposes of salary or of promotion. (p. 9) Harris and Bessent, 1969, on the other hand, provided a more operational 22 definition. Inservice education ... is concerned with much more limited tasks [than supervision is], namely the development of instructional staff members as professional practitioners, in such ways as to have a reasonably direct impact upon the quality of instruction offered in the school . . . [that is,] planned activities for the instructional improvement of professional staff members. (p. 2) A different approach was taken by Aaron et al., 1965, by considering inser vice education in terms of the characteristics of an inservice program: goals and desired outcomes are defined in the beginning; the program is based on the classroom teacher's instructional problems; the program is flexible, providing for follow-up activities and individual work; time is planned and must be adequate. For present purposes, A. J. Lewis' (1957) definition provides an adequate starting point: "An inservice education program . . . must be concerned with helping professional personnel develop the attitudes, understandings, and skills that will enable them to provide a better program of education" (p. 154). To this should be added a con sideration of the formal/informal approach, the importance of changing teachers' behavior, and the elements instrumental in an effective program. Therefore, In-service Education is: that portion of professional development that should be publicly supported and includes a program of systemat ically designed activities planned to increase the competencies— knowledge, skills, and attitudes—needed by school personnel in the performance of their assigned responsibilities; . . . any professional development activity that a teacher undertakes singly or with other teachers after receiving his or her initial teach ing certificate and after beginning professional practice; . . . a process through which an individual responds to a need to do or know or feel something differently and, as a result of the process, per  forms differently in his assigned responsibilities. (Mullen, 1975) Secondary Reading is the reading, both instructional and independent, done by students in the junior secondary schools of British Columbia. In the Review of the Literature, however, reading studies included may be from either elementary or secondary schools, or from institutions of higher 23 learning. An English Teacher is any teacher who teaches English in the second ary school, regardless of his academic preparation or the amount of time spent in that content area. Literacy was comprehensively discussed in terms of changing standards of literacy by Abraham Carp in "The Reading Problem in the United States" (Corder, 1971) in which he concluded that since criterion-referenced ap proaches were unavailable, the definition of literacy adopted by the U.S. Census Bureau would suffice. Literacy is the ability to read and write a simple message in any language; any individual with more than five years of schooling is considered literate. Moreover, individuals with less schooling can on their own report be counted as literate. Carp defined functional literacy by the number of years of education completed with em phasis on completing fewer than five, eight, or twelve years of education. In addition, grade achievement on national norm-referenced tests of reading at these levels were to be incorporated. Carp was working with the best tools avalable at the time. Since then, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1970, has produced criterion-referenced tests for functional' literacy. And the whole issue of measuring literacy has been given a new perspective by John Bormuth's recent paper "Reading Literacy: Its Definition and Assessment" (Carroll-Chall, 1975). After reviewing the limitations of past definitions of literacy, Bormuth posited that literacy is the ability to respond competently to real world reading tasks, measured by an individual's skills, the kind and amount of skill, plus the readability of materials. He seemed to be moving to ward standards of literacy based on purpose, circumstance, and individuals, defining a person as literate "when he could perform well enough to obtain 24 the maximum value from the materials he needed to read" (p. 98). The British approach to the literacy issue is eminently pragmatic: '" [He] is illiterate who is not as literate as someone else thinks he ought to be"1 (Bullock, 1975, p. 10). Functional literacy is the ability to read and write for practical purposes of daily life. The Bullock Report also emphasized the limitations of standardized test results for assessing cur rent standards, particularly with reference to past achievement. An alter native system was suggested, including the design of new tests on more appropriate measurement and reading bases (i.e., covering the multiple aspects of the reading process). In the present study, however, literacy is related to a student's ability to read competently material with which he must deal in school or in daily life. The assessment currently being conducted in British Columbia of students at grades eight and twelve seeks to determine precisely this: how well are students reading the materials—both academic and non-academic— with which they are faced? The data from this study will not be available until 1977-78. Therefore, for the purposes of this study satisfactory in struments for measuring literacy are: standardized reading tests, informal reading inventories, and cloze tests of reading comprehension, in combination. Since one goal of teaching English is to help students to read with understanding and appreciation, concern for literacy combines the functional and the aesthetic. Basic skills as well as such complex activities as crit ical reading must be mastered. It is not sufficient for a student to be able to read at a literal level because to function in society, critical reading is also an essential skill. Therefore, functional literacy, for this paper's purposes, means more than the ability to read signs, labels, or directions. It implies the capacity to analyze and evaluate printed material relevant 25 to common tasks, in or out of school. It is this level of literacy which is aspired to. A model as used here in the social science sense should not be con fused with the models of pure science. Several definitions exist which are related, but not entirely appropriate. In F. B. Davis' "Psychometric Re search on Comprehension in Reading" (Davis, 1971) a model is "'a description, a collection of statistical data, or an analogy used to help visualize, often in a simple way, something that cannot be directly observed'" (Webster's New  International Dictionary, 3rd edition). Further, "Gephart (1970) defines a model for purposes of research in reading as 'a representation of a phen omenon which displays the identifiable structural elements of that phenomen on, the relationships among those elements, and the processes involved in the natural phenomenon (p. 38)'" (Davis, 1971, p. 8-4). Harold Borko, 1967, claimed "a model is always an approximation, usually a simplification, and hopefully an aide to insight" (Lippitt, 1973, p. 1). Lippitt, 1973, stated "a model is a symbolic representation of the various aspects of a complex event or situation, and their interrelationships" (p. 2). An educational model necessarily lacks the concreteness and specif icity of a symbolic model in mathematics, science, psychology, or cyber netics. It may incorporate some overlapping between presumably discrete kinds of models such as schematic (e.g., a flow chart showing the movement of information, time-phasing, or relationships within an organization) and simulation (approximation of real-life situations). However, although it is possible to derive a symbolic illustration of an educational model (see appendix), in this paper natural language will suffice. A possible referent for the educational model is the change model which incorporates behavior, goals, directing forces, possible hindrances, 26 and the connection of goals to resources. Because all variables cannot be controlled, the model combines art and science. Components are goals and objectives; norms and values; structure and roles; problem-solving process; power, authority and influence; perpetuation process, situation and space; communication (Lippitt, 1973) • An even more appropriate comparison for an educational model would be to a model of curriculum development where similar elements are involved: participants at various levels, subject matter, organizational sequence, accountability, evaluation orientation. Presumably both are concerned with process as well as product. Similarly, curriculum design is a pro cess of conceptualizing a set of systematic relationships between pupils, teacher behavior, materials, content, time, and instructional outcomes; a guide for instruction describing a specific arrangement of all factors re lating to instructional practice toward specific outcomes (Good, 1973, p. 158). Workshop is a generic term for an organizational framework in which participation of those attending is the key. Many different kinds of ac tivities may be incorporated in the workshop, ranging from illustrated lec ture to guided practice. (Bishop, 1976, includes: seminar, small group discussion, group interview, dialogue, consultation, value clarifications; brainstorming, micro-laboratory, micro-teaching; interaction analysis, field trip.) However, involvement in development of skills or practical application of knowledge is requisite. Good, 1973, defined a workshop as an instructional method in which persons with common interests and problems meet with appropriate specialists to acquire necessary information and develop solutions through group study; usually residential and of several days' duration (p. 652). 27 C. Limitations The extant information base was identified and examined. A prac tical decision was made to limit the problem by focusing on educational inservice rather than on the whole body of continuing professional educa tion, and within educational inservice, on aspects related to secondary reading and English. D. Sources of Materials The major sources of materials were Research in Education (RIE) and Current Index to Journals in Education (CUE), Dissertation Abstracts, and books. Also referred to were Education Index, Encyclopedia of Educational  Research, Ath edition, and Handbook of Research on Teaching, 1st and 2nd editions. Canadian sources were Graduate Theses in Education, 1913-62, Education Studies Completed in Canadian Universities, Education Canada, Directory of Education Studies in Canada, Canadian Theses, Canadian Edu  cation Index, Canadian Masters Theses in Reading Education, Canadiana, and Canadian Books in Print. E. Elements of the Problem The literature on inservice education generally is of two kinds: one focuses on a given element of inservice, such as needs assessment in the planning stage or the development and implementation of an evaluation instrument; the second describes a program or model of inservice, incor porating most of the major elements—Planning, Methods, and Evaluation. For present purposes, the second group was analyzed to derive a framework within which to consider all the components of inservice: guidelines, needs, goals, roles, structure, activities, and evaluation. Then each example was classified as an illustration of one of these elements, thus 28 permitting comparison with the first group of articles, studies, and such. Certain exemplary models in reading were selected to conclude the litera ture review. F. Procedures and Techniques Initially the research technique consisted of documentation of the literature in the field, that is location, classification, and analysis, plus derivation of generalizations and practical principles. Specifically, each document was classified by its major emphasis: Organization—Guide lines, Needs, Goals, Roles; Methodology—Structure, Activities; Evalua tion; Models. These categories were arrived at from a preliminary study of the literature, previously undertaken. This preliminary study included a review of the calendars of Canadian teacher training institutes to determine their offerings/requirements in secondary reading; a perusal of Dissertation Abstracts on secondary reading; reading of available books on inservice and secondary reading; reading the abstracts resulting from ERIC computer data base searches in Inservice, Secondary Reading, and English Education. The comprehensive review confirmed the validity of the original classification scheme. On the basis of the literature search, a model was designed incor porating the appropriate elements related to inservice in reading for English teachers and illustrative instructional modules produced. G. Summary Briefly, chapter II has provided the framework for dealing with the problem. The purpose of the study was to identify, collect, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize the literature on inservice education and 29 secondary reading, the outcome being the development of a conceptual model, and related illustrative instructional modules, for inservice education in secondary reading for English teachers. The following terms were defined: inservice, secondary reading, English teacher, literacy, model, and work shop. Limitations of the study and sources of information were explicated. Finally, elements of the problem and procedures and techniques for dealing with them were specified. Thus, the methodology for both the review of the literature (chapter III) and the conceptual model and module develop ment (chapter IV) has been established. CHAPTER III A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The following is a synthesis of the relevant literature on inservice education, including what has been done, the emerging trends, and the direction in which professional development is likely to move. This review provides both a rationale and a framework for the development of a model inservice program in secondary reading and illustrative instructional modules. It also indicates the extent to which the following prediction has been fulfilled, the degree to which inservice education generally and in reading specifically has gained the recognition and support essential for the promised renewal. Almost a decade ago, D. Davies wrote: Inservice teacher training is the slum of American education— disadvantaged; poverty-stricken; neglected; psychologically isolated; riddled with exploitation, broken promises, and conflict. But the time of renewal is at hand. New forces, new resources, new needs, new directions emerge; the next decade is almost certain to bring great change and great controversy. (Teacher Education, Washington, D.C, 1967, p. 295, quoted from Ritz et al., 1970, p. 12) A. Organization of Inservice Programs Within the rubric of inservice programs, organizational, method ological, and illustrative examples can be analyzed under Organization, Methodology, Evaluation, and Models. Organization is concerned with (1) Guidelines, (2) Needs, (3) Goals, and (4) Roles. 30 31 1. Guidelines Several tables and charts follow, providing data on articles and reports. There is no single format to the tables since they are essen tially idiosyncratic, serving different purposes and illustrating variant information. Some of the tables provide a visual representation of trends by date or type of practice, showing shifts in emphasis and relative popu larity of activities or methods. Other tables give verbal descriptions of special features. For example, within table 1, twenty-eight reports (published from 1957 through 1975) on Guidelines for Inservice Programs are presented; some are concerned with surveying current practices while others suggest improvements such as expansion of roles or concentration on process. In contrast to tables, charts are used throughout to organ ize material and concepts from specific authors. One of the earliest and most comprehensive references on inservice is N. B. Henry's classic Inservice Education for Teachers, Supervisors, and  Administrators, 1957. In it, J. C. Parker's "Guidelines for Inservice Education" included the following:* 1. people should work as individuals and group members on significant problems. The topics must be meaningful to the participants. "To be effective, inservice education should fill a need teachers have to acquire certain skills and knowledge which they consider will be beneficial for them, particularly in the immediate future" (McKague, 1975, p. 16). 2. the same people should formulate goals and plans. Teachers should be involved from needs assessment to establishment of objectives to plans for accomplishing objectives. 3. opportunities should be provided for inter-personal relations. If inservice is to be effective, good interpersonal relations are essential. Inservice is not merely a knowledge-transfer experi ence; it is this plus an affective experience: to see and try something new, and to incorporate it into a teaching style. This *The general guidelines from Parker and McCracken (see p. 37) are presented; they have been supplemented and updated with more recent related references. TABLE 1 SURVEY OF STUDIES PROVIDING GUIDELINES FOR INSERVICE PROGRAMS Names, Dates Area or Population Topic or Field Method Results 1. Jaffa, N. N., 1957 Baltimore, Md. Inservice teacher education pro gram, elementary Planning strat egies examined Guidlines developed, emphasizing need for flexibility 2. Morrison, Coleman, 1962 Reading teachers Preservice and in-service education IRA conference paper Guidelines presented 3. Schild, R. J., 1964 APSS Inservice programs Survey of schools Directions proposed—e.g., expanded use of educational T.V. 4. Schult and Shell, 1964 Several states Inservice math ematics especially re. new curricula Review of pro grams Recommendations: local partic ipation, use of media 5. Edmonds, Fred et al., 1966 Kentucky University Inservice teacher education Components examined Recommendations for organization to induce educational change 6. Atkins, J. P. , 1968 Tennessee Inservice programs of secondary social studies teachers Teachers survey education Guidelines for more effective inservice postulated 7. Leep, A. G., et al., 1968 Inservice programs Development of programs examined Guidelines provided Table 1 (continued) Names, dates Area or Population Topic or Field Method Results 8. Schankerman, Maurice, 1968 Elementary school teachers Participation in inservice educa tion Survey Teacher preferences revealed, e.g., involvement, released time 9. Bigelow, E. B., 1969 6 mid-wes tern states Inservice educa tion programs Survey and pro posed changes Recommendations for program made, e.g., organization, teacher invol vement 10. Cramer, S. H., 1970 Washington, D.C. Preservice and in-service prepara tion for educa tional guidance Survey of school counsellors Existing programs described 11. Moir, C. F., 1970 Manitoba Inservice educa tion in the school Types of in-service examined Recommendations re. long-term goal setting, teacher planning, on-site inservice 12. Shorey, L. L., 1970 Ontario Personal and pro fessional growth of teachers Influential factors examined Workshops recommended to combine personal and professional growth of teachers 13. Turner, I. S., 1970 Maryland Attitudes toward an inservice program Survey of teachers Guidelines derived from teacher responses 14. Filip, R. T., et al., 1971 California Inservice train ing Survey plus interviews of teachers From the survey and literature re view, a model was designed incor porating course work, planned ac tivities and experiences Table 1 (continued) Names, dates Area or Population Topic or Field Method Results 15. Froberg, S. E., 1971 Florida Inservice educa tion program Guide developed Types of programs and activities described 16. Sobol, F. T., 1971 Inservice training procedures Variables for changing inser vice examined Guidelines included: need for contin uing education, administrative participation, teacher leadership 17. Arnold, J. A., 1973 University of Pittsburgh Individualized inservice program for elementary teachers Program designed and evaluated Principles of the program: teacher participation, multiple means of eval uation, value of individualization 18. Matthews, Sister M. A., 1973 New Jersey Inservice programs for high schools Programs designed Guidelines developed for teacher, school system; teacher center estab lished 19. Maudlin, R. M., 1973 Ball State University Inservice meetings for curriculum evaluation at elem entary level Meetings analyzed Guidelines: group dynamics, group decision making 20. Ruffin, Herbert, 1973 Inner City Teachers Inservice training Model proposed Participants identify problems, develop guidelines, plan activities 21. Ainsworth, B. A., 1974 University of Maryland Inservice programs Survey of tea cher perceptions Practicality, support, encouragement, better communication desirable Table 1 (continued) Names, Dates Area or Population Topic or Field Method Results 22. Feinberg, M. W., 1974 Northwestern University Inservice prac tices for tea chers of Gr. 5-9 Survey of schools re. guidelines Support for needs assessment, behav-iorally defined objectives, use of consultants 23. Gidney, R. , . et al., 1974 Ontario (OISE) Continuing edu cation Review of rea sons for failure of continuing education Recommendations: increased financial support, better efforts at motivating teachers 24. White, S. M., 1974 New Brunswick Inservice programs Survey and exam ination of pro grams Description of state of inservice 25. Anderson, G. R., 1975 Syracuse Inservice educa tion for skill needs Survey of secon dary schools Differences between teachers and supervisory staff re. skill needs, leadership roles; differences among teachers due to grade and experience levels re. priorities of needs 26. Ellis, B. J., 1975 New Hampshire Inservice educa tion programs Survey of schools Situation in New Hampshire is exemplary 27. Post, L. M., 1975 Texas Inservice educa tion Survey of tea chers and super visory staff Differences noted between small-large schools, between teachers-administrators OJ On Table 1 (continued) Names, Dates Area or Population Topic or Field Method Results 28. RX Prescrip tion of Tea cher Prepar ation in Reading In struction, 1975 Office of Education, Wash., D.C. Teacher prepara tion in reading instruction Various cities evaluated on basis of student achievement Great variety in practices exists— e.g., use of para-professionals, competency-based programs, criterion-referenced performance LO 37 can occur only if confidence exists in fellow-participants and inservice leaders. (See also Shorey, 1970; Devore, 1971). 4. attention should be given to individual and group problem-solving processes. 5. the atmosphere should be one of respect, support, permissiveness, and creativity. 6. interrelationship of different groups should be attended to— administrators, supervisors, teachers, etc. 7. individual differences in groups should be accepted and utilized. 8. there should be a move from decisions to actions. Participants should have the opportunity to try things on site, even through simulation or role-playing. 9. teachers should be encouraged to try new ideas in real situations, to experiment in their own classrooms. 10. appraisal should be an integral part. Evaluation is an extremely difficult area throughout education and particularly in inservice. How can the effectiveness of an inservice program be evaluated? A second example of Guidelines is from R. McCracken's "Inservice Education of Teachers" (Figurel, 1969). 1. the program must fit the personnel involved. That is, experienced and new teachers have different needs. A program must be flexible enough to satisfy both groups. 2. the program should extend over a long time period. All available data support the desirability of lengthy inservice (Fuller et al., 1969; Katz, 1973). Although some short-term programs have immediate benefits (Carline, 1970; Scharles, 1971; Russell, R. A., 1974) it is doubtful whether their effects are lasting. As important as the duration of the program is the time it is given. Released-time programs are more successful (Schiffman, 1969; Allen, 1970; Peeler and Shapiro, 1971; Johnson, L., 1972). Across Canada the amount of released time allotted for teachers' inservice programs varies considerably with a range of three to ten days (Professional Development Clauses in Negotiated Agreements, 1974). 3. the program should use all available personnel. The professional staff on-site as well as outside experts should be utilized.6 4. the program should provide support and challenge. This is impor tant because it introduces the issue of compulsory versus volun tary attendance. If attendance is compulsory, some teachers feel threatened. They will need support if they are to benefit from inservice. On the other hand, self-confident teachers need to be challenged to use to advantage the new materials, techniques, and such presented to them. 5. meetings and seminars should be conducted as exemplars. That is, if a goal is to encourage English teachers to group within their classes, the inservice participants should be grouped. If an objective is to discourage the use of the lecture technique, the The inclusion of para-professionals in inservice is documented by Mark, 1975. 38 inservice should not be conducted by lecturing. 6. demonstrations should involve children, preferably the pupils of the teachers who are watching the demonstration. This may not be possible, but simulation or role-playing situations can pro vide actual experience. 7. teachers from several schools should be mixed. There are advan tages, such as different frames of reference (administrations) and points of view. 8. the program must recognize and work to eliminate 'they'. That is, the forces which presumably prevent teachers from developing can be overcome—look to other teachers for suggestions. Sas katchewan's Teaching-Learning Conditions Projects identify condi tions which prevent teachers from functioning as they would like to (McKague, 1975). 9. professional materials should be readily available. Hands-on experience should be possible. Even a practical exercise using the materials would help. These two references incorporate most of the points made in those studies which include general inservice guidelines. The need for flexib ility in inservice and the impossibility of a single prescriptive format were recognized by Jaffa, 1957. "Detailed, specific recommendations for use in inservice . . . cannot be made since each situation is unique and changing in order to meet the needs of particular individuals at a given time" (p. 2527). The studies detailed in table 2 recognize the different needs of beginning teachers and of small schools, and the individuality of the motivational aspects of inservice. Guidelines for inservice programs in reading do not differ significantly from those presented for general inservice programs above (Aaron et al., 1965; Robinson and Rauch, 1965; Rauch, 1967; Russell, 1967; Katrein, 1968; Moburg, 1972; Axelrod, 1975; Draba, 1975; James, 1976), although they often include specific references to topics and goals based on student and teacher needs. For example, Moburg emphasized the affective areas of reading interest, growth through reading, and enjoyment of literature; was concerned with the change pro cess, group interaction, and effecting change in the individual; and desired to effect change in teacher attitudes and/or behavior so that sub sequent instruction and student learning were enhanced. TABLE 2 STUDIES SUPPORTING THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY IN INSERVICE Name, date Area, Population Method Subject/Focus Recommendations/Conclusions 1. Cory, N. D. t Chicago teachers Survey of fac tors affecting participation in continuing education Professional growth of teachers Incentives: status, teamwork, praise, growth opportunity 2. Brown and Snaker, 1961 A Teachers of dif ferent sized high schools Guidelines developed Inservice educa tion for mathe matics teachers Suggestions appropriate to differ ent sized schools given 3. Taylor, R. L., 1964 * Small high schools Survey Inservice education Inservice education program most often neglected in small secondary school 4. Haan, A. S., 1966 * Small school district (Cal.) Summer school workshop Inservice program Demonstration teaching, guided prac tice, plus follow-up throughout the year valuable 5. O'Hanlon, James, 1967* Small schools (Nebraska) Survey of practices Inservice education Guidelines, activities, topics es tablished: e.g., motivation, new techniques, individual differences 6. Sorsabel, D. K., 1969 f Classified em ployees in se lected educa tional organ izations National survey Inservice train ing (especially skill improve ment) Motivation based primarily on promotion opportunities -Table 2 (continued) Name, date Area, Population Method Subject/Focus Recommendations/Conclusions 7. Lister, R. L., 1970 t Elementary Teachers Survey of attitudes Inservice pro grams Factors contributing to good inservice education programs: relevance, local objectives based on needs and goals, variety of activities 8. Johnston, D. J., 1971 t Teachers in Britain Books on many aspects of in-service Inservice education Motivation for participation: salary, status, promotion, degree, personal motives 9. Comras and Masterman, 1972 t Teachers, schools, districts Rationale explicated Inservice programs Benefits from inservice: elevation of teacher morale and status, improvement of instructional techniques, account ability for implementation 10. Dubin, S. S., 1972 t Teachers Rationale given Updating skills Psychological factors which motivate continuing education discussed 11. Shepherd and Quisenberry, 1972 / First year teachers Model established Development of Professional Competencies Continuity between pre- and inservice necessary, with focus on special needs of new teachers 12. DiTosto, Evelyn, 1974/ Beginning teacher Guidelines suggested Inservice training Special needs focused on—e.g., organizational capabilities 13. Chadwick, E. H., 1975* Rural schools Guidelines for project given Inservice tea cher education Learning center, summer workshops, parent participation suggested Table 2 (continued) Name, date Area, Population Method Subject/Focus Recommendations/Conclusions 14. Wright, A. W. , 1975 / Beginning ele mentary tea chers (Nfld.) Survey of problems Preservice and inservice pro grams Suggestions for improvements to meet needs Key: *Small schools, /Beginning teachers, tMotivational aspects 42 2. Needs One of the most significant conclusions of research has been that the effectiveness of inservice is directly related to the extent to which it is concerned with immediate felt needs of teachers (Larson, 1962; Staples, 1970). As S. M. James, 1976, stated, "Teacher improvement and renewal rests ultimately in the hands of teachers themselves. Effective . . . inservice education begins with a teacher's felt need to improve" (p. 320). These felt needs may be in the following areas: 1. knowledge—updating. What is the current state of the art? 2. aids and materials—What is available? Eo\<r is it to be selected?'' 3. research—What has been done that can be applied to the classroom? 4. evaluation—How can diagnosis of students be accomplished and achievement be evaluated? What new tests and techniques are available? 5. curriculum—What new developments are there? 6. instructional methods and techniques—What can be used in the classroom? 7. communication—How can new and experienced teachers, teachers and administrators, teachers and consultants of all kinds communicate effectively? (Johnston, 1971) Because of the variety of needs, a needs assessment is an essential pre liminary step in the planning of an inservice program in general (O'Hanlon and Witters, 1967; Kirby, 1973; Ellis, 1974; Parsons and Fuller, 1974; Schreiber, 1975) or in a specific content area (Brantner, 1964; Dye, 1966; Adams, 1971 [Reading]; Schleich, 1971 [Reading]; Hebert, 1973 [Reading]; Uche, 1973; Grella, 1974 [Reading]; Hargrave, 1975; Stander, 1975). One innovative use of the needs assessment compares responses of different groups, teachers and students, teachers and administrators (Whitworth, 1964; Baker, 1970; Williams, 1972; Jaquith, 1973). W. Paisley's Developing a Sensing Network for Information Needs in Educa  tion, 1972, confirmed that principals and teachers perceive their needs In a survey by Greer, 1974, teachers with some reading training specified a need for a course in materials. 43 for information differently, teachers being more aware of the importance of information related to reading. Rowe and Hurd, 1966, concluded that teachers and principals also differ in views on educational change. And Weipert, 1975, noted that teachers and principals value inservice differ ently, with principals being more favorable. Another innovation is the needs assessment of a group rather than of individuals. Knowledge in a content area is specified by experts; questions are designed to be answered by a group. The difference between the achievement of the group and the expected standard makes up the content of the program (Lindsay et al., 1974). 3. Goals On the basis of the needs assessment, an appropriate program can be planned specifying goals (Fullbright et al., 1966; Asher, 1967; Bash and Morris, 1968; Johnson et al., 1968; Blosser, 1969), topics (New York  City Right to Read Impact Project, 1974), and approaches such as demon strations and discussions (Kaz, 1971). This process is exemplified by the Merrimack Educational Center's annual needs assessment and follow-up classification of teacher competencies in the area of learning disabilit ies (Sanders, 1973). In reading, Peterson and Schepers, 1966, and Debrick et al., 1968, suggested as topics: Directed Reading Lesson, SQ3R textbook study technique, patterns of organization, skills and problems in content areas, flexibility, comprehension, vocabulary, standardized tests and informal tests. Mohr, 1971, summarized inservice instructional goals and activities as follows: 1. increase the effectiveness of all teachers, trainers, and trainees 2. develop the interpersonal growth of teachers 3. provide means for self-evaluation 4. change patterns and methods of directing learning experiences 44 5. improve utilization of educational resources 6. improve teacher-child relationships 7. provide opportunities for discussion and sharing of ideas 8. provide adequate feedback about the effectiveness of their teaching 9. provide opportunities for continuous growth and to extend competencies 10. assist practicing teachers to become more proficient in the use of media 11. obtain maximum impact by reaching entire staff of a school 12. involve teachers in the planning and implementation of inservice courses 13. provide atmosphere which facilitates growth and change 14. involve teachers and teacher groups in research and experimenta tion The forms of the inservice could be academic study, institutes, workshops, staff meetings, visits and demonstrations, field trips, cultural experi ences, organized group study, individualized professional study. Durkin, 1975, listed as the ultimate goals of an alternative model of staff development the following: - a long-range cooperative staff development program between a university and a school system - an opportunity for classroom teachers to help design their own inservice programs - a model providing time for teachers to assess their roles and evaluate their effectiveness - an opportunity for teachers to become familiar with latest research in education - a new model for a teacher intern program - a systematic method of involving staffs of schools in a renewal program - an opportunity for university faculty members to interact with classroom teachers - an opportunity for teachers to visit model schools and classrooms - an opportunity for the involvement of principals, parents, para-professionals, and teachers in planning programs for their schools - an opportunity for interaction among elementary, secondary, and university faculties - a program designed to recognize and deal with problem areas such as racism and self-concept in schools - a program dealing with latest teaching techniques of materials - a program designed to link preservice and inservice models of teacher education Otto and Erickson, 1973, summarized the stages of the inservice process of reading: 45 Identify needs—what are the problems? 4-Set a goal—tackle a specific problem 4-State objectives—define goals in specific (behavioral) terms 4-Select activities—consider cost, resources, participants 4-Evaluate results—were objectives/goals reached? In the most comprehensive comparative study to date of the planning process used for program development in continuing education in medicine, social work, and education, Pennington (1976) generalized a six stage model of the continuing education planning cycle: Program Origin—formal assess ment of educational need; Specific Program Idea—enlist planners, consul tation with experts and peers, refine program idea, match institutional priorities with client requests; Program Commitment—decision to conduct program, analysis of client characteristics, selection of instructors, arrangement for facilities, publicity, recruitment of participants, orien tation of instructors; Course Development—course content, review of literature, development of instructional objectives, selection of instruc tional methods, preparation of course material; Teaching Learning Trans  action—mid course evaluation; Post Program Analysis—end of course eval uation. Examination of Pennington's model reveals that general continuing education program principles apply equally well to the development of more specific inservice programs. Finally, the importance of preliminary planning to the success of an inservice program should not be underestimated (Alvir, 1974). "Too often inservice programs suffer more from a lack of direction than from a lack of financial support or time for execution" (Brimm and Tollett, 1974, pp. 524-5). 46 4. Roles At this point, a description of the roles of participants in in-service seems timely. Although their functions will vary depending on the purposes of the program, the resources available, and the participants themselves, certain generalizations are possible. In an inservice read ing program, the personnel involved can be teachers, administrators, superintendents, instructional supervisors, consultants from outside the system, and reading consultants. Aaron et al., 1965, suggested the following:* The teacher should - communicate his needs - participate actively in planning the program - prepare in advance where appropriate - maintain a positive attitude toward the benefits of the program - participate actively in discussions and demonstrations - evaluate his own progress - cooperate with other teachers in implementing the results of the program. Moreover, the teacher should be prepared to assume a leadership role when he has special skills or teaching techniques (Doherty, 1967; Smith et al., 1970; McDonald, 1971; Rubin, 1971a). One issue of the Alberta Teach  ers Association Magazine (52-2, Nov.-Dec. 1971) contained a number of articles reiterating the notion that, ultimately, the responsibility for inservice rests with the individual teacher. The principal should - build a background of understanding, for example, of what constitutes a good reading program - initiate or encourage others to start inservice programs - encourage teachers to discuss their concerns and to become involved in inservice activities - organize, support, and attend inservice programs - involve teachers in selection of materials and methods - provide released and visitation time for inservice and observation. *The single-spaced material on pp. 46-48 comes from Aaron et al., 1965. 47 The importance of the principal cannot be overestimated (Gregoric, 1973; Abramowitz, 1974; Smith and Wilson, 1974). He sets the intellectual, physical, and psychological conditions for a learning environment. "In the final analysis, the success of the inservice program is determined by the attitude of administrators" (Hill, p. 18, in Russell, 1967). The principal as leader facilitates inservice by being available, reinforcing, communicative, innovative, supportive (Acosta, 1972). T. R. Carlson's Administrators and Reading, 1972, includes a useful section on the prin cipal's role in inservice. Melvin, 1975, used modular reading materials with elementary principals effectively. The superintendent should - know what constitutes a good reading program - attend, support financially, help organize inservice programs - help determine effectiveness of inservice by providing evaluation instruments. The superintendent should provide liaison with the department of education, cooperating colleges, and other resources; he should delegate authority appropriately for the initiation and implementation of programs; he should ensure that all levels of personnel are involved in inservice (Edmonds et al., 1966; Herber, 1970; Dolph, 1975).8  The instructional supervisor should - develop a background of knowledge on good programs, materials, and methods - serve as a liaison between the school and the superintendent - point out the needs for inservice and participate in the programs, for example, by demonstrating materials and methods - arrange for consultants and materials - encourage teachers to assume leadership roles . The extent to which administrators and superintendents can negatively affect inservice is reflected by a Texas study (Bonorden, 1974) in which they planned inservice—there was no teacher involvement in more than 50% of the schools—and used district central office personnel as resource people. See also Roy, 1975. 