UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Inservice education in secondary reading for English teachers : a conceptual analysis 1977

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

Item Metadata

Download

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

Full Text

I N S E R V I C E E D U C A T I O N I N S E C O N D A R Y R E A D I N G F O R E N G L I S H T E A C H E R S : A C O N C E P T U A L A N A L Y S I S b y S H E I L A H M . A L L E N B . A . , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1 9 6 5 M . A . , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1 9 7 2 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F D O C T O R O F E D U C A T I O N i n T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F R E A D I N G E D U C A T I O N F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d T h e s i s S u p e r v i s o r E x t e r n a l E x a m i n e r T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A M a r c h 1 9 7 7 © Sheilah M. Allen, March 1 9 7 7 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is fo r f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i i ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s study was to i d e n t i f y , analyze, evaluate, and synthesize the relevant research and professional l i t e r a t u r e to develop a r a t i o n a l e and a conceptual model for i n s e r v i c e programs i n secondary reading for English teachers. I l l u s t r a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l modules were also developed based on the l i t e r a t u r e review and synthesis. The need for i n s e r v i c e education programs i n secondary reading f o r English teachers derives from two re l a t e d sources: s o c i e t a l concern for what i s perceived to be d e c l i n i n g l i t e r a c y standards; and the changing nature of the secondary school which requires that a l l students remain i n school longer, thus considerably increasing the range of reading a b i l i t i e s faced by the classroom teacher. English teachers generally are desig- nated as those responsible for teaching reading, e i t h e r within t h e i r English classes or within a s p e c i a l reading c l a s s . They are also often c a l l e d upon to provide guidance i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n f or other content teachers. However, few English teachers have had previous t r a i n i n g i n the teaching of reading, and continuing education i n the form of i n s e r v i c e programs i s i n c r e a s i n g l y necessary. Primary, secondary, and t e r t i a r y l i t e r a t u r e 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, A c t i v i t i e s ; (3) Evaluation of Inservice Programs; and, (4) Models of Inservice Pro- grams. Generalizations and p r a c t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s were then derived based on comparisons within and between categories. Guidelines f o r i n s e r v i c e were drawn from survey and questionnaire studies on present p r a c t i c e s and suggested improvements; reported needs-assessment studies and i n s t r u - ments were examined; topics f o r in s e r v i c e programs were drawn from an analysis of stated goals i n the l i t e r a t u r e ; and roles of p a r t i c i p a n t s were developed i n f a i r l y d i s c r e t e terms. The methodology section i n c o r - porates suggestions f o r general structure and s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s of i n - service programs with emphasis on the workshop. The necessity of evalua- t i o n of both i n s e r v i c e programs and the subsequent e f f e c t on teaching received heavy emphasis i n the l i t e r a t u r e as did use of multiple evalua- t i o n measures. Models of i n s e r v i c e programs were i d e n t i f i e d and synthe- sized with a wide range i n focus and components emerging. Several important trends i n i n s e r v i c e programming were revealed i n the l i t e r a t u r e review i n c l u d i n g : a new concern with the planning phase, a wide v a r i e t y of methodological p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n organizing and conducting i n s e r v i c e programs, a recognition of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of evaluation, and an increased awareness of the p o t e n t i a l of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n and teacher leader- ship. The r e s u l t s of the l i t e r a t u r e review and synthesis were incorpor- ated into the r a t i o n a l e and conceptual model o u t l i n i n g components of in s e r v i c e education i n reading f o r secondary English teachers. The components of the model include: general and s p e c i f i c guidelines, examples of needs-assessment instruments, d e t a i l e d goals based on s p e c i f i c t o p i c s , many a c t i v i t i e s within a workshop structure, and multiple modes of evaluation of the effectiveness of i n s e r v i c e e f f o r t s . Four i l l u s t r a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l modules are presented based on (1) Students, (2) Materials, iv (3) Teaching Strategies, and (4) Staff Development. Each module contains the r a t i o n a l e f o r content and objectives, suggested materials of i n s t r u c - t i o n , evaluation instruments, and maintenance procedures. Guidelines and organizational p r i n c i p l e s appropriate f or i n s e r v i c e programs i n general are presented and recommendations made for further research i n the t h e o r e t i c a l development and f i e l d t e s t i n g of the model and i n s t r u c t i o n a l modules to f a c i l i t a t e adaptation to other groups and l e v e l s . V TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF APPENDICES v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i x Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. General Statement 1 B. Background of the Problem 7 C. Related Research 11 1. Preservice and Inservice 11 2. E n g l i s h Teachers and Reading 15 D. Summary 18 I I . THE PROBLEM 20 A. Statement of the Problem 20 B. D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 21 C. Limitations 27 D. Sources of Materials 27 E. Elements of the Problem 27 F. Procedures and Techniques 28 G. Summary 28 I I I . A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 30 A. Organization of Inservice Programs 30 1. Guidelines . . • 31 2. Needs 42 3. Goals , . 43 4. Roles 46 B. Methodology of Inservice Programs 49 1. Structure 49 2. A c t i v i t i e s 52 C. Evaluation of Inservice Programs 58 D. Models of Inservice Programs 67 E. Summary 76 IV. A PROPOSED MODEL 78 A. Organization 78 1. Guidelines 78 (a) General Guidelines 79 (b) S p e c i f i c Guidelines 90 2. Needs Assessment 101 3. Goals 112 v i Chapter B. Methodology 115 C. Evaluation 120 1. General Concerns 120 2. S p e c i f i c Suggestions 130 D. I l l u s t r a t i v e Modules 135 1. Introduction 135 2. Module 1—Students 137 (a) Content 137 (b) Components 139 3. Module 2 — M a t e r i a l s 141 (a) Content 141 (b) Components 144 4. Module 3—Teaching Strategies 145 (a) Content 145 (b) Components 150 5. Module 4 — S t a f f Development 151 (a) Content • • 151 (b) Components 154 E. Summary . 155 V. CONCLUSION 160 A. Summary 160 B. Implications of the Study 163 C. Recommendations for Further Study 164 BIBLIOGRAPHY 166 APPENDICES 210 v i i LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Survey of Studies Providing Guidelines f o r Inservice Programs 32 2. Studies Supporting the Need f o r F l e x i b i l i t y i n Inservice 39 3. Variety of Workshop Functions i n Inservice 53 4. Effectiveness of Selected Inservice A c t i v i t i e s 60 5. Teacher Evaluation as a Component of Inservice 63 6. Multifaceted Components i n Inservice Program Evaluation 68 7. Exemplary Inservice Models 70 8. Inservice Programs Stressing Self-Evaluation and Teacher Leadership 73 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 102 12. Topics for Reading Inservice from Studies and Books . . . 116 13. Topics f o r Reading Inservice from Secondary Reading Textbooks 117 14. Recommendations for Reading Inservice 118 15. Evaluation of Reading Inservice Programs 132 v i i i LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Chester, R. D., et a l . "Assessing Inservice Needs i n Reading." U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976 210 B. Mangrum, C. T. "Teachers Inservice Needs Assessment (TINA)." 3rd e d i t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of Miami at Coral Gables, 1976 213 C. F i l i p , R. T., et a l . "Late Summer and Academic Year Model." C a l i f o r n i a , 1971 . 224 D. Strom, R. D. "In t e r a c t i o n Index Observation Sheet." Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1967 226 E. Hoehn, L. P. "Student-Opinion Questionnaire." D e t r o i t , 1969 227 F. Lavin, R. J . , and E. M. Schuttenberg. " S t a f f Development Program Feedback Sheet." Merrimack Education Center, 1972 229 G. Means, Don. "Evaluation Inservice Education Programs." C l a r i o n 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 f o r Reading Inservice: PIE. "Flow Chart Model f o r Reading Inservice." Missouri, 1973 236 i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A d i s s e r t a t i o n does not e x i s t i n i s o l a t i o n . My appreciation extends to the following: Dr. E. G. Summers, major professor and adviser, who has been i n s t i g a t o r , i n s p i r i n g force, and guide. His professionalism and personal enthusiasm have sustained me throughout my degree, and w i l l serve as a model i n my career. The members of my committee—Dr. R. Bentley, Dr. R. Chester, Dr. H. C o v e l l — who have provided concrete c r i t i c i s m , p o s i t i v e suggestions, and continued support. Dr. Margaret Early, external examiner, who has proferred the academic and p r a c t i c a l expertise of a noted educator. My fellow graduate students—-especially Joyce Matheson—who have made the whole experience more than bearable. My f a m i l i e s — p a r t i c u l a r l y my daughter, Janna Chere—who have exhibited t h e i r l o y a l t y and f a i t h over the years. My t y p i s t , Nina Thurston, who has been dependable and conscientious through- out". My thanks to a l l f o r t h e i r unique and e s s e n t i a l contributions. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. General Statement That a gulf e x i s t s between research and classroom p r a c t i c e , between i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education and schools, has become an educational truism. One attempt to bridge t h i s gap i s through expanded e f f o r t s at in s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g and continuing education. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , most univer- s i t i e s have served four functions: (1) discovery and generation of new knowledge through research and other s c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t i e s ; (2) accumulation and storage of knowledge i n books, l i b r a r i e s , and computers; (3) dissemination of the accumulated knowledge through teaching, p u b l i c a t i o n s , f i l m s , and service a c t i v i t i e s ; (4) a p p l i c a t i o n of the knowledge and s k i l l s to s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s (Haygood, 1970). U n i v e r s i t i e s , and i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l schools, are becoming incr e a s i n g l y involved i n continuing education i n furthering the above func- t i o n s , although such involvement i s not without controversy (Stirzaker, 1974). Havelock, 1973, strongly supported the involvement of u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s i o n a l schools i n continuing p r o f e s s i o n a l education. Barber, 1963, put the matter s u c c i n c t l y : The u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s i o n a l school has as one of i t s functions the transmission to students of the generalized and systematic knowledge that i s the basis of pr o f e s s i o n a l performance. Not only the substan- t i v e knowledge i t s e l f , but knowledge of how to keep up with continuing advances i n pr o f e s s i o n a l knowledge i s what the u n i v e r s i t y school seeks to give i t s students. Where the body of professional knowledge i s changing very r a p i d l y , the u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s i o n a l school may take a d i r e c t r o l e i n promoting the "adult" education of i t s profession through post-professional t r a i n i n g courses, seminars and i n s t i t u t e s . ( 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- t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l to the growth of a society; that better d e l i v e r y sys- tems f o r such education must be implemented; that greater cooperation between sponsors of recurrent education must emerge; that i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education should lead i n the expansion of continuing education; and that f i n a n c i a l b a r r i e r s should not stand i n the way of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n continuing education (Mayhew, 1970; K l i n e , 1971; Schein, 1972; Gould, 1973; Mayhew, 1973; Benson and Hodgkinson, 1974). The need to generate better models and d e l i v e r y systems to provide i n s e r v i c e and continuing education i s by no means confined to education. Continuing education i s gaining impetus and s i g n i f i c a n c e i n law, medicine, a g r i c u l t u r e , indeed throughout the various f i e l d s i n which constant i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of new theories and de r i v a t i o n of p r a c t i c a l outcomes i s needed. Any p r o f e s s i o n a l who wishes to keep pace with developments i n h i s f i e l d must turn to continuing education. Kidd ( i n Shorey, 1970) even claimed "a profession ' i s characterized by [the fac t that] i t s members continue to educate themselves and extend t h e i r knowledge and competence" 1 (p. 2). The ever-increasing necessity f o r such i n t e l l e c t u a l perseverance was explained by McGlothlin, 1972. At one time, perhaps we may have thought that competence once won would l i v e on unnurtured throughout the length of a career, since personal experience, p r o f e s s i o n a l 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 i n the pr o f e s s i o n a l school could stand i n 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 f i n d ways to increase h i s compe- tence as knowledge expands and s i t u a t i o n s change, h i s knowledge and s k i l l can r a p i d l y become obsolete, d e c l i n i n g from competence into r e l a t i v e incompetence. From there i t i s not far to the extremes of incompetence which are quackery and fraud. Any professional who 3 c o n t i n u e s t o p r a c t i c e w i t h l e s s t h a n t h e b e s t t h a t h e c a n l e a r n i s a d a n g e r t o t h e s o c i e t y h e i s e x p e c t e d t o b e n e f i t . H e r e t a i n s t h e t i t l e a n d t h e f o r m o f t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l b u t h e l a c k s t h e s u b s t a n c e . H e m i s l e a d s a n d e x p l o i t s h i s c l i e n t e l e b e c a u s e h e h a s n o t b e e n w i l - l i n g t o m a i n t a i n t h e c o m p e t e n c e , t h a t s p e c i a l c o m p e t e n c e , w h i c h m a k e s t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n t . ( p . 7 ) T h e c o n c e p t o f p r o f e s s i o n a l o b s o l e s c e n c e i s b e c o m i n g c o m m o n p l a c e i n t h e s e v e n t i e s . D u b i n , 1 9 7 1 , f o c u s e d o n d e f i n i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l o b s o l - e s c e n c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e l a t i o n t o b u s i n e s s m a n a g e m e n t . F o u r t y p e s o f o b s o l e s c e n c e a r e a b i l i t y , a t t i t u d i n a l , c r e e p i n g , a n d a b r u p t . L e s l i e a n d M o r r i s o n , 1 9 7 4 , c o n s i d e r e d t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l o b s o l e s c e n c e f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l e d u c a t i o n , a d v o c a t i n g t h e r e v a m p i n g o f s e r v i c e m o d e s a n d d e l i v e r y s y s t e m s . T h o s e e n t e r i n g a p r o f e s s i o n d o s o w i t h a k n o w l e d g e b a s e w h i c h i s a l r e a d y p a r t i a l l y o b s o l e t e . L i n d s a y e t a l . , 1 9 7 4 , e x p a n d e d t h e c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k o f p r o f e s s i o n a l o b s o l e s c e n c e b y i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e c o n c e p t o f ' h a l f - l i f e ' . T h e r a p i d o b s o l e s c e n c e o f p r o f e s s i o n a l c o m p e t e n c e i s a p h e n o m e n o n o f o u r t i m e s . T h e a c c e l e r a t i n g p a c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n g e n e r a t i o n , r a p i d a d v a n c e s i n t e c h n o l o g y , a n d c h a n g e s i n e d u c a t i o n a l , s o c i a l , e c o n o m i c , a n d p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s h a v e m a d e i t i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t f o r m e m b e r s o f t o d a y ' s s o c i e t y t o k e e p a b r e a s t o f d e v e l o p m e n t s w h i c h a f f e c t t h e i r l i v e s . T h i s d i f f i c u l t y i s e s p e c i a l l y a c u t e f o r t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l , b e c a u s e h e w o r k s w i t h i d e a s a n d k n o w l e d g e t h a t a r e s u b j e c t t o r a p i d c h a n g e a n d o b s o l e s c e n c e . T h e c o n c e p t o f ' h a l f - l i f e ' , a t e r m f r o m n u c l e a r p h y s i c s , h a s b e e n e m p l o y e d t o e s t i m a t e t h e e x t e n t o f p r o f e s s i o n a l o b s o l e s c e n c e i n v a r i - o u s f i e l d s . E s t i m a t e s h a v e b e e n m a d e o f t h e h a l f - l i f e o f p r o f e s - s i o n a l c o m p e t e n c e : t h e t i m e a f t e r c o m p l e t i o n o f f o r m a l t r a i n i n g w h e n , b e c a u s e o f n e w d e v e l o p m e n t s , p r a c t i c i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l s h a v e b e c o m e r o u g h l y h a l f a s c o m p e t e n t t o m e e t t h e c h a n g i n g d e m a n d s o f t h e i r p r o - f e s s i o n s . F o r e x a m p l e , D r . E d w a r d C . R o s e n e w , J r . , V i c e P r e s i d e n t o f t h e A m e r i c a n C o l l e g e o f P h y s i c i a n s , r e c e n t l y e s t i m a t e d t h e h a l f - l i f e o f m e d i c a l k n o w l e d g e t o b e o n l y f i v e y e a r s . A n d P r o f e s s o r J . L u k a s i e w i c z o f C h a r l e s t o n U n i v e r s i t y i n O t t a w a h a s s t a t e d t h a t ' w h i l e t h e h a l f - l i f e o f a 1 9 4 0 e n g i n e e r i n g g r a d u a t e w a s 1 2 y e a r s , i t h a s s h r u n k t o j u s t f i v e y e a r s f o r t o d a y ' s g r a d u a t e . ' ( p p . 3 - 4 ) T h e c o n s e q u e n c e s t o e d u c a t i o n o f t h i s s t a t e o f a f f a i r s w a s r e c o g - n i z e d b y D e v o r e , 1 9 7 1 . 4 When a society i s i n a stage of rapid and constant change, education i s conceived as a factor of change and challenge. And the c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e i n the change process i s the teacher. I f educational pro- grams are to be changed, then the personnel of the system must be changed. I f education i s to serve the constantly changing s o c i a l m i l i e u , we must r e a l i z e the problem i s s o c i a l and psychological i n nature and of s i g n i f i c a n t consequences. (p. 1) Unfortunately, as emphasized by Goodlad (1969), education i s perhaps the only large-scale enterprise that does not provide f o r systematic updating of the s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s of i t s members. Teachers are l a r g e l y on t h e i r own i n continuing professional development and l i t t l e i n t h e i r undergraduate t r a i n i n g prepares them f or continued learning growth. And Simpson, 1966, noted, "Improvement i n teaching does not come automatically, and the teacher who continues year a f t e r year to r e l y almost e x c l u s i v e l y on what he learned i n h i s undergraduate teacher t r a i n i n g i s bound to f a l l f a r t h e r and fa r t h e r behind from a pro f e s s i o n a l standpoint" (p. 1.). Therefore, i n s e r v i c e education o f f e r s opportunities f o r bridging the widening gap between the current state of knowledge and the p r a c t i t i o n e r i n the field.''' I t i s only r e a l i s t i c to acknowledge that teachers, l i k e other pro- f e s s i o n a l s , w i l l need incentives to p a r t i c i p a t e i n professional development. The medical and dental professions have used such levers as r e l i c e n s i n g and r e c e r t i f i c a t i o n : 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 l e g i s l a t i v e mandate. He predicted, however, that the relicensure pattern and a continuing education requirement w i l l soon become f i x t u r e s of a l l T o f f l e r ' s statements (1970) concerning the obsolescence of products apply equally to personnel: obsolescence occurs when a product l i t e r a l l y deteriorates to the point at which i t can no longer f u l f i l l i t s functions; when some new product a r r i v e s on the scene to perform these functions more eff e c t i v e l y ; or when the needs of the consumer change, when the functions to be performed are themselves a l t e r e d . 5 p r o f e s s i o n a l statutes. Mathieson, 1971, and McLeish, 1970, provide an American and Canadian i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h i s point. In many states, teach- ing c e r t i f i c a t e s become i n v a l i d i f a teacher does not attend a c e r t a i n number of summer classes within a s p e c i f i c time span. It i s becoming incr e a s i n g l y apparent that teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s must s h i f t t h e i r emphasis to also include i n s e r v i c e education. As Edson, 1974, noted: Colleges that have prepared students for entry l e v e l school positions now are turning t h e i r attention to the development of continuing pro- f e s s i o n a l education programs. If the educational needs and expecta- tions of employed school personnel are to be s a t i s f i e d , program development w i l l require a new kind of i n t e r a c t i o n between schools and colleges. (p. 1) That the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Education i s aware of the need for i n s e r v i c e i s evidenced by public statements and establishment of committees. For instance, the Education Minister stated i n October, 1975, that more ins e r v i c e t r a i n i n g must be made a v a i l a b l e to teachers i n B r i t i s h Columbia "'to equip them with updated knowledge and new techniques which are essen- t i a l i f we are to develop the q u a l i t y educational system that we are a l l s t r i v i n g to a t t a i n . ' " She continued, " ' I t i s apparent . . . that the development of a q u a l i t y educational system i s predicated on the teachers' a b i l i t y to deal with changing s o c i a l and economic factors which are deeply inf l u e n c i n g the teachers' function. . . . The teacher i s engaged more and more today i n the implementation of new education procedures, taking advantage of a l l the resources of modern educational devices and methods'" ("Inservice Education Must Expand—Minister," p. 1). Further, the J o i n t Board of Teacher Education was established to coordinate with the U n i v e r s i t i e s Council and the Department of Education. One of i t s current concerns i s with "the preparation of a p o l i c y / p l a n f or coordinating and making more e f f e c t i v e teacher i n s e r v i c e education i n 6 B r i t i s h Columbia" ("Education Forum," p. 2). A p o s i t i o n paper Inservice Education f o r B r i t i s h Columbia Teachers (Mullen, 1975), s p e c i f i e d the r o l e of the J o i n t Board i n i n s e r v i c e education, and provided some enlightened guidelines f o r i n s e r v i c e . Four projects sponsored by the Joint Board i n concert with the Educational Research I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia are concerned with what i s presently being done i n i n s e r v i c e , what agencies are providing what service and what resources are presently being a l l o - cated. In addition, exemplary practices and programs i n other j u r i s d i c - tions and other professions were studied, r e s u l t i n g i n the Summers-Chester 1976 project ("Coordinated Inservice Project Plan for B.C.," p. 3). The p r o f e s s i o n a l organization of p r o v i n c i a l teachers, the B r i t i s h Columbia Teachers' Federation, i s also s t r e s s i n g the importance of contin- uing education. The chairperson of the teacher education committee commented: 'As public awareness and involvement i n the education system increase, there i s an ever-growing demand on the part of the p u b l i c to have teachers examine and improve t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l performance. In order to achieve a u n i f i e d approach to the on-going p r o f e s s i o n a l development of teachers, I believe that there must be a cooperative e f f o r t on the part of teachers, c i t i z e n s , trustees, u n i v e r s i t i e s , and the department of education o f f i c i a l s to ensure that the needs of students, communities and teachers are indeed being met.' ("Summer Schools Host Teachers," 1976, p. 1). The B r i t i s h Columbia Eng l i s h Teachers Association p u b l i c a t i o n UPDATE recently contained an a r t i c l e which made the following points: One of the three important issues i n B r i t i s h Columbia concerns the p r o f e s s i o n a l development needs ,of teachers and administrators; "'We must take the i n s e r v i c e function more ser i o u s l y than we have i n the p a s t " 1 (p. 13); important considerations are duration of i n s e r v i c e programs, f i n a n c i a l support, released time, planning, on-going evaluation (Pedersen, 1976). The r a t i o n a l e f or t h i s study's focus on i n s e r v i c e i n reading, the 7 English teacher, and the secondary school i s contained i n the following sections as well as i n chapter IV. B r i e f l y , the current p u b l i c concern fo r standards of l i t e r a c y , p a r t i c u l a r l y of adolescents (even high school graduates), has brought pressure to bear on the school system generally. The j u n i o r high years are extremely important because f o r some students they represent the f i n a l contact with the educational system. For many of these students, these years constitute the l a s t opportunity f o r devel- oping f u n c t i o n a l l i t e r a c y . Although the Engl i s h teacher cannot and should not accept f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h i s endeavor, he w i l l probably act i n a leadership or consultant capacity. Hence the strands of the problem are i n t e r r e l a t e d , c a l l i n g f o r the in s e r v i c e development of English teachers to prepare them f o r the task of e f f e c t i v e l y teaching secondary reading. In order to suggest the most e f f e c t i v e kinds of i n s e r v i c e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n , i t i s necessary to review the approaches that have been taken to i n s e r v i c e generally. By synthesizing the procedural aspects from the l i t e r a t u r e , i t i s possible to derive s e l e c t i v e l y the elements appropriate to the s p e c i f i c problem area: reading i n the secon- dary school. Thus a g e n e r a l - t o - s p e c i f i c , a n a l y t i c , deductive technique was followed i n the study, with the aim of a r r i v i n g at a v i a b l e model f or in s e r v i c e i n reading f o r English teachers. B. Background of the Problem The c o n t r o v e r s i a l issue of d e c l i n i n g standards of l i t e r a c y cannot be dealt with by t r a d i t i o n a l methods. For instance, comparison of standardized reading scores from the f i f t i e s , s i x t i e s , and seventies reveals only part of the p i c t u r e . Moreover, i t i s doubtful that much 8 confidence can be placed i n such scores due to differences i n samples tested, c u l t u r a l changes over time i n v a l i d a t i n g items, and contradictory r e s u l t s (e.g., a F l o r i d a survey by J . L. Larsen et a l . , 1976, showed no s i g n i f i c a n t drop i n students' reading achievement between 1960 and 1970). Knowledgeable i n d i v i d u a l s caution against over-reaction to complaints voiced by schools, employers, and i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education and exaggerated by the media. For instance, Abraham Carp stated, "The i n c i - dence of reading problems i n grades K through 12 has been demonstrated, but the extent of the problem depends on d e f i n i t i o n s , measures, and popu- l a t i o n s " (p. 58 of chapter 3 of Corder's The Information Base f o r Reading, 1971). Tuinman et a l . ' s recent a r t i c l e (March 1976) pronounced only tenta- t i v e , conservative conclusions r e s u l t i n g from a nationa l reading survey. The major conclusion to be drawn i s that between 1940 and 1965 there was a steady improvement i n reading achievement. . . . The most con- c l u s i v e statement that can be made i s that the ch i l d r e n of the present are reading better (or at le a s t scoring higher on tests) than c h i l d r e n of twenty or more years ago. Moreover, these differences appear to be quite s i g n i f i c a n t . . . . (And) i t appears that between 1960 and 1965 there may have been a s l i g h t r i s e i n the test performance of the students i n most of the school systems. Generally, however, the 1970 l e v e l of performance i s s l i g h t l y lower than that of 1960 or 1965 with the actual discrepancies d i f f e r i n g from school system to school system. Such discrepancies are greater at the upper grade l e v e l s than they are at the lower grade l e v e l s . (pp. 460, 461, 459) Their comment that " i t i s extremely d i f f i c u l t f o r anyone interested i n evaluating trends i n l i t e r a c y to obtain adequate data" (p. 461) was taken up by Bentley (March 1976). So, i n e v i t a b l y , we have been faced with the r e s u l t s of standardized t e s t s , with a l l t h e i r s c i e n t i f i c accoutrements of o b j e c t i v i t y , norm- ing, r e l i a b i l i t y , v a l i d i t y . These tests have produced the scores. That i t i s almost impossible to make any r e l i a b l e statements or gen- e r a l i z a t i o n s on these scores and on what i s happening to t h i s thing c a l l e d l i t e r a c y — w h e t h e r i t i s improving or de c l i n i n g — m e r e l y provides the opportunity for emotional debate rather than r a t i o n a l discussion, (p. 13) 9 In another a r t i c l e (January 1976) Bentley conceded: We s h a l l hear the cry (Back to the 3 R's) again because obviously there are problems of language competence and performance i n a society that i s undergoing rapid change, that has more students staying i n school longer and continuing to u n i v e r s i t y , and that has accepted an increasing number of people whose f i r s t language i s not English, (p. 1) On the l o c a l l e v e l , the Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, School Board, l a r g e l y as a r e s u l t of public pressure, recommended i n i t s Report of the Task Force on English, 1975: That the Vancouver School Board be s e l e c t i v e i n i t s choice of teachers of E n g l i s h by h i r i n g those who have competence i n a l l aspects of Eng- l i s h , p a r t i c u l a r l y language and developmental reading. That e f f e c - t i v e Sept., 1976, the School Board i n h i r i n g secondary teachers of English give p r i o r i t y to those who have completed course work i n . . . Reading, including remedial and developmental reading. (p. 11) And i n February, 1976, the Vancouver School Board proposed Project BUILD: Bringing Unity Into Language Development, a system-wide project involving considerable p r o f e s s i o n a l development i n reading and the other language arts f o r a l l teachers i n the system. P r o v i n c i a l l y , the Department of Education i s committed to extending the l i t e r a c y assessment i n i t i a t e d i n 1975 as the Language Arts Survey ("Over 100 Recommendations Contained i n English Language Arts Assessment," p. 67). That there are students with reading problems cannot and indeed should not be denied. J . E. Allen's o r i g i n a l concerns about i l l i t e r a c y were not ignored. In The Right to Read?—Target f o r the 70's, A l l e n noted that i n the United States, nationwide, one out of every four students had s i g n i f i c a n t reading d e f i c i e n c i e s ; i n large c i t y school systems, up to ha l f of the students read below expectation; about h a l f of the unem- ployed youth, ages 16 to 21, were f u n c t i o n a l l y i l l i t e r a t e ; three quarters of the j u v e n i l e offenders i n New York C i t y were two or more years retarded i n reading (Address to the National Association of School Boards of Education, Sept. 23, 1969). On Allen's i n i t i a t i v e , a commission under- took to report on the reading problem. The r e s u l t i n g document Toward a L i t e r a t e Society: The Report of the Committee on Reading of the National Academy of Education (eds. J . B. C a r r o l l and J . S. C h a l l , 1975), gave r e s u l t s of the 1973 Br i e f Test of L i t e r a c y : '"4.8 percent of the approx- imately 23 m i l l i o n n o n i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d youths 12-17 years old i n the United States are i l l i t e r a t e , i . e . , they cannot read at the beginning fourth grade l e v e l ' " ("Literacy Among Youths 12-17 years, United States," Washington, D.C, D.H.E.W., Dec. 1973, p. 64). As part of a nationa l strategy to extend l i t e r a c y , the document ( i ) proposed more extensive and improved i n s e r v i c e and preservice t r a i n i n g of teachers, reading s p e c i a l - i s t s and paraprofessionals, ( i i ) c a l l e d f o r the involvement of every teacher .and p r i n c i p a l i n the reading program, and ( i i i ) c a l l e d also for the continuation of reading i n s t r u c t i o n into the high-school years. (See R. C. Preston's review, Journal of Reading, 19-5, Feb. 1976, 414-19). However, i t i s a comparable B r i t i s h report A Language for L i f e (Bullock, 1975), which points up the r e a l issue: whether or not reading scores are higher or lower i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n the face of evidence that i n present-day society l i t e r a c y demands are greater than ever before. Thus, even maintaining standards of the past i s i n s u f f i c i e n t ; students must be taught to read and write more e f f e c t i v e l y i n order to function s u c c e s s f u l l y i n t h e i r adult l i v e s . " I t may be true that i n commerce, industry, and higher education a l i k e comparisons with past standards are misleading, but the clear i m p l i c a t i o n i s that standards need to be raised to f u l f i l the demands that are being made upon them" (p. 4). Instead of quibbling about r e a l or imaginary s h i f t s i n scores, concern should be for immediate improvement of the educational system throughout. For the Bullock Report, t h i s means better teacher education. Indeed a f u l l chapter i s devoted to i n s e r v i c e education. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between preservice and i n s e r v i c e education and the p a r t i c u l a r strengths and weaknesses of each have received increasing attention i n the l i t e r a t u r e , as the following section shows. Research on preservice and i n s e r v i c e education i n secondary reading focuses on the r o l e of the teacher generally and the English teacher p a r t i c u l a r l y . The Bullock Report reaffirmed the teacher's importance: "The importance of methods, materials, patterns of organization, pupil-teacher r a t i o s , and i n f a c t a l l other f a c t o r s , pale i n importance when compared to the compe- tency and a t t i t u d e of the teacher responsible f o r language i n s t r u c t i o n . 'We have urged throughout that the most important s i n g l e f a c t o r i s the teacher' (p. 336)" (Pikulsky, 1976, p. 410). 2 And i t i s the English teacher who i s most l i k e l y to be all o c a t e d the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r teaching reading i n the secondary school. In addition, the English teacher i s most l i k e l y to have had a preservice course i n reading. Thus, the elements of the problem mesh: i n s e r v i c e i n secondary reading f o r the Englis h teacher. C. Related Research 1. Preservice and Inservice P r i o r to an in-depth analysis of the l i t e r a t u r e on i n s e r v i c e educa- t i o n , some consideration of preservice education should be taken due to the h i s t o r i c a l and natural l i n k between the two. Although there i s 2 To r e i n f o r c e t h i s point, a survey of the main topics of sessions and t h e i r frequency at the 1975 International Reading Association Conven- t i o n revealed that #1 was "The Teacher as a Variable i n the Reading Pro- cess—Methods of Improving the Competency of the Reading Teacher (Pre- service and Inservice Techniques)" ( S t a l l a r d , 1976). 12 evidence to support both sides of the argument concerning the value of preservice t r a i n i n g , the emerging compromise—considering preservice and i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g on a continuum of educational experience—appears most productive. Studies re l a t e d to reading (Tetley, 1964; Rush, 1970; Sabin, 1973) provide support for the effectiveness of preservice t r a i n i n g i n secondary reading on subsequent classroom behavior. In proposing a new model for i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i n 1971, F i l i p and others reported that "the current status of i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i s f a r le s s s a t i s f a c t o r y than the preservice t r a i n i n g provided for most teachers" (p. 51). However, there are those who consider preservice t r a i n i n g inadequate or i n s u f f i c i e n t . In a Michigan survey "teachers f e l t t h e i r preservice t r a i n i n g was l e s s than adequate i n equipping them to cope with the kinds of reading s i t u a t i o n s they a c t u a l l y were fa c i n g " (McGinnis, 1961, p. 101). Dolores Durkin stated, "In my opinion, the very best of preservice courses, even when they concentrate e x c l u s i v e l y on reading, can make only a small contribution to the development of expertness i n teaching" (from F i g u r e l , 1968, p. 309). L. J . Rubin even claimed, "'In the making of a teacher, i t i s highly probable that i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i s i n f i n i t e l y more important than preservice t r a i n i n g ' " (from Anderson et a l . , 1973, p. 4). Lest t h i s be taken as a c r i t i c i s m of teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s , i t i s important to r e c a l l that the adjustment of new teachers and the development of experienced teachers, with the ensuing and diverse needs of both groups, occur a f t e r classroom experience. Therefore, "regardless of the q u a l i t y of preservice programs, such programs are inadequate and i n s u f f i c i e n t to maintain the teacher on the job. A comprehensive i n s e r v i c e 1 3 3 p r o g r a m w i l l s t i l l b e n e e d e d " ( M o b u r g , 1 9 7 2 , p . 7 ) . M o r e o v e r , " M a n y u n d e r s t a n d i n g s a n d t e c h n i q u e s r e l a t e d t o t h e s u c c e s s f u l t e a c h i n g o f r e a d i n , c a n b e s t b e l e a r n e d w h i l e t e a c h e r s a r e o n t h e j o b " ( J . N . A b e r n a t h y , p . 7 , f r o m D . R u s s e l l , 1 9 6 7 ) . T w o a n a l o g i e s m a y c l a r i f y t h i s p o i n t . P r e s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n , h o w e v e r w e l l d e s i g n e d , c a n o n l y e q u i p a t e a c h e r . . . w i t h t h e b a s i c t o o l s o f h i s t r a d e . A l l t h e s k i l l s o f t h e a r t t h a t r a i s e t h e e d u c a t o r b e y o n d t h e j o u r n e y m a n l e v e l d e p e n d u p o n l e a r n i n g i n t h e s i t u a t i o n a l c o n t e x t o f h i s w o r k . ( B e s s e n t e t a l . , 1 9 6 7 , p . 5 ) a n d P r e s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i s n o t e n o u g h t o a p p r o p r i a t e l y p r e p a r e t h e t e a c h e r f o r m a n y a s p e c t s o f h i s r o l e t h a t c a n o n l y b e i n t e r n a l i z e d a f t e r h e h a s a c c e p t e d a t e a c h i n g p o s t . P r e s e r v i c e i s , a t b e s t , a k i n d o f i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e t a s k s ; i t i s a n a l o g o u s i n m e d i c i n e t o t h e y o u n g p h y s i c i a n w h o i s r e a d y t o i n t e r n b e c a u s e . . . t r u e p r a c t i c e m u s t ^ a w a i t p l a c e m e n t i n a r e a l p o s i t i o n . ( M o n a h a n a n d M i l l e r , 1 9 7 0 , p . 1 ) A s H . J . J a m e s , 1 9 7 2 , n o t e d , i t i s o n l y a f t e r c l a s s r o o m m a n a g e m e n t a n d l e s s o n p l a n n i n g h a v e b e e n m a s t e r e d t h a t t e c h n i q u e s o f t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g s k i l l s c a n b e s u c c e s s f u l l y l e a r n e d a n d i m p l e m e n t e d . A n d , a s t h o s e w h o e s p o u s e t h e v i e w o f e d u c a t i o n a s a c o n t i n u u m ( C h i l d r e s s , 1 9 6 5 ; A u s t i n , 1 9 7 1 ; S c h u m e r , 1 9 7 3 ; B r i m m a n d T o l l e t t , 1 9 7 4 ; M o o n , 1 9 7 5 ) , n o t e , i f e d u c a t i o n i s t r u l y a l i f e p r o c e s s , t e a c h e r s w i l l a l w a y s n e e d e d u c a t i o n a l i n p u t , o r i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n . T h e C a n a d i a n p o i n t o f v i e w o n t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p r e s e r v i c e a n d i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n , w e l l r e f e r e n c e d b y t h e C a n a d i a n T e a c h e r s F e d e r a t i o n " A n e x a m p l e o f a h i g h q u a l i t y p r e s e r v i c e r e a d i n g c o u r s e w a s d e s c r i b e d b y G o u d e y , 1 9 7 0 . I t i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e l e c t u r e , s m a l l g r o u p d i s c u s s i o n , a n d m i c r o t e a c h i n g . D u l i n , 1 9 7 1 , g a v e a c o m p r e h e n s i v e l i s t o f t o p i c s t o b e c o v e r e d i n a p r e s e r v i c e s e c o n d a r y r e a d i n g c o u r s e . R a m s e y , 1 9 7 5 , s u g g e s t e d i m p r o v e m e n t o f p r e s e r v i c e b y i n c r e a s i n g p r a c t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e s . 4 O n e a t t e m p t t o i m p r o v e p r e s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i s t h e i n i t i a t i o n o f t h e i n t e r n s y s t e m o f e x t e n s i v e o n - s i t e e x p e r i e n c e ( J o y c e 1 9 6 9 ; B u r d i n a n d L a n z i l l o t t i , 1 9 7 0 ; D u f f y , 1 9 7 1 ; S n o w , 1 9 7 2 ) , a s o p p o s e d t o t h e s h o r t - t e r m , l i m i t e d - v a l u e p r a c t i c u m ( H a u b r i c h , 1 9 6 8 ) . R e s u l t s h a v e p r o v e n b e n e f i c i a l t o s u p e r v i s i n g a s w e l l a s s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ( P r o f e s s i o n a l G r o w t h I n s e r v i c e o f t h e S u p e r v i s i n g T e a c h e r , 1 9 6 6 ) . 1 4 ( C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n f o r T e a c h e r s , 1 9 7 5 ) , r e v e a l s t h e h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p - m e n t w h i c h h a s t a k e n p l a c e . W h e r e a s i n i t i a l l y i n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m s c o m p e n - s a t e d f o r p r e s e r v i c e d e f i c i e n c i e s , t h e y n o w h a v e r e a c h e d t h e s t a g e o f c o m p l e m e n t i n g p r e s e r v i c e , u p d a t i n g r a t h e r t h a n u p g r a d i n g . " I t i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n o f i n s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s t o s u p p l y g a p s i n k n o w l e d g e w h i c h s h o u l d h a v e b e e n f i l l e d b y t h e p r e s e r v i c e p r o g r a m . I n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s m u s t n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a r e p l a c e m e n t b u t a s a n a d d i t i o n t o p r e s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n " ( T h e C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s a n d O t h e r P r o - f e s s i o n a l P e r s o n n e l i n t h e P r o v i n c e o f N e w f o u n d l a n d , 1 9 7 4 , p . 4 0 ) . " P r e s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i s o n l y t h e s t a r t o f p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g a n d g r o w t h f o r a t e a c h e r . . . . R e g u l a r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i s e s s e n t i a l t o s t i m u l a t e c o n t i n u o u s g r o w t h a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l r e n e w a l , t h e r e b y r e n d e r i n g t h e e d u c a - t i o n a l s y s t e m m o r e v i t a l a n d r e s p o n s i v e t o c h a n g e " ( P a r t n e r s h i p f o r P r o - f e s s i o n a l R e n e w a l , 1 9 7 3 , p . 4 6 ) . " P r e s e r v i c e t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n c a n b e v i e w e d o n l y a s t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r t h e t e a c h e r ' s c a r e e r i n l e a r n i n g . T h e n e e d f o r c o n t i n u o u s t e a c h e r l e a r n i n g i s a l s o s u p p o r t e d b y r e s e a r c h s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e t e a c h e r w h o c o n t i n u e s t o l e a r n i s a l s o t h e t e a c h e r w h o t e a c h e s b e s t . . . . [ T h e r e f o r e ] t h e t e a c h e r p r e s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m [ s h o u l d ] b e s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n e d t o l e a d s t u d e n t s t o t h e p o i n t w h e r e t h e y a r e a b l e t o b e g i n s e t t i n g t h e l e a r n i n g g o a l s w h i c h w i l l b e g r a d u a l l y r e a l i z e d d u r i n g t h e i r t e a c h i n g c a r e e r s " ( C h a n n o n , 1 9 7 5 , p . 1 a n d p . 