48 The consultant from outside the system should - know the needs and present practices of the participants - be well prepared for his task - refuse any invitation for which he feels he cannot effectively accomplish the task or for which he feels local leaders will not prepare for or follow-up from the program - encourage local leadership. As continuing education becomes more important, university personnel will necessarily have more communication with teachers in service (Organizing  Centers for Inservice Education in Individualizing Instruction and  Learning, 1967; Lavin and Schuttenberg, 1972; Haycocks, 1974). They should be prepared to include teachers in planning and provide inservice on-site (Falkenberg et al., 1971; Winsand, 1971; Theimer, 1972; Ward, 1973; Edson, 1974; Powell, 1974; Thompson and Johnson, 1975). The reading consultant should - observe all aspects of the existing reading program (materials, teachers, and so on) - act as a resource person in the selection of materials, encourage ment of new teaching practices - serve as an agent for change in a continually developing program - accept a leadership role with teachers, administrators, and the public, initiating inservice, supervising public relations. The reading consultant may be called a special reading teacher or a reading supervisor. He is an information agent as well as a supportive agent (Robinson and Rauch, 1965; A Guide to the Role of the Reading Teacher, Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1970; Smith et al., 1970; Harker, 1973; Robinson and Smith, 1973; Burnham, 1974; Shirley, 1974). Other references dealing with the roles of inservice participants reiterate the above (Henry, 1957; Moffitt, 1973; Chem, 1968; Harris and Bessent, 1969; Otto and Erickson, 1973). Canadian sources reveal a concern with the roles of provincial organizations (Teachers' Federations) and Departments of Education in inservice. "It is generally agreed that the nature of inservice or 49 continuing professional development is such that any programs or activit ies in this aspect of teacher education must be initiated at the district or school level of organization. A closer look, however, will also reveal certain problems, such as the problem of integrating preservice and inservice education, which can only be solved through a provincial organ ization" (The Continuing Education of Teachers and Other Professional  Personnel in the Province of Newfoundland, 1974, p. 41; see also the jointly produced Guidebook for Workshops, 1974). B. Methodology of Inservice Programs 1. Structure The methodology of an inservice program incorporates the general structure or approach as well as the specific activities to be used within the structure. For example, the structural options vary widely: personal interview (teacher and consultant), correspondence courses, single lectures, informal activities, conferences, weekend courses, short or one-term even ing courses, courses in school time, one-term or one-year full-time courses, vacation courses, television courses (Johnston, 1971). Or the breakdown could be: interest group, building wide, district wide, exten sion course (university), state and regional programs (Otto and Erickson, 1973). Even within an on-site program there are alternatives: inservice days during the school year; meetings before, during, and/or after school; grade-groupings within a school; meetings with selected groups of teach ers; several schools working on common problems (Aaron et al., 1965). An interesting suggestion by the National Education Association (Inservice  Education of Teachers: Research Summary, 1966) was to extend inservice conceptually to include community work, travel, professional association 50 activities, research, and so on. Before any decision is made about the structure of the program, the following questions should be answered. 1. Why—purpose or goal? 2. Who—participants, leaders? 3. When—released time or not? 4. Where—on-site or other? 5. How—resources available? A comprehensive British Columbia survey related to curriculum development (Roaden et al., 1975) considered the issues of funding, locale, credit, and form of training. Workshops, and short-term apprenticeships and con sulting were ranked highest by teachers. District funding and location were supported. At this point, credits are not a significant motivating device. That it is not necessary to choose a single approach is demon strated by an inservice reading program which included: a reading share-in—a discussion of materials by teacher users; a reading exposition— publishers' displays; a reading methods seminar—sharing between school systems; cluster reading programs—for two/three schools rather than the whole district; workshop for supervisory staff—topic: reading in the content areas; reading inducement plan—training remedial reading teachers 9 on the job (Criscuolo, 1971). The effectiveness of inservice programs conducted in different ways is by no means conclusively established. In one study, inter-classroom visitations were ranked most effective, and faculty meetings least effec tive, with workshops low on the list (Borgealt, 1969). Kotcher and Doremus (1972) also concluded that visitations were most useful. Bor gealt 's results probably indicate the lack of quality of particular work-9 Criscuolo later modified the above to include, for teachers, brain storming sessions; sessions for production of materials; mini-courses in reading: Directed Reading Lesson, diagnosis, comprehension, content areas (1973). See also Fotheringham, 1971. 51 shops, since the approach is generally seen as potentially effective (Guidelines for After-School Workshops, 1967; Melching et al., 1970; Ritz et al., 1970; Syropoulus, 1972; McKague, 1975). Most actual inservice, one survey revealed.occurred in faculty meetings even though visits to observe effective teachers was most highly recommended (Pane, 1973) . Another study ranked faculty meetings as the most important inservice technique used (Smith, A. J., 1966). Still another saw the faculty meeting as least beneficial (Kaz, 1971). One study showed that although principals rated principal-teacher conferences and packaged in-service programs highly, teachers did not (Angius, 1974). Still another example of disagreement concerns the value placed on personal reading as a form of inservice: one group of teachers did not consider it valuable in improving teaching capabilities (Wall, 1965, in Moburg, 1972) while another group ranked it of most value (Hyslop, 1974). Yet another study claimed changes in teachers' attitude and performance as a result of pro fessional readings (Lindsey, 1969). Kilpatrick's attempt to match in-service format with goals is illustrated in the chart on page 52. The quantity of research on the workshop is an indication of the prevalence of this form of inservice (Davis and McCallon, 1974; Pasch, 1974) . General guidelines for reading workshops are: give credit to contributors, provide released time, deal with a specific problem, encour age voluntary attendance, use participation rather than lecture, use school materials and audiovisual illustrations, evaluate (Robinson and Rauch, 1965). Topics of one junior high school workshop in reading were: Issues in Reading, Nature of the Reading Process, Skills, Evaluation, Teaching Techniques (Henriksen and Rosen, 1975). The multipurpose nature of workshops is illustrated by the twenty-seven reports summarized in 52 Institutes Consultants Faculty Meetings Workshops Departmental Meetings University Courses Classroom Visitation Action Research Conferences and/or Conventions Professional Libraries on Campus * = Most promising techniques ( ) = Some reservations T3 C 1 c rt M 1 rO O M 1 H Cu u > C •H 1—1 c H T3 1—1 O CO cu M O •U o O rH 4-1 •H rt >. •H 1 >^ ,C >. CU fl 4-1 fcs 4-1 o u CO a 60 H 4J CO u > •rl rt M rt •rl o CO cu C O CU cu o cu 6 O 4J C 60 3 rH •rl 60 S •H 60 P CO 60 fl 2 CU o rO > cu 60 cu 4-> 4-1 cu cu 4J CO O rH 4-> IS O 4J |5 fl O 4-) -rl rt •H rl O rt <u rH rt cu cu CU rt )-l O P PH CO u 3 O u s e •r-) u o (*) (*) * (*) (*) A (A) A A A (A) (A) A A (Kilpatrick, 1967, p. 5) table 3 in which focus may be on curriculum development or attitude change, on a specific content area or grade group, or on the workshop as an inte gral element of a long-term program. The chart on page 57 shows the flexibility of the workshop by breaking down goals and appropriate methods for achieving them. 2. Activities Activities to accomplish inservice vary and may include lecture, demonstration, interviewing, brainstorming, group discussion, buzz session, role playing, guided practice, conference, or observation. Some of these may require explication. 1. Brainstorming is an activity in a group session in which ideas held by participants are orally expressed with special procedures employed to avoid any discussion, criticism, or analysis. Some record of all ideas is made for later use. (E.g., topics related to needs assess ment) 2. The buzz session is a small group activity in which groups are tempor arily formed to discuss a specific topic with minimum structure, -TABLE 3 VARIETY OF WORKSHOP FUNCTIONS IN INSERVICE Name, date Purpose Content/Grade Conclusions/Recommendations 1. Birnbaum & Wolcott, 1949 To promote more permissive behavior in teachers deal ing with problem children Human relations education Summer workshop considered most effective inservice 2. Kelley, E. C., 1951 To encourage learning by self-evaluation Affective teacher behavior Short workshops over a semester were suggested 3. Jesser, D. L., 1963 To modify teachers' know ledge and attitudes toward reading teaching Reading—instruction, materials, etc. Summer workshop (for teachers from small schools) combined lectures and discussions 4. Flanlgan, M. C., 1967 To prepare teachers for curriculum development English Suggestions given for overcoming problems in inservice training 5. Hoffart, E. H., 1968 To instruct teachers and student-tutors in new curricula High school science Workshop used for dissemination of information 6. Texas Adult Basic Education Production Work shop, 1968 To bring ABE teachers up to date through inservice Adult Basic Education teachers Variety of approaches (activities and organization) used in the workshop 7. Andrews, J. K., 1969 To train teachers to apply behavior modification tech niques Inservice teacher training A short workshop, questionnaire, and longer workshop proved effective in changing teacher and student behavior Table 3 (continued) Name, date Purpose Content/Grade Conclusions/Recommendations 8. Myers, C. B., 1969 To introduce innovations to teachers and students Social studies An initial workshop plus continuous follow-up provided effective in-service, evaluated by student assess ment and teacher self-assessment 9. Roberson, E. W., 1969 To improve teacher instruc tion and student learning Inservice in reading instruction A year-long program of workshops and videotapes indicated improvements in students' reading achievement 10. Tamminer, A. W., 1970 To train teachers to develop and implement new curricula Curriculum development An institute was established using the workshop format 11. McGuire, E. E., 1971 To effect change in teacher behavior and attitudes Inservice for selected teachers A workshop was developed with an emphasis on evaluation of progress 12. A Massive Attack Upon Reading Disab ility Among Northwest Indiana Public and Non-Public Schools, 1971 To prepare teachers to teach remedial reading Disabled readers in elementary and secondary schools Summer workshops and a diagnostic center were used to improve students' reading 13. Means, Don, 1971 To prepare teachers to develop a flexible curric ulum Inservice for cur riculum development A workshop setting was used to gener ate skills and positive attitudes Table 3 (continued) Name, date Purpose Content/Grade Conclus ions/Recommendat ions 14. Nissman & Lutz, 1971 To teach educators to organize and develop summer workshop Professional development Guidelines given, with the assumption that professional development is year-Long, continuous 15. Apple, E. T., 1973 To assess after a year the effectiveness of workshops Vocational teachers of disadvantaged high school students Innovative activity results from the workshop 16. Harty et al., 1973 To prepare teachers for innovations Curriculum changes Modifications were introduced through an interactive network (organization, training, operation, and impact) 17. Merryman, D. P., 1973 To assess after 3 years the effect of a workshop Individualized in-service educational media 93% of principals reported lasting effect; the role of the principal crucial 18. Thelen, J. N., 1973 To introduce new materials and methods to teachers Science Workshop plus tuition-free college course proved effective 19. Adams, D. M., 1974 To help teachers cope with change Attitude modifica tion Workshop produced changes in attitudes 20. Cooper & Philip, 1974 To teach the evaluation of nutrition education in the everyday teaching environ ment Nutrition education Workshops allowing for discussion and interaction were available Table 3 (continued) Name, date Purpose Content/Grade Conclusions/Recommendations 21. Guidebook for Workshops, 1974 To provide background and guidelines to enable tea chers to design and imple ment workshops Organizing workshops (Newfoundland) Principles: needs assessment, follow-up, long-term, cooperative 22. Reichirt, D. M., 1974 To define, evaluate, and develop teaching compe tence Open classroom tea ching High teacher involvement led to leadership training, enabling them to return and give workshops in their own schools 23. Soloway, M. M., 1974 To develop and evaluate a special-education train ing program Inservice education for classroom teachers Teachers were prepared to cope within classrooms with exceptional children 24. Spennato, N.A., 1974 To develop and implement a reading curriculum Inservice education in reading Teachers developed a guide to be used in classroom instruction 25. Beck, W. W., 1975 To meet individual teacher needs through a 'growth' workshop approach Inservice education in secondary social studies Teachers and their students benefited from this program 26. Mason,W. E., 1975 To modify authoritarian teacher attitudes Inservice for inner-city teachers Most significant variables in promot ing or inhibiting attitude change were identified (e.g., environmental conditions, student response) 27. Ruiz, Eliseo, 1975 To affect the attitudes and behavior of teachers Teachers of Mexican-American students Packages were designed for implemen tation in workshop setting 57 Type of Behaviour Change KNOWLEDGE (Generalizations about experience; the internalization of information) INSIGHT AND UNDERSTANDING (The application of information to experience) SKILLS (The incorporation of new ways of performing through practice) Most Appropriate Methods Lecture, panel, symposium Reading Audio-visual aids Book-based discussion Programmed instruction Feedback devices Problem-solving discussion Laboratory experimentation Exams and essays Audience participation devices Case problems Practice exercises Practice role-playing Drill Demonstration Practicum ATTITUDES (The adoption of new feelings through experiencing greater success with them) Reverse role-playing Permissive discussion Counseling-consultation Environmental support Case method VALUES (The adoption and priority arrangement of beliefs) INTERESTS (Satisfying exposure to new activities) Biographical reading and drama Philosophical discussion Sermons and worship Reflection Trips Audio-visual aids Reading Creative arts Recitals, pageants (from The Planning of Inservice Workshops, 1971, pp. 44-45) maximum emphasis upon interaction, and full opportunity to express ideas related to the topic. (E.g., initial specific needs assessment and general planning) 3. The demonstration is an activity in which participants observe planned, carefully presented examples of real or simulated behavior illustrating certain techniques, materials, equipment, and procedures as they might be realistically employed. (E.g., an instructional aid or procedure in reading) 4. A group discussion is a small group activity usually extending over a longer period of time in which systematic verbal interaction on a given topic or problem leads to consensus, decision, recommendations, or clearly recognized disagreement. (E.g., functions of individuals within a reading program) 58 5. Role-playing is a spontaneous dramatization involving one or more persons assuming designated roles in relation to a specified problem in a given situation. It is unrehearsed and unplanned, giving the players an illusion of reality. (E.g., a teacher dealing with an underachieving nonreader) (from Harris and Bessent, 1969). Guides to these and other activities, defining and giving instructions for use, are available (Froberg, 1971; Mayne, undated). Classroom practice is influenced not so much by inservice education in general as by specific components such as involvement by means of high experience impact activities and immediate feedback (Berck, 1971; Iver-son, 1974). The two charts on page 59 indicate the experience impact of activities and the relation of activities to objectives. Several activ ities could be combined for paramount effect. If an objective is to present new instructional materials, an illustrated lecture may be advan tageous. However, if the goal is to convey an instructional technique, then demonstration coupled with role-playing and/or guided practice would be more effective. Inservice models in different content areas include a variety of activities (Development of an Inservice Model for Implementing  New Methodology in the SS Curriculum Project Period, 1970; Trosky, 1971; Keliher, 1972; Mayne, undated; Osburn, 1974). The relative effectiveness of different methods or the value of a particular method have been the concern of the studies summarized in table 4. C. Evaluation of Inservice Programs Most authors concerned with evaluating inservice programs claim that their effectiveness should be judged by the kinds of behavioral and atti-tudinal changes which take place in the participants as revealed by their classroom procedures. There is little point in a post-session 59 Experience Impact of Activities ACTIVITIES Control Two-way of Content Multisensory Communication Lecture Illustrated lecture Demonstration Observation Interviewing Brainstorming Group discussions Buzz sessions Role-playing Guided practice x x x x x x x x x x x x Low Experience Impact 4-High Experience Impact (p. 4 of Otto and Erickson, 1973, from Harris and Bessent, 1969) ACTIVITIES Lecture Illustrated lecture Demonstration Observation Interviewing Brainstorming Group discus sions Buzz sessions Role-playing Guided practice Inservice Design Grid OBJECTIVES Compre- Appli- Values & Adjust-Knowledge hension cation Synthesis Attitudes ment Cognitive Objectives Broad-Spectrum Objectives Affective Objectives (p. 5 of Otto and Erickson, from Harris and Bessent) questionnaire asking, Was the speaker clear and well-organized? Were the materials well presented? Obviously a participant could answer Yes to such questions without making any changes in his teaching. Since this is the goal of inservice, the program could not be considered successful. Thus evaluation is twofold: evaluation of a program and of teach ing. The problem then becomes, How can classroom teaching be evaluated 60 TABLE 4 EFFECTIVENESS OF SELECTED INSERVICE ACTIVITIES 60 C •H ,fi O Cfl <U •u o r4 o •H a i a CO o •rt -H CO 4-1 co o fi <; 3 O I u •H H +J •u a) co to JJ c ^ 3 M 2 & e e -a •H o a) cn u 4-> fi o •H rH CU H CO cu a) TJ 4-> CO 60 <U 3 u fi U 4J <u Cfl cfl •H 4J Jfi & fi 4-> fi o s o CO CU O •H Ci a w O 4-1 H O r-4 CO 3 CD H CU CU -a !-4 ft QJ ,fi J3 o 4-1 3 6 o o J3 CO O cfl cfl 4J a U 3 cu cu CU H o H H a / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 / 1 / / .j . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Fox, et al. Skailand Teacher Education Center Kerns, 1962 Experimental Teacher Exchange  Program, 1964 Harvard-Boston Summer Program, 1965 Jackson and Rogge, 1965 Baysinger, 1966 Sweeney, 1966 Allen, 1967 Bessent et al., 1967 Early and Shelton, 1967 Filep and Murphy, 1967 Fox et al., 1967 1967 1968 Henkelman et al. Kelly, 1967 Westby-Gibson, 1967 Amidon and Rosenshine. Borg, 1968 Borg et al., 1968 STEP Teacher Education Project, 1968 Hall, 1969 Hoehn, 1969 Inservice Teacher Education Course, 1969 61 Table 4 (continued) i c CO o 60 »H -H ti CO 4-1 •H CO CJ X ti <3 3 C U O I H O cfl -H M 4-1 -H CU 4-1 CU CO Cfl 4-1 Cfl 4J & TH O i-H 3 H > >-i 3 Cu CU •cj 0 Efl H •H -rt O CU CU S CVj u 4J H 25. Kasdon and Kelly, 1969 / 26. Kelly, 1969 / 27. Mynhier, 1969 / 28. Borg, 1970 / 29. Borg et al., 1970 / 30. Langer and Allen, 1970 / 31. Maddox et al., 1970 / 32. Steen and Lipe, 1970 / 33. Berck, 1971 / 34. Cruikshank, 1971 / 35. DeShields et al., 1971 / 36. Dupuis, 1971 / 37. Peck, 1971 / 38. Auer, 1972 / 39. Dickson, 1972 / 40. Kallenbach and Carmichael, 1972 / 41. Poliakoff, 1972 / 42. Schmid and Scranton, 1972 / 43. Urbach et al., 1972 / 44. Usefulness of Minicourse I, 1972 / 45. Werner et al., 1972 / 46. Champagne et al., 1973 / 47. Fib-kins, 1973 / 48. Huseth, 1973 / 49. Jackson, 1973 / 50. Matthews, 1973 1 / 51. Newhouse, 1973 / 1 CO cu cu TJ 4J CO 60 cu 3 u ti u cu 4J cu cfl cfl N •H 4-1 X Cu •H ti 4-> ti CJ e i-l o CO cu o cfl •H ti c_> W c_> 3 4J M a S-i S-i CO •H 3 Cfl CU CU > u Cu CU X o •H 4-1 3 {3 O o X T3 CD o cfl cfl 4-1 ti ti u 3 cu cu CU M M a C/j H H g 62 before as well as after inservice? This can be done by pre- and post-inservice teacher inventories and questionnaires, student attitude and opinion inventories and questionnaires, survey forms, discussion, a survey of new materials purchased aft er the session, teacher—prepared logs of change, and systematic behavior observation (by trained observers, or audio/video tape). However, the Carroll-Chall Report, 1975, noted "sys tems of classroom observation that have been devised generally fail to capture the continuous, long-term transactions between a teacher and individual children that are the real basis of success or failure in teaching. . . . Less systematic, more impressionistic observations, carried out over long periods, seem to provide better evidence of the real dynamics (or lack thereof) of the classroom" (p. 17). Table 5 indicates which studies used one kind of evaluation, usually a questionnaire or observation, which combined several methods, and which utilized interaction analysis. The extensive use of interaction analysis has caused some researchers concern over the reliability and validity of such observation (Harris and Bessent, 1969; Gegnatoff, 1971; McGaw et al., 1972; Yamamoto et al., 1972). As Channon (1975) pointed out, "The weakness of the Flanders system, as well as other systems, is that it assumes in advance what aspects of the teacher's behavior are related to pupil achievement" (p. 20). She emphasized that "very little is known as yet in a specific way about what teachers do that promotes pupil learning. Moreover, there is no way of sorting out the effect on learning of vari ables outside the school and therefore outside the teacher's sphere of influence" (p. 19). Another method currently used to evaluate teaching of reading is the comparison of pre- and post-semester or term or school year reading 63 TABLE 5 TEACHER EVALUATION AS A COMPONENT OF INSERVICE 0) rH •H O 4J c 3 CO 3 3 O o 3 QJ CU •H •rl 3 ft 0 4J id 4-1 CD O 1 3 CO cu cn O -rH •rl rl M > 3 -a CO CO 4J CU •U rl •H o U >, CD ft CD cu fl ,3 CU rH CU CO c cn 0 4J 4J CO 3 ft •H X> O cu O u S 1. Caldwell, 1967 / 2. Strom, 1967 / 3. Amidon and Rosenshine, 1968 / 4. DeCarlo and Cleland, 1968 5. General Improvement of Reading Instruction, 1968 6. Jensen, 1968 7. Carsetti, 1969 8. Kennedy et al., 1969 / 9. Sanders, 1969 y 10. Carline, 1970 / 11. Hrivnak, 1970 / 12. Suiter and Queen, 1970 / 13. Bushman, 1971 14. Hill, 1971 y 15. Thurber, 1971 / 16. Jones, 1972 y 17. Leonard and Gies, 1972 y 18. Measel and Mood, 1972 y 19. Wilson et al., 1972 y 20. Apple, 1973 / 21. Heeney, 1973 / 22. Quirk et al., 1973a and b / 23. Wright, 1973 y 24. Campbell, 1974 / 25. Fitzgerald and Clark, 1974 26. Houston, 1974 y 27. Joekel, 1974. y 28. Magnus, 1974 / 29. Samph, 1974 y 30. Forte, 1975 y 31. Shoenholz, 1975 y 6 4 5 16 64 scores from a standardized test. The degree of reading improvement pre sumably reflects the teacher's competence as a reading teacher or is the direct result of an inservice program (Dutro, 1973; Norman, 1973; McNamara, 1975). Kennedy, 1972, went so far as to evaluate student and  teacher reading achievement before and after an inservice program. Although Moburg, 1972, espoused the need to measure student achievement— "it hardly seems defensible to call an inservice program a success if there has been no measurable carry-over to students" (p. 34) (Brown, 1968, concurred)—he denied the use of standardized tests as-an appropriate measure. "Even if such norm-based tests were judged to be valid instru ments for measuring short-term change, it is doubtful that they would be adequate for assessing student progress toward all of the goals of an inservice program" (p. 31). (See also Channon, 1975). He suggested as alternatives informal tests, worksheets, observations, informal inventories, interviews, checklists, anecdotal records, sample products, and criterion referenced tests. Alvir, 1975, made similar recommendations. Aside from the inappropriateness of using a standardized test in this way, the formality introduced by such a test is threatening to teachers. Thus, the non-threatening nature of inservice would be mitigated by such evaluation. An example of the evaluation problem was explored by V. E. Herrick, in Henry, 1957. He explained that change should be judged by the presence of change on a continuum of behavior, the amount of change, the rate of change, the direction of change, and the relationship among changes. What does this mean? For one thing, a continuum must exist which describes teaching. What we do know about teaching is that it is an extremely com plex phenomenon involving many components. Each of these would have to be drawn as a continuum, incorporating the characteristics related to effective teaching, for example, of reading. Referring to The Informa tion Base for Reading, research in this area is by no means conclusive. However, what it indicates is that those teacher characteristics which influence students' reading achievement are flexibility and verbal fluency Using such simplified criteria, it would be possible to make judgements about the effectiveness of inservice (Is the teacher more or less flexible How much? How long did the change take?). However, because there are so many qualifications, such a minimal representation of successful teaching seems an illegitimate endeavor. Medley and Mitzel, in Shorey, 1970, went so far as to claim "'the vast majority of the research on teacher effec tiveness . . . must be discarded as irrelevant because the criteria used have been invalid"1 (p. 5). As early as 1950, the National Education Association disclaimed the application of standard criteria to rate teachers on the grounds that individual differences were not allowed for (Better Than Rating). The increasing popularity of competency-based teacher education holds some promise for evaluation of teaching (Reading Inservice Program, 1972; Rosner et al., 1972; Zito and Gross, 1972; Karlin, 1974; Single ton, 1974; Nemeth, 1975; Wassermann and Eggert, 1976). Criteria for judging changes in teachers' behavior are being developed. However, Houston and Howsam, 1972, admitted, "The unpleasant truth is that we have made very little progress in the assessment of teaching performance" (p. 73). In an echo of The Information Base for Reading recommendation, they stated, "Immediate progress is needed in the identification and specific "^Redfern, 1972, suggested a performance-objectives approach to evaluating teaching incorporating something of this analytic approach as well as some principles of competency-based evaluation. 66 description of the dimensions of teaching behavior" (p. 74). This is reiterated by Channon (1975) : "While this approach [competency-based] seems to contain a lot of common sense, in practice it has been found very difficult not only to limit the lists of component skills to a reasonable number, but also to identify those skills which are particularly related to pupil achievement" (p. 20). Otto et al., 1974, noted "The difficulty with performance tests that measure a teaching skill independent of pupil gain is that there is little agreement about which teaching skills are valid" (p. 339). In an attempt to validate reading teacher competencies, Harste et al., 1975, discovered that faculty and teachers had different expectations. Roger Farr in Reading: What can be measured?, 1969, discussed studies which have attempted to isolate behavior of good teaching. Behavioral characteristics of good teaching were: the teacher's willing ness and ability to alter his behaviors to meet varying situations, to understand the students' point of view, to try new procedures, to ask effective questions, to use positive reinforcement of student behaviors, to continue learning in a wide variety of subject areas (Sears, 1963; Spaulding, 1963; Wallen and Wodtke, 1963). Another analysis of teacher effectiveness involved the extent to which areas essential to the compe tent reader were successfully taught (Goodson, 1965). Farr concluded that research must consider the influence of factors like motivation and personality on teaching effectiveness. Harris, 1969, also considered the effect of motivation on reading results. In addition, class management and cognitive teacher behavior were related to effective teaching. The difficulties evident in attempts to evaluate teaching often exist in program evaluation as well. However, multifaceted evaluation is 67 the rule: teacher attitudes, behavior, and knowledge as revealed by questionnaires, interviews, observation; and student achievement, inter est, behavior, attitudes (see table 6). The following criteria for evaluating inservice programs attempt to answer immediate and long-term questions. However, specificity is lack ing in the difficult areas—see #10 and 11. 1. topics selected for study met the needs of the group and were of concern to all of the participants 2. topics discussed were timely in the sense of being the most urgent needs of the participants 3. practical ideas were discussed, and suggestions for classroom application were offered 4. the leadership role was shared by teachers and administrators 5. the organizational plan was appropriate for the work that was to be accomplished 6. a variety of resources was made available for use in the program 7. originality and creativity in teaching reading were encouraged 8. the overall plan of the program was defined clearly and was understood by participants 9. consultants from outside the system who worked in the program were well informed about the background of the local situation and made worthwhile contributions 10. pupil performance in and enjoyment of reading improved as a result of the inservice program 11. the level of instruction in the classroom improved as a result of the inservice program. (Aaron et al., 1965, p. 21) D. Models of Inservice Programs Models of inservice programs vary widely on such factors as: 1. their scope—a district, whole staff, department or grade 2. their leadership—outside consultant from university, department of education, professional organization, or local district, or school staff 3. their content area or field 4. their purpose or focus—curriculum, instructional materials, attitude, behavior 5. their form or techniques—minicourse or workshop, demonstration or supervised practice 6. their evaluation procedures—one or more instruments used with teachers or teachers and students. TABLE 6 MULTIFACETED COMPONENTS IN INSERVICE PROGRAM EVALUATION Type of Program/ Subject Area co cu u u T3 u o QJ 3 cu •rl •U jz > CJ •rl u cd cd •U cd QJ 4-1 <u cu H < H pq CO 4J 1 CO •rl CU tt er cu < 4J 60 3 rl u T3 4-1 H 4-> o CU QJ C '—^ 3 •H rH 0) CO cu > o 15 •n cu 13 cd cd o 3 tJ 3 ,3 QJ C 4-1 3 4-1 cu H C/J 4-1 CO pq 3 QJ 0 4-1 CU fl > QJ QJ •3 -H 3 .fl 4J O co <3 CU -o rl CO fl rl •rl fl 60 cu cd • cd o O 4-» rl CJ 3 13 •rl hJ 4-1 ^2 4H fl QJ 4J cd •H QJ o •rl cd CO I rH •rl > rv QJ I 4-1 rl rv CO •rl rl « CO CO QJ QJ 4J rl QJ CU ^4 QJ 4-1 CD CO cd .fl O O 3 c QJ •rl 4-1 c o CD- M O H P o cd ,o 1. Saturation Reading Program, 1967 Reading y y y X X X 2. Evaluation of the Communication .•. . , 1968 Reading / y y X X 3. Katrein, 1968 Reading / y y y y X X X X 4. Inservice Teacher Education Course, 1969 Reading / y X 5. Green, 1970 Workshop / y X X X 6. Katzenmeyer et al., 1971 Reading / y y y X X 7. Bernstein, 1972 Reading V y y y X X X 8. Dunkeld, 1972 Reading y y y X ' X X 9. Adams, 1973 Cont.educ. y y X 10. Gabbard, 1973 Curriculum y y y X 11. Means, 1973 Inservice y y X 12. Paulausky, 1973 Workshop y y y X X X X X 13. Alford, 1974 Cont.educ. y y y X X X 14. Fifer and Rush, 1974 Inservice y y y X X 15. Seagren, 1974 Inservice y y y y X X X 16. Light, 1975 Inservice y y y X X X 17. Timms, 1975 Inservice y y y X >x 15 13 12 4 4 6 17 2 9 9 2 3 69 The trends across programs reflect an awareness of the need for more sophisticated programs than those of the past. More time and effort are being put into initial stages of planning, assessing needs, and stating goals and objectives explicitly. Involvement of the participants is provided for from the beginning. Appropriate methods and built-in eval uation are selected or designed. This is not to suggest that the millen-ium is at hand. However, it does justify both the challenge and the promise of Davies' quotation (p. 30). The fifteen models summarized in table 7 deserve notice either for their unique focus or techniques or for their efforts to compare such factors as time, length, or type of inservice. L. P. Hoehn's Teaching  Behavior Improvement Program, 1969, deals with all the components of a good inservice program. Initial steps included a needs survey; an analysis of cost, equipment, and materials; a consideration of the leadership role; a specification of goals and activities; the development of a time line chart for activities. These principles were followed: released time, voluntary attendance, small groups (4-6), mixing of not more than three grades, mixing of content areas sharing similar teaching strategies. The -basic method was microteaching, with videotaping, interaction analysis, and student feedback. Evaluation was accomplished by teacher and student questionnaires and systematic observation. Hoehn's is an avowed self-improvement program in which initiative must be taken by the participants. Many programs stress self-evaluation, often with the use of videotape. An extension of this principle is reflected in the number of studies in which teachers have been trained to serve as leaders for other teachers (table 8). Models of inservice reading programs are similar to general TABLE 7 EXEMPLARY INSERVICE MODELS Names, dates Population Model Unique Conclusions 1. Teitelbaum, 1961 Beginning teachers (elementary) and consultants Experimental program Use of consultants effective 2. Inservice Super vised Teaching Program, 1966 Uncertified tea chers and consul tants Supervised teaching, seminar, bi weekly visits over a year Successful in aiding teachers to meet certi fication requirements 3. Inservice Educa tion in Elemen tary School Mathematics, 1967 Elementary school mathematics teachers 3 types: self-directed study, work shops, and directed long-term study Extensive evaluation showed effectiveness of alternatives model 4. White et al., 1967 Elementary teachers 3 programs: course on campus, 1 week pre-school workshop plus 1 day monthly visits and group sessions, released time—11% days throughout the year Former least effective, latter most effective 5. Benjamin et al., 1968 Undergraduate and inservice tea chers elementary Sensitivity training, self-directed component Well-developed modules a component of complex model 6. Dagne, 1968 Teachers Project included television, seminars, instructional materials, innovative techniques re. integration and grading Case studies, self-evalu ation were used to deter mine effectiveness Table 7 (continued) Names, dates Population Model Unique Conclusions 7. Johnson, 1969 Teachers inservice Videotape for self-analysis, monthly day-long seminars, emphasis on inter personal relations components Affective changes in teacher behavior resulted 8. Kimple et al., 1970 Teachers Summer school and follow-up throughout the year in human relations training Curriculum change brought about by organizational change 9. Felker et al., 1971 Rigid teachers Guided clinical experience Flexibility was developed 10. Partlow, 1971 School system Total program including courses, con ventions, professional reading, visitations, etc. Sound guidelines and variety characterize this model 11. Scharles, 1971 Teacher of children with learning dis abilities Intensive, short-term program Cognitive growth evident but no change in affect ive aspects of teaching 12. Schmid and Scranton, 1972 Teachers Long-term training with classroom supervision, observation, evaluation Teachers applied in their classrooms concepts pre sented in the program. Supportive services were important 13. Lloyd, 1973 Teachers (elementary) 2 programs: a 2-year inservice program versus a 7-week program. Videotape was used Short program more effective, but no stu dent gains resulted Table 1 (continued) Names, dates Population Model Unique Conclusions 14. Neale, 1973 Art teachers Information and designed activities were incorporated in this study in an economically poor area Positive change in tea chers' attitudes resulted 15. Massey, 1975 Professional educators Systems model of instructional design applied to the development of training materials Large-scale dissemination of prepared materials resulted 73 TABLE 8 INSERVICE PROGRAMS STRESSING SELF-EVALUATION AND TEACHER LEADERSHIP Programs Which Stress Self-Evaluation Programs Which Train Teachers to (often with the use of videotape) Serve as Leaders for Other Teachers 1. Hatch, 1968 1. Westby-Gibson, 1967 2. Jensen, 1968 2. A Model Program for Improving 3. Attea, 1970 the Education of Preservice 4. Cameron & Cotrell, 1970 and Inservice Teachers . . . 5. Parsons, 1971 1968 6. Armstrong, 1972 3. STEP Teacher Education Pro 7. Assessment of Teaching Competence ject, 1968 for Improvement of Instruction, 4. Assessment of the CERLI 1972 Training Program, 1969 8. Brown & MacDougall, 1972 5. Conceptual Base of Program I, 9. Brown et al., 1972 1969 10. Burgy, 1974 6. Rubin, 1969 11. Houston, 1974 7. Identifying Strength of Effective Teachers, 1970 8. A Precision Teaching Proiect, 1970 9. Prichard, 1970 10. Waynant, 1971 11. Estes & Staiger, 1973 12. Adams, 1974 13. Fitzgerald & Clark, 1974 14. Inservice Reading Resource Kit, 1974 15. Intensive Reading Improvement Program, 1974 16. Reichirt, 1974 17. Shirley, 1974 18. Hawke, 1975 19. Westbury, 1975 inservice programs in their concerns, although often more specific (table 9). Other examples can be found in Aaron et al., 1965, and Otto and Erickson, 1973. TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF MODELS OF INSERVICE READING PROGRAMS Name, date Structure of program Unique Characteristics Conclusions 1. Williams, 1967 Summer program Participants and consultants selected, variety of experi ences and materials provided Use of specially chosen volunteer participants increases opportunity for successful program 2. McCracken, 1968 Long-term program Summer institute, year-long supervision, and monthly semin ars were combined The influence of consultation and informal discussion were particu larly noted 3. Sawyer & Taylor, 1968 Continuous program Guidelines: released time, small groups, real or simulated class room experience, comprehensive evaluation Teachers and their students benefited from the program 4. Wise, 1970 Semester-long proj ect Voluntary participation, teacher leaders; demonstrations, discus sions, lesson planning The complementing of learning exer cises and actual field experience was found to be valuable 5. Goldmann & Wolff, 1970 Workshops and summer institute A reading school offered these in cooperation with the school district On a similar set-up to the teacher center, this school was effective in meeting local needs 6. Minturn, 1971 Long-term program Monthly workshops, demonstra tions, development of materials and teaching strategies, and adequate evaluation incorporated Reading consultants and content area teachers worked cooperatively Table 9 (continued) Name, date Structure of program Unique Characteristics Conclusion 7. Dunkeld, 1971, 1972 Extensive program Lecture-discussions, practice sessions in workshops, assignments, on-site ob servation and feedback, demonstration and assistance, comprehensive evalua tion included Involvement of parents and aides was considered a significant feature in the program's effectiveness 8. James, 1972 Individualized program Topics were: assessment procedures, teaching techniques, classroom man agement, grouping, lesson planning Evaluation consisted of: attitude inventories, self-rating scales, discussions, conferences, obser vations 9. Case Study Op eration: Coop eration Ashland College-Ashland City Schools, 1972 Year-long program Workshop for reading teachers, reading improvement center, assistance for student teachers and teachers all factors This program attempted to bridge the gap between pre- and in-service teachers by implementing an intern system 10. Faulkner, 1974 Year-long program A reading and study skills laboratory was initiated at the college level Successful extension of the cen ter's influence was made through out the campus 11. Bullerman & Franco, 1975 Credit course Workshop combined guided practice with texts, grouping, and skills Content area teachers developed competencies 12. Bosanko, 1975 Long-term program Reading committee, needs assessment survey of teachers and students, establishment of goals Improvements have been made, but the action is viewed as contin uous, ongoing 76 E. Summary Within a comprehensive review of the literature, certain trends and principles emerge. These confirm Davies' prediction (p. 30) about change and controversy in inservice education. Further, the synthesis of effec tive practices establishes a rationale for the model in chapter IV. Organization of inservice programs has been recognized for the essential variable it is. That preliminary planning is receiving the considerable emphasis it requires is evidenced by the plethora of surveys on practices, many of which result in recommendations or guidelines. Further, the increased use of needs-assessment instruments demonstrates a growing awareness of the dependence of' effective inservice programs on felt needs of participants. Combining general guidelines and specific needs leads to the establishment of goals or objectives. These include both cognitive and affective components and may range over such areas as knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Participation at various levels, from teacher to consultant to district personnel, is a prerequisite for the successful attainment of these goals. Considering recent developments in methodology of inservice pro grams, great variation in practices is apparent. Decisions on structural framework depend on both the purpose of the inservice and the availability of resources. The workshop has become the principal vehicle for inservice due to its flexibility. Moreover, the involvement demanded in a workshop setting allows for maximum transfer benefits. A wealth of activities exist, many of which require participation. Thus, the workshop is ideal for utilizing these activities singly or in combination. However, little hard data on the relative effectiveness of methods can be found. The evaluation issue is doubtless the most difficult on which to draw conclusions. Whether the problem is to evaluate teaching pre- and post-inservice or to evaluate a program, difficulties arise. These reflect philosophical differences as well as a lack of appropriate measur ing instruments. For instance, how can the change process in teaching best be measured: by reference to teacher behavior, teacher attitudes, student achievement, student attitudes? Various procedures have been used to tap all these possibilities, and indeed an eclectic approach seems the only viable one at present. Multi-faceted evaluation of all involved at least suggests validity of results. The models of inservice programs which incorporate the above ele ments vary as greatly as do their potential components. The purpose of the inservice may suggest an appropriate focus. However, the overall quality of inservice is improving, witnessed by the development of its planning phase, the extension of its methodological repertoire, and the emphasis on appropriate evaluation. Programs incorporating self-evalu ation and teacher leadership are gaining prominence. Reading inservice programs reflect these general trends, exemplifying great variety. On the basis of this analysis of past inservice programs, the conceptual framework, outlined in chapter IV, for a model of inservice education in reading for secondary English teachers has been derived. CHAPTER IV A PROPOSED MODEL A. Organization 1. Guidelines Although it is theoretically feasible to develop guidelines for an inservice program on the basis of a review of the literature, certain practical issues arise even in the earliest stages of planning. For instance, a major conclusion from the literature review is that it is only from felt needs of teachers that topics and goals for inservice programs can be established. The assumption is, however, that it is possible to generalize from the literature, that is, that the topics considered of importance in the majority of past studies are generally the same topics which would arise from a local or provincial needs-assessment survey. Therefore, the specifications or organizational principles set down here must be mitigated by an actual survey when setting up an inservice pro gram. Obviously, the implementation of many of the guidelines found to be effective in past studies and surveys is possible only at the discre tion of the teachers, administrators, and school district personnel involved plus outside consultants from the colleges and universities. Initially, then, it is important to understand that the points made here are the ideal. Although it would be desirable to put them into practice as they stand, it is only realistic to recognize that it may be necessary to modify them due to economic, geographical or other considerations. 78 79 (a) General Guidelines Assuming that conditions are favorable for the implementation of an inservice program in reading, what guidelines deserve consideration? First and foremost, the inservice program must be long term, that is, extending over at least one school year. It would be preferable to begin in the final term of the preceding year with a needs assessment and an initial workshop for orientation and general planning. A single profes sional development day can be valuable to the extent that it is able to create needs which a well-designed inservice program can satisfy,(McKague, 1975, p. 18). One-shot sessions have limited lasting value: "they did little more than raise interest and certainly could not be expected to alter teacher behavior in any significant way" (Cassivi, 1975, p. 21). Then, either immediately prior to the beginning of school or within the first month of school, the first inservice session should be held. This should be the beginning of a series of sessions of different kinds (to be discussed later) to be held throughout the year. Furthermore, continuity should be assured by follow-up after the program has been implemented. Another essential ingredient of a successful inservice program is released time. Teachers must have time off from their regular activities to attend workshops, visit and observe colleagues, plan future sessions, design materials, and so on. This could be minimally one day every six weeks. In addition, time for informal discussions between sessions with either consultants or other teachers is necessary. A third concern is the location of the inservice program. It should be on-site, at the school/schools of teachers participating. In put from colleges and universities should be at the schools rather than on campus. As Lippitt and Fox, 1973, acknowledged: 80 Most inservice education activities should be carried on within a setting in which the people who work together have an opportunity to learn together. This is likely to be in the local school build ing, within the school system, or in a setting where the approp riate staff members can retreat for concentrated work together. It is not likely to be on the college campus. (p. 47, Partnership  for Professional Renewal) A recent innovation in locating inservice work has been the devel opment of teacher centers. These centers originated in England, their numbers growing rapidly since 1960. Today there are some 700 in England and 600 in the United States. The centers serve a dual function, allow ing for inservice training to extend and consolidate professional skills, and emphasizing teachers' responsibility and autonomy in curriculum development. A teachers' center was summarized by McCall, 1975, as follows: Its Purpose 1. Inservice training 2. Professional/social center 3. To support curriculum development Its Facilities 1. Meeting room space (large and small) 2. Reference library 3. Workshop for crafts 4. A/V and materials preparation room 5. A bar 6. Comfortable room settings 7. Facilities to prepare light snacks and refreshment Its Program 1. Designed by teachers for local needs 2. Practical sessions 3. Aimed at teachers sharing their experience and expertise with other practising classroom, teachers. (p. 25) The philosophy of a teachers' center was summarized by Morgan, 1974. Teachers' Centres aim at being comfortable places, where teachers feel at home and out of a 'school atmosphere,' but they are never theless workshops, where there can be practical work, study groups and practical development. A major purpose is the sharing of experience, visiting, observations and contact with colleagues who are leaders in classroom practice. (from "Teachers' Centres in Britain," A Report to the Ontario Teachers' Federation) Bell and Peightel, 1976, emphasized the need for maximum teacher input in planning and organizing such centers and provided a model for a partner ship teacher center. In 1976, Congress authorized expenditure of 67 million dollars to further the development of the Teacher Center concept in the United States (Phi Delta Kappa, 1977). Table 10 summarizes some of the major reports on the development of the teacher center concept. Any consultants, district personnel, etc., should come into the schools. There is some disagreement on the personnel appropriate for leadership in an inservice program. In Saskatchewan Teacher's Federation  Position Paper on In-service Education for Teachers, 1974, the following reason is given in support of using practicing teachers or outside consul tants as leaders: "Provincial or area people, especially if they are tied into the department structure, tend firstly to be viewed by teachers as part of the power structure, and secondly tend to become involved with administrative and organizational duties" (p. 11). However, McKague, 1975, surveyed teachers on the effectiveness of different personnel and concluded that local consultants and practicing teachers were most effec tive, university faculty and principals least effective. The question of whether one staff or several staffs across a dis trict should be involved in an inservice program depends on logistics: the amount of money, time, and personnel within and without the district who are available to participate. Ideally, several schools within a dis trict should participate. Staffs should have the option to work within groups comprised of their own staff members and should return to their schools as a unit, having worked on problems of particular relevance to their departments or schools. However, Robinson and Rauch's caution against starting on too extensive a scale is well taken. "It is better to concentrate on one grade level or one subject area at a time rather TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF REPORTS DESCRIBING TEACHER EDUCATION CENTERS Name/title, date Population Focus/Purpose Unique Element Conclusion 1. The Teacher Educa tion Center: A Unifying Approach to Teacher Educa tion Centers in Maryland and District of Columbia Preservice and in-service staff development Evaluation of effect of centers' program on participating teachers undertaken Results justify use of teacher centers 2. Britton, E. L., 1970 Centers in England and Wales Centers based on local needs Report of three national conferences Lack of agreement evident on several central issues e.g., released time, curriculum development 3. A Center for Re-education of Teachers, 1970 All levels of educational staff (Pro ject Period) Inservice education in curriculum and instruction Summer program of laboratory setting Summer setting proved useful for self-assessment 4. Collin, J. F., 1970 Pre- and in-service teachers Teacher education, curriculum develop ment A cluster of elementary and secondary schools utilize the center Input from state, schools, and university to teacher education 5. Douglas, W. W., 1970 School/uni versity co operative effort Curriculum in English Inservice education sought to change teacher behavior Relationship between ends and means investi gated Table 10 (continued) Name/title, date Population Focus/Purpose Unique Element Conclusion 6. Model Programs: Childhood Educa tion, 1970 Philadelphia teachers Materials produced Released time provided, workshops conducted Inservice on an informal level 7. Wright, W. R., 1970 Several Indi ana counties Curriculum and Materials development Individual help given to teachers in content areas Demonstration center approach used 8. Northern Kentucky Inservice Innova tion Center, 1971 Northern Ken tucky teachers Inservice education Laboratory schools used for demonstration Programs designed to facilitate educational change 9. The Center for Inservice Educa tion, 1972 Tennessee Elementary teachers Staff development Model containing plan ning, program and evaluation given Objectives and guidelines specified, e.g., based on needs assessment in reading 10. Dickson, G. E., 1972 Ohio center Pre- and inservice education Planning and decision making process specified Concerns to be considered prior to establishing a a center given 11. The Greater Cleveland Tea cher Education Centers Cooper ative Support Program, 1972 Centers in Greater Cleveland Pre- and inservice education Extensive evaluation an integral part of this cooperative effort Different types of cen ters meet specific needs e.g., resource sharing Table 10 (continued) Name/title, date Population Focus/Purpose Unique Element Conclusion 12. Maddox, Kathryn, 1972 West Virginia Center Pre- and Inservice training Continuity of teacher education emphasized Cooperation between edu cational institutions necessary 13. Parsons, T. W., 1972 Teachers Development of teacher center Guidelines provided on functions, principles, etc. Competency-based, self-assessment programs encouraged 14. Rosner, Benjamin, 1972 British tea cher center Inservice education and curriculum reform Relation to American centers explored Elements of the British model seen as applicable to American scene 15. Selden, David, & David Dalland, 1972 Teacher centers Teacher renewal Four models of centers evaluated Autonomous model, run by teachers, found to be most unsatisfactory 16. Tanner, J. R., & G. W. Dene-mark, 1972 Teacher centers Teacher renewal (inservice) Individualization essen tial for effective use of the center Cooperation between agencies and groups requisite 17. Training Program for Teachers in the Technologies, 1972 Northern Appalachia region teachers Technological training Individualized, per formance based program developed Teachers trained as change agents 18. Berty, Ernest, 1973 Three West Virginia centers Pre- and inservice training Extensive evaluation carried out Centers shown to be effective in reaching their stated goals Table 10 (continued) Name/title, date Population Focus/Purpose Unique Element Conclusion 19. Jackson, N. R., 1973 Texas center Teacher renewal Individualization with behavioral emphasis Modules provided, encour aging self-pacing and self-evaluation 20. Joyce, B. R., & Marsha Weil, 1973 England and U.S. centers Literature review Designing a teacher center examined Centers of distinctly different styles operate effectively 21. McCrory, D. L., 1973 Middle school center Pre- and inservice education Open-area, team-teaching, flexible curriculum in operation Core and individualized training provided 22. Markowitz, Alan, & Frances Haley, 1973 Center in Washington, D.C. Teacher education Various programs: in several forms provided Evaluation and expansion are underway 23. Pilot Program: San Francisco Center for Advanced Teacher Development, 1973 San Francisco teachers seeking advancement Inservice centers Summer session to be followed by year-round program Cooperative effort in several areas (e.g., reading specialization) 24. Restructuring Teacher Educa tion, 1973 Houston Tea cher Center Project Competency based teacher education Evaluation of the pro ject carried out at all levels from objectives to results Extensive materials are provided with this report Table 10 (continued) Name/title, date Population Focus/Purpose Unique Element Conclusion 25. Sikula, J. P., 1973 Urban center in Ohio Pre- and inservice training Competency-based modules provided Laboratory disseminates educational resources 26. Yarger, S. J., 1973 Teacher Cen ters across U.S. Analysis of types of centers Different types of cen ters described Need to combine struc ture and function of center for ultimate effectiveness 27. Howey, K. R., 1974 Teacher cen ters Guidelines for evaluating teacher centers Center defined; assess ment procedures speci fied Collaboration and renewal the concerns of the center 28. Teacher Educa tion Learning Centers, 1974 University of Maine centers Pre- and inservice training Center—internship combination utilized Evaluation indicates value of program to teachers and the system 29. Davis, J. B., Jr., 1975 Minneapolis centers Teacher renewal (pre- and in-service) Training given in a variety of settings Model goes directly to parents and educators for support, funding 30. Van Fleet, Alanson, 1975 Florida centers Inservice training Released time and fund ing provided by the state Cooperation between levels and agencies necessary oo ON 87 than attempt to reorganize the entire system-wide program in one year. A successful program in a limited area will mean much more in the long run than questionable progress on a broad scale" (from Rauch, 1967, p. 12). Regarding grouping, provision should be made for the needs of new versus experienced teachers. This may involve grouping new teachers separately, or pairing them with experienced teachers to serve as models. The approach depends on the problems each group specifies as being of paramount importance to them. In addition, special interest groups should be established. As Brimm and Tollett, 1974, noted, individualization was of significant importance to teachers in their survey. It is important that whatever the composition of groups, size be limited (4-6) for many activities to encourage participation. The use of small groups is emphasized throughout chapter IV. In establishing initial rapport, and promoting esprit de corps among the participants, small group techniques will be taught. The guide will be an article (B.C. Teacher, 53-8, May-June 1974, 275-6) which gives step-by-step instructions on teaching students to function in groups. The teachers should simulate a classroom situation and learn by doing. There is nothing easy about teaching students to work in groups. However, dif ferences in students' abilities and interests necessitate individualiza tion. Groups can be more efficient than individuals. And students learn such skills as cooperative problem-solving, oral communication, and effective inter-personal relations. In the chart on page 88, Bishop, 1976, relates group size to objectives. Implicit in the comments on the choice of English teachers and on grouping is the assumption that this inservice program is an initial step 88 GROUP SIZE MAJOR OBJECTIVE(S) Individual Small Group Large Groups 1. Knowledge Transmission-Information Reading Modules Audio Tape Mediated, Pro grammed Materials Study Group Case Study Lecture Film-TV 2. Skill Development-Competency Directed Practice Simulation Laboratory Exercises Training Sessions Demonstration 3. Understanding-Commitment Visitation Internship Interview Research Utilization Discussion Gaming Real Situa tion Human Rela tions Train ing Field Trip Feedback Groups in reaching all teachers within a school or district. English teachers are thus trained as leaders to return to their staffs to institute what they have learned and ultimately to transfer this learning to teachers in other content areas. There are alternative methods of approach; for example, one whole staff could work together within an inservice program. This would be ideal if the staff members were equally aware of the need for secondary reading. However, since this is an unlikely situation, it is more sensible to work with a group which possibly has some recognition of reading problems—that is, English teachers. Compulsory versus voluntary attendance? Because of the situation in British Columbia concerning general lack of incentives for inservice, personal motivation—the desire to improve one's own teaching—is the primary moving force. In the United States money and certification often act as incentives. Since neither of these is present in British Columbia, the reliance is usually on people who are committed to becoming better teachers. On the basis of this, an inservice program can only be success ful if its participants are volunteers. However, in order to make individuals aware of their needs, the initial survey and preliminary work shop should be compulsory. It may be that provincial or district action will become necessary, instituting a compulsory professional development clause for permanent certification or salary increments. Otherwise, it is doubtful whether inservice education will reach those for whom it is most appropriate. Initial planning should include members of the administration, librarians, teacher representatives from English and other content areas, reading teachers and consultants, and outside consultants to act as co ordinators with teacher leaders. The cooperation necessary between out side consultants and district personnel cannot be overemphasized. To those on site must be left much of the physical planning of the inservice program: the arrangements for released time, publicity, appropriate loca tion, materials, audio-visual equipment, and so on. The initial planning must revolve around a needs assessment. From it should be developed general and specific goals for the inservice program, general techniques for achieving those goals, and methods of evaluating the success of the program. Moreover, opportunities must be built into the program for the development of self-evaluation techniques. Since much of the teachers' learning will occur through practicing new techniques within their own classrooms, they must be able to judge the effectiveness of their differ ent behaviors, methods, and such. One component of the visitation element is that teachers have the opportunity to observe one another. Again, this involves training in evaluative techniques. Also the means by which the effectiveness of the program is to be measured should be specified from the beginning. Therefore, time should be set aside especially for communication between the various individuals concerned. Support of principals and department chairmen must be forthcoming. The chart on page 91 provides one view of the shared responsibil ities of personnel for continuing education ("Continuing Education for Teachers: Whose Responsibility?" p. 22). Allen and Manley-Casimir, 1974, analyzed the extent to which various groups in British Columbia (school districts, teachers' organizations, universities, the Department of Education) actually take responsibility for inservice education, (b) Specific Guidelines Although the Bullock Report, 1975, claimed "the appropriate unit for inservice education in the secondary school will more frequently be the English department" (p. 34), there has been no specific discussion of the rationale for beginning an inservice program in secondary reading with English teachers. The comments in chapter I provide some explanation for starting with English teachers. For example, there is the fact that English teachers more than any other teachers have probably had a pre service course in secondary reading and, therefore, have some background. It is the English teacher who is likely to be assigned the task of teach ing reading in the school, either within the English classroom or within a reading or learning assistance center. In addition, the reading demands on the English teacher within his own content area are at least as great as those in any other content area. There is empirical and subjective evidence for this. Responsibilities for Aspects of Inservice Education Identifying Inservice Needs Initiating Inservice Activities Planning Inservice Activities Providing Resource Personnel Providing Financial Resources Conducting Follow-up Activities Individual teachers AA * A AA A AAA Principals and staff AAA AA AA AA A A PD committees of the ATA Local AA •kick AAA * AA AA PD consultants from the ATA ** *, A A AA A A Parents AA A A A A A A School boards and central office personnel AA AA A AA AAA AA Department of Education Regional Offices of Education AA A A A AAA A AA Department of Education Curriculum Branch AA A A AA A A Universities AA A A AA A A * = Moderate responsibility ** = Extensive responsibility AAA = Major responsibility "Continuing Education for Teachers: Whose Responsibility?" 92 It is important to reiterate the rationale for the selection of the English teacher as the focus of an inservice program in reading. Three kinds of evidence can be cited as validation for this choice. First, there have been various studies suggesting the need for training in read ing for English teachers. These studies deal either with preservice training or with instructional practices in English classes. An example of the first kind resulted in a recommendation by Viall et al., 1967, that reading be a component in the preparation of English teachers. Of teachers surveyed by Littrell, 1968, 97% said a reading course would be valuable. In 73% of Indiana schools responding to a survey by Farr et al., 1970, English teachers were responsible for reading instruction even though no reading course was required for state certification. Estes, 1972, and Roberts, 1972, reinforced the point that a reading course should be required of prospective English teachers. Redd, 1972, stated that two courses in teaching reading should be required, one a diagnostic/remedial course, the other a developmental course. Investigating preservice train ing of English teachers, Means, 1974, showed that little time was devoted to reading. Morrison and Austin, 1976, in contrasting new data with their earlier study (1961) noted that even though a required course in reading instruction for all prospective secondary teachers is most fre quently mentioned by teacher training institutions, only 24.8% of them have instituted such a course, usually applying it only to English majors. As for the instruction in reading in secondary English classes, Squire and Applebee's extensive study, 1968, revealed that little atten tion was paid to reading by English teachers. Gibson, 1971, surveyed English teachers, 37% of whom said that in the area of langauge arts, reading needed most emphasis. Fahy's survey of Alberta teachers, 1972, 93 showed that English teachers accepted responsibility for reading instruc tion. Therefore, on the basis of present practices and recognized classroom needs, inservice education in reading is essential. A second source of evidence consists of professional books on secondary reading which reveal great similarity of concern among reading experts and English teachers. Particularly in affective areas, the goals of both groups are much alike. Some examples of these books are: Henry, 1961; Weiss, 1961; Karlin, 1964; Fader and McNeil, 1966; Hafner, 1967; Karlin, 1969; Thomison, 1970; Aukerman, 1972; Olson and Ames, 1972; Robinson, 1975. A brief review of such texts supports not only the par allel concerns but also illustrates the special problems of English which receive emphasis in reading texts. As early as 1948, Henry expressed the view of the value of reading as bibliotherapy. In statements similar to Rosenblatt's in Literature  as Exploration, 1938, he emphasized the personal-social merits of liter ature for individual growth. He also pointed out the problems of read ing in literature due to its multigenres nature. For example, different demands are made by novels, short stories, dramas, biographies, essays, histories, poetry, newspapers, and magazines. Weiss, 1961, edited a book of readings in which Ruth Strang reinforced Henry's position, indicating that a major goal of reading is personal development with concomitant enjoyment of the material read. She also noted that teaching reading is an essential part of teaching English. Weiss' particular point was that special reading skills and habits are needed for the language arts as distinct from other content areas and that one possible approach to teach ing these skills would involve the integration of the language arts. Bamman et al., 1961, agreed that "Special skills are demanded for the 94 reading of all types of literature" (p. 186). Karlin et al., 1964, explained that in reading literature a stu dent is responsible for analyzing the structure of the piece, the form of the genre, the theme, and the mode of the selection. In order for a student to do this successfully, certain conditions have to be met. First, he has to be empathic, that is, able to correlate material read with personal experience. Second, he has to perceive the meaning or purpose of the selection. Third, he has to perceive the artistic unity and signif icance of the selection. Therefore, the conclusion of Karlin et al. was that higher order reading skills are required to deal competently with literature. Marksheffel, 1966, distinguished between general reading skills and specialized skills for subject matter. He claimed that English is the most disliked of all school subjects, presumably in part because of read ing problems in this subject. One suggested solution was the individual ization of reading programs. On the other hand, Robinson and Rauch, 1966, advocated the topical approach to literature with an affective emphasis. They asserted that integration of literature and experience is necessary for successful reading and that there are various levels of thematic analysis: physical, mental, moral, psychological,and philosophical. Hafner, 1967, explained that literature requires comprehension plus critical or evaluative reading. He maintained that it is necessary to differentiate among approaches to reading the various genres: drama— visualization is a major requirement; poetry—analysis of structure, style, and references is essential; prose fiction—point of view, sequen tial development, and style are important. Also, there should be a dis tinction between the skills needed to read imaginative and non-imaginative 95 literature. Having reviewed English programs in the best American schools, Squire and Applebee, 1968, concluded that both reading programs and Eng lish classes favored academic students. It is interesting that in the seventies reading programs are primarily remedial or corrective in nature, with some developmental reading programs, but few programs for the superior or college-bound student. A recent survey of British Columbia schools (Kinzer, 1976) revealed that 50% of reading programs in secondary schools are remedial or corrective, only 21.5% developmental, and the remaining 28.4% directed toward disadvantaged students or content area skills. Defending the position that extensive reading will lead to skillful reading, Karlin, 1969, assumed that skills could be better developed in conjunction with content. He stressed the importance of education as the greatest single factor influencing both the quality and quantity of reading in adult life. Judging by present statistics, past efforts have not been particularly successful since fewer than 10% of adults can be considered habitual readers (P. A. Wagner in Weiss, 1961). Aukerman, 1972, claimed that reading skills taught in English should be based on student needs and. appropriateness of skills to the selection. He advocated the thematic approach in preference to the historical for moti vational reasons. Also in 1972, Olson and Ames emphasized the unique problems of genres: in the short story, inference is necessary to recog nize background and intent; in the novel, digressions may distract from the plot; in poetry, different types have different levels of difficulty, making oral presentation desirable; drama is most difficult due to a maximum of inference. Thus, each genre is distinct, with special prob lems accompanying each—not only due to demands made by the selection but 96 also due to biases students bring to certain genres, such as poetry. Point three can serve as a rebuttal to those who would claim that reading in English literature is not as difficult as the reading of expository materials.in other content areas. One popular argument runs that since the student is familiar with narrative—he has heard and read it all his life—this exposure better prepares him to read literary as opposed to expository material. However, the range of literature required for reading in secondary school is qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from that which the student has read in elemen tary grades. Literature is a multigenres area, and students are expected to read all forms with equal success. As Gallo and Siedow pointed out: No other teacher is confronted with as wide a range of differences in the types of reading he must require of his students as is the liter ature teachers. When the reading of poetry, drama, short story, novel, biography, autobiography, and essay is examined and compared with the range of reading required in a typical social studies, mathematics, or science course, the differences become apparent. Within each of the genres, moreover, there is an equally wide range. (Gallo, D. R., and M. D. Siedow. "Reading in literature: the impor tance of student involvement," Reading in the Content Areas, ed. J. L. Laffey, Newark, Delaware, I.R.A., 1972, p. 32) A second argument is that within the range of materials available in literature, there are sufficiently easy books—such as the adolescent or juvenile novel—for all secondary students. Yet even stories such as these are becoming increasingly difficult in structure and style. Al Muller in "New Reading Material: The Junior Novel" claimed that "the literary sophistication of the junior novel has increased, and it can no longer be assumed that the novel will present no reading obstacles to a younger student" (Journal of Reading, 18-7, April 1975, p. 533). What was previously easy material now approximates the difficult adult novel. Furthermore, an English teacher's obligation is to enable students to 97 make transitions in reading: "In secondary school, the student moves up from children's literature, through the more sophisticated juvenile trade books, to the adolescent novel—and many of the college-bound students enter the world of mature literature" (Aukerman, p. 137). Finally, there lurks an assumption that narrative material is inher ently more interesting in content than is expository material and, there fore, for motivational reasons should be easier to read. But research on the development of students' interests between grades seven and twelve (McKay, 1968) suggests an increase in the popularity of non-fiction material: scientific, historical, biographical. And even those students who prefer a romance or an adventure tale to non-fiction cannot with assurance be claimed to enjoy a poem, essay, or drama. The point is that the load placed on the English teacher for teach ing the reading of literature is a heavy one. Arthur Gates stated, "No assignment in the entire school curriculum calls for more intelligence and artistry than the teaching of reading literature" ("Intelligence and Artistry in Teaching Reading," The Elementary English Review, Vol. xvii, No. 4, p. 162). Thus, because of English teachers' lack of preparation for teaching reading, because of the unique reading demands made by the multigenres nature of reading in English, and because of the qualitative and quantitative demands made on students in English courses in secondary schools, there is ample justification for choosing the English teacher as the primary focus of an inservice program in reading. Some objective validation for the statement "Reading in English is at least as difficult as reading in the other content areas" can be found in a recent doctoral dissertation by Peter Edwards (University of British Columbia, 1974). In his study Edwards selected 37 textbooks from grades 98 8 through 10, across seven subject areas, from the required text list for public schools in British Columbia. A total of 469 sample 500 word pas sages were taken from these texts (a sample every 20 pages) and stored on computer tape. Analyses and comparisons were then possible of such features as percentage of common and content words within a subject, most commonly used words within a content area, the number of words used only once within a content area, repeat rate frequency of words, and the average sentence length within a content area. As a result, Edwards concluded that certain secondary content areas posed greater reading dif ficulties than others in terms of the lexical characteristics of their texts. Considering English, social studies, and science only, English— regardless of the grade level—was most difficult in terms of range of vocabulary, repeat rate frequency of words, and sentence length demands. It is important to realize that the texts designated in this study as English texts were only the A issue books, the basic language plus some literature texts. Excluded were the B issue texts which comprise the majority of the reading materials in the English courses. Generaliz ing from the literature texts which were used, narrative reading is mark edly more demanding than expository reading (exemplified by the language texts). The point is, first, that narrative reading is more difficult on the basis of vocabulary load. It is also possible to consider sentence length as posing extra difficulty. However, as well as these points are those areas not dealt with by the study: the multiplicity of authors in English within anthologies or over novels producing problems of different styles, vocabularies, and conceptual loads. Concerning the latter, within the B issue texts there is no single theme or aim as there is within a social studies text—or series of texts—covering the same chronological 99 period, political concepts, or whatever. Moreover, the challenges in approaching narrative material may be greater than those deriving from texts in the other content areas primar ily because of individual authorial differences. With a novel there is no justification for assuming a priori a particular organization pattern— space or time. There is little opportunity to 'break into' the material of the book by using certain techniques appropriate to other content areas such as: studying the table of contents for main ideas, skimming headings and subheadings, reading chapter introductions and summaries, noting illustrations—photographs, maps, and such. It is also possible to claim that the purposes for reading a novel in class are more complex than those for reading expository material. For instance, students read a social studies or science text, basically, for information including main ideas and details. In English, however, a student reads a novel for theme (main idea) and plot (supporting details) as well as character, mood, and style. A group of related considerations about the author, the novel, and the student's background experience assume increasing importance because narrative reading involves creative rather than merely critical reading. It is necessary to ask more than, What is the author's purpose? Beyond this, the reader must create from himself and the work an experience of personal significance. Although this could occur from reading an expository text, it seems unlikely that it would,, whereas this is one of the primary goals of reading narrative: that a student enjoy the selection, incorporate it into his experience, perhaps even modify his behavior or attitudes as a result. One final point concerns the multigenres content of narrative materials. The English teacher deals with drama, poetry, short story, 100 biography, and essay as well as the novel. Each genre has its peculiar characteristics, often contributing to reading difficulty. Add to these previous considerations of authorial differences in form and style and the magnitude of the task of the English teacher becomes clear. Another issue which requires some explanation is the focus on English teachers of junior rather than senior or combined grades. Stu dents have different reading needs at different grade levels. In grades 1 to 3, students are learning to read. The materials are there primarily to teach them the skills of reading. This is often labelled the acquisi tion stage in reading development. However, in grades 4 to 7, the inter mediate years, students are reading to learn, moving to the application stage in reading. They are introduced to the content areas on the assump tion that their basic decoding and acquisition reading skills are already well developed. Thus, they read with a purpose beyond the act of reading. By the time students enter junior secondary school, grades 8 to 10, it is assumed that they have acquired the skills they need for reading in the content areas. It is necessary to refer only to such problems as those indicated in chapter I to realize that not only have many students not learned to read in the content areas, some have not learned to read effec tively at all. Many are still struggling with the transition from the acquisition to the application stage while a small percentage are hope lessly mired in the rudiments of beginning reading. Sticht, 1975, made the important point that automaticity in reading skill development is too often taken for granted in later grades when, in reality, for many stu dents it is still fluid or may be markedly arrested in some cases. Singer and Rodes, 1976, stressed, in particular, the wide range of reading development inherent in secondary populations and the need to consider such 101 differences in aiding students to cope with secondary text materials. Therefore, before students are required to cope with increasingly challenging material in grades 11 and 12 the skills which will enable them to succeed in the content areas must be reviewed, reinforced and applied directly to subject materials. Presumably, teachers have higher expecta tions of students in the senior years as compared to the junior years. The materials are more difficult in terms of readability, conceptual load, and quantity. It is essential, then, to separate the junior and senior grades for the purpose of attempting to prevent reading failures at the upper grades by correcting them within the junior grades. 2. Needs Assessment As the importance of initial planning was emphasized in chapter III, so within this preliminary planning must the needs assessment assume great importance. Various studies include examples of needs-assessment surveys (O'Hanlon, 1967; Littrell, 1968; McGuire, 1969; Dahl, 1970; Lister, 1970; Lavin, 1972; Hebert, 1973; Parsons and Fuller, 1974) and from these an appropriate one could be selected. Table 11 summarizes fifty-four studies in which a needs assessment played a significant part in pre-planning activities. On the other hand, it would also be possible to design an idiosyncratic needs-assessment survey to more closely fulfill local needs/requirements. Questions would be concerned with teachers' attitudes toward and methods in secondary reading. It would be important to test the survey in a pilot situation using both external experts (out side consultants) and inservice teachers to specify ambiguities, omissions, and such. Such a project has recently been undertaken at the University of TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT AS A FUNCTION OF PREPLANNING INSERVICE Name, date Area, population Subject, focus Method Conclusions/Recommendations 1. Larson, 1962 Alberta school districts Inservice educav tion Survey The relation of inservice to needs most important 2. Brantner, 1964 Trade and tech nical teachers Inservice education Questionnaire Effective format for questionnaire was Do you (present practices), Would you (preferred practices) 3. Whitworth, 1964 Students and Eng lish teachers in Indianopolis sec ondary schools Improving stu dent reading tastes Questionnaires There was substantial agreement by teachers and students on appraisal of techniques used to improve student reading tastes 4. Aaron et al. , 1965 Teachers Reading in-service programs Questionnaire As well as a needs-assessment in strument, other methods were sug gested (discussion, observation, etc.) 5. Robinson & Rauch, 1965 Teachers Reading inser vice programs Questionnaire Other methods suggested for asses sing needs were: conferences, formal and informal group meetings 6. Dye, 1966 Minnesota schools Inservice math ematics educa tion Survey Many mathematics teachers feel they lack the competence to dis cuss contemporary material O Table 11 (continued) Name, date Area, population Subject, focus Method Conclusions/Recommendations 7. Rowe & Hurd, 1966 Elementary science teachers and ad ministrators Inservice program Questionnaire Sources of resistance to innovation were examined. Differences re sulted from years of teaching ex perience and amount of academic preparation 8. O'Hanlon, 1967 Small schools in Nebraska Inservice education Survey Teachers should be involved in plan ning and leadership; inservice should be related to daily instruc tional needs; inservice should be evaluated 9. O'Hanlon & Witter, 1967 Nebraska State Dept. of Education Inservice education Survey General dissatisfaction with past inservice. Help wanted in motiva tion, individualizing instruction, innovative practices 10. Russell, 1967 Reading teachers Reading inservice programs Questionnaire An appraisal of current practices was combined with an assessment of felt needs 11. Littrell, 1968 Kansas high schools English teachers' attitudes toward preparation in reading Opinionnaire Overwhelming support (97%) for the value of a reading course preser vice or inservice. Skills needed by students and topics for teachers were given (e.g., critical reading, and methods and materials) o Table 11 (continued) Name, date Area, population Subject, focus Method Conclus ions/Recommendat ions 12. McGuire, G.K., 1969 Secondary English teachers (national sample) Reading instruction Questionnaire 84% of public high school English teachers responding had taken no preservice course in reading. They perceived it as the area in which they most needed instruction 13. McGuire, M.