1 0 ) . T h e n e e d f o r i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n i n r e a d i n g h a s b e e n e x a m i n e d f r o m v a r i o u s p o i n t s o f v i e w . S t u d i e s h a v e e x p l o r e d t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d t h e i r c o m p e t e n c i e s t o t e a c h r e a d i n g ( P a t t e r s o n , 1 9 5 8 ; H a r g r o v e , 1 9 7 3 ; U s o v a , 1 9 7 3 ) a n d d e f i c i e n c i e s o f n e w o r e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r s ( T e t l e y , 1 9 6 4 ; I n s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s : R e s e a r c h S u m m a r y , 1 9 6 6 ; D a h l , 1 9 7 0 ; R . J . H a r s h i n C o r d e r , 1 9 7 1 ; D e v o r e , 1 9 7 1 ; B a d e r , 1 9 7 2 ; Cunningham, 1972) as well as the reading problems of students (Allen, 1969; Carp i n Corder, 1971). The findings of these studies can be summarized as follows: The work of making good teachers must be c a r r i e d forward s t e a d i l y because of the immaturity of teachers on entering the profession, the unevenness of t h e i r preparation, the singular lack of external stimulus connected with p r a c t i c e of the profession, .the complex nature of the work that must be intrusted to even the poorest teacher, the profound i n j u r y that r e s u l t s when the work i s badly done, the constant change i n methods and curriculum. (C. D. Lowry from Henry, 1957, p. ix) 2. English Teachers and Reading The c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n of the English teacher as the r e c i p i e n t of i n s e r v i c e education i n reading i s j u s t i f i e d by the l i t e r a t u r e . Although the statement every teacher a teacher of reading seems a c l i c h e , i t i s apparent that i n r e a l i t y such i s not the case. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the teaching of reading has been and continues to be l a r g e l y the r e s p o n s i b i l - i t y of the English teacher. As Thomas Estes stated, "an overwhelming percentage of English teachers are at some time asked to teach reading, wherever reading i s introduced into the secondary curriculum, the English department i s given consideration as the l o g i c a l shoulder on which to l a y the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " (1972, p. 2). Unfortunately, however, most English teachers are no better prepared than any other teacher by preservice t r a i n - ing or a t t i t u d i n a l i n c l i n a t i o n to teach reading. Corder's The Information Base for Reading, 1971, noted that the majority of secondary teachers i n the United States were not required to take a reading course, since only 6% of teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s required such a course, while 59% offered a course. G. K. McGuire's nation a l survey of English teachers, 1969, revealed that 84% of the p u b l i c high school teachers of English responding had not taken a course at the undergraduate l e v e l i n the teaching of reading and that they f e l t i t was t h e i r major area of incompetence, the one i n which they most needed i n s t r u c t i o n . A 1970 survey by Farr et a l . of Indiana secondary schools indicated that of the schools responding, 73% assigned r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r reading i n s t r u c t i o n 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; H i l l , 1975; Rafferty, 1975) confirm t h i s bleak p i c t u r e , i n s p i t e of L. A. Bader's optimism that 35% of states now require secondary reading preparation for c e r t i f i c a t i o n (Journal of Reading, Dec. 1975). Morrison and Austin, 1976, reported that Recommen- dation 9 of The T o r c h l i g h t e r s : Tomorrow's Teachers of Reading, 1961, "that a course i n basic reading i n s t r u c t i o n be required of a l l prospective secondary school teachers" has since been put into e f f e c t "by only 24.8 percent of the responding schools . . . the large majority of these responses . . . [apply] only to students majoring i n E n g l i s h " (p. 650). The teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s most frequently mentioned as a future need "that a course i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n be required of a l l prospective teachers majoring i n secondary education" (p. 651).^ The state of reading i n s t r u c t i o n i n English classes was exposed by Squire and Applebee i n t h e i r 1968 survey of superior high school English departments. Of 112 departments, 16 accepted great r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r teaching reading, 37 some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , 14 no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . T h i r t y - three claimed teaching of reading was the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a s p e c i a l teacher or program. F i f t y per cent of the schools employed reading ^Farmer, 1975, examining trends i n the professional education of English teachers between 1963 and 1973 noted a broadening of curriculum to include l i s t e n i n g , speaking, reading, w r i t i n g , and the humanistic concept of comprehensive communication competencies. 17 s p e c i a l i s t s , usually i n the English department. Well-developed develop- mental reading programs existed i n only 17% of the schools. In the c l a s s - rooms observed, reading received some att e n t i o n i n only 10%, j u s t i f y i n g the conclusion that "the average English teacher does not consider a con- scious e f f o r t to teach reading a s i g n i f i c a n t aspect of the English program" (p. 155). Chronister and Ahrendt reported i n 1968 that of 216 B r i t i s h Columbia secondary schools, only 33 had a Developmental Reading Program, and teaching i n these f e l l p r i m a r i l y on English teachers. Kinzer, 1976, pro- vided more recent data. In a survey of a l l B r i t i s h Columbia secondary schools, 88.8% responding, Developmental Reading Programs existed i n 21.5% of the schools, with teachers generally untrained i n the teaching of reading. Of secondary reading i n s t r u c t o r s , 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 s i t u a t i o n s such as those revealed by Chronister and Ahrendt, suggestions have ranged from s t r i c t e r course requirements for c e r t i f i c a t i o n ( V i a l l et a l . , 1967; Estes, 1972; Getz and Kennedy, 1972; Redd, 1972; Ohio Right to Read Materials, 1974) to i n s e r v i c e i n the form of summer programs, laboratory courses, i n t e r n programs, s o c i a l science studies, and so on (Suloway and Shugrue, 1963; K a r l s , 1970; Brown, 1972; C a t a l i n i , 1972). Suggested topics for English teachers were: c r i t i c a l reading, word recognition, vocabulary development, rate adjustment, study s k i l l s , comprehension, o r a l reading ( L i t t r e l l , 1968); and reading achieve- ment and programs, the reading process, evaluation and diagnosis, materials, the d i r e c t e d reading lesson, r e a d a b i l i t y and remediation (Roberts, 1972). As for evaluation of the effectiveness of i n s e r v i c e education, 18 several studies (Ashley, 1967; James, 1969; Almase, 1973; C i a g l l a , 1973; Stephens, 1973; Thompson, 1973; Young, 1973; Bean, 1974; Archer, 1975) confirm that i n s e r v i c e programs can produce desired changes i n teachers and t h e i r students. These findings are reassuring, because i n the past i n s e r v i c e has suffered from lack of success r e s u l t i n g i n negative a t t i t u d e s by teachers toward i n s e r v i c e ( T i l l e y , 1971; Edwards, 1975). As Rubin, 1971b, stated, "Inservice education has indeed been v i r t u a l l y a l o s t cause . . . teacher professional growth has not been taken s e r i o u s l y , i t lacks systematic methodology, and i t has been managed with astonishing clumsiness. It i s not s u r p r i s i n g , therefore, that teachers have grown accustomed to i t s impotence and that administrators have come to regard i t as a routine exercise i n f u t i l i t y " (p. 245). One reason for improved r e s u l t s i s improved status, that i s , recognition of the importance of and need f o r i n s e r v i c e . This awareness has led to consideration of the f a c t o r s , organizational and methodological, which a f f e c t good i n s e r v i c e programs. A review of these follows i n chapter I I I . D. Summary The need for continuing education e x i s t s throughout the professions. U n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s i o n al schools, i n p a r t i c u l a r , are increasing involvement i n continuing p rofessional education. Rapid changes within society as well as within d i s c i p l i n e s require updating. For educators, t h i s can be accomplished through i n s e r v i c e programs. Recognition of the p a r t i c u l a r needs of teachers i s evidenced by concern from the public as well as the government and the profession. Within t h i s context i s the focus of pro- f e s s i o n a l development rel a t e d to l i t e r a c y . Although cautions must be exercised i n comparing past and present standards of l i t e r a c y , there i s no question that l i t e r a c y demands have increased, thus n e c e s s i t a t i n g higher standards. But preservice education, however excellent i n q u a l i t y , cannot adequately prepare teachers f o r the task they face i n the c l a s s - room. Therefore, preservice and i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g should complement one another on a continuum of teacher education. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r improving l i t e r a c y , that i s , teaching reading, generally f a l l s to the English teacher even though he i s often i l l - p r e p a r e d . To better enable him to teach reading, i n s e r v i c e education i s e s s e n t i a l . Thus, t h i s chapter has moved from a general s i t u a t i o n (the need of professionals f o r continuing education) to a s p e c i f i c problem (the competence of English teachers to improve standards of l i t e r a c y ) , providing the background and ra t i o n a l e f o r 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 c l a s s i c 56th Yearbook of the National Society f o r the Study of Education (Henry, 1957), few books have been written concerning i n s e r v i c e education as one type of continuing education f o r teachers. P a r t i c u l a r l y within the past decade, a r i c h primary l i t e r a t u r e has emerged with hundreds of a r t i c l e s on i n s e r v i c e education, s t a f f development, i n s t r u c t i o n a l technology and models for in s e r v i c e education appearing. However, t h i s l i t e r a t u r e i s widely scattered and requires c a r e f u l analysis and synthesis before i t s substan- t i v e content can be e f f e c t i v e l y used i n applied s i t u a t i o n s . The purpose of t h i s study i s to i d e n t i f y , to c o l l e c t , to c r i t i c a l l y analyze, to evaluate, and to synthesize the research and pr o f e s s i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e on i n s e r v i c e education generally and on secondary reading and in s e r v i c e i n p a r t i c u l a r . From t h i s evaluation and synthesis w i l l be generated the conceptual framework f or a model f or i n s e r v i c e education i n secondary reading f o r English teachers. Selected i n s t r u c t i o n a l modules w i l l also be presented to i l l u s t r a t e elements of the i n s e r v i c e model. An important subsidiary purpose of the study i s to provide a source of information that can be turned to by others i n planning and implementing e f f e c t i v e i n s e r v i c e programs. The purpose and methodology of the study 20 21 derive from concepts emphasized by Glass (1976) i n h i s p r e s i d e n t i a l address to the American Educational Research Association: Before what has been found can be used, before i t can persuade skep- t i c s , influence p o l i c y , a f f e c t p r a c t i c e , i t must be known. Someone must organize i t , integrate i t , extract the message. A hundred d i s - sertations are mute. Someone must read them and discover what they say. . . . In our f i e l d review i s the i n t e l l e c t u a l equivalent of o r i g i n a l research. . . . In educational research we need more sc h o l - a r l y e f f o r t concentrated on the problem of f i n d i n g the knowledge that l i e s untapped i n completed research studies. We are too heavily involved i n pedestrian reviewing where verbal synopses of studies are strung out i n dizzying l i s t s . The best minds are needed to integrate the staggering number of i n d i v i d u a l studies. This endeavor deserves higher p r i o r i t y now than adding a new experiment or survey to the p i l e , (pp. 4-5) E f f e c t i v e analysis and synthesis of information can i l l u s t r a t e trends and p r i o r i t i e s i n i n s e r v i c e education. I t can also serve to pin-point gaps i n knowledge and areas where the state-of-the-art i s weak. Systematic review and synthesis also decreases the time lag i n the introduction of new ideas into education p r a c t i c e . F i n a l l y , synthesis can serve the important function of i d e n t i f y i n g those v a r i a b l e s which appear to be im- portant i n i n s t i t u t i n g i n s e r v i c e programs preparatory to developing hypo- theses for further research and development a c t i v i t i e s i n the area. B. D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Inservice Education has been v a r i o u s l y c a l l e d i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g , growth-in-service a c t i v i t i e s , s t a f f or p r o f e s s i o n a l development, profes- s i o n a l growth, continuing education. It has been described as formal or informal by D. J . Johnston, 1971. Inservice education may consist of c a r e f u l l y planned, sustained work over a lengthy period leading to a further q u a l i f i c a t i o n i n the form of an advanced c e r t i f i c a t e , diploma, or higher degree; i t may equally well be casual study, pursued i r r e g u l a r l y i n the evenings or during vacations, and i n no sense leading to measurable recognition f o r purposes of salary or of promotion. (p. 9) Harris and Bessent, 1969, on the other hand, provided a more operational 22 d e f i n i t i o n . Inservice education . . . i s concerned with much more l i m i t e d tasks [than supervision i s ] , namely the development of i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t a f f members as professional p r a c t i t i o n e r s , i n such ways as to have a reasonably d i r e c t impact upon the q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n offered i n the school . . . [that i s , ] planned a c t i v i t i e s for the i n s t r u c t i o n a l improvement of p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f members. (p. 2) A d i f f e r e n t approach was taken by Aaron et a l . , 1965, by considering i n s e r - v i c e education i n terms of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an i n s e r v i c e program: goals and desired outcomes are defined i n the beginning; the program i s based on the classroom teacher's i n s t r u c t i o n a l problems; the program i s f l e x i b l e , providing f o r follow-up a c t i v i t i e s and i n d i v i d u a l work; time i s planned and must be adequate. For present purposes, A. J . Lewis' (1957) d e f i n i t i o n provides an adequate s t a r t i n g point: "An i n s e r v i c e education program . . . must be concerned with helping p r o f e s s i o n a l personnel develop the a t t i t u d e s , understandings, and s k i l l s that w i l l enable them to provide a better program of education" (p. 154). To t h i s should be added a con- s i d e r a t i o n of the formal/informal approach, the importance of changing teachers' behavior, and the elements instrumental i n an e f f e c t i v e program. Therefore, In-service Education i s : that portion of professional development that should be p u b l i c l y supported and includes a program of systemat- i c a l l y designed a c t i v i t i e s planned to increase the competencies— knowledge, s k i l l s , and attitudes—needed by school personnel i n the performance of t h e i r assigned r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ; . . . any p r o f e s s i o n a l development a c t i v i t y that a teacher undertakes s i n g l y or with other teachers a f t e r r e c e i v i n g h i s or her i n i t i a l teach- ing c e r t i f i c a t e and a f t e r beginning professional p r a c t i c e ; . . . a process through which an i n d i v i d u a l responds to a need to do or know or f e e l something d i f f e r e n t l y and, as a r e s u l t of the process, per- forms d i f f e r e n t l y i n his assigned r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . (Mullen, 1975) Secondary Reading i s the reading, both i n s t r u c t i o n a l and independent, done by students i n the j u n i o r secondary schools of B r i t i s h Columbia. In the Review of the L i t e r a t u r e , however, reading studies included may be from ei t h e r elementary or secondary schools, or from i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher 23 learning. An English Teacher i s any teacher who teaches English i n the second- ary school, regardless of h i s academic preparation or the amount of time spent i n that content area. L i t e r a c y was comprehensively discussed i n terms of changing standards of l i t e r a c y by Abraham Carp i n "The Reading Problem i n the United States" (Corder, 1971) i n which he concluded that since c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d ap- proaches were unavailable, the d e f i n i t i o n of l i t e r a c y adopted by the U.S. Census Bureau would s u f f i c e . L i t e r a c y i s the a b i l i t y to read and write a simple message i n any language; any i n d i v i d u a l with more than f i v e years of schooling i s considered l i t e r a t e . Moreover, i n d i v i d u a l s with l e s s schooling can on t h e i r own report be counted as l i t e r a t e . Carp defined f u n c t i o n a l l i t e r a c y by the number of years of education completed with em- phasis on completing fewer than f i v e , eight, or twelve years of education. In addition, grade achievement on nat i o n a l norm-referenced tests of reading at these l e v e l s 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 cr i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d tests for functional' l i t e r a c y . And the whole issue of measuring l i t e r a c y has been given a new perspective by John Bormuth's recent paper "Reading L i t e r a c y : Its D e f i n i t i o n and Assessment" ( C a r r o l l - C h a l l , 1975). A f t e r reviewing the l i m i t a t i o n s of past d e f i n i t i o n s of l i t e r a c y , Bormuth posited that l i t e r a c y i s the a b i l i t y to respond competently to r e a l world reading tasks, measured by an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s k i l l s , the kind and amount of s k i l l , plus the r e a d a b i l i t y of materials. He seemed to be moving to- ward standards of l i t e r a c y based on purpose, circumstance, and i n d i v i d u a l s , d e f i n i n g a person as l i t e r a t e "when he could perform well enough to obtain 24 the maximum value from the materials he needed to read" (p. 98). The B r i t i s h approach to the l i t e r a c y issue i s eminently pragmatic: '" [He] i s i l l i t e r a t e who i s not as l i t e r a t e as someone else thinks he ought to be" 1 (Bullock, 1975, p. 10). Functional l i t e r a c y i s the a b i l i t y to read and write f o r p r a c t i c a l purposes of d a i l y l i f e . The Bullock Report also emphasized the l i m i t a t i o n s of standardized test r e s u l t s f or assessing cur- rent standards, p a r t i c u l a r l y with reference to past achievement. An a l t e r - 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, l i t e r a c y i s r e l a t e d to a student's a b i l i t y to read competently material with which he must deal i n school or i n d a i l y l i f e . The assessment currently being conducted i n B r i t i s h Columbia of students at grades eight and twelve seeks to determine p r e c i s e l y t h i s : how well are students reading the m a t e r i a l s — b o t h academic and non-academic— with which they are faced? The data from t h i s study w i l l not be a v a i l a b l e u n t i l 1977-78. Therefore, for the purposes of t h i s study s a t i s f a c t o r y i n - struments for measuring l i t e r a c y are: standardized reading t e s t s , informal reading inventories, and cloze tests of reading comprehension, i n combination. Since one goal of teaching English i s to help students to read with understanding and appreciation, concern f o r l i t e r a c y combines the f u n c t i o n a l and the aesthetic. Basic s k i l l s as well as such complex a c t i v i t i e s as c r i t - i c a l reading must be mastered. I t i s not s u f f i c i e n t f o r a student to be able to read at a l i t e r a l l e v e l because to function i n society, c r i t i c a l reading i s also an e s s e n t i a l s k i l l . Therefore, f u n c t i o n a l l i t e r a c y , f o r t h i s paper's purposes, means more than the a b i l i t y to read signs, l a b e l s , or d i r e c t i o n s . It implies the capacity to analyze and evaluate printed material relevant 25 to common tasks, i n or out of school. I t i s t h i s l e v e l of l i t e r a c y which i s aspired to. A model as used here i n the s o c i a l science sense should not be con- fused with the models of pure science. Several d e f i n i t i o n s e x i s t which are r e l a t e d , but not e n t i r e l y appropriate. In F. B. Davis' "Psychometric Re- search on Comprehension i n Reading" (Davis, 1971) a model i s "'a d e s c r i p t i o n , a c o l l e c t i o n of s t a t i s t i c a l data, or an analogy used to help v i s u a l i z e , often i n a simple way, something that cannot be d i r e c t l y observed'" (Webster's New International Dictionary, 3rd e d i t i o n ) . Further, "Gephart (1970) defines a model for purposes of research i n reading as 'a representation of a phen- omenon which displays the i d e n t i f i a b l e s t r u c t u r a l elements of that phenomen- on, the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among those elements, and the processes involved i n the natural phenomenon (p. 38)'" (Davis, 1971, p. 8-4). Harold Borko, 1967, claimed "a model i s always an approximation, usually a s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , and hopefully an aide to i n s i g h t " ( L i p p i t t , 1973, p. 1). L i p p i t t , 1973, stated "a model i s a symbolic representation of the various aspects of a complex event or s i t u a t i o n , and t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s " (p. 2). An educational model ne c e s s a r i l y lacks the concreteness and s p e c i f - i c i t y of a symbolic model i n mathematics, science, psychology, or cyber- n e t i c s . I t may incorporate some overlapping between presumably d i s c r e t e kinds of models such as schematic (e.g., a flow chart showing the movement of information, time-phasing, or r e l a t i o n s h i p s within an organization) and simulation (approximation of r e a l - l i f e s i t u a t i o n s ) . However, although i t i s possible to derive a symbolic i l l u s t r a t i o n of an educational model (see appendix), i n t h i s paper natural language w i l l s u f f i c e . A possible referent f o r the educational model i s the change model which incorporates behavior, goals, d i r e c t i n g forces, possible hindrances, 26 and the connection of goals to resources. Because a l l v a r i a b l e s cannot be c o n t r o l l e d , the model combines art and science. Components are goals and objectives; norms and values; structure and r o l e s ; problem-solving process; power, authority and influence; perpetuation process, s i t u a t i o n and space; communication ( L i p p i t t , 1973) • An even more appropriate comparison for an educational model would be to a model of curriculum development where s i m i l a r elements are involved: p a r t i c i p a n t s at various l e v e l s , subject matter, organizational sequence, ac c o u n t a b i l i t y , evaluation o r i e n t a t i o n . Presumably both are concerned with process as well as product. S i m i l a r l y , curriculum design i s a pro- cess of conceptualizing a set of systematic r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p u p i l s , teacher behavior, materials, content, time, and i n s t r u c t i o n a l outcomes; a guide for i n s t r u c t i o n describing a s p e c i f i c arrangement of a l l factors re- l a t i n g to i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r a c t i c e toward s p e c i f i c outcomes (Good, 1973, p. 158). Workshop i s a generic term for an organizational framework i n which p a r t i c i p a t i o n of those attending i s the key. Many d i f f e r e n t kinds of ac- t i v i t i e s may be incorporated i n the workshop, ranging from i l l u s t r a t e d l e c - ture to guided p r a c t i c e . (Bishop, 1976, includes: seminar, small group discussion, group interview, dialogue, consultation, value c l a r i f i c a t i o n s ; brainstorming, micro-laboratory, micro-teaching; i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s , f i e l d t r i p . ) However, involvement i n development of s k i l l s or p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of knowledge i s r e q u i s i t e . Good, 1973, defined a workshop as an i n s t r u c t i o n a l method i n which persons with common in t e r e s t s and problems meet with appropriate s p e c i a l i s t s to acquire necessary information and develop solutions through group study; usually r e s i d e n t i a l and of several days' duration (p. 652). 27 C. Limitations The extant information base was i d e n t i f i e d and examined. A prac- t i c a l d e cision was made to l i m i t the problem by focusing on educational i n s e r v i c e rather than on the whole body of continuing professional educa- t i o n , and within educational i n s e r v i c e , on aspects related to secondary reading and English. D. Sources of Materials The major sources of materials were Research i n Education (RIE) and Current Index to Journals i n Education (CUE), D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, and books. Also referred to were Education Index, Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Ath e d i t i o n , and Handbook of Research on Teaching, 1st and 2nd e d i t i o n s . Canadian sources were Graduate Theses i n Education, 1913-62, Education Studies Completed i n Canadian U n i v e r s i t i e s , Education Canada, Directory of Education Studies i n Canada, Canadian Theses, Canadian Edu- cation Index, Canadian Masters Theses i n Reading Education, Canadiana, and Canadian Books i n P r i n t . E. Elements of the Problem The l i t e r a t u r e on i n s e r v i c e education generally i s of two kinds: one focuses on a given element of i n s e r v i c e , such as needs assessment i n the planning stage or the development and implementation of an evaluation instrument; the second describes a program or model of i n s e r v i c e , i n c o r - 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 a l l the components of i n s e r v i c e : guidelines, needs, goals, r o l e s , structure, a c t i v i t i e s , and evaluation. Then each example was c l a s s i f i e d as an i l l u s t r a t i o n of one of these elements, thus 28 permitting comparison with the f i r s t group of a r t i c l e s , studies, and such. Certain exemplary models i n reading were selected to conclude the l i t e r a - ture review. F. Procedures and Techniques I n i t i a l l y the research technique consisted of documentation of the l i t e r a t u r e i n the f i e l d , that i s l o c a t i o n , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and analysis, plus d e r i v a t i o n of generalizations and p r a c t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , each document was c l a s s i f i e d by i t s major emphasis: Organization—Guide- l i n e s , Needs, Goals, Roles; Methodology—Structure, A c t i v i t i e s ; Evalua- t i o n ; Models. These categories were ar r i v e d at from a preliminary study of the l i t e r a t u r e , previously undertaken. This preliminary study included a review of the calendars of Canadian teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t e s to determine t h e i r offerings/requirements i n secondary reading; a perusal of D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts on secondary reading; reading of a v a i l a b l e books on i n s e r v i c e and secondary reading; reading the abstracts r e s u l t i n g from ERIC computer data base searches i n Inservice, Secondary Reading, and English Education. The comprehensive review confirmed the v a l i d i t y of the o r i g i n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme. On the basis of the l i t e r a t u r e search, a model was designed i n c o r - porating the appropriate elements rel a t e d to i n s e r v i c e i n reading f o r English teachers and i l l u s t r a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l modules produced. G. Summary B r i e f l y , chapter II has provided the framework for dealing with the problem. The purpose of the study was to i d e n t i f y , c o l l e c t , analyze, evaluate, and synthesize the l i t e r a t u r e on i n s e r v i c e education and 29 secondary reading, the outcome being the development of a conceptual model, and re l a t e d i l l u s t r a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l modules, for i n s e r v i c e education i n secondary reading f or English teachers. The following terms were defined: i n s e r v i c e , secondary reading, English teacher, l i t e r a c y , model, and work- shop. Limitations of the study and sources of information were explicated. F i n a l l y , elements of the problem and procedures and techniques for dealing with them were s p e c i f i e d . Thus, the methodology for both the review of the l i t e r a t u r e (chapter III) and the conceptual model and module develop- ment (chapter IV) has been established. CHAPTER III A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The following i s a synthesis of the relevant l i t e r a t u r e on i n s e r v i c e education, including what has been done, the emerging trends, and the d i r e c t i o n i n which pr o f e s s i o n a l development i s l i k e l y to move. This review provides both a r a t i o n a l e and a framework for the development of a model i n s e r v i c e program i n secondary reading and i l l u s t r a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l modules. It also indicates the extent to which the following p r e d i c t i o n has been f u l f i l l e d , the degree to which i n s e r v i c e education generally and i n reading s p e c i f i c a l l y has gained the recognition and support e s s e n t i a l for the promised renewal. Almost a decade ago, D. Davies wrote: Inservice teacher t r a i n i n g i s the slum of American e d u c a t i o n — disadvantaged; poverty-stricken; neglected; psychologically i s o l a t e d ; r i d d l e d with e x p l o i t a t i o n , broken promises, and c o n f l i c t . But the time of renewal i s at hand. New forces, new resources, new needs, new d i r e c t i o n s emerge; the next decade i s almost c e r t a i n to bring great change and great controversy. (Teacher Education, Washington, D.C, 1967, p. 295, quoted from Rit z et a l . , 1970, p. 12) A. Organization of Inservice Programs Within the r u b r i c of in s e r v i c e programs, organizational, method- o l o g i c a l , and i l l u s t r a t i v e examples can be analyzed under Organization, Methodology, Evaluation, and Models. Organization i s concerned with (1) Guidelines, (2) Needs, (3) Goals, and (4) Roles. 30 31 1. Guidelines Several tables and charts follow, providing data on a r t i c l e s and reports. There i s no s i n g l e format to the tables since they are essen- t i a l l y i d i o s y n c r a t i c , serving d i f f e r e n t purposes and i l l u s t r a t i n g variant information. Some of the tables provide a v i s u a l representation of trends by date or type of p r a c t i c e , showing s h i f t s i n emphasis and r e l a t i v e popu- l a r i t y of a c t i v i t i e s or methods. Other tables give verbal descriptions of s p e c i a l 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- i z e material and concepts from s p e c i f i c authors. One of the e a r l i e s t and most comprehensive references on i n s e r v i c e i s N. B. Henry's c l a s s i c Inservice Education for Teachers, Supervisors, and Administrators, 1957. In i t , J . C. Parker's "Guidelines for Inservice Education" included the following:* 1. people should work as i n d i v i d u a l s and group members on s i g n i f i c a n t problems. The topics must be meaningful to the p a r t i c i p a n t s . "To be e f f e c t i v e , i n s e r v i c e education should f i l l a need teachers have to acquire c e r t a i n s k i l l s and knowledge which they consider w i l l be b e n e f i c i a l f or them, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n 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 r e l a t i o n s . If i n s e r v i c e i s to be e f f e c t i v e , good interpersonal r e l a t i o n s are e s s e n t i a l . Inservice i s not merely a knowledge-transfer experi- ence; i t i s t h i s plus an a f f e c t i v e experience: to see and try something new, and to incorporate i t into a teaching s t y l e . This *The general guidelines from Parker and McCracken (see p. 37) are presented; they have been supplemented and updated with more recent r e l a t e d references. T A B L E 1 S U R V E Y O F S T U D I E S P R O V I D I N G G U I D E L I N E S F O R I N S E R V I C E P R O G R A M S N a m e s , D a t e s A r e a o r P o p u l a t i o n T o p i c o r F i e l d M e t h o d R e s u l t s 1 . J a f f a , N . N . , 1 9 5 7 B a l t i m o r e , M d . I n s e r v i c e t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n p r o - g r a m , e l e m e n t a r y P l a n n i n g s t r a t - e g i e s e x a m i n e d G u i d l i n e s d e v e l o p e d , e m p h a s i z i n g n e e d f o r f l e x i b i l i t y 2 . M o r r i s o n , C o l e m a n , 1 9 6 2 R e a d i n g t e a c h e r s P r e s e r v i c e a n d i n - s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n I R A c o n f e r e n c e p a p e r G u i d e l i n e s p r e s e n t e d 3 . S c h i l d , R. J . , 1 9 6 4 A P S S I n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m s S u r v e y o f s c h o o l s D i r e c t i o n s p r o p o s e d — e . g . , e x p a n d e d u s e o f e d u c a t i o n a l T . V . 4 . S c h u l t a n d S h e l l , 1 9 6 4 S e v e r a l s t a t e s I n s e r v i c e m a t h - e m a t i c s e s p e c i a l l y r e . n e w c u r r i c u l a R e v i e w o f p r o - g r a m s R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s : l o c a l p a r t i c - i p a t i o n , u s e o f m e d i a 5 . E d m o n d s , F r e d e t a l . , 1 9 6 6 K e n t u c k y U n i v e r s i t y I n s e r v i c e t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n C o m p o n e n t s e x a m i n e d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n t o i n d u c e e d u c a t i o n a l c h a n g e 6 . A t k i n s , J . P . , 1 9 6 8 T e n n e s s e e I n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m s o f s e c o n d a r y s o c i a l s t u d i e s t e a c h e r s T e a c h e r s s u r v e y e d u c a t i o n G u i d e l i n e s f o r m o r e e f f e c t i v e i n s e r v i c e p o s t u l a t e d 7 . L e e p , A . G . , e t a l . , 1 9 6 8 I n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m s D e v e l o p m e n t o f p r o g r a m s e x a m i n e d G u i d e l i n e s p r o v i d e d Table 1 (continued) Names, dates Area or Population Topic or F i e l d Method Results 8. Schankerman, Maurice, 1968 Elementary school teachers P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n inservice educa- tion Survey Teacher preferences revealed, e.g., involvement, released time 9. Bigelow, E. B., 1969 6 mid-wes- tern states Inservice educa- ti o n programs Survey and pro- posed changes Recommendations for program made, e.g., organization, teacher i n v o l - vement 10. Cramer, S. H., 1970 Washington, D.C. Preservice and i n - service prepara- ti o n f o r educa- t i o n a l guidance Survey of school counsellors E x i s t i n g programs described 11. Moir, C. F., 1970 Manitoba Inservice educa- ti o n i n the school Types of i n - service examined Recommendations re. long-term goal s e t t i n g , teacher planning, on-site i n s e r v i c e 12. Shorey, L. L., 1970 Ontario Personal and pro- f e s s i o n a l growth of teachers I n f l u e n t i a l factors examined Workshops recommended to combine personal and p r o f e s s i o n a l growth of teachers 13. Turner, I. S., 1970 Maryland Attitudes toward an inservice program Survey of teachers Guidelines derived from teacher responses 14. F i l i p , R. T., et a l . , 1971 C a l i f o r n i a Inservice t r a i n - ing Survey plus interviews of teachers From the survey and l i t e r a t u r e re- view, a model was designed in c o r - porating course work, planned ac- t i v i t i e s and experiences Table 1 (continued) Names, dates Area or Population Topic or F i e l d Method Results 15. Froberg, S. E., 1971 F l o r i d a Inservice educa- t i o n program Guide developed Types of programs and a c t i v i t i e s described 16. Sobol, F. T., 1971 Inservice t r a i n i n g procedures Variables f o r changing i n s e r - v i c e examined Guidelines included: need f o r contin- uing education, administrative p a r t i c i p a t i o n , teacher leadership 17. Arnold, J . A., 1973 University of Pittsburgh Individualized inservice program for elementary teachers Program designed and evaluated P r i n c i p l e s of the program: teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n , multiple means of eva l - uation, value of i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n 18. Matthews, S i s t e r M. A., 1973 New Jersey Inservice programs fo r high schools Programs designed Guidelines developed f o r teacher, school system; teacher center estab- l i s h e d 19. Maudlin, R. M., 1973 B a l l State University Inservice meetings for curriculum evaluation at elem- entary l e v e l Meetings analyzed Guidelines: group dynamics, group decision making 20. R u f f i n , Herbert, 1973 Inner City Teachers Inservice t r a i n i n g Model proposed P a r t i c i p a n t s i d e n t i f y problems, develop guidelines, plan a c t i v i t i e s 21. Ainsworth, B. A., 1974 University of Maryland Inservice programs Survey of tea- cher perceptions P r a c t i c a l i t y , support, encouragement, better communication desirable Table 1 (continued) Names, Dates Area or Population Topic or F i e l d Method Results 22. Feinberg, M. W., 1974 Northwestern University Inservice prac- t i c e s f o r tea- chers of Gr. 5-9 Survey of schools r e . guidelines Support for needs assessment, behav- i o r a l l y defined objectives, use of consultants 23. Gidney, R. , . et a l . , 1974 Ontario (OISE) Continuing edu- cation Review of rea- sons f o r f a i l u r e of continuing education Recommendations: increased f i n a n c i a l support, better e f f o r t s at motivating teachers 24. White, S. M., 1974 New Brunswick Inservice programs Survey and exam- inati o n of pro- grams Description of state of i n s e r v i c e 25. Anderson, G. R., 1975 Syracuse Inservice educa- t i o n f o r s k i l l needs Survey of secon- dary schools Differences between teachers and supervisory s t a f f re. s k i l l needs, leadership r o l e s ; differences among teachers due to grade and experience l e v e l s re. p r i o r i t i e s of needs 26. E l l i s , B. J . , 1975 New Hampshire Inservice educa- t i o n programs Survey of schools S i t u a t i o n i n New Hampshire i s exemplary 27. Post, L. M., 1975 Texas Inservice educa- t i o n Survey of tea- chers and super- visory s t a f f Differences noted between small-large schools, between teachers- administrators OJ On Table 1 (continued) Names, Dates Area or Population Topic or F i e l d Method Results 28. RX P r e s c r i p - t i o n of Tea- cher Prepar- ati o n i n Reading In- s t r u c t i o n , 1975 O f f i c e of Education, Wash., D.C. Teacher prepara- t i o n i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n Various c i t i e s evaluated on basis of student achievement Great v a r i e t y i n practices e x i s t s — e.g., use of para-professionals, competency-based programs, c r i t e r i o n - referenced performance LO 37 can occur only i f confidence exists i n f e l l o w - p a r t i c i p a n t s and i n s e r v i c e leaders. (See also Shorey, 1970; Devore, 1971). 4. attention should be given to i n d i v i d u a l and group problem-solving processes. 5. the atmosphere should be one of respect, support, permissiveness, and c r e a t i v i t y . 6. i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of d i f f e r e n t groups should be attended t o — administrators, supervisors, teachers, etc. 7. i n d i v i d u a l differences i n groups should be accepted and u t i l i z e d . 8. there should be a move from decisions to actions. P a r t i c i p a n t s should have the opportunity to t r y things on s i t e , even through simulation or r o l e - p l a y i n g . 9. teachers should be encouraged to t r y new ideas i n r e a l s i t u a t i o n s , to experiment i n t h e i r own classrooms. 10. appraisal should be an i n t e g r a l part. Evaluation i s an extremely d i f f i c u l t area throughout education and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n i n s e r v i c e . How can the effectiveness of an i n s e r v i c e program be evaluated? A second example of Guidelines i s from R. McCracken's "Inservice Education of Teachers" ( F i g u r e l , 1969). 1. the program must f i t the personnel involved. That i s , experienced and new teachers have d i f f e r e n t needs. A program must be f l e x i b l e enough to s a t i s f y both groups. 2. the program should extend over a long time period. A l l a v a i l a b l e data support the d e s i r a b i l i t y of lengthy i n s e r v i c e ( F u l l e r et a l . , 1969; Katz, 1973). Although some short-term programs have immediate benefits (Carline, 1970; Scharles, 1971; R u s s e l l , R. A., 1974) i t i s doubtful whether t h e i r e f f e c t s are l a s t i n g . As important as the duration of the program i s the time i t i s given. Released-time programs are more successful (Schiffman, 1969; A l l e n , 1970; Peeler and Shapiro, 1971; Johnson, L., 1972). Across Canada the amount of released time a l l o t t e d f o r teachers' i n s e r v i c e programs va r i e s considerably with a range of three to ten days (Professional Development Clauses i n Negotiated Agreements, 1974). 3. the program should use a l l a v a i l a b l e personnel. The p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f on-site as well as outside experts should be u t i l i z e d . 6 4. the program should provide support and challenge. This i s impor- tant because i t introduces the issue of compulsory versus volun- tary attendance. If attendance i s compulsory, some teachers f e e l threatened. They w i l l need support i f they are to benefit from i n s e r v i c e . On the other hand, sel f - c o n f i d e n t 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 i s , i f a goal i s to encourage English teachers to group within t h e i r classes, the i n s e r v i c e p a r t i c i p a n t s should be grouped. If an objective i s to discourage the use of the l e c t u r e technique, the The i n c l u s i o n of para-professionals i n i n s e r v i c e i s documented by Mark, 1975. 38 i n s e r v i c e should not be conducted by l e c t u r i n g . 6. demonstrations should involve c h i l d r e n , preferably the pupils of the teachers who are watching the demonstration. This may not be poss i b l e , but simulation or rol e - p l a y i n g s i t u a t i o n s can pro- vide actual experience. 7. teachers from several schools should be mixed. There are advan- tages, such as d i f f e r e n t frames of reference (administrations) and points of view. 8. the program must recognize and work to eliminate 'they'. That i s , the forces which presumably prevent teachers from developing can be overcome—look to other teachers for suggestions. Sas- katchewan's Teaching-Learning Conditions Projects i d e n t i f y condi- tions which prevent teachers from functioning as they would l i k e to (McKague, 1975). 