> 1969 Six New England states Reading instruction Questionnaire Need for development and expansion in secondary school reading programs was noted 14. Baker, 1970 Teachers, students, and parents Probe system evaluated Questionnaire The needs of the 3 groups and their satisfaction with the program were compared 15. Dahl, 1970 Ontario secondary school teachers Attitudes toward teaching reading Questionnaire Fewer than 1/8 of teacher had re ceived instruction in teaching reading 16. Lister, 1970 Elementary teachers Inservice educa tion programs Questionnaire Teacher motivation related to rele vance. Focus should be on prac tices, skills, and materials 17. Staples, 1970 Alberta teachers Professional development needs Questionnaire Teachers want practical, relevant activities, with teacher partici pation at all levels Table 11 (continued) Name, date Area, population Subject, focus Method Conclusions/Recommendations 18. Adams, 1971 Teachers Inservice edu cation programs Survey Needs involve updating. In reading topics are basic skills, comprehension, individualization, and materials 19. Johnston, 1971 Teachers (England) Inservice education Review of practices Areas of need: knowledge, aids, re search, evaluation, curriculum, methods 20. Katzenmeyer et al., 1971 Five models from across the U.S. Evaluation of language arts/ reading centers Survey Degree to which models satisfied needs evaluated by student achievement, teacher attitudes and practices, on-site visits, directors' reports 21. Knox, 1971 Florida Adult Basic Education Inservice education Questionnaire A needs-assessment questionnaire prior to planning a program is useful 22. McGuire, 1971 Selected teachers Inservice workshop Questionnaire Teacher behavior and attitudes were effectively changed 23. Minturn, 1971 Reading consultants and content area teachers in Missouri Inservice training Survey Topics were: nature of reading, teaching reading in the content areas, development of materials and teaching strategies 24. Schleich, 1971 Content area teachers and administrators Reading inservice Survey Topics: reading process, reading skills, tests, readability, IRI, DRL, reading in the content areas Table 11 (continued) Name, date Area, population Subject, focus Method Conclusions/Recommendations 25. A Systematic Approach to Inservice Training for Teachers in Learning Disabilities, 1971 Learning disab ilities teachers Inservice training Questionnaire An annual needs assessment indicates users' needs for more information, providing data for planning a mini-course 26. Bernstein, 1972 Elementary tea chers and their students Reading in-service education Questionnaire Pre- and post-assessment of knowledge and attitudes used several kinds of evaluation (case studies, reports, inventories) 27. James, 1972 Secondary school teachers Reading in-service pro grams Questionnaire Topics were: assessment procedures, teaching techniques, classroom man agement, grouping, lesson planning. Extensive evaluation was done 28. Keliher, 1972 Teachers (Michigan) Inservice practices Survey Guidelines and a wide range of methods were suggested 29. Lavin & Schuttenberg, 1972 Public school staff Continuing education Questionnaire An annual needs assessment provided information on users' familiarity with topics and desire for more familiarity 30. Paisley, 1972 Teachers and administrators Information needs Questionnaire Teachers' and principals' responses to a needs assessment revealed different perceptions of needs for information Table 11 (continued) Name, date Area, population Subject, focus Method Conclusions/Recommendations 31. Williams, 1972 Teachers and administrators Continuing education Survey Program needs were perceived differently by teachers and principals 32. Dunkeld, 1973 Teachers, parents, and aides (Oregon) Reading inservice Questionnaire An extensive project was based on needs, evaluated by teachers' knowledge and behavior, students' achievement 33. Hebert, 1973 Elementary teachers Reading pre-and inservice education Questionnaire The emphasis was on the specific needs and problems related to teaching reading 34. Jaquith, 1973 Junior high/middle school teachers, principals, and university specialists Inservice education Questionnaire The three groups perceived their needs differently, were willing to partic ipate in inservice to different degrees 35. Kirby, 1973 Teachers and resource people Inservice education Questionnaire Needs assessment was concerned with the role of the university, and the use of consultants in inservice 36. Model for Reading In-service: PIE (Planning, Implementa tion, Evalu ation) Plan, 1973 Teachers (Missouri) Reading inservice Questionnaire An initial needs assessment served to plan the program; several evaluative questionnaires were given afterwards Table 11 (continued) Name, date Area, population Subject, focus Method Conclusions/Recommendations 37. Pane, 1973 Junior high/middle school teachers (Nebraska) Inservice programs Survey Actual practices were compared with those recommended by teachers (visitation preferred) 38. Uche, 1973 Occupational instructors and administrators (North Carolina) Inservice edu cation pro grams in tech nical insti tutes and com munity colleges Questionnaire Recommendations: opportunities should be given to plan, identify needs, share leadership 39. Ellis, 1974 Teachers (Utah) Educational needs Questionnaire Needs assessment resulted in specifica tion of top 10 educational needs (e.g., student motivation, individualization, methods) 40. Greer, 1974 Teachers (South east Kansas) Curriculum re vision for reading instruction Questionnaire Need for a course in materials was noted 41. Grella, 1974 Elementary schools of West Virginia Inservice education in reading Questionnaire Criticisms of failure to meet teacher needs, provide continuity in programs or follow-up at the building level 42. Lindsay et al., 1974 Professionals Continuing education Questionnaire Needs assessment of a group rather than of individuals. The difference between the group's achievement and expected standards led to program development Table 11 (continued) Name, date Area, population Subject, focus Method Conclusions/Recommendations ^43. Parsons & \. Fuller, 1974 1 Teachers (Texas) Teacher con cerns Questionnaire Two assessment instruments (checklist and statement) were used to establish teacher concerns 44. Anderson, 1975 Secondary schools of Texas Inservice education Questionnaire Differences were noted between small and large schools, between perceptions of teachers and administrators. Needs of teachers: motivation, individualization innovations 45. Bauer, 1975 Secondary English teachers and admin istrators (Texas) Inservice education programs Questionnaire Although teachers and administrators agreed on items needed, they did not agree on priorities 46. Bosanko, 1975 Secondary school teachers (California) Reading inservice Questionnaire Attitudes and needs were assessed prior to setting goals for a program 47. Hargrave, 1975 Secondary teachers English Questionnaire Needs assessment 48. Post, 1975 Teachers and supervisory staff Inservice education Survey Teachers and supervisory staff perceived skill needs of teachers differently. Grade level and teaching experience influenced perceptions of priorities in skill needs Table 11 (continued) Name, date Area, population Subject, focus Method Conclus ions/Recommendat ions 49. Schreiber, 1975 Teachers and admin istrators in Alberta Inservice education Questionnaire Teaching strategies specified as a high priority need 50. Stander, 1975 High school English teachers Competency based in-service tea cher educa tion Questionnaire A needs assessment preceded planning a CBTE program to meet content deficien cies of teachers. On the instrument they rated the importance of the area as well as their degree of competence in it 51. Weipert, 1975 Teachers and administrators Inservice edu cation in social studies. Questionnaire Administrators' attitudes to inservice more favorable than teachers' 52. Chester et al., 1976 Secondary teachers (British Columbia) Inservice edu cation in reading Questionnaire Teachers can specify present practices, perceived needs, and priorities 53. James, 1976 Teachers (Georgia) Continuing edu cation in reading [Questionnaire Needs assessment should consider teachers' and instructor's points of view 54. Mangrum, 1976 Teachers Inservice edu cation in reading Kit Using concrete materials, teachers can set priorities in needs individually and compare as a group Ill British Columbia. R. D. Chester et al., 1976, have designed a needs-assessment instrument for inservice in secondary reading. The question naire was sent to reading teachers and administrators throughout British Columbia for their reactions to its form and content. With modifications, this instrument could be used by any district to determine the present practices of teachers across the content areas, the importance they place on various activities, and the areas in which they feel they need inservice training. Thus, a survey of the situation could be accomplished and a program for the future established. Moreover, data on the desired organ ization of inservice as well as topics to be covered would be available. (See Appendix A for questionnaire.) After using the needs-assessment survey in a district with the English teachers as the focus of the inservice program, follow-up would involve specification of topics and goals. The apparent dichotomy of inservice is that it can be effective only when it arises from the felt needs of teachers. Thus, even the external imposition of a needs-assessment survey may seem incongruous. However, both this survey and the preliminary workshop are attempts to make teachers more aware of their own needs. As. many authors have noted, teachers are often unaware of their needs due to insufficient information on new developments in methods and materials. Furthermore, both the needs assessment and the initial workshop should provide motivational impetus for participation in inser vice programs. Once felt needs have surfaced, teachers can sit down with consultants and plan the kind of inservice they feel is relevant to them. An innovative approach to assessing needs while concurrently build ing awareness was developed by C. T. Mangrum, 1976. Adapted from a Phi Delta Kappa workshop packet, TINA (Teachers Inservice Needs Assessment) " 112 is directly related to reading. It includes specific directions, sample materials, indeed a complete kit. The rationale is that by working through abstract concepts with concrete referents, participants will more accurately and honestly reveal their true needs. The process is in itself a learning experience, bound to promote comment and controversy in staffs and departments. (See Appendix B for kit.) 3. Goals The goals of the inservice program would cover cognitive and affec tive areas including knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Topics would span these, and different methods would be used to effect learning within each area on each topic. Objectives would be both long- and short-term, allowing for immediate implementation (and success) as well as refinement with practice. Practical issues would be countered with practical pro cedures. Beck, 1975, termed his workshop a "growth" workshop to emphasize that it dealt with individual teachers' needs rather than with the attain ment of a product. Positive results accrued for both teachers and their students. Problems of general concern to English teachers regarding reading were outlined by Rauch, 1967. These are in the nature of topics which could become inservice objectives. 1. The nature of the reading process Objective: will be able to demonstrate an understanding of the read ing process by answering questions, explaining orally, and making appropriate changes in teaching strategies. 2. Why pupils fail in reading Objective: will be able to demonstrate an understanding of pupil 113 reading failure by answering questions and explaining orally corre lates of poor reading achievement in the student, the materials, the teaching methods. 3. The fundamentals of reading Objective: will be able to demonstrate an understanding of reading fundamentals by preparing and teaching a lesson on vocabulary (e.g., pre-teaching concepts, doing structural analysis, etc.), comprehen sion (e.g., showing awareness of levels through a model or taxonomy— Barrett), or some other skills. 4. Encouraging personal and recreational reading Objective: will be able to show an understanding of how to encourage independent reading by demonstrating the use of interest inventories and attitude surveys, and techniques for motivating students to read independently for pleasure. A personal familiarity with trade books (e.g., adolescent novels) is a help. 5. Classroom organization Objective: will be able to demonstrate an understanding of effective classroom organization by grouping students on different bases for different purposes, individualizing materials and assignments. 6. Use of instructional materials and supplementary aids Objective: will be able to demonstrate an understanding of materials and aids by showing awareness of availability of materials, differ ences in and values of alternative materials, including the applica tion of readability formulas and cloze procedure, using audio-visual aids to supplement or complement regular materials. 7. Diagnosis and evaluation Objective: will be able to demonstrate an understanding of diagnosis 114 and evaluation procedures by explaining the administration, interpre tation, and instructional significance of standardized tests, design ing informal tests, and attitude/interest inventories. 8. Questioning techniques Objective: will be able to demonstrate an understanding of question ing techniques by using written and oral questions requiring students to demonstrate varying levels of comprehension, through guided read ing, providing a purpose, indication of appropriate rate. 9. Research and study skills Objective: will be able to demonstrate an understanding of research and study skills by teaching the techniques of successfully reading a book (organizational pattern), using reference materials and the library. 10. Providing for the disabled and superior reader Objective: will be able to demonstrate an understanding of tech niques providing for individual differences by designing and imple menting a balanced reading program to meet the needs of all. 11. Integrating language arts and reading Objective: will be able to demonstrate an understanding of methods for integrating by designing lessons incorporating reading, writing, speaking, and listening activities. 12. Reading in the content areas Objective: will be able to demonstrate an understanding of the place of reading in the content areas by showing transferability of reading skills, and encouraging teachers in other content areas to teach the reading of their subject. 115 A review of studies concerned particularly with topics for reading inservice led to table 12 on page 116 which indicates the emphasis of the various authors. It is interesting to see the priorities evident in rank ordering of the list by frequency: 1. Comprehension 2. Vocabulary 3. i-Word Attack •(Diagnosis •^Differentiated Instruction Materials—Readability Research and Study Skills rCritical Reading 8 15. (-Oral Reading JRate ^Questioning Techniques 18. (-Reading Process \Supplementary Aids ^Reading and Language Arts 21. /-Why Pupils Fail in Reading •(Personal Reading Programs \A Total Reading Program 24. Providing for Superior Readers Grouping 10. Reading in the Content Areas 11. (Evaluation Interests and Attitudes jIndividualization ^Providing for Disabled Readers Also it appears that the six student reading skills are focused on to a greater extent than are the seven teacher instructional strategies (54 to 33—see columns 3-9 versus columns 13-19) . One additional source for reading topics in an inservice program is secondary reading texts. These reinforce the previous selection based on materials from studies and books. (See table 13.) Finally, a survey of British Columbia secondary teachers (Kiteley, 1975) resulted in the following list of topics: reading skills; use and interpretation of standardized reading tests, informal measures of reading achievement, motivation; grouping; materials-readability, supplementary aids; reading in the content areas, reading programs. B. Methodology The two facets of methodology, structure and activities, overlap into the sections on Guidelines and Modules. That is, the principles On Co H O n OH O W cn Pd > w f a Pd hd P p rt ri Co Co ro O Co Cu Co H- ro Co ro &, CO rt H- 3 ri i-i p* C Co i-i rt cr C rt ro O cn ro M P H o 3 <! rt i-i o ro TJ ri O cn cn CO ro cr CD H- r( H- cr H i-S < C^ c o rt H- M ro o cn O o P ro o 1—1 M ,v o O W H1 cr P > Co P ro ro i-t o • p ro • n H- H cn H- rt c?> rt pd O C-l • 3 3 cd P C-l C-l ro ?T • H- • • Co • cn Pd Co CO • pd rt Hj h-1 o ro Cu o cr H- CS • cr OJ H* p h-1 •* Pd i—1 r—* TO h-1 ro ex P «* • VO VO VO C VO X} H- CTQ sj 1—1 M sj H h-> ON ro P 1—1 ho VO h-1 VO M ro H VO ~J rf TO Pd VO h-1 h-1 ~J VO ON CO ro VO ro VO h-1 ># OS CO > CO Oo ~-j 00 o LO ro M ro c VO VO i-i ri ON ON rt O VO ON ro I—1 VO rt Oo "\ ro 4> V. VO o M ro -\ 4> 00 VO -\ Ln "\ On •V On <-vo ro •O 'v. On h-1 oo 00 "\ 00 ON ro h-1 ro r-1 ro On ON 00 l-> 4> I-1 00 ON ON o The Reading Process Why Pupils Fail in Reading Oral Reading Word Attack Vocabulary Comprehension Critical Reading Rate Research and Study Skills Diagnosis Evaluation Interests and Attitudes Individualization Grouping Differentiated Instruction Personal Reading Programs Questioning Techniques Providing for Disabled Reader Providing for Superior Reader Materials—Readability Supplementary Aids Reading and Language Arts Reading in the Content Areas A Total Reading Program O H-Zf M H- H 0 ro cn ii O " rs - t—1 VO t-1 vo J> ~J Ln W C/3 r—1 fl VO I" v. ro o VD h-1 ~J VO U) 4> VO (D ro cn (u cn cn ro Or- vo ov H CO VO Ov C>> fD rt s O fu O r-1 I-i • fD " VO H vo vo Ov Ov M Ln "\ t—1 IT V. •\ V. H1 h-1 "\ r—' h-1 -\ '\ ro LO "\ vo "\ M < M O •\ Ov <v "\ "\ *^ ro "\ •\ 4> •\ V. H1 O "\ •\ \ •\ "\ VO r—' O vO <r-O o M O h-1 o Ov 00 CO Ov The Reading Process Why Pupils Fail in Reading Oral Reading Word Attack Vocabulary Comprehension Critical Reading Rate Research and Study Skills Diagnosis Evaluation Interests and Attitudes Individualization Grouping Differentiated Instruction Personal Reading Programs Questioning Techniques Providing for Disabled Reader Providing for Superior Reader Materials—Readability Supplementary Aids Reading and Language Arts Reading in the Content Areas A Total Reading Program 118 for structuring the inservice program have previously been considered: 1. exposure to the possibilities of an inservice program long before its implementation; needs assessment; extensive planning. 2. released time on a long-term basis. 3. on-site location (for a school or schools in a district). 4. participation on a voluntary basis by a restricted group, e.g., junior secondary English teachers. 5. follow-up between modules with consultations, visitations, self-evaluation. Table 14 further justifies the structural principles outlined by referring to recommendations of past reading inservice programs. There can be little doubt concerning the value of a long-term program with pro vision for teacher participation oh a released-time basis. TABLE 14 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR READING INSERVICE Planning Released-time, long-term On-site Location Voluntary Partici pation Follow up Austin & Morrison, 1963 / / Robinson Si Rauch, 1965 / /, / / McCracken, 1968 / / Sawyer & Taylor, 1968 / / Schiffman, 1969 / / Wiseman, 1970 / / Dunkeld, 1972 / Schmid & Scranton, 1972 / / Otto & Erickson, 1973 / / / Trosky, 1973 / Axelrod, 1975 / / 3 9 3 3 5 119 There are several kinds of activities appropriate to the stages of the program. For instance, the initial contact with potential partici pants would likely occur within a professional day session. Such activ ities as illustrated lecture, demonstration, and microteaching could effectively encourage teacher awareness of needs. Grella, 1974, cau tioned against attempting too much at such a general session. Following a needs assessment, planning would include brainstorming, buzz sessions, and group discussion in a workshop environment. The use of small groups and groups differentiated by needs or experience is recommended by Austin and Morris, 1963; Tetley, 1964; Sawyer and Taylor, 1968; Osburn, 1974. The presentation of the modules, to be discussed in a following section, would also occur in a workshop situation. In a survey by McKague, 1975, Saskatchewan teachers overwhelmingly preferred the workshop to other types of inservice activities. Channon, 1975, listed as expected out comes of a workshop approach use in classroom of new skills and experi mentation with alternative ways of teaching and structuring knowledge. Activities would include illustrated lecture, demonstration, simu lation and role playing, and microteaching. For reading inservice pro grams, the illustrated lecture-demonstration combination was advocated by Early and Sheldon, 1967; Wiseman, 1970; Dunkeld, 1972; and McNamara, 1975. Kennedy, 1972, stressed the value of demonstration lessons in an inservice program designed to improve the teaching of reading skills. The value of simulation for reading inservice training was emphasized by Austin and Morrison, 1963; Kelly, 1967; Sawyer and Taylor, 1968; Kasdon and Kelly, 1969; and Osburn, 1974. Trosky, 1973, advocated micro-teaching for training reading supervisors; Skailand, undated, for train ing reading teachers; Auer, 1972, for individualizing reading instruction; 120 Criscuolo, 1973, for instructing the content-area teacher in reading. Concerning instructional strategies for inservice education, Bishop, 1976, noted, "Research regarding teaching . . . suggests the importance of a variety of approaches" (p. 101). Draba, 1974, reiterated this point. Audio-visual equipment and materials would be available for guided prac tice. Follow-up between inservice sessions would consist of visitations, consultations, and self-evaluation. To promote interpersonal communica tion between sessions and provide participants with an environment in which to plan and discuss, an appropriate suggestion would be the establishment of a teacher center in a school or district. (See table 10.) Wherever possible, activities would demand high involvement of the participants. Berck's 1971 study indicated that inservice education incorporating involvement by means of high experience impact activities and immediate feedback influenced classroom practice in reading. Iver-son, 1974, also found active teacher involvement led to changes in reading instruction. Teachers would learn to do by doing, improving skills and putting knowledge into practice. They would learn from one another, and build on individual strengths. C. Evaluation 1. General Concerns "Evaluation is complex. It is not a simple matter of stating be havioral objectives, building a test, or analyzing some data, though it may include these. A thorough evaluation will contain elements of a dozen or more distinct activities" (Worthen and Sanders, 1973, p. 17). The dilemma and dualism involved in evaluation of an inservice program has previously been discussed. The chart . on pages 121-123 compares the 121 "COMPARISONS OF CONTEMPORARY EVALUATION MODELS ON SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS" (Worthen & Sanders, 1973, pp. 210-15) Scriven, M. "The Methodology of Evaluation," Perspectives of Cur  riculum Evaluation, ed. R. W. Tyler, Chicago, Rand McNally, Inc., 1967, pp. 39-83. Stufflebeam, D. L. "Evaluation as Enlightenment for Decision Making," Ohio State University Evaluation Center (mimeo, 1968). Definition Gathering and combining performance data with weighted set of goal scales. Purpose To establish and justify merit or worth. Evaluation plays many roles. Key Emphasis Justification of data gathering instruments, weightings, and selection of goals. Eval. model: combining data on different performance scales into a single rating. Role of Evaluator Responsible for judging the merit of an educational practice for producers (formative) and consumers (summative). Relationship to Objectives Look at goals and judge their worth. Determine whether they are being met. Relationship to Decision-Making Evaluation reports (with judg ments explicitly stated for producers or consumers) used in decision-making. Types of Evaluation (1) Formative-summative (2) Comparative-noncomparative (3) Intrinsic-payoff (4) Mediated. Defining, obtaining, and using information for decision-making. To provide relevant information to decision-makers. Evaluation reports used for decision-making. Specialist who provides evaluation information to decision-makers. Terminal stage in context eval. is setting objectives; input eval. produces ways to reach objectives; product eval. determines whether objectives are reached. Evaluation provides information for use in decision-making. (1) Context (2) Input (3) Process (4) Product 122 Scriven, M. Stufflebeam, D. L. Constructs Proposed (1) Distinction between goals (claims) and roles (functions) (2) Several types of evaluation. Criteria for Judging Evaluation (1) Should be predicated on goals (2) Must indicate worth (3) Should have construct validity (4) Should be a wholistic program evaluation. Implications for Design (1) Look at many factors (2) Be involved in value judgements (3) Require use of scientific investigations (4) Evaluate from within (formative) or from without (summative). Contributions (1) Discriminate between formative (ongoing) and summative (end) evaluation (2) Focus on direct assessment of worth, focus on value (3) Applicable in diverse contexts (4) Analysis of means and ends (5) Delineation of types of evaluation (6) Evaluation of objectives. (1) Context eval. for planning decisions (2) Input eval. for programming decisions (3) Process eval. for implementing decisions (4) Product eval. for recycling decisions. (1) Internal validity (2) External validity (3) Reliability (4) Objectivity (5) Relevance (6) Importance (7) Scope (8) Credibility (9) Timeliness (10) Pervasiveness (11) Efficiency. (1) Experimental design not applic able (2) Use of systems approach for evaluation studies (3) Directed by administrator. (1) Provides a service function by supplying data to administrators and decision-makers charged with conduct of the program (2) Is sensitive to feedback (3) Allows for evaluation to take place at any stage of the program (4) Wholistic. Scriven, M. Stufflebeam, D. L. Limitations (1) Equating performance on differ ent criteria and assigning relative weights to criteria creates methodological problems (2) No methodology for assessing validity of judgments (3) Several overlapping concepts. (1) Little emphasis on value con cerns (2) Decision-making process is un clear; methodology undefined (3) May.be costly and complex if used entirely (4) Not all activities are clearly evaluative. evaluation models of two experts in the field. Worthen and Sanders pro vided validity for the view that multiple evaluation, that is, the use of a variety of instruments to evaluate a program, is desirable. For instance they claimed that evaluation can justifiably be based on: (1) professional judgment (experts or authorities in the field); (2) statistical measurement (e.g., standardized tests); or (3) a comparison between performance indicators and objectives. Thus, evaluation combines an analysis of goals as well as results. Because evaluation of an inservice program is necessarily specific to the variables of the program—organizational, methodological, content components—any evaluation will also be peculiar to that program. "Pro gram evaluation is concerned with a phenomenon (an educational program) which has limited generalizability across time and geography" (ibid., p. 32). This reiterates Jaffa's 1957 statement that there can be no single inservice program to meet all needs and, similarly, there can be no single method of evaluating an inservice program. Each evaluation must depend on the particular program itself. Therefore, the legitimate conclusion seems to be that "the would-be evaluator [should] be eclectic, whenever possible, in selecting useful concepts . . . and combining them into an 124 evaluation plan that is better for having incorporated the best features of several approaches" (ibid., p. 41). Expanding on this, these authors claimed that the criteria for judging evaluation studies are relative: "Although the criteria which they [Stufflebeam et al.,] described were essentially intuitive [that is, subjective], they are useful as guidelines for evaluating evaluation studies. There are no other compelling reasons  for using these criteria however, and the evaluator might well choose only  those criteria which he agrees are important" (ibid., p. 129)*. The significance of evaluation to the program is stressed in spite of an apparent lack of specificity in defining the criteria for evaluation. For example, "there is a need to have evaluation included from the very beginning of any program" (ibid., p. 345), and "there is a need to toler ate delay of some final judgments until evaluative studies of long-term outcomes can be conducted" (ibid., p. 346). These reinforce the points that evaluation and goal-setting must accompany one another, and that the evaluation procedures must be incorporated into the continuous format of inservice or the follow-up activities providing continuity between work shops. These principles can be incorporated into an explanation of what the triangulation effect (Webb et al., 1966) in evaluation means. Basically, as many different kinds of evaluation as are appropriate should be attempted, that is, involving people (teachers and students) and the pro gram itself (individual sessions and long-term program) with a variety of instruments. Worthen and Sanders suggested the following uses for various measures in the evaluation of programs: (1) as indicators of change in students in both cognitive and affective *my underlining LEAVES 125 AND 126 OMITTED IN PAGE NUMBERING. Ji6 fa not 127 behaviors: (a) formal measurement—standardized achievement tests, attitude and interest inventories (b) informal, teacher-made inventories—free response, interviews, questionnaires, self-evaluation reports, teacher-made achieve ment tests (c) indirect measures—absences, records of behavior, number of books checked out of the library, dropouts from school, case histories. (2) indicators of teacher change in cognitive and affective behaviors as a result of the program: publication, attendance at professional development programs, participation in professional associations, observations; with the use of such instruments as checklists, rating scales, and reports. Worthen and Sanders provided an excellent summary of the various means for collecting data giving the strengths and weakness for each. "Some Methods of Collecting Evaluation Data" Strengths Weaknesses I. Data Collected by a Mechanical Device (e.g., Audio or Video Tape, Galvanic Skin Responses) Avoid human errors. Stay on job—avoid fatigue. May capture content missed by written records (e.g., voice inflection). Cost. Cannot make independent judgement. Complexity can cause problems in operating devices. II. Data Collected by an Independent Observer Can be used in natural or experimental settings. Most direct measure of behavior. Experienced, trained or perceptive observers can pick up subtle occur rences or interactions sometimes not available by other techniques. A. Written accounts Can use critical incident tech nique eliminating much "chaff". Observer's presence often causes an artificial situation. Hostility to being observed. Inadequate sampling of observed events. Ambiguities in recording. Frequent observer unreliability. Hard to be complete. Hard to avoid writing interpretation as factual data (e.g., "Mary kicked John because she was angry with him"). Strengths Weaknesses 128 Observation forms (e.g., obser vation schedules) Easy to complete; saves time. Can be objectively scored. Standardizes observations. Not as flexible as written accounts-may lump unlike acts together. Criteria for ratings are often unspecified. May overlook meaningful behavior that is not reflected in instrument. III. Data Produced by the Subject Himself Self reports Can collect data too costly other- Depends on respondent's "accurate wise (e.g., eliminates endless memory" when dealing with past observation necessary to really events (selective recall). get to know a person's philosophy, May necessitate anonymous responses attitudes, etc.). where threat is perceived. Can collect data not accessible by any other means (private thoughts, feelings, actions, emotion-laden material). 1. Diary—may be difficult to analyze but can be comprehensive. 2. Check lists—sometimes force choices between unacceptable responses. 3. Rating scales (covered earlier)—often tell more about the respon dent than about the topic under consideration. Semantic differential. (See Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum [1957].) 4. Adaptable to varying research demands. Quick and economical to administer and score. 5. Questionnaires Self-administered. Anonymity can bring about more honest responses. Economical. 6. Interviews Allow depth and free response. Flexible and adaptable to individual situations. Allow glimpse of respondent's gestures, tone of voice, etc., that reveal his•feelings. 7. Sociometry Easy to analyze. Naturalistic method. Clinically insightful. Often tells more about the respondent than about the topic under consideration. Frequent low percentage of returns. No assurance that the intended respondent understands the questions. No assurance that the intended res pondent actually completed the form himself. Costly in time and personnel. Require skilled interviewers. Often difficult to summarize. Many biases possible (e.g., inter viewer's, respondent's, or situa tional biases). Criteria used in making choices are often vague. 129 Strengths Weaknesses 8. Projective techniques Clinically insightful. Allow measurement of variables typically unavailable through other techniques. Personal products 1. Tests Practicality—do away with need for observer to gather similar data. Most reliable measures we have at present. Can record products or thought or thought processes themselves. a. Supplied answer i. Essay Allow students to synthesize their knowledge about a topic. ii. Completion Can be quite objective. iii. Short response Can be quite objective. iv. Problem-solving Can look at actual processes (diagnostic). Can look at actual mastery. Lack of objectivity in interpreta tion. Uncertain reliability and validity. Validity is always a problem in work sample sense—i.e., is test repre sentative of criterion? Lend themselves to "law of the instrument"—we often exclude other techniques. Difficult to score objectively. Sampling of topics is relatively limited. May lend themselves to testing trivia (factual recall only). May lend themselves to testing trivia (factual recall only). Lend themselves to mechanical drill. b. Selected answer tests (multiple-choice, true-false, matching, rank order) Problem of validity is always present. Standardized tests sometimes used in situations requiring specially con structed tests. Apparent precision often masks very bad items. Greater objectivity in scoring. Speed of scoring. Potentially higher reliabil ity. Can be item analyzed for improvement. Quantity of available standardized tests. Samples of work Best measure of ability mastery, etc. May be difficult or costly to administer 130 Strengths Weaknesses IV. Data Collected by Use of Unobtrustive Measures Nonreactive. Nonconsciously biased. Often readily available and easily measurable. Hidden measures are considered unethical by some. Doubtful validity when used alone. (Worthen and Sanders, 1973, pp. 286-7) 2. Specific Suggestions "Evaluation should contribute to decision making and in-process corrections; to program improvement, reporting, and feedback; to crea tivity and variety in the inservice efforts; and to improved staff renewal programs and related staff-learner gain" (Bishop, 1976, p. 145). Evaluation is necessarily interrelated with objectives: to what extent were short- and long-term goals accomplished? Therefore, the designing of measurement instruments should take place concurrently with the specification of objectives. Each instrument will of itself offer only a partial picture of the success or failure of the inservice program. However, using the triangulation effect described by Webb et al., 1966, 'the multiple multifaceted instruments will by their quantity yield reli able, valid results. Webb et al. called for "multiple operationism, a collection of methods combined to avoid sharing the same weakness" (pp. 1-2). Both the program itself and its effects—immediate and lasting—on teaching must be evaluated. The results of a Tennessee survey by Brimm and Tollett, 1974, indicated that teachers acknowledge post inservice classroom performance as the most effective estimate of the program's value. To analyze the program, two kinds of instruments are needed. One 131 would be a short, informal questionnaire to be filled in at the end of each workshop session (formative evaluation). The other would be a longer, more comprehensive survey of the whole program given after its completion (summative evaluation). The short form could provide the immediate feed back necessary for modifications in format, technique, etc. The longer one could be used as a follow-up survey at some later date. Naturally, verbal feedback would be forthcoming at informal meetings between sessions. And more formal interviews between teachers and consultants might be added. Concerning the evaluation of a whole-school inservice program (the ultimate goal) Katrein, 1968, suggested as a criterion of success the number of library books borrowed after the program. The Saturation Reading Program, 1967, included this plus data on dropouts, behavior problems, and attend ance on the assumption that a successful program would change a school and, therefore, students' attitude to school. As for the influence of the program on teaching behavior, several types of evaluation would be required. For instance, although standard ized tests of students' reading achievement are not considered appropri ate, some student input is essential. Pre- and post-questionnaires on their attitudes to reading (a goal of the program) and their views of the teacher's behavior should be used. Additionally, some randomly selected students could provide verbal data for case studies. Teachers also would be pre- and post-tested on their attitudes to reading and teaching behav ior. They would be requested to utilize self-evaluation techniques such as journals or diaries throughout. And observation of teaching by out side consultants and other teachers would contribute to the pool of infor mation. Reed, 1975, developed an observational system for classroom man agement which could be of value in assessing teaching behavior. Table 15 TABLE 15 EVALUATION OF READING INSERVICE PROGRAMS Focus Method CD 4J H 3 rt CD QJ CO •H QJ U 60 QJ a r-l X) O Xl X) o QJ QJ • 3 •H Q) 3 •H > 4-1 o *-> > rH 4-1 > QJ QJ rt 4J •H cd •H rt •H U CO a QJ 4-1 X o 4-) J3 ,3 •H 3 4J QJ 4J QJ CJ rt o o s ft < pq < ts pq < nn ew ti rJ ne1 ed u r-l n 4J CO 4-1 4-1 o •H rt CO i CD QJ QJ QJ 3 QJ 3 3 •H rv > QJ i rt X X X QJ U QJ QJ 4-1 rv M CO •H u X u o O 13 CD Xl X) CO QJ QJ 4-1 U QJ o rt rt rt 3 4J 3 3 QJ 4-1 CO CD rt r-l QJ QJ QJ 4J 3 4J 4J 3 3 fl QJ •H 4-1 3 H H H Crt H CO cn O" H O H P o « o QJ 4J O QJ 3 rt " x) co 3 ^ cu o 4-1 o 4J X rt I I u QJ ,3 >N M rt r-t fl •H 1. Aaron et al., 1965 (Program effectiveness must be evalu ated by changes in teaching and learning) * * * X X X X X 2. Russell, 1967 (Program evaluated by learning of teachers and their students) * * * X X X 3. Minturn, 1971 (Reading in the content areas of the junior high school leads to better teaching and hopefully student improvements) * * * X X X X 4. Waynant, 1971 (Program should work from teacher strengths) * * * X X X X 5. Auer, 1972 (Individualizing reading instruction the focus of a mini-teaching unit) * * X X X 6. James, 1972 (Classroom management and lesson planning precede techniques for teaching reading skills) * * X X X X 7. Moburg, 1972 (Successful program must have carry-over to students) * * * * * X X X X X 8. Model for Reading Inservice: PIE Plan, 1973 (Evaluation is an integral part of the program) * A * X 4 8 7 2 2 5 6 4 6 6 4 1 2 133 illustrates both the focus and methods of evaluating several reading inservice programs. Note that resulting teacher behavior is a concern in all the studies. The criteria by which the sessions and program should be evaluated are easier to specify than those for judging teaching. For instance, the criteria of Aaron et al., 1965, incorporate the general points to be con sidered (see p. 67). Specifics related to the content and techniques of a session, or emphasis and procedure of the program, could be added. As to teaching behavior, the eclectic approach seems most viable. From a competency-based point of view, which behaviors demonstrate that a teacher possesses the knowledge, skills, and attitudes sought in the program? Zito and Gross, 1972, developed a procedure for specifying objectives and designing modules on competency-based principles. Popham, 1973, related the achievement of teaching competency to the success of an inservice pro gram. From an interaction analysis position, what behaviors—verbal and non-verbal—indicate that successful teaching and learning is occurring in a classroom? Quirk et al., 1973, developed student and teacher observa tion instruments for use during reading instruction. Because training is essential to develop observer competence, they provided a manual and prac tice exercises. Gygi, 1974, designed a teacher rating instrument based on direct observation the results of which correlated highly with a tradi tional survey. The task is to incorporate what is relevant into a criterion while keeping it as simple as possible. Because the sample of teachers would be volunteers, not randomly selected, because there is no control group, and because there are too many uncontrollable variables, an inservice program can seldom be considered as an empirical experiment. Moreover, the nature of the tests (informal, 134 with free response items necessitating subjectivity of marking) prohibit sophisticated statistical analysis. However, pre/post test scores can be compared with a t-test (multivariate—Hotelling's t, correlated t). Although statistically significant results are not a primary concern, some objective estimate of the inservice program could provide the valid ity needed to justify an on-going program. The point made by Farr and Weintraub, 19(74)-75, is well taken: present statistical procedures do not meet the needs of educational practitioners. They described a state of affairs in which research and investigation are restricted by 'methodolog ical incarceration,' that is, "by the traditional concepts of how a study should be designed as well as those which dictate what research is" (p. 549). Rather than curtail field experiments, or studies of the important issues and problems in reading, it appears essential to develop new means of measuring—either by nonparametrlc or criterion-referenced tests. Asher, 1967, made this same point discussing evaluation of inservice pro grams. McLean, 1974, noted that since much future research in reading will have to be conducted in the schools, teachers should have more input to the focus of research, and communication betweeen teachers and research ers should be improved. Chall, 1975, suggested the closer correlation of research and teaching as having the potential of restoring dignity and self-worth to the teacher. "If teachers suffer from a diminished sense of self-worth and dignity, we might well look to the education profession itself—to the manner in which it honors and recognizes its leaders, to the schools of education that prepare classroom teachers, to the role that classroom teachers play in the school, and to the role we assign to the teacher in educational research and experimentation" (p. 174). 135 D. Illustrative Modules 1. Introduction The provision of illustrative modules for reading inservice can prove valuable because the total program is identified and divided into components containing all the elements necessary for participants in a program to use the materials in a setting where theirs is the leadership role. Learning packages or kits for reading instruction have been sug gested (Kirby, 1973) and designed with the 'ripple' effect in mind (Getz and Kennedy, 1972; Inservice Reading Resource Kit and Project Reading  Alert, 1974; Melvin, 1975). The assumption is that a teacher should himself experience the program, then act as a facilitator for other tea chers in the field, thereby lessening the need for consultants. The text by Forgan and Mangrum, 1976, provides an excellent resource in adop tion of the modular approach to inservice content. The chart on page 136 provides a general model for the construction of modules. In developing the illustrative modules for this study, a general to specific, theoretical to practical methodology was followed. For instance, from the initially broad topic—Reading Inservice for Secondary English Teachers—subtopics or components were isolated. The decision-making pro cess of inclusion/exclusion of topics was based on prominent trends extracted from the literature (e.g., emphasis on student learning objec tives, instructional techniques, and such). Several questions were then answered for each component: 1. What is to be achieved by this module? 2. How can the goal(s) most effectively be reached? 3. How will measurement of achievement be accomplished? 4. How will learning outcomes be reinforced after the module is completed? 136 Steps Leading to the Design and Construction of a Module Program Design: Reading Inservice for Secondary English teachers 4-Component Design Students Materials Teaching Staff Strategies Development 4-Module Design Instructional Instructional Measurement Maintenance Objectives Experiences Instruments Procedures 4-Module Construction Instructional Instructional Instructional Measurement Maintenance Objectives Experiences Materials Instruments Procedures Initial Module (Modification of Benjamin et al. , 1968) 5. What documents or additional information resources should supplement the module? This method was followed using each of the components, resulting in four modules: Students, Materials, Teaching Strategies, and Staff Development. The four modules are described in the following sections with material organized within each module under the sub-headings of Content and Compon ents. The Content section provides basic substantive information for the module while the Components section presents further details for teaching the module including suggestions with respect to objectives, experiences, 137 guided practice, materials, measuring instruments, and maintenance proce dures . 2. Module 1—Students (a) Content. The goal of this module is to provide English tea chers with several techniques by which to evaluate or get to know their students. What ability/achievement does a student have in reading? What are his interests/attitudes toward reading? Such information will enable a teacher to select appropriate material and design suitable assign ments for individuals/groups within a class. i. Standardized Reading Survey Tests Although some schools and districts give across-the-grade standard ized reading tests, others do not. In spite of weaknesses in formal tests (national [American] rather than local norms, one score per student without consideration of past achievement, individual differences in test-taking aptitude, etc.), they can provide teachers with a gross measure of the reading achievement level of students tested in a group situation. Probably the most useful way of using test scores is to graph by a fre quency distribution the scores of the class, indicating—in a heterogeneous class—the formation of natural groups significantly above grade level, near grade level, below grade level. Obviously, such groups require dif ferent instructional strategies. A simple test to administer and interpret is the Gates-MacGinitie  Reading Tests, Form E (Grades 7-9) 1972, Form F (Grades 10-12) 1970. It is recommended as a gross estimator (within one/two grades) of reading achievement. A more detailed, diagnostic evaluation results from the Iowa Silent Reading Test. This test is particularly valuable for dividing reading comprehension into sub-components. Thus, students can be grouped 138 on the basis of strengths or weaknesses in subskills. Although the Iowa  Silent Reading Tests (3 Forms for Grades 6-9, 9-14, 11-16), 1973, is more time consuming and requires more expertise to administer, it can be learned fairly quickly because of the specificity of the manual. Marrogenes et al., 1974, and Farr, 1969, can be turned to for comprehensive analyses of standardized tests related to secondary reading assessment. ii. Informal Reading Tests Informal tests are often more useful than standardized tests because they relate directly to the material the teacher proposes to use. A pas sage of 250 words is selected from the instructional material used in the subject. Students read the passage, then answer the vocabulary-comprehen sion or study skills questions about it, e.g., meaning of a worA in con text, main idea, detail, inference,use of information sources. This IRI (Informal Reading Inventory) should indicate the students' capacity to read material successfully that is actually in use in the classroom. Again, it is likely that scores will reveal natural groupings. More information on development of such measures is available in Shepherd, 1973; Miller, 1974; and Williams and Kaman, 1975. iii. Interest Inventories/Attitudes Another variable which should influence a teacher in grouping stu dents is the range of reading interests within a class. Interest Inven tories are readily available (see Karlin, 1972; Olson and Ames, 1972). However, a teacher could easily design his own. He should decide what questions are of concern to him and design the inventory accordingly. For instance, he might want to get an indication of students' attitudes toward reading as well as the specific subjects or types of reading they enjoy. He, therefore, would include such questions as "I would rather -139 read, - watch television, - participate in sport." Or he could use an open-ended format: "Reading is " or "I enjoy reading if II The new International Reading Association pamphlet (Alexander and Filler, 1976) is a good source of ideas on measuring and influencing attitude to reading. Estes (Estes Attitude Scales, 1975) provides a particularly useful attitude inventory for secondary grades, iv. Other Sources of Information The teacher has at his disposal students' permanent record cards with past marks in English (Language Arts). He also has a variety of techniques, oral and written, for obtaining information from the students. The more data he has, the more informed, and accurate decisions he will be able to make on what a student should read and what follow-up should accom pany the reading. Ultimately, the decision is subjective in that it in volves synthesis by the teacher of all he knows/feels about the student. This is desirable, for confidence should be placed in the on-site profes sional rather than isolated test scores, (b) Components  Objectives: i. Information gain—knowledge of available tests, their uses ii. Skill-competency development—ability to administer and interpret tests, and deduce instructional implications of results iii. Attitude change—appreciation of the value and limitations of tests and other sources of information. Experiences: Illustrated lecture/demonstration initially Simulation-role playing: i. Taking tests—standardized reading tests and inventory ii. Administering tests—standardized reading test. 140 Guided Practice: iii. Interpreting tests—standardized and informal tests and inventories iv. Designing tests—informal reading test and interest/attitude inventory. Materials: i. Nelson-Denny Iowa Silent Reading Test (form for grades 11-16) Olson and Ames Interest Inventory and Estes Attitude Scales ii. Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (form E or F) iii. English texts to be used with classes, grades 8 to 10 iv. Overhead projector and transparencies. Measurement Instruments: i. Written assignment on interpretation and use of standardized test scores ii. Observation of administration of tests iii. Evaluation of materials (informal reading inventory, interest inventory) designed iv. Questionnaire on value of module (presentation, practicality, etc.) v. Case study of a student using combined sources of information (test scores, inventory results, other data) to design appropriate instructional strategy. Maintenance Procedures: i. Journal/diary to record instructional changes (e.g., administration of test) and perceptual changes (e.g., triangulation method affects view of student) ii. Conferences with consultant iii. Informal discussions with other participants 141 iv. Long-term assignment to insure implementation of new skills v. Visitation between participants. A comparable format for a module could be: Pretest—oral or written test, checklist, demonstration teaching; Behavior—written summary, demon stration; Experience—reading, practicing, teaching, case study; Continu ing Assessment—tests, observation, simulation, and so on (Horodezky, 1976). 3. Module 2—Materials (a) Content. English teachers are more fortunate than most con tent area teachers in the wealth of materials available to them. In British Columbia the English 8 curriculum includes 13 novels, 4 of which are to be read; English 9, 5 of 16; English 10, 3 of 9 (unrevised cur riculum) or 2 of 6 (revised curriculum). Short story and poetry anthol ogies offer variety. In addition, there are three commercial reading skills series recommended by the Department of Education, i. Readability Formulas The teacher's task is to select the book which will be most suitable for a student or group in his class. He knows the level at which the student/group is reading. But how does the book relate to this level; that is, what is the reading difficulty of the book? In order to deter mine the readability of the book, a readability formula can be applied. The two formulas most useful for secondary school books are the Fry and the SMOG. Teachers should practice applying these to reading materials, and should compare the resulting grade score with their subjective esti mate of difficulty. For further information see Fry, Journal of Reading, April 1968, and Reading Teacher, March 1969, and McLaughlin, Journal of  Reading, December 1969. 142 To aid teachers, the revised curriculums for English 8 and 9 contain reading levels for the B issue texts (i.e., the novels). A readability formula has already been applied to these, with the result that each book is at a 1, 2, or 3 reading level (1 for the less able student, 2 for the average student, 3 for the more mature and able student). However, read ability formulas should be applied to short stories as well as any supple mentary reading material. The grade level scores resulting from readability formulas mean that an average student reading at this grade level can read the material suc cessfully (Fry with 75% comprehension, SMOG—with 100% comprehension; therefore, latter scores are 1-2 grade levels higher). The most common factors considered by readability formulas are word length and sentence length. They do not consider word frequency, conceptual load, or stylist ic variation. ii. Cloze Procedure A more direct matching of students and materials is possible with the use of the cloze procedure. Cloze is a fill-in-the-blank exercise using the actual material to be read. Teachers should do a cloze test themselves, then design, administer, and score one with students. Bor-muth's numerous articles provide the best references for definition and use of cloze (1966, 1967). As with formal test scores, cloze scores will likely indicate that a class consists of more than one group. Some students will be able to read the book on their own; others will need teacher help; others will be unable to read the book in spite of instruction. Again, grouping seems the only plausible answer. Groups will read different selections with different purposes in mind. Assignments as well as materials should 143 be differentiated (see following section). Practice in the classroom as well as in the workshop is essential in all areas discussed so far: standardized tests—administration (tea chers are also encouraged to write the test), informal tests—design, interest inventories—design and/or administer; Fry and SMOG formulas— apply to selection (and compare to subjective judgment); cloze—write one himself, prepare one for students, mark, and discuss instructional impli cations. Raygor and Kirsch, 1976, developed a similar module in which the goals were: to use readability formulas and cloze, to determine levels of materials, to develop a cloze exercise, to apply information to reading instruction. iii. Supplementary Materials Since reading books are available from the Department of Education, time could be spent analyzing the strengths and weaknesses, or particular uses, of each series. For instance, the English teacher might find Tactics in Reading (Gage, 1972-73) most useful because the skills empha sized are vocabulary, comprehension, reading with a purpose, reading for main idea, use of the dictionary. All three series, Tactics, Success in  Reading (General Learning Corp., 1967), and Be a Better Reader (Prentice-Hall, 1974), include mainly expository material from different content areas. Success in Reading includes extensive vocabulary work plus study skills. Be a Better Reader concentrates on reading rate, vocabulary, and comprehension. Up to this point, the focus has been outward: students and materi als. For the English teacher to accomplish the tasks indicated as essen tial, he will probably have communicated with other teachers. For example, he may have discussed students with teachers who had them 144 previously, or who have them in other subjects. He may have worked with other English teachers doing testing, readability analyses, etc. He may have learned from the reading teacher the pros and cons of a reading series or skill building kit such as SRA or Readers Digest. Finally, he should (with other English teachers) cooperate with the librarian on selection of supplementary materials for his students. It is desirable that teachers keep up with current interests of students, e.g., the hundred most popular adolescent novels, but this can rarely be done on an individual basis. Several teachers, however, can function as a well informed team. (b) Components  Obj ectives: i. Information gain—knowledge of readability formulas, cloze procedure, supplementary reading materials ii. Skill-competency development—ability to use formulas, design and score cloze passages, evaluate materials, make appropriate judgments re. selection of materials iii. Attitude change—understand that as students are differentiated in reading achievement and interests, so materials are different due to reading difficulty as well as content. Suitable matching of the two is sought. Experiences: Demonstration/Guided practice i. Use of formulas on selected passages ii. Use of formulas on prescribed texts and supplementary materials iii. Use of cloze on selected passages iv. Designing a cloze test-v. Administering, scoring, interpreting cloze test. 145 Materials: i. Handouts—Fry, SMOG, Cloze ii. Selected passages for practice-—"Red Pony," "Most Dangerous Game." iii. English texts—Gr. 8-10 iv. Reading texts—-Tactics, Success, Be a Better Reader -v. Overhead projector and transparencies. Measurement Instruments: i. Written assignment on readability with English texts ii. Evaluation of cloze passage designed iii. Observation of microteaching iv. Paper on instructional implications of formulas/cloze re. choice of materials v. Use of a reading text in classroom teaching vi. Questionnaire on module. Maintenance Procedures: i. Project to apply readability formulas to all English materials (plus content analysis) ii. Incorporation of reading text to English where appropriate for skill development iii. Journal/diary re. use of cloze, decisions affecting materials iv. Conferences v. Informal discussions vi. Visitation. 4. Module 3—Teaching Strategies (a) Content i. Preteaching Tasks The justification for the order of the modules—students, materials, 146 teaching—rests on the fact that prior to teaching a lesson, a teacher must have knowledge of his audience and the content to be taught. Another procedure to be followed before teaching is the specification of goals. What are the desired outcomes in terms of student learning for this les son? How do these goals relate to the general goals of the unit, course, etc.? Considerable emphasis has been placed on Bloom et al.'s Taxonomies  of Educational Objectives, Cognitive (1956) and Affective Domains (Krathwohl, 1956). However, Barrett's Taxonomy, 1968, is recommended because it was designed with reading in mind, and it combines the two domains—a process which the English teacher will doubtless find more satisfying than Bloom's artifical splitting. The value of a taxonomy is that it enables the teacher to specify goals at various levels, and design assignments to reach those goals. Grouping has been emphasized throughout, and this section is no exception. Objectives should be differentiated too. A core of know ledge, skills, or attitudes may be essential for all students in the class. Beyond this, some students can accomplish more, others much more. Each group should be challenged, but should be able to accomplish the task successfully. We know that students are individuals and that materials differ. Does it, therefore, make any sense to give all students the same assignment? If we aim at the majority, those at grade level, we fail to challenge the superior readers and the disabled readers fail to achieve. We know from learning theory that success and positive reinforcement are essential for growth. Unless we seek only to perpetuate the system by which certain students are doomed to failure, we must modify our expecta tions. As far as standards are concerned, we may have to be more 147 realistic and less demanding. The point is that by 'lowering standards' initially to enable bottom students to achieve, in the long run we enable these students to function at a level approaching the original standard. Certain skills that are important in other subjects may also have relevance for English. For instance, the textbook in science or social studies may be a major obstacle to students. They must be taught the strategies for approaching and working with a textbook. Furthermore, study skills such as note-taking, reading for main ideas and supporting details, and accurate rendering, orally or in writing, of expository material read are quite different from the skills required in English. However, the approach to reference materials is common to all subjects although different references may be used. In English, the student may be reading from several books or several stories within a book; he may be reading poetry or drama rather than straight narrative. Thus different strategies are necessitated by the genre as well as the purpose for reading. Most English teachers find the SQ3R approach inappropriate because it destroys the artistic integrity (as well as the motivational continuity) of the work. Rather they attempt with skillful pre-questioning to establish expectancies to increase interest and guide reading. ii. The Directed Reading Lesson An examination of the seven steps of the Directed Reading Lesson (DRL) may clarify these points. Prior to the lesson, objectives have been set by the teacher. Knowing his students and the materials available, he has selected appropriate stories and designed differentiated assignments. These may focus on the same skills or concepts, but with different materials. 148 Step One is to motivate students to read. This requires divergent thinking at certain times, common sense at others. The use of audio visual aids to arouse interest is good, but it is neither essential nor to be used constantly. Variety is the key. What do you find particularly intriguing about the story? What relation does this story have to other reading students have done? How does it relate to their lives: tele vision, movies, newspaper, current events, school events, home situation? There are so many ways to show relevance-—a little thought is needed, but the importance of this connecting of literature to life certainly justi fies the time and effort. The teacher is giving one purpose for reading: see how the story is related to this introduction. Involvement activit ies—simulation, role-playing, etc.—are excellent for student participa tion at the outset. Step Two is preteaching of vocabulary or concepts essential for an understanding of the story. The number of words should be limited. Students will rapidly lose interest if there are too many difficult words. Explanation of concepts, however, can be a motivating device. Students then read to see how, for example, 'stereotypes' are important in the story. Thus as well as helping students to read the story, the teacher is directing their attention to elements of the story. Along the same line, Step Three is guided silent reading. Students have been given an oral or written set of guidelines, providing a purpose for reading and a framework for the important elements. The taxonomy is useful in designing a guide because it reminds the teacher to question on different levels, not to assume too little or too much. Beginning with the short story, a simple guide is PCST: plot, character, setting, theme. Over a series of lessons, teach students to read for only the details of 149 the plot and the sequence of events; then only the main characters and their development in the story; then only the time and place; then only the idea or message of the author. With practice, these four can be combined so that the student automatically reads for PCST. This strat egy can be transferred to other genres with modifications. Step Four, oral discussion, should be carried out in groups rather than with the whole class. Groups will have different tasks or questions related to their original guide. They may report back to the class on their conclusions. It is likely that two or three different stories will have been read and that two or three different assignments will have been done. Thus the transmission of results to the class should be interest ing as most class members will be unfamiliar with the story. Groups have considerable responsibility to communicate effectively. Practicing related skills, Step Five, may involve checking stu dents' acquisition of vocabulary and degree of comprehension. It could be a test of the selection read, or application of the skills to a new passage. Its purpose is to reinforce the focus of the lesson, such as reading for character development or becoming aware of the authorial point of view. Follow-up or enrichment activities, Step Six, are important in relating the reading to other things (events, experiences, stories) as well as in integrating reading with other activities. Follow-up may involve dramatization of the conflict, writing an alternative ending, discussing the pros and cons of the theme, seeing a movie version of the story, listening to a record or tape giving a different point of view. There are multi-alternatives within the diverse area of English. Finally, Step Seven, evaluation should be done. What have the 150 students learned? To what extent were goals reached? What changes would have enabled greater success? How could the lesson have been more effec tive? The evaluation is of the teaching as well as the learning. It may involve a written test or written or oral comment of the students; it may be subjective analysis by the teacher. The point is to emphasize possible improvements. This Directed Reading Lesson has telescoped what will likely take more than one period. However, each period should begin with an introduction, such as showing continuity with the previous period, and should conclude with a wrap-up, such as the continuation of the lesson next day or the sum mation of that period's accomplishments. Olson and Ames, 1972, provide two examples of directed reading lessons in their chapter on this topic, (b) Components  Objectives: i. Information gain—knowledge of taxonomies—their uses and value, reading and study skills, teaching techniques, evaluation proce dures ii. Skill-competency development—^ability to set appropriate goals, design differentiated assignments, use suitable instructional techniques, teach a directed reading lesson iii. Attitude change—awareness of importance of grouping at all levels (goals, materials, assignments), realization of the role of read ing skills in the English lesson, confidence in ability to utilize reading knowledge to promote better learning environment. Experiences: i. Demonstration of a Directed Reading Lesson ii. Design of objectives, assignments—differentiated student groups, 151 materials. (Guided practice) iii. Microteaching of a Directed Reading Lesson iv. Use of simulation—role playing as motivational activities. Materials: i. Overhead projector and transparencies ii. English texts iii. Taxonomies—Bloom, Barrett. Measurement Instruments: i. Observation of Directed Reading Lesson microteaching ii. Evaluation of projects iii. Assignment to design Directed Reading Lesson iv. Questionnaire on module v. Self-evaluation. Maintenance Procedures: i. Consultation—conference ii. Visitation iii. Journal/diary iv. Informal discussions v. Self-evaluation of Directed Reading Lesson in classroom vi. File built up of motivational ideas, preteaching vocabulary, guides for silent reading etc. 5. Module 4—Staff Development (a) Content. "In order to effect significant improvements in the teaching of reading all of the instructional staff including teachers, principals, central office personnel, and other support staff must be involved in inservice efforts" (Otto and Erickson, 1973, p. 1). Katrein, 1968, and Williams, 1968, confirmed that continuous total staff secondary 152 reading inservice programs are becoming more common. Ultimately a school-wide reading program is the goal of professional development. Thus, English teachers begin at a departmental level what will eventually encom pass all subjects. They are the leaders who first must learn and success fully implement in their own classrooms. A recognition by other teachers of the English teacher's development and his students' progress is a good basis on which to initiate transfer to other content areas. Several reading inservice programs have focused on the content teachers, usually in cooperation with consultants (Saturation Reading Program, 1967; Smith et al., 1970; McDonald, 1971; Minturn, 1971). However, the English teacher who has himself had a reading inservice program is in a good position to work for the transfer of what he has learned. The finesse with which the English teacher works with his colleagues is instrumental in his degree of success. He must first make them aware that some of the problems their students are having can be attributed to lack of reading skills. He should focus on the other teacher's capabil ities in his content area—knowledge of subject matter, successful teaching style, etc. Then he should point out that the other teacher could perhaps make use of some of the techniques he has been employing in English with some success. Skills should be introduced one at a time, with the English teacher offering help in planning or demonstrating a lesson. For example, the skills in preteaching vocabulary and concepts are similar regardless of the subject. Other topics to be added after success in the previous one might be: giving students a purpose for reading, teaching them to adjust their reading rate, developing comprehension skills through levels of questions (literal, inferential, evaluative) both written and oral, encouraging 153 students to use SQ3R or some such technique to improve study skills, introducing a textbook to enable students to approach it with a strategy in mind. It is important that the techniques introduced to other subject teachers have short-term value, enabling them to see the results immedi ately in student achievement, attitudes, etc. Eventually the whole range of knowledge/skills should be shared: testing—formal and informal, read ability formulas and procedures (cloze), instructional strategies. But this is unlikely to happen quickly or easily. Teachers are often resist ant to change, even when they have requested it. They will need positive reinforcement and help. Observation of 'successful teachers', self-evaluation, and consultation—formal and informal—should be encouraged. Although the English teacher's primary motive is altruistic— improvement of the reading situation school-wide for students' benefit— he also has a selfish motive: not to be personally responsible for all reading. To teach reading in English well, he must devote himself to those reading skills particular to English. He has neither the time nor the expertise to teach the reading skills of other content areas. "The language arts teacher is not in a position to teach all students how to read problems in mathematics, experiments in science, or patterns in homemaking" (Voix, 1968, p. 25). Therefore, in order to do his own job effectively, he must show other teachers how they can do theirs. In the long run, this method will save time and result in a better over-all learning environment. However, it will take discretion, dedication, and willingness to cooperate and communicate with colleagues. 154 (b) Components  Objectives: i. Information gain—knowledge of reading and study skills appropriate to other content areas, of the leadership/facilitator role ii. Skill-competency development—ability to transfer reading and study skills to diverse content areas, to demonstrate and encourage other teachers to use new instructional techniques, to build interpersonal relationships with colleagues to promote sharing and confidence iii. Attitude change—awareness of the importance of trust and mutual respect in attempting to change other teachers' behavior, of the significance of reading in all content areas, of the value of a school-wide reading effort. Experiences: i. Illustrated lecture on reading in the content areas ii. Design of Directed." Reading Lesson for other content areas iii. Microteaching Directed Reading Lesson for other content areas iv. Presentation of information on students (reading achievement, interests, etc.) in simplified form for other teachers v. Demonstration of readability/cloze in microteaching situation vi. Simulation/role playing re. staff interactions (informal staff room conversation, staff meeting discussion). Materials: i. Results of student tests, inventories, etc. ii. Readability/cloze handouts (directions) iii. Overhead projector and transparencies iv. Content area textbooks. 155 Measurement Instruments: i. Evaluation of materials (e.g., Directed Reading Lessons) ii. Observation of microteaching, simulation/role playing iii. Self-evaluation re. staff development iv. Questionnaire on module v. Long-term: response of other teachers, development of school-wide reading program, library books taken out, student achievement in content areas, student attitudes. Maintenance Procedures: i. Conference-consultation ii. Informal discussions iii. Visitations iv. Diary/journal v. Formation of reading committee vi. Team teaching exchanges vii. Continued student testing. E. Summary The principles and content of the proposed inservice model in reading for junior secondary English teachers have been clarified in chapter IV. Under Organization, general guidelines can be summarized: 1. the program must be long-term, continuous 2. released time for teachers is essential 3. the program should be on-site, at a school(s) 4. members of an English department from one or several schools may be included depending on logistics 5. participants should be grouped on the basis of needs 156 6. active involvement of teachers is requisite 7. the learning experience for teachers is intended to prepare them as leaders 8. attendance should be voluntary 9. initial planning should involve as many representatives of a school/ district as possible 10. an initial needs assessment should be done from which goals, methods, and evaluation can be derived 11. follow-up between sessions is necessary. The specific rationale for focusing on English teachers is twofold. First, there is ample evidence indicating the need of English teachers for training in teaching reading, for providing the essential link between reading and English, and for dealing with the difficulty of reading in English. Several studies revealed that although English teachers gener ally accept responsibility for teaching reading, they are ill-prepared by preservice courses to do so. Their awareness of this deficiency has surfaced in several surveys. In a review of texts in secondary reading, the common concerns of reading experts and English teachers became obvious. Moreover, the exceptional demands of reading in English were noted. Finally, the argument that reading of narrative material is easier than reading of expository material is contradicted by the range of skills needed to read narrative (itself a multiple area), the recent increased difficulty of 'easy' juvenile literature, and the inaccurate notion that for motiva tional reasons narrative is easier to teach. Empirical justification for selecting English teachers for inservice work is based in part on the assumption that the teaching of reading in English is a difficult task, one that certainly demands sufficient teacher 157 competence to require inservice. The problems involved in reading liter ature result from such variables as word frequency, sentence length, multiplicity of authors, stylistic differences, multigenres, and complex purpose for reading. Similarly, junior secondary teachers were selected for emphasis because of the particular reading demands made on students at this level, the fact that for many these years represent their final contact with formal education, and the skills needed in senior secondary are more sophisticated (at least in terms of the materials to which they are applied), requiring a sound base in earlier grades. A review of the literature on needs assessments in reading was accompanied by two examples, one a questionnaire concerned with present practices, perceived importance, and teacher need; the other.a kit for specifying and ranking needs by priority. Inservice goals were then included based on a review of topics of past programs and those suggested in secondary reading texts and one comprehensive illustration. Methodology was divided into structural considerations, directly related to General Guidelines, and activities. Within a workshop frame work, such activities are illustrated lectures, demonstrations, micro-teaching, brainstorming, buzz sessions, small group discussions, simula tion, role playing, and follow-up (visitation, consultation, self-evaluation) . The two-fold nature of evaluation—of teaching and of the program— is recognized. The solution seems to be multiple measurement of all individuals concerned (teachers and students) and with as many different instruments as possible (e.g., tests, questionnaires, inventories, inter views, and indirect measures such as student attendance or teacher publi-158 cation). The program is thus indirectly evaluated with as many appropriate measures as possible, necessarily based on its objectives. The illustrative modules are based directly on the analysis of the literature describing past programs. The organization—students, mater ials, teaching strategies, staff development—is deliberate on the assump tion that requisite to successful teaching of reading are certain data which, once known, can lead to expanded teaching and extension to other teachers. Module 1—Students—is concerned with teacher knowledge, behavior, and attitudes related to sources of information about students: standard ized tests, informal tests, interest inventories, and other sources. Module 2—Materials—is involved with teacher knowledge, behavior, and attitudes related to the selection and use of appropriate materials. Thus, readability formulas, cloze procedure, and supplementary materials are included. Module 3—Teaching Strategies—focuses on preteaching tasks (goal setting, grouping, selection of materials, designing assignments) as well as on the directed reading lesson: motivational strategies, preteaching vocabulary, guided silent reading, oral discussion, practicing related skills, follow-up activities, evaluation. In many ways, the Directed Reading Lesson serves as a culmination of all prior learnings in all three areas. Module 4—Staff Development—relies on the English teacher to assume a leadership role with his colleagues. Unobtrusively, help may be given in extending reading skills to other content areas. However, the best propaganda is personal success within an English class. Without threat or condescension, the English teacher should work toward an all-school 159 reading program, which means a staff aware of and concerned about reading in their own subjects. Patience and tact are essential, but so are perseverence and enthusiasm. Each module is set up in two parts. Part one provides the content and rationale for the module; part two incorporates the components: objectives, experiences, materials, measurement instruments, maintenance procedures. The intent is that once a teacher has worked through the modules himself—with direction from a consultant and reinforcement from other English teachers—he will be able to use the module as a package, functioning as a leader to teachers in other content areas. Thus, the ripple effect or each-one-teach-one principle can be implemented. The point is to disseminate information as widely as possible, encouraging new behaviors and attitudes of teachers in service. This program is one approach to this issue. CHAPTER V CONCLUSION A. Summary The concern of this study has been to identify, collect, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize the current, relevant, research and professional literature on inservice education as it relates to the development of a conceptual model for inservice education in secondary reading for English teachers. To accomplish this, a comprehensive review of primary, second ary, and tertiary materials was completed, resulting in a framework for considering the body of literature and for postulating a derivative model. Documents were classified in order that they might be related to one another, and that they might form the basis of a rationale for the proposed model. Initially, the need for professional development was discussed, focusing on educators in particular and relating their needs to the current issue of literacy standards. Granting the value of preservice education, it nevertheless is clear that only through continuing or in-service education can developing needs of teachers and students be met. The area of reading should be of concern to all teachers. However, realistically, it is the English teacher who most often assumes respons ibility for the teaching of reading skills. Unfortunately, he is often ill-prepared to do so. Thus, the need for inservice education in reading for English teachers appears evident. 