9. pro f e s s i o n a l materials should be r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . Hands-on experience should be possible. Even a p r a c t i c a l exercise using the materials would help. These two references incorporate most of the points made i n those studies which include general i n s e r v i c e guidelines. The need f o r f l e x i b - i l i t y i n in s e r v i c e and the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of a sing l e p r e s c r i p t i v e format were recognized by J a f f a , 1957. "Detailed, s p e c i f i c recommendations f o r use i n in s e r v i c e . . . cannot be made since each s i t u a t i o n i s unique and changing i n order to meet the needs of p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s at a given time" (p. 2527). The studies d e t a i l e d i n table 2 recognize the d i f f e r e n t needs of beginning teachers and of small schools, and the i n d i v i d u a l i t y of the motivational aspects of i n s e r v i c e . Guidelines for in s e r v i c e programs i n reading do not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from those presented for general i n s e r v i c e programs above (Aaron et a l . , 1965; Robinson and Rauch, 1965; Rauch, 1967; Ru s s e l l , 1967; Katrein, 1968; Moburg, 1972; Axelrod, 1975; Draba, 1975; James, 1976), although they often include s p e c i f i c references to topics and goals based on student and teacher needs. For example, Moburg emphasized the a f f e c t i v e areas of reading i n t e r e s t , growth through reading, and enjoyment of l i t e r a t u r e ; was concerned with the change pro- cess, group i n t e r a c t i o n , and e f f e c t i n g change i n the i n d i v i d u a l ; and desired to e f f e c t change i n teacher attitudes and/or behavior so that sub- sequent i n s t r u c t i o n and student learning were enhanced. T A B L E 2 S T U D I E S S U P P O R T I N G T H E N E E D F O R F L E X I B I L I T Y I N I N S E R V I C E N a m e , d a t e A r e a , P o p u l a t i o n M e t h o d S u b j e c t / F o c u s R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s / C o n c l u s i o n s 1 . C o r y , N . D . t C h i c a g o t e a c h e r s S u r v e y o f f a c - t o r s a f f e c t i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n P r o f e s s i o n a l g r o w t h o f t e a c h e r s I n c e n t i v e s : s t a t u s , t e a m w o r k , p r a i s e , g r o w t h o p p o r t u n i t y 2 . B r o w n a n d S n a k e r , 1 9 6 1 A T e a c h e r s o f d i f - f e r e n t s i z e d h i g h s c h o o l s G u i d e l i n e s d e v e l o p e d I n s e r v i c e e d u c a - t i o n f o r m a t h e - m a t i c s t e a c h e r s S u g g e s t i o n s a p p r o p r i a t e t o d i f f e r - e n t s i z e d s c h o o l s g i v e n 3 . T a y l o r , R . L . , 1 9 6 4 * S m a l l h i g h s c h o o l s S u r v e y I n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n I n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m m o s t o f t e n n e g l e c t e d i n s m a l l s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l 4 . H a a n , A . S . , 1 9 6 6 * S m a l l s c h o o l d i s t r i c t ( C a l . ) S u m m e r s c h o o l w o r k s h o p I n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m D e m o n s t r a t i o n t e a c h i n g , g u i d e d p r a c - t i c e , p l u s f o l l o w - u p t h r o u g h o u t t h e y e a r v a l u a b l e 5 . O ' H a n l o n , J a m e s , 1 9 6 7 * S m a l l s c h o o l s ( N e b r a s k a ) S u r v e y o f p r a c t i c e s I n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n G u i d e l i n e s , a c t i v i t i e s , t o p i c s e s - t a b l i s h e d : e . g . , m o t i v a t i o n , n e w t e c h n i q u e s , i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s 6 . S o r s a b e l , D . K . , 1 9 6 9 f C l a s s i f i e d e m - p l o y e e s i n s e - l e c t e d e d u c a - t i o n a l o r g a n - i z a t i o n s N a t i o n a l s u r v e y I n s e r v i c e t r a i n - i n g ( e s p e c i a l l y s k i l l i m p r o v e - m e n t ) M o t i v a t i o n b a s e d p r i m a r i l y o n p r o m o t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s -Table 2 (continued) Name, date Area, Population Method Subject/Focus Recommendations/Conclusions 7. L i s t e r , R. L., 1970 t Elementary Teachers Survey of attitudes Inservice pro- grams Factors contributing to good i n s e r v i c e education programs: relevance, l o c a l objectives based on needs and goals, v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s 8. Johnston, D. J . , 1971 t Teachers i n B r i t a i n Books on many aspects of i n - service Inservice education Motivation f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n : salary, status, promotion, degree, personal motives 9. Comras and Masterman, 1972 t Teachers, schools, d i s t r i c t s Rationale explicated Inservice programs Benefits from i n s e r v i c e : elevation of teacher morale and status, improvement of i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques, account- a b i l i t y f o r implementation 10. Dubin, S. S., 1972 t Teachers Rationale given Updating s k i l l s Psychological factors which motivate continuing education discussed 11. Shepherd and Quisenberry, 1972 / F i r s t year teachers Model established Development of Professional Competencies Continuity between pre- and ins e r v i c e necessary, with focus on s p e c i a l needs of new teachers 12. DiTosto, Evelyn, 1974/ Beginning teacher Guidelines suggested Inservice t r a i n i n g Special needs focused on—e.g., organizational c a p a b i l i t i e s 13. Chadwick, E. H., 1975* Rural schools Guidelines for project given Inservice tea- cher education Learning center, summer workshops, parent p a r t i c i p a t i o n suggested Table 2 (continued) Name, date Area, Population Method Subject/Focus Recommendations/Conclusions 14. Wright, A. W. , 1975 / Beginning e l e - 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 s i g n i f i c a n t conclusions of research has been that the effectiveness of in s e r v i c e i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the extent to which i t i s concerned with immediate f e l t needs of teachers (Larson, 1962; Staples, 1970). As S. M. James, 1976, stated, "Teacher improvement and renewal rests ultimately i n the hands of teachers themselves. E f f e c t i v e . . . i n s e r v i c e education begins with a teacher's f e l t need to improve" (p. 320). These f e l t needs may be i n the following areas: 1. knowledge—updating. What i s the current state of the art? 2. aids and materials—What i s available? Eo\<r i s i t 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. i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods and techniques—What can be used i n the classroom? 7. communication—How can new and experienced teachers, teachers and administrators, teachers and consultants of a l l kinds communicate e f f e c t i v e l y ? (Johnston, 1971) Because of the v a r i e t y of needs, a needs assessment i s an e s s e n t i a l pre- liminary step i n the planning of an i n s e r v i c e program i n general (O'Hanlon and Witters, 1967; Kirby, 1973; E l l i s , 1974; Parsons and F u l l e r , 1974; Schreiber, 1975) or i n a s p e c i f i c content area (Brantner, 1964; Dye, 1966; Adams, 1971 [Reading]; Schleich, 1971 [Reading]; Hebert, 1973 [Reading]; Uche, 1973; G r e l l a , 1974 [Reading]; Hargrave, 1975; Stander, 1975). One innovative use of the needs assessment compares responses of d i f f e r e n t 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 i n Educa- t i o n , 1972, confirmed that p r i n c i p a l s and teachers perceive t h e i r needs In a survey by Greer, 1974, teachers with some reading t r a i n i n g s p e c i f i e d a need f o r a course i n materials. 43 for information d i f f e r e n t l y , teachers being more aware of the importance of information re l a t e d to reading. Rowe and Hurd, 1966, concluded that teachers and p r i n c i p a l s also d i f f e r i n views on educational change. And Weipert, 1975, noted that teachers and p r i n c i p a l s value i n s e r v i c e d i f f e r - ently, with p r i n c i p a l s being more favorable. Another innovation i s the needs assessment of a group rather than of i n d i v i d u a l s . Knowledge i n a content area i s s p e c i f i e d by experts; questions are designed to be answered by a group. The di f f e r e n c e between the achievement of the group and the expected standard makes up the content of the program (Lindsay et a l . , 1974). 3. Goals On the basis of the needs assessment, an appropriate program can be planned s p e c i f y i n g goals ( F u l l b r i g h t et a l . , 1966; Asher, 1967; Bash and Morris, 1968; Johnson et a l . , 1968; Blosser, 1969), topics (New York Cit y Right to Read Impact Project, 1974), and approaches such as demon- st r a t i o n s and discussions (Kaz, 1971). This process i s exemplified by the Merrimack Educational Center's annual needs assessment and follow-up c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of teacher competencies i n the area of learning d i s a b i l i t - i e s (Sanders, 1973). In reading, Peterson and Schepers, 1966, and Debrick et a l . , 1968, suggested as to p i c s : Directed Reading Lesson, SQ3R textbook study technique, patterns of organization, s k i l l s and problems i n content areas, f l e x i b i l i t y , comprehension, vocabulary, standardized tests and informal t e s t s . Mohr, 1971, summarized i n s e r v i c e i n s t r u c t i o n a l goals and a c t i v i t i e s as follows: 1. increase the effectiveness of a l l teachers, t r a i n e r s , and trainees 2. develop the interpersonal growth of teachers 3. provide means f o r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n 4. change patterns and methods of d i r e c t i n g learning experiences 44 5. improve u t i l i z a t i o n 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, v i s i t s and demonstrations, f i e l d trips, cultural experi- ences, organized group study, individualized professional study. Durkin, 1975, list e d 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 v i s i t 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 g o a l — t a c k l e a s p e c i f i c problem 4- State o b j e c t i v e s — d e f i n e goals i n s p e c i f i c (behavioral) terms 4- Select a c t i v i t i e s — c o n s i d e r cost, resources, p a r t i c i p a n t s 4- Evaluate r e s u l t s — w e r e objectives/goals reached? In the most comprehensive comparative study to date of the planning process used for program development i n continuing education i n medicine, s o c i a l work, and education, Pennington (1976) generalized a s i x stage model of the continuing education planning c y c l e : Program O r i g i n — f o r m a l assess- ment of educational need; S p e c i f i c Program I d e a — e n l i s t planners, consul- t a t i o n with experts and peers, r e f i n e program idea, match i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s with c l i e n t requests; Program Commitment—decision to conduct program, analysis of c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s e l e c t i o n of i n s t r u c t o r s , arrangement for f a c i l i t i e s , p u b l i c i t y , recruitment of p a r t i c i p a n t s , o r i e n - t a t i o n of i n s t r u c t o r s ; Course Development—course content, review of l i t e r a t u r e , development of i n s t r u c t i o n a l objectives, s e l e c t i o n of i n s t r u c - t i o n a l methods, preparation of course material; Teaching Learning Trans- a c t i o n — m i d course evaluation; Post Program A n a l y s i s — e n d of course e v a l - uation. Examination of Pennington's model reveals that general continuing education program p r i n c i p l e s apply equally w e l l to the development of more s p e c i f i c i n s e r v i c e programs. F i n a l l y , the importance of preliminary planning to the success of an i n s e r v i c e program should not be underestimated ( A l v i r , 1974). "Too often i n s e r v i c e programs s u f f e r more from a lack of d i r e c t i o n than from a lack of f i n a n c i a l support or time for execution" (Brimm and T o l l e t t , 1974, pp. 524-5). 46 4. Roles At t h i s point, a d e s c r i p t i o n of the rol e s of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n i n - service seems timely. Although t h e i r functions w i l l vary depending on the purposes of the program, the resources a v a i l a b l e , and the p a r t i c i p a n t s themselves, c e r t a i n generalizations are possible. In an i n s e r v i c e read- ing program, the personnel involved can be teachers, administrators, superintendents, i n s t r u c t i o n a l supervisors, consultants from outside the system, and reading consultants. Aaron et a l . , 1965, suggested the following:* The teacher should - communicate h i s needs - p a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y i n planning the program - prepare i n advance where appropriate - maintain a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward the benefits of the program - p a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y i n discussions and demonstrations - evaluate h i s own progress - cooperate with other teachers i n implementing the r e s u l t s of the program. Moreover, the teacher should be prepared to assume a leadership r o l e when he has s p e c i a l s k i l l s or teaching techniques (Doherty, 1967; Smith et a l . , 1970; McDonald, 1971; Rubin, 1971a). One issue of the Alberta Teach- ers Association Magazine (52-2, Nov.-Dec. 1971) contained a number of a r t i c l e s r e i t e r a t i n g the notion that, ultimately, the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f or i n s e r v i c e r e s t s with the i n d i v i d u a l teacher. The p r i n c i p a l should - b u i l d a background of understanding, for example, of what constitutes a good reading program - i n i t i a t e or encourage others to s t a r t i n s e r v i c e programs - encourage teachers to discuss t h e i r concerns and to become involved i n i n s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s - organize, support, and attend i n s e r v i c e programs - involve teachers i n s e l e c t i o n of materials and methods - provide released and v i s i t a t i o n time for i n s e r v i c e and observation. *The single-spaced material on pp. 46-48 comes from Aaron et a l . , 1965. 47 The importance of the p r i n c i p a l cannot be overestimated (Gregoric, 1973; Abramowitz, 1974; Smith and Wilson, 1974). He sets the i n t e l l e c t u a l , p h y s i c a l , and psychological conditions for a learning environment. "In the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , the success of the i n s e r v i c e program i s determined by the a t t i t u d e of administrators" ( H i l l , p. 18, i n R u s s e l l , 1967). The p r i n c i p a l as leader f a c i l i t a t e s i n s e r v i c e by being a v a i l a b l e , r e i n f o r c i n g , communicative, innovative, supportive (Acosta, 1972). T. R. Carlson's Administrators and Reading, 1972, includes a useful section on the p r i n - c i p a l ' s r o l e i n i n s e r v i c e . Melvin, 1975, used modular reading materials with elementary p r i n c i p a l s e f f e c t i v e l y . The superintendent should - know what constitutes a good reading program - attend, support f i n a n c i a l l y , help organize i n s e r v i c e programs - help determine effectiveness of i n s e r v i c e by providing evaluation instruments. The superintendent should provide l i a i s o n with the department of education, cooperating colleges, and other resources; he should delegate authority appropriately f o r the i n i t i a t i o n and implementation of programs; he should ensure that a l l l e v e l s of personnel are involved i n i n s e r v i c e (Edmonds et a l . , 1966; Herber, 1970; Dolph, 1975). 8 The i n s t r u c t i o n a l supervisor should - develop a background of knowledge on good programs, materials, and methods - serve as a l i a i s o n between the school and the superintendent - point out the needs for i n s e r v i c e and p a r t i c i p a t e i n the programs, for example, by demonstrating materials and methods - arrange f o r consultants and materials - encourage teachers to assume leadership roles . The extent to which administrators and superintendents can negatively a f f e c t i n s e r v i c e i s r e f l e c t e d by a Texas study (Bonorden, 1974) i n which they planned i n s e r v i c e — t h e r e was no teacher involvement i n more than 50% of the schools—and used d i s t r i c t c e n t r a l o f f i c e personnel as resource people. See also Roy, 1975. 48 The consultant from outside the system should - know the needs and present p r a c t i c e s of the p a r t i c i p a n t s - be well prepared f o r h i s task - refuse any i n v i t a t i o n f o r which he f e e l s he cannot e f f e c t i v e l y accomplish the task or for which he f e e l s l o c a l leaders w i l l not prepare f o r or follow-up from the program - encourage l o c a l leadership. As continuing education becomes more important, u n i v e r s i t y personnel w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y have more communication with teachers i n service (Organizing Centers f o r Inservice Education i n I n d i v i d u a l i z i n g I n s t r u c t i o n and Learning, 1967; Lavin and Schuttenberg, 1972; Haycocks, 1974). They should be prepared to include teachers i n planning and provide i n s e r v i c e on-site (Falkenberg et a l . , 1971; Winsand, 1971; Theimer, 1972; Ward, 1973; Edson, 1974; Powell, 1974; Thompson and Johnson, 1975). The reading consultant should - observe a l l aspects of the e x i s t i n g reading program (materials, teachers, and so on) - act as a resource person i n the s e l e c t i o n of materials, encourage- ment of new teaching practices - serve as an agent f o r change i n a continually developing program - accept a leadership r o l e with teachers, administrators, and the pub l i c , i n i t i a t i n g i n s e r v i c e , supervising public r e l a t i o n s . The reading consultant may be c a l l e d a s p e c i a l reading teacher or a reading supervisor. He i s 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 a l . , 1970; Harker, 1973; Robinson and Smith, 1973; Burnham, 1974; S h i r l e y , 1974). Other references dealing with the roles of in s e r v i c e p a r t i c i p a n t s r e i t e r a t e the above (Henry, 1957; M o f f i t t , 1973; Chem, 1968; Harris and Bessent, 1969; Otto and Erickson, 1973). Canadian sources reveal a concern with the roles of p r o v i n c i a l organizations (Teachers' Federations) and Departments of Education i n i n s e r v i c e . " I t i s generally agreed that the nature of i n s e r v i c e or 49 continuing p r o f e s s i o n a l development i s such that any programs or a c t i v i t - i e s i n t h i s aspect of teacher education must be i n i t i a t e d at the d i s t r i c t or school l e v e l of organization. A c l o s e r look, however, w i l l also reveal c e r t a i n problems, such as the problem of i n t e g r a t i n g preservice and i n s e r v i c e education, which can only be solved through a p r o v i n c i a l organ- i z a t i o n " (The Continuing Education of Teachers and Other Professional Personnel i n the Province of Newfoundland, 1974, p. 41; see also the j o i n t l y produced Guidebook f o r Workshops, 1974). B. Methodology of Inservice Programs 1. Structure The methodology of an i n s e r v i c e program incorporates the general structure or approach as well as the s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s to be used within the structure. For example, the s t r u c t u r a l options vary widely: personal interview (teacher and consultant), correspondence courses, s i n g l e l e c t u r e s , informal a c t i v i t i e s , conferences, weekend courses, short or one-term even- ing courses, courses i n school time, one-term or one-year f u l l - t i m e courses, vacation courses, t e l e v i s i o n courses (Johnston, 1971). Or the breakdown could be: i n t e r e s t group, b u i l d i n g wide, d i s t r i c t wide, exten- sion course ( u n i v e r s i t y ) , state and regional programs (Otto and Erickson, 1973). Even within an on-site program there are a l t e r n a t i v e s : i n s e r v i c e days during the school year; meetings before, during, and/or a f t e r school; grade-groupings within a school; meetings with selected groups of teach- ers; several schools working on common problems (Aaron et a l . , 1965). An i n t e r e s t i n g suggestion by the National Education Association (Inservice Education of Teachers: Research Summary, 1966) was to extend i n s e r v i c e conceptually to include community work, t r a v e l , p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n 50 a c t i v i t i e s , research, and so on. Before any d e c i s i o n i s 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 B r i t i s h Columbia survey r e l a t e d to curriculum development (Roaden et a l . , 1975) considered the issues of funding, l o c a l e , c r e d i t , and form of t r a i n i n g . Workshops, and short-term apprenticeships and con- s u l t i n g were ranked highest by teachers. D i s t r i c t funding and l o c a t i o n were supported. At t h i s point, c r e d i t s are not a s i g n i f i c a n t motivating device. That i t i s not necessary to choose a single approach i s demon- strated by an i n s e r v i c e reading program which included: a reading share- i n — a discussion of materials by teacher users; a reading e x p o s i t i o n — publishers' d i s p l a y s ; a reading methods seminar—sharing between school systems; c l u s t e r reading programs—for two/three schools rather than the whole d i s t r i c t ; workshop f o r supervisory s t a f f — t o p i c : reading i n the content areas; reading inducement p l a n — t r a i n i n g remedial reading teachers 9 on the job (Criscuolo, 1971). The effectiveness of i n s e r v i c e programs conducted i n d i f f e r e n t ways i s by no means conclusively established. In one study, inter-classroom v i s i t a t i o n s were ranked most e f f e c t i v e , and f a c u l t y meetings l e a s t e f f e c - t i v e , with workshops low on the l i s t (Borgealt, 1969). Kotcher and Doremus (1972) also concluded that v i s i t a t i o n s were most u s e f u l . Bor- gealt 's r e s u l t s probably i n d i c a t e the lack of q u a l i t y of p a r t i c u l a r work- 9 Criscuolo l a t e r modified the above to include, for teachers, b r a i n - storming sessions; sessions for production of materials; mini-courses i n reading: Directed Reading Lesson, diagnosis, comprehension, content areas (1973). See also Fotheringham, 1971. 5 1 s h o p s , s i n c e t h e a p p r o a c h i s g e n e r a l l y s e e n a s p o t e n t i a l l y e f f e c t i v e ( G u i d e l i n e s f o r A f t e r - S c h o o l W o r k s h o p s , 1 9 6 7 ; M e l c h i n g e t a l . , 1 9 7 0 ; R i t z e t a l . , 1 9 7 0 ; S y r o p o u l u s , 1 9 7 2 ; M c K a g u e , 1 9 7 5 ) . M o s t a c t u a l i n s e r v i c e , o n e s u r v e y r e v e a l e d . o c c u r r e d i n f a c u l t y m e e t i n g s e v e n t h o u g h v i s i t s t o o b s e r v e e f f e c t i v e t e a c h e r s w a s m o s t h i g h l y r e c o m m e n d e d ( P a n e , 1 9 7 3 ) . A n o t h e r s t u d y r a n k e d f a c u l t y m e e t i n g s a s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t i n s e r v i c e t e c h n i q u e u s e d ( S m i t h , A . J . , 1 9 6 6 ) . S t i l l a n o t h e r s a w t h e f a c u l t y m e e t i n g a s l e a s t b e n e f i c i a l ( K a z , 1 9 7 1 ) . O n e s t u d y s h o w e d t h a t a l t h o u g h p r i n c i p a l s r a t e d p r i n c i p a l - t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s a n d p a c k a g e d i n - s e r v i c e p r o g r a m s h i g h l y , t e a c h e r s d i d n o t ( A n g i u s , 1 9 7 4 ) . S t i l l a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f d i s a g r e e m e n t c o n c e r n s t h e v a l u e p l a c e d o n p e r s o n a l r e a d i n g a s a f o r m o f i n s e r v i c e : o n e g r o u p o f t e a c h e r s d i d n o t c o n s i d e r i t v a l u a b l e i n i m p r o v i n g t e a c h i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s ( W a l l , 1 9 6 5 , i n M o b u r g , 1 9 7 2 ) w h i l e a n o t h e r g r o u p r a n k e d i t o f m o s t v a l u e ( H y s l o p , 1 9 7 4 ) . Y e t a n o t h e r s t u d y c l a i m e d c h a n g e s i n t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e a n d p e r f o r m a n c e a s a r e s u l t o f p r o - f e s s i o n a l r e a d i n g s ( L i n d s e y , 1 9 6 9 ) . K i l p a t r i c k ' s a t t e m p t t o m a t c h i n - s e r v i c e f o r m a t w i t h g o a l s i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e c h a r t o n p a g e 5 2 . T h e q u a n t i t y o f r e s e a r c h o n t h e w o r k s h o p i s a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e p r e v a l e n c e o f t h i s f o r m o f i n s e r v i c e ( D a v i s a n d M c C a l l o n , 1 9 7 4 ; P a s c h , 1 9 7 4 ) . G e n e r a l g u i d e l i n e s f o r r e a d i n g w o r k s h o p s a r e : g i v e c r e d i t t o c o n t r i b u t o r s , p r o v i d e r e l e a s e d t i m e , d e a l w i t h a s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m , e n c o u r - a g e v o l u n t a r y a t t e n d a n c e , u s e p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n l e c t u r e , u s e s c h o o l m a t e r i a l s a n d a u d i o v i s u a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s , e v a l u a t e ( R o b i n s o n a n d R a u c h , 1 9 6 5 ) . T o p i c s o f o n e j u n i o r h i g h s c h o o l w o r k s h o p i n r e a d i n g w e r e : I s s u e s i n R e a d i n g , N a t u r e o f t h e R e a d i n g P r o c e s s , S k i l l s , E v a l u a t i o n , T e a c h i n g T e c h n i q u e s ( H e n r i k s e n a n d R o s e n , 1 9 7 5 ) . T h e m u l t i p u r p o s e n a t u r e o f w o r k s h o p s i s i l l u s t r a t e d b y t h e t w e n t y - s e v e n r e p o r t s s u m m a r i z e d i n 52 I n s t i t u t e s Consultants Faculty Meetings Workshops Departmental Meetings Univ e r s i t y Courses Classroom V i s i t a t i o n Action Research Conferences and/or Conventions Professional L i b r a r i e s 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-> I S 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 ( K i l p a t r i c k , 1967, p. 5) table 3 i n which focus may be on curriculum development or a t t i t u d e change, on a s p e c i f i c content area or grade group, or on the workshop as an i n t e - g r a l element of a long-term program. The chart on page 57 shows the f l e x i b i l i t y of the workshop by breaking down goals and appropriate methods for achieving them. 2. A c t i v i t i e s A c t i v i t i e s to accomplish i n s e r v i c e vary and may include l e c t u r e , demonstration, interviewing, brainstorming, group discussion, buzz session, r o l e playing, guided p r a c t i c e , conference, or observation. Some of these may require e x p l i c a t i o n . 1. Brainstorming i s an a c t i v i t y i n a group session i n which ideas held by p a r t i c i p a n t s are o r a l l y expressed with s p e c i a l procedures employed to avoid any discussion, c r i t i c i s m , or a n alysis. Some record of a l l ideas i s made for l a t e r use. (E.g., topics r e l a t e d to needs assess- ment) 2. The buzz session i s a small group a c t i v i t y i n which groups are tempor- a r i l y formed to discuss a s p e c i f i c topic with minimum structure, - T A B L E 3 V A R I E T Y O F W O R K S H O P F U N C T I O N S I N I N S E R V I C E N a m e , d a t e P u r p o s e C o n t e n t / G r a d e C o n c l u s i o n s / R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 1 . B i r n b a u m & W o l c o t t , 1 9 4 9 T o p r o m o t e m o r e p e r m i s s i v e b e h a v i o r i n t e a c h e r s d e a l - i n g w i t h p r o b l e m c h i l d r e n H u m a n r e l a t i o n s e d u c a t i o n S u m m e r w o r k s h o p c o n s i d e r e d m o s t e f f e c t i v e i n s e r v i c e 2 . K e l l e y , E . C . , 1 9 5 1 T o e n c o u r a g e l e a r n i n g b y s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n A f f e c t i v e t e a c h e r b e h a v i o r S h o r t w o r k s h o p s o v e r a s e m e s t e r w e r e s u g g e s t e d 3 . J e s s e r , D . L . , 1 9 6 3 T o m o d i f y t e a c h e r s ' k n o w - l e d g e a n d a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d r e a d i n g t e a c h i n g R e a d i n g — i n s t r u c t i o n , m a t e r i a l s , e t c . S u m m e r w o r k s h o p ( f o r t e a c h e r s f r o m s m a l l s c h o o l s ) c o m b i n e d l e c t u r e s a n d d i s c u s s i o n s 4 . F l a n l g a n , M . C . , 1 9 6 7 T o p r e p a r e t e a c h e r s f o r c u r r i c u l u m d e v e l o p m e n t E n g l i s h S u g g e s t i o n s g i v e n f o r o v e r c o m i n g p r o b l e m s i n i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g 5 . H o f f a r t , E . H . , 1 9 6 8 T o i n s t r u c t t e a c h e r s a n d s t u d e n t - t u t o r s i n n e w c u r r i c u l a H i g h s c h o o l s c i e n c e W o r k s h o p u s e d f o r d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n 6 . T e x a s A d u l t B a s i c E d u c a t i o n P r o d u c t i o n W o r k - s h o p , 1 9 6 8 T o b r i n g A B E t e a c h e r s u p t o d a t e t h r o u g h i n s e r v i c e A d u l t B a s i c E d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s V a r i e t y o f a p p r o a c h e s ( a c t i v i t i e s a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n ) u s e d i n t h e w o r k s h o p 7 . A n d r e w s , J . K . , 1 9 6 9 T o t r a i n t e a c h e r s t o a p p l y b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n t e c h - n i q u e s I n s e r v i c e t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g A s h o r t w o r k s h o p , q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a n d l o n g e r w o r k s h o p p r o v e d e f f e c t i v e i n c h a n g i n g t e a c h e r a n d s t u d e n t b e h a v i o r Table 3 (continued) Name, date Purpose Content/Grade Conclusions/Recommendations 8. Myers, C. B., 1969 To introduce innovations to teachers and students Soc i a l studies An i n i t i a l workshop plus continuous follow-up provided e f f e c t i v e i n - s e r v i c e , evaluated by student assess- ment and teacher self-assessment 9. Roberson, E. W., 1969 To improve teacher i n s t r u c - t i o n and student learning Inservice i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n A year-long program of workshops and videotapes indicated improvements i n students' reading achievement 10. Tamminer, A. W., 1970 To t r a i n teachers to develop and implement new c u r r i c u l a Curriculum development An i n s t i t u t e was established using the workshop format 11. McGuire, E. E., 1971 To e f f e c t change i n 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- i l i t y Among Northwest Indiana Public and Non-Public Schools, 1971 To prepare teachers to teach remedial reading Disabled readers i n 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 f l e x i b l e c u r r i c - ulum Inservice for cur- riculum development A workshop s e t t i n g was used to gener- ate s k i l l s and p o s i t i v e attitudes T a b l e 3 ( c o n t i n u e d ) N a m e , d a t e P u r p o s e C o n t e n t / G r a d e C o n c l u s i o n s / R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 1 4 . N i s s m a n & L u t z , 1 9 7 1 T o t e a c h e d u c a t o r s t o o r g a n i z e a n d d e v e l o p s u m m e r w o r k s h o p P r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t G u i d e l i n e s g i v e n , w i t h t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t i s y e a r - L o n g , c o n t i n u o u s 1 5 . A p p l e , E . T . , 1 9 7 3 T o a s s e s s a f t e r a y e a r t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f w o r k s h o p s V o c a t i o n a l t e a c h e r s o f d i s a d v a n t a g e d h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s I n n o v a t i v e a c t i v i t y r e s u l t s f r o m t h e w o r k s h o p 1 6 . H a r t y e t a l . , 1 9 7 3 T o p r e p a r e t e a c h e r s f o r i n n o v a t i o n s C u r r i c u l u m c h a n g e s M o d i f i c a t i o n s w e r e i n t r o d u c e d t h r o u g h a n i n t e r a c t i v e n e t w o r k ( o r g a n i z a t i o n , t r a i n i n g , o p e r a t i o n , a n d i m p a c t ) 1 7 . M e r r y m a n , D . P . , 1 9 7 3 T o a s s e s s a f t e r 3 y e a r s t h e e f f e c t o f a w o r k s h o p I n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n - s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n a l m e d i a 9 3 % o f p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d l a s t i n g e f f e c t ; t h e r o l e o f t h e p r i n c i p a l c r u c i a l 1 8 . T h e l e n , J . N . , 1 9 7 3 T o i n t r o d u c e n e w m a t e r i a l s a n d m e t h o d s t o t e a c h e r s S c i e n c e W o r k s h o p p l u s t u i t i o n - f r e e c o l l e g e c o u r s e p r o v e d e f f e c t i v e 1 9 . A d a m s , D . M . , 1 9 7 4 T o h e l p t e a c h e r s c o p e w i t h c h a n g e A t t i t u d e m o d i f i c a - t i o n W o r k s h o p p r o d u c e d c h a n g e s i n a t t i t u d e s 2 0 . C o o p e r & P h i l i p , 1 9 7 4 T o t e a c h t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f n u t r i t i o n e d u c a t i o n i n t h e e v e r y d a y t e a c h i n g e n v i r o n - m e n t N u t r i t i o n e d u c a t i o n W o r k s h o p s a l l o w i n g f o r d i s c u s s i o n a n d i n t e r a c t i o n w e r e a v a i l a b l e 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) P r i n c i p l e s : needs assessment, follow- up, long-term, cooperative 22. R e i c h i r t , D. M., 1974 To define, evaluate, and develop teaching compe- tence Open classroom tea- ching High teacher involvement led to leadership t r a i n i n g , enabling them to return and give workshops i n th e i r own schools 23. Soloway, M. M., 1974 To develop and evaluate a special-education t r a i n - ing program Inservice education for classroom teachers Teachers were prepared to cope within classrooms with exceptional ch i l d r e n 24. Spennato, N.A., 1974 To develop and implement a reading curriculum Inservice education i n reading Teachers developed a guide to be used i n classroom i n s t r u c t i o n 25. Beck, W. W., 1975 To meet i n d i v i d u a l teacher needs through a 'growth' workshop approach Inservice education i n secondary s o c i a l studies Teachers and t h e i r students benefited from t h i s program 26. Mason,W. E., 1975 To modify aut h o r i t a r i a n teacher attitudes Inservice for inner- c i t y teachers Most s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s i n promot- ing or i n h i b i t i n g a t t i t u d e change were i d e n t i f i e d (e.g., environmental conditions, student response) 27. Ruiz, E l i s e o , 1975 To a f f e c t the attitudes and behavior of teachers Teachers of Mexican- American students Packages were designed for implemen- t a t i o n i n workshop s e t t i n g 57 Type of Behaviour Change KNOWLEDGE (Generalizations about experience; the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of information) INSIGHT AND UNDERSTANDING (The a p p l i c a t i o n 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 i n s t r u c t i o n Feedback devices Problem-solving discussion Laboratory experimentation Exams and essays Audience p a r t i c i p a t i o n devices Case problems Pra c t i c e exercises P r a c t i c e r o l e - p l a y i n g D r i l l Demonstration Practicum ATTITUDES (The adoption of new fe e l i n g s through experiencing greater success with them) Reverse role - p l a y i n g Permissive discussion Counseling-consultation Environmental support Case method VALUES (The adoption and p r i o r i t y arrangement of b e l i e f s ) INTERESTS (S a t i s f y i n g exposure to new a c t i v i t i e s ) Biographical reading and drama Phi l o s o p h i c a l discussion Sermons and worship R e f l e c t i o n Trips Audio-visual aids Reading Creative arts R e c i t a l s , pageants (from The Planning of Inservice Workshops, 1971, pp. 44-45) maximum emphasis upon i n t e r a c t i o n , and f u l l opportunity to express ideas re l a t e d to the topic . (E.g., i n i t i a l s p e c i f i c needs assessment and general planning) 3. The demonstration i s an a c t i v i t y i n which p a r t i c i p a n t s observe planned, c a r e f u l l y presented examples of r e a l or simulated behavior i l l u s t r a t i n g c e r t a i n techniques, materials, equipment, and procedures as they might be r e a l i s t i c a l l y employed. (E.g., an i n s t r u c t i o n a l aid or procedure i n reading) 4. A group discussion i s a small group a c t i v i t y usually extending over a longer period of time i n which systematic verbal i n t e r a c t i o n on a given topic or problem leads to consensus, deci s i o n , recommendations, or c l e a r l y recognized disagreement. (E.g., functions of i n d i v i d u a l s within a reading program) 58 5. Role-playing i s a spontaneous dramatization in v o l v i n g one or more persons assuming designated roles i n r e l a t i o n to a s p e c i f i e d problem i n a given s i t u a t i o n . It i s unrehearsed and unplanned, giving the players an i l l u s i o n of r e a l i t y . (E.g., a teacher dealing with an underachieving nonreader) (from Harris and Bessent, 1969). Guides to these and other a c t i v i t i e s , d e f i n i n g and giving i n s t r u c t i o n s for use, are a v a i l a b l e (Froberg, 1971; Mayne, undated). Classroom p r a c t i c e i s influenced not so much by i n s e r v i c e education i n general as by s p e c i f i c components such as involvement by means of high experience impact a c t i v i t i e s and immediate feedback (Berck, 1971; Iver- son, 1974). The two charts on page 59 i n d i c a t e the experience impact of a c t i v i t i e s and the r e l a t i o n of a c t i v i t i e s to objectives. Several a c t i v - i t i e s could be combined for paramount e f f e c t . I f an objective i s to present new i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials, an i l l u s t r a t e d l e c t u r e may be advan- tageous. However, i f the goal i s to convey an i n s t r u c t i o n a l technique, then demonstration coupled with r o l e - p l a y i n g and/or guided p r a c t i c e would be more e f f e c t i v e . Inservice models i n d i f f e r e n t content areas include a v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s (Development of an Inservice Model for Implementing New Methodology i n the SS Curriculum Project Period, 1970; Trosky, 1971; Ke l i h e r , 1972; Mayne, undated; Osburn, 1974). The r e l a t i v e effectiveness of d i f f e r e n t methods or the value of a p a r t i c u l a r method have been the concern of the studies summarized i n table 4. C. Evaluation of Inservice Programs Most authors concerned with evaluating i n s e r v i c e programs claim that t h e i r effectiveness should be judged by the kinds of behavioral and a t t i - t u d i n a l changes which take place i n the p a r t i c i p a n t s as revealed by t h e i r classroom procedures. There i s l i t t l e point i n a post-session 59 Experience Impact of A c t i v i t i e s ACTIVITIES Control Two-way of Content Multisensory Communication Lecture I l l u s t r a t e d l e c t u r e Demonstration Observation Interviewing Brainstorming Group discussions Buzz sessions Role-playing Guided p r a c t i c e 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 I l l u s t r a t e d l e c t u r e Demonstration Observation Interviewing Brainstorming Group discus- sions Buzz sessions Role-playing Guided p r a c t i c e Inservice Design Grid OBJECTIVES Compre- A p p l i - Values & Adjust- Knowledge hension cation Synthesis Attitudes ment Cognitive Objectives Broad-Spectrum Objectives A f f e c t i v e Objectives (p. 5 of Otto and Erickson, from Harris and Bessent) questionnaire asking, Was the speaker c l e a r and well-organized? Were the materials well presented? Obviously a p a r t i c i p a n t could answer Yes to such questions without making any changes i n h i s teaching. Since t h i s i s the goal of i n s e r v i c e , the program could not be considered successful. Thus evaluation i s 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 J J c ^ 3 M 2 & e e -a • H o a) cn u 4-> fi o •H rH CU H CO cu a) T J 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 a l . Skailand Teacher Education Center Kerns, 1962 Experimental Teacher Exchange Program, 1964 Harvard-Boston Summer Program, 1965 Jackson and Rogge, 1965 Baysinger, 1966 Sweeney, 1966 A l l e n , 1967 Bessent et a l . , 1967 Ear l y and Shelton, 1967 F i l e p and Murphy, 1967 Fox et a l . , 1967 1967 1968 Henkelman et a l . K e l l y , 1967 Westby-Gibson, 1967 Amidon and Rosenshine. Borg, 1968 Borg et a l . , 1968 STEP Teacher Education Project, 1968 H a l l , 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 E f l H •H -rt O CU CU S CVj u 4J H 25. Kasdon and K e l l y , 1969 / 26. K e l l y , 1969 / 27. Mynhier, 1969 / 28. Borg, 1970 / 29. Borg et a l . , 1970 / 30. Langer and A l l e n , 1970 / 31. Maddox et a l . , 1970 / 32. Steen and Lipe, 1970 / 33. Berck, 1971 / 34. Cruikshank, 1971 / 35. DeShields et a l . , 1971 / 36. Dupuis, 1971 / 37. Peck, 1971 / 38. Auer, 1972 / 39. Dickson, 1972 / 40. Kallenbach and Carmichael, 1972 / 41. P o l i a k o f f , 1972 / 42. Schmid and Scranton, 1972 / 43. Urbach et a l . , 1972 / 44. Usefulness of Minicourse I, 1972 / 45. Werner et a l . , 1972 / 46. Champagne et a l . , 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 a f t e r inservice? This can be done by pre- and post- i n s e r v i c e teacher inventories and questionnaires, student a t t i t u d e and opinion inventories and questionnaires, survey forms, discussion, a survey of new materials purchased a f t er the session, teacher—prepared logs of change, and systematic behavior observation (by trained observers, or audio/video tape). However, the C a r r o l l - C h a l l Report, 1975, noted "sys- tems of classroom observation that have been devised generally f a i l to capture the continuous, long-term transactions between a teacher and i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n that are the r e a l basis of success or f a i l u r e i n teaching. . . . Less systematic, more impressionistic observations, c a r r i e d out over long periods, seem to provide better evidence of the r e a l 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 u t i l i z e d i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s . The extensive use of i n t e r a c t i o n analysis has caused some researchers concern over the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of such observation (Harris and Bessent, 1969; Gegnatoff, 1971; McGaw et a l . , 1972; Yamamoto et a l . , 1972). As Channon (1975) pointed out, "The weakness of the Flanders system, as well as other systems, i s that i t assumes i n advance what aspects of the teacher's behavior are r e l a t e d to p u p i l achievement" (p. 20). She emphasized that "very l i t t l e i s known as yet i n a s p e c i f i c way about what teachers do that promotes p u p i l learning. Moreover, there i s no way of s o r t i n g out the e f f e c t on learning of v a r i - ables outside the school and therefore outside the teacher's sphere of influence" (p. 19). Another method currently used to evaluate teaching of reading i s 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 i d 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. C a r s e t t i , 1969 8. Kennedy et a l . , 1969 / 9. Sanders, 1969 y 10. Ca r l i n e , 1970 / 11. Hrivnak, 1970 / 12. Suiter and Queen, 1970 / 13. Bushman, 1971 14. H i l l , 1971 y 15. Thurber, 1971 / 16. Jones, 1972 y 17. Leonard and Gies, 1972 y 18. Measel and Mood, 1972 y 19. Wilson et a l . , 1972 y 20. Apple, 1973 / 21. Heeney, 1973 / 22. Quirk et a l . , 1973a and b / 23. Wright, 1973 y 24. Campbell, 1974 / 25. F i t z g e r a l d 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 6 4 s c o r e s f r o m a s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t . T h e d e g r e e o f r e a d i n g i m p r o v e m e n t p r e - s u m a b l y r e f l e c t s t h e t e a c h e r ' s c o m p e t e n c e a s a r e a d i n g t e a c h e r o r i s t h e d i r e c t r e s u l t o f a n i n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m ( D u t r o , 1 9 7 3 ; N o r m a n , 1 9 7 3 ; M c N a m a r a , 1 9 7 5 ) . K e n n e d y , 1 9 7 2 , w e n t s o f a r a s t o e v a l u a t e s t u d e n t a n d t e a c h e r r e a d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t b e f o r e a n d a f t e r a n i n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m . A l t h o u g h M o b u r g , 1 9 7 2 , e s p o u s e d t h e n e e d t o m e a s u r e s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t — " i t h a r d l y s e e m s d e f e n s i b l e t o c a l l a n i n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m a s u c c e s s i f t h e r e h a s b e e n n o m e a s u r a b l e c a r r y - o v e r t o s t u d e n t s " ( p . 3 4 ) ( B r o w n , 1 9 6 8 , c o n c u r r e d ) — h e d e n i e d t h e u s e o f s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s a s - a n a p p r o p r i a t e m e a s u r e . " E v e n i f s u c h n o r m - b a s e d t e s t s w e r e j u d g e d t o b e v a l i d i n s t r u - m e n t s f o r m e a s u r i n g s h o r t - t e r m c h a n g e , i t i s d o u b t f u l t h a t t h e y w o u l d b e a d e q u a t e f o r a s s e s s i n g s t u d e n t p r o g r e s s t o w a r d a l l o f t h e g o a l s o f a n i n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m " ( p . 3 1 ) . ( S e e a l s o C h a n n o n , 1 9 7 5 ) . H e s u g g e s t e d a s a l t e r n a t i v e s i n f o r m a l t e s t s , w o r k s h e e t s , o b s e r v a t i o n s , i n f o r m a l i n v e n t o r i e s , i n t e r v i e w s , c h e c k l i s t s , a n e c d o t a l r e c o r d s , s a m p l e p r o d u c t s , a n d c r i t e r i o n r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s . A l v i r , 1 9 7 5 , m a d e s i m i l a r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . A s i d e f r o m t h e i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f u s i n g a s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t i n t h i s w a y , t h e f o r m a l i t y i n t r o d u c e d b y s u c h a t e s t i s t h r e a t e n i n g t o t e a c h e r s . T h u s , t h e n o n - t h r e a t e n i n g n a t u r e o f i n s e r v i c e w o u l d b e m i t i g a t e d b y s u c h e v a l u a t i o n . A n e x a m p l e o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n p r o b l e m w a s e x p l o r e d b y V . E . H e r r i c k , i n H e n r y , 1 9 5 7 . H e e x p l a i n e d t h a t c h a n g e s h o u l d b e j u d g e d b y t h e p r e s e n c e o f c h a n g e o n a c o n t i n u u m o f b e h a v i o r , t h e a m o u n t o f c h a n g e , t h e r a t e o f c h a n g e , t h e d i r e c t i o n o f c h a n g e , a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p a m o n g c h a n g e s . W h a t d o e s t h i s m e a n ? F o r o n e t h i n g , a c o n t i n u u m m u s t e x i s t w h i c h d e s c r i b e s t e a c h i n g . W h a t w e d o k n o w a b o u t t e a c h i n g i s t h a t i t i s a n e x t r e m e l y c o m - p l e x p h e n o m e n o n i n v o l v i n g m a n y c o m p o n e n t s . E a c h o f t h e s e w o u l d h a v e t o b e d r a w n a s a c o n t i n u u m , i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e l a t e d t o e f f e c t i v e teaching, f o r example, of reading. Referring to The Informa- t i o n Base for Reading, research i n t h i s area i s by no means conclusive. However, what i t in d i c a t e s i s that those teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which influence students' reading achievement are f l e x i b i l i t y and verbal fluency Using such s i m p l i f i e d c r i t e r i a , i t would be possible to make judgements about the effectiveness of i n s e r v i c e (Is the teacher more or l e s s f l e x i b l e How much? How long did the change take?). However, because there are so many q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , such a minimal representation of successful teaching seems an i l l e g i t i m a t e endeavor. Medley and M i t z e l , i n Shorey, 1970, went so f a r as to claim "'the vast majority of the research on teacher e f f e c - tiveness . . . must be discarded as i r r e l e v a n t because the c r i t e r i a used have been i n v a l i d " 1 (p. 5). As early as 1950, the National Education Association disclaimed the a p p l i c a t i o n of standard c r i t e r i a to rate teachers on the grounds that i n d i v i d u a l 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 a l . , 1972; Z i t o and Gross, 1972; K a r l i n , 1974; Single- ton, 1974; Nemeth, 1975; Wassermann and Eggert, 1976). C r i t e r i a f o r judging changes i n teachers' behavior are being developed. However, Houston and Howsam, 1972, admitted, "The unpleasant t r u t h i s that we have made very l i t t l e progress i n the assessment of teaching performance" (p. 73). In an echo of The Information Base f o r Reading recommendation, they stated, "Immediate progress i s needed i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and s p e c i f i c "^Redfern, 1972, suggested a performance-objectives approach to evaluating teaching incorporating something of t h i s a n a l y t i c approach as well as some p r i n c i p l e s of competency-based evaluation. 