160 161 Past studies reviewed in chapter III revealed the components and types of inservice programs which must be considered: Organization, Methodology, Evaluation, and Models. Under Organization, sub-components appear. First, Guidelines are the focus of many surveys on present practices, surveys which often contain recommendations for improved in-service programs. Second, Needs are related both to general guidelines and to specific felt needs of individuals or groups. The increased use of needs-assessment instruments indicates an awareness of the relation ship between participant needs and program success. Moreover, initial planning and establishment of Goals, element three, is made more system atic and valid on the basis of a consideration of needs. Finally, Roles of participants can be described in fairly discrete terms. Methodology of an inservice program is necessary determined by the purpose and situation of the program. General questions like What is to be achieved? Who is to participate? and such are followed by considerations like What resources are available? What techniques within those available are most effective? Thus, the overall structure of the program and the activities within it should complement one another. The workshop format appears most appropriate for the scope it allows in terms of numerous and varied activities. Evaluation of an inservice program is fraught with the same problems which surface in evaluation of any aspect of teaching. It is important, however, that an assessment of the program be made. Indeed, the means for making this judgment (instruments, techniques, etc.) should be specified in the earliest stages of planning. The focus of the evaluation is necessar ily two-fold, since both the program and its subsequent effect on teaching must be considered. To measure change in teaching, several instruments 162 and approaches will be necessary because teachers' knowledge, attitude, and skills are all involved. Similarly, the program should be evaluated with different instruments during its duration (formative data) and follow ing its conclusion (summative data). Thus, evaluation is multi-faceted and eclectic in nature. The variations in patterns of organization, methodological emphases, and evaluative techniques are revealed by the wide-ranging models of in-service programs. Their focus may determine their components; however, certain trends are evident. Initial planning is receiving more consider ation; participants are involved at the outset; appropriate methods and evaluation are incorporated. Self-evaluation and teacher leadership are receiving increased attention. On the basis of this review of the literature, a Model for inservice education in secondary reading for English teachers was constructed. This model is based on the principles which appear to have been most effective in past studies. For instance, General and Specific Guidelines give the parameters of the model, including the rationale for choosing junior secondary school English teachers as the participating group. Two methods of needs assessment are suggested, one a questionnaire, the other a workshop kit. Goals are based on an extensive review of reading inservice programs and teacher-specified needs. The workshop structure and various activities are connected with means of evaluating the program and teaching performance. Several instruments and approaches are combined to include all relevant aspects of evaluation. Finally, four illustrative modules are included to exemplify the content and components of the module. Module 1—Students—is concerned to develop teachers' proficiency in assessing students' achievement in and 163 attitudes toward reading. Module 2—Materials—seeks to enable teachers to analyze the suitability of materials in relation to their students' skills and needs. Module 3—Teaching Strategies—focuses on the directed reading lesson as a vehicle for incorporating teachers' skills in setting objectives, designing assignments, instructing a class through a lesson. Module 4—Staff Development-—expands on the leadership function of the participating teachers in relation to their school staffs. Thus, the model can be extended to other content area teachers. The model as a whole is based on the literature, from which it gains its validity. As a model, it represents the field from which it is derived, presenting the principles and elements in a unified form. B. Implications of the Study The principles for inservice programs suggested by the study have been incorporated in the model. For instance, the following guidelines represent the conclusions of the literature as well as the recommendations for the proposed reading inservice program. 1. Involvement by districts and teachers must be long-term, that is, a program must be continuous, with built-in follow-up and evaluation. 2. Districts need to provide released time for teachers to participate in inservice activities. 3. Consultants should be prepared to offer a program on-site in a school or a district rather than on campus. 4. Individualization should result in grouping by experience, needs, interests, and such. 5. Attendance should be compulsory at an initial professional development session, voluntary in the program. 6. Preplanning, including a needs assessment to meet local needs, is essential. 7. Goals, although based on local needs, can be generalized from the literature. 8. Methods should vary as much as possible, with high involvement activ ities emphasized. 9. The structure of the program depends on local conditions and re sources; however, the workshop format is most viable. 10. Evaluation procedures should be specified prior to the implementation of the program. 11. Leadership training is necessary to enable teachers to extend their learning experiences to other teachers. 12. Coordination between existing organizations (BCTF, BCETA, local IRA, Department of Education) could promote professional development, e.g., in dissemination of materials. C. Recommendations for Further Study In terms of theoretical research, this study could be expanded by analyzing inservice and continuing education programs in non-educational areas and updating methods and models within educational inservice. This should confirm and possibly expand the guidelines derived in this study. Another line of development should be practical, seeking try-out and empirical validation of the model and illustrative modules and modifying and developing them for further use. Thus, the following are suggested: 1. The model and modules should be used in a pilot situation with English teachers (testing could lead to refinement). 2. Instruments should be developed and/or refined for needs assessment and evaluation of teaching and programs. 3. The model and modules could be expanded to a long-term program.' 4. The needs of other content areas could lead to modifications in the model and modules (e.g., SQ3R, text skills, expository reading). 5. Preservice teachers across content areas could use the existing model and modified modules. 6. Refinement of the model and modules should enable them to meet dif ferent needs (e.g., within different schools or districts). 7. Other personnel related to the junior secondary school could partic ipate in a modified program (e.g., administrators, content special ists, consultants). 8. The model and modules could be expanded to meet the needs of inter mediate and senior secondary teachers. 9. A package should be developed including all materials, transparencies, etc. to enable wide dissemination of the model and modules. 10. Leadership training should be undertaken in order to prepare for implementation of packaged material. 11. Videotape feedback for self-evaluation in inservice should be explored wherever feasible. 12. Teacher centers should be established in order to allow teachers to coordinate their inservice activities. 13. Canadian sources: lines of communication should be established to enable updating through exchange of materials. 166 BIBLIOGRAPHY If the title of the work is not underlined, the reference is to the abstract rather than the original document. Journal articles available in the ERIC system are listed under Periodicals; theses available in the ERIC system are listed under Dissertations. Books and Monographs Aaron, I. E., Byron Callaway, and A. V. Olson. Conducting Inservice Pro  grams in Reading. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Assoc iation, 1965. Alexander, J. E., and R. C. Filler. Attitudes and Reading. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1976. Allen, I. D., and Michael Manley-Casimir. Recommendations for a Policy on  Inservice Education. Simon Fraser University, 1975 (mimeographed). Allen, J. E. The Right to Read—Target for the 70's. Address to the National Association of School Boards of Education. Sept. 23, 1969. Amidon, E. J., and N. A. Flanders. The Role of the Teacher in the Class  room. Minneapolis, Association for Productive Teaching, 1967. Andersen, D. W., et al. Competency Based Teacher Education. Berkeley, McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1973. Artley, A. S. Trends and Practices in Secondary Reading. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1968. Aukerman, C. R. Reading in the Secondary School Classroom. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1972. Austin, M. C, Coleman Morrison, et al. The Torch Lighters: Tomorrow's  Teachers of Reading. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University, 1961. Bamman, H. A., et al. Reading Instruction in the Secondary Schools. New York, David McKay Co., 1961. Bell, H., and J. Peightel. Teacher Centers and Inservice Education. Bloomington, Indiana, Phi Delta Kappa, 1976. Benson, Charles, and Harold Hodgkinson. Implementing the Learning Society: New Strategies for Financing Social Objectives. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1974. 167 Better Than Rating. Washington, D. C, National Education Association, 1950. Bishop, L. J. Staff Development and Instructional Improvement Plans and  Procedures. Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976. Braun, Carl, Allan Neilsen, and Chris Thain. Case Study Approach to Diag  nosis and Correction in the Classroom. An Inservice Model. International Reading Association, report, 1976 (mimeographed). Bullock, Sir Alan. A Language For Life. London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1975. Burmeister, L. E. Reading Strategies for Secondary School Teachers. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley, 1974. Campbell, Gordon. Staff Development in Canadian Community Colleges. University of Lethbridge, 1974. Campbell, J. C. "A Field-Centered, Competency Based Inservice Reading Program at an Inner City School," in P. L. Nacke's Interaction: Research and Practice for College-Adult Reading, Clemson, South Carolina, The National Reading Conference Inc., 1974. Canadian Books in Print: Subject Index. 1973- 1975- Toronto, University of Toronto Press, annual. Canadian Education Association. C.E.A. Handbook. Toronto, annual. Canadian Education Association. Education Canada. Mar. 1961-Toronto, quarterly. Canadian Education Association. Graduate Theses in Education. 1913-52, 1954- Toronto. Canadian Education Association, Research and Information Division. Education Studies Completed in Canadian Universities, 1966/67-1967/68. Toronto, 2 v. Canadian Education Association, Research and Information Division. Registry of Canadian Theses in Education, 1955-1962. Toronto. Canadian Education Index. V.l- Jan. 1965- Ottawa, Canadian Council for Research in Education. Canadian Theses. 1952- Ottawa, National Library. Canadiana. V.l- 1951- Ottawa, National Library of Canada. Cane, Brian. Inservice Training: A Study of Teachers' Views and Prefer  ences . London, National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, 1969. 168 Carlson, T. R. Administrators and Reading. New York, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1972. Carroll, J. B., and J. S. Chall. Toward a Literate Society. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1975. Cassivi, Denis. Teacher Education for Self-Reliance: Lighthouse Learning  Program. Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1975 (monograph, Atlantic Institute of Education). Channon, Geraldine. Proposals for the Future Development of Teacher Educa  tion, Certification and Salary Classification in New Brunswick. New Brunswick Teachers' Assoc., June, 1975 (mimeographed). Chester, R. D., and S. M. Allen. Reading Inservice in the Secondary School: A Needs-Assessment Instrument. National Reading Confer ence Paper, Dec. 1976. Chester, R. D., and E. G. Summers. An Information Sourcebook on Continuing  Professional Education. University of British Columbia, 1976. Continuing Education for Teachers. Bibliographies in Education #53. Ottawa, Ontario, CTF, June 1975 (monograph). The Continuing Education of Teachers and Other Professional Personnel in  the Province of Newfoundland. January 1974 (mimeographed). Corder, R. The Information Base for Reading. Berkeley, California, Educational Testing Service, 1971. Current Index to Journals in Education. V.l— Jan./Feb. 1969— New York, Macmillan Information. Davis, F. B. The Literature of Research in Reading with Emphasis on Models. Washington, D.C, United States Office of Education, 1971. Davis, L. N., and E. McCallon. Planning, Conducting, Evaluating Workshops. Washington, Learning Concepts, Inc., 1974. Directory of Education Studies in Canada. 1968/69- Toronto, Canadian Education Association, Information Service. Dissertation Abstracts International. V.l- 1938-Dubin, S. S. Professional Obsolescence. London, English Universities Press Ltd., 1971. Ebel, R. L. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 4th ed., New York, MacMillan, 1969. Education Index. 1929/30- New York, H. W. Wilson Co., annual. 169 Fader, D. N., and E. B. McNeil. Hooked on Books: Program and Proof. New York, G. P. Putnam's Son, 1966. Farr, Roger. Reading: What Can Be Measured? Newark, Delaware, Inter national Reading Association, 1969. Figurel, J. A. Challenge and Experiment in Reading. New York, Inter national Reading Association, Conference Proceedings, 1962. . Forging Ahead in Reading. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1968. . Reading and Realism. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1969. Finch, A. Growth Inservice Education Programs that Work. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1969. Forgan, H. W., and C. T. Mangrum, II. Teaching Content Area Reading Skills: A Modular Preservice and Inservice Program. Columbus, Ohio, Charles E. Merrill, 1976. Gage, N. L. Handbook of Research on Teaching. 1st edition. Chicago, Rand McNally & Co., 1963. Gidney, R., P. Linden, and G. Milburn. "Continuing Education: A Neglected Concept," Educating Teachers: Critiques and Proposals, ed. D. Myers and F. Reid, Ontario Institute, 1974, 69-77. Glass, G. V. Primary, Secondary and Meta-analysis of Research. San Francisco, American Educational Research Association Presidential Address, 1976. Good, C. V. Dictionary of Education. 3rd edition. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1973. Gould, Sam. Diversity by Design. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973. Guidebook for Workshops. Newfoundland, Joint Committee of Department of Education, Memorial University, and Newfoundland Teachers Associa tion, Dec, 1974 (monograph). Hafner, L. E. Improving Reading in Secondary Schools. London, MacMillan Co., 1967. Harris, A. J. The Effective Teacher of Reading. International Reading Association Conference Paper, May 1969 (mimeographed). Harris, B. M., and Wailand Bessent. Inservice Education: A Guide to  Better Practice. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1969. 170 Havelock, Ronald. Planning for Innovation. Ann Arbor, Mich., Institute for Social Research, 1973. Haygood, Kenneth. "Colleges and Universities" from R. Smith, G. Aiken, and G. R. Kidd (eds.), Handbook of Adult Education, New York, The Macmillan Co., 1970. Henry, N. B. Development In and Through Reading. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1961. . Inservice Education for Teachers, Supervisors, and Administra  tors. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1957. . Reading in the High School and College. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1948. Horodezky, Betty. "The Rationale for Competency Based Inservice Education," New Horizons in Reading, ed. J. E. Merritt, Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1976, 517-23. Houston, W. R., and R. R. Howsam. Competency-Based Teacher Education. Chicago, Science Research Associates, 1972. Jackson, Lord, of Burley. Chapter One of Dubin's Professional Obsoles  cence. London, English Universities Press Ltd., 1971. Johnston, D. J. Teachers' Inservice Education. Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1971. Karlin, R. Teaching Reading High School. Indianopolis, Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1964. . Teaching Reading in High School. New York, Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1969. Karlin, R., et al. Reading Instruction in Secondary Schools. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1964. Kelley, E. C. The Workshop Way of Learning. New York, Harper & Bros., 1951. Kline, Lloyd. Education and the Personal Quest. Columbus, Ohio, C. E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1971. Lewis, A. J. "The Role of the Administrator in Inservice Education," from N. B. Henry's Inservice Education for Teachers, Supervisors, and  Administrators, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1957. Lippitt, G. L. Visualizing Change: Model Building and the Change Process. Fairfax, Virginia, National Training Laboratories, Learning Re sources Corporation, 1973. 171 McCall, Doug. Lakeshore Teachers Association Teacher Centre: An Idea for the Lakeshore. Canadian Teachers Federation Conference Paper, May 1975 (mimeographed). McCracken, R. A. Establishing Guidelines for Effective Inservice Programs in Reading. International Reading Association, Conference Paper, April 1968. McGuire, G. K. The Teaching of Reading by English Teachers in Public High  Schools: A National Survey. Urbana, Illinois, 1969. McKague, Terry. Strategies for Improving Continuing Education for Teachers. Regina, Sask., Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, May 1975 (mimeo graph of paper given at CTF-UBC Conference). Mangrum, C. T. TINA (Teachers Inservice Needs Assessment). 3rd edition. Coral Gables, Florida, University of Miami, 1976 (copyrighted). Marksheffel, N. D. Better Reading in the Secondary School. New York, Ronald Press Co., 1966. Mayhew, Lewis. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. San Fran cisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973. Mayhew, L. Graduate and Professional Education, 1980. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970. Mayhew, Lewis, and Patrick Ford. Reform in Graduate and Professional  Education. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1974. Miller, W. H. Teaching Reading in the Secondary School. Springfield, Illinois, Charles C. Thomas, 1974. Moburg, L. G. Inservice Teacher Training in Reading. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1972. Moffitt, J. C. Inservice Education for Teachers. New York, Center for Applied Research in Education, 1973. Mullen, Terry. Inservice Education for British Columbia Teachers. Nov. 1975 (mimeographed). . Inservice Education for Educators in British Columbia. April 1976 (mimeographed). Narang, H. L. Canadian Masters Theses in Reading Education. Regina, University of Saskatchewan, 1974. Nissman, Albert, and Jack Lutz. Organizing and Developing a Summer Pro  fessional Workshop. Linnet Books, 1971. Olson, A. V., and W. S. Ames. Teaching Reading Skills in Secondary Schools. Scranton, Intext, 1972. 172 Osborne, J. W. Inservice Course for University of Alberta Instructors. University of Alberta, 1975. Otto, Wayne, Robert Chester, John McNeil, and Shirley Myers. Focused  Reading Instruction. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley, 1974. Otto, Wayne, and Lawrence Erickson. Inservice Education to Improve Read  ing Instruction. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Associa tion, 1973. Paisley, W. Developing a Sensing Network for Information Needs in Educa  tion. Stanford University, Institute for Communication Research, 1972. Partnership for Professional Renewal. A Policy Paper on Inservice Train ing for Saskatchewan Education. Regina, Sask., Sept. 1973 (mimeo graphed, Department of Education). Professional Development Clauses in Negotiated Agreements. Ottawa, Ontario, Canadian Teachers Federation, Sept. 1974 (mimeographed). Project BUILD: Bringing Unity Into Language Development. Vancouver School Board, Feb. 1976 (mimeographed). Ramsey, W. Z. "The New Secondary Reading Teacher—Problems and Concerns," from J. S. Nemeth's Reading RX: Better Teachers, Better Super  visors, Better Programs, Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1975. Raygor, A. L., and Ronald Kirsch. "Techniques for Teaching Teachers About Readability," New Horizons in Reading, ed. J. E. Merritt, Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1976, 354-6. Report of the Task Force on English. Vancouver School Board, June 1975 (mimeographed). Research in Education. V.l- Nov. 1966- Washington, U. S. Government Printing Office, monthly. Roaden, A. L., et al. A Design for Program Development in Curriculum and  Instruction. Portland, Oregon, Northwest Regional Laboratory, June 1975. Robinson, H. Alan. Teaching Reading and Study Strategies. Boston, Allyn & Bacon, 1975. Robinson, H. A., and S. J. Rauch. Corrective Reading in the High School  Classroom. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1966. . Guiding the Reading Program: A Reading Consultant's Handbook. Chicago, Science Research Associates, 1965. 173 Rosenblatt, L. M. Literature as Exploration. New York, Noble, 1938. Rubin, L. J. Improving Inservice Education: Proposals and Procedures  for Change. Boston, Allyn and Bacon, 1971b. Sanderlin, Reed. "Reading Problems Connected with Interpreting Imagin ative Literature," from P. L. Nacke's Interaction: Research and  Practice for College-Adult Reading. Clemson, South Carolina, The National Reading Conference, Inc., 1974. Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation Position on Inservice Education for  Teachers. Sept. 1974 (mimeographed). Schein, E. H. Professional Education. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1972. Schild, R. J. "A Study of Certain Practices and Some Proposed Directions for Inservice Programs in Selected Schools of the APSS," Columbia University, 1964, from Encyclopedia of Education Research, 4th edition, 1969. Sears, P. A. The Effect of Classroom Conditions on the Strength of Achievement Motive and Work Out-Put on Elementary School Children. Washington, D.C, United States Office of Education, 1963. Sebesta, Sam. Ivory, Apes, and Peacocks. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1968. Shepherd, D. L. Comprehensive High School Reading Methods. Columbus, Ohio, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1973. Simpson, R. H. Teacher Self-Evaluation. Toronto, MacMillan Co., 1966. Singer, Harry, and Allen Rhodes. "Learning from Text: A Review of Theories, Strategies, and Research at the High School Level," from W. D. Miller and G. H. Mclnch (eds.) Reflections and Investigations  on Reading, 25th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, Clemson, S.C, National Reading Conference Inc., 1976. Smith, N. B. Reading Methods and Teacher Improvement. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1971. Spaulding, R. L. Achievement, Creativity, and Self-Concept Correlates of  Teacher-Pupil Transactions in Elementary School Classrooms. Washington, D.C, United States Office of Education, 1963. Squire, J. R., and R. K. Applebee. High School English Instruction Today. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968. Stratta, Leslie, John Dixon, and Andrew Wilkinson. Patterns of Language. London, Heinemann Educational Books, 1973. 174 Summers, E. G., and R. D. Chester. An Information Sourcebook on Inservice  Teacher Education. University of British Columbia, Jan. 1976. The Teaching of Reading. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1973 (monograph). Thomison, Dennis. Readings About Adolescent Literature. Metuchen, N.J., Scarecrow Press, 1970. Times 5ive. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Atlantic Institute of Education, June 1975 (monograph). Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock. New York, Bantam Books, 1970. Trosky, 0. S. "A Training Program for Reading Supervisors," University of Manitoba, 1973, International Reading Association, Conference Paper, from Directory of Education Studies in Canada, 1972-73, Toronto, CEA, 1973. Voix, R. G. Evaluating Reading and Study Skills in the Secondary Class room. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1968. Wallen, N. E., and K. H. Wodtke. Relationships Between Teacher Character istics and Student Behavior. Washington, D.C, United States Office of Education, 1963. Webb, E. J., et al. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the  Social Sciences. Chicago, Rand McNally & Co., 1966. Weiss, M. J. Reading in the Secondary School. New York, Odyssey Press, 1961. Wilson, L. L., et al. A Guide for Conducting a Teacher Self-Improvement Program. Little Rock, Arkansas, 1972. Worthen, B. R., and J. R. Sanders. Educational Evaluation: Theory and Practice. Worthington, Ohio, Charles A. Jones Publishing Co., 1973. Wright, R. E. Inservice Education Programs to Improve Teaching Competence. Washington, 1975. Periodicals Abramowitz, M. W. "The Principal is the Key to Teacher Training and Growth," Momentum, 5-4, Dec. 1974, 10-11. EJ 108 578. Adams, A. H. "Structure and Content of Inservice Education Programs," Education, 92, Nov. 1971, 13-16. Adams, D. M. "Helping Teachers Cope With Change," Education Canada, 14-3, Sept. 1974, 16-19. EJ 103 561. 175 Alford, H. J. "Assessment and Evaluation .in Continuing Education: Four Quick and Dirty Devices," Adult Leadership, 22, Apr. 1974, 324-6. EJ 095 702. Allen, S. M. "Reading in English Literature: Is Expository Material Really More Difficult?" Skylark, 12-1, Fall 1975, 10-12. . "Using Small Groups in Secondary Classrooms," B.C. Teacher, 53-8, May-June 1974, 275-76. Attea, W. J. "VTR: Inservice Tool for Improving Instruction," Educational Leadership, 28, Nov. 1970, 147-50. EJ 027 733. Axelrod, Jerome. "A Few Recommendations on How to Conduct Inservice Reading Instruction for Content-Area Teachers," English Journal, 64-2, Feb. 1975, 81-82. Bader, L. A. "Certification Requirements in Reading: A Trend," Journal  of Reading, 19-3, Dec. 1975, 237-240. . "Preparing Future Secondary Teachers in Reading," Journal of Reading, 15-7, April 1972, 492-95. Barber, B. "Some Problems in the Sociology of the Professions," Daedalus, 92, 1963, 669-88. Bentley, Roy. "Myths in the Teaching of English," BCETA Winter Journal, 16-1, Jan. 1976, 1-4. . "'Testing' in the English Classroom," UPDATE, 17-4, March 1976, 12-14. Bormuth, J. "Comparable Cloze and Multiple Choice Comprehension Test Scores," Journal of Reading, 10-5, Feb. 1967, 291-299. . "Readability: A New Approach," Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 1966, 79-131. Bosanko, R. G. "They Learn to Read in Auto 1—Honest!" Journal of Reading, 19-1, Oct. 1975, 33-35. Brimm, J. L., and D. J. Tollett. "How Do Teachers Feel About Inservice Education?" Educational Leadership, 31, March 1974, 521-5. Bullerman, M., and E. J. Franco. "Teach Content Material But Teach Reading Too!" Journal of Reading, 19-1, Oct. 1975, 21-23. Burgy, D. R. "Reading Inservice Via Videotape," Reading Teacher, 28, Oct. 1974, 26-7. EJ 103 999. Carline, J. L. "Inservice Training—Re-examined," Journal of Research and  Development Education, 4, Feb. 1970, 103-15. EJ 030 985. 176 Chall, J. "Restoring Dignity and Self-Worth to the Teacher," Phi Delta  Kappan, 57-3, Nov. 1975, 170-174. Childress, J. R. "Inservice of Continuing Education for Teachers," Journal  of Education, 146, 1965, 36-45. Chronister, G. M., and K. M. Ahrendt. "Reading Instruction in British Columbia's Secondary Schools," Journal of Reading, 11-6, March 1968, 425-27. Comras, J., and R. Masterman. "Rationale for Comprehensive Inservice Programs," Clearinghouse, 46, March 1972, 424-6. "Continuing Education for Teachers: Whose Responsibility?" Alberta  Teachers Association Magazine, 52-2, Nov.-Dec. 1971, 18-23. Cooper, Barbara, and Murray Philip. "Evaluation of Nutrition Education in Everyday'Teaching Environment," Journal of Nutrition Education, 6-3, July-Sept. 1974, 99-103. EJ 106 338. "Coordinated Inservice Project Plan for B.C.," Education Today, 2-3, Jan. 1976, p. 3. Criscuolo, N. P. "Approaches to Inservice Reading Programs," Reading  Teacher, 24, Feb. 1971, 422-4. . "Five Effective Inservice Reading Programs," Education, 93, Feb. 1973, 211-13. Cunningham, R. C. "Resurrecting Meaningful Inservice Training," Journal  of Reading, 15-7, April 1972, 485-87. DeCarlo, M. R., and D. C. Cleland. "A Reading Inservice Education Program for Teachers," Reading Teacher, 22, Nov. 1968. Dolphe, W. E. "Superintendents: Start Your Engines," Thrust for Educa  tion Leadership, 4-4, Mar. 1975, 7-9. EJ 118 621. Draba, R. E. "Guidelines for Viable Inservice Education," Journal of  Reading, 18-5, Feb. 1975, 368-71. Duffy, Patrick. "The Doors Can Be Opened," Alberta Teachers Association  Magazine, 52-2, Nov.-Dec. 1971, 37-8. "Education Forum," Education Today, 2-3, Jan. 1976, p. 2. Estes, T. H., and R. C. Staiger. "I.R.A. Project Conpass: An Overview," Journal of Reading, 16-7, April 1973, 520-24. Falkenberg, Eugene, et al. "The Continuing Professional Education of Teachers—Views from Alberta's Universities," Alberta Teachers  Association Magazine, 52-2, Nov.-Dec. 1971, 30-33. 177 Farr, Roger, James Laffey, and Rexel Brown. "Secondary Reading Programs in Indiana: Status and Needs," Journal of Reading, 13-4, January 1970, 269-74, 317-19. Farr, Roger, and Samuel Weintraub. "Editorial: Methodological Incarcer ation," Reading Research Quarterly, X-4, 1974-75, 549-52. Felker, D. W. , et al. "Teacher Rigidity and Continuing Education," Journal of Teacher Education, 22, Winter 1971, 460-63. Fibkins, William. "The Whys and Hows of Teachers' Centers," Phi Delta  Kappan, 55, April 1974, 567-69. EJ 094 650. Fotheringham, J. A. "Inservice Education: A Vital Necessity," Alberta  Teachers Association Magazine, 52-2, Nov.-Dec. 1971, 15-17. Gegnatoff, J. "A New Look at Evaluating Teacher Performance," Education  Canada, Dec. 1971, 19-21. Goldman, B., and H. D. Wolff. "Effectiveness of a Demonstration Reading School," Reading Teacher, 24, Nov. 1970, 106-111. Goodlad, John. "The Schools vs Education," Saturday Review, April 19, 1969. Goudey, C. E. "Preservice Reading Instruction at the Secondary Level: A Program of Involvement," Journal of Reading, 13-6, March 1970, 453-8. Gregoric, A. F. "Developing Plans for Professional Growth," NASSP Bulletin, 57, Dec. 1973, 1-8. EJ 090 438. Harker, W. J. "Get Your Money's Worth from a Reading Consultant," Journal  of Reading, 17-1, Oct. 1973, 29-31. Haycocks, Norman. "The Universities and Inservice Training for Teachers," Trends in Education, 33, May 1974, 13-17. EJ 100 485. Herber, H. L. "Reading in Content Areas: A District Develops its own Personnel," Journal of Reading, 13-8, May 1970, 587-92. EJ 020 796. Hill, Walter. "Secondary Reading Activity in Western New York: A Survey," Journal of Reading, 19-1, Oct. 1975, 13-19. "Inservice Education Must Expand—Minister," Education Today, Oct. 1975, p. 1. James, S. M. "Making Teacher Renewal Relevant," Journal of Reading, 19-4, Jan. 1976, 320-22. Kasdon, L. M., and D. Kelly. "Simulation: Inservice Education for Teachers of Reading," Journal of Experimental Education, 38, Fall 1969. 178 Kirby, P. W. "Inservice Education: The University's Role," Educational  Leadership, 30-5, Feb. 1973, 431-3. Larsen, J. L., C. E. Tillman, and A. G. Cranney. "Trends in College Freshmen Reading Ability," Journal of Reading, 19-5, Feb. 1976, 367-69. Leep, A. G., Frank Creason, and D. L. Schilson. "Developing More and Better Inservice Programs," Clearinghouse, 43-2, Oct. 1968, 113-16. Leslie, L. L., and J. L. Morrison. "Social Change and Professional Educa tion in American Society," Intellect, Vol. 102, March 1974, 356-60. Lindsay, C. A., J. L. Morrison, and E. J. Kelley. "Professional Obsoles cence: Implications for Continuing Education," Adult Education, xxxv-1, 1974, 3-22. Longmore, A. J. "Retraining Teachers—Points to Ponder," Education Canada, 14, Dec. 1974, 18-19. McDonald, T. F. "An All School Secondary Reading Program," Journal of  Reading, 14-8, May 1971, 553-8. McGraw, Barry, J. L. Wardrop, and M. A. Bunda. "Classroom Observation Schemes: Where are the Errors?" American Educational Research  Journal, 9-1, Jan. 1972, 13-27. McGinnis, Dorothy. "The Preparation and Responsibility of Secondary Tea chers in the Field of Reading," Reading Teacher, 15, 1963, 92-97, 101. McGlothlin, W. J. "Continuing Education in the Professions," Journal of  Education for Librarianship, 13, 1972, 3-16. McLeish, J. A. B. "Continuing Professional Education in Canada," Convergence, 3-4, 1970, 76-88. EJ 033 129. Marrogenes, N. A., et al. "Concise Guide to Standardized Secondary and College Reading Tests," Journal of Reading, 18, 1974, 12-22. Mathieson, D. E. "Professional Continuing Education for Civilian Federal Employees," Continuing Education for Adults, 159, Apr. 1971, 1-6. EJ 037 700. Means, Don. "Evaluating Inservice Education Programs," Education, 93-3, Feb. 1973, 292-4. Measel, Wes, and D. W. Mood. "Teacher Verbal Behavior and Teacher and Pupil Thinking in Elementary School," Journal of Educational  Research, 66-3, Nov. 1972, 99-102. Moir, C. F. "The School: Focal Point of Inservice Education," Education  Canada, 10-2, June 1970, 15-17. 179 Morgan, G. A. V. "Teachers' Centers," The Urban Review, 7-3, July 1974, 1-10. Morrison, Coleman, and M. C. Austin. "The Torch Lighters Revisited—A Preliminary Report," Reading Teacher, 29-7, April 1976, 647-52. Nagle, J. E. "Staff Development: Do It Right," Journal of Reading, 16-2, Nov. 1972, 124-27. EJ 069 535. Olson, A. L. "Can We Individualize Inservice Education of Teachers?" Education Technology, 14, Nov. 1974, 41-42. EJ 109 652. Olson, T. "Inservice Education in Reading ERIC/CRS Report," Reading  Teacher, 28, Feb. 1975, 522-3+. Osburn, Bess. "Shock Treatment Inservice Program Adds New Life to Read ing," Journal of Reading, 18-2, Nov. 1974, 122-26. "Over 100 Recommendations Contained in English Language Arts Assessment," Education Today, Nov. 1976, p. 6. Partlow, H. R. "Professional Development: Top Level Need, Second Level Priority," Education Canada, 11-4, Dec. 1971, 60-64. Patterson, W. G. "The Role of the Classroom Teacher in Helping Students Improve in Reading," Journal of Developmental Reading, 1, 1958, 31-41. Pedersen, George. "Decision Making," UPDATE, 17-5, April 1976, 12-14. Phi Delta Kappa."Teacher Centers May Get Generous Federal Support," Kappan, 58-5, Jan. 1977, p. 441. Pikulski, J. J. "Review of Bullock's A Language For Life," Reading  Teacher, 29-4, Jan. 1976, 409-10. "A Precision Teaching Project: CELDIC Report, 1970," Times 5ive, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Atlantic Institute of Education, June 1975. Preston, R. C. "Review of Carroll and Chall's Toward A Literate Society," Journal of Reading, 19-5, Feb. 1976, 414-19. Robinson, R. D., and B. J. Smith. "Secondary Consultant: Remedial Teacher of Content Teachers," Journal of Reading, 16-6, Mar. 1973, 440-43. EJ 074 799. Rubin, L. J. "Authentic Teacher Growth," Educational Leadership, 28, April 1971, 701-3. Samph, Thomas. "Teacher Behavior and the Reading Performance of Below-Average Achievers," Journal of Educational Research, 67-6, Feb. 1974, 268-70. 180 Sawyer, R., and L. B. Taylor. "Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness in Reading Instruction," Journal of Reading, 11, March 1968. Schleich, M. "Groundwork for Better Reading in Content Areas," Journal  of Reading, 15, Nov. 1971, 119-26. Schmid, Rex, and T. R. Scranton. "A Field Trial of the Longitudinal In-service Training Model," Education, 92-93, Nov.-Dec. 1972, 195-8. Simmons, J. J. "Who is Responsible? The Need for Qualified Supervision of the Reading Program," English Journal, 52, 1963, 86-88, 93. Smith, R. J., et al. "Teaching Reading in the Content Areas: An Inser vice Model," Journal of Reading, 13, March 1970, 421-8. Stallard, Cathy. "1975 IRA Convention: Main Topics in Reading," Journal of Reading, 19-7, April 1976, 573-4. Staples, R. B. "The Professional Development Needs of Practicing Alberta Teachers," Education Canada, 10-2, June 1970. Stirzaker, N. A. "University Continuing Education—Disaster or Opportun ity?" Adult Leadership, 22, 1974. "Summer Schools Host Teachers," Education Today, 2-4, March 1976, p. 1. Taylor, R. L. "Are Small High Schools Doing an Adequate Job of Inservice Education?" High School Journal, 47, 1964, 297-300. "Teachers Speak Out on Their Own Professionalization," Alberta Teachers  Association Magazine, 52-2, Nov.-Dec. 1971, 10-14. Thelen, J. N. "Conpass Science: Learning in Several Directions," Journal  of Reading, 16-7, April 1973, 525-28. Tuinman, Jaap, Michael Rowls, and Roger Farr. "Reading Achievement in the United States: Then and Now," Journal of Reading, 19-6, March 1976, 455-63. Wall, R. C. "Teacher Attitudes Toward Reading Educational Books and Periodicals," Illinois School Research, 1, Sept. 1965, 14-19. Wassermann, Selma, and Wally Eggert. "Profiles of Teaching Competency: A Way of Looking at Classroom Teaching Performance," Canadian  Journal of Education, 1:1, 1976, 67-73. Waynant, L. F. "Teachers Strengths: Basis for Successful Inservice Experiences," Educational Leadership, 28-7, April 1971, 710-13. Yamamoto, Kaoru, J. P. Jones, and M. B. Ross. "A Note on the Processing of Classroom Observation Records," American Educational Research  Journal, 9-1, Jan. 1972, 29-44. 181 ERIC Reports Acosta, R. K., and M. R. Lindsay. The Principal and the Miller Unruh  Reading Program, 1971-72. California, 1972. ED 067 652. Allen, D. W. Inservice Teacher Education. Educational Cassette Series No. 117. 1970. ED 041 875 (abstract). . Micro-teaching—A New Framework for Inservice Education. Stanford University. Sept. 1967. ED 013 240. Alvir, H. P. Planning arid Inservice Education. Feb. 1974. ED 088 861. . Thirteen Alternative Learning Environments That Can Be Used to Evaluate the Impact of Teacher Inservice Workshops on Documented  Learner Benefits. June 1975. ED 107 648. Amidon, E. J., and Barak Rosenshine. Interaction Analysis and Micro- teaching in an Urban Teacher Education Program. A Model for Skill  Development in Teaching. Feb. 1968. ED 076 496. Andrews, J. K. The Results of a Pilot Program to Train Teachers iri the  Classroom Application of Behavior Modification Techniques. Maryland, 1969. ED 031 754. Armstrong, H. R. A Teacher's Guide to Teaching Performance Evaluation. Ohio, 1972. ED 077 123 (abstract). Asher, J. J. Inservice Education—Psychological Perspectives. Far West Laboratory, 1967. ED 015 891. Assessment of Teaching Competence for Improvement of Instruction. Tempe, Ariz., 1972. ED 102 687. Assessment of the CERLI Training Program, Specialist in Continuing Educa tion (SCE), for Chicago Public Schools. Northfield, Illinois, 1969. ED 035 971 (abstract). Austin, M. C. Review of Recently Recommended Models. Symposia: 1. Improved Preparation of Reading Teachers for the Seventies. International Reading Association, Conference Proceedings, April 1971. ED 071 050. Baker, E. L. Experimental Assessment of the Effects of the Probe System. March 1970. ED 037 789 (abstract). Bash, J. H., and T. J. Morris. Planning and Implementing Inservice Edu  cation Programs in Desegregated Schools. Bloomington, Indiana, 1968. ED 025 036. Baysinger, Gerald. The Fluid Power Institutes—A Pilot Program for Intro  ducing Emerging Technologies. Wisconsin, 1966. ED 012 396. 182 Benjamin, William, et al. Specifications for a Comprehensive Undergraduate  and Inservice Teacher Education Program for Elementary Teachers. Vol. 1-2. Syracuse University, Oct. 1968. ED 026 301 and 026 302. Bernstein, M. R. Umbrella for Reading: Evaluation of Inservice Education  on Reading. Mamaroneck, N. Y., June 1972. ED 064 688. Berty, Ernest. Evaluation Report of the Teacher Education Centers in West Virginia, February, 1973. ED 080 604 (abstract). Bessent, E. W., et al. Designs for Inservice Education. Texas University, Feb. 1967. ED 011 591. Birnbaum, Max, and L. B. Wolcott. "Human Relations Education for Teachers Through the Institute X Type Course," The Journal of Educational  Sociology, 23, Oct. 1949, 78-96. ED 002 021 (abstract). Blosser, P. E. Science Education Information Reports, Occasional Papers  Series—Science Paper 2: Inservice Education. Ohio State Univer sity, Dec. 1969. ED 036 680. Borg, W. R. The Minicourse Instructional Model. 1970. ED 037 388. . The Minicourse: Rationale and Uses in the Inservice Education of Teachers. California, 1968. ED 024 647 (abstract). Borg, W. R., et al. The Effects of Videotape Feedback and Microteaching  in a Teacher Training Model. Berkeley, Cal., 1968. ED 024 650. . The Minicourse: A Microteaching Approach to Teacher Education. California, 1970. ED 045 577 (abstract). Brantner, S. T. Trade and Technical Teachers' Opinions on Inservice  Education. Pennsylvania State University, 1964. ED 016 044. Briggs, D. A., et al. Reading in Grades 7-12, A Handbook for Teachers and Administrators. New Jersey, 1964. ED 013 303 (abstract). Britton, E. L. Teachers' Centres and the Changing Curriculum. London, England, Schools Council Publications, 1970. ED 050 965 (abstract). Brown, J. A., and M. A. MacDougall. The Impact of Teacher Consultation on Elementary School Children. March 1972. ED 066 681 (abstract). Brown, J. A., et al. Changing Culture Perceptions of Elementary School Teachers. Portsmouth Project. April 1972. ED 066 537 (abstract). Brown, K. E., and D. W. Snader. Inservice Education of High School Mathematics Teachers. 1961. ED 001 294. Brown, W. J., Jr. The Effect of Inservice Education and Resource Unit Com ponents on Teacher and Student Learning. 1968. ED 042 885 (abstract). 183 Brudin, J. L., and Kaliopee Lanzillotti. A Reader's Guide to the Compre hensive Models for Preparing Elementary Teachers. Feb. 1970. ED 034 076. Burnham, R. M. The Role of the Supervisor in Professional Growth and Development. July 1974. ED 084 795 (abstract). Caldwell, H. E. Evaluation of an Inservice Science Methods Course by Systematic Observation of Classroom Activities. Syracuse Univer sity, Sept. 1967. ED 024 615. California Teacher Development Project for Systems of Individualized Instruction: A Dissemination Activity. Sacramento, Cal., 1973. ED 095 183 (abstract). Cameron, W. A., and C. J. Cotrell. Remote Feedback Techniques for In-service Education. Colorado State University and Ohio State University, 1970. ED 042 901 (abstract). Carline, J. L. An Investigation of the Relationships Between Various Verbal Strategies of Teaching Behavior and Achievement of Elemen tary School Children. 1970. ED 038 345 (abstract). Case Study, Operation: Cooperation Ashland College—Ashland City Schools. Ohio, 1972. ED 075 415. The Center for Inservice Education. Final Evaluation Report. Tennessee, Sept. 1972. ED 090 216 (abstract). A Center for Re-education of Teachers. End of Project Period Report, June 1969 to May 1970. 1970. ED 080 492 (abstract). Chadwick, E. H. Improved Education—Rural School Development Project. Harwick, Vermont, Jan. 1975. ED 109 598. Champagne, D. W., et al. Planning and Conducting Individualized Inservice Workshops. 1973. ED 084 246 (abstract). Chern, N. E. Inservice Education in Reading: The Realization of the  Potential. April 1968. ED 028 020. Collins, J. F. The Teacher Education Center Concept. Syracuse, New York, Syracuse University, 1970. ED 046 901 (abstract). Comprehensive Explanation and Analysis of the Multiple Alternative Program (MAP). Connecticut, Nov. 1973. ED 087 718 (abstract). Conceptual Base of Program I: Specialist in Continuing Education (SCE) . Consultants' Assessment. Northfield, Illinois, 1969. ED 050 045 (abstract). Cory, N. D. Incentives Used in Motivating Professional Growth of Teachers. Chicago. ED 027 254. 184 Cramer, S. H. Preservice and Inservice Preparation of School Counselors for Educational Guidance. Washington, D.C, March 1970. ED 039 544 (abstract). Cruikshank, D. R. Simulation as an Instructional Alternative in Teacher Education. 1971. ED 053 067 (abstract). Cunningham, M. A. Project Ideals: Staff Selection, Education and Utilization. Florida, 1969. ED 050 439 (abstract). Dagne, F. A. Inservice Education for Teachers. Maine, 1968. ED 031 546. Davis, J. B., Jr. The Teacher Center as a Strategy for Local School Renewal. Feb. 1975. ED 108 381 (abstract). Debrick, M. A., et al. Guidelines for Reading Instruction in the Secondary  Schools. Eugene, Oregon, 1968. ED 052 904. DelForge, Clarence. A Competency Based Program of Individualized In-service Education. North Carolina, 1974. ED 086 686 (abstract). DeShields, S. M. , et al. Staff Development Through the Teacher Education  Center Concept. 1971. ED 075 391. Development of an Inservice Model for Implementing New Methodology in the  SS Curriculum: Project Period. Madison, Wisconsin, 1970. ED 067 313. Devore, P. W. Variables Affecting Change in Inservice Teacher Education. West Virginia University, Sept. 1971. ED 070 764. Dickson, G. E. Planning a Prototype Teacher Center for Ohio. Final Report. University of Toledo, Ohio, 1972. EDr086 677 (abstract). Dickson, G. E. et al. Educational Specification for a Comprehensive Elemen tary Teacher Education Program. Ohio, Oct. 1968. ED 025 457. DiTosto, Evelyn. Inservice Training for the Beginning Teacher. Nov. 1974. ED 097 293 (abstract). Doherty, V. W. The Carnegie Professional Growth Program, An Experiment in  the Inservice Education of Teachers. 1967. ED 020 162. Douglas, W. W. English Curriculum Study and Dissemination Center. Final Report. Sept. 1970. ED 064 275 (abstract). Downing, G. L. And Those Who Can't Teach—Reading! A Task Ahead in Teacher Education. C.R.A. Conference Paper, Nov. 1973. ED 084 506 (abstract). Dubin, S. S. The Psychology of Keeping Up-to-Date. 1972. ED 069 938 (abstract). 185 Dulin, K. L. Preservice Training in Reading for the Secondary-level Classroom Teacher. International Reading Association, Paper, April 1971. ED 053 876 (abstract). Dunkeld, C. G. The Portland EPDA Reading Program: Second Year; An In-service Training Program in the Teaching of Reading. Portland State University, Jan. 1973. ED 075 805 (abstract). . The Portland Project: An Inservice Training Program in the Teaching of Reading. Oregon State University, May 1972. ED 063 591. . A Released-Time Inservice Training Program in the Teaching of Reading. April 1971. ED 051 984. i Dupuis, M. M. We CARE About Inservice Education. Pennsylvania, May 1974. ED 092 884. Dupuis, M. M., and H. E. Mitzel. Classroom Craftsmen: Report of a Plan ning Conference for the NIE Planning Unit. Washington, D.C, 1971. ED 073 115 (abstract). Dye, D. L. Status of Mathematics Education in Minnesota Schools. St. Paul, Minn., 1966. ED 018 394. Early, M. J., and W. D. Sheldon. A Center for Demonstrating the Teaching  of Reading to Students in Grades 7-12. Syracuse University, New York, Feb. 1967. ED 013 719. Edelfelt, R. A. Inservice Teacher Education—Sources in the ERIC System. Jan. 1975. ED 099 308 (abstract). Edelfelt, R. A., and Margo Johnson. Rethinking Inservice Education. 1975. ED 106 300 (abstract). Edmonds, Fred, et al. Inservice Teacher Education: Crucial Process in Educational Change. Kentucky University, Sept. 1966. ED 013 424. Edson, W. H. Linking Schools and Colleges to Develop Continuing Education  Programs for School Personnel. University of Minnesota, April 1974. ED 103 352. The Effects of the Instructional Behavior and Skills Development Inservice Program Upon Teacher Behavior. Final Report. University of Missouri, Columbia, 1972. ED 070 765 (abstract). ERIC Abstracts: A Collection of ERIC Document Resumes on Inservice Edu-cation for Staff and Administrators. Oct. 1970. ED 044 830. Estes, Thomas. Reading Education for English Educators. National Council of Teachers of English, Conference Paper, 1972. ED 077 010. 186 Evaluation of the Communication Skills Centers Project. Jan. 1968. ED 021 911. Experimental Teacher Exchange Program. Springfield, Mass., Sept. 1964. ED 001 511. Farmer, M. N. Concerns and Issues in the Professional Education of English Teachers, 1963-1973. Temple University, 1975. ED 114 856 (abstract). Faulkner, Ann. Developing an Outreach Model: From Practice to Theory. University of Texas, Austin, April 1974. ED 092 926. Fibkins, William. A Proposed Model for Starting a Teacher's Center in the Schools. 1973. ED 081 729 (abstract). Fifer, F. L., Jr., and D. E. Rush. Development of an Inservice Model Based on Program Evaluation. April 1974. ED 088 946 (abstract). Filep, R. T., and D. B. Murphy. Computer-Assisted Learning for Inservice Teacher Education. California, May 1967. ED 014 219 (abstract). Filep, R. T., et al. A New Model for Inservice Training: A Report of a  Survey of Thirteen Counties in Northern California. 1971. ED 053 101. Fitzgerald, T. P., and R. M. Clark. Process Evaluation for Inservice  Training. New York, Dec. 1974. ED 102 507. Flanders, N. A. Interaction Analysis and Inservice Training. ED 088 854 (abstract). . Interaction Analysis: A Technique for Quantifying Teacher Influence. Minnesota. ED 088 855 (abstract). Flanlgan, M. C. "Inservice Training: Some Suggestions and Problems," Euclid in Retrospect, 1967 Conference Bulletin, Ohio, 1967. ED 017 497. Fox, Robert, et al. Inservice Teacher Education to Support Utilization of  New Social Science Curricula. Boulder, Colo., Nov. 1967. ED 039 160. Fox, R. S., et al. Teaching of Social Science Material in the Elementary  School. ED 001 135. Froberg, S. E. A Guide for the Development of an Inservice Education  Program. Tampa, Florida, May 1971. ED 049 431. Fullbright, C. B., et al. Descriptive Outline of Missouri's Inservice  Teacher Education Program in Elementary Mathematics. Jefferson City, Mo., 1966. ED 018 398. 187 Fuller, F. F., et al. Effects of Personalized Feedback During Teacher  Preparation on Teacher Personality and Teaching Behavior. Texas University, Austin, 1969. ED 028 148. General Improvement of Reading Instruction Grades 1-12. Summer 1968. ED 025 389. Getz, H. G., and L. D. Kennedy. Competency-Based Reading Preparation for  Secondary Teachers. International Reading Association, Conference Paper, May 1972. ED 063 577. The Greater Cleveland Teacher Education Centers Cooperative Support Program. 1972. ED 076 521 (abstract). Greer, Sandra. Curriculum Revision for the Improvement of Reading Instruc tion in Southeast Kansas. Feb. 1974. ED 089 239. A Guide to the Role of the Reading Teacher, Elementary and Secondary  Schools. Baltimore, Md., 1970. ED 092 896. Guidelines for After-School Workshops: A Manual for Teacher Trainers. New York, February 1967. ED 091 466. Haan, A. S. Inservice Design for a Small School District. California, June 1966. ED 010 082. Hall, K. A., et al. Inservice Mathematics Education for Elementary School Teachers via Computer-Assisted Instruction. Pennsylvania State University, 1969. ED 076 039 (abstract). Harris, A. J., et al. An Evaluation of the Intensive Teacher Training  Program. New York, June 1967. ED 012 716. Harste, J. C, et al. Toward Validating Reading Teacher Competencies. Indiana University, Bloomington, March 1975. ED 109 654 (abstract). Harty, Harold, et al. An Interactive Network for the Introduction of Innovations in Education: Organization, Training, Operation, and Impact. Feb. 1973. ED 075 913 (abstract). The Harvard-Boston Summer Program in Urban Education. 1965. ED 001 533. Haubrich, Vernon. Obstacles to Change: The Westchester Report. Oct. 1968. ED 033 894. Hawke, Sharryl. Mini-Versity: A New Approach to Continuing Teacher Education. 1975. ED 104 734 (abstract). Henkelman, James, et al. Maryland Elementary Mathematics Inservice Program, Final Report of Study—Demonstration Phase. University of Maryland, March 1967. ED 012 397 (abstract). 188 Henriksen, E., and C. Rosen. "A Maximum Input Junior High School Work shop," from J. S. Nemeth's Reading RX: Better Teachers, Better  Supervisors, Better Programs, Newark, Delaware, Internationl Read ing Association, 1975. ED 108 163. Hill, J. C. Change of Content Development Patterns Observed in Classroom  Communication Behaviors Due to Inservice Training in Content  Strategies. American Educational Research Association, paper, 1971. ED 049 190. Hoehn, L. P. Teaching Behavior Improvement Program. Detroit, July 1969. ED 034 719. Hoffart, E. H. The Role of High School Teachers in Disseminating New  Elementary Science Curriculums. Newton, Mass., March 1968. ED 020 134. Howell, J. G. The Building Administrator and the Reading Program. Feb. 1975. ED 103 829. Howey, K. R. Teacher Centers—Is There Anything New? Some Tentative Guidelines for Assessing the Nature and Extent of Collaboration and Renewal. American Educational Research Association, paper, April 1974. ED 090 148 (abstract). Identifying Strengths of Effective Teachers and Training Them to Share  These Strengths with Other Teachers. 1970. ED 041 845. Individualized Inservice Teacher Education: A Performance-Based Module. Florida, Jan. 1971. ED 055 049 (abstract). Inservice Education in Elementary School Mathematics. Washington, D.C, 1967. ED 018 272. Inservice Education of Teachers: Research Summary 1966. National Education Association, 1966. ED 022 728. Inservice Reading Resource Kit and Project Reading Alert: Package 5— Classroom Management. New York, 1974. ED 097 654. Inservice Supervised Teaching Program. New Jersey, May 1966. ED 011 007. Inservice Teacher Education Course: Teaching Elementary School Reading. An Evaluation Report. Oct. 1969. ED 036 459. Inservice Training Design Simulation. 1970. ED 051 091 (abstract). Intensive Reading Improvement Program (TRIP)—A Staff Development Project. Chicago, 1974. ED 108 147 (abstract). An Interim Report of a Summer Institute in Teaching Reading: An Eclectic Approach to Reading. March 1970. ED 059 031 (abstract). 189 Jackson, D. M., and W. M. Rogge. Inservice Education—An Integral Part of  the Illinois Plan for Program Development for Gifted Children. University of Illinois, Urbana, April 1965. ED 002 103. Jackson, N. R. An Introduction to the Harlingen Teacher Renewal Center. Texas, 1973. ED 091 355 (abstract). James, H. J. Strengthening Reading at the Secondary Level. International Reading Association, Conference Paper, May 1972. ED 063 092.' Jensen, P. H. A Study of Self-Evaluation Applied to Inservice Education. Oregon, Sept. 1968. ED 023 642. Jesser, D. L. Western States Small Schools Project: Summer Workshop 1963. Carson City, Nev., 1963. ED 002 267. Joekel, R. G. An Analysis of Teacher Verbal Behavior Before and After Participation in the McRel Instructional Staff Development Program. April 1974. ED 096 312 (abstract). Johnson, C. E., et al. Summary of the Georgia Educational Model Specifica  tions for the Preparation of Elementary Teachers. Georgia Univer sity, Athens, Oct. 1968. ED 025 492. Johnson, Lary. Teacher Released Time in Minneapolis Elementary Schools, 1971-72. July 1972. ED 084 296 (abstract). Johnson, Mel. Model Program for Teacher Inservice Training Emphasizing  the Affective Dimension. Illinois, June 1969. ED 023 747. Joyce, B. R. A Guide to the Teacher-Innovator: A Program to Prepare  Teachers. 1969. ED 035 605. Joyce, B. R., and Marshal Weil. Concepts of Teacher Centers. May 1973. ED 075 375 (abstract). Kallenback, Warren, and Dennis Carmichael. The California Teacher Develop ment Project for Systems of Individualized Instruction: Individ ualizing Inservice Education. April 1972. ED 062 297 (abstract). Karlin, Robert. Competency-Based Teacher Education in Reading. August, 1974. ED 098 537. Karls, J. B. Retrain to Retain. National Council of Teachers of English, Speech, Nov. 1970. ED 052 207. Katrein, R. M. Conducting an Inservice Reading Program at the Secondary Level. Grades 7-12. Southern Illinois University, 1968. ED 023 558. Katz, L. G. A Pilot Study of the Advisory Approach to Inservice Training. Sept. 1973. ED 083 190 (abstract). 190 Katzenmeyer, W. G., et al. Report on National Coordinated Evaluation of  Five Models for Language Arts/Reading Centers. National Council of Teachers of English, Nov. 1971. ED 091 711. Kelly, Dean. Using an Informal Reading Inventory to Place Children in  Instructional Materials: The Berea, Ohio Inservice Education  Experiment. May 1969. ED 032 198. Kennedy, J. J., et al. The Effectiveness of Two Interaction Analysis  Instructional Modules Within an Inservice Setting. Tennessee University, March 1969. ED 030 600. Kerber, J. E. The Tasks of Teaching Reading. 1975. ED 103 828. Kilpatrick, Gordon. Inservice Education with Recommendations Concerning  its Implementation in American Junior Colleges. California, Aug. 1967. ED 020 721. Kimple, James, et al. Curriculum Change Through Organizational Change: A Human Relations Training Program. 1970. ED 037 385. Knox, A. B. Inservice Education in Adult Basic Education. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Oct. 1971. ED 079 587 (abstract). Kotcher, Elaine, and R. R. Doremus. Increasing Positive Interactive Classroom Behavior. New York, 1972. ED 080 421 (abstract). Langer, Philip, and G. E. Allen. The MiniCourse as a Tool for Training Teachers in Interaction Analysis. 1970. ED 037 393 (abstract). Lavin, R. J., and E. M. Schuttenberg. An Innovative Approach to Public  School Staff Development. A Collaborative Mode. Merrimack Education Center, June 1972. ED 069 602. Leader Training Conference Report. April 1969. ED 050 043 (abstract). LeBaron, Walt. A Systems Approach to the Organization of Teacher Training  Experiences. California, Feb. 1969. ED 035 587. Leonard, C. B., and F. J. Gies. Evaluation of Francis Howell R-III School District Title III, Elementary and Secondary Education Act Innovat ive Program. Sept. 1972. ED 081 716 (abstract). Lindsey, A. J. A Program of Professional Readings for Secondary School English Teachers. Illinois, July 1969. ED 033 109 (abstract). Littrell, J. H. "English Teachers' Attitudes Toward Preparation in Read ing," 0. M. Haugh's Teaching the Teacher of English, Conference, 1968. ED 071 101. Lunetta, V. N. Computer in the Classroom: A Computer-Based Unit in Teacher Education. March 1975. ED 105 878 (abstract). 191 McCracken, R. A. Supervision of Reading Instruction in Junior High School. Western Washington, 1968. ED 046 638. McCrory, D. L. A Design for the Teacher Education Center. May 1973. ED 077 895 (abstract). McGuire, Marion. The New England Educational Assessment Reading Project. International Reading Association, Conference Paper, May 1969. ED 033 836 (abstract). McLean, Beverly. Reading Research: The State of the Art as it Reaches the Classroom. International Reading Association, Conference Paper, May 1974. ED 095 478 (abstract). Maddox, Kathryn. In West Virginia, It Is Working. One Teacher Education Center in Action. 1972. ED 086 679 (abstract). Maddox, Kathryn, et al. New Dimensions in Teacher Education Inservice. Charleston, West Virginia, 1970. ED 053 094 (abstract). Mahaffey, J. P., et al. General Improvement of Reading, Grades 1-12. 1967. ED 019 190. Manning, J. C. "Continuing Professional Experiences in Reading," from J. S. Nemeth's Reading RX: Better Teachers, Better Supervisors, Better Programs, Newark, Delaware, International Reading Associa tion, 1975. ED 108 163. Markowitz, Alan, and Frances Haley. The Advisory and Learning Exchange, the Sharing of Knowledge and Concerns. 1973. ED 085 071 (abstract). A Massive Attack Upon Reading Disability Among North West Indiana Public  and Non-Public Schools. North West Multi-Service Educational Center, Aug. 1971. ED 059 835. Mayne, M. S. A Guide to Inservice Education for Nursing Personnel in  Nursing Homes. California University, Los Angeles. ED 078 272. Means, Don. Developing a Flexible Curriculum. Inservice Evaluation Report. Pennsylvania, Oct. 1971. ED 069 603 (abstract). Melching, W. H., et al. Introducing Innovation in Instruction: Inservice Teacher Workshops in Classroom Management. Alexandria, Va., 1970. ED 048 098 (abstract). Microteaching and the MiniCourse. A Manual for Planning and Implementa tion. ED 045 552 (abstract). Minturn, Stella. Inservice Training Emphasis. International Reading Association Paper, April 1971. ED 055 728. 192 Model for Reading Inservice: PIE (Planning, Implementation, Evaluation) Plan. Missouri, 1973. ED 099 770. A Model Program for Improving the Education of Preservice and Inservice  Teachers of Elementary, Secondary, and Exceptional Children in  Metropolitan Areas. Connecticut University, Oct. 1968. ED 026 290. Model Programs: Childhood Education. Washington, D.C, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. ED 045 599 (abstract). Mohr, Paul. Current Research and Development Efforts in Inservice Train  ing and Curriculum Planning for Teacher Education. 1971. ED 083 148. Monahan, W. C, and H. E. Miller. Planning and Developing Inservice  Education. Iowa University^ 1970. ED 045 611. Mullen, T. P. Simulation, Role Playing, and Games in Pre-Service and  Inservice Education. Feb. 1975. ED 103 806. Myers, C. B. Social Studies Innovations 1968-1969 (Speedier Project). Palmyra, Pa., 1969. ED 040 899. Mynhier, Betsy. The Impact of Federal Programs on Learning to Read in  Appalachia. May 1969. ED 032 202. Nemeth, J. W. Reading RX: Better Teachers, Better Supervisors, Better  Programs. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1975. ED 108 163. New York City Right to Read Impact Project. 1974. ED 106 794 (abstract). Northern Kentucky Inservice Innovation Center. Alexandria, Kentucky, 1971. ED 080 489 (abstract). Norton, R. E. Inservice Education: Vital to Career Education Delivery. Ohio State University, Columbus, Dec. 1972. ED 073 264. A Nuclear Design for Teacher Education. University of Wisconsin, Lacrosse, Nov. 1971. ED 073 113 (abstract). O'Hanlon, James. Inservice Education in Small Schools. Nebraska, 1967. ED 013 167. O'Hanlon, J. 0., and L. A. Witters. "Breakthrough," Inservice Education  for All Schools. Nebraska State Department of Education, Sept. 1967. ED 015 147. Ohio Right to Read Materials. 1974. ED 108 109 (abstract). Organizing Centers for Inservice Education in Individualizing Instruction  and Learning. Washington, D.C, Dec. 1967. ED 027 236. 193 Owens, T. R., and Peter Kneedler. Evaluation of the Effects of the Eager to Learn Teacher Inservice Television Series. March 1973. ED 074 757 (abstract). Parsons, J. W., and F. F. Fuller. Concerns of Teachers: Recent Research  on Two Assessment Instruments. University of Texas, 1974. ED 093 987. Parsons, T. W. Developing a Teacher Center. Oct. 1972. ED 086 673 (abstract). . Guided Self-Analysis Professional Development Systems. 1971. ED 052 151 (abstract). Pasch, Marvin. Programmatic Development of Inservice Teacher Education. Washington, D.C, Sept. 1974. ED 096 243. Peck, R. H. The Utilization of Simulation in Teacher Preparation. Sept. 1971. ED 081 763 (abstract). Peeler, T. H., and J. R. Shapiro. A Focus on the Cooperative Reorganiza tion of Preservice and Inservice Teacher Education Programs. 1971. ED 081 764. Peterson, Bernard, and Bernard Schepers. Reading Handbook for Secondary  Classroom Teachers. Minnesota, 1966. ED 014 398. Pilot Program: San Francisco Center for Advanced Teacher Development. Nov. 1973. ED 085 386 (abstract). The Planning of Inservice Workshops: A Seminar. Atlanta, Georgia, Feb. 1971. ED 058 539. Poliakoff, L. Structured Practice in Teaching: A Bibliography of ERIC  Documents. Washington, D.C, 1971. ED 048 123. Poliakoff, Lorraine. Teacher Centers: An Outline of Current Information. Washington, 1972. ED 062 302 (abstract). Popham, W. J. Application of Teaching Performance Tests to Inservice and  Preservice Teacher Education. American Educational Research Assoc iation, Paper, 1973. ED 077 972. Preservice Teacher Education in Canada. Ottawa, Canadian Teachers Feder ation, June 1969. ED 034 726. Prichard, P. N. The Training of Educational Personnel for Creative Teaching. Chapel Hill City, North Carolina, 1970. ED 044 357. Professional Growth Inservice of the Supervising Teacher. Forty-fifth Yearbook, Assoc. for Student Teaching, 1966. ED 029 830. Project GIST. Ohio, 1973. ED 086 670 (abstract). 194 Quirk, T. J., et al. The Classroom Behavior of Teachers and Students During Compensatory Reading Instruction. Sept. 1973c. ED 100 965. . The Development of a Student Observation Instrument for Reading Instruction. June 1973a. ED 113 398. . The Development of a Teacher Observation Instrument for Reading Instruction. June 1973b. ED 113 394. Rafferty, P. T. Reading Certification: The Elementary Teacher, English  Teacher, and Reading Specialist. April 1975. ED 103 837. Rauch, S. J. Reading in the Total School Curriculum. International Read ing Association, Conference Report, May 1967. ED 013 178. Ream, M. A. Inservice Education of Teachers. Washington, D.C, Nov. 1966. ED 013 248 (abstract). Redd, V. P. Innovations in English Education: Variations on What Theme? 1972. ED 061 206. Redfern, G. B. How to Evaluate Teaching. A Performance Objectives Approach. Ohio, 1972. ED 077 124 (abstract). Report of the Triple I Project. An Individualized Inservice Teacher Educa tion Program. Indianopolis, Feb. 1972. ED 059 162 (abstract). Restructuring Teacher Education. A Report of the Rationale, Objectives, and Activities of the Houston Teacher Center, 1970-1973. Aug. 1973. ED 085 334 (abstract). Revells, M. A. Individualization and the Open Classroom. Ontario, May 1974. ED 094 315. Ritz, W. C, et al. How to Conduct a Workshop. Syracuse, New York, 1970. ED 065 486. Robbins, E. L. Tutors Handbook. 1973. ED 075 778. Roberson, E. W. Effects of Teacher Inservice on Instruction and Learning. Tucson, Ariz., 1969. ED 037 383. Roberts, D. E. A Modest Proposal—1972 Edition. International Reading Association, Conference Paper, May 1972. ED 063 078. Rosner, Benjamin. The British Teacher Center: A Report on Its Develop ment, Current Operations, Effects and Applicability to Teacher Education in the U.S. Nov. 1972. ED 090 165 (abstract). Ross, Marlene. School-College Collaboration in Preparing School Personnel: A Guide to Selected Documents in the ERIC Collection, 1966-68. May 1969. ED 029 000. 195 Rowe, M. B. , and P. D. Hurd. The Use of Inservice Programs to Diagnose  Sources of Resistance to Innovation. 1966. ED 010 990. Rubin, L. J. A Study on the Continuing Education of Teachers. 1969. ED 036 487 (abstract). Ruddell, R. B., and A. C. Williams. A Research Investigation of a Liter  ary Teaching Model, Project DELTA. University of California, Berkeley, 1972. ED 085 652. Russell, D. Inservice Programs in Reading. Highlights of the 1967 Pre-Convention Institutes, International Reading Association, 1967. ED 071 062. RX Prescription for Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction. Washing ton, D.C., Office of Education, April 1975. ED 109 597. Sanders, J. E. Preparing Educators in an Inservice Program in Learning  Disabilities. Merrimack, Mass., March 1973. ED 075 967. Saturation Reading Program. Phoenix, Ariz., 1967. ED 016 016. Schankerman, Maurice. Inservice Education: A Study of the Participation Patterns of a Selected Group of Elementary School Teachers. Indiana University, Bloomington, 1968. Dissertation. ED 034 118 (abstract). Schiffman, G. B. A Pattern for Improving the Effect of Reading Personnel. 1969. ED 037 332 (abstract). Schult, Veryl, and T. L. Shell. Inservice Mathematics Education. Washington, D.C., 1964. ED 001 306. Seagren, A. T. Design for Effective Staff Development. Kansas City, Missouri, 1974. ED 088 811. Selden, David, and David Darland. Teacher Centers: Who's in Charge? 1972. ED 086 674 (abstract). Shearron, G. F. Inservice/Needs Assessment/Competency Based Teacher Education. March 1974. ED 091 331 (abstract). Shepherd, Terry, and Nancy Quisenberry. Project Follow-up: A Model for Developing Professional Competencies in First Year Teachers. Southern Illinois University, 1972. ED 083 207 (abstract). Shirley, D. D. Kansas Right-to-Read Program Evaluation, Summer Workshop, 1974. Sept. 1974. ED 096 629 (abstract). Shirley, J. M. Situational 'Givens' and Graduate and Inservice Teacher Education. 1974. ED 101 367. 196 Shorey, L. L. Some Factors Affecting the Personal and Professional Growth of Teachers. Windsor, Ontario, Feb. 1970. ED 036 769 (abstract). Sikula, J. P. Teacher Education for an Urban Setting. Educational Com ment, 1973. 1973. ED 087 712 (abstract). Singleton, Roy, Jr. Instructional Packaging: The Efficacy and Utility of  the Learning Module as a Major Vehicle in Competency Based Teacher  Education Programs in Reading and Language Arts at the University  of North Florida. May 1974. ED 098 496. Skailand, Dawn. Teacher Education Through Minicourse 18: Teaching Reading  as Decoding. ED 074 719. Snow, R. E. A Model Teacher Training System: An Overview. Stanford University, August 1972. ED 066 437. Sobol, F. T. What Variables Appear Important in Changing Traditional In-service Training Procedures. Nov. 1971. ED 083 146. Stander, A. C. Assessing Teachers' Needs, A First Step in Planning CBTE  (Competency Based Teacher Education). March 1975. ED 103 886. Steen, M. T., and Dewey Lipe. The Use of the Teacher Observation Scale in the Development of the PLAN Teacher Training Program. March 1970. ED 037 414 (abstract). STEP Teacher Education Project. San Francisco State College, 1968. ED 027 247. Sticht, T. G. The Acquisition of Literacy by Children and Adults. Paper from Second Delaware Symposium on Curriculum, Instruction and Learning: The Acquisition of Reading, University of Delaware, Newark, 1975. ED 112 363. Strom, R. D. The Preface Plan. A New Concept of Inservice Training for  Teachers Newly Assigned to Urban Neighborhoods of Low Income. Ohio State University, Columbus, Aug. 1967. ED 017 596. Suiter, P. E., and Bernard Queen. Rationale, Development, and Validation of a Series of Self-Instructional Modules in Interaction Analysis. May 1970. ED 041 867 (abstract). Suloway, I. J., and M. Shugrue. Promising Practices in the Teaching of  English—1963. National Council of Teachers of English, 1963. ED 058 180. Summary of the Specification for a Comprehensive Undergraduate and In- service Teacher Education Program for Elementary Teachers. Syracuse University, New York, Oct. 1968. ED 035 594. 197 Sweeney, T. J. A Developmental Program for Vocational Counselors Directed  Toward Serving Disadvantaged Youth More Effectively. University of South Carolina, 1966. ED 010 074. Syropoulos, Mike. Evaluation of the Federally Assisted Staff Training (FAST) Project. Detroit, Oct. 1972. ED 077 849 (abstract). A Systematic Approach to Inservice Training for Teachers in Learning  Disabilities. Merrimack, Mass., Nov. 1971. ED 058 161. Tamminen, A. W. An Institute for the Training of Participants in the ES/70 Projects. Minnesota, April 1970. ED 042 738 (abstract). Tanner, J. R., and G. W. Denemark. The Focus of the Teacher Center in an Educational Renewal Site. Feb. 1972. ED 086 675 (abstract). Taylor, S. S., and I. R. Jahns. The Effects of Microtraining for Attend ing Behaviors in Adult Testing. ED 094 108 (abstract). The Teacher Education Center: A Unifying Approach to Teacher Education. Maryland University. ED 073 072. Teacher Education Learning Centers. Nov. 1974. ED 097 212 (abstract). Teacher Training in California. Nov. 1974. ED 106 288 (abstract). Teaching Innovations in Schools Associated with the Educational Research  Council of America. Inservice Education and Staff Utilization. Cleveland, 1971. ED 057 468. Teitelbaum, Deena. An Evaluation of an Experimental Program of Assistance  for Newly Appointed Teachers in Special Service Elementary Schools. New York, June 1961. ED 002 344. Texas Adult Basic Education Production Workshop. Austin, June 1968. ED 030 830. Theimer, W. C, Jr. Utilization of Consultants in Inservice Training. April 1972. ED 068 436 (abstract). Thompson, J. L., and N. C. Johnson. Inservice Education: New Directions for Colleges of Education. 1975. ED 109 088 (abstract). A Three-Part, Flexible, Individualized Teacher Education Program. Minnesota, Nov. 1973. ED 085 359 (abstract). Thurber, J. C. Individualized Inservice Teacher Education (Project In- Step). Florida, Dec. 1971. ED 059 161. Training Program for Teachers in the Technologies. Final Report for Fiscal Year 1971-1972. June 1972. ED 067 494 (abstract). 198 Treffinger, D. J., et al. Teachers' Attitudes About Creativity. 1967. ED 013 803. Trosky, 0. S. Modifications in Teachers' Questioning Behavior in the Development of Reading Comprehension and a Series of Supervisory  Conferences. Toronto, April 1971. ED 051 982. Urbach, F. D., et al. Instructional Staff Development. July 1972. ED 077 853 (abstract). The Usefulness of Minicourse I in the Inservice Training of Elementary  Teachers. State University of New York, 1972. ED 072 006. Van Fleet, Alanson. Florida's Teacher Education Centers: A New State Policy for Teacher Education. May 1975. ED 106 267 (abstract). Viall, W. P., et al. English Teacher Preparation Study, Guidelines for the Preparation of Teachers of English. National Council of Teachers of English, Oct. 1967. ED 014 479 (abstract). Villeme, M. G. Promoting Systematic Instruction Through Inservice Education. ED 102 129 (abstract). Ward, Ted, and S. J. Levine. Yours—For a Better Workshop! Oct. 1971. ED 085 974 (abstract). Werner, E. R., et al. The Minicourse as a Method for Training Teachers to Stimulate Divergent Thinking. 1972. ED 064 340 (abstract). Westby-Gibson, Dorothy. Inservice Education—Perspectives for Education. Far West Laboratory, 1967. ED 015 161. White, M. A., et al. A Study of Contrasting Patterns in Inservice Educa  tion. Texas University, Austin, 1967. ED 021 807. Williams, R. P. Expanding Practices in Secondary Reading Inservice Pro grams. International Reading Association, Conference Paper, April 1968. ED 026 201 (abstract). . The Final Report of the Institute for Advanced Study in Reading for Teams of Principals and Teachers, Grades 7-12, Conducted at New  Mexico State University. Oct. 1967. ED 020 074. Williams, R. T., and M. A. Kaman. A Model for the Development of a Reading and Study Skills Inventory for Every Content Area. 1975. ED 108 115 (abstract). Wilson, U., et al. A Guide for Conducting a Teacher Self-Improvement Program. June 1972. ED 079 259 (abstract). Winsand, J. E. A Tri-Univer-City Project for Teachers in Inner-City Schools. April 1971. ED 050 217 (abstract). 199 Wiseman, Mel. Secondary Teachers Can Teach Reading. International Read ing Association, Conference Paper, May 1970. ED 045 313. Wright, D. L. Verbal Behaviours Occurring in Biology Classes Engaged in Inquiry Learning. Detroit, March 1973. ED 089 942 (abstract). Wright, W. R. The Wabash Valley Education Center, Final Report. Indiana, 1970. ED 059 146 (abstract). Yarger, S.J. A Tool for the Analysis of Teacher Centers in American Education—A Working Paper. 1973. ED 086 676 (abstract). Zito, Alan, and Bernard Gross. A Procedure for Development of Competency-Based Performance Statements and Module Development for Use with Inservice and Preservice Education. Rochester, New York, 1972. ED 084 255 (abstract). The 1970-71 Revision of the Five-Year Master Plan for Inservice Teacher  Education. Florida, June 1970. ED 079 262. Dissertations Adams, H. B. A Model of Inservice Education. Wayne State University, 1974. Adams, R. J. Building a Foundation for Evaluation of Instruction in Higher Education and Continuing Education. Ohio State University, 1973. Ainsworth, B. A. Stated Perceptions of Teachers Regarding Inservice Programs. University of Maryland, 1974. Allen, B. B. An Inservice Education Model and Effects of Implementation on Teacher Perception of Students. Brigham Young University, 1974. Almase, A. G. Modification of Teacher Behavior Through an Inservice Biology Methods Course. Michigan State University, 1973. Anderson, G. R. A Study of Inservice Education in the Public Secondary Schools of Texas. North Texas State University, 1975. Angius, Dushan. The Appropriateness of Selected Inservice Education Prac tices as Perceived by Secondary School Educators. University of the Pacific, 1974. Apple, E. T. A Study of the Effectiveness of Workshops for Vocational Teachers of Disadvantaged High School Students in Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University, 1973. Archer, D. E. An Inservice Training Program for Teachers on Dr. Rudolf Dreikurs's Approach to Discipline: A Case Study. University of Massachusetts, 1975. 200 Arnold, J. A. The Design and Evaluation of an Individualized Inservice Program for Elementary Teachers. University of Pittsburgh, 1973. Ashley, J. P. A Study of the Impact of an Inservice Education Program on Teacher Behavior. University of Texas, 1967. Atkins, J. P. Inservice Experiences for Secondary Social Studies Teachers in Selected Public Schools in Tennessee. University of Tennessee, 1968. Auer, N. B. Miniteaching Unit: The Development of an Inservice Program for Individualizing Reading Instruction. University of Pittsburgh, 1972. Bauer, M. E. H. A Study of Needs and Presentation Preferences for Possible Inservice Education Programs as Expressed by Secondary English Teachers and Administrators in Texas. University of Houston, 1975. Bean, R. M. An Inservice Program Designed to Change Teacher Questioning Behavior During the Teaching of Reading Comprehension. University of Pittsburgh, 1974. Beck, W. W. A Study of Models for Inservice Education: An Analysis of a "Growth" Workshop as Applied to the Inservice Education of Secondary Social Studies Teachers. Ohio State University, 1975. Berck, L. F. The Relative Effectiveness of Two Methods of Inservice Education in Reading. Hofstra University, 1971. Bigelow, E. B. A Survey, Analysis, and Proposed Program of Inservice Education in Selected School Districts in Six Midwestern States. University of South Dakota, 1969. Bonorden, H. J. An Analysis of Inservice Education in the Public Schools of Texas as Related to the Ten Days of Inservice Education Law as Enacted by the Sixty-first Legislature. Texas A & M University, 1974. Borgealt, A. J. Teacher Perceptions of Inservice Activities: An Exploratory Study. University of Iowa, 1969. Brown, L. H. A Study of a Process of Inservice Education for Teachers of English with Reference to Chicago School Criticism and the Tyler Curricular Rationale. State University of New York at Albany, 1972. Bushman, J. H. Studies in Classroom Interaction as They Relate to the Preparation and Continuing Education of Teachers of English. University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign, 1971. Campbell, D. C. An Inservice Program for Personalizing Teaching in Secondary Schools. University of Massachusetts, 1974. 201 Carsetti, J. K. A Demonstration of the Effectiveness of an Evaluation of an Inservice Program in Terms of Changes in Teacher Behavior. University of Maryland, 1969. Catalani, A. R. A Study of Selected, Nationwide Inservice Education Pro grams for Secondary School Teachers of English Grades 7-12, From Fall 1969 Through the Academic Year 1971-72. University of Texas at Austin, 1972. Chapman, S. J. Inservice Education Programs for Teachers in the Winnipeg School Division #1. A Survey of Policies, Practices and Opinions. University of Manitoba, 1967. (M.Ed.) Ciaglia, E. R. The Effects of an Instructional Behavior and Skills Development Program Upon Inservice Teacher Behavior. University of Missouri, Columbia, 1973. Dahl, T. C. Attitudes of Ontario Secondary School Teachers Towards Teaching of Reading in Ontario Secondary Schools. University of British Columbia, 1970. (M.A.) Dexter, B. L. Simovation: Experiential Teacher Education Workshops. Duke University, 1975. Durkin, J. E. "Mini-Sabbatical": An Alternative Model of Staff Develop ment for Urban Schools. University of Massachusetts, 1975. Dutro, R. F. The Effect of Inservice Education of Teachers on Student Achievement Scores While Using Three Approaches to Teaching Read ing. Ohio State University, 1973. Edwards, Peter. A Computer Generated Corpus and Lexical Analysis of English Language Instructional Materials Prescribed for Use in Grades 8, 9 and 10 in British Columbia Secondary Schools. Uni versity of British Columbia, 1974. Edwards, P. K. D. Teachers' Perceptions of Present Practices, Process-Needs, Alternative Delivery Systems and Priority of Inservice Education. University of Michigan, 1975. Ellis, B. J. A Study of Inservice Education Programs in the New Hampshire Public Schools. Boston University, School of Education, 1975. Ellis, G. B. Determination and Testing of a Needs Assessment Technique for Harvesting the Educational Needs of Professionals. University of Utah, 1974. Fahy, P. J. A Survey of Reading Instruction in the Senior High Schools of Alberta. University of Alberta, 1972. (M.A.) Feinberg, M. W. An Analysis of Guidelines for Inservice Teacher Education Practices in Selected Schools—Grades 5-9. Northwestern University, 1974. 202 Firth, J. L. An Investigation of the Effectivenss of the Bessell-Palomares Inservice Training Program on Teacher Attitudes. Arizona State Uni versity, 1974. Forte, M. C. A Comparative Analysis of Pupil-Teacher Interaction During Episodes of Reading Instruction. Hofstra University, 1975. Frazier, J. G. Effects of a Systematic Inservice Training Model on the Teaching Performance and Skills of a Group of First Grade Teachers. Wayne State University, 1975. Gabbard, L.J. A Description of the Processes and Activities -and the Application of an Evaluation Model to a Continuing Inservice Project for Curriculum Renewal. Indiana University, 1973. Gibson, E. H. The Characteristics of Secondary School English Teachers in the State of Colorado for the Years 1968-1970, in the Areas of Preparation, Working Conditions and Inservice Conditions. University of Northern Colorado, 1971. Goodson, R. A. The Development of Three Instruments to Aid in the Analysis of Teacher Practices, Problems and Theoretical Beliefs Concerning the Teaching of Reading in the Later Elementary Grades. Columbia University, 1965. Green, G. T. The Effects of an Inservice Education Program on the Skills and Attitudes of Elementary and Secondary School Personnel. University of Michigan, 1974. Green, P. F. A Participant-Observer Evaluation of an Inservice Teacher Workshop. University of Massachusetts, 1970. Grella, M. A. An Investigation into Inservice Education in Reading in the Public Elementary Schools of West Virginia. West Virginia Univer sity, 1974. Gygi, Carole. Development of a Teacher Rating Instrument: Methodological Implications. Portland State University, 1974. Hargrave, D. M. A Needs Assessment in Secondary English. Arizona State University, 1975. Hargrove, G. W. An Investigation of Attitudes of Secondary Teachers Toward Reading in the Content Areas as Measured by a Modified Likert-Type Scale. University of South Carolina, 1973. Hatch, J. C. Television Performance Effectiveness: A Study of Related Variables and the Effects of Inservice Training and Evaluative Feedback. University of Wisconsin,' 1968. Hebert, Adlar. A Study of the Preservice and Inservice Education of Ele mentary School Teachers in the Teaching of Reading and Their Specific Needs and Problems in Teaching Reading. McNeese State University, 1973. 203 Heeney, W. C. A Study of the Effect of Inservice Training Upon Academic, Vocational, and Spec/Lai Education Teachers' Performance in Individ ualization of Instruction. University of Texas at Austin, 1973. Hennessey, L. F. The Gloucester Plan of Inservice Training. University of Ottawa, 1952. Houston, A. V. The Effects of Inservice Education in Interaction Analysis on Teacher Classroom Behavior with an Emphasis on Self-Improvement. University of Texas at Austin, 1974. Hrivnak, J. T. The Use of Interaction and Feedback in an Inservice Education Model. University of Pittsburgh, 1970. ED 050 036. Hunter, G. W. Professional Growth-In-Service of the Teachers in the Public Schools of the City of Vancouver. University of British Columbia, 1938. (M.A.) Huseth, D. H. A Descriptive Analysis of an Inservice Counselor Training Program for Ministers. University of Oregon, 1973. Hutchinson, E. J. A Study of Reading Instruction in Wisconsin Public Secondary Schools in 1955 and 1960 with Special Reference to the Teachers of English. University of Wisconsin, 1961. Hyslop, D. J. A Study of Inservice Education at Selected California Com munity Colleges in Relation to Institutional Needs and Posture. Michigan State University, 1974. Iverson, M. R. Effects of Inservice Training on Teachers' Perceptions Toward Diagnostic-Prescriptive Reading Instruction. University of Utah, 1974. Jaffa, N. N. An Evaluation of the Planning Aspect of the Inservice Teacher Education Program of the Elementary Division of the Baltimore City Department of Education. University of Maryland, 1957. James, J. H. Evaluation of a Junior High School Inservice Program Designed to Help Teachers Provide for Pupils' Individual Differences in Reading Abilities. University of Miami, 1969. Jaquith, C. E. An Analysis of Perceptions of Junior High/Middle School Teachers, Principals, and University Specialists Concerning Inservice Education. University of Michigan, 1973. Jenkins, J. A. The Teaching of Reading by English Teachers in Indiana Public Schools. University of Tennessee, 1972. Jones, R. M., Jr. The Effect of Inservice Training on the Performance and Attitudes of Inner-City Teachers. University of Southern California, 1972. Kaz , S. E. An Analysis of Teacher Inservice Education in an Urban School System. Columbia University, 1971. 204 Keliher, E. C. A Survey of Inservice Education Practices in Southeastern Michigan. Wayne State University, 1972. Kelly, H. D. Effects of an Inservice Education Program Utilizing Simulated Classroom Procedures on Classroom Teachers' Awareness of Pupils' Instructional Reading Levels in the Classroom. Case Western Reserve University, 1967. Kennedy, G. W. An Inservice Program Designed to Improve the Teaching of Reading Study Skills. University of Pittsburgh, 1972. Kerns, H. V. A Descriptive Study of the Development and Presentation of an In-School Television Program for the Inservice Education of Junior High School Science Teachers. Auburn University, 1962. Kies, D. A. Curriculum Changes in the Preparation of Reading Teachers. University of Arizona, 1970. Kinzer, C. K. A Status Survey of Reading Programs in British Columbia Secondary Schools: 1976. University of British Columbia, 1976. (M.A.) Kiteley, J. W. A Survey of Reading Instruction in Nine Burnaby Schools with Recommendations to the Burnaby School Board. University of British Columbia, 1975. Major Paper (M.Ed.) Kochan, J. M. A Study in the Prediction of Teaching Efficiency. Univer sity of Manitoba, 1957. (M.Ed.) Larson, 0. P. A Study of Inservice Education in the School Divisions and Counties of Alberta. University of Oregon, 1962. Light, J. D. A Model for the Formative Evaluation of Teacher Inservice Education Programs. Ball State University, 1975. Lister, R. L. A Study of Certain Factors Which Contribute to Good Inser vice Education Programmes for Elementary Teachers. University of Victoria, 1970. (M.A.) Lloyd, D. M. The Effects of a Staff Development Inservice Program on Teacher Performance and Student Achievement. University of California, Los Angeles, 1973. McGuire, E. E. Development of an Inservice Workshop Model to Effect Change in Teacher Behavior and Attitudes. University of Minnesota, 1971. McKay, J. W. A Summary of Scientific Research and Professional Literature on Reading Interests of Secondary School Students—Grades 7-12, 1889-1965. University of Pittsburgh, 1968. 