6 6 d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e d i m e n s i o n s o f t e a c h i n g b e h a v i o r " ( p . 7 4 ) . T h i s i s r e i t e r a t e d b y C h a n n o n ( 1 9 7 5 ) : " W h i l e t h i s a p p r o a c h [ c o m p e t e n c y - b a s e d ] s e e m s t o c o n t a i n a l o t o f c o m m o n s e n s e , i n p r a c t i c e i t h a s b e e n f o u n d v e r y d i f f i c u l t n o t o n l y t o l i m i t t h e l i s t s o f c o m p o n e n t s k i l l s t o a r e a s o n a b l e n u m b e r , b u t a l s o t o i d e n t i f y t h o s e s k i l l s w h i c h a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l a t e d t o p u p i l a c h i e v e m e n t " ( p . 2 0 ) . O t t o e t a l . , 1 9 7 4 , n o t e d " T h e d i f f i c u l t y w i t h p e r f o r m a n c e t e s t s t h a t m e a s u r e a t e a c h i n g s k i l l i n d e p e n d e n t o f p u p i l g a i n i s t h a t t h e r e i s l i t t l e a g r e e m e n t a b o u t w h i c h t e a c h i n g s k i l l s a r e v a l i d " ( p . 3 3 9 ) . I n a n a t t e m p t t o v a l i d a t e r e a d i n g t e a c h e r c o m p e t e n c i e s , H a r s t e e t a l . , 1 9 7 5 , d i s c o v e r e d t h a t f a c u l t y a n d t e a c h e r s h a d d i f f e r e n t e x p e c t a t i o n s . R o g e r F a r r i n R e a d i n g : W h a t c a n b e m e a s u r e d ? , 1 9 6 9 , d i s c u s s e d s t u d i e s w h i c h h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o i s o l a t e b e h a v i o r o f g o o d t e a c h i n g . B e h a v i o r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f g o o d t e a c h i n g w e r e : t h e t e a c h e r ' s w i l l i n g - n e s s a n d a b i l i t y t o a l t e r h i s b e h a v i o r s t o m e e t v a r y i n g s i t u a t i o n s , t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e s t u d e n t s ' p o i n t o f v i e w , t o t r y n e w p r o c e d u r e s , t o a s k e f f e c t i v e q u e s t i o n s , t o u s e p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t o f s t u d e n t b e h a v i o r s , t o c o n t i n u e l e a r n i n g i n a w i d e v a r i e t y o f s u b j e c t a r e a s ( S e a r s , 1 9 6 3 ; S p a u l d i n g , 1 9 6 3 ; W a l l e n a n d W o d t k e , 1 9 6 3 ) . A n o t h e r a n a l y s i s o f t e a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n v o l v e d t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h a r e a s e s s e n t i a l t o t h e c o m p e - t e n t r e a d e r w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y t a u g h t ( G o o d s o n , 1 9 6 5 ) . F a r r c o n c l u d e d t h a t r e s e a r c h m u s t c o n s i d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f f a c t o r s l i k e m o t i v a t i o n a n d p e r s o n a l i t y o n t e a c h i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s . H a r r i s , 1 9 6 9 , a l s o c o n s i d e r e d t h e e f f e c t o f m o t i v a t i o n o n r e a d i n g r e s u l t s . I n a d d i t i o n , c l a s s m a n a g e m e n t a n d c o g n i t i v e t e a c h e r b e h a v i o r w e r e r e l a t e d t o e f f e c t i v e t e a c h i n g . T h e d i f f i c u l t i e s e v i d e n t i n a t t e m p t s t o e v a l u a t e t e a c h i n g o f t e n e x i s t i n p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n a s w e l l . H o w e v e r , m u l t i f a c e t e d e v a l u a t i o n i s 67 the r u l e : teacher a t t i t u d e s , behavior, and knowledge as revealed by questionnaires, interviews, observation; and student achievement, i n t e r - est, behavior, attitudes (see table 6). The following c r i t e r i a f o r evaluating i n s e r v i c e programs attempt to answer immediate and long-term questions. However, s p e c i f i c i t y i s lack- ing i n the d i f f i c u l t a r e a s — s e e #10 and 11. 1. topics selected f o r study met the needs of the group and were of concern to a l l of the p a r t i c i p a n t s 2. topics discussed were timely i n the sense of being the most urgent needs of the pa r t i c i p a n t s 3. p r a c t i c a l ideas were discussed, and suggestions f o r classroom a p p l i c a t i o n were offered 4. the leadership r o l e was shared by teachers and administrators 5. the organizational plan was appropriate f o r the work that was to be accomplished 6. a v a r i e t y of resources was made a v a i l a b l e for use i n the program 7. o r i g i n a l i t y and c r e a t i v i t y i n teaching reading were encouraged 8. the o v e r a l l plan of the program was defined c l e a r l y and was understood by p a r t i c i p a n t s 9. consultants from outside the system who worked i n the program were well informed about the background of the l o c a l s i t u a t i o n and made worthwhile contributions 10. p u p i l performance i n and enjoyment of reading improved as a r e s u l t of the in s e r v i c e program 11. the l e v e l of i n s t r u c t i o n i n the classroom improved as a r e s u l t of the i n s e r v i c e program. (Aaron et a l . , 1965, p. 21) D. Models of Inservice Programs Models of in s e r v i c e programs vary widely on such factors as: 1. t h e i r s c o p e — a d i s t r i c t , whole s t a f f , department or grade 2. t h e i r l e a d e r s h i p — o u t s i d e consultant from u n i v e r s i t y , department of education, p r o f e s s i o n a l organization, or l o c a l d i s t r i c t , or school s t a f f 3. t h e i r content area or f i e l d 4. t h e i r purpose or f o c u s — c u r r i c u l u m , i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials, a t t i t u d e , behavior 5. t h e i r form or techniques—minicourse or workshop, demonstration or supervised p r a c t i c e 6. t h e i r evaluation procedures—one or more instruments used with teachers or teachers and students. T A B L E 6 M U L T I F A C E T E D C O M P O N E N T S I N I N S E R V I C E P R O G R A M E V A L U A T I O N T y p e o f P r o g r a m / S u b j e c t A r e a 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 t J 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 . f l 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 . S a t u r a t i o n R e a d i n g P r o g r a m , 1 9 6 7 R e a d i n g y y y X X X 2 . E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e C o m m u n i c a t i o n . • . . , 1 9 6 8 R e a d i n g / y y X X 3 . K a t r e i n , 1 9 6 8 R e a d i n g / y y y y X X X X 4 . I n s e r v i c e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n C o u r s e , 1 9 6 9 R e a d i n g / y X 5 . G r e e n , 1 9 7 0 W o r k s h o p / y X X X 6 . K a t z e n m e y e r e t a l . , 1 9 7 1 R e a d i n g / y y y X X 7 . B e r n s t e i n , 1 9 7 2 R e a d i n g V y y y X X X 8 . D u n k e l d , 1 9 7 2 R e a d i n g y y y X ' X X 9 . A d a m s , 1 9 7 3 C o n t . e d u c . y y X 1 0 . G a b b a r d , 1 9 7 3 C u r r i c u l u m y y y X 1 1 . M e a n s , 1 9 7 3 I n s e r v i c e y y X 1 2 . P a u l a u s k y , 1 9 7 3 W o r k s h o p y y y X X X X X 1 3 . A l f o r d , 1 9 7 4 C o n t . e d u c . y y y X X X 1 4 . F i f e r a n d R u s h , 1 9 7 4 I n s e r v i c e y y y X X 1 5 . S e a g r e n , 1 9 7 4 I n s e r v i c e y y y y X X X 1 6 . L i g h t , 1 9 7 5 I n s e r v i c e y y y X X X 1 7 . T i m m s , 1 9 7 5 I n s e r v i c e y y y X >x 1 5 1 3 1 2 4 4 6 1 7 2 9 9 2 3 69 The trends across programs r e f l e c t an awareness of the need f o r more sophisticated programs than those of the past. More time and e f f o r t are being put into i n i t i a l stages of planning, assessing needs, and s t a t i n g goals and objectives e x p l i c i t l y . Involvement of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i s provided f o r from the beginning. Appropriate methods and b u i l t - i n e v a l - uation are selected or designed. This i s not to suggest that the m i l l e n - ium i s at hand. However, i t does j u s t i f y both the challenge and the promise of Davies' quotation (p. 30). The f i f t e e n models summarized i n table 7 deserve notice either f o r t h e i r unique focus or techniques or for t h e i r e f f o r t s to compare such factors as time, length, or type of i n s e r v i c e . L. P. Hoehn's Teaching Behavior Improvement Program, 1969, deals with a l l the components of a good in s e r v i c e program. I n i t i a l steps included a needs survey; an analysis of cost, equipment, and materials; a consideration of the leadership r o l e ; a s p e c i f i c a t i o n of goals and a c t i v i t i e s ; the development of a time- l i n e chart f o r a c t i v i t i e s . These p r i n c i p l e s were followed: released time, voluntary attendance, small groups (4-6), mixing of not more than three grades, mixing of content areas sharing s i m i l a r teaching s t r a t e g i e s . The -basic method was microteaching, with videotaping, i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s , and student feedback. Evaluation was accomplished by teacher and student questionnaires and systematic observation. Hoehn's i s an avowed self-improvement program i n which i n i t i a t i v e must be taken by the p a r t i c i p a n t s . Many programs stress s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , often with the use of videotape. An extension of t h i s p r i n c i p l e i s r e f l e c t e d i n the number of studies i n which teachers have been trained to serve as leaders f o r other teachers (table 8). Models of i n s e r v i c e reading programs are s i m i l a r 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 e f f e c t i v e 2. Inservice Super- vised Teaching Program, 1966 Un c e r t i f i e d tea- chers and consul- tants Supervised teaching, seminar, b i - weekly v i s i t s over a year Successful i n aiding teachers to meet c e r t i - f i c a t i o n requirements 3. Inservice Educa- t i o n i n Elemen- tary School Mathematics, 1967 Elementary school mathematics teachers 3 types: s e l f - d i r e c t e d study, work- shops, and directed long-term study Extensive evaluation showed effectiveness of al t e r n a t i v e s model 4. White et a l . , 1967 Elementary teachers 3 programs: course on campus, 1 week pre-school workshop plus 1 day monthly v i s i t s and group sessions, released time—11% days throughout the year Former l e a s t e f f e c t i v e , l a t t e r most e f f e c t i v e 5. Benjamin et a l . , 1968 Undergraduate and inservice tea- chers elementary S e n s i t i v i t y t r a i n i n g , s e l f - d i r e c t e d component Well-developed modules a component of complex model 6. Dagne, 1968 Teachers Project included t e l e v i s i o n , seminars, i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials, innovative techniques re. int e g r a t i o n and grading Case studies, s e l f - e v a l u - a t i o n were used to deter- mine effectiveness Table 7 (continued) Names, dates Population Model Unique Conclusions 7. Johnson, 1969 Teachers inservice Videotape f o r s e l f - a n a l y s i s , monthly day-long seminars, emphasis on i n t e r - personal r e l a t i o n s components A f f e c t i v e changes i n teacher behavior re s u l t e d 8. Kimple et a l . , 1970 Teachers Summer school and follow-up throughout the year i n human r e l a t i o n s t r a i n i n g Curriculum change brought about by organizational change 9. Felker et a l . , 1971 Rigid teachers Guided c l i n i c a l experience F l e x i b i l i t y was developed 10. Partlow, 1971 School system Total program including courses, con- ventions, professional reading, v i s i t a t i o n s , etc. Sound guidelines and va r i e t y characterize t h i s model 11. Scharles, 1971 Teacher of children with learning d i s - a b i l i t i e s Intensive, short-term program Cognitive growth evident but no change i n a f f e c t - ive aspects of teaching 12. Schmid and Scranton, 1972 Teachers Long-term t r a i n i n g with classroom supervision, observation, evaluation Teachers applied i n t h e i r classrooms concepts pre- sented i n the program. Supportive services were important 13. Lloyd, 1973 Teachers (elementary) 2 programs: a 2-year i n s e r v i c e program versus a 7-week program. Videotape was used Short program more e f f e c t i v e , but no stu- dent gains resulted Table 1 (continued) Names, dates Population Model Unique Conclusions 14. Neale, 1973 Art teachers Information and designed a c t i v i t i e s were incorporated i n t h i s study i n an economically poor area P o s i t i v e change i n tea- chers' a t t i t u d e s resulted 15. Massey, 1975 Professional educators Systems model of i n s t r u c t i o n a l design applied to the development of t r a i n i n g 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 Tr a i n Teachers to (often with the use of videotape) Serve as Leaders f o r 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 & C o t r e l l , 1970 and Inservice Teachers . . . 5. Parsons, 1971 1968 6. Armstrong, 1972 3. STEP Teacher Education Pro- 7. Assessment of Teaching Competence j e c t , 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 a l . , 1972 1969 10. Burgy, 1974 6. Rubin, 1969 11. Houston, 1974 7. Id e n t i f y i n g Strength of E f f e c t i v e Teachers, 1970 8. A P r e c i s i o n Teaching P r o i e c t , 1970 9. Prichard, 1970 10. Waynant, 1971 11. Estes & Staiger, 1973 12. Adams, 1974 13. F i t z g e r a l d & Clark, 1974 14. Inservice Reading Resource K i t , 1974 15. Intensive Reading Improvement Program, 1974 16. R e i c h i r t , 1974 17. S h i r l e y , 1974 18. Hawke, 1975 19. Westbury, 1975 i n s e r v i c e programs i n t h e i r concerns, although often more s p e c i f i c (table 9). Other examples can be found i n Aaron et a l . , 1965, and Otto and Erickson, 1973. TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF MODELS OF INSERVICE READING PROGRAMS Name, date Structure of program Unique Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s Conclusions 1. Williams, 1967 Summer program Participants and consultants selected, v a r i e t y of experi- ences and materials provided Use of s p e c i a l l y chosen volunteer p a r t i c i p a n t s increases opportunity for successful program 2. McCracken, 1968 Long-term program Summer i n s t i t u t e , year-long supervision, and monthly semin- ars were combined The influence of consultation and informal discussion were p a r t i c u - l a r l y noted 3. Sawyer & Taylor, 1968 Continuous program Guidelines: released time, small groups, r e a l or simulated c l a s s - room experience, comprehensive evaluation Teachers and t h e i r students benefited from the program 4. Wise, 1970 Semester-long proj ect Voluntary p a r t i c i p a t i o n , teacher leaders; demonstrations, discus- sions, lesson planning The complementing of learning exer- c i s e s and actual f i e l d experience was found to be valuable 5. Goldmann & Wolff, 1970 Workshops and summer i n s t i t u t e A reading school offered these i n cooperation with the school d i s t r i c t On a s i m i l a r set-up to the teacher center, t h i s school was e f f e c t i v e i n meeting l o c a l needs 6. Minturn, 1971 Long-term program Monthly workshops, demonstra- tions , development of materials and teaching s t r a t e g i e s , and adequate evaluation incorporated Reading consultants and content area teachers worked cooperatively Table 9 (continued) Name, date Structure of program Unique Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s Conclusion 7. Dunkeld, 1971, 1972 Extensive program Lecture-discussions, p r a c t i c e sessions i n workshops, assignments, on-site ob- servation and feedback, demonstration and assistance, comprehensive evalua- t i o n included Involvement of parents and aides was considered a s i g n i f i c a n t feature i n the program's effectiveness 8. James, 1972 Individualized program Topics were: assessment procedures, teaching techniques, classroom man- agement, grouping, lesson planning Evaluation consisted of: a t t i t u d e inventories, s e l f - r a t i n g scales, discussions, conferences, obser- vations 9. Case Study Op- eration: Coop- erati o n Ashland College-Ashland Ci t y Schools, 1972 Year-long program Workshop for reading teachers, reading improvement center, assistance for student teachers and teachers a l l factors This program attempted to bridge the gap between pre- and i n - service teachers by implementing an i n t e r n system 10. Faulkner, 1974 Year-long program A reading and study s k i l l s laboratory was i n i t i a t e d at the college l e v e l Successful extension of the cen- ter's influence was made through- out the campus 11. Bullerman & Franco, 1975 Credit course Workshop combined guided p r a c t i c e with texts, grouping, and s k i l l s 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 i s viewed as contin- uous, ongoing 7 6 E. Summary Within a comprehensive review of the l i t e r a t u r e , c e r t a i n trends and p r i n c i p l e s emerge. These confirm Davies' p r e d i c t i o n (p. 30) about change and controversy i n i n s e r v i c e education. Further, the synthesis of e f f e c - t i v e p r a c t i c e s establishes a r a t i o n a l e f o r the model i n chapter IV. Organization of in s e r v i c e programs has been recognized f o r the e s s e n t i a l v a r i a b l e i t i s . That preliminary planning i s rec e i v i n g the considerable emphasis i t requires i s evidenced by the plethora of surveys on p r a c t i c e s , many of which r e s u l t i n recommendations or guidelines. Further, the increased use of needs-assessment instruments demonstrates a growing awareness of the dependence of' e f f e c t i v e i n s e r v i c e programs on f e l t needs of p a r t i c i p a n t s . Combining general guidelines and s p e c i f i c needs leads to the establishment of goals or objectives. These include both cognitive and a f f e c t i v e components and may range over such areas as knowledge, s k i l l s , and a t t i t u d e s . P a r t i c i p a t i o n at various l e v e l s , from teacher to consultant to d i s t r i c t personnel, i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r the successful attainment of these goals. Considering recent developments i n methodology of in s e r v i c e pro- grams, great v a r i a t i o n i n practices i s apparent. Decisions on s t r u c t u r a l framework depend on both the purpose of the i n s e r v i c e and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of resources. The workshop has become the p r i n c i p a l v e h i c l e f o r in s e r v i c e due to i t s f l e x i b i l i t y . Moreover, the involvement demanded i n a workshop se t t i n g allows for maximum transfer b e n e f i t s . A wealth of a c t i v i t i e s e x i s t , many of which require p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Thus, the workshop i s i d e a l for u t i l i z i n g these a c t i v i t i e s s i n g l y or i n combination. However, l i t t l e hard data on the r e l a t i v e effectiveness of methods can be found. The evaluation issue i s doubtless the most d i f f i c u l t on which to draw conclusions. Whether the problem i s to evaluate teaching pre- and post - i n s e r v i c e or to evaluate a program, d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s e . These r e f l e c t p h i l o s o p h i c a l differences as well as a lack of appropriate measur- ing instruments. For instance, how can the change process i n teaching best be measured: by reference to teacher behavior, teacher a t t i t u d e s , student achievement, student attitudes? Various procedures have been used to tap a l l these p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and indeed an e c l e c t i c approach seems the only v i a b l e one at present. Multi-faceted evaluation of a l l involved at l e a s t suggests v a l i d i t y of r e s u l t s . The models of i n s e r v i c e programs which incorporate the above e l e - ments vary as greatly as do t h e i r p o t e n t i a l components. The purpose of the i n s e r v i c e may suggest an appropriate focus. However, the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of i n s e r v i c e i s improving, witnessed by the development of i t s planning phase, the extension of i t s methodological r e p e r t o i r e , and the emphasis on appropriate evaluation. Programs incorporating s e l f - e v a l u - a t i o n and teacher leadership are gaining prominence. Reading i n s e r v i c e programs r e f l e c t these general trends, exemplifying great v a r i e t y . On the basis of t h i s a n alysis of past i n s e r v i c e programs, the conceptual framework, outlined i n chapter IV, f o r a model of i n s e r v i c e education i n reading f o r secondary English teachers has been derived. CHAPTER IV A PROPOSED MODEL A. Organization 1. Guidelines Although i t i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y f e a s i b l e to develop guidelines f o r an in s e r v i c e program on the basis of a review of the l i t e r a t u r e , c e r t a i n p r a c t i c a l issues a r i s e even i n the e a r l i e s t stages of planning. For instance, a major conclusion from the l i t e r a t u r e review i s that i t i s only from f e l t needs of teachers that topics and goals for i n s e r v i c e programs can be established. The assumption i s , however, that i t i s possible to generalize from the l i t e r a t u r e , that i s , that the topics considered of importance i n the majority of past studies are generally the same topics which would a r i s e from a l o c a l or p r o v i n c i a l needs-assessment survey. Therefore, the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s or organizational p r i n c i p l e s set down here must be mitigated by an actual survey when s e t t i n g up an i n s e r v i c e pro- gram. Obviously, the implementation of many of the guidelines found to be e f f e c t i v e i n past studies and surveys i s possible only at the d i s c r e - t i o n of the teachers, administrators, and school d i s t r i c t personnel involved plus outside consultants from the colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s . I n i t i a l l y , then, i t i s important to understand that the points made here are the i d e a l . Although i t would be desirable to put them into p r a c t i c e as they stand, i t i s only r e a l i s t i c to recognize that i t 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 i n s e r v i c e program i n reading, what guidelines deserve consideration? F i r s t and foremost, the i n s e r v i c e program must be long term, that i s , extending over at l e a s t one school year. I t would be preferable to begin i n the f i n a l term of the preceding year with a needs assessment and an i n i t i a l workshop for o r i e n t a t i o n and general planning. A s i n g l e profes- s i o n a l development day can be valuable to the extent that i t i s able to create needs which a well-designed i n s e r v i c e program can satisfy,(McKague, 1975, p. 18). One-shot sessions have l i m i t e d l a s t i n g value: "they did l i t t l e more than r a i s e i n t e r e s t and c e r t a i n l y could not be expected to a l t e r teacher behavior i n any s i g n i f i c a n t way" ( C a s s i v i , 1975, p. 21). Then, ei t h e r immediately p r i o r to the beginning of school or within the f i r s t month of school, the f i r s t i n s e r v i c e session should be held. This should be the beginning of a s e r i e s of sessions of d i f f e r e n t kinds (to be discussed l a t e r ) to be held throughout the year. Furthermore, continuity should be assured by follow-up a f t e r the program has been implemented. Another e s s e n t i a l ingredient of a successful i n s e r v i c e program i s released time. Teachers must have time o f f from t h e i r regular a c t i v i t i e s to attend workshops, v i s i t and observe colleagues, plan future sessions, design materials, and so on. This could be minimally one day every s i x weeks. In addition, time for informal discussions between sessions with ei t h e r consultants or other teachers i s necessary. A t h i r d concern i s the l o c a t i o n of the i n s e r v i c e program. I t should be on-site, at the school/schools of teachers p a r t i c i p a t i n g . In- put from colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s should be at the schools rather than on campus. As L i p p i t t and Fox, 1973, acknowledged: 80 Most i n s e r v i c e education a c t i v i t i e s should be c a r r i e d on within a s e t t i n g i n which the people who work together have an opportunity to l e a r n together. This i s l i k e l y to be i n the l o c a l school b u i l d - ing, within the school system, or i n a s e t t i n g where the approp- r i a t e s t a f f members can retre a t f o r concentrated work together. It i s not l i k e l y to be on the college campus. (p. 47, Partnership for Professional Renewal) A recent innovation i n l o c a t i n g i n s e r v i c e work has been the devel- opment of teacher centers. These centers originated i n England, t h e i r numbers growing r a p i d l y since 1960. Today there are some 700 i n England and 600 i n the United States. The centers serve a dual function, allow- ing f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g to extend and consolidate professional s k i l l s , and emphasizing teachers' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and autonomy i n curriculum development. A teachers' center was summarized by McCall, 1975, as follows: Its Purpose 1. Inservice t r a i n i n g 2. P r o f e s s i o n a l / s o c i a l center 3. To support curriculum development Its F a c i l i t i e s 1. Meeting room space (large and small) 2. Reference l i b r a r y 3. Workshop for c r a f t s 4. A/V and materials preparation room 5. A bar 6. Comfortable room settings 7. F a c i l i t i e s to prepare l i g h t snacks and refreshment Its Program 1. Designed by teachers f o r l o c a l needs 2. P r a c t i c a l sessions 3. Aimed at teachers sharing t h e i r experience and expertise with other p r a c t i s i n g classroom, teachers. (p. 25) The philosophy of a teachers' center was summarized by Morgan, 1974. Teachers' Centres aim at being comfortable places, where teachers f e e l at home and out of a 'school atmosphere,' but they are never- theless workshops, where there can be p r a c t i c a l work, study groups and p r a c t i c a l development. A major purpose i s the sharing of experience, v i s i t i n g , observations and contact with colleagues who are leaders i n classroom p r a c t i c e . (from "Teachers' Centres i n B r i t a i n , " A Report to the Ontario Teachers' Federation) B e l l and P e i g h t e l , 1976, emphasized the need for maximum teacher input i n planning and organizing such centers and provided a model for a partner- ship teacher center. In 1976, Congress authorized expenditure of 67 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s to further the development of the Teacher Center concept i n 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, d i s t r i c t personnel, etc., should come into the schools. There i s some disagreement on the personnel appropriate for leadership i n an i n s e r v i c e program. In Saskatchewan Teacher's Federation P o s i t i o n Paper on In-service Education for Teachers, 1974, the following reason i s given i n support of using p r a c t i c i n g teachers or outside consul- tants as leaders: " P r o v i n c i a l or area people, e s p e c i a l l y i f they are t i e d into the department structure, tend f i r s t l y 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 d i f f e r e n t personnel and concluded that l o c a l consultants and p r a c t i c i n g teachers were most e f f e c - t i v e , u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y and p r i n c i p a l s l e a s t e f f e c t i v e . The question of whether one s t a f f or several s t a f f s across a d i s - t r i c t should be involved i n an i n s e r v i c e program depends on l o g i s t i c s : the amount of money, time, and personnel within and without the d i s t r i c t who are a v a i l a b l e to p a r t i c i p a t e . I d e a l l y , several schools within a d i s - t r i c t should p a r t i c i p a t e . S t a f f s should have the option to work within groups comprised of t h e i r own s t a f f members and should return to t h e i r schools as a u n i t , having worked on problems of p a r t i c u l a r relevance to t h e i r departments or schools. However, Robinson and Rauch's caution against s t a r t i n g on too extensive a scale i s well taken. " I t i s better to concentrate on one grade l e v e l 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- t i o n Center: A Unifying Approach to Teacher Educa- t i o n Centers i n Maryland and D i s t r i c t of Columbia Preservice and i n - service s t a f f development Evaluation of e f f e c t of centers' program on p a r t i c i p a t i n g teachers undertaken Results j u s t i f y use of teacher centers 2. B r i t t o n , E. L., 1970 Centers i n England and Wales Centers based on l o c a l needs Report of three national conferences Lack of agreement evident on several c e n t r a l issues e.g., released time, curriculum development 3. A Center for Re-education of Teachers, 1970 A l l l e v e l s of educational s t a f f (Pro- j e c t Period) Inservice education i n curriculum and i n s t r u c t i o n Summer program of laboratory s e t t i n g Summer s e t t i n g proved u s e f u l f o r s e l f - assessment 4. C o l l i n , J . F., 1970 Pre- and i n - service teachers Teacher education, curriculum develop- ment A c l u s t e r of elementary and secondary schools u t i l i z e the center Input from state, schools, and u n i v e r s i t y to teacher education 5. Douglas, W. W., 1970 School/uni- v e r s i t y co- operative e f f o r t Curriculum i n English Inservice education sought to change teacher behavior Relationship between ends and means i n v e s t i - gated Table 10 (continued) Name/title, date Population Focus/Purpose Unique Element Conclusion 6. Model Programs: Childhood Educa- t i o n , 1970 Philadelphia teachers Materials produced Released time provided, workshops conducted Inservice on an informal l e v e l 7. Wright, W. R., 1970 Several I n d i - ana counties Curriculum and Materials development Individual help given to teachers i n content areas Demonstration center approach used 8. Northern Kentucky Inservice Innova- t i o n Center, 1971 Northern Ken- tucky teachers Inservice education Laboratory schools used for demonstration Programs designed to f a c i l i t a t e educational change 9. The Center for Inservice Educa- t i o n , 1972 Tennessee Elementary teachers Staff development Model containing plan- ning, program and evaluation given Objectives and guidelines s p e c i f i e d , e.g., based on needs assessment i n reading 10. Dickson, G. E., 1972 Ohio center Pre- and i n s e r v i c e education Planning and d e c i s i o n making process s p e c i f i e d Concerns to be considered p r i o r to e s t a b l i s h i n g a a center given 11. The Greater Cleveland Tea- cher Education Centers Cooper- ativ e Support Program, 1972 Centers i n Greater Cleveland Pre- and inservice education Extensive evaluation an i n t e g r a l part of t h i s cooperative e f f o r t D i f f e r e n t types of cen- ters meet s p e c i f i c needs e.g., resource sharing Table 10 (continued) Name/title, date Population Focus/Purpose Unique Element Conclusion 12. Maddox, Kathryn, 1972 West V i r g i n i a Center Pre- and Inservice t r a i n i n g Continuity of teacher education emphasized Cooperation between edu- c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s necessary 13. Parsons, T. W., 1972 Teachers Development of teacher center Guidelines provided on functions, p r i n c i p l e s , etc. Competency-based, s e l f - assessment programs encouraged 14. Rosner, Benjamin, 1972 B r i t i s h tea- cher center Inservice education and curriculum reform Relation to American centers explored Elements of the B r i t i s h 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) I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n essen- t i a l f o r e f f e c t i v e use of the center Cooperation between agencies and groups r e q u i s i t e 17. Training Program for Teachers i n the Technologies, 1972 Northern Appalachia region teachers Technological t r a i n i n g Individualized, per- formance based program developed Teachers trained as change agents 18. Berty, Ernest, 1973 Three West V i r g i n i a centers Pre- and i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g Extensive evaluation ca r r i e d out Centers shown to be e f f e c t i v e i n reaching t h e i r stated goals Table 10 (continued) Name/title, date Population Focus/Purpose Unique Element Conclusion 19. Jackson, N. R., 1973 Texas center Teacher renewal I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n with behavioral emphasis Modules provided, encour- aging self-pacing and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n 20. Joyce, B. R., & Marsha Weil, 1973 England and U.S. centers L i t e r a t u r e review Designing a teacher center examined Centers of d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s operate e f f e c t i v e l y 21. McCrory, D. L., 1973 Middle school center Pre- and i n s e r v i c e education Open-area, team-teaching, f l e x i b l e curriculum i n operation Core and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d t r a i n i n g provided 22. Markowitz, Alan, & Frances Haley, 1973 Center i n Washington, D.C. Teacher education Various programs: i n several forms provided Evaluation and expansion are underway 23. P i l o t Program: San Francisco Center f o r Advanced Teacher Development, 1973 San Francisco teachers seeking advancement Inservice centers Summer session to be followed by year-round program Cooperative e f f o r t i n several areas (e.g., reading s p e c i a l i z a t i o n ) 24. Restructuring Teacher Educa- t i o n , 1973 Houston Tea- cher Center Project Competency based teacher education Evaluation of the pro- j e c t c a r r i e d out at a l l l e v e l s from objectives to r e s u l t s Extensive materials are provided with t h i s report Table 10 (continued) Name/title, date Population Focus/Purpose Unique Element Conclusion 25. Sikula, J . P., 1973 Urban center i n Ohio Pre- and inservice t r a i n i n g Competency-based modules provided Laboratory disseminates educational resources 26. Yarger, S. J . , 1973 Teacher Cen- ters across U.S. Analysis of types of centers D i f f e r e n t 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 s p e c i - f i e d C ollaboration and renewal the concerns of the center 28. Teacher Educa- t i o n Learning Centers, 1974 University of Maine centers Pre- and inservice t r a i n i n g C e n t e r — i n t e r n s h i p combination u t i l i z e d Evaluation indicates value of program to teachers and the system 29. Davis, J . B., J r . , 1975 Minneapolis centers Teacher renewal (pre- and i n - service) Training given i n a v a r i e t y of settings Model goes d i r e c t l y to parents and educators for support, funding 30. Van F l e e t , Alanson, 1975 F l o r i d a centers Inservice t r a i n i n g Released time and fund- ing provided by the state Cooperation between l e v e l s and agencies necessary oo ON 87 than attempt to reorganize the e n t i r e system-wide program i n one year. A successful program i n a l i m i t e d area w i l l mean much more i n 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 p a i r i n g them with experienced teachers to serve as models. The approach depends on the problems each group s p e c i f i e s as being of paramount importance to them. In addition, s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups should be established. As Brimm and T o l l e t t , 1974, noted, i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n was of s i g n i f i c a n t importance to teachers i n t h e i r survey. I t i s important that whatever the composition of groups, s i z e be l i m i t e d (4-6) for many a c t i v i t i e s to encourage p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The use of small groups i s emphasized throughout chapter IV. In e s t a b l i s h i n g i n i t i a l rapport, and promoting e s p r i t de corps among the p a r t i c i p a n t s , small group techniques w i l l be taught. The guide w i l l be an a r t i c l e (B.C. Teacher, 53-8, May-June 1974, 275-6) which gives step-by- step i n s t r u c t i o n s on teaching students to function i n groups. The teachers should simulate a classroom s i t u a t i o n and learn by doing. There i s nothing easy about teaching students to work i n groups. However, d i f - ferences i n students' a b i l i t i e s and i n t e r e s t s necessitate i n d i v i d u a l i z a - t i o n . Groups can be more e f f i c i e n t than i n d i v i d u a l s . And students le a r n such s k i l l s as cooperative problem-solving, o r a l communication, and e f f e c t i v e inter-personal r e l a t i o n s . In the chart on page 88, Bishop, 1976, r e l a t e s group s i z e to objectives. I m p l i c i t i n the comments on the choice of English teachers and on grouping i s the assumption that t h i s i n s e r v i c e program i s an i n i t i a l 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. S k i l l Development- Competency Directed Practice Simulation Laboratory Exercises Training Sessions Demonstration 3. Understanding-Commitment V i s i t a t i o n Internship Interview Research U t i l i z a t i o n Discussion Gaming Real Situa- t i o n Human Rela- tions T r a i n - ing F i e l d T r i p Feedback Groups i n reaching a l l teachers within a school or d i s t r i c t . English teachers are thus trained as leaders to return to t h e i r s t a f f s to i n s t i t u t e what they have learned and ultim a t e l y to transfer t h i s learning to teachers i n other content areas. There are a l t e r n a t i v e methods of approach; f o r example, one whole s t a f f could work together within an in s e r v i c e program. This would be i d e a l i f the s t a f f members were equally aware of the need for secondary reading. However, since t h i s i s an u n l i k e l y s i t u a t i o n , i t i s more sensible to work with a group which possibly has some recognition of reading problems—that i s , English teachers. Compulsory versus voluntary attendance? Because of the s i t u a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia concerning general lack of incentives for i n s e r v i c e , personal m o t i v a t i o n — t h e desire to improve one's own t e a c h i n g — i s 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- fu l i f i t s participants are volunteers. However, in order to make individuals aware of their needs, the i n i t i a l survey and preliminary work- shop should be compulsory. It may be that provincial or d i s t r i c t action w i l l become necessary, instituting a compulsory professional development clause for permanent certification or salary increments. Otherwise, i t is doubtful whether inservice education w i l l reach those for whom i t is most appropriate. I n i t i a l 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 d i s t r i c t personnel cannot be overemphasized. To those on site must be l e f t 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 i n i t i a l planning must revolve around a needs assessment. From i t 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 w i l l occur through practicing new techniques within their own classrooms, they must be able to judge the effectiveness of their d i f f e r - ent behaviors, methods, and such. One component of the visitation element i s that teachers have the opportunity to observe one another. Again, t h i s involves t r a i n i n g i n evaluative techniques. Also the means by which the effectiveness of the program i s to be measured should be s p e c i f i e d from the beginning. Therefore, time should be set aside e s p e c i a l l y f o r communication between the various i n d i v i d u a l s concerned. Support of p r i n c i p a l s and department chairmen must be forthcoming. The chart on page 91 provides one view of the shared r e s p o n s i b i l - i t i e s of personnel for continuing education ("Continuing Education f o r Teachers: Whose R e s p o n s i b i l i t y ? " p. 22). A l l e n and Manley-Casimir, 1974, analyzed the extent to which various groups i n B r i t i s h Columbia (school d i s t r i c t s , teachers' organizations, u n i v e r s i t i e s , the Department of Education) a c t u a l l y take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r in s e r v i c e education, (b) S p e c i f i c Guidelines Although the Bullock Report, 1975, claimed "the appropriate unit f o r i n s e r v i c e education i n the secondary school w i l l more frequently be the English department" (p. 34), there has been no s p e c i f i c discussion of the r a t i o n a l e f o r beginning an i n s e r v i c e program i n secondary reading with English teachers. The comments i n chapter I provide some explanation f o r s t a r t i n g with English teachers. For example, there i s the fac t that English teachers more than any other teachers have probably had a pre- service course i n secondary reading and, therefore, have some background. It i s the English teacher who i s l i k e l y to be assigned the task of teach- ing reading i n 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 h i s own content area are at le a s t as great as those i n any other content area. There i s empirical and subjective evidence for t h i s . R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for Aspects of Inservice Education Identifying Inservice Needs I n i t i a t i n g Inservice A c t i v i t i e s Planning Inservice A c t i v i t i e s Providing Resource Personnel Providing F i n a n c i a l Resources Conducting Follow-up A c t i v i t i e s Individual teachers AA * A AA A AAA P r i n c i p a l s and s t a f f 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 o f f i c e personnel AA AA A AA AAA AA Department of Education Regional O f f i c e s of Education AA A A A AAA A AA Department of Education Curriculum Branch AA A A AA A A U n i v e r s i t i e s AA A A AA A A * = Moderate r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ** = Extensive r e s p o n s i b i l i t y AAA = Major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y "Continuing Education for Teachers: Whose R e s p o n s i b i l i t y ? " 92 It i s important to r e i t e r a t e the r a t i o n a l e for the s e l e c t i o n of the English teacher as the focus of an i n s e r v i c e program i n reading. Three kinds of evidence can be c i t e d as v a l i d a t i o n f o r t h i s choice. F i r s t , there have been various studies suggesting the need for t r a i n i n g i n read- ing f o r English teachers. These studies deal e i t h e r with preservice t r a i n i n g or with i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s i n English c l a s s e s . An example of the f i r s t kind resulted i n a recommendation by V i a l l et a l . , 1967, that reading be a component i n the preparation of English teachers. Of teachers surveyed by L i t t r e l l , 1968, 97% said a reading course would be valuable. In 73% of Indiana schools responding to a survey by Farr et a l . , 1970, English teachers were responsible for reading i n s t r u c t i o n even though no reading course was required f o r state c e r t i f i c a t i o n . 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 i n teaching reading should be required, one a diagnostic/remedial course, the other a developmental course. Investigating preservice t r a i n - ing of English teachers, Means, 1974, showed that l i t t l e time was devoted to reading. Morrison and Austin, 1976, i n contrasting new data with t h e i r e a r l i e r study (1961) noted that even though a required course i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n f or a l l prospective secondary teachers i s most f r e - quently mentioned by teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s , only 24.8% of them have i n s t i t u t e d such a course, usually applying i t only to English majors. As f o r the i n s t r u c t i o n i n reading i n secondary English classes, Squire and Applebee's extensive study, 1968, revealed that l i t t l e atten- t i o n was paid to reading by English teachers. Gibson, 1971, surveyed English teachers, 37% of whom said that i n the area of langauge a r t s , reading needed most emphasis. Fahy's survey of Alberta teachers, 1972, 9 3 s h o w e d t h a t E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s a c c e p t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c - t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , o n t h e b a s i s o f p r e s e n t p r a c t i c e s a n d r e c o g n i z e d c l a s s r o o m n e e d s , i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n i n r e a d i n g i s e s s e n t i a l . A s e c o n d s o u r c e o f e v i d e n c e c o n s i s t s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l b o o k s o n s e c o n d a r y r e a d i n g w h i c h r e v e a l g r e a t s i m i l a r i t y o f c o n c e r n a m o n g r e a d i n g e x p e r t s a n d E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s . P a r t i c u l a r l y i n a f f e c t i v e a r e a s , t h e g o a l s o f b o t h g r o u p s a r e m u c h a l i k e . S o m e e x a m p l e s o f t h e s e b o o k s a r e : H e n r y , 1 9 6 1 ; W e i s s , 1 9 6 1 ; K a r l i n , 1 9 6 4 ; F a d e r a n d M c N e i l , 1 9 6 6 ; H a f n e r , 1 9 6 7 ; K a r l i n , 1 9 6 9 ; T h o m i s o n , 1 9 7 0 ; A u k e r m a n , 1 9 7 2 ; O l s o n a n d A m e s , 1 9 7 2 ; R o b i n s o n , 1 9 7 5 . A b r i e f r e v i e w o f s u c h t e x t s s u p p o r t s n o t o n l y t h e p a r - a l l e l c o n c e r n s b u t a l s o i l l u s t r a t e s t h e s p e c i a l p r o b l e m s o f E n g l i s h w h i c h r e c e i v e e m p h a s i s i n r e a d i n g t e x t s . A s e a r l y a s 1 9 4 8 , H e n r y e x p r e s s e d t h e v i e w o f t h e v a l u e o f r e a d i n g a s b i b l i o t h e r a p y . I n s t a t e m e n t s s i m i l a r t o R o s e n b l a t t ' s i n L i t e r a t u r e a s E x p l o r a t i o n , 1 9 3 8 , h e e m p h a s i z e d t h e p e r s o n a l - s o c i a l m e r i t s o f l i t e r - a t u r e f o r i n d i v i d u a l g r o w t h . H e a l s o p o i n t e d o u t t h e p r o b l e m s o f r e a d - i n g i n l i t e r a t u r e d u e t o i t s m u l t i g e n r e s n a t u r e . F o r e x a m p l e , d i f f e r e n t d e m a n d s a r e m a d e b y n o v e l s , s h o r t s t o r i e s , d r a m a s , b i o g r a p h i e s , e s s a y s , h i s t o r i e s , p o e t r y , n e w s p a p e r s , a n d m a g a z i n e s . W e i s s , 1 9 6 1 , e d i t e d a b o o k o f r e a d i n g s i n w h i c h R u t h S t r a n g r e i n f o r c e d H e n r y ' s p o s i t i o n , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a m a j o r g o a l o f r e a d i n g i s p e r s o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h c o n c o m i t a n t e n j o y m e n t o f t h e m a t e r i a l r e a d . S h e a l s o n o t e d t h a t t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g i s a n e s s e n t i a l p a r t o f t e a c h i n g E n g l i s h . W e i s s ' p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t w a s t h a t s p e c i a l r e a d i n g s k i l l s a n d h a b i t s a r e n e e d e d f o r t h e l a n g u a g e a r t s a s d i s t i n c t f r o m o t h e r c o n t e n t a r e a s a n d t h a t o n e p o s s i b l e a p p r o a c h t o t e a c h - i n g t h e s e s k i l l s w o u l d i n v o l v e t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e l a n g u a g e a r t s . B a m m a n e t a l . , 1 9 6 1 , a g r e e d t h a t " S p e c i a l s k i l l s a r e d e m a n d e d f o r t h e 94 reading of a l l types of l i t e r a t u r e " (p. 186). K a r l i n et a l . , 1964, explained that i n reading l i t e r a t u r e a s t u - dent i s responsible for analyzing the structure of the piece, the form of the genre, the theme, and the mode of the s e l e c t i o n . In order for a student to do t h i s s u c c e s s f u l l y , c e r t a i n conditions have to be met. F i r s t , he has to be empathic, that i s , able to c o r r e l a t e material read with personal experience. Second, he has to perceive the meaning or purpose of the s e l e c t i o n . Third, he has to perceive the a r t i s t i c unity and s i g n i f - icance of the s e l e c t i o n . Therefore, the conclusion of K a r l i n et a l . was that higher order reading s k i l l s are required to deal competently with l i t e r a t u r e . Marksheffel, 1966, distinguished between general reading s k i l l s and s p e c i a l i z e d s k i l l s f o r subject matter. He claimed that English i s the most d i s l i k e d of a l l school subjects, presumably i n part because of read- ing problems i n t h i s subject. One suggested s o l u t i o n was the i n d i v i d u a l - i z a t i o n of reading programs. On the other hand, Robinson and Rauch, 1966, advocated the t o p i c a l approach to l i t e r a t u r e with an a f f e c t i v e emphasis. They asserted that i n t e g r a t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e and experience i s necessary for successful reading and that there are various l e v e l s of thematic a n a l y s i s : p h y s i c a l , mental, moral, psychological,and p h i l o s o p h i c a l . Hafner, 1967, explained that l i t e r a t u r e requires comprehension plus c r i t i c a l or evaluative reading. He maintained that i t i s necessary to d i f f e r e n t i a t e among approaches to reading the various genres: drama— v i s u a l i z a t i o n i s a major requirement; p o e t r y — a n a l y s i s of structure, s t y l e , and references i s e s s e n t i a l ; prose f i c t i o n — p o i n t of view, sequen- t i a l development, and s t y l e are important. Also, there should be a d i s - t i n c t i o n between the s k i l l s needed to read imaginative and non-imaginative 95 l i t e r a t u r e . Having reviewed English programs i n the best American schools, Squire and Applebee, 1968, concluded that both reading programs and Eng- l i s h classes favored academic students. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g that i n the seventies reading programs are pr i m a r i l y remedial or c o r r e c t i v e i n nature, with some developmental reading programs, but few programs f o r the superior or college-bound student. A recent survey of B r i t i s h Columbia schools (Kinzer, 1976) revealed that 50% of reading programs i n secondary schools are remedial or co r r e c t i v e , only 21.5% developmental, and the remaining 28.4% directed toward disadvantaged students or content area s k i l l s . Defending the p o s i t i o n that extensive reading w i l l lead to s k i l l f u l reading, K a r l i n , 1969, assumed that s k i l l s could be better developed i n conjunction with content. He stressed the importance of education as the greatest s i n g l e f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g both the q u a l i t y and quantity of reading i n adult l i f e . Judging by present s t a t i s t i c s , past e f f o r t s have not been p a r t i c u l a r l y successful since fewer than 10% of adults can be considered h a b i t u a l readers (P. A. Wagner i n Weiss, 1961). Aukerman, 1972, claimed that reading s k i l l s taught i n English should be based on student needs and. appropriateness of s k i l l s to the s e l e c t i o n . He advocated the thematic approach i n preference to the h i s t o r i c a l f o r moti- v a t i o n a l reasons. Also i n 1972, Olson and Ames emphasized the unique problems of genres: i n the short story, inference i s necessary to recog- nize background and intent; i n the novel, digressions may d i s t r a c t from the p l o t ; i n poetry, d i f f e r e n t types have d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of d i f f i c u l t y , making o r a l presentation desirable; drama i s most d i f f i c u l t due to a maximum of inference. Thus, each genre i s d i s t i n c t , with s p e c i a l prob- lems accompanying each—not only due to demands made by the s e l e c t i o n but 96 also due to biases students bring to c e r t a i n genres, such as poetry. Point three can serve as a r e b u t t a l to those who would claim that reading i n English l i t e r a t u r e i s not as d i f f i c u l t as the reading of expository m a t e r i a l s . i n other content areas. One popular argument runs that since the student i s f a m i l i a r with n a r r a t i v e — h e has heard and read i t a l l h i s l i f e — t h i s exposure better prepares him to read l i t e r a r y as opposed to expository material. However, the range of l i t e r a t u r e required for reading i n secondary school i s q u a l i t a t i v e l y as well as q u a n t i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from that which the student has read i n elemen- tary grades. L i t e r a t u r e i s a multigenres area, and students are expected to read a l l forms with equal success. As Gallo and Siedow pointed out: No other teacher i s confronted with as wide a range of differences i n the types of reading he must require of h i s students as i s the l i t e r - ature teachers. When the reading of poetry, drama, short story, novel, biography, autobiography, and essay i s examined and compared with the range of reading required i n a t y p i c a l s o c i a l studies, mathematics, or science course, the differences become apparent. Within each of the genres, moreover, there i s an equally wide range. (Gallo, D. R., and M. D. Siedow. "Reading i n l i t e r a t u r e : the impor- tance of student involvement," Reading i n the Content Areas, ed. J . L. Laffey, Newark, Delaware, I.R.A., 1972, p. 32) A second argument i s that within the range of materials a v a i l a b l e i n l i t e r a t u r e , there are s u f f i c i e n t l y easy books—such as the adolescent or j u v e n i l e n o v e l — f o r a l l secondary students. Yet even s t o r i e s such as these are becoming inc r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t i n structure and s t y l e . A l Muller i n "New Reading M a t e r i a l : The Junior Novel" claimed that "the l i t e r a r y s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of the junior novel has increased, and i t can no longer be assumed that the novel w i l l present no reading obstacles to a younger student" (Journal of Reading, 18-7, A p r i l 1975, p. 533). What was previously easy material now approximates the d i f f i c u l t adult novel. Furthermore, an English teacher's o b l i g a t i o n i s to enable students to 97 make t r a n s i t i o n s i n reading: "In secondary school, the student moves up from children's l i t e r a t u r e , through the more sophisticated j u v e n i l e trade books, to the adolescent novel—and many of the college-bound students enter the world of mature l i t e r a t u r e " (Aukerman, p. 137). F i n a l l y , there lurks an assumption that narrative material i s inher- ently more i n t e r e s t i n g i n content than i s expository material and, there- fore, for motivational reasons should be easier to read. But research on the development of students' i n t e r e s t s between grades seven and twelve (McKay, 1968) suggests an increase i n the popularity of n o n - f i c t i o n material: s c i e n t i f i c , h i s t o r i c a l , biographical. And even those students who prefer a romance or an adventure t a l e to n o n - f i c t i o n cannot with assurance be claimed to enjoy a poem, essay, or drama. The point i s that the load placed on the English teacher for teach- ing the reading of l i t e r a t u r e i s a heavy one. Arthur Gates stated, "No assignment i n the e n t i r e school curriculum c a l l s f o r more i n t e l l i g e n c e and a r t i s t r y than the teaching of reading l i t e r a t u r e " ("Intelligence and A r t i s t r y i n Teaching Reading," The Elementary English Review, Vol. x v i i , 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 i n English, and because of the q u a l i t a t i v e and quantitative demands made on students i n English courses i n secondary schools, there i s ample j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r choosing the English teacher as the primary focus of an i n s e r v i c e program i n reading. Some objective v a l i d a t i o n f or the statement "Reading i n English i s at l e a s t as d i f f i c u l t as reading i n the other content areas" can be found i n a recent doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n by Peter Edwards (University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974). In h i s study Edwards selected 37 textbooks from grades 98 8 through 10, across seven subject areas, from the required text l i s t for public schools i n B r i t i s h Columbia. A t o t a l 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 r e s u l t , Edwards concluded that c e r t a i n secondary content areas posed greater reading d i f - f i c u l t i e s than others i n terms of the l e x i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r texts. Considering English, s o c i a l studies, and science only, E n g l i s h — regardless of the grade l e v e l — w a s most d i f f i c u l t i n terms of range of vocabulary, repeat rate frequency of words, and sentence length demands. It i s important to r e a l i z e that the texts designated i n t h i s study as English texts were only the A issue books, the basic language plus some l i t e r a t u r e texts. Excluded were the B issue texts which comprise the majority of the reading materials i n the English courses. Generaliz- ing from the l i t e r a t u r e texts which were used, narrative reading i s mark- edly more demanding than expository reading (exemplified by the language t e x t s ) . The point i s , f i r s t , that narrative reading i s more d i f f i c u l t on the basis of vocabulary load. It i s also possible to consider sentence length as posing extra d i f f i c u l t y . However, as well as these points are those areas not dealt with by the study: the m u l t i p l i c i t y of authors i n English w i t h i n anthologies or over novels producing problems of d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s , vocabularies, and conceptual loads. Concerning the l a t t e r , within the B issue texts there i s no s i n g l e theme or aim as there i s within a s o c i a l studies t e x t — o r s e r i e s of t e x t s — c o v e r i n g the same chronological 99 period, p o l i t i c a l concepts, or whatever. Moreover, the challenges i n approaching n a r r a t i v e material may be greater than those deriving from texts i n the other content areas primar- i l y because of i n d i v i d u a l a u t h o r i a l d i f f e r e n c e s . With a novel there i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r assuming a p r i o r i a p a r t i c u l a r organization p a t t e r n — space or time. There i s l i t t l e opportunity to 'break i n t o ' the material of the book by using c e r t a i n 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 i l l u s t r a t i o n s — p h o t o g r a p h s , maps, and such. It i s also possible to claim that the purposes f o r reading a novel i n class are more complex than those for reading expository material. For instance, students read a s o c i a l studies or science text, b a s i c a l l y , for information including main ideas and d e t a i l s . In English, however, a student reads a novel f o r theme (main idea) and p l o t (supporting d e t a i l s ) as well as character, mood, and s t y l e . A group of re l a t e d considerations about the author, the novel, and the student's background experience assume increasing importance because na r r a t i v e reading involves cr e a t i v e rather than merely c r i t i c a l reading. It i s necessary to ask more than, What i s the author's purpose? Beyond t h i s , the reader must create from himself and the work an experience of personal s i g n i f i c a n c e . Although t h i s could occur from reading an expository text, i t seems u n l i k e l y that i t would,, whereas t h i s i s one of the primary goals of reading n a r r a t i v e : that a student enjoy the s e l e c t i o n , incorporate i t into h i s experience, perhaps even modify h i s behavior or attitudes as a r e s u l t . One f i n a l point concerns the multigenres content of n a r r a t i v e materials. The English teacher deals with drama, poetry, short story, 100 biography, and essay as well as the novel. Each genre has i t s p e c u l i a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , often contributing to reading d i f f i c u l t y . Add to these previous considerations of au t h o r i a l differences i n form and s t y l e and the magnitude of the task of the English teacher becomes c l e a r . Another issue which requires some explanation i s the focus on English teachers of j u n i o r rather than senior or combined grades. Stu- dents have d i f f e r e n t reading needs at d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s . In grades 1 to 3, students are learning to read. The materials are there p r i m a r i l y to teach them the s k i l l s of reading. This i s often l a b e l l e d the a c q u i s i - t i o n stage i n reading development. However, i n grades 4 to 7, the i n t e r - mediate years, students are reading to learn, moving to the a p p l i c a t i o n stage i n reading. They are introduced to the content areas on the assump- t i o n that t h e i r basic decoding and a c q u i s i t i o n reading s k i l l s are already well developed. Thus, they read with a purpose beyond the act of reading. By the time students enter j u n i o r secondary school, grades 8 to 10, i t i s assumed that they have acquired the s k i l l s they need f o r reading i n the content areas. I t i s necessary to r e f e r only to such problems as those indicated i n chapter I to r e a l i z e that not only have many students not learned to read i n the content areas, some have not learned to read e f f e c - t i v e l y at a l l . Many are s t i l l s truggling with the t r a n s i t i o n from the a c q u i s i t i o n to the a p p l i c a t i o n stage while a small percentage are hope- l e s s l y mired i n the rudiments of beginning reading. S t i c h t , 1975, made the important point that automaticity i n reading s k i l l development i s too often taken f o r granted i n l a t e r grades when, i n r e a l i t y , for many st u - dents i t i s s t i l l f l u i d or may be markedly arrested i n some cases. Singer and Rodes, 1976, stressed, i n p a r t i c u l a r , the wide range of reading development inherent i n secondary populations and the need to consider such 101 differences i n aiding students to cope with secondary text materials. Therefore, before students are required to cope with i n c r e a s i n g l y challenging material i n grades 11 and 12 the s k i l l s which w i l l enable them to succeed i n the content areas must be reviewed, reinforced and applied d i r e c t l y to subject materials. Presumably, teachers have higher expecta- tions of students i n the senior years as compared to the j u n i o r years. The materials are more d i f f i c u l t i n terms of r e a d a b i l i t y , conceptual load, and quantity. I t i s e s s e n t i a l , then, to separate the j u n i o r and senior grades for the purpose of attempting to prevent reading f a i l u r e s at the upper grades by co r r e c t i n g them within the j u n i o r grades. 2. Needs Assessment As the importance of i n i t i a l planning was emphasized i n chapter I I I , so within t h i s preliminary planning must the needs assessment assume great importance. Various studies include examples of needs-assessment surveys (O'Hanlon, 1967; L i t t r e l l , 1968; McGuire, 1969; Dahl, 1970; L i s t e r , 1970; Lavin, 1972; Hebert, 1973; Parsons and F u l l e r , 1974) and from these an appropriate one could be selected. Table 11 summarizes f i f t y - f o u r studies i n which a needs assessment played a s i g n i f i c a n t part i n pre-planning a c t i v i t i e s . On the other hand, i t would also be possible to design an i d i o s y n c r a t i c needs-assessment survey to more c l o s e l y f u l f i l l l o c a l needs/requirements. Questions would be concerned with teachers' att i t u d e s toward and methods i n secondary reading. I t would be important to t e s t the survey i n a p i l o t s i t u a t i o n using both external experts (out- side consultants) and i n s e r v i c e teachers to specify ambiguities, omissions, and such. Such a project has recently been undertaken at the U n i v e r s i t y 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 d i s t r i c t s Inservice educav t i o n Survey The r e l a t i o n of i n s e r v i c e to needs most important 2. Brantner, 1964 Trade and tech- n i c a l teachers Inservice education Questionnaire E f f e c t i v e format f o r questionnaire was Do you (present p r a c t i c e s ) , Would you (preferred practices) 3. Whitworth, 1964 Students and Eng- l i s h teachers i n Indianopolis sec- ondary schools Improving s t u - dent reading tastes Questionnaires There was su b s t a n t i a l agreement by teachers and students on appraisal of techniques used to improve student reading tastes 4. Aaron et a l . , 1965 Teachers Reading i n - service programs Questionnaire As w e l l as a needs-assessment i n - strument, other methods were sug- gested (discussion, observation, etc.) 5. Robinson & Rauch, 1965 Teachers Reading in s e r - v i c e 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- t i o n Survey Many mathematics teachers f e e l they lack the competence to d i s - 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 i n Nebraska Inservice education Survey Teachers should be involved i n plan- ning and leadership; i n s e r v i c e should be rela t e d to d a i l y i n s t r u c - t i o n a l needs; i n s e r v i c e should be evaluated 9. O'Hanlon & Witter, 1967 Nebraska State Dept. of Education Inservice education Survey General d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with past i n s e r v i c e . Help wanted i n motiva- t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g i n s t r u c t i o n , innovative p r a c t i c e s 10. R u s s e l l , 1967 Reading teachers Reading inservice programs Questionnaire An appraisal of current p r a c t i c e s was combined with an assessment of f e l t needs 11. L i t t r e l l , 1968 Kansas high schools English teachers' attitudes toward preparation i n reading Opinionnaire Overwhelming support (97%) for the value of a reading course preser- v i c e or i n s e r v i c e . S k i l l s needed by students and topics for teachers were given (e.g., c r i t i c a l 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 i n s t r u c t i o n Questionnaire 84% of public high school English teachers responding had taken no preservice course i n reading. They perceived i t as the area i n which they most needed i n s t r u c t i o n 13. McGuire, M.> 1969 Six New England states Reading i n s t r u c t i o n Questionnaire Need for development and expansion i n secondary school reading programs was noted 14. Baker, 1970 Teachers, students, and parents Probe system evaluated Questionnaire The needs of the 3 groups and t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n with the program were compared 15. Dahl, 1970 Ontario secondary school teachers Attitudes toward teaching reading Questionnaire Fewer than 1/8 of teacher had r e - ceived i n s t r u c t i o n i n teaching reading 16. L i s t e r , 1970 Elementary teachers Inservice educa- t i o n programs Questionnaire Teacher motivation re l a t e d to r e l e - vance. Focus should be on prac- t i c e s , s k i l l s , and materials 17. Staples, 1970 Alberta teachers Professional development needs Questionnaire Teachers want p r a c t i c a l , relevant a c t i v i t i e s , with teacher p a r t i c i - pation at a l l l e v e l s 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 s k i l l s , comprehension, i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , and materials 19. Johnston, 1971 Teachers (England) Inservice education Review of practices Areas of need: knowledge, aids, r e - search, evaluation, curriculum, methods 20. Katzenmeyer et a l . , 1971 Five models from across the U.S. Evaluation of language a r t s / reading centers Survey Degree to which models s a t i s f i e d needs evaluated by student achievement, teacher attitudes and p r a c t i c e s , on- s i t e v i s i t s , d i r e c t o r s ' reports 21. Knox, 1971 F l o r i d a Adult Basic Education Inservice education Questionnaire A needs-assessment questionnaire p r i o r to planning a program i s u s e f u l 22. McGuire, 1971 Selected teachers Inservice workshop Questionnaire Teacher behavior and a t t i t u d e s were e f f e c t i v e l y changed 23. Minturn, 1971 Reading consultants and content area teachers i n Missouri Inservice t r a i n i n g Survey Topics were: nature of reading, teaching reading i n the content areas, development of materials and teaching strategies 24. Schleich, 1971 Content area teachers and administrators Reading ins e r v i c e Survey Topics: reading process, reading s k i l l s , t e s t s , r e a d a b i l i t y , IRI, DRL, reading i n the content areas Table 11 (continued) Name, date Area, population Subject, focus Method Conclusions/Recommendations 25. A Systematic Approach to Inservice Training for Teachers i n Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1971 Learning disab- i l i t i e s teachers Inservice t r a i n i n g Questionnaire An annual needs assessment indicates users' needs f o r more information, providing data f o r planning a mini- course 26. Bernstein, 1972 Elementary tea- chers and th e i r students Reading i n - service education Questionnaire Pre- and post-assessment of knowledge and a t t i t u d e s used several kinds of evaluation (case studies, reports, inventories) 27. James, 1972 Secondary school teachers Reading i n - 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 s t a f f Continuing education Questionnaire An annual needs assessment provided information on users' f a m i l i a r i t y with topics and desire for more f a m i l i a r i t y 30. P a i s l e y , 1972 Teachers and administrators Information needs Questionnaire Teachers' and p r i n c i p a l s ' responses to a needs assessment revealed d i f f e r e n t perceptions of needs f o r 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 d i f f e r e n t l y by teachers and p r i n c i p a l s 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 s p e c i f i c needs and problems rel a t e d to teaching reading 34. Jaquith, 1973 Junior high/middle school teachers, p r i n c i p a l s , and uni v e r s i t y s p e c i a l i s t s Inservice education Questionnaire The three groups perceived t h e i r needs d i f f e r e n t l y , were w i l l i n g to p a r t i c - ipate i n i n s e r v i c e to d i f f e r e n t degrees 35. Kirby, 1973 Teachers and resource people Inservice education Questionnaire Needs assessment was concerned with the r o l e of the u n i v e r s i t y , and the use of consultants i n i n s e r v i c e 36. Model for Reading In- se r v i c e : PIE (Planning, Implementa- t i o n , Evalu- ation) Plan, 1973 Teachers (Missouri) Reading ins e r v i c e Questionnaire An i n i t i a l needs assessment served to plan the program; several evaluative questionnaires were given afterwards T a b l e 1 1 ( c o n t i n u e d ) N a m e , d a t e A r e a , p o p u l a t i o n S u b j e c t , f o c u s M e t h o d C o n c l u s i o n s / R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 3 7 . P a n e , 1 9 7 3 J u n i o r h i g h / m i d d l e s c h o o l t e a c h e r s ( N e b r a s k a ) I n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m s S u r v e y A c t u a l p r a c t i c e s w e r e c o m p a r e d w i t h t h o s e r e c o m m e n d e d b y t e a c h e r s ( v i s i t a t i o n p r e f e r r e d ) 3 8 . U c h e , 1 9 7 3 O c c u p a t i o n a l i n s t r u c t o r s a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ( N o r t h C a r o l i n a ) I n s e r v i c e e d u - c a t i o n p r o - g r a m s i n t e c h - n i c a l i n s t i - t u t e s a n d c o m - m u n i t y c o l l e g e s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s : o p p o r t u n i t i e s s h o u l d b e g i v e n t o p l a n , i d e n t i f y n e e d s , s h a r e l e a d e r s h i p 3 9 . E l l i s , 1 9 7 4 T e a c h e r s ( U t a h ) E d u c a t i o n a l n e e d s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e N e e d s a s s e s s m e n t r e s u l t e d i n s p e c i f i c a - t i o n o f t o p 1 0 e d u c a t i o n a l n e e d s ( e . g . , s t u d e n t m o t i v a t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , m e t h o d s ) 4 0 . G r e e r , 1 9 7 4 T e a c h e r s ( S o u t h - e a s t K a n s a s ) C u r r i c u l u m r e - v i s i o n f o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e N e e d f o r a c o u r s e i n m a t e r i a l s w a s n o t e d 4 1 . G r e l l a , 1 9 7 4 E l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s o f W e s t V i r g i n i a I n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n i n r e a d i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e C r i t i c i s m s o f f a i l u r e t o m e e t t e a c h e r n e e d s , p r o v i d e c o n t i n u i t y i n p r o g r a m s o r f o l l o w - u p a t t h e b u i l d i n g l e v e l 4 2 . L i n d s a y e t a l . , 1 9 7 4 P r o f e s s i o n a l s C o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e N e e d s a s s e s s m e n t o f a g r o u p r a t h e r t h a n o f i n d i v i d u a l s . T h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e g r o u p ' s a c h i e v e m e n t a n d e x p e c t e d s t a n d a r d s l e d t o p r o g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t T a b l e 1 1 ( c o n t i n u e d ) N a m e , d a t e A r e a , p o p u l a t i o n S u b j e c t , f o c u s M e t h o d C o n c l u s i o n s / R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ^ 4 3 . P a r s o n s & \ . F u l l e r , 1 9 7 4 1 T e a c h e r s ( T e x a s ) T e a c h e r c o n - c e r n s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e T w o a s s e s s m e n t i n s t r u m e n t s ( c h e c k l i s t a n d s t a t e m e n t ) w e r e u s e d t o e s t a b l i s h t e a c h e r c o n c e r n s 4 4 . A n d e r s o n , 1 9 7 5 S e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s o f T e x a s I n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e D i f f e r e n c e s w e r e n o t e d b e t w e e n s m a l l a n d l a r g e s c h o o l s , b e t w e e n p e r c e p t i o n s o f t e a c h e r s a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . N e e d s o f t e a c h e r s : m o t i v a t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n i n n o v a t i o n s 4 5 . B a u e r , 1 9 7 5 S e c o n d a r y E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s a n d a d m i n - i s t r a t o r s ( T e x a s ) I n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A l t h o u g h t e a c h e r s a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a g r e e d o n i t e m s n e e d e d , t h e y d i d n o t a g r e e o n p r i o r i t i e s 4 6 . B o s a n k o , 1 9 7 5 S e c o n d a r y s c h o o l t e a c h e r s ( C a l i f o r n i a ) R e a d i n g i n s e r v i c e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A t t i t u d e s a n d n e e d s w e r e a s s e s s e d p r i o r t o s e t t i n g g o a l s f o r a p r o g r a m 4 7 . H a r g r a v e , 1 9 7 5 S e c o n d a r y t e a c h e r s E n g l i s h Q u e s t i o n n a i r e N e e d s a s s e s s m e n t 4 8 . P o s t , 1 9 7 5 T e a c h e r s a n d s u p e r v i s o r y s t a f f I n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n S u r v e y T e a c h e r s a n d s u p e r v i s o r y s t a f f p e r c e i v e d s k i l l n e e d s o f t e a c h e r s d i f f e r e n t l y . G r a d e l e v e l a n d t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e i n f l u e n c e d p e r c e p t i o n s o f p r i o r i t i e s i n s k i l l n e e d s Table 11 (continued) Name, date Area, population Subject, focus Method Conclus ions/Recommendat ions 49. Schreiber, 1975 Teachers and admin- i s t r a t o r s i n Alberta Inservice education Questionnaire Teaching s t r a t e g i e s s p e c i f i e d as a high p r i o r i t y need 50. Stander, 1975 High school English teachers Competency based i n - service tea- cher educa- t i o n Questionnaire A needs assessment preceded planning a CBTE program to meet content d e f i c i e n - c i e s of teachers. On the instrument they rated the importance of the area as well as t h e i r degree of competence i n i t 51. Weipert, 1975 Teachers and administrators Inservice edu- cation i n s o c i a l studies. Questionnaire Administrators' attitudes to i n s e r v i c e more favorable than teachers' 52. Chester et a l . , 1976 Secondary teachers ( B r i t i s h Columbia) Inservice edu- cation i n reading Questionnaire Teachers can specify present p r a c t i c e s , perceived needs, and p r i o r i t i e s 53. James, 1976 Teachers (Georgia) Continuing edu- cation i n reading [Questionnaire Needs assessment should consider teachers' and i n s t r u c t o r ' s points of view 54. Mangrum, 1976 Teachers Inservice edu- cation i n reading Kit Using concrete materials, teachers can set p r i o r i t i e s i n needs i n d i v i d u a l l y and compare as a group I l l B r i t i s h Columbia. R. D. Chester et a l . , 1976, have designed a needs- assessment instrument for i n s e r v i c e i n secondary reading. The question- naire was sent to reading teachers and administrators throughout B r i t i s h Columbia for t h e i r reactions to i t s form and content. With modifications, t h i s instrument could be used by any d i s t r i c t to determine the present pr a c t i c e s of teachers across the content areas, the importance they place on various a c t i v i t i e s , and the areas i n which they f e e l they need i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . Thus, a survey of the s i t u a t i o n could be accomplished and a program for the future established. Moreover, data on the desired organ- i z a t i o n of i n s e r v i c e as w e l l as topics to be covered would be a v a i l a b l e . (See Appendix A for questionnaire.) A f t e r using the needs-assessment survey i n a d i s t r i c t with the English teachers as the focus of the i n s e r v i c e program, follow-up would involve s p e c i f i c a t i o n of topics and goals. The apparent dichotomy of i n s e r v i c e i s that i t can be e f f e c t i v e only when i t a r i s e s from the f e l t needs of teachers. Thus, even the external imposition of a needs- assessment survey may seem incongruous. However, both t h i s survey and the preliminary workshop are attempts to make teachers more aware of t h e i r own needs. As. many authors have noted, teachers are often unaware of t h e i r needs due to i n s u f f i c i e n t information on new developments i n methods and materials. Furthermore, both the needs assessment and the i n i t i a l workshop should provide motivational impetus f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n i n s e r - v i c e programs. Once f e l t needs have surfaced, teachers can s i t down with consultants and plan the kind of i n s e r v i c e they f e e l i s relevant to them. An innovative approach to assessing needs while concurrently b u i l d - ing awareness was developed by C. T. Mangrum, 1976. Adapted from a Phi Delta Kappa workshop packet, TINA (Teachers Inservice Needs Assessment) " 112 i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to reading. I t includes s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n s , sample materials, indeed a complete k i t . The r a t i o n a l e i s that by working through abstract concepts with concrete referents, p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l more accurately and honestly reveal t h e i r true needs. The process i s i n i t s e l f a learning experience, bound to promote comment and controversy i n s t a f f s and departments. (See Appendix B f o r k i t . ) 3. Goals The goals of the i n s e r v i c e program would cover cognitive and a f f e c - t i v e areas including knowledge, s k i l l s , and a t t i t u d e s . Topics would span these, and d i f f e r e n t methods would be used to e f f e c t learning within each area on each topi c . Objectives would be both long- and short-term, allowing for immediate implementation (and success) as well as refinement with p r a c t i c e . P r a c t i c a l issues would be countered with p r a c t i c a l pro- cedures. Beck, 1975, termed his workshop a "growth" workshop to emphasize that i t dealt with i n d i v i d u a l teachers' needs rather than with the a t t a i n - ment of a product. P o s i t i v e r e s u l t s accrued for both teachers and t h e i r students. Problems of general concern to English teachers regarding reading were outlined by Rauch, 1967. These are i n the nature of topics which could become i n s e r v i c e objectives. 1. The nature of the reading process Objective: w i l l be able to demonstrate an understanding of the read- ing process by answering questions, explaining o r a l l y , and making appropriate changes i n teaching s t r a t e g i e s . 2. Why pupil s f a i l i n reading Objective: w i l l be able to demonstrate an understanding of p u p i l 113 reading f a i l u r e by answering questions and explaining o r a l l y corre- l a t e s of poor reading achievement i n the student, the materials, the teaching methods. 3. The fundamentals of reading Objective: w i l l be able to demonstrate an understanding of reading fundamentals by preparing and teaching a lesson on vocabulary (e.g., pre-teaching concepts, doing s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s , e t c . ) , comprehen- sion (e.g., showing awareness of l e v e l s through a model or taxonomy— B a r r e t t ) , or some other s k i l l s . 4. Encouraging personal and r e c r e a t i o n a l reading Objective: w i l l be able to show an understanding of how to encourage independent reading by demonstrating the use of i n t e r e s t inventories and a t t i t u d e surveys, and techniques f o r motivating students to read independently f o r pleasure. A personal f a m i l i a r i t y with trade books (e.g., adolescent novels) i s a help. 5. Classroom organization Objective: w i l l be able to demonstrate an understanding of e f f e c t i v e classroom organization by grouping students on d i f f e r e n t bases f o r d i f f e r e n t purposes, i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g materials and assignments. 6. Use of i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials and supplementary aids Objective: w i l l be able to demonstrate an understanding of materials and aids by showing awareness of a v a i l a b i l i t y of materials, d i f f e r - ences i n and values of a l t e r n a t i v e materials, including the a p p l i c a - t i o n of r e a d a b i l i t y formulas and cloze procedure, using audio-visual aids to supplement or complement regular materials. 7. Diagnosis and evaluation Objective: w i l l be able to demonstrate an understanding of diagnosis 114 and evaluation procedures by explaining the administration, i n t e r p r e - t a t i o n , and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of standardized t e s t s , design- ing informal t e s t s , and a t t i t u d e / i n t e r e s t inventories. 8. Questioning techniques Objective: w i l l be able to demonstrate an understanding of question- ing techniques by using written and o r a l questions requiring students to demonstrate varying l e v e l s of comprehension, through guided read- ing, providing a purpose, i n d i c a t i o n of appropriate rate. 9. Research and study s k i l l s Objective: w i l l be able to demonstrate an understanding of research and study s k i l l s by teaching the techniques of s u c c e s s f u l l y reading a book (organizational pattern), using reference materials and the l i b r a r y . 10. Providing for the disabled and superior reader Objective: w i l l be able to demonstrate an understanding of tech- niques providing f o r i n d i v i d u a l d ifferences by designing and imple- menting a balanced reading program to meet the needs of a l l . 11. Integrating language arts and reading Objective: w i l l be able to demonstrate an understanding of methods for i n t e g r a t i n g by designing lessons incorporating reading, w r i t i n g , speaking, and l i s t e n i n g a c t i v i t i e s . 12. Reading i n the content areas Objective: w i l l be able to demonstrate an understanding of the place of reading i n the content areas by showing t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y of reading s k i l l s , and encouraging teachers i n other content areas to teach the reading of t h e i r subject. 115 A review of studies concerned p a r t i c u l a r l y with topics for reading i n s e r v i c e l e d to table 12 on page 116 which indicates the emphasis of the various authors. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to see the p r i o r i t i e s evident i n rank ordering of the l i s t by frequency: 1. Comprehension 2. Vocabulary 3. i-Word Attack •(Diagnosis •^Differentiated I n s t r u c t i o n M a t e r i a l s — R e a d a b i l i t y Research and Study S k i l l s r C r i t i c a l Reading 8 15. (-Oral Reading JRate ^Questioning Techniques 18. (-Reading Process \Supplementary Aids ^Reading and Language Arts 21. /-Why Pupils F a i l i n Reading •(Personal Reading Programs \A T o t a l Reading Program 24. Providing for Superior Readers Grouping 10. Reading i n the Content Areas 11. (Evaluation Interests and Attitudes j I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n ^Providing for Disabled Readers Also i t appears that the s i x student reading s k i l l s are focused on to a greater extent than are the seven teacher i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies (54 to 33—see columns 3-9 versus columns 13-19) . One a d d i t i o n a l source for reading topics i n an i n s e r v i c e program i s secondary reading texts. These r e i n f o r c e the previous s e l e c t i o n based on materials from studies and books. (See table 13.) F i n a l l y , a survey of B r i t i s h Columbia secondary teachers ( K i t e l e y , 1975) resulted i n the following l i s t of t o p i c s : reading s k i l l s ; use and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of standardized reading t e s t s , informal measures of reading achievement, motivation; grouping; m a t e r i a l s - r e a d a b i l i t y , supplementary aids; reading i n the content areas, reading programs. B. Methodology The two facets of methodology, structure and a c t i v i t i e s , overlap into the sections on Guidelines and Modules. That i s , the p r i n c i p l e s 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 H 1 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 s j 1—1 M s j 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 F a i l i n Reading Oral Reading Word Attack Vocabulary Comprehension C r i t i c a l Reading Rate Research and Study S k i l l s Diagnosis Evaluation Interests and Attitudes I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n Grouping D i f f e r e n t i a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n Personal Reading Programs Questioning Techniques Providing f o r Disabled Reader Providing f o r Superior Reader M a t e r i a l s — R e a d a b i l i t y Supplementary Aids Reading and Language Arts Reading i n the Content Areas A T o t a l 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 r o cn (u cn cn ro Or- vo o v H CO VO Ov C>> fD r t s O fu O r- 1 I-i • fD " VO H vo vo Ov Ov M Ln " \ t—1 IT  V . • \ V . H 1 h- 1 " \ r—' h-1 -\ ' \ r o LO " \ vo " \ M < M O • \ Ov <v " \ " \ * ^ r o " \ • \ 4> • \ V . H 1 O " \ • \ \ • \ " \ VO r—' O vO <r- O o M O h-1 o Ov 0 0 CO Ov The Reading Process Why Pupils F a i l i n Reading Oral Reading Word Attack Vocabulary Comprehension C r i t i c a l Reading Rate Research and Study S k i l l s Diagnosis Evaluation Interests and Attitudes I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n Grouping D i f f e r e n t i a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n Personal Reading Programs Questioning Techniques Providing f o r Disabled Reader Providing f o r Superior Reader M a t e r i a l s — R e a d a b i l i t y Supplementary Aids Reading and Language Arts Reading i n the Content Areas A T o t a l Reading Program 118 for s t r u c t u r i n g the i n s e r v i c e program have previously been considered: 1. exposure to the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of an i n s e r v i c e program long before i t s implementation; needs assessment; extensive planning. 2. released time on a long-term basis. 3. on-site l o c a t i o n (for a school or schools i n a d i s t r i c t ) . 4. p a r t i c i p a t i o n on a voluntary basis by a r e s t r i c t e d group, e.g., ju n i o r secondary English teachers. 