205 McNamara, M. V. D. The Effects of Inservice Reading Demonstrations Upon Student Reading Achievement Scores in Selected Title I Schools. Loyola University of Chicago, 1975. Magnus, A. M. K. Evaluation of Inservice Training for School District Personnel: Development and Implementation of an Evaluation Proce dure with Reference to the Instructional Development Institute. University of Southern California, 1974. Margules, M. A Comparison of Supervisors' Ratings of Most Effective and Least Effective I.A. Teachers on Three Competency Dimensions. University of Ottawa, 1968. Mark, J. L. Training and Utilization of Paraprofessionals: A Study of the Nation's Public School Systems Enrolling 5,000 or More Pupils. University of Massachusetts, 1975. Mason, W. E. Identification of Inner-City Inservice Training Variables Most Significant in Modification of Authoritarian Teacher Attitudes. Saint Louis University, 1975. Massey, R. M. The Application of a Systems Model of Instructional Design to the Development of Inservice Training Materials for Professional Educators. Florida State University, 1975. Matthews, Sister M. A. A Design for Inservice Programs for the Twenty-four High Schools in New Jersey Administered by the Sisters of Charity. Columbia University, 1973. Maudlin, R. M. A Descriptive Analysis of a Series of Inservice Meetings Based Upon a Curriculum Evaluation. Ball State University, 1973. Means, H. J. Analysis of the Content, Proportion of Time Spent on Con tent, and Course Structure of Secondary English Methods Courses in Iowa. University of Iowa, 1974. Melvin, J. E. Developing and Field-Testing Modular Materials in the Area of Reading for Use With Elementary School Principals. University of Georgia, 1975. Merryman, D. P. A Case Study of Individualized Inservice Training of Teachers in Educational Media. Temple University, 1973. Miller, J. P. The Effects of Inservice Human Relations Training on Teacher Interpersonal Functioning. University of Toronto, 1971. Moon, H. H., Jr. Middle School Teacher Development: A Continuous Education Model. Ohio State University, 1975. Neale, J. L. An Examination of an Inservice Course to Effect Change in Teachers' Attitudes Toward Teaching Art: A Study Conducted in Economically Poor Areas of Chicago. New York University, 1973. 206 Newhouse, W. J. A Simultation Inservice Model Program for Elementary Teachers of the New Social Studies. Ohio University, 1973. Norman, B. L. C. Comparing First Year Teaching of Former Undergraduate Interns and Former Student Teachers as Determined by Pupil Reading Achievement Gains. University of Houston, 1973. Owen, A. R. Teacher Preparation and Student Course Availability in Texas Junior High School Reading Programs. Texas A & M University, 1970. Pane, I. F. A Survey to Determine the Need for Specialized Preservice and Inservice Programs for Junior High/Middle School Teachers in the State of Nebraska. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1973. Paulausky, E. E. An Evaluation of the Workshop as a Learning and Motiva tional Experience for Adults. Loyola University of Chicago, 1973. Pennington, F. C. Program Development in Continuing Professional Educa tion: A Comparative Analysis of Process in Medicine, Social Work, and Teaching. University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign, 1976. Piper, M. K. The Development and Evaluation of a Televised Science In-service Program. University of Texas at Austin, 1974. Post, L. M. A Survey 'of the Perceptions of Teachers and Supervisory Staff of Inservice Education and Teacher Skill Needs, with Implications for a Model of Inservice Education. Syracuse University, 1975. Powell, D. R. A Study of the Role of the University in the Education of Teachers in Service. Northwestern University, 1974. Reed, D. F. The Development of an Observational System for Classroom Management. Columbia University Teachers College, 1975. Reichirt, D. M. A Case Study of a Workshop Designed to Define, Evaluate, and Develop Teaching Competence in the Open Classroom. University of Rochester, 1974. Roseborough, R. A. The Communication of Useable Feedback from Tape Record ings of Classroom Interaction in a Teacher Inservice Training Pro gram. A Pilot Study. University of Alberta, 1968. (M.Ed.) Roy, R. J. Study of the Effectiveness of a Systematically Planned Teacher Inservice Education Program to Facilitate Implementation of an Open-Space, Open-Education Junior High School. Wayne State Uni versity, 1975. Ruffin, Herbert. A Proposed Model for Inservice Training of Inner City Teachers. University of Kansas, 1973. 207 Ruiz, Eliseo, Jr. A Training Component Designed to Affect the Attitudes and Behavior of Educational Practitioners Toward Mexican American Students. University of Texas at Austin, 1975. Rush, D. L. Preservice Preparation of Prospective Secondary Teachers of . Reading. Ball State University, 1970. Sabin, J. E. The Effectiveness of Reading Methods Courses in Developing Certain Competencies Vital to Effective Reading Instruction. Ball State University, 1973. Sanders, J. H. A Semantic Differential Analysis of Inservice Education in a Five State Region. University of Iowa, 1969. Scharles, W. W. Development and Evaluation of an Intensive, Short-term, Inservice Teacher Training Program on Learning Disabilities. The American University, 1971. Schoenholz, B. L. An Analysis of Effective Teaching Behavior as Related to Vocabulary Instruction in Grades Seven, Eight and Nine. Hofstra University, 1975. Schreiber, F. 0. Inservice Education Preferences of Teachers and Admin istrators in the Province of Alberta. University of Montana, 1975. Schumer, A. B. An Educational Change Model: Preservice, Inservice Continuum. University of Massachusetts, 1973. Smith, A. J. Techniques for Educating Teachers Inservice. University of Connecticut, 1966. Soloway, M. M. The Development and Evaluation of a Special Education Inservice Training Program for Regular Classroom Teachers. University of California, Los Angeles, 1974. Sorsabal, D. K. A Critical Evaluation of Inservice Training for Classi fied Employees in Selected Educational Organizations in the United States. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1969. ED 034 960. Spennato, N. A. The Development and Implementation of a Reading Curriculum Through Inservice Education (with) Appendix D: Reading Guide. Temple University, 1974. Steck, K. D. A Study to Determine the Effects of Inservice Education on Teachers' Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. University of Utah, 1975. Stephens, C. A. Developing and Field-Testing a Content Area Reading Pro ficiency Modular-Based Inservice Program. University of Georgia, 1973. Stoll, R. H. The Mini-Course as a Supervisory Strategy to Improve Instruc tion. Rutgers University, 1975. 208 Tetley, D. F. The Relationship of Certain Teacher Characteristics to Pupil Achievement in Reading. University of Alberta, 1964. (M.A.) Thompson, D. E. An Inservice Program Designed to Change Elementary Teacher Attitudes Toward Black Dialect. Western Michigan University, 1973. Tilley, H. T. Inservice Teacher Education: A Tool for Change. University of Massachusetts, 1971. Timms, A. F. An Analysis of Classroom Teachers' Translations of the Ideas Gained from Inservice Experinces into Classroom Procedures. University of Pittsburgh, 1975. Turner, I. S. A Study of Teachers' Perceptions of an Inservice Program in Three Southern Maryland Counties. George Washington University, 1970. Uche, W. W. A Study of the Perceptions of Occupational Instructors and Administrators of Inservice Education Programs in the Technical Institutes and Community Colleges of North Carolina. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1973. Usova, G. M. A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Reading Instruction Among Secondary Principals, Secondary Reading Specialists, and Secondary Content Area Teachers in Secondary Schools in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. University of Pittsburgh, 1973. Ward, K. W. An Interinstitutional Approach to Inservice Education for Public School Personnel: The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop, 1971-72. Michigan State University, 1973. Weipert, L. F. Inservice Education in the Social Studies. University of Colorado, 1975. Westbury, R. C. P. To Design and Field Test an , Inservice Education/ Curriculum Development Model. Florida State University, 1975. White, S. M. Examination of Inservice Programs in New Brunswick. Uni versity of New Brunswick, 1974. (M.A.) Whitworth, R. C. An Appraisal of the Problems Experienced by and the Techniques Used by English Teachers in Indianapolis, Indiana, Secondary Schools in Improving Student Reading Tastes. Indiana University, 1964. Williams, D. G. A Comparative Evaluation of Two Humanizing Approaches to Inservice Training of Teachers. North Texas State University, 1974. Williams, F. J. Teacher Continuing Education Program Needs Through Pro fessional Negotiations. University of Nebraska, 1972. 209 Wright, A. W. The Problems of Beginning Elementary Teachers in Newfound land Schools and the Relationship of These Problems with Preser vice and Inservice Programs. University of Northern Colorado, 1975. Young, D. M. W. The Effectiveness of an Inservice Education Program for Regular Classroom Primary Teachers Regarding the Recognition and Accommodation of Children with Learning Problems. University of Pittsburgh, 1973. 210 APPENDIX A Assessing Inservice Needs in Reading SECTION ONE Please complete the following: 1. Present Position (check most appropriate) A. Classroom teacher B. Administrator or Supervisor C. Other • Explain: 2. Course or Content Area in which most teaching time is spent: 3. Grade with which you spend most of your teaching time 4. Years of teaching experience 5. Number of Courses in: Developmental Reading Corrective or Remedial Reading ' 6. Number of Inservice Programs in Reading you have attended 7. Please rate each of the following types of Inservice on this scale: 1 - preferred, 2 - acceptable, 3 - unacceptable a. Lecture e. Simulation Activities _ b. Illustrated lecture f. Teacher Centers _ c. Demonstrations g. Visitations to other programs _ d. Workshops h. Supervision from local Reading Resources Personnel 8. On the following time-place matrix, please indicate your willingness  to attend Reading Inservice Programs. Fill in each square, a-1, using 2 - usually 3 - sometimes 4 Inservice in our school or neigh boring school this scale: - seldom 5 Inservice anywhere within dis trict or within 30 mis. 1 - Almost always - never Inservice outside district beyond 30 mis. After-school a. b. c. Saturdays d. e. f. Professional Days g. h. i. Released time j. k. 1. 211 Appendix A (continued) DIRECTIONS FOR SECTIONS TWO AND THREE  STEP (1) Please rate each of the items in Sections Two and Three (on the page to your right) as to how essential they are to your teaching. Use the scale below and place your responses in Column,. I (Important Practices) . 1. essential 4. of little importance 2. important 5. of no importance 3. of moderate importance 6. lack of familiarity STEP (2) A variety of circumstances (e.g., lack of time, resources, training) may interfere with the use of skills and techniques which are considered important. What teachers consider important may not be what they can practice. To help us understand present classroom practices, please go through the items in sections Two and Three in terms of your present classroom practices and rate them on the frequency scale below. Place your responses in Column II (Present Practices). A. almost always D. rarely B. often E. never C. sometimes F. not applicable STEP (3) Finally, to indicate your priorities for Reading Inservice, please rate each item in Sections Two and Three on a scale of 1-5 using the classi fications below. Place your responses in Column III (Priority of Need). 1. high priority 2. important 3. of moderate importance 4. not very important 5. of no importance 212 Appendix A (continued) M |l rH SECTION TWO: Techniques and Strategies 8 IMPORTANT PRACTICES Column II PRESENT PRACTICES Column III PRIORITY OF NEEDS 1. Determination of the reading levels of material 2. Identification and selection of appropriate instructional materials 3. Identification and selection of appropriate supplementary materials 4. Identification, use, and interpretation of standardized tests for assessing student potential 5. Identification and use of informal techniques for assessing student potential 6. Determination of students' reading interests and attitudes 7. Determination of strategies for dealing with disabled readers 8. Determination of strategies for dealing with superior students 9. Determination of strategies for dealing with divergent interests and attitudes 10. Provision for individualizing instruction (e.g., small groups) 11. Determination and development of appropriate reading objectives 12. Utilization of various questioning techniques 13. Development of motivational strategies for the classroom 14. Identification of strategies for teaching specific subject skills related to reading (e.g., graphs, maps, diagrams) SECTION THREE: Skill Development 1. Provision for vocabulary skills development 2. Provision for comprehension skills development 3. Provision for the development of critical reading 4. Instruction in study skills 5. Instruction in research and reference skills 6. Provision for the development of rate and flexibility 7. Provision for the development of word recognition skills TINA TEACHERS INSERVICE NEEDS ASSESSMENT (TINA) Third Edition Developed By: Dr. Charles T. Mangrum II Adapted from Workshop Packet for Educational Goals and Objectives PHI DELTA KAPPA, Inc. Appendix B (continued) 214 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND DIRECTIONS FOR INSERVICE LEADERS Purpose: Teachers Inservice Needs Assessment (TINA) is an assessment device designed to identify and place in priority rank the inservice needs of teachers who are responsible for the teaching of reading skills and habits. It is designed to be used by Inservice Coordinators, Reading Specialists, and others responsible for developing long-range inservice plans. This assessment device was freely adapted from the Workshop Packet for Educational Goals and Objectives; a Model Program for Commun ity and Professional Involvement distributed by PHI DELTA KAPPA, Inc. Components: The TINA packet consists of the following components: 1. Background Information and Directions for Inservice Leaders 2. Directions for Participants 3. Summary Form for Individuals 4. Selected Competencies for Teaching Reading, Form A and Form B 5. Display Board 6. Summary Form for Group 7. Colored Discs Directions for Using Teachers Inservice Needs Assessment (TINA) 1. TINA can be used with small groups of teachers such as the faculty of a single school or with large groups of teachers from a number of schools in the same school district or system. 2. Once the decision has been made to develop an inservice plan the faculty should be informed of this decision. A letter such as the following may be helpful for preparing teachers for the assessment. The letter specifies the purpose, place, date, and time of the assessment. Dear Teacher: We are in the process of formulating our long-range inservice plan for the school district. We need your assistance in helping us project the inservice needs of teachers as they relate to reading instruction throughout our district. To, determine the need for reading inservice training, I am asking that you participate in a needs assessment program to be held at Stonewall Jackson School on March 5, 19 at 7:30 p.m. Your involvement will insure that the inservice program designed for our school district is formulated on the basis of a survey of teacher needs. Professionally, John P. Jones Inservice Director 1 Appendix B (continued) 215 3. Using TINA at least 1% hours are needed for the assessment of inservice needs. Time should be scheduled when teachers are not under other pressures so they are free to think through their needs while participating in the process of assessment. An environment containing tables and chairs is advised since the materials used by each teacher require considerable surface area. 4. Select from option A or B. A. Once the participants are assembled, discuss the competen cies needed by teachers to teach reading. List the various competencies offered on a blackboard for all to see. Write a brief definition or list issabactivities associated with the competency. A list such as the SELECTED COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHING READING Form B may be obtained. When no new items are added to the list, close off the discussion. Have each teacher write the competencies on Form A of SELECTED COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHING READING. Go to 5. B. Tell the teachers you would like to show them a list of competencies needed for teaching reading. Distribute a set of the SELECTED COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHING READING, Form B,to each teacher. Have the teachers examine the list to determine if all the competencies they believe to be important are on the list. They may add or delete as they feel the need. They may also modify competency statements. Go to 5. 5. When each teacher has a list of competencies for teaching reading and has made her desired modifications, distribute the following to each teacher: (a) DIRECTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS, (b) SELECTED COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHING READING, Form A or B, (c) DISPLAY BOARD, (d) SUMMARY FORM FOR INDIVIDUALS, and (e) PACKET CONTAINING COLORED DISCS. 6. Ask the teachers to count the number of competencies they have all agreed upon. Then direct the teachers to take out of the packet containing colored discs, 2% discs for each competency. The remaining discs should be left in the packet. Each packet should contain 38 discs which is sufficient for 15 competencies. Additional discs will be needed if more than 15 competency statements are used. 7. Have each teacher open the DISPLAY BOARD. 8. Have each teacher cut or tear the competency statements along the lines to form separate statements. Then have each teacher place the statements on the DISPLAY BOARD under the heading "TEACHING COMPETENCIES." 9. Have the participants read the DIRECTIONS TO THE PARTICIPANTS. Elaborate on directions as requested. Once the teachers understand the procedures, allow thirty minutes for completing the task. As each teacher completes the task, they are to identify themselves by raising their hand. 10. When each teacher identifies herself, go to the teacher's station and obtain her score for each competency. Transfer her score from the SUMMARY FORM FOR INDIVIDUALS to the SUMMARY FORM FOR GROUP. When 2 216 Appendix B (continued) all the teachers have completed the task, total the number of points for each objective to obtain a total score. Divide the total score by the number of participants to obtain an average score. Once you have an average score for each objective, rank them. 11. Those ranking above 2.5 should be considered of sufficient importance to become objectives for the inservice program. The rank order of objectives will tell the inservice leaders the preferred order for inservice instruction. 12. The results: (a) objectives of the inservice program and (b) rank order for inservicing should be reported to the teachers. A sugges ted format follows: Dear Teacher: You recently participated in an activity designed to identify and place in priority your inservice needs relative to the teaching of reading. Results have been tabulated and are being distributed for your information. These results will be used in establishing our long-range inservice plan for the teaching of reading. Thank you for your cooperation and valuable information which will help us develop an inservice plan relevant to your needs. Teacher Inservice Needs Listed According to Priority: Grades K-3 1. Individualizing instruction 2. Diagnosis 3. Prescriptive teaching 4. Motivation 5. Evaluation Grades 4-8 1. Motivation 2. Individualizing instruction 3. Materials 4. Diagnosis 5. Developing interests, attitudes and appreciation in reading John P. Jones Inservice Director 13. The assessment is now completed. You are now ready to plan the inservice program. 3 217 Appendix B (continued) Note: The BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND DIRECTIONS FOR INSERVICE LEADERS is not to be distributed to participants. The participants packets need to contain only the following: 1. Directions to Participants 2. Competencies for teaching reading 3. Display Board 4. Summary Form for Individuals 5. Two and one half (2%) discs per competency DIRECTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS 1. In order to complete this activity you will need the following mater ials : a. Directions for Participants (what you are reading) b. Competencies for teaching reading c. Display Board d. Summary form for individuals e. Two and one-half (2Jg) colored discs per competency 2. Examine the list containing competencies for teaching reading. The list contains competencies followed by a number of statements which define the competency. Read each competency with particular atten tion to the definition or sub-activities associated with the compe tency. These are provided to help you understand the full meaning of the competency. 3. Cut or tear the competency statements along the lines to form separate statements. 4. Take out the Display Board. Locate on the Display Board the columns labeled "Teaching Competencies." Under these columns place the competency statements. 5. Take out the packet containing the colored discs. Count the number of competencies you have placed on the Display Board. Multiply the number of competencies by two and one-half. Round off fractions upward. This will give you the total number of discs you will need to complete this activity. Take that number of discs out of the packet. Close the packet and remove from the working surface. 6. Now read each competency statement on the Display Board. Do read the sub-activities associated with each competency statement. After read ing each competency statement, place a red disc after the statement in column 1. 7. Re-read each statement a second time. As you do so, answer one of the following questions: a. If you are a teacher, answer this question: "Do I need to advance my competency in this area more than in the other areas?" 5 218 Appendix B (continued) b. If you are a principal, answer this question: "Do my teachers need to advance their competency in this area more than in the other areas?" 8. As you read, you will need to compare competency statements. Com pare them to determine those that are your most immediate need. For those competencies you believe to be most important, place a second colored disc beside each in column 2. 9. Now re-read the statements that have two colored discs beside them. For those competencies you believe to be more important, place a third disc beside each in column 3. 10. Re-read the statements that have three colored discs beside them. For those competencies you believe to be more important, place a fourth disc beside each in column 4. 11. Re-read the statements which have four discs beside them. For those competencies you believe to be more important., place a fifth disc beside each in column 5. 12. All the discs must be used. If you have not used all your discs, continue to make comparisons between competencies until all discs have been used. 13. The following two rules must be abided by in this activity: a. At least one competency statement must have five colored discs beside it. b. No more than five colored discs are allowed for any one state ment . 14. Once you have completed the activity, transfer the total number of points for each statement to the SUMMARY FORM FOR INDIVIDUALS. Then raise your hand to attract a monitor's attention. 15. You have now completed the task. The monitor will incorporate your inservice needs into a SUMMARY FORM FOR GROUP. Later the monitors will provide you with a ranking of in-service needs for your school or school district. 16. Thank you. We hope you enjoyed participating in this teacher's in-service needs assessment. 6 Appendix B (continued) SUMMARY FORM FOR INDIVIDUALS Directions: Record your score for each activity: ACTIVITY NAME SCORE 220 Appendix B (continued) SELECTED COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHING READING FORM A 8 221 Appendix B (continued) SELECTED COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHING READING FORM B PRACTICE ACTIVITIES: 1. Select Practice activities that match instructional objectives ,. 2. Provide for mass and distributed practice CURRICULUM: 1. List the major goals of a com prehensive reading program. 2. Detail the specific objectives for each goal area DIAGNOSIS: 1. Determine reading levels . 2. Identify primary areas of reading difficulty 3. Administer informal tests of readiness, word recognition, comprehension and rate: 4. Using standardized tests EVALUATION: 1. Determine specific skills growth 2. Determine change in reading levels 3. Determine change in habits, attitudes, and interests MOTIVATION: 1. Reducing learner tension 2. Manipulate variables related to motivation: a. Purpose c. Results b. Attitude d. Success 3. Extrinsic and intrinsic moti vation RECORD KEEPING: 1. Daily pupil progress in reading 2. Reading levels 3. Standardized test results 4. Observations CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT: 1. Differentiate use of staff 2. Intraclass grouping 3. Interclass grouping 4. Parents and paraprofessionals 5. Peer tutoring PRESCRIPTIVE TEACHING PROCEDURES: 1. Select appropriate objectives 2. Match material to instructional objectives 3. Prepare a Directed-Thinking Activity STUDENT MANAGEMENT: 1. Use social and non-social reinforcers to increase achieve ment in subject areas 2. Use social and non-social reinforcers to change the unde sirable behavior of: the child who fights too often, the "I don't want to", overly active or noisy child METHODS OF TEACHING: 1. Word recognition 2. Vocabulary 3. Comprehension 4. Study strategies 5. Rate and flexibility DEVELOP INTEREST, ATTITUDES, AND APPRECIATION IN READING: 1. Develop "Read Aloud" program 2. Develop school-wide reading environment 3. Select library books 4. Promote positive dispositions toward reading MATERIALS: 1. Prepare directory of commercial reading materials available . within your school 2. Evaluation criteria for select ing materials 3. Prepare instructions materials 4. Code reading materials to read ing objectives 9 222 Appendix B (continued) INDIVIDUALIZING INSTRUCTION: IDENTIFYING PROBLEM READERS: 1. By reading levels 1. Characteristics 2. By skills 2. Causes of reading failure 3. By habits 3. Referring and helping problem 4. By interests readers 5. Using learning centers 6. Through self-study 10 223 Appendix B (continued) SUMMARY FORM FOR GROUP Teachers Designated by Number Teaching Competencies 1 2 3 45 6 7 ; 8/9 10 11 12 13 14 _15 Total Avg. Rank •2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 11 224 APPENDIX C The Basic Model Participant Agency Coordinators Late .Self Diagnosis August .Testing •Development and Selection of Course of Study .Provides Diagnosis .Negotiate Objec tives .Pre-test .Provide Instruction in General Topics (Drug Abuse, etc.) . Specify Obj ectives .Inventory Resources .Negotiate Objectives .Disseminate Info. Counsel 4-September .One Day District Wide Workshop .Hand Tailors to District Needs .Evaluates and Pro vides Feedback .Coordinators Meeting 4- 4-October .One Day Observation in Another School •Assesses P. Needs •Develops Spring Program .Collects Evaluations and Reports 4-November .One Day Inter-District Workshop .Provides General and Individualized Instruction .Field Tests Spring Objectives .Assists with Field Test .Evaluates Workshop December .Participation Completed for Fall Term •Post Testing .Reviews Evaluative .Assists with Evalua-and Field Test Data tion Finalizes Spring .Disseminates Informa-Program tion .Coordinators Meeting Late .Two Day District January Workshop .Re-As ses sment, Self-Diagnosis .Provides Program .Counsels re: Spring Program .Individual Partici pant Heeds Assessment •Negotiates Objective 4-225 Appendix C (continued) Participant Agency Coordinators February •Assists with Development of March Program . Begins Summer Needs Assessment .Evaluates Programs not Reviewed to Date March .One Day Intra-District Workshop .Hand Tailors Program .Assessment .Synthesis of all Activities April .One Day Observa tion in Another School .Provides Summer Preliminary Objectives for Review . Commences Evaluation May .Post Testing .Needs Analysis for September .Reviews Evaluation .Needs Assessments •Completes Evaluation •Feedback and Dissemination 226 APPENDIX D Appendix G Interaction Index Observation Sheet Questions 1. Analyzes 2. Synthesizes 3. Speculates 4. Defends 5. Reviews 6. Reminds Informs 7. Analyzes 8. Synthesizes 9. Speculates 10. Defends 11. Reviews 12. Reminds Evaluates 13. Discusses 14. Tests 15. Approves 16. Verifies 17. Corrects 18. Interrupts 19. Criticizes 20. Ignores Teacher Pupil C* *Both teacher and pupil behaviors are recorded by code in chronological order. A tally is placed in the C column oppo site the code record whenever control is more the issue than task. **A tally is placed in the P column oppo site the code record whenever personal experience is cited as a reference for statements made. 227 APPENDIX E STUDENT-OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE (Form A) Please answer the following questions honestly and frankly. Do not give your name. To encourage you to be frank, your regular teacher should be absent from the classroom while these questions are being answered. Neither your teacher nor anyone else at your school will ever see your answers. The person who is temporarily in charge of your class will, during this period, collect all reports and seal them in an envelope addressed to Western Michigan University. Your teacher will receive from the University a summary of the answers by the students in your class. The University will mail this summary to no one except your teacher unless requested to do so by your teacher. After completing this report, sit quietly or study until all students have completed their reports. There should be no talking. Underline your answers to questions 1-13. Write your answers to questions 14 and 15. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION CONCERNING THIS TEACHER'S: 1. KNOWLEDGE OF SUBJECT: Does he have a thorough knowledge and understand ing of his teaching field? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 2. CLARITY OF EXPLANATIONS: Are assignments and explanations clear? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 3. FAIRNESS: Is he fair and impartial in his treatment of all students? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 4. CONTROL: Does he keep enough order in the classroom? Do students behave well? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 5. ATTITUDE TOWARD STUDENTS: Is he patient, understanding, considerate, and courteous? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 6. ABILITY TO STIMULATE INTEREST: Is this class interesting and challenging? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 7. ATTITUDE TOWARD SUBJECT: Does he show interest in and enthusiasm for the subject? Does he appear to enjoy teaching this subject? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 228 Appendix E (continued) 8. ATTITUDE TOWARD STUDENT OPINIONS: Are the ideas and opinions of students treated with respect? Are differences of opinion welcomed even when a student disagrees with the teacher? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 9. VARIETY IN TEACHING PROCEDURES: Is much the same procedure used day after day and month after month, or are different and appropriate teaching methods used at different times (student reports, class discussions, small-group discussions, films and other audio-visual aids, demonstrations, debates, field trips, teacher lectures, guest lectures, etc.)? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 10. ENCOURAGEMENT OF STUDENT PARTICIPATION: Do students feel free to raise questions and express opinions? Are students encouraged to take part? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 11. SENSE OF HUMOR: ' Does he see and share with students amusing happen ings and experiences? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 12. PLANNING AND PREPARATION: Are plans well made? Is class time well spent? Is little time wasted? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 13. ASSIGNMENTS: Are assignments (out-of-class, required work) sufficient ly challenging without being unreasonably long? Is the weight of assigments reasonable? Much too light Too light Reasonable Too heavy Much too heavy 14. Please name two or more things that you especially like about this teacher or course. 15. Please give two or more suggestions for the improvement of this teacher or course. Note on Reliability of Questionnaire Items ..When the averages of student responses from chance halves of 50 randomly selected classes taught by 50 secondary-school teachers (grades 7-12) were correlated, the reliability coefficients obtained for the first 12 questions are: (1) .87 (2) .82 (3) .84 (4) .95 (5) .88 (6) .87 (7) .90 (8) .86 (9) .91 (10) .77 (11) .91 (12) .90 These indicate the reliability coefficients of the questions when answered by 24 to 32 students per class. The correlation coefficients for the chance halves were converted to the reported coefficients for whole classes by means of the Spearman-Brown formula for computing test reliability. 229 APPENDIX F MERRIMACK EDUCATION CENTER Title of Program Staff Development Program  Feedback Sheet Date 4. 5. To what extent do you feel this program is meeting your learning needs? (Circle one number) 1 Not at All 8 9 Extremely Well To what extent do you feel you will be able to apply your learning from this program in your work? (Circle one number) 123456789 Not Extremely at Well All Check all of the words in the following list that describe your feelings at this point in the program: (Write in other words as appropriate) _Angry Confident Discouraged _Happy _Motivated _Satisfied Troubled Annoyed Confused _Elated Hopeful _Optimistic _Stlmulated Worried _Anxious Contented Exhausted _Interested _Pessimistic Successful Bored Depressed _Frustrated Joyful _Pleased Threatened What have been the most useful parts of the program for you? If you could change this program in order to make it more useful for participants, what change(s) would you make? (Use the other side of this sheet if necessary) 230 APPENDIX G EVALUATION IN-SERVICE EDUCATION PROGRAMS Don Means Clarion State College, Clarion, Pennsylvania 16214 YOUR INSERVICE DAY HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOUR IN-SERVICE PROGRAM HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL? MET ITS OBJECTIVES? Too often ad ministrators and teachers don't know how to evaluate inservice programs either because of a lack of commit ment concerning evaluation or lack of expertise. Accountability in education, which the public is increasingly demanding, is as important in in-service programs as in the day-to-day instructional offerings. An instrument need not be complex to provide feedback information about an inservice pro gram. The intent of this article is to provide administrators and teachers with checklists which may be used for evaluating inservice programs. The following checklists may be modified or used in toto. THE FOLLOWING CHECKLIST MIGHT BE USED WHEN CONSULTANTS ARE BROUGHT INTO THE SCHOOL, FOR SPECIFIC SESSIONS CONSULTANT CHECKLIST Directions: Following is a list of inservice consultants. Please rate their overall presentation relative to impact, content, delivery, etc., by circling your response. 1. Consultant X Excellent Good Fair Unsatisfactory 2. Consultant Y Excellent Good Fair Unsatisfactory 3. Consultant Z Excellent Good Fair Unsatisfactory MANY TIMES FACTORS THAT SEEM INSIGNIFICANT HAVE TREMENDOUS EFFECT ON THE INSERVICE PROGRAM OTHER FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED THE INSERVICE DAY Directions: Please check your response to the following questions. 1. Small group discussions were: Excellent Good Fair Unsatisfactory 2. Coffee breaks were: Excellent Good Fair ' Unsatisfactory 3. The time provided for me to ask questions was: Excellent Good Fair Unsatisfactory 231 Appendix G (continued) 4. The time schedule of the inservice day was: Excellent Good Fair Unsatisfactory 5. The materials brought or used by consultant X, Y, or Z were: Excellent Good Fair Unsatisfactory THE FOLLOWING CHECKLIST PERMITS TEACHERS TO RESPOND TO THE IMPACT AN INSERVICE DAY HAS HAD TO THEIR METHODS AND MATERIALS. THIS CHECKLIST MIGHT ALSO BE USED BY TEACHERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELF-ASSESSMENT INSERVICE PARTICIPANTS OPINION CHECKLIST Directions: Please express your opinion to the following questions by placing an X in the appropriate column. Not at Very Consid-all Little Some erably 1. How much has the inservice day contri buted to your ways of varying your instructional patterns? 2. How much has the inservice day contri- ( buted to your knowledge of additional materials for use in your classes? 3. To what extent has the inservice pro gram stimulated a reevaluation of your teaching goals? '  4. To what extent has the inservice pro gram contributed to your knowledge of how to design skills instructions for actual needs of your students? 5. How much have you gained in your know ledge of special instructional tech niques which can be utilized in your class? 6. How much has the inservice program increased your knowledge of ways to utilize children's existing interests to build involvement in your classes? 7. To what extent has the inservice pro gram motivated you to spend more time in preparing for your classes? ' ' 8. How much has the inservice program contributed to your awareness of ways of providing for individual differ ences? 232 Appendix G (continued) Not at Very Consid-all Little Some erably 9. To what extent has the inservice program contributed to your understanding of means of evaluating individual progress within your classes? " ' ______ ' ANOTHER POSSIBLE METHOD OF DETERMING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN INSERVICE PROGRAM IS AN OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE INSERVICE OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE General Estimate of the Inservice Program Please be frank in giving a statement of your feelings about the inservice day as its meeting your needs, its shortcomings, its failures, and its strengths. Plans If we plan additional inservice days this year, what would be your suggestions as to what should be included? Recommendations What consultant would you recommend for an inservice day? PERHAPS THE QUICKEST WAY OF OBTAINING FEEDBACK ABOUT AN INSERVICE DAY IS A ONE-STATEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH MIGHT READ AS FOLLOWS Directions: Rate the entire inservice day as compared to other inservice activities or programs you have attended by circling the most appropriate descriptor. Excellent Good Fair Unsatisfactory One of the important rules to remember in using any of these questionnaires is to permit the respondents to remain anonymous. It should be noted that these questionnaires are not a panacea; but hopefully, some of these may spark teachers and administrators to reexamine inservice programs. 233 APPENDIX H APPENDIX B Over-All Rating of Inservice Program Four possible outcomes of this inservice program are described below. Please rate each outcome in the two ways requested. Be sure to rate this program on each item by comparing it directly with your own previous exper ience. Circle the correct response. I. UNDERSTANDINGS: Developed Poor Fair Aver- Good Excel-understandings about learning, age lent the instructional process, and human relationships. A. How would you rate the best inservice program you have previously experienced with respect to Outcome I. above? 1 2 3 4 5 B. Now, how do you rate this in-service program on Outcome I? 1 2 3 4 5 II. SKILLS: Developed skills in work ing with individual groups for more effective learning. A. How would you rate the best inservice program you have previously experienced with respect to Outcome II. above? 12 3 4 5 B. How would you rate this in-service program on Outcome II? 12 3 4 5 III. ATTITUDES: Developed improved attitudes toward the importance of inservice growth and the value of reading. A. How would you rate the best inservice program you have previously experienced with respect to Outcome III. above? 12 3 4 5 B. How would you rate this in-service program on Outcome III? 12 3 4 5 IV. PRACTICALITY: Provided practical assistance in dealing with prob lems encountered on the job. A. How would you rate the best inservice program you have previously experienced with 234 Appendix H (continued) Aver- Excel-Poor Fair age Good lent respect to Outcome IV. above? 12 3 4 5 B. How do you rate this inservice program on Outcome IV? 1 2 3 4 5 Position: Date: 19 APPENDIX C Daily Evaluation Directions: Please circle the appropriate number for each item below, to indicate your reaction to each workshop session. 1 - Poor 2 - Weak 3 - Satisfactory 4 - Well Done 5 - Excellent 1. Interest 1 2 3 4 5 2. Organization 2 3 4 5 3. Clarity of ideas 12 3 4 5 4. Functional for your particular role as an educator 12 3 4 5 5. Interaction between individual groups 12 3 4 5 6. Interaction between leader and group 12 3 4 5 7. Feedback to the entire group from planned projects 12 3 4 5 8. Content of planned projects 12 3 4 5 9. Composite evaluation 12 3 4 5 Please write further comments evaluating the workshop sessions in the space provided below. 235 APPENDIX I Administrators, teachers, and other school personnel working with consultative staff DETERMINE BROAD GOALS 4-GATHER INPUT DATA Individual: Education, Length of Service, Concerns, Interests, etc. Institutional: Setting (Urban, Suburban, Rural), School Size, Time Blocks Available, etc. 4-DIAGNOSE ENTRY BEHAVIOR (Inc. Problems as Administrators and Teachers Perceive Them)' 4-SPECIFY TERMINAL BEHAVIOR 4-COMBINE TOTAL INPUT DATA 4-DEVELOP OR CHOOSE DETERMINED CONTENT 4-PLAN STRATEGIES Group Size, Staff Utilization, Communication Methods, etc. 4-DECIDE ON TRANSMISSION VEHICLES Intensive Group Experiences, Interaction Analysis, Microteaching, etc. 4-COLLECT, DESIGN, PRODUCE SPECIFIED MEDIA Open or Closed Circuit T.V., Video Tape, Programed Instruction, etc. 4-FIELD TEST WITH INSERVICE GROUP 1 LOCATE AND CORRECT FLAWS 4-APPLY TO INSERVICE PROGRAM 4-EVALUATE AND RE-CYCLE to Refine as Necessary Figure 1 A FLOW CHART OF PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF INSERVICE PROGRAMS DEVELOP RATIONALE FOR EVALUATION Using Pre- and Post-Test Measures DEVELOP EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX J FLOWCHART MODEL FOR READING INSERVICE w w H H I PLAN A. Form Committees B. Assess Needs C. Identify Objectives D. Consider Logistics o u o M 2 PH 3 H !25 W U II IMPLEMENT A. Select Personnel B. Motivate Participants C. Organize for Instruction D. Provide Instruction E. Apply in Classrooms F. Secure Feedback III EVALUATE A. Assess Continuously B. Make Terminal Appraisal C. Provide Follow-up Data 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078347/manifest

Comment

Related Items