5. follow-up between modules with consultations, v i s i t a t i o n s , s e l f - evaluation. Table 14 further j u s t i f i e s the s t r u c t u r a l p r i n c i p l e s outlined by r e f e r r i n g to recommendations of past reading i n s e r v i c e programs. There can be l i t t l e doubt concerning the value of a long-term program with pro- v i s i o n f o r teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n oh a released-time b a s i s . TABLE 14 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR READING INSERVICE Planning Released- time, long-term On-site Location Voluntary P a r t i c i - 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 1 1 9 T h e r e a r e s e v e r a l k i n d s o f a c t i v i t i e s a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e s t a g e s o f t h e p r o g r a m . F o r i n s t a n c e , t h e i n i t i a l c o n t a c t w i t h p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i - p a n t s w o u l d l i k e l y o c c u r w i t h i n a p r o f e s s i o n a l d a y s e s s i o n . S u c h a c t i v - i t i e s a s i l l u s t r a t e d l e c t u r e , d e m o n s t r a t i o n , a n d m i c r o t e a c h i n g c o u l d e f f e c t i v e l y e n c o u r a g e t e a c h e r a w a r e n e s s o f n e e d s . G r e l l a , 1 9 7 4 , c a u - t i o n e d a g a i n s t a t t e m p t i n g t o o m u c h a t s u c h a g e n e r a l s e s s i o n . F o l l o w i n g a n e e d s a s s e s s m e n t , p l a n n i n g w o u l d i n c l u d e b r a i n s t o r m i n g , b u z z s e s s i o n s , a n d g r o u p d i s c u s s i o n i n a w o r k s h o p e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e u s e o f s m a l l g r o u p s a n d g r o u p s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d b y n e e d s o r e x p e r i e n c e i s r e c o m m e n d e d b y A u s t i n a n d M o r r i s , 1 9 6 3 ; T e t l e y , 1 9 6 4 ; S a w y e r a n d T a y l o r , 1 9 6 8 ; O s b u r n , 1 9 7 4 . T h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e m o d u l e s , t o b e d i s c u s s e d i n a f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n , w o u l d a l s o o c c u r i n a w o r k s h o p s i t u a t i o n . I n a s u r v e y b y M c K a g u e , 1 9 7 5 , S a s k a t c h e w a n t e a c h e r s o v e r w h e l m i n g l y p r e f e r r e d t h e w o r k s h o p t o o t h e r t y p e s o f i n s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s . C h a n n o n , 1 9 7 5 , l i s t e d a s e x p e c t e d o u t - c o m e s o f a w o r k s h o p a p p r o a c h u s e i n c l a s s r o o m o f n e w s k i l l s a n d e x p e r i - m e n t a t i o n w i t h a l t e r n a t i v e w a y s o f t e a c h i n g a n d s t r u c t u r i n g k n o w l e d g e . A c t i v i t i e s w o u l d i n c l u d e i l l u s t r a t e d l e c t u r e , d e m o n s t r a t i o n , s i m u - l a t i o n a n d r o l e p l a y i n g , a n d m i c r o t e a c h i n g . F o r r e a d i n g i n s e r v i c e p r o - g r a m s , t h e i l l u s t r a t e d l e c t u r e - d e m o n s t r a t i o n c o m b i n a t i o n w a s a d v o c a t e d b y E a r l y a n d S h e l d o n , 1 9 6 7 ; W i s e m a n , 1 9 7 0 ; D u n k e l d , 1 9 7 2 ; a n d M c N a m a r a , 1 9 7 5 . K e n n e d y , 1 9 7 2 , s t r e s s e d t h e v a l u e o f d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s i n a n i n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m d e s i g n e d t o i m p r o v e t h e t e a c h i n g o f r e a d i n g s k i l l s . T h e v a l u e o f s i m u l a t i o n f o r r e a d i n g i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g w a s e m p h a s i z e d b y A u s t i n a n d M o r r i s o n , 1 9 6 3 ; K e l l y , 1 9 6 7 ; S a w y e r a n d T a y l o r , 1 9 6 8 ; K a s d o n a n d K e l l y , 1 9 6 9 ; a n d O s b u r n , 1 9 7 4 . T r o s k y , 1 9 7 3 , a d v o c a t e d m i c r o - t e a c h i n g f o r t r a i n i n g r e a d i n g s u p e r v i s o r s ; S k a i l a n d , u n d a t e d , f o r t r a i n - i n g r e a d i n g t e a c h e r s ; A u e r , 1 9 7 2 , f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n ; 120 Criscuolo, 1973, f o r i n s t r u c t i n g the content-area teacher i n reading. Concerning i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies f or i n s e r v i c e education, Bishop, 1976, noted, "Research regarding teaching . . . suggests the importance of a v a r i e t y of approaches" (p. 101). Draba, 1974, r e i t e r a t e d t h i s point. Audio-visual equipment and materials would be a v a i l a b l e f or guided prac- t i c e . Follow-up between i n s e r v i c e sessions would consist of v i s i t a t i o n s , consultations, and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . To promote interpersonal communica- t i o n between sessions and provide p a r t i c i p a n t s with an environment i n which to plan and discuss, an appropriate suggestion would be the establishment of a teacher center i n a school or d i s t r i c t . (See table 10.) Wherever possible, a c t i v i t i e s would demand high involvement of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . Berck's 1971 study indicated that i n s e r v i c e education incorporating involvement by means of high experience impact a c t i v i t i e s and immediate feedback influenced classroom p r a c t i c e i n reading. Iver- son, 1974, also found a c t i v e teacher involvement led to changes i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Teachers would learn to do by doing, improving s k i l l s and putting knowledge into p r a c t i c e . They would learn from one another, and b u i l d on i n d i v i d u a l strengths. C. Evaluation 1. General Concerns "Evaluation i s complex. I t i s not a simple matter of s t a t i n g be- h a v i o r a l objectives, b u i l d i n g a t e s t , or analyzing some data, though i t may include these. A thorough evaluation w i l l contain elements of a dozen or more d i s t i n c t a c t i v i t i e s " (Worthen and Sanders, 1973, p. 17). The dilemma and dualism involved i n evaluation of an i n s e r v i c e 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. Tyle r , Chicago, Rand McNally, Inc., 1967, pp. 39-83. Stufflebeam, D. L. "Evaluation as Enlightenment for Decision Making," Ohio State University Evaluation Center (mimeo, 1968). D e f i n i t i o n Gathering and combining performance data with weighted set of goal scales. Purpose To e s t a b l i s h and j u s t i f y merit or worth. Evaluation plays many ro l e s . Key Emphasis J u s t i f i c a t i o n of data gathering instruments, weightings, and s e l e c t i o n of goals. E v a l . model: combining data on d i f f e r e n t performance scales into a s i n g l e r a t i n g . Role of Evaluator Responsible f o r judging the merit of an educational p r a c t i c e f o r producers (formative) and consumers (summative). Relationship to Objectives Look at goals and judge t h e i r worth. Determine whether they are being met. Relationship to Decision-Making Evaluation reports (with judg- ments e x p l i c i t l y stated for producers or consumers) used i n decision-making. Types of Evaluation (1) Formative-summative (2) Comparative-noncomparative (3) I n t r i n s i c - p a y o f f (4) Mediated. Defining, obtaining, and using information for decision-making. To provide relevant information to decision-makers. Evaluation reports used f o r decision-making. S p e c i a l i s t who provides evaluation information to decision-makers. Terminal stage i n context eval. i s s e t t i n g objectives; input eval. produces ways to reach objectives; product eval. determines whether objectives are reached. Evaluation provides information for use i n decision-making. (1) Context (2) Input (3) Process (4) Product 122 Scriven, M. Stufflebeam, D. L. Constructs Proposed (1) D i s t i n c t i o n between goals (claims) and roles (functions) (2) Several types of evaluation. C r i t e r i a f o r Judging Evaluation (1) Should be predicated on goals (2) Must i n d i c a t e worth (3) Should have construct v a l i d i t y (4) Should be a w h o l i s t i c program evaluation. Implications for Design (1) Look at many factors (2) Be involved i n value judgements (3) Require use of s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n s (4) Evaluate from within (formative) or from without (summative). Contributions (1) Discriminate between formative (ongoing) and summative (end) evaluation (2) Focus on d i r e c t assessment of worth, focus on value (3) Applicable i n diverse contexts (4) Analysis of means and ends (5) Delineation of types of evaluation (6) Evaluation of objectives. (1) Context eval. f o r planning decisions (2) Input eval. f o r programming decisions (3) Process eval. f o r implementing decisions (4) Product eval. f o r r e c y c l i n g decisions. (1) Internal v a l i d i t y (2) External v a l i d i t y (3) R e l i a b i l i t y (4) O b j e c t i v i t y (5) Relevance (6) Importance (7) Scope (8) C r e d i b i l i t y ( 9 ) Timeliness (10) Pervasiveness (11) E f f i c i e n c y . (1) Experimental design not applic- able (2) Use of systems approach f o r 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 s e n s i t i v e 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 d i f f e r - ent c r i t e r i a and assigning r e l a t i v e weights to c r i t e r i a creates methodological problems (2) No methodology f o r assessing v a l i d i t y of judgments (3) Several overlapping concepts. (1) L i t t l e emphasis on value con- cerns (2) Decision-making process i s un- c l e a r ; methodology undefined (3) May.be co s t l y and complex i f used e n t i r e l y (4) Not a l l a c t i v i t i e s are c l e a r l y evaluative. evaluation models of two experts i n the f i e l d . Worthen and Sanders pro- vided v a l i d i t y f o r the view that multiple evaluation, that i s , the use of a v a r i e t y of instruments to evaluate a program, i s desirable. For instance they claimed that evaluation can j u s t i f i a b l y be based on: (1) professional judgment (experts or a u t h o r i t i e s i n the f i e l d ) ; (2) s t a t i s t i c a l measurement (e.g., standardized t e s t s ) ; or (3) a comparison between performance i n d i c a t o r s and objectives. Thus, evaluation combines an analysis of goals as well as r e s u l t s . Because evaluation of an i n s e r v i c e program i s necess a r i l y s p e c i f i c to the variables of the program—organizational, methodological, content components—any evaluation w i l l also be p e c u l i a r to that program. "Pro- gram evaluation i s concerned with a phenomenon (an educational program) which has l i m i t e d g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y across time and geography" ( i b i d . , p. 32). This r e i t e r a t e s J a f f a ' s 1957 statement that there can be no s i n g l e i n s e r v i c e program to meet a l l needs and, s i m i l a r l y , there can be no si n g l e method of evaluating an i n s e r v i c e program. Each evaluation must depend on the p a r t i c u l a r program i t s e l f . Therefore, the legitimate conclusion seems to be that "the would-be evaluator [should] be e c l e c t i c , whenever possible, i n s e l e c t i n g useful concepts . . . and combining them into an 124 evaluation plan that i s better f o r having incorporated the best features of several approaches" ( i b i d . , p. 41). Expanding on t h i s , these authors claimed that the c r i t e r i a f o r judging evaluation studies are r e l a t i v e : "Although the c r i t e r i a which they [Stufflebeam et a l . , ] described were e s s e n t i a l l y i n t u i t i v e [that i s , s u b j e c t i v e ] , they are useful as guidelines for evaluating evaluation studies. There are no other compelling reasons fo r using these c r i t e r i a however, and the evaluator might well choose only those c r i t e r i a which he agrees are important" ( i b i d . , p. 129)*. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of evaluation to the program i s stressed i n s p i t e of an apparent lack of s p e c i f i c i t y i n defining the c r i t e r i a f o r evaluation. For example, "there i s a need to have evaluation included from the very beginning of any program" ( i b i d . , p. 345), and "there i s a need to t o l e r - ate delay of some f i n a l judgments u n t i l evaluative studies of long-term outcomes can be conducted" ( i b i d . , p. 346). These r e i n f o r c e the points that evaluation and goal-setting must accompany one another, and that the evaluation procedures must be incorporated into the continuous format of i n s e r v i c e or the follow-up a c t i v i t i e s providing continuity between work- shops. These p r i n c i p l e s can be incorporated into an explanation of what the t r i a n g u l a t i o n e f f e c t (Webb et a l . , 1966) i n evaluation means. B a s i c a l l y , as many d i f f e r e n t kinds of evaluation as are appropriate should be attempted, that i s , i n v o l v i n g people (teachers and students) and the pro- gram i t s e l f ( i n d i v i d u a l sessions and long-term program) with a v a r i e t y of instruments. Worthen and Sanders suggested the following uses f o r various measures i n the evaluation of programs: (1) as i n d i c a t o r s of change i n students i n both cognitive and a f f e c t i v e *my underlining LEAVES 125 AND 126 OMITTED IN PAGE NUMBERING. Ji6 fa not 127 behaviors: (a) formal measurement—standardized achievement t e s t s , a t t i t u d e and i n t e r e s t inventories (b) informal, teacher-made i n v e n t o r i e s — f r e e response, interviews, questionnaires, s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n reports, teacher-made achieve- ment tes t s (c) i n d i r e c t measures—absences, records of behavior, number of books checked out of the l i b r a r y , dropouts from school, case h i s t o r i e s . (2) in d i c a t o r s of teacher change i n cognitive and a f f e c t i v e behaviors as a r e s u l t of the program: p u b l i c a t i o n , attendance at pro f e s s i o n a l development programs, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n professional associations, observations; with the use of such instruments as c h e c k l i s t s , r a t i n g scales, and reports. Worthen and Sanders provided an excellent summary of the various means for c o l l e c t i n g data giving the strengths and weakness f or each. "Some Methods of C o l l e c t i n g 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 j o b — a v o i d fatigue. May capture content missed by written records (e.g., voice i n f l e c t i o n ) . Cost. Cannot make independent judgement. Complexity can cause problems i n operating devices. I I . Data Collected by an Independent Observer Can be used i n natural or experimental s e t t i n g s . Most d i r e c t measure of behavior. Experienced, trained or perceptive observers can pick up subtle occur- rences or in t e r a c t i o n s sometimes not av a i l a b l e by other techniques. A. Written accounts Can use c r i t i c a l incident tech- nique eliminating much "chaff". Observer's presence often causes an a r t i f i c i a l s i t u a t i o n . H o s t i l i t y to being observed. Inadequate sampling of observed events. Ambiguities i n recording. Frequent observer u n r e l i a b i l i t y . Hard to be complete. Hard to avoid w r i t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as f a c t u a l data (e.g., "Mary kicked John because she was angry with him"). Strengths Weaknesses 128 Observation forms (e.g., obser- vati o n schedules) Easy to complete; saves time. Can be o b j e c t i v e l y scored. Standardizes observations. Not as f l e x i b l e as written accounts- may lump unlike acts together. C r i t e r i a f o r ratings are often unspecified. May overlook meaningful behavior that i s not r e f l e c t e d i n instrument. I I I . Data Produced by the Subject Himself Self reports Can c o l l e c t data too c o s t l y other- Depends on respondent's "accurate wise (e.g., eliminates endless memory" when dealing with past observation necessary to r e a l l y events ( s e l e c t i v e r e c a l l ) . get to know a person's philosophy, May necessitate anonymous responses a t t i t u d e s , e t c . ) . where threat i s perceived. Can c o l l e c t data not accessible by any other means (private thoughts, f e e l i n g s , actions, emotion-laden m a t e r i a l ) . 1. Diary—may be d i f f i c u l t to analyze but can be comprehensive. 2. Check l i s t s — s o m e t i m e s force choices between unacceptable responses. 3. Rating scales (covered e a r l i e r ) — o f t e n t e l l more about the respon- dent than about the topic under consideration. Semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l . (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. F l e x i b l e and adaptable to i n d i v i d u a l s i t u a t i o n s . Allow glimpse of respondent's gestures, tone o f voice, etc., that reveal h i s • f e e l i n g s . 7. Sociometry Easy to analyze. N a t u r a l i s t i c method. C l i n i c a l l y i n s i g h t f u l . Often t e l l s 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 a c t u a l l y completed the form himself. Costly i n time and personnel. Require s k i l l e d interviewers. Often d i f f i c u l t to summarize. Many biases possible (e.g., i n t e r - viewer's, respondent's, or s i t u a - t i o n a l b i a s e s ) . C r i t e r i a used i n making choices are often vague. 129 Strengths Weaknesses 8. P r o j e c t i v e techniques C l i n i c a l l y i n s i g h t f u l . Allow measurement of v a r i a b l e s t y p i c a l l y unavailable through other techniques. Personal products 1. Tests P r a c t i c a l i t y — d o away with need for observer to gather s i m i l a r data. Most r e l i a b l e measures we have at present. Can record products or thought or thought processes themselves. a. Supplied answer i . Essay Allow students to synthesize t h e i r knowledge about a topi c . i i . Completion Can be quite objective. i i i . Short response Can be quite objective. i v . Problem-solving Can look at actual processes (diagnostic). Can look at actual mastery. Lack of o b j e c t i v i t y i n i n t e r p r e t a - t i o n . Uncertain r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . V a l i d i t y i s always a problem i n work sample s e n s e — i . e . , i s test repre- sentative of c r i t e r i o n ? Lend themselves to "law of the instrument"—we often exclude other techniques. D i f f i c u l t to score o b j e c t i v e l y . Sampling of topics i s r e l a t i v e l y l i m i t e d . May lend themselves to t e s t i n g t r i v i a ( f a c t u a l r e c a l l only). May lend themselves to t e s t i n g t r i v i a ( f a c t u a l r e c a l l o n ly). Lend themselves to mechanical d r i l l . b. Selected answer tests (multiple-choice, t r u e - f a l s e , matching, rank order) Problem of v a l i d i t y i s always present. Standardized tests sometimes used i n s i t u a t i o n s r e q u i r i n g s p e c i a l l y con- structed t e s t s . Apparent p r e c i s i o n often masks very bad items. Greater o b j e c t i v i t y i n scoring. Speed of scoring. P o t e n t i a l l y higher r e l i a b i l i t y . Can be item analyzed for improvement. Quantity of a v a i l a b l e standardized t e s t s . Samples of work Best measure of a b i l i t y mastery, etc. May be d i f f i c u l t or c o s t l y to administer 1 3 0 S t r e n g t h s W e a k n e s s e s I V . D a t a C o l l e c t e d b y U s e o f U n o b t r u s t i v e M e a s u r e s N o n r e a c t i v e . N o n c o n s c i o u s l y b i a s e d . O f t e n r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e a n d e a s i l y m e a s u r a b l e . H i d d e n m e a s u r e s a r e c o n s i d e r e d u n e t h i c a l b y s o m e . D o u b t f u l v a l i d i t y w h e n u s e d a l o n e . ( W o r t h e n a n d S a n d e r s , 1 9 7 3 , p p . 2 8 6 - 7 ) 2 . S p e c i f i c S u g g e s t i o n s " E v a l u a t i o n s h o u l d c o n t r i b u t e t o d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a n d i n - p r o c e s s c o r r e c t i o n s ; t o p r o g r a m i m p r o v e m e n t , r e p o r t i n g , a n d f e e d b a c k ; t o c r e a - t i v i t y a n d v a r i e t y i n t h e i n s e r v i c e e f f o r t s ; a n d t o i m p r o v e d s t a f f r e n e w a l p r o g r a m s a n d r e l a t e d s t a f f - l e a r n e r g a i n " ( B i s h o p , 1 9 7 6 , p . 1 4 5 ) . E v a l u a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r i l y i n t e r r e l a t e d w i t h o b j e c t i v e s : t o w h a t e x t e n t w e r e s h o r t - a n d l o n g - t e r m g o a l s a c c o m p l i s h e d ? T h e r e f o r e , t h e d e s i g n i n g o f m e a s u r e m e n t i n s t r u m e n t s s h o u l d t a k e p l a c e c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f o b j e c t i v e s . E a c h i n s t r u m e n t w i l l o f i t s e l f o f f e r o n l y a p a r t i a l p i c t u r e o f t h e s u c c e s s o r f a i l u r e o f t h e i n s e r v i c e p r o g r a m . H o w e v e r , u s i n g t h e t r i a n g u l a t i o n e f f e c t d e s c r i b e d b y W e b b e t a l . , 1 9 6 6 , ' t h e m u l t i p l e m u l t i f a c e t e d i n s t r u m e n t s w i l l b y t h e i r q u a n t i t y y i e l d r e l i - a b l e , v a l i d r e s u l t s . W e b b e t a l . c a l l e d f o r " m u l t i p l e o p e r a t i o n i s m , a c o l l e c t i o n o f m e t h o d s c o m b i n e d t o a v o i d s h a r i n g t h e s a m e w e a k n e s s " ( p p . 1 - 2 ) . B o t h t h e p r o g r a m i t s e l f a n d i t s e f f e c t s — i m m e d i a t e a n d l a s t i n g — o n t e a c h i n g m u s t b e e v a l u a t e d . T h e r e s u l t s o f a T e n n e s s e e s u r v e y b y B r i m m a n d T o l l e t t , 1 9 7 4 , i n d i c a t e d t h a t t e a c h e r s a c k n o w l e d g e p o s t i n s e r v i c e c l a s s r o o m p e r f o r m a n c e a s t h e m o s t e f f e c t i v e e s t i m a t e o f t h e p r o g r a m ' s v a l u e . T o a n a l y z e t h e p r o g r a m , t w o k i n d s o f i n s t r u m e n t s a r e n e e d e d . O n e 131 would be a short, informal questionnaire to be f i l l e d i n at the end of each workshop session (formative evaluation). The other would be a longer, more comprehensive survey of the whole program given a f t e r i t s completion (summative evaluation). The short form could provide the immediate feed- back necessary f o r modifications i n format, technique, etc. The longer one could be used as a follow-up survey at some l a t e r 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 i n s e r v i c e program (the ultimate goal) Katrein, 1968, suggested as a c r i t e r i o n of success the number of l i b r a r y books borrowed a f t e r the program. The Saturation Reading Program, 1967, included t h i s plus data on dropouts, behavior problems, and attend- ance on the assumption that a successful program would change a school and, therefore, students' a t t i t u d e 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 i s e s s e n t i a l . Pre- and post-questionnaires on t h e i r a t t i t u d e s to reading (a goal of the program) and t h e i r views of the teacher's behavior should be used. A d d i t i o n a l l y , some randomly selected students could provide verbal data for case studies. Teachers also would be pre- and post-tested on t h e i r attitudes to reading and teaching behav- i o r . They would be requested to u t i l i z e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n techniques such as journals or d i a r i e s throughout. And observation of teaching by out- side consultants and other teachers would contribute to the pool of i n f o r - mation. Reed, 1975, developed an observational system for classroom man- agement which could be of value i n 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 X l 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 ne 1 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 X l 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 a l . , 1965 (Program effectiveness must be evalu- ated by changes i n teaching and learning) * * * X X X X X 2. Ru s s e l l , 1967 (Program evaluated by learning of teachers and their students) * * * X X X 3. Minturn, 1971 (Reading i n the content areas of the j u n i o r 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 ( I n d i v i d u a l i z i n g reading i n s t r u c t i o n the focus of a mini-teaching unit) * * X X X 6. James, 1972 (Classroom management and lesson planning precede techniques for teaching reading s k i l l s ) * * 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 i s an i n t e g r a l part of the program) * A * X 4 8 7 2 2 5 6 4 6 6 4 1 2 133 i l l u s t r a t e s both the focus and methods of evaluating several reading i n s e r v i c e programs. Note that r e s u l t i n g teacher behavior i s a concern i n a l l the studies. The c r i t e r i a by which the sessions and program should be evaluated are easier to spe c i f y than those for judging teaching. For instance, the c r i t e r i a of Aaron et a l . , 1965, incorporate the general points to be con- sidered (see p. 67). S p e c i f i c s r e l a t e d to the content and techniques of a session, or emphasis and procedure of the program, could be added. As to teaching behavior, the e c l e c t i c approach seems most v i a b l e . From a competency-based point of view, which behaviors demonstrate that a teacher possesses the knowledge, s k i l l s , and attitudes sought i n the program? Zit o and Gross, 1972, developed a procedure for s p e c i f y i n g objectives and designing modules on competency-based p r i n c i p l e s . Popham, 1973, re l a t e d the achievement of teaching competency to the success of an i n s e r v i c e pro- gram. From an i n t e r a c t i o n analysis p o s i t i o n , what b e h a v i o r s — v e r b a l and n o n - v e r b a l — i n d i c a t e that successful teaching and learning i s occurring i n a classroom? Quirk et a l . , 1973, developed student and teacher observa- t i o n instruments for use during reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Because t r a i n i n g i s e s s e n t i a l to develop observer competence, they provided a manual and prac- t i c e exercises. Gygi, 1974, designed a teacher r a t i n g instrument based on d i r e c t observation the r e s u l t s of which correlated highly with a t r a d i - t i o n a l survey. The task i s to incorporate what i s relevant into a c r i t e r i o n while keeping i t as simple as pos s i b l e . Because the sample of teachers would be volunteers, not randomly selected, because there i s no control group, and because there are too many uncontrollable v a r i a b l e s , an i n s e r v i c e program can seldom be considered as an empirical experiment. Moreover, the nature of the tests (informal, 134 with free response items n e c e s s i t a t i n g s u b j e c t i v i t y of marking) p r o h i b i t sophisticated s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . However, pre/post test scores can be compared with a t - t e s t ( m u l t i v a r i a t e — H o t e l l i n g ' s t, correlated t ) . Although s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s are not a primary concern, some objective estimate of the i n s e r v i c e program could provide the v a l i d - i t y needed to j u s t i f y an on-going program. The point made by Farr and Weintraub, 19(74)-75, i s well taken: present s t a t i s t i c a l procedures do not meet the needs of educational p r a c t i t i o n e r s . They described a state of a f f a i r s i n which research and i n v e s t i g a t i o n are r e s t r i c t e d by 'methodolog- i c a l i n c a r c e r a t i o n , ' that i s , "by the t r a d i t i o n a l concepts of how a study should be designed as well as those which d i c t a t e what research i s " (p. 549). Rather than c u r t a i l f i e l d experiments, or studies of the important issues and problems i n reading, i t appears e s s e n t i a l to develop new means of measuring—either by nonparametrlc or c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s . Asher, 1967, made t h i s same point discussing evaluation of i n s e r v i c e pro- grams. McLean, 1974, noted that since much future research i n reading w i l l have to be conducted i n the schools, teachers should have more input to the focus of research, and communication betweeen teachers and research- ers should be improved. C h a l l , 1975, suggested the closer c o r r e l a t i o n of research and teaching as having the p o t e n t i a l of r e s t o r i n g d i g n i t y and self-worth to the teacher. " I f teachers suff e r from a diminished sense of self-worth and d i g n i t y , we might well look to the education profession i t s e l f — t o the manner i n which i t honors and recognizes i t s leaders, to the schools of education that prepare classroom teachers, to the r o l e that classroom teachers play i n the school, and to the r o l e we assign to the teacher i n educational research and experimentation" (p. 174). 135 D. I l l u s t r a t i v e Modules 1. Introduction The p r o v i s i o n of i l l u s t r a t i v e modules f or reading i n s e r v i c e can prove valuable because the t o t a l program i s i d e n t i f i e d and divided into components containing a l l the elements necessary f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a program to use the materials i n a s e t t i n g where t h e i r s i s the leadership r o l e . Learning packages or k i t s f o r reading i n s t r u c t i o n have been sug- gested (Kirby, 1973) and designed with the ' r i p p l e ' e f f e c t i n mind (Getz and Kennedy, 1972; Inservice Reading Resource K i t and Project Reading A l e r t , 1974; Melvin, 1975). The assumption i s that a teacher should himself experience the program, then act as a f a c i l i t a t o r f o r other tea- chers i n the f i e l d , thereby lessening the need f or consultants. The text by Forgan and Mangrum, 1976, provides an excellent resource i n adop- t i o n of the modular approach to in s e r v i c e content. The chart on page 136 provides a general model f o r the construction of modules. In developing the i l l u s t r a t i v e modules for t h i s study, a general to s p e c i f i c , t h e o r e t i c a l to p r a c t i c a l methodology was followed. For instance, from the i n i t i a l l y broad topic—Reading Inservice f o r Secondary English Teachers—subtopics or components were i s o l a t e d . The decision-making pro- cess of in c l u s i o n / e x c l u s i o n of topics was based on prominent trends extracted from the l i t e r a t u r e (e.g., emphasis on student learning objec- t i v e s , i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques, and such). Several questions were then answered f or each component: 1. What i s to be achieved by t h i s module? 2. How can the goal(s) most e f f e c t i v e l y be reached? 3. How w i l l measurement of achievement be accomplished? 4. How w i l l learning outcomes be reinforced a f t e r the module i s 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 I n s t r u c t i o n a l I n s t r u c t i o n a l Measurement Maintenance Objectives Experiences Instruments Procedures 4- Module Construction I n s t r u c t i o n a l I n s t r u c t i o n a l I n s t r u c t i o n a l Measurement Maintenance Objectives Experiences Materials Instruments Procedures I n i t i a l Module (Modification of Benjamin et a l . , 1968) 5. What documents or a d d i t i o n a l information resources should supplement the module? This method was followed using each of the components, r e s u l t i n g i n four modules: Students, Materials, Teaching Strategies, and Staff Development. The four modules are described i n 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 f o r the module while the Components section presents further d e t a i l s f o r teaching the module inc l u d i n g suggestions with respect to objectives, experiences, 137 guided p r a c t i c e , materials, measuring instruments, and maintenance proce- dures . 2. Module 1—Students (a) Content. The goal of t h i s module i s to provide English tea- chers with several techniques by which to evaluate or get to know t h e i r students. What ability/achievement does a student have i n reading? What are h i s i n t e r e s t s / a t t i t u d e s toward reading? Such information w i l l enable a teacher to se l e c t appropriate material and design s u i t a b l e assign- ments for individuals/groups within a c l a s s . i . Standardized Reading Survey Tests Although some schools and d i s t r i c t s give across-the-grade standard- ized reading t e s t s , others do not. In s p i t e of weaknesses i n formal tests (national [American] rather than l o c a l norms, one score per student without consideration of past achievement, i n d i v i d u a l differences i n test-taking aptitude, e t c . ) , they can provide teachers with a gross measure of the reading achievement l e v e l of students tested i n a group s i t u a t i o n . Probably the most useful way of using test scores i s to graph by a f r e - quency d i s t r i b u t i o n the scores of the c l a s s , i n d i c a t i n g — i n a heterogeneous c l a s s — t h e formation of natural groups s i g n i f i c a n t l y above grade l e v e l , near grade l e v e l , below grade l e v e l . Obviously, such groups require d i f - ferent i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s . A simple t e s t to administer and i n t e r p r e t i s the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Form E (Grades 7-9) 1972, Form F (Grades 10-12) 1970. It i s recommended as a gross estimator (within one/two grades) of reading achievement. A more d e t a i l e d , diagnostic evaluation r e s u l t s from the Iowa S i l e n t Reading Test. This test i s p a r t i c u l a r l y valuable for d i v i d i n g reading comprehension into sub-components. Thus, students can be grouped 138 on the basis of strengths or weaknesses i n s u b s k i l l s . Although the Iowa S i l e n t Reading Tests (3 Forms for Grades 6-9, 9-14, 11-16), 1973, i s more time consuming and requires more expertise to administer, i t can be learned f a i r l y quickly because of the s p e c i f i c i t y of the manual. Marrogenes et a l . , 1974, and Farr, 1969, can be turned to f o r comprehensive analyses of standardized tests r e l a t e d to secondary reading assessment. i i . Informal Reading Tests Informal tests are often more useful than standardized tests because they r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to the material the teacher proposes to use. A pas- sage of 250 words i s selected from the i n s t r u c t i o n a l material used i n the subject. Students read the passage, then answer the vocabulary-comprehen- sion or study s k i l l s questions about i t , e.g., meaning of a worA i n con- text, main idea, d e t a i l , inference,use of information sources. This IRI (Informal Reading Inventory) should ind i c a t e the students' capacity to read material s u c c e s s f u l l y that i s a c t u a l l y i n use i n the classroom. Again, i t i s l i k e l y that scores w i l l reveal natural groupings. More information on development of such measures i s a v a i l a b l e i n Shepherd, 1973; M i l l e r , 1974; and Williams and Kaman, 1975. i i i . Interest Inventories/Attitudes Another v a r i a b l e which should influence a teacher i n grouping stu- dents i s the range of reading i n t e r e s t s within a c l a s s . Interest Inven- t o r i e s are r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e (see K a r l i n , 1972; Olson and Ames, 1972). However, a teacher could e a s i l y design h i s own. He should decide what questions are of concern to him and design the inventory accordingly. For instance, he might want to get an i n d i c a t i o n of students' a t t i t u d e s toward reading as well as the s p e c i f i c subjects or types of reading they enjoy. He, therefore, would include such questions as "I would rather - 139 read, - watch t e l e v i s i o n , - p a r t i c i p a t e i n sport." Or he could use an open-ended format: "Reading i s " or "I enjoy reading i f I I The new International Reading Association pamphlet (Alexander and F i l l e r , 1976) i s a good source of ideas on measuring and i n f l u e n c i n g a t t i t u d e to reading. Estes (Estes Attitude Scales, 1975) provides a p a r t i c u l a r l y u s eful a t t i t u d e inventory for secondary grades, i v . Other Sources of Information The teacher has at h i s disposal students' permanent record cards with past marks i n English (Language A r t s ) . He also has a v a r i e t y of techniques, o r a l and written, for obtaining information from the students. The more data he has, the more informed, and accurate decisions he w i l l be able to make on what a student should read and what follow-up should accom- pany the reading. Ultimately, the d e c i s i o n i s subjective i n that i t i n - volves synthesis by the teacher of a l l he knows/feels about the student. This i s desirable, f o r confidence should be placed i n the on-site profes- s i o n a l rather than i s o l a t e d test scores, (b) Components Objectives: i . Information gain—knowledge of a v a i l a b l e t e s t s , t h e i r uses i i . Skill-competency development—ability to administer and i n t e r p r e t t e s t s , and deduce i n s t r u c t i o n a l implications of r e s u l t s i i i . A t titude change—appreciation of the value and l i m i t a t i o n s of tests and other sources of information. Experiences: I l l u s t r a t e d lecture/demonstration i n i t i a l l y Simulation-role playing: i . Taking t e s t s — s t a n d a r d i z e d reading tests and inventory i i . Administering t e s t s — s t a n d a r d i z e d reading t e s t . 140 Guided P r a c t i c e : i i i . Interpreting t e s t s — s t a n d a r d i z e d and informal tests and inventories i v . Designing t e s t s — i n f o r m a l reading test and i n t e r e s t / a t t i t u d e inventory. Materials: i . Nelson-Denny Iowa S i l e n t Reading Test (form f o r grades 11-16) Olson and Ames Interest Inventory and Estes Attitude Scales i i . Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (form E or F) i i i . E nglish texts to be used with classes, grades 8 to 10 i v . Overhead projector and transparencies. Measurement Instruments: i . Written assignment on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and use of standardized test scores i i . Observation of administration of tests i i i . Evaluation of materials (informal reading inventory, i n t e r e s t inventory) designed i v . Questionnaire on value of module (presentation, p r a c t i c a l i t y , etc.) v. Case study of a student using combined sources of information (test scores, inventory r e s u l t s , other data) to design appropriate i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategy. Maintenance Procedures: i . Journal/diary to record i n s t r u c t i o n a l changes (e.g., administration of test) and perceptual changes (e.g., t r i a n g u l a t i o n method a f f e c t s view of student) i i . Conferences with consultant i i i . Informal discussions with other p a r t i c i p a n t s 141 i v . Long-term assignment to insure implementation of new s k i l l s v. V i s i t a t i o n between p a r t i c i p a n t s . A comparable format for a module could be: P r e t e s t — o r a l or written t e s t , c h e c k l i s t , demonstration teaching; B e h a v i o r — w r i t t e n summary, demon- s t r a t i o n ; Experience—reading, p r a c t i c i n g , teaching, case study; Continu- ing Assessment—tests, observation, simulation, and so on (Horodezky, 1976). 3. Module 2 — M a t e r i a l s (a) Content. English teachers are more fortunate than most con- tent area teachers i n the wealth of materials a v a i l a b l e to them. In B r i t i s h 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 o f f e r v a r i e t y . In addition, there are three commercial reading s k i l l s s e r i e s recommended by the Department of Education, i . Readability Formulas The teacher's task i s to se l e c t the book which w i l l be most s u i t a b l e for a student or group i n h i s c l a s s . He knows the l e v e l at which the student/group i s reading. But how does the book r e l a t e to t h i s l e v e l ; that i s , what i s the reading d i f f i c u l t y of the book? In order to deter- mine the r e a d a b i l i t y of the book, a r e a d a b i l i t y formula can be applied. The two formulas most useful for secondary school books are the Fry and the SMOG. Teachers should p r a c t i c e applying these to reading materials, and should compare the r e s u l t i n g grade score with t h e i r subjective e s t i - mate of d i f f i c u l t y . For further information see Fry, Journal of Reading, A p r i l 1968, and Reading Teacher, March 1969, and McLaughlin, Journal of Reading, December 1969. 142 To a id teachers, the revised curriculums for English 8 and 9 contain reading l e v e l s for the B issue texts ( i . e . , the novels). A r e a d a b i l i t y formula has already been applied to these, with the r e s u l t that each book i s at a 1, 2, or 3 reading l e v e l (1 f o r the less able student, 2 for the average student, 3 f or the more mature and able student). However, read- a b i l i t y formulas should be applied to short s t o r i e s as well as any supple- mentary reading material. The grade l e v e l scores r e s u l t i n g from r e a d a b i l i t y formulas mean that an average student reading at t h i s grade l e v e l can read the material suc- c e s s f u l l y (Fry with 75% comprehension, SMOG—with 100% comprehension; therefore, l a t t e r scores are 1-2 grade l e v e l s higher). The most common factors considered by r e a d a b i l i t y formulas are word length and sentence length. They do not consider word frequency, conceptual load, or s t y l i s t - i c v a r i a t i o n . i i . Cloze Procedure A more d i r e c t matching of students and materials i s possible with the use of the cloze procedure. Cloze i s a f i l l - i n - t h e - b l a n k 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 a r t i c l e s provide the best references for d e f i n i t i o n and use of cloze (1966, 1967). As with formal test scores, cloze scores w i l l l i k e l y i n d i c a t e that a c l a s s consists of more than one group. Some students w i l l be able to read the book on t h e i r own; others w i l l need teacher help; others w i l l be unable to read the book i n s p i t e of i n s t r u c t i o n . Again, grouping seems the only p l a u s i b l e answer. Groups w i l l read d i f f e r e n t selections with d i f f e r e n t purposes i n mind. Assignments as well as materials should 143 be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d (see following sect i o n ) . P r a c t i c e i n the classroom as well as i n the workshop i s e s s e n t i a l i n a l l areas discussed so f a r : standardized t e s t s — a d m i n i s t r a t i o n (tea- chers are also encouraged to write the t e s t ) , informal t e s t s — d e s i g n , i n t e r e s t i n v e n t o r i e s — d e s i g n and/or administer; Fry and SMOG form u l a s — apply to s e l e c t i o n (and compare to subjective judgment); c l o z e — w r i t e one himself, prepare one for students, mark, and discuss i n s t r u c t i o n a l i m p l i - cations. Raygor and Kirsch, 1976, developed a s i m i l a r module i n which the goals were: to use r e a d a b i l i t y formulas and cloze, to determine l e v e l s of materials, to develop a cloze exercise, to apply information to reading i n s t r u c t i o n . i i i . Supplementary Materials Since reading books are a v a i l a b l e from the Department of Education, time could be spent analyzing the strengths and weaknesses, or p a r t i c u l a r uses, of each s e r i e s . For instance, the English teacher might f i n d T a c t i c s i n Reading (Gage, 1972-73) most useful because the s k i l l s empha- sized are vocabulary, comprehension, reading with a purpose, reading for main idea, use of the d i c t i o n a r y . A l l three s e r i e s , T a c t i c s , Success i n Reading (General Learning Corp., 1967), and Be a Better Reader (Prentice- H a l l , 1974), include mainly expository material from d i f f e r e n t content areas. Success i n Reading includes extensive vocabulary work plus study s k i l l s . Be a Better Reader concentrates on reading rate, vocabulary, and comprehension. Up to t h i s point, the focus has been outward: students and materi- a l s . For the English teacher to accomplish the tasks indicated as essen- t i a l , he w i l l probably have communicated with other teachers. For example, he may have discussed students with teachers who had them 144 previously, or who have them i n other subjects. He may have worked with other English teachers doing t e s t i n g , r e a d a b i l i t y analyses, etc. He may have learned from the reading teacher the pros and cons of a reading series or s k i l l b u i l d i n g k i t such as SRA or Readers Digest. F i n a l l y , he should (with other English teachers) cooperate with the l i b r a r i a n on s e l e c t i o n of supplementary materials for his students. It i s d esirable that teachers keep up with current i n t e r e s t s of students, e.g., the hundred most popular adolescent novels, but t h i s can r a r e l y be done on an i n d i v i d u a l basis. Several teachers, however, can function as a well informed team. (b) Components Obj e c t i v e s : i . Information gain—knowledge of r e a d a b i l i t y formulas, cloze procedure, supplementary reading materials i i . Skill-competency development—ability to use formulas, design and score cloze passages, evaluate materials, make appropriate judgments re. s e l e c t i o n of materials i i i . A t titude change—understand that as students are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n reading achievement and i n t e r e s t s , so materials are d i f f e r e n t due to reading d i f f i c u l t y as well as content. Suitable matching of the two i s sought. Experiences: Demonstration/Guided p r a c t i c e i . Use of formulas on selected passages i i . Use of formulas on prescribed texts and supplementary materials i i i . Use of cloze on selected passages i v . Designing a cloze test- v. Administering, scoring, i n t e r p r e t i n g cloze t e s t . 145 Materials: i . Handouts—Fry, SMOG, Cloze i i . Selected passages f o r practice-—"Red Pony," "Most Dangerous Game." i i i . E nglish t e x t s — G r . 8-10 i v . Reading t e x t s — - T a c t i c s , Success, Be a Better Reader - v. Overhead projector and transparencies. Measurement Instruments: i . Written assignment on r e a d a b i l i t y with English texts i i . Evaluation of cloze passage designed i i i . Observation of microteaching i v . Paper on i n s t r u c t i o n a l implications of formulas/cloze re. choice of materials v. Use of a reading text i n classroom teaching v i . Questionnaire on module. Maintenance Procedures: i . Project to apply r e a d a b i l i t y formulas to a l l English materials (plus content analysis) i i . Incorporation of reading text to English where appropriate for s k i l l development i i i . Journal/diary re. use of cloze, decisions a f f e c t i n g materials i v . Conferences v. Informal discussions v i . V i s i t a t i o n . 4. Module 3—Teaching Strategies (a) Content i . Preteaching Tasks The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the order of the modules—students, materials, 146 t e a c h i n g — r e s t s on the f a c t that p r i o r to teaching a lesson, a teacher must have knowledge of h i s audience and the content to be taught. Another procedure to be followed before teaching i s the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of goals. What are the desired outcomes i n terms of student learning f o r t h i s l e s - son? How do these goals r e l a t e to the general goals of the u n i t , course, etc.? Considerable emphasis has been placed on Bloom et a l . ' s Taxonomies of Educational Objectives, Cognitive (1956) and A f f e c t i v e Domains (Krathwohl, 1956). However, Barrett's Taxonomy, 1968, i s recommended because i t was designed with reading i n mind, and i t combines the two domains—a process which the English teacher w i l l doubtless f i n d more s a t i s f y i n g than Bloom's a r t i f i c a l s p l i t t i n g . The value of a taxonomy i s that i t enables the teacher to specify goals at various l e v e l s , and design assignments to reach those goals. Grouping has been emphasized throughout, and t h i s section i s no exception. Objectives should be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d too. A core of know- ledge, s k i l l s , or attitudes may be e s s e n t i a l f or a l l students i n the c l a s s . Beyond t h i s , some students can accomplish more, others much more. Each group should be challenged, but should be able to accomplish the task s u c c e s s f u l l y . We know that students are i n d i v i d u a l s and that materials d i f f e r . Does i t , therefore, make any sense to give a l l students the same assignment? If we aim at the majority, those at grade l e v e l , we f a i l to challenge the superior readers and the disabled readers f a i l to achieve. We know from learning theory that success and p o s i t i v e reinforcement are e s s e n t i a l f o r growth. Unless we seek only to perpetuate the system by which c e r t a i n students are doomed to f a i l u r e , we must modify our expecta- tio n s . As f a r as standards are concerned, we may have to be more 147 r e a l i s t i c and l e s s demanding. The point i s that by 'lowering standards' i n i t i a l l y to enable bottom students to achieve, i n the long run we enable these students to function at a l e v e l approaching the o r i g i n a l standard. Certain s k i l l s that are important i n other subjects may also have relevance f o r English. For instance, the textbook i n science or s o c i a l studies may be a major obstacle to students. They must be taught the strategies f o r approaching and working with a textbook. Furthermore, study s k i l l s such as note-taking, reading f o r main ideas and supporting d e t a i l s , and accurate rendering, o r a l l y or i n w r i t i n g , of expository material read are quite d i f f e r e n t from the s k i l l s required i n English. However, the approach to reference materials i s common to a l l subjects although d i f f e r e n t references may be used. In English, the student may be reading from several books or several s t o r i e s within a book; he may be reading poetry or drama rather than s t r a i g h t n a r r a t i v e . Thus d i f f e r e n t strategies are necessitated by the genre as well as the purpose for reading. Most English teachers f i n d the SQ3R approach inappropriate because i t destroys the a r t i s t i c i n t e g r i t y (as well as the motivational continuity) of the work. Rather they attempt with s k i l l f u l pre-questioning to e s t a b l i s h expectancies to increase i n t e r e s t and guide reading. i i . The Directed Reading Lesson An examination of the seven steps of the Directed Reading Lesson (DRL) may c l a r i f y these points. P r i o r to the lesson, objectives have been set by the teacher. Knowing h i s students and the materials a v a i l a b l e , he has selected appropriate s t o r i e s and designed d i f f e r e n t i a t e d assignments. These may focus on the same s k i l l s or concepts, but with d i f f e r e n t materials. 148 Step One i s to motivate students to read. This requires divergent thinking at c e r t a i n times, common sense at others. The use of audio- v i s u a l aids to arouse i n t e r e s t i s good, but i t i s neither e s s e n t i a l nor to be used constantly. Variety i s the key. What do you f i n d p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t r i g u i n g about the story? What r e l a t i o n does t h i s story have to other reading students have done? How does i t r e l a t e to t h e i r l i v e s : t e l e - v i s i o n , movies, newspaper, current events, school events, home situation? There are so many ways to show relevance-—a l i t t l e thought i s needed, but the importance of t h i s connecting of l i t e r a t u r e to l i f e c e r t a i n l y j u s t i - f i e s the time and e f f o r t . The teacher i s giving one purpose for reading: see how the story i s re l a t e d to t h i s introduction. Involvement a c t i v i t - i e s — s i m u l a t i o n , r o l e - p l a y i n g , e t c . — a r e excellent f or student p a r t i c i p a - t i o n at the outset. Step Two i s preteaching of vocabulary or concepts e s s e n t i a l for an understanding of the story. The number of words should be l i m i t e d . Students w i l l r a p i d l y lose i n t e r e s t i f there are too many d i f f i c u l t words. Explanation of concepts, however, can be a motivating device. Students then read to see how, for example, 'stereotypes' are important i n the story. Thus as well as helping students to read the story, the teacher i s d i r e c t i n g t h e i r attention to elements of the story. Along the same l i n e , Step Three i s guided s i l e n t reading. Students have been given an o r a l or written set of guidelines, providing a purpose for reading and a framework for the important elements. The taxonomy i s useful i n designing a guide because i t reminds the teacher to question on d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s , not to assume too l i t t l e or too much. Beginning with the short story, a simple guide i s PCST: p l o t , character, s e t t i n g , theme. Over a s e r i e s of lessons, teach students to read for only the d e t a i l s of 1 4 9 the p l o t and the sequence of events; then only the main characters and t h e i r development i n the story; then only the time and place; then only the idea or message of the author. With p r a c t i c e , these four can be combined so that the student automatically reads for PCST. This s t r a t - egy can be transferred to other genres with modifications. Step Four, o r a l discussion, should be c a r r i e d out i n groups rather than with the whole c l a s s . Groups w i l l have d i f f e r e n t tasks or questions related to t h e i r o r i g i n a l guide. They may report back to the class on t h e i r conclusions. I t i s l i k e l y that two or three d i f f e r e n t s t o r i e s w i l l have been read and that two or three d i f f e r e n t assignments w i l l have been done. Thus the transmission of r e s u l t s to the cla s s should be i n t e r e s t - ing as most cla s s members w i l l be unfamiliar with the story. Groups have considerable r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to communicate e f f e c t i v e l y . P r a c t i c i n g r e l a t e d s k i l l s , Step Five, may involve checking stu- dents' a c q u i s i t i o n of vocabulary and degree of comprehension. I t could be a test of the s e l e c t i o n read, or a p p l i c a t i o n of the s k i l l s to a new passage. Its purpose i s to r e i n f o r c e the focus of the lesson, such as reading for character development or becoming aware of the a u t h o r i a l point of view. Follow-up or enrichment a c t i v i t i e s , Step Six, are important i n r e l a t i n g the reading to other things (events, experiences, s t o r i e s ) as well as i n in t e g r a t i n g reading with other a c t i v i t i e s . Follow-up may involve dramatization of the c o n f l i c t , w r i t i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e ending, discussing the pros and cons of the theme, seeing a movie version of the story, l i s t e n i n g to a record or tape giving a d i f f e r e n t point of view. There are m u l t i - a l t e r n a t i v e s within the diverse area of English. F i n a l l y , 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 e f f e c - tive? The evaluation i s of the teaching as well as the learning. It may involve a written test or written or o r a l comment of the students; i t may be subjective analysis by the teacher. The point i s to emphasize possible improvements. This Directed Reading Lesson has telescoped what w i l l l i k e l y 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 i n t h e i r chapter on t h i s topic, (b) Components Objectives: i . Information gain—knowledge of taxonomies—their uses and value, reading and study s k i l l s , teaching techniques, evaluation proce- dures i i . Skill-competency development—^ability to set appropriate goals, design d i f f e r e n t i a t e d assignments, use s u i t a b l e i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques, teach a directed reading lesson i i i . A t t i tude change—awareness of importance of grouping at a l l l e v e l s (goals, materials, assignments), r e a l i z a t i o n of the r o l e of read- ing s k i l l s i n the English lesson, confidence i n a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e reading knowledge to promote better learning environment. Experiences: i . Demonstration of a Directed Reading Lesson i i . Design of objectives, a s s i g n m e n t s — d i f f e r e n t i a t e d student groups, 151 materials. (Guided practice) i i i . Microteaching of a Directed Reading Lesson i v . Use of s i m u l a t i o n — r o l e playing as motivational a c t i v i t i e s . M a t e r i a l s : i . Overhead projector and transparencies i i . E nglish texts i i i . Taxonomies—Bloom, Barrett. Measurement Instruments: i . Observation of Directed Reading Lesson microteaching i i . Evaluation of projects i i i . Assignment to design Directed Reading Lesson i v . Questionnaire on module v. Self-evaluation. Maintenance Procedures: i . Consultation—conference i i . V i s i t a t i o n i i i . Journal/diary i v . Informal discussions v. Self-evaluation of Directed Reading Lesson i n classroom v i . F i l e b u i l t up of motivational ideas, preteaching vocabulary, guides f o r s i l e n t reading etc. 5. Module 4 — S t a f f Development (a) Content. "In order to e f f e c t s i g n i f i c a n t improvements i n the teaching of reading a l l of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t a f f including teachers, p r i n c i p a l s , c e n t r a l o f f i c e personnel, and other support s t a f f must be involved i n i n s e r v i c e e f f o r t s " (Otto and Erickson, 1973, p. 1). Katrein, 1968, and Williams, 1968, confirmed that continuous t o t a l s t a f f secondary 152 reading i n s e r v i c e programs are becoming more common. Ultimately a school- wide reading program i s the goal of professional development. Thus, English teachers begin at a departmental l e v e l what w i l l eventually encom- pass a l l subjects. They are the leaders who f i r s t must learn and success- f u l l y implement i n t h e i r own classrooms. A recognition by other teachers of the English teacher's development and h i s students' progress i s a good basis on which to i n i t i a t e t r a n s f e r to other content areas. Several reading i n s e r v i c e programs have focused on the content teachers, usually i n cooperation with consultants (Saturation Reading Program, 1967; Smith et a l . , 1970; McDonald, 1971; Minturn, 1971). However, the English teacher who has himself had a reading i n s e r v i c e program i s i n a good p o s i t i o n to work for the transfer of what he has learned. The finesse with which the English teacher works with h i s colleagues i s instrumental i n h i s degree of success. He must f i r s t make them aware that some of the problems t h e i r students are having can be a t t r i b u t e d to lack of reading s k i l l s . He should focus on the other teacher's c a p a b i l - i t i e s i n h i s content area—knowledge of subject matter, successful teaching s t y l e , etc. Then he should point out that the other teacher could perhaps make use of some of the techniques he has been employing i n English with some success. S k i l l s should be introduced one at a time, with the English teacher o f f e r i n g help i n planning or demonstrating a lesson. For example, the s k i l l s i n preteaching vocabulary and concepts are s i m i l a r regardless of the subject. Other topics to be added a f t e r success i n the previous one might be: giving students a purpose for reading, teaching them to adjust t h e i r reading rate, developing comprehension s k i l l s through l e v e l s of questions ( l i t e r a l , i n f e r e n t i a l , evaluative) both written and o r a l , encouraging 153 students to use SQ3R or some such technique to improve study s k i l l s , introducing a textbook to enable students to approach i t with a strategy i n mind. It i s important that the techniques introduced to other subject teachers have short-term value, enabling them to see the r e s u l t s immedi- ate l y i n student achievement, a t t i t u d e s , etc. Eventually the whole range of knowledge/skills should be shared: t e s t i n g — f o r m a l and informal, read- a b i l i t y formulas and procedures (cl o z e ) , i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s . But t h i s i s u n l i k e l y to happen quickly or e a s i l y . Teachers are often r e s i s t - ant to change, even when they have requested i t . They w i l l need p o s i t i v e reinforcement and help. Observation of 'successful teachers', s e l f - evaluation, and c o n s u l t a t i o n — f o r m a l and i n f o r m a l — s h o u l d be encouraged. Although the English teacher's primary motive i s a l t r u i s t i c — improvement of the reading s i t u a t i o n school-wide f o r students' b e n e f i t — he also has a s e l f i s h motive: not to be personally responsible f o r a l l reading. To teach reading i n English w e l l , he must devote himself to those reading s k i l l s p a r t i c u l a r to English. He has neither the time nor the expertise to teach the reading s k i l l s of other content areas. "The language arts teacher i s not i n a p o s i t i o n to teach a l l students how to read problems i n mathematics, experiments i n science, or patterns i n homemaking" (Voix, 1968, p. 25). Therefore, i n order to do h i s own job e f f e c t i v e l y , he must show other teachers how they can do t h e i r s . In the long run, t h i s method w i l l save time and r e s u l t i n a better o v e r - a l l learning environment. However, i t w i l l take d i s c r e t i o n , dedication, and willingness to cooperate and communicate with colleagues. 154 (b) Components Objectives: i . Information gain—knowledge of reading and study s k i l l s appropriate to other content areas, of the l e a d e r s h i p / f a c i l i t a t o r r o l e i i . Skill-competency d e v e l o p m e n t — a b i l i t y to tran s f e r reading and study s k i l l s to diverse content areas, to demonstrate and encourage other teachers to use new i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques, to b u i l d interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s with colleagues to promote sharing and confidence i i i . A t t i t u d e change—awareness of the importance of t r u s t and mutual respect i n attempting to change other teachers' behavior, of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of reading i n a l l content areas, of the value of a school-wide reading e f f o r t . Experiences: i . I l l u s t r a t e d l e c t u r e on reading i n the content areas i i . Design of Directed." Reading Lesson f o r other content areas i i i . Microteaching Directed Reading Lesson for other content areas i v . Presentation of information on students (reading achievement, i n t e r e s t s , etc.) i n s i m p l i f i e d form for other teachers v. Demonstration of r e a d a b i l i t y / c l o z e i n microteaching s i t u a t i o n v i . Simulation/role playing re. s t a f f i n t e r a c t i o n s (informal s t a f f room conversation, s t a f f meeting d i s c u s s i o n ) . Materials: i . Results of student t e s t s , inventories, etc. i i . R e adability/cloze handouts (directions) i i i . Overhead projector and transparencies i v . Content area textbooks. 155 Measurement Instruments: i . Evaluation of materials (e.g., Directed Reading Lessons) i i . Observation of microteaching, simulation/role playing i i i . S e l f - e valuation re. s t a f f development i v . Questionnaire on module v. Long-term: response of other teachers, development of school-wide reading program, l i b r a r y books taken out, student achievement i n content areas, student a t t i t u d e s . Maintenance Procedures: i . Conference-consultation i i . Informal discussions i i i . V i s i t a t i o n s i v . Diary/journal v. Formation of reading committee v i . Team teaching exchanges v i i . Continued student t e s t i n g . E. Summary The p r i n c i p l e s and content of the proposed i n s e r v i c e model i n reading f o r j u n i o r secondary English teachers have been c l a r i f i e d i n chapter IV. Under Organization, general guidelines can be summarized: 1. the program must be long-term, continuous 2. released time f o r teachers i s e s s e n t i a l 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 l o g i s t i c s 5. p a r t i c i p a n t s should be grouped on the basis of needs 1 5 6 6 . a c t i v e i n v o l v e m e n t o f t e a c h e r s i s r e q u i s i t e 7 . t h e l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e f o r t e a c h e r s i s i n t e n d e d t o p r e p a r e t h e m a s l e a d e r s 8 . a t t e n d a n c e s h o u l d b e v o l u n t a r y 9 . i n i t i a l p l a n n i n g s h o u l d i n v o l v e a s m a n y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f a s c h o o l / d i s t r i c t a s p o s s i b l e 1 0 . a n i n i t i a l n e e d s a s s e s s m e n t s h o u l d b e d o n e f r o m w h i c h g o a l s , m e t h o d s , a n d e v a l u a t i o n c a n b e d e r i v e d 1 1 . f o l l o w - u p b e t w e e n s e s s i o n s i s n e c e s s a r y . T h e s p e c i f i c r a t i o n a l e f o r f o c u s i n g o n E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s i s t w o f o l d . F i r s t , t h e r e i s a m p l e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h e n e e d o f E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s f o r t r a i n i n g i n t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g , f o r p r o v i d i n g t h e e s s e n t i a l l i n k b e t w e e n r e a d i n g a n d E n g l i s h , a n d f o r d e a l i n g w i t h t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f r e a d i n g i n E n g l i s h . S e v e r a l s t u d i e s r e v e a l e d t h a t a l t h o u g h E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s g e n e r - a l l y a c c e p t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g , t h e y a r e i l l - p r e p a r e d b y p r e s e r v i c e c o u r s e s t o d o s o . T h e i r a w a r e n e s s o f t h i s d e f i c i e n c y h a s s u r f a c e d i n s e v e r a l s u r v e y s . I n a r e v i e w o f t e x t s i n s e c o n d a r y r e a d i n g , t h e c o m m o n c o n c e r n s o f r e a d i n g e x p e r t s a n d E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s b e c a m e o b v i o u s . M o r e o v e r , t h e e x c e p t i o n a l d e m a n d s o f r e a d i n g i n E n g l i s h w e r e n o t e d . F i n a l l y , t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t r e a d i n g o f n a r r a t i v e m a t e r i a l i s e a s i e r t h a n r e a d i n g o f e x p o s i t o r y m a t e r i a l i s c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h e r a n g e o f s k i l l s n e e d e d t o r e a d n a r r a t i v e ( i t s e l f a m u l t i p l e a r e a ) , t h e r e c e n t i n c r e a s e d d i f f i c u l t y o f ' e a s y ' j u v e n i l e l i t e r a t u r e , a n d t h e i n a c c u r a t e n o t i o n t h a t f o r m o t i v a - t i o n a l r e a s o n s n a r r a t i v e i s e a s i e r t o t e a c h . E m p i r i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r s e l e c t i n g E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s f o r i n s e r v i c e w o r k i s b a s e d i n p a r t o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e t e a c h i n g o f r e a d i n g i n E n g l i s h i s a d i f f i c u l t t a s k , o n e t h a t c e r t a i n l y d e m a n d s s u f f i c i e n t t e a c h e r 157 competence to require i n s e r v i c e . The problems involved i n reading l i t e r - ature r e s u l t from such v a r i a b l e s as word frequency, sentence length, m u l t i p l i c i t y of authors, s t y l i s t i c d i fferences, multigenres, and complex purpose f o r reading. S i m i l a r l y , j u n i o r secondary teachers were selected f o r emphasis because of the p a r t i c u l a r reading demands made on students at t h i s l e v e l , the f a c t that for many these years represent t h e i r f i n a l contact with formal education, and the s k i l l s needed i n senior secondary are more sophisticated (at l e a s t i n terms of the materials to which they are applied), re q u i r i n g a sound base i n e a r l i e r grades. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e on needs assessments i n reading was accompanied by two examples, one a questionnaire concerned with present p r a c t i c e s , perceived importance, and teacher need; the other.a k i t f o r spec i f y i n g and ranking needs by p r i o r i t y . Inservice goals were then included based on a review of topics of past programs and those suggested i n secondary reading texts and one comprehensive i l l u s t r a t i o n . Methodology was divided into s t r u c t u r a l considerations, d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to General Guidelines, and a c t i v i t i e s . Within a workshop frame- work, such a c t i v i t i e s are i l l u s t r a t e d l e c t u r e s , demonstrations, micro- teaching, brainstorming, buzz sessions, small group discussions, simula- t i o n , r o l e playing, and follow-up ( v i s i t a t i o n , consultation, s e l f - evaluation) . The two-fold nature of e v a l u a t i o n — o f teaching and of the program— i s recognized. The so l u t i o n seems to be multiple measurement of a l l i n d i v i d u a l s concerned (teachers and students) and with as many d i f f e r e n t instruments as possible (e.g., t e s t s , questionnaires, inventories, i n t e r - views, and i n d i r e c t measures such as student attendance or teacher p u b l i - 158 c a t i o n ) . The program i s thus i n d i r e c t l y evaluated with as many appropriate measures as possible, necessarily based on i t s objectives. The i l l u s t r a t i v e modules are based d i r e c t l y on the analysis of the l i t e r a t u r e describing past programs. The o r g a n i z a t i o n — s t u d e n t s , mater- i a l s , teaching s t r a t e g i e s , s t a f f development—is deliberate on the assump- t i o n that r e q u i s i t e to successful teaching of reading are c e r t a i n data which, once known, can lead to expanded teaching and extension to other teachers. Module 1 — S t u d e n t s — i s concerned with teacher knowledge, behavior, and a t t i t u d e s r e l a t e d to sources of information about students: standard- ized t e s t s , informal t e s t s , i n t e r e s t inventories, and other sources. Module 2 — M a t e r i a l s — i s involved with teacher knowledge, behavior, and a t t i t u d e s r e l a t e d to the s e l e c t i o n and use of appropriate materials. Thus, r e a d a b i l i t y formulas, cloze procedure, and supplementary materials are included. Module 3—Teaching S t r a t e g i e s — f o c u s e s on preteaching tasks (goal s e t t i n g , grouping, s e l e c t i o n of materials, designing assignments) as well as on the directed reading lesson: motivational s t r a t e g i e s , preteaching vocabulary, guided s i l e n t reading, o r a l discussion, p r a c t i c i n g r e l a t e d s k i l l s , follow-up a c t i v i t i e s , evaluation. In many ways, the Directed Reading Lesson serves as a culmination of a l l p r i o r learnings i n a l l three areas. Module 4 — S t a f f Development—relies on the English teacher to assume a leadership r o l e with h i s colleagues. Unobtrusively, help may be given i n extending reading s k i l l s to other content areas. However, the best propaganda i s personal success within an English c l a s s . Without threat or condescension, the English teacher should work toward an a l l - s c h o o l 159 reading program, which means a s t a f f aware of and concerned about reading i n t h e i r own subjects. Patience and tact are e s s e n t i a l , but so are perseverence and enthusiasm. Each module i s set up i n two parts. Part one provides the content and r a t i o n a l e f or the module; part two incorporates the components: objectives, experiences, materials, measurement instruments, maintenance procedures. The intent i s that once a teacher has worked through the modules h i m s e l f — w i t h d i r e c t i o n from a consultant and reinforcement from other English teachers—he w i l l be able to use the module as a package, functioning as a leader to teachers i n other content areas. Thus, the r i p p l e e f f e c t or each-one-teach-one p r i n c i p l e can be implemented. The point i s to disseminate information as widely as poss i b l e , encouraging new behaviors and at t i t u d e s of teachers i n service. This program i s one approach to t h i s issue. CHAPTER V CONCLUSION A. Summary The concern of t h i s study has been to i d e n t i f y , c o l l e c t , analyze, evaluate, and synthesize the current, relevant, research and pr o f e s s i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e on i n s e r v i c e education as i t r e l a t e s to the development of a conceptual model f or i n s e r v i c e education i n secondary reading for English teachers. To accomplish t h i s , a comprehensive review of primary, second- ary, and t e r t i a r y materials was completed, r e s u l t i n g i n a framework for considering the body of l i t e r a t u r e and for postulating a d e r i v a t i v e model. Documents were c l a s s i f i e d i n order that they might be rela t e d to one another, and that they might form the basis of a r a t i o n a l e f o r the proposed model. I n i t i a l l y , the need for pr o f e s s i o n a l development was discussed, focusing on educators i n p a r t i c u l a r and r e l a t i n g t h e i r needs to the current issue of l i t e r a c y standards. Granting the value of preservice education, i t nevertheless i s clear that only through continuing or i n - service education can developing needs of teachers and students be met. The area of reading should be of concern to a l l teachers. However, r e a l i s t i c a l l y , i t i s the English teacher who most often assumes respons- i b i l i t y f o r the teaching of reading s k i l l s . Unfortunately, he i s often i l l - p r e p a r e d to do so. Thus, the need f o r in s e r v i c e education i n reading for English teachers appears evident. 160 161 Past studies reviewed i n chapter I I I revealed the components and types of in s e r v i c e programs which must be considered: Organization, Methodology, Evaluation, and Models. Under Organization, sub-components appear. F i r s t , Guidelines are the focus of many surveys on present p r a c t i c e s , surveys which often contain recommendations f or improved i n - service programs. Second, Needs are related both to general guidelines and to s p e c i f i c f e l t needs of i n d i v i d u a l s or groups. The increased use of needs-assessment instruments indicates an awareness of the r e l a t i o n - ship between p a r t i c i p a n t needs and program success. Moreover, i n i t i a l planning and establishment of Goals, element three, i s made more system- a t i c and v a l i d on the basis of a consideration of needs. F i n a l l y , Roles of p a r t i c i p a n t s can be described i n f a i r l y d i s c r e t e terms. Methodology of an in s e r v i c e program i s necessary determined by the purpose and s i t u a t i o n of the program. General questions l i k e What i s to be achieved? Who i s to pa r t i c i p a t e ? and such are followed by considerations l i k e What resources are available? What techniques within those a v a i l a b l e are most e f f e c t i v e ? Thus, the o v e r a l l structure of the program and the a c t i v i t i e s within i t should complement one another. The workshop format appears most appropriate f o r the scope i t allows i n terms of numerous and vari e d a c t i v i t i e s . Evaluation of an in s e r v i c e program i s fraught with the same problems which surface i n evaluation of any aspect of teaching. It i s important, however, that an assessment of the program be made. Indeed, the means for making t h i s judgment (instruments, techniques, etc.) should be s p e c i f i e d i n the e a r l i e s t stages of planning. The focus of the evaluation i s necessar- i l y two-fold, since both the program and i t s subsequent e f f e c t on teaching must be considered. To measure change i n teaching, several instruments 162 and approaches w i l l be necessary because teachers' knowledge, a t t i t u d e , and s k i l l s are a l l involved. S i m i l a r l y , the program should be evaluated with d i f f e r e n t instruments during i t s duration (formative data) and follow- ing i t s conclusion (summative data). Thus, evaluation i s multi-faceted and e c l e c t i c i n nature. The v a r i a t i o n s i n patterns of organization, methodological emphases, and evaluative techniques are revealed by the wide-ranging models of i n - service programs. Their focus may determine t h e i r components; however, c e r t a i n trends are evident. I n i t i a l planning i s r e c e i v i n g more consider- ation; p a r t i c i p a n t s are involved at the outset; appropriate methods and evaluation are incorporated. Self-evaluation and teacher leadership are r e c e i v i n g increased attention. On the basis of t h i s review of the l i t e r a t u r e , a Model for i n s e r v i c e education i n secondary reading f o r English teachers was constructed. This model i s based on the p r i n c i p l e s which appear to have been most e f f e c t i v e i n past studies. For instance, General and S p e c i f i c Guidelines give the parameters of the model, including the r a t i o n a l e for choosing j u n i o r secondary school English teachers as the p a r t i c i p a t i n g group. Two methods of needs assessment are suggested, one a questionnaire, the other a workshop k i t . Goals are based on an extensive review of reading i n s e r v i c e programs and teacher-specified needs. The workshop structure and various a c t i v i t i e s are connected with means of evaluating the program and teaching performance. Several instruments and approaches are combined to include a l l relevant aspects of evaluation. F i n a l l y , four i l l u s t r a t i v e modules are included to exemplify the content and components of the module. Module 1 — S t u d e n t s — i s concerned to develop teachers' p r o f i c i e n c y i n assessing students' achievement i n and 163 att i t u d e s toward reading. Module 2 — M a t e r i a l s — s e e k s to enable teachers to analyze the s u i t a b i l i t y of materials i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r students' s k i l l s and needs. Module 3—Teaching S t r a t e g i e s — f o c u s e s on the directed reading lesson as a v e h i c l e for incorporating teachers' s k i l l s i n s e t t i n g objectives, designing assignments, i n s t r u c t i n g a class through a lesson. Module 4 — S t a f f Development-—expands on the leadership function of the p a r t i c i p a t i n g teachers i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r school s t a f f s . Thus, the model can be extended to other content area teachers. The model as a whole i s based on the l i t e r a t u r e , from which i t gains i t s v a l i d i t y . As a model, i t represents the f i e l d from which i t i s derived, presenting the p r i n c i p l e s and elements i n a u n i f i e d form. B. Implications of the Study The p r i n c i p l e s for i n s e r v i c e programs suggested by the study have been incorporated i n the model. For instance, the following guidelines represent the conclusions of the l i t e r a t u r e as well as the recommendations for the proposed reading i n s e r v i c e program. 1. Involvement by d i s t r i c t s and teachers must be long-term, that i s , a program must be continuous, with b u i l t - i n follow-up and evaluation. 2. D i s t r i c t s need to provide released time for teachers to p a r t i c i p a t e i n i n s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s . 3. Consultants should be prepared to o f f e r a program on-site i n a school or a d i s t r i c t rather than on campus. 4. I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n should r e s u l t i n grouping by experience, needs, i n t e r e s t s , and such. 5. Attendance should be compulsory at an i n i t i a l p r o f e s s i o n a l development session, voluntary i n the program. 6. Preplanning, including a needs assessment to meet l o c a l needs, i s e s s e n t i a l . 7. Goals, although based on l o c a l needs, can be generalized from the l i t e r a t u r e . 8. Methods should vary as much as possible, with high involvement a c t i v - i t i e s emphasized. 9. The structure of the program depends on l o c a l conditions and re- sources; however, the workshop format i s most v i a b l e . 10. Evaluation procedures should be s p e c i f i e d p r i o r to the implementation of the program. 11. Leadership t r a i n i n g i s necessary to enable teachers to extend t h e i r learning experiences to other teachers. 12. Coordination between e x i s t i n g organizations (BCTF, BCETA, l o c a l IRA, Department of Education) could promote pr o f e s s i o n a l development, e.g., i n dissemination of materials. C. Recommendations f o r Further Study In terms of t h e o r e t i c a l research, t h i s study could be expanded by analyzing i n s e r v i c e and continuing education programs i n non-educational areas and updating methods and models within educational i n s e r v i c e . This should confirm and possibly expand the guidelines derived i n t h i s study. Another l i n e of development should be p r a c t i c a l , seeking try-out and empirical v a l i d a t i o n of the model and i l l u s t r a t i v e modules and modifying and developing them for further use. Thus, the following are suggested: 1. The model and modules should be used i n a p i l o t s i t u a t i o n with English teachers (testing could lead to refinement). 2. Instruments should be developed and/or refined f or 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 i n the model and modules (e.g., SQ3R, text s k i l l s , expository reading). 5. Preservice teachers across content areas could use the e x i s t i n g model and modified modules. 6. Refinement of the model and modules should enable them to meet d i f - ferent needs (e.g., within d i f f e r e n t schools or d i s t r i c t s ) . 7. Other personnel r e l a t e d to the ju n i o r secondary school could p a r t i c - ipate i n a modified program (e.g., administrators, content s p e c i a l - i s t s , consultants). 8. The model and modules could be expanded to meet the needs of i n t e r - mediate and senior secondary teachers. 9. A package should be developed including a l l materials, transparencies, etc. to enable wide dissemination of the model and modules. 10. Leadership t r a i n i n g should be undertaken i n order to prepare f or implementation of packaged material. 11. Videotape feedback for s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n i n i n s e r v i c e should be explored wherever f e a s i b l e . 12. Teacher centers should be established i n order to allow teachers to coordinate t h e i r i n s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s . 13. Canadian sources: l i n e s of communication should be established to enable updating through exchange of materials. 166 BIBLIOGRAPHY If the t i t l e of the work i s not underlined, the reference i s to the abstract rather than the o r i g i n a l document. Journal a r t i c l e s a v a i l a b l e i n the ERIC system are l i s t e d under P e r i o d i c a l s ; theses a v a i l a b l e i n the ERIC system are l i s t e d under D i s s e r t a t i o n s . Books and Monographs Aaron, I. E., Byron Callaway, and A. V. Olson. Conducting Inservice Pro- grams i n Reading. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Assoc- i a t i o n , 1965. Alexander, J . E., and R. C. F i l l e r . Attitudes and Reading. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1976. A l l e n , I. D., and Michael Manley-Casimir. Recommendations f o r a P o l i c y on Inservice Education. Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , 1975 (mimeographed). A l l e n , 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 i n the Class- room. Minneapolis, Association for Productive Teaching, 1967. Andersen, D. W., et a l . Competency Based Teacher Education. Berkeley, McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1973. A r t l e y , A. S. Trends and Practices i n Secondary Reading. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1968. Aukerman, C. R. Reading i n the Secondary School Classroom. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1972. Austin, M. C , Coleman Morrison, et a l . The Torch Lighters: Tomorrow's Teachers of Reading. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , 1961. Bamman, H. A., et a l . Reading Ins t r u c t i o n i n the Secondary Schools. New York, David McKay Co., 1961. B e l l , H., and J . Peight e l . Teacher Centers and Inservice Education. Bloomington, Indiana, Phi Delta Kappa, 1976. Benson, Charles, and Harold Hodgkinson. Implementing the Learning Society: New Strategies f or Financing S o c i a l Objectives. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1974. 167 Better Than Rating. Washington, D. C , National Education Association, 1950. Bishop, L. J . Staff Development and I n s t r u c t i o n a l Improvement Plans and Procedures. Boston, A l l y n and Bacon, Inc., 1976. Braun, C a r l , A l l a n Neilsen, and Chris Thain. Case Study Approach to Diag- nosis and Correction i n the Classroom. An Inservice Model. International Reading Association, report, 1976 (mimeographed). Bullock, S i r Alan. A Language For L i f e . London, Her Majesty's Stationery O f f i c e , 1975. Burmeister, L. E. Reading Strategies f o r Secondary School Teachers. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley, 1974. Campbell, Gordon. Staff Development i n Canadian Community Colleges. U n i v e r s i t y of Lethbridge, 1974. Campbell, J . C. "A Field-Centered, Competency Based Inservice Reading Program at an Inner Ci t y School," i n P. L. Nacke's Interaction: Research and P r a c t i c e f o r College-Adult Reading, Clemson, South Carolina, The National Reading Conference Inc., 1974. Canadian Books i n P r i n t : Subject Index. 1973- 1975- Toronto, Un i v e r s i t y 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 i n Education. 1913-52, 1954- Toronto. Canadian Education Association, Research and Information D i v i s i o n . Education Studies Completed i n Canadian U n i v e r s i t i e s , 1966/67- 1967/68. Toronto, 2 v. Canadian Education Association, Research and Information D i v i s i o n . Registry of Canadian Theses i n Education, 1955-1962. Toronto. Canadian Education Index. V . l - Jan. 1965- Ottawa, Canadian Council for Research i n Education. Canadian Theses. 1952- Ottawa, National L i b r a r y . Canadiana. V . l - 1951- Ottawa, National L i b r a r y of Canada. Cane, Brian. Inservice T r a i n i n g : A Study of Teachers' Views and Prefer- ences . London, National Foundation for Educational Research i n England and Wales, 1969. 168 Carlson, T. R. Administrators and Reading. New York, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1972. C a r r o l l , J . B., and J . S. C h a l l . Toward a L i t e r a t e Society. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1975. C a s s i v i , Denis. Teacher Education for Self-Reliance: Lighthouse Learning Program. Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1975 (monograph, A t l a n t i c I n s t i t u t e of Education). Channon, Geraldine. Proposals for the Future Development of Teacher Educa- t i o n , C e r t i f i c a t i o n and Salary C l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n New Brunswick. New Brunswick Teachers' Assoc., June, 1975 (mimeographed). Chester, R. D., and S. M. A l l e n . Reading Inservice i n 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 Pr o f e s s i o n a l Education. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976. Continuing Education for Teachers. Bibliographies i n Education #53. Ottawa, Ontario, CTF, June 1975 (monograph). The Continuing Education of Teachers and Other Professional Personnel i n the Province of Newfoundland. January 1974 (mimeographed). Corder, R. The Information Base for Reading. Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a , Educational Testing Service, 1971. Current Index to Journals i n Education. V . l — Jan./Feb. 1969— New York, Macmillan Information. Davis, F. B. The L i t e r a t u r e of Research i n Reading with Emphasis on Models. Washington, D.C, United States O f f i c e of Education, 1971. Davis, L. N., and E. McCallon. Planning, Conducting, Evaluating Workshops. Washington, Learning Concepts, Inc., 1974. Directory of Education Studies i n Canada. 1968/69- Toronto, Canadian Education Association, Information Service. D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts International . V . l - 1938- Dubin, S. S. Professional Obsolescence. London, English U n i v e r s i t i e s 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. 1 6 9 F a d e r , D . N . , a n d E . B . M c N e i l . H o o k e d o n B o o k s : P r o g r a m a n d P r o o f . N e w Y o r k , G . P . P u t n a m ' s S o n , 1 9 6 6 . F a r r , R o g e r . R e a d i n g : W h a t C a n B e M e a s u r e d ? N e w a r k , D e l a w a r e , I n t e r - n a t i o n a l R e a d i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , 1 9 6 9 . F i g u r e l , J . A . C h a l l e n g e a n d E x p e r i m e n t i n R e a d i n g . N e w Y o r k , I n t e r - n a t i o n a l R e a d i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , C o n f e r e n c e P r o c e e d i n g s , 1 9 6 2 . . F o r g i n g A h e a d i n R e a d i n g . N e w a r k , D e l a w a r e , I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e a d i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , 1 9 6 8 . . R e a d i n g a n d R e a l i s m . N e w a r k , D e l a w a r e , I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e a d i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , 1 9 6 9 . F i n c h , A . G r o w t h I n s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s t h a t W o r k . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N e w J e r s e y , P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1 9 6 9 . F o r g a n , H . W . , a n d C . T . M a n g r u m , I I . T e a c h i n g C o n t e n t A r e a R e a d i n g S k i l l s : A M o d u l a r P r e s e r v i c e a n d I n s e r v i c e P r o g r a m . C o l u m b u s , O h i o , C h a r l e s E . M e r r i l l , 1 9 7 6 . G a g e , N . L . H a n d b o o k o f R e s e a r c h o n T e a c h i n g . 1 s t e d i t i o n . C h i c a g o , R a n d M c N a l l y & C o . , 1 9 6 3 . G i d n e y , R . , P . L i n d e n , a n d G . M i l b u r n . " C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n : A N e g l e c t e d C o n c e p t , " E d u c a t i n g T e a c h e r s : C r i t i q u e s a n d P r o p o s a l s , e d . D . M y e r s a n d F . R e i d , O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e , 1 9 7 4 , 6 9 - 7 7 . G l a s s , G . V . P r i m a r y , S e c o n d a r y a n d M e t a - a n a l y s i s o f R e s e a r c h . S a n F r a n c i s c o , A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n P r e s i d e n t i a l A d d r e s s , 1 9 7 6 . G o o d , C . V . D i c t i o n a r y o f E d u c a t i o n . 3 r d e d i t i o n . N e w Y o r k , M c G r a w - H i l l B o o k C o . , 1 9 7 3 . G o u l d , S a m . D i v e r s i t y b y D e s i g n . S a n F r a n c i s c o , J o s s e y - B a s s P u b l i s h e r s , 1 9 7 3 . G u i d e b o o k f o r W o r k s h o p s . N e w f o u n d l a n d , J o i n t C o m m i t t e e o f D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n , M e m o r i a l U n i v e r s i t y , a n d N e w f o u n d l a n d T e a c h e r s A s s o c i a - t i o n , D e c , 1 9 7 4 ( m o n o g r a p h ) . H a f n e r , L . E . I m p r o v i n g R e a d i n g i n S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l s . L o n d o n , M a c M i l l a n C o . , 1 9 6 7 . H a r r i s , A . J . T h e E f f e c t i v e T e a c h e r o f R e a d i n g . I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e a d i n g A s s o c i a t i o n C o n f e r e n c e P a p e r , M a y 1 9 6 9 ( m i m e o g r a p h e d ) . H a r r i s , B . M . , a n d W a i l a n d B e s s e n t . I n s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n : A G u i d e t o B e t t e r P r a c t i c e . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N e w J e r s e y , P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1 9 6 9 . 170 Havelock, Ronald. Planning for Innovation. Ann Arbor, Mich., I n s t i t u t e for S o c i a l Research, 1973. Haygood, Kenneth. "Colleges and U n i v e r s i t i e s " 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, Un i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1961. . Inservice Education for Teachers, Supervisors, and Administra- tors . Chicago, Un i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1957. . Reading i n the High School and College. Chicago, Un i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1948. Horodezky, Betty. "The Rationale f o r Competency Based Inservice Education," New Horizons i n Reading, ed. J . E. M e r r i t t , 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 Pr o f e s s i o n a l Obsoles- cence. London, English U n i v e r s i t i e s Press Ltd., 1971. Johnston, D. J . Teachers' Inservice Education. Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1971. K a r l i n , R. Teaching Reading High School. Indianopolis, Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1964. . Teaching Reading i n High School. New York, Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1969. K a r l i n , R., et a l . Reading I n s t r u c t i o n i n 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. M e r r i l l Publishing Co., 1971. Lewis, A. J . "The Role of the Administrator i n Inservice Education," from N. B. Henry's Inservice Education for Teachers, Supervisors, and Administrators, Chicago, U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1957. L i p p i t t , G. L. V i s u a l i z i n g Change: Model Building and the Change Process. F a i r f a x , V i r g i n i a , 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. E s t a b l i s h i n g Guidelines for E f f e c t i v e Inservice Programs i n Reading. International Reading Association, Conference Paper, A p r i l 1968. McGuire, G. K. The Teaching of Reading by English Teachers i n Public High Schools: A National Survey. Urbana, I l l i n o i s , 1969. McKague, Terry. Strategies f o r 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 e d i t i o n . Coral Gables, F l o r i d a , U n i v e r s i t y of Miami, 1976 (copyrighted). Marksheffel, N. D. Better Reading i n the Secondary School. New York, Ronald Press Co., 1966. Mayhew, Lewis. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. San Fran- c i s c o , Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973. Mayhew, L. Graduate and Professional Education, 1980. New York, McGraw- H i l l Book Co., 1970. Mayhew, Lewis, and P a t r i c k Ford. Reform i n Graduate and Professional Education. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1974. M i l l e r , W. H. Teaching Reading i n the Secondary School. S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s , Charles C. Thomas, 1974. Moburg, L. G. Inservice Teacher Training i n Reading. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1972. M o f f i t t , J . C. Inservice Education f o r Teachers. New York, Center f or Applied Research i n Education, 1973. Mullen, Terry. Inservice Education f or B r i t i s h Columbia Teachers. Nov. 1975 (mimeographed). . Inservice Education f or Educators i n B r i t i s h Columbia. A p r i l 1976 (mimeographed). Narang, H. L. Canadian Masters Theses i n Reading Education. Regina, Univ e r s i t y of Saskatchewan, 1974. Nissman, A l b e r t , and Jack Lutz. Organizing and Developing a Summer Pro- f e s s i o n a l Workshop. Linnet Books, 1971. Olson, A. V., and W. S. Ames. Teaching Reading S k i l l s i n Secondary Schools. Scranton, Intext, 1972. 172 Osborne, J . W. Inservice Course for U n i v e r s i t y of Alberta Instructors. U n i v e r s i t y of Alberta, 1975. Otto, Wayne, Robert Chester, John McNeil, and Shir l e y 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- t i o n , 1973. Pa i s l e y , W. Developing a Sensing Network f o r Information Needs i n Educa- t i o n . Stanford U n i v e r s i t y , I n s t i t u t e for Communication Research, 1972. Partnership f o r Prof e s s i o n a l Renewal. A P o l i c y Paper on Inservice T r a i n - ing f o r Saskatchewan Education. Regina, Sask., Sept. 1973 (mimeo- graphed, Department of Education). Professional Development Clauses i n 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- v i s o r s , Better Programs, Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1975. Raygor, A. L., and Ronald Kirsch. "Techniques f o r Teaching Teachers About Readab i l i t y , " New Horizons i n Reading, ed. J . E. M e r r i t t , Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1976, 354-6. Report of the Task Force on English. Vancouver School Board, June 1975 (mimeographed). Research i n Education. V . l - Nov. 1966- Washington, U. S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , monthly. Roaden, A. L., et a l . A Design f o r Program Development i n Curriculum and Inst r u c t i o n . Portland, Oregon, Northwest Regional Laboratory, June 1975. Robinson, H. Alan. Teaching Reading and Study Strategies. Boston, A l l y n & Bacon, 1975. Robinson, H. A., and S. J . Rauch. Corrective Reading i n 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. L i t e r a t u r e as Exploration. New York, Noble, 1938. Rubin, L. J . Improving Inservice Education: Proposals and Procedures for Change. Boston, A l l y n and Bacon, 1971b. Sanderlin, Reed. "Reading Problems Connected with Interpreting Imagin- a t i v e L i t e r a t u r e , " from P. L. Nacke's Interaction: Research and P r a c t i c e f o r College-Adult Reading. Clemson, South Carolina, The National Reading Conference, Inc., 1974. Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation P o s i t i o n on Inservice Education for Teachers. Sept. 1974 (mimeographed). Schein, E. H. Pr o f e s s i o n a l Education. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1972. S c h i l d , R. J. "A Study of Certain Practices and Some Proposed Directions for Inservice Programs i n Selected Schools of the APSS," Columbia Uni v e r s i t y , 1964, from Encyclopedia of Education Research, 4th e d i t i o n , 1969. Sears, P. A. The E f f e c t of Classroom Conditions on the Strength of Achievement Motive and Work Out-Put on Elementary School Children. Washington, D.C, United States O f f i c e 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. M e r r i l l Publishing Co., 1973. Simpson, R. H. Teacher Self-Evaluation. Toronto, MacMillan Co., 1966. Singer, Harry, and A l l e n Rhodes. "Learning from Text: A Review of Theories, Strategies, and Research at the High School Level," from W. D. M i l l e r 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, C r e a t i v i t y , and Self-Concept Correlates of Teacher-Pupil Transactions i n Elementary School Classrooms. Washington, D.C, United States O f f i c e of Education, 1963. Squire, J. R., and R. K. Applebee. High School English Instruction Today. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968. S t r a t t a , L e s l i e , 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 B r i t i s h Columbia, Jan. 1976. The Teaching of Reading. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., 1973 (monograph). Thomison, Dennis. Readings About Adolescent L i t e r a t u r e . Metuchen, N.J., Scarecrow Press, 1970. Times 5ive. H a l i f a x , Nova Scotia, A t l a n t i c I n s t i t u t e of Education, June 1975 (monograph). T o f f l e r , A l v i n . Future Shock. New York, Bantam Books, 1970. Trosky, 0. S. "A Training Program for Reading Supervisors," U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, 1973, International Reading Association, Conference Paper, from Directory of Education Studies i n Canada, 1972-73, Toronto, CEA, 1973. Voix, R. G. Evaluating Reading and Study S k i l l s i n the Secondary Class- room. Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1968. Wallen, N. E., and K. H. Wodtke. Relationships Between Teacher Character- i s t i c s and Student Behavior. Washington, D.C, United States O f f i c e of Education, 1963. Webb, E. J . , et a l . Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research i n the So c i a l Sciences. Chicago, Rand McNally & Co., 1966. Weiss, M. J . Reading i n the Secondary School. New York, Odyssey Press, 1961. Wilson, L. L., et a l . A Guide for Conducting a Teacher Self-Improvement Program. L i t t l e Rock, Arkansas, 1972. Worthen, B. R., and J . R. Sanders. Educational Evaluation: Theory and Pr a c t i c e . Worthington, Ohio, Charles A. Jones Publishing Co., 1973. Wright, R. E. Inservice Education Programs to Improve Teaching Competence. Washington, 1975. Pe r i o d i c a l s Abramowitz, M. W. "The P r i n c i p a l i s 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 A l f o r d , H. J . "Assessment and Evaluation .in Continuing Education: Four Quick and D i r t y Devices," Adult Leadership, 22, Apr. 1974, 324-6. EJ 095 702. A l l e n , S. M. "Reading i n English L i t e r a t u r e : Is Expository M a t e r i a l Really More D i f f i c u l t ? " Skylark, 12-1, F a l l 1975, 10-12. . "Using Small Groups i n Secondary Classrooms," B.C. Teacher, 53-8, May-June 1974, 275-76. Attea, W. J . "VTR: Inservice Tool f or Improving I n s t r u c t i o n , " Educational Leadership, 28, Nov. 1970, 147-50. EJ 027 733. Axelrod, Jerome. "A Few Recommendations on How to Conduct Inservice Reading Instruction f o r Content-Area Teachers," English Journal, 64-2, Feb. 1975, 81-82. Bader, L. A. " C e r t i f i c a t i o n Requirements i n Reading: A Trend," Journal of Reading, 19-3, Dec. 1975, 237-240. . "Preparing Future Secondary Teachers i n Reading," Journal of Reading, 15-7, A p r i l 1972, 492-95. Barber, B. "Some Problems i n the Sociology of the Professions," Daedalus, 92, 1963, 669-88. Bentley, Roy. "Myths i n the Teaching of English," BCETA Winter Journal, 16-1, Jan. 1976, 1-4. . "'Testing' i n the English Classroom," UPDATE, 17-4, March 1976, 12-14. Bormuth, J . "Comparable Cloze and M u l t i p l e 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 i n Auto 1—Honest!" Journal of Reading, 19-1, Oct. 1975, 33-35. Brimm, J . L., and D. J . T o l l e t t . "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 V i a 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 C h a l l , 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 i n B r i t i s h 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 R e s p o n s i b i l i t y ? " Alberta Teachers Association Magazine, 52-2, Nov.-Dec. 1971, 18-23. Cooper, Barbara, and Murray P h i l i p . "Evaluation of N u t r i t i o n Education i n Everyday'Teaching Environment," Journal of N u t r i t i o n 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 E f f e c t i v e Inservice Reading Programs," Education, 93, Feb. 1973, 211-13. Cunningham, R. C. "Resurrecting Meaningful Inservice T r a i n i n g , " Journal of Reading, 15-7, A p r i l 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- t i o n Leadership, 4-4, Mar. 1975, 7-9. EJ 118 621. Draba, R. E. "Guidelines f o r Viable Inservice Education," Journal of Reading, 18-5, Feb. 1975, 368-71. Duffy, P a t r i c k . "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, A p r i l 1973, 520-24. Falkenberg, Eugene, et a l . "The Continuing Professional Education of Teachers—Views from Alberta's U n i v e r s i t i e s , " Alberta Teachers Association Magazine, 52-2, Nov.-Dec. 1971, 30-33. 177 Farr, Roger, James Laffey, and Rexel Brown. "Secondary Reading Programs i n Indiana: Status and Needs," Journal of Reading, 13-4, January 1970, 269-74, 317-19. Farr, Roger, and Samuel Weintraub. " E d i t o r i a l : Methodological Incarcer- a t i o n , " Reading Research Quarterly, X-4, 1974-75, 549-52. Felker, D. W. , et a l . "Teacher R i g i d i t y 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, A p r i l 1974, 567-69. EJ 094 650. Fotheringham, J . A. "Inservice Education: A V i t a l 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, A p r i l 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 B u l l e t i n , 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 U n i v e r s i t i e s and Inservice Training for Teachers," Trends i n Education, 33, May 1974, 13-17. EJ 100 485. Herber, H. L. "Reading i n Content Areas: A D i s t r i c t Develops i t s own Personnel," Journal of Reading, 13-8, May 1970, 587-92. EJ 020 796. H i l l , Walter. "Secondary Reading A c t i v i t y i n 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. K e l l y . "Simulation: Inservice Education for Teachers of Reading," Journal of Experimental Education, 38, F a l l 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 i n College Freshmen Reading A b i l i t y , " 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. L e s l i e , L. L., and J . L. Morrison. " S o c i a l Change and Professional Educa- t i o n i n American Society," I n t e l l e c t , V o l . 102, March 1974, 356-60. Lindsay, C. A., J . L. Morrison, and E. J . Kelley. "Professional Obsoles- cence: Implications f o r 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 A l l 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 R e s p o n s i b i l i t y of Secondary Tea- chers i n the F i e l d of Reading," Reading Teacher, 15, 1963, 92-97, 101. McGlothlin, W. J . "Continuing Education i n the Professions," Journal of Education f o r L i b r a r i a n s h i p , 13, 1972, 3-16. McLeish, J . A. B. "Continuing Professional Education i n Canada," Convergence, 3-4, 1970, 76-88. EJ 033 129. Marrogenes, N. A., et a l . "Concise Guide to Standardized Secondary and College Reading Tests," Journal of Reading, 18, 1974, 12-22. Mathieson, D. E. "Professional Continuing Education f o r C i v i l i a n 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 P u p i l Thinking i n 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 R e v i s i t e d — A Preliminary Report," Reading Teacher, 29-7, A p r i l 1976, 647-52. Nagle, J . E. " S t a f f Development: Do I t Right," Journal of Reading, 16-2, Nov. 1972, 124-27. EJ 069 535. Olson, A. L. "Can We I n d i v i d u a l i z e Inservice Education of Teachers?" Education Technology, 14, Nov. 1974, 41-42. EJ 109 652. Olson, T. "Inservice Education i n Reading ERIC/CRS Report," Reading Teacher, 28, Feb. 1975, 522-3+. Osburn, Bess. "Shock Treatment Inservice Program Adds New L i f e to Read- ing," Journal of Reading, 18-2, Nov. 1974, 122-26. "Over 100 Recommendations Contained i n English Language Arts Assessment," Education Today, Nov. 1976, p. 6. Partlow, H. R. "Professional Development: Top Level Need, Second Level P r i o r i t y , " Education Canada, 11-4, Dec. 1971, 60-64. Patterson, W. G. "The Role of the Classroom Teacher i n Helping Students Improve i n Reading," Journal of Developmental Reading, 1, 1958, 31-41. Pedersen, George. "Decision Making," UPDATE, 17-5, A p r i l 1976, 12-14. Phi Delta Kappa."Teacher Centers May Get Generous Federal Support," Kappan, 58-5, Jan. 1977, p. 441. P i k u l s k i , J . J . "Review of Bullock's A Language For L i f e , " Reading Teacher, 29-4, Jan. 1976, 409-10. "A P r e c i s i o n Teaching Project: CELDIC Report, 1970," Times 5ive, H a l i f a x , Nova Scotia, A t l a n t i c I n s t i t u t e of Education, June 1975. Preston, R. C. "Review of C a r r o l l and Chall's Toward A L i t e r a t e 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, A p r i l 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 i n Reading I n s t r u c t i o n , " Journal of Reading, 11, March 1968. Schleich, M. "Groundwork for Better Reading i n Content Areas," Journal of Reading, 15, Nov. 1971, 119-26. Schmid, Rex, and T. R. Scranton. "A F i e l d T r i a l of the Longitudinal In- service Training Model," Education, 92-93, Nov.-Dec. 1972, 195-8. Simmons, J . J . "Who i s Responsible? The Need f o r Q u a l i f i e d Supervision of the Reading Program," English Journal, 52, 1963, 86-88, 93. Smith, R. J . , et a l . "Teaching Reading i n the Content Areas: An Inser- v i c e Model," Journal of Reading, 13, March 1970, 421-8. S t a l l a r d , Cathy. "1975 IRA Convention: Main Topics i n Reading," Journal of Reading, 19-7, A p r i l 1976, 573-4. Staples, R. B. "The Professional Development Needs of P r a c t i c i n g Alberta Teachers," Education Canada, 10-2, June 1970. Sti r z a k e r , N. A. "University Continuing Education—Disaster or Opportun- i t y ? " 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 P r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n , " Alberta Teachers Association Magazine, 52-2, Nov.-Dec. 1971, 10-14. Thelen, J . N. "Conpass Science: Learning i n Several D i r e c t i o n s , " Journal of Reading, 16-7, A p r i l 1973, 525-28. Tuinman, Jaap, Michael Rowls, and Roger Farr. "Reading Achievement i n 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 P e r i o d i c a l s , " I l l i n o i s School Research, 1, Sept. 1965, 14-19. Wassermann, Selma, and Wally Eggert. " P r o f i l e s 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 f o r Successful Inservice Experiences," Educational Leadership, 28-7, A p r i l 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 P r i n c i p a l and the M i l l e r Unruh Reading Program, 1971-72. C a l i f o r n i a , 1972. ED 067 652. A l l e n , D. W. Inservice Teacher Education. Educational Cassette Series No. 117. 1970. ED 041 875 (abstract). . Micro-teaching—A New Framework for Inservice Education. Stanford U n i v e r s i t y . Sept. 1967. ED 013 240. A l v i r , H. P. Planning arid Inservice Education. Feb. 1974. ED 088 861. . Thirteen A l t e r n a t i v e 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 i n an Urban Teacher Education Program. A Model f o r S k i l l Development i n Teaching. Feb. 1968. ED 076 496. Andrews, J . K. The Results of a P i l o t Program to T r a i n Teachers iri the Classroom A p p l i c a t i o n of Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n 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, A r i z . , 1972. ED 102 687. Assessment of the CERLI Training Program, S p e c i a l i s t i n Continuing Educa- t i o n (SCE), for Chicago Public Schools. N o r t h f i e l d , I l l i n o i s , 1969. ED 035 971 (ab s t r a c t ) . Austin, M. C. Review of Recently Recommended Models. Symposia: 1. Improved Preparation of Reading Teachers for the Seventies. International Reading Association, Conference Proceedings, A p r i l 1971. ED 071 050. Baker, E. L. Experimental Assessment of the E f f e c t s of the Probe System. March 1970. ED 037 789 (abstract). Bash, J . H., and T. J . Morris. Planning and Implementing Inservice Edu- cation Programs i n Desegregated Schools. Bloomington, Indiana, 1968. ED 025 036. Baysinger, Gerald. The F l u i d Power I n s t i t u t e s — A P i l o t Program for Intro- ducing Emerging Technologies. Wisconsin, 1966. ED 012 396. 182 Benjamin, William, et a l . S p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r a Comprehensive Undergraduate and Inservice Teacher Education Program for Elementary Teachers. Vol. 1-2. Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y , 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 i n West V i r g i n i a , February, 1973. ED 080 604 (abstract). Bessent, E. W., et a l . Designs f o r Inservice Education. Texas U n i v e r s i t y , Feb. 1967. ED 011 591. Birnbaum, Max, and L. B. Wolcott. "Human Relations Education f o r Teachers Through the I n s t i t u t e 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 S e r i e s — S c i e n c e Paper 2: Inservice Education. Ohio State Univer- s i t y , Dec. 1969. ED 036 680. Borg, W. R. The Minicourse I n s t r u c t i o n a l Model. 1970. ED 037 388. . The Minicourse: Rationale and Uses i n the Inservice Education of Teachers. C a l i f o r n i a , 1968. ED 024 647 (abstract). Borg, W. R., et a l . The E f f e c t s of Videotape Feedback and Microteaching i n a Teacher Training Model. Berkeley, Cal., 1968. ED 024 650. . The Minicourse: A Microteaching Approach to Teacher Education. C a l i f o r n i a , 1970. ED 045 577 (abstract). Brantner, S. T. Trade and Technical Teachers' Opinions on Inservice Education. Pennsylvania State U n i v e r s i t y , 1964. ED 016 044. Briggs, D. A., et a l . Reading i n Grades 7-12, A Handbook f o r Teachers and Administrators. New Jersey, 1964. ED 013 303 (abstract). B r i t t o n , E. L. Teachers' Centres and the Changing Curriculum. London, England, Schools Council Publ i c a t i o n s , 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 (abst r a c t ) . Brown, J . A., et a l . Changing Culture Perceptions of Elementary School Teachers. Portsmouth Project. A p r i l 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 . , J r . The E f f e c t of Inservice Education and Resource Unit Com- ponents on Teacher and Student Learning. 1968. ED 042 885 (abstract). 1 8 3 B r u d i n , J . L . , a n d K a l i o p e e L a n z i l l o t t i . A R e a d e r ' s G u i d e t o t h e C o m p r e - h e n s i v e M o d e l s f o r P r e p a r i n g E l e m e n t a r y T e a c h e r s . F e b . 1 9 7 0 . E D 0 3 4 0 7 6 . B u r n h a m , R. M . T h e R o l e o f t h e S u p e r v i s o r i n P r o f e s s i o n a l G r o w t h a n d D e v e l o p m e n t . J u l y 1 9 7 4 . E D 0 8 4 7 9 5 ( a b s t r a c t ) . C a l d w e l l , H . E . E v a l u a t i o n o f a n I n s e r v i c e S c i e n c e M e t h o d s C o u r s e b y S y s t e m a t i c O b s e r v a t i o n o f C l a s s r o o m A c t i v i t i e s . S y r a c u s e U n i v e r - s i t y , S e p t . 1 9 6 7 . E D 0 2 4 6 1 5 . C a l i f o r n i a T e a c h e r D e v e l o p m e n t P r o j e c t f o r S y s t e m s o f I n d i v i d u a l i z e d I n s t r u c t i o n : A D i s s e m i n a t i o n A c t i v i t y . S a c r a m e n t o , C a l . , 1 9 7 3 . E D 0 9 5 1 8 3 ( a b s t r a c t ) . C a m e r o n , W. A . , a n d C . J . C o t r e l l . R e m o t e F e e d b a c k T e c h n i q u e s f o r I n - s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n . C o l o r a d o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a n d O h i o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 0 . E D 0 4 2 9 0 1 ( a b s t r a c t ) . C a r l i n e , J . L . A n I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p s B e t w e e n V a r i o u s V e r b a l S t r a t e g i e s o f T e a c h i n g B e h a v i o r a n d A c h i e v e m e n t o f E l e m e n - t a r y S c h o o l C h i l d r e n . 1 9 7 0 . E D 0 3 8 3 4 5 ( a b s t r a c t ) . C a s e S t u d y , O p e r a t i o n : C o o p e r a t i o n A s h l a n d C o l l e g e — A s h l a n d C i t y S c h o o l s . O h i o , 1 9 7 2 . E D 0 7 5 4 1 5 . T h e C e n t e r f o r I n s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n . F i n a l E v a l u a t i o n R e p o r t . T e n n e s s e e , S e p t . 1 9 7 2 . E D 0 9 0 2 1 6 ( a b s t r a c t ) . A C e n t e r f o r R e - e d u c a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s . E n d o f P r o j e c t P e r i o d R e p o r t , J u n e 1 9 6 9 t o M a y 1 9 7 0 . 1 9 7 0 . E D 0 8 0 4 9 2 ( a b s t r a c t ) . C h a d w i c k , E . H . I m p r o v e d E d u c a t i o n — R u r a l S c h o o l D e v e l o p m e n t P r o j e c t . H a r w i c k , V e r m o n t , J a n . 1 9 7 5 . E D 1 0 9 5 9 8 . C h a m p a g n e , D . W . , e t a l . P l a n n i n g a n d C o n d u c t i n g I n d i v i d u a l i z e d I n s e r v i c e W o r k s h o p s . 1 9 7 3 . E D 0 8 4 2 4 6 ( a b s t r a c t ) . C h e r n , N . E . I n s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n i n R e a d i n g : T h e R e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e P o t e n t i a l . A p r i l 1 9 6 8 . E D 0 2 8 0 2 0 . C o l l i n s , J . F . T h e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n C e n t e r C o n c e p t . S y r a c u s e , N e w Y o r k , S y r a c u s e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 0 . E D 0 4 6 9 0 1 ( a b s t r a c t ) . C o m p r e h e n s i v e E x p l a n a t i o n a n d A n a l y s i s o f t h e M u l t i p l e A l t e r n a t i v e P r o g r a m ( M A P ) . C o n n e c t i c u t , N o v . 1 9 7 3 . E D 0 8 7 7 1 8 ( a b s t r a c t ) . C o n c e p t u a l B a s e o f P r o g r a m I: S p e c i a l i s t i n C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n ( S C E ) . C o n s u l t a n t s ' A s s e s s m e n t . N o r t h f i e l d , I l l i n o i s , 1 9 6 9 . E D 0 5 0 0 4 5 ( a b s t r a c t ) . C o r y , N . D . I n c e n t i v e s U s e d i n M o t i v a t i n g P r o f e s s i o n a l G r o w t h o f T e a c h e r s . C h i c a g o . E D 0 2 7 2 5 4 . 1 8 4 C r a m e r , S . H . P r e s e r v i c e a n d I n s e r v i c e P r e p a r a t i o n o f S c h o o l C o u n s e l o r s f o r E d u c a t i o n a l G u i d a n c e . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C , M a r c h 1 9 7 0 . E D 0 3 9 5 4 4 ( a b s t r a c t ) . C r u i k s h a n k , D . R . S i m u l a t i o n a s a n I n s t r u c t i o n a l A l t e r n a t i v e i n T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . 1 9 7 1 . E D 0 5 3 0 6 7 ( a b s t r a c t ) . C u n n i n g h a m , M . A . P r o j e c t I d e a l s : S t a f f S e l e c t i o n , E d u c a t i o n a n d U t i l i z a t i o n . F l o r i d a , 1 9 6 9 . E D 0 5 0 4 3 9 ( a b s t r a c t ) . D a g n e , F . A . I n s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n f o r T e a c h e r s . M a i n e , 1 9 6 8 . E D 0 3 1 5 4 6 . D a v i s , J . B . , J r . T h e T e a c h e r C e n t e r a s a S t r a t e g y f o r L o c a l S c h o o l R e n e w a l . F e b . 1 9 7 5 . E D 1 0 8 3 8 1 ( a b s t r a c t ) . D e b r i c k , M . A . , e t a l . G u i d e l i n e s f o r R e a d i n g I n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l s . E u g e n e , O r e g o n , 1 9 6 8 . E D 0 5 2 9 0 4 . D e l F o r g e , C l a r e n c e . A C o m p e t e n c y B a s e d P r o g r a m o f I n d i v i d u a l i z e d I n - s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n . N o r t h C a r o l i n a , 1 9 7 4 . E D 0 8 6 6 8 6 ( a b s t r a c t ) . D e S h i e l d s , S . M . , e t a l . S t a f f D e v e l o p m e n t T h r o u g h t h e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n C e n t e r C o n c e p t . 1 9 7 1 . E D 0 7 5 3 9 1 . D e v e l o p m e n t o f a n I n s e r v i c e M o d e l f o r I m p l e m e n t i n g N e w M e t h o d o l o g y i n t h e S S C u r r i c u l u m : P r o j e c t P e r i o d . M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n , 1 9 7 0 . E D 0 6 7 3 1 3 . D e v o r e , P . W . V a r i a b l e s A f f e c t i n g C h a n g e i n I n s e r v i c e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . W e s t V i r g i n i a U n i v e r s i t y , S e p t . 1 9 7 1 . E D 0 7 0 7 6 4 . D i c k s o n , G . E . P l a n n i n g a P r o t o t y p e T e a c h e r C e n t e r f o r O h i o . F i n a l R e p o r t . U n i v e r s i t y o f T o l e d o , O h i o , 1 9 7 2 . E D r 0 8 6 6 7 7 ( a b s t r a c t ) . D i c k s o n , G . E . e t a l . E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i f i c a t i o n f o r a C o m p r e h e n s i v e E l e m e n - t a r y T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m . O h i o , O c t . 1 9 6 8 . E D 0 2 5 4 5 7 . D i T o s t o , E v e l y n . I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g f o r t h e B e g i n n i n g T e a c h e r . N o v . 1 9 7 4 . E D 0 9 7 2 9 3 ( a b s t r a c t ) . D o h e r t y , V . W. T h e C a r n e g i e P r o f e s s i o n a l G r o w t h P r o g r a m , A n E x p e r i m e n t i n t h e I n s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s . 1 9 6 7 . E D 0 2 0 1 6 2 . D o u g l a s , W . W . E n g l i s h C u r r i c u l u m S t u d y a n d D i s s e m i n a t i o n C e n t e r . F i n a l R e p o r t . S e p t . 1 9 7 0 . E D 0 6 4 2 7 5 ( a b s t r a c t ) . D o w n i n g , G . L . A n d T h o s e W h o C a n ' t T e a c h — R e a d i n g ! A T a s k A h e a d i n T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . C . R . A . C o n f e r e n c e P a p e r , N o v . 1 9 7 3 . E D 0 8 4 5 0 6 ( a b s t r a c t ) . D u b i n , S . S . T h e P s y c h o l o g y o f K e e p i n g U p - t o - D a t e . 1 9 7 2 . E D 0 6 9 9 3 8 ( a b s t r a c t ) . 185 Dulin, K. L. Preservice Training i n Reading f o r the Secondary-level Classroom Teacher. International Reading Association, Paper, A p r i l 1971. ED 053 876 (abstract). Dunkeld, C. G. The Portland EPDA Reading Program: Second Year; An In- service Training Program i n the Teaching of Reading. Portland State U n i v e r s i t y , Jan. 1973. ED 075 805 (abstract). . The Portland Project: An Inservice Training Program i n the Teaching of Reading. Oregon State U n i v e r s i t y , May 1972. ED 063 591. . A Released-Time Inservice Training Program i n the Teaching of Reading. A p r i l 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. M i t z e l . 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 i n Minnesota Schools. St. Paul, Minn., 1966. ED 018 394. Earl y , M. J . , and W. D. Sheldon. A Center f o r Demonstrating the Teaching of Reading to Students i n Grades 7-12. Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y , New York, Feb. 1967. ED 013 719. E d e l f e l t , R. A. Inservice Teacher Education—Sources i n the ERIC System. Jan. 1975. ED 099 308 (abstract). E d e l f e l t , R. A., and Margo Johnson. Rethinking Inservice Education. 1975. ED 106 300 (abstract). Edmonds, Fred, et a l . Inservice Teacher Education: C r u c i a l Process i n Educational Change. Kentucky Un i v e r s i t y , Sept. 1966. ED 013 424. Edson, W. H. Linking Schools and Colleges to Develop Continuing Education Programs f o r School Personnel. U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, A p r i l 1974. ED 103 352. The E f f e c t s of the I n s t r u c t i o n a l Behavior and S k i l l s Development Inservice Program Upon Teacher Behavior. F i n a l Report. U n i v e r s i t y of Missouri, Columbia, 1972. ED 070 765 (abstract). ERIC Abstracts: A C o l l e c t i o n of ERIC Document Resumes on Inservice Edu- cation f or Staff and Administrators. Oct. 1970. ED 044 830. Estes, Thomas. Reading Education f o r English Educators. National Council of Teachers of English, Conference Paper, 1972. ED 077 010. 1 8 6 E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s C e n t e r s P r o j e c t . J a n . 1 9 6 8 . E D 0 2 1 9 1 1 . E x p e r i m e n t a l T e a c h e r E x c h a n g e P r o g r a m . S p r i n g f i e l d , M a s s . , S e p t . 1 9 6 4 . E D 0 0 1 5 1 1 . F a r m e r , M . N . C o n c e r n s a n d I s s u e s i n t h e P r o f e s s i o n a l E d u c a t i o n o f E n g l i s h T e a c h e r s , 1 9 6 3 - 1 9 7 3 . T e m p l e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 5 . E D 1 1 4 8 5 6 ( a b s t r a c t ) . F a u l k n e r , A n n . D e v e l o p i n g a n O u t r e a c h M o d e l : F r o m P r a c t i c e t o T h e o r y . U n i v e r s i t y o f T e x a s , A u s t i n , A p r i l 1 9 7 4 . E D 0 9 2 9 2 6 . F i b k i n s , W i l l i a m . A P r o p o s e d M o d e l f o r S t a r t i n g a T e a c h e r ' s C e n t e r i n t h e S c h o o l s . 1 9 7 3 . E D 0 8 1 7 2 9 ( a b s t r a c t ) . F i f e r , F . L . , J r . , a n d D . E . R u s h . D e v e l o p m e n t o f a n I n s e r v i c e M o d e l B a s e d o n P r o g r a m E v a l u a t i o n . A p r i l 1 9 7 4 . E D 0 8 8 9 4 6 ( a b s t r a c t ) . F i l e p , R . T . , a n d D . B . M u r p h y . C o m p u t e r - A s s i s t e d L e a r n i n g f o r I n s e r v i c e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . C a l i f o r n i a , M a y 1 9 6 7 . E D 0 1 4 2 1 9 ( a b s t r a c t ) . F i l e p , R . T . , e t a l . A N e w M o d e l f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g : A R e p o r t o f a S u r v e y o f T h i r t e e n C o u n t i e s i n N o r t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a . 1 9 7 1 . E D 0 5 3 1 0 1 . F i t z g e r a l d , T . P . , a n d R . M . C l a r k . P r o c e s s E v a l u a t i o n f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g . N e w Y o r k , D e c . 1 9 7 4 . E D 1 0 2 5 0 7 . F l a n d e r s , N . A . I n t e r a c t i o n A n a l y s i s a n d I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g . E D 0 8 8 8 5 4 ( a b s t r a c t ) . . I n t e r a c t i o n A n a l y s i s : A T e c h n i q u e f o r Q u a n t i f y i n g T e a c h e r I n f l u e n c e . M i n n e s o t a . E D 0 8 8 8 5 5 ( a b s t r a c t ) . F l a n l g a n , M . C . " I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g : S o m e S u g g e s t i o n s a n d P r o b l e m s , " E u c l i d i n R e t r o s p e c t , 1 9 6 7 C o n f e r e n c e B u l l e t i n , O h i o , 1 9 6 7 . E D 0 1 7 4 9 7 . F o x , R o b e r t , e t a l . I n s e r v i c e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n t o S u p p o r t U t i l i z a t i o n o f N e w S o c i a l S c i e n c e C u r r i c u l a . B o u l d e r , C o l o . , N o v . 1 9 6 7 . E D 0 3 9 1 6 0 . F o x , R . S . , e t a l . T e a c h i n g o f S o c i a l S c i e n c e M a t e r i a l i n t h e E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l . E D 0 0 1 1 3 5 . F r o b e r g , S . E . A G u i d e f o r t h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f a n I n s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m . T a m p a , F l o r i d a , M a y 1 9 7 1 . E D 0 4 9 4 3 1 . F u l l b r i g h t , C . B . , e t a l . D e s c r i p t i v e O u t l i n e o f M i s s o u r i ' s I n s e r v i c e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m i n E l e m e n t a r y M a t h e m a t i c s . J e f f e r s o n C i t y , M o . , 1 9 6 6 . E D 0 1 8 3 9 8 . 1 8 7 F u l l e r , F . F . , e t a l . E f f e c t s o f P e r s o n a l i z e d F e e d b a c k D u r i n g T e a c h e r P r e p a r a t i o n o n T e a c h e r P e r s o n a l i t y a n d T e a c h i n g B e h a v i o r . T e x a s U n i v e r s i t y , A u s t i n , 1 9 6 9 . E D 0 2 8 1 4 8 . G e n e r a l I m p r o v e m e n t o f R e a d i n g I n s t r u c t i o n G r a d e s 1 - 1 2 . S u m m e r 1 9 6 8 . E D 0 2 5 3 8 9 . G e t z , H . G . , a n d L . D . K e n n e d y . C o m p e t e n c y - B a s e d R e a d i n g P r e p a r a t i o n f o r S e c o n d a r y T e a c h e r s . I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e a d i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , C o n f e r e n c e P a p e r , M a y 1 9 7 2 . E D 0 6 3 5 7 7 . T h e G r e a t e r C l e v e l a n d T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n C e n t e r s C o o p e r a t i v e S u p p o r t P r o g r a m . 1 9 7 2 . E D 0 7 6 5 2 1 ( a b s t r a c t ) . G r e e r , S a n d r a . C u r r i c u l u m R e v i s i o n f o r t h e I m p r o v e m e n t o f R e a d i n g I n s t r u c - t i o n i n S o u t h e a s t K a n s a s . F e b . 1 9 7 4 . E D 0 8 9 2 3 9 . A G u i d e t o t h e R o l e o f t h e R e a d i n g T e a c h e r , E l e m e n t a r y a n d S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l s . B a l t i m o r e , M d . , 1 9 7 0 . E D 0 9 2 8 9 6 . G u i d e l i n e s f o r A f t e r - S c h o o l W o r k s h o p s : A M a n u a l f o r T e a c h e r T r a i n e r s . N e w Y o r k , F e b r u a r y 1 9 6 7 . E D 0 9 1 4 6 6 . H a a n , A . S . I n s e r v i c e D e s i g n f o r a S m a l l S c h o o l D i s t r i c t . C a l i f o r n i a , J u n e 1 9 6 6 . E D 0 1 0 0 8 2 . H a l l , K . A . , e t a l . I n s e r v i c e M a t h e m a t i c s E d u c a t i o n f o r E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l T e a c h e r s v i a C o m p u t e r - A s s i s t e d I n s t r u c t i o n . P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 6 9 . E D 0 7 6 0 3 9 ( a b s t r a c t ) . H a r r i s , A . J . , e t a l . A n E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e I n t e n s i v e T e a c h e r T r a i n i n g P r o g r a m . N e w Y o r k , J u n e 1 9 6 7 . E D 0 1 2 7 1 6 . H a r s t e , J . C , e t a l . T o w a r d V a l i d a t i n g R e a d i n g T e a c h e r C o m p e t e n c i e s . I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y , B l o o m i n g t o n , M a r c h 1 9 7 5 . E D 1 0 9 6 5 4 ( a b s t r a c t ) . H a r t y , H a r o l d , e t a l . A n I n t e r a c t i v e N e t w o r k f o r t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n o f I n n o v a t i o n s i n E d u c a t i o n : O r g a n i z a t i o n , T r a i n i n g , O p e r a t i o n , a n d I m p a c t . F e b . 1 9 7 3 . E D 0 7 5 9 1 3 ( a b s t r a c t ) . T h e H a r v a r d - B o s t o n S u m m e r P r o g r a m i n U r b a n E d u c a t i o n . 1 9 6 5 . E D 0 0 1 5 3 3 . H a u b r i c h , V e r n o n . O b s t a c l e s t o C h a n g e : T h e W e s t c h e s t e r R e p o r t . O c t . 1 9 6 8 . E D 0 3 3 8 9 4 . H a w k e , S h a r r y l . M i n i - V e r s i t y : A N e w A p p r o a c h t o C o n t i n u i n g T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . 1 9 7 5 . E D 1 0 4 7 3 4 ( a b s t r a c t ) . H e n k e l m a n , J a m e s , e t a l . M a r y l a n d E l e m e n t a r y M a t h e m a t i c s I n s e r v i c e P r o g r a m , F i n a l R e p o r t o f S t u d y — D e m o n s t r a t i o n P h a s e . U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d , M a r c h 1 9 6 7 . E D 0 1 2 3 9 7 ( a b s t r a c t ) . 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, In t e r n a t i o n l Read- ing A s s o c i a t i o n , 1975. ED 108 163. H i l l , J . C. Change of Content Development Patterns Observed i n Classroom Communication Behaviors Due to Inservice Training i n Content Strategies. American Educational Research Association, paper, 1971. ED 049 190. Hoehn, L. P. Teaching Behavior Improvement Program. D e t r o i t , July 1969. ED 034 719. Hoffart, E. H. The Role of High School Teachers i n 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 C e n t e r s — I s There Anything New? Some Tentative Guidelines f or Assessing the Nature and Extent of Collaboration and Renewal. American Educational Research Association, paper, A p r i l 1974. ED 090 148 (abstract). I d e n t i f y i n g Strengths of E f f e c t i v e Teachers and Training Them to Share These Strengths with Other Teachers. 1970. ED 041 845. In d i v i d u a l i z e d Inservice Teacher Education: A Performance-Based Module. F l o r i d a , Jan. 1971. ED 055 049 (ab s t r a c t ) . Inservice Education i n 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 K i t and Project Reading A l e r t : 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 (ab s t r a c t ) . An Interim Report of a Summer I n s t i t u t e i n Teaching Reading: An E c l e c t i c Approach to Reading. March 1970. ED 059 031 (ab s t r a c t ) . 189 Jackson, D. M., and W. M. Rogge. Inservice Education—An Integral Part of the I l l i n o i s Plan for Program Development f o r Gifted Children. U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , Urbana, A p r i l 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 C i t y , Nev., 1963. ED 002 267. Joekel, R. G. An Analysis of Teacher Verbal Behavior Before and A f t e r P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the McRel I n s t r u c t i o n a l Staff Development Program. A p r i l 1974. ED 096 312 (abstract). Johnson, C. E., et a l . Summary of the Georgia Educational Model S p e c i f i c a - tions f o r the Preparation of Elementary Teachers. Georgia Univer- s i t y , Athens, Oct. 1968. ED 025 492. Johnson, Lary. Teacher Released Time i n Minneapolis Elementary Schools, 1971-72. July 1972. ED 084 296 (abstract). Johnson, Mel. Model Program for Teacher Inservice Training Emphasizing the A f f e c t i v e Dimension. I l l i n o i s , 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 C a l i f o r n i a Teacher Develop- ment Project f o r Systems of Indi v i d u a l i z e d I n s t r u c t i o n : I n d i v i d - u a l i z i n g Inservice Education. A p r i l 1972. ED 062 297 (abstract). K a r l i n , Robert. Competency-Based Teacher Education i n 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 I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1968. ED 023 558. Katz, L. G. A P i l o t Study of the Advisory Approach to Inservice Training. Sept. 1973. ED 083 190 (abstract). 190 Katzenmeyer, W. G., et a l . Report on National Coordinated Evaluation of Five Models for Language Arts/Reading Centers. National Council of Teachers of English, Nov. 1971. ED 091 711. K e l l y , Dean. Using an Informal Reading Inventory to Place Children i n I n s t r u c t i o n a l M a t e r i a l s : The Berea, Ohio Inservice Education Experiment. May 1969. ED 032 198. Kennedy, J. J . , et a l . The Effectiveness of Two Interaction Analysis I n s t r u c t i o n a l Modules Within an Inservice Setting. Tennessee U n i v e r s i t y , March 1969. ED 030 600. Kerber, J . E. The Tasks of Teaching Reading. 1975. ED 103 828. K i l p a t r i c k , Gordon. Inservice Education with Recommendations Concerning i t s Implementation i n American Junior Colleges. C a l i f o r n i a , Aug. 1967. ED 020 721. Kimple, James, et a l . Curriculum Change Through Organizational Change: A Human Relations Training Program. 1970. ED 037 385. Knox, A. B. Inservice Education i n Adult Basic Education. F l o r i d a State U n i v e r s i t y , Tallahassee, Oct. 1971. ED 079 587 (abstract). Kotcher, E l a i n e , and R. R. Doremus. Increasing P o s i t i v e Interactive Classroom Behavior. New York, 1972. ED 080 421 (abstract). Langer, P h i l i p , and G. E. A l l e n . The MiniCourse as a Tool for Training Teachers i n 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. A p r i l 1969. ED 050 043 (abstract). LeBaron, Walt. A Systems Approach to the Organization of Teacher Training Experiences. C a l i f o r n i a , Feb. 1969. ED 035 587. Leonard, C. B., and F. J . Gies. Evaluation of Francis Howell R-III School D i s t r i c t T i t l e I I I , 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. I l l i n o i s , July 1969. ED 033 109 (abstract). L i t t r e l l , J . H. "English Teachers' Attitudes Toward Preparation i n Read- ing," 0. M. Haugh's Teaching the Teacher of English, Conference, 1968. ED 071 101. Lunetta, V. N. Computer i n the Classroom: A Computer-Based Unit i n Teacher Education. March 1975. ED 105 878 (abstract). 191 McCracken, R. A. Supervision of Reading Ins t r u c t i o n i n 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 i t Reaches the Classroom. International Reading Association, Conference Paper, May 1974. ED 095 478 (abstract). Maddox, Kathryn. In West V i r g i n i a , It Is Working. One Teacher Education Center i n Action. 1972. ED 086 679 (abstract). Maddox, Kathryn, et a l . New Dimensions i n Teacher Education Inservice. Charleston, West V i r g i n i a , 1970. ED 053 094 (abstract). Mahaffey, J. P., et a l . General Improvement of Reading, Grades 1-12. 1967. ED 019 190. Manning, J . C. "Continuing Professional Experiences i n Reading," from J. S. Nemeth's Reading RX: Better Teachers, Better Supervisors, Better Programs, Newark, Delaware, International Reading Associa- t i o n , 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 D i s a b i l i t y 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 i n Nursing Homes. C a l i f o r n i a U n i v e r s i t y , Los Angeles. ED 078 272. Means, Don. Developing a F l e x i b l e Curriculum. Inservice Evaluation Report. Pennsylvania, Oct. 1971. ED 069 603 (abstract). Melching, W. H., et a l . Introducing Innovation i n Instruction: Inservice Teacher Workshops i n Classroom Management. Alexandria, Va., 1970. ED 048 098 (abstract). Microteaching and the MiniCourse. A Manual f o r Planning and Implementa- t i o n . ED 045 552 (abstract). Minturn, S t e l l a . Inservice Training Emphasis. International Reading Association Paper, A p r i l 1971. ED 055 728. 192 Model f o r 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 i n Metropolitan Areas. Connecticut U n i v e r s i t y , Oct. 1968. ED 026 290. Model Programs: Childhood Education. Washington, D.C, U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1970. ED 045 599 (ab s t r a c t ) . Mohr, Paul. Current Research and Development E f f o r t s i n Inservice T r a i n - ing and Curriculum Planning for Teacher Education. 1971. ED 083 148. Monahan, W. C , and H. E. M i l l e r . Planning and Developing Inservice Education. Iowa University^ 1970. ED 045 611. Mullen, T. P. Simulation, Role Playing, and Games i n Pre-Service and Inservice Education. Feb. 1975. ED 103 806. Myers, C. B. S o c i a l Studies Innovations 1968-1969 (Speedier P r o j e c t ) . Palmyra, Pa., 1969. ED 040 899. Mynhier, Betsy. The Impact of Federal Programs on Learning to Read i n 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 C i t y 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: V i t a l to Career Education Delivery. Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , Columbus, Dec. 1972. ED 073 264. A Nuclear Design f o r Teacher Education. U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, Lacrosse, Nov. 1971. ED 073 113 (abstract). O'Hanlon, James. Inservice Education i n Small Schools. Nebraska, 1967. ED 013 167. O'Hanlon, J . 0., and L. A. Witters. "Breakthrough," Inservice Education for A l l Schools. Nebraska State Department of Education, Sept. 1967. ED 015 147. Ohio Right to Read Materi a l s . 1974. ED 108 109 (abstract). Organizing Centers f o r Inservice Education i n I n d i v i d u a l i z i n g I n s t r u c t i o n and Learning. Washington, D.C, Dec. 1967. ED 027 236. 1 9 3 O w e n s , T . R . , a n d P e t e r K n e e d l e r . E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e E f f e c t s o f t h e E a g e r t o L e a r n T e a c h e r I n s e r v i c e T e l e v i s i o n S e r i e s . M a r c h 1 9 7 3 . E D 0 7 4 7 5 7 ( a b s t r a c t ) . P a r s o n s , J . W . , a n d F . F . F u l l e r . C o n c e r n s o f T e a c h e r s : R e c e n t R e s e a r c h o n T w o A s s e s s m e n t I n s t r u m e n t s . U n i v e r s i t y o f T e x a s , 1 9 7 4 . E D 0 9 3 9 8 7 . P a r s o n s , T . W . D e v e l o p i n g a T e a c h e r C e n t e r . O c t . 1 9 7 2 . E D 0 8 6 6 7 3 ( a b s t r a c t ) . . G u i d e d S e l f - A n a l y s i s P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t S y s t e m s . 1 9 7 1 . E D 0 5 2 1 5 1 ( a b s t r a c t ) . P a s c h , M a r v i n . P r o g r a m m a t i c D e v e l o p m e n t o f I n s e r v i c e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C , S e p t . 1 9 7 4 . E D 0 9 6 2 4 3 . P e c k , R . H . T h e U t i l i z a t i o n o f S i m u l a t i o n i n T e a c h e r P r e p a r a t i o n . S e p t . 1 9 7 1 . E D 0 8 1 7 6 3 ( a b s t r a c t ) . P e e l e r , T . H . , a n d J . R . S h a p i r o . A F o c u s o n t h e C o o p e r a t i v e R e o r g a n i z a - t i o n o f P r e s e r v i c e a n d I n s e r v i c e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s . 1 9 7 1 . E D 0 8 1 7 6 4 . P e t e r s o n , B e r n a r d , a n d B e r n a r d S c h e p e r s . R e a d i n g H a n d b o o k f o r S e c o n d a r y C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r s . M i n n e s o t a , 1 9 6 6 . E D 0 1 4 3 9 8 . P i l o t P r o g r a m : S a n F r a n c i s c o C e n t e r f o r A d v a n c e d T e a c h e r D e v e l o p m e n t . N o v . 1 9 7 3 . E D 0 8 5 3 8 6 ( a b s t r a c t ) . T h e P l a n n i n g o f I n s e r v i c e W o r k s h o p s : A S e m i n a r . A t l a n t a , G e o r g i a , F e b . 1 9 7 1 . E D 0 5 8 5 3 9 . P o l i a k o f f , L . S t r u c t u r e d P r a c t i c e i n T e a c h i n g : A B i b l i o g r a p h y o f E R I C D o c u m e n t s . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C , 1 9 7 1 . E D 0 4 8 1 2 3 . P o l i a k o f f , L o r r a i n e . T e a c h e r C e n t e r s : A n O u t l i n e o f C u r r e n t I n f o r m a t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , 1 9 7 2 . E D 0 6 2 3 0 2 ( a b s t r a c t ) . P o p h a m , W . J . A p p l i c a t i o n o f T e a c h i n g P e r f o r m a n c e T e s t s t o I n s e r v i c e a n d P r e s e r v i c e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c - i a t i o n , P a p e r , 1 9 7 3 . E D 0 7 7 9 7 2 . P r e s e r v i c e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n i n C a n a d a . O t t a w a , C a n a d i a n T e a c h e r s F e d e r - a t i o n , J u n e 1 9 6 9 . E D 0 3 4 7 2 6 . P r i c h a r d , P . N . T h e T r a i n i n g o f E d u c a t i o n a l P e r s o n n e l f o r C r e a t i v e T e a c h i n g . C h a p e l H i l l C i t y , N o r t h C a r o l i n a , 1 9 7 0 . E D 0 4 4 3 5 7 . P r o f e s s i o n a l G r o w t h I n s e r v i c e o f t h e S u p e r v i s i n g T e a c h e r . F o r t y - f i f t h Y e a r b o o k , A s s o c . f o r S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g , 1 9 6 6 . E D 0 2 9 8 3 0 . P r o j e c t G I S T . O h i o , 1 9 7 3 . E D 0 8 6 6 7 0 ( a b s t r a c t ) . 194 Quirk, T. J . , et a l . 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 f o r Reading Ins t r u c t i o n . June 1973b. ED 113 394. Rafferty, P. T. Reading C e r t i f i c a t i o n : The Elementary Teacher, English Teacher, and Reading S p e c i a l i s t . A p r i l 1975. ED 103 837. Rauch, S. J . Reading i n the T o t a l 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 i n 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 (ab s t r a c t ) . Report of the T r i p l e I Project. An Ind i v i d u a l i z e d Inservice Teacher Educa- t i o n Program. Indianopolis, Feb. 1972. ED 059 162 (abstract). Restructuring Teacher Education. A Report of the Rationale, Objectives, and A c t i v i t i e s of the Houston Teacher Center, 1970-1973. Aug. 1973. ED 085 334 (abstract). Revells, M. A. I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n and the Open Classroom. Ontario, May 1974. ED 094 315. R i t z , W. C , et a l . How to Conduct a Workshop. Syracuse, New York, 1970. ED 065 486. Robbins, E. L. Tutors Handbook. 1973. ED 075 778. Roberson, E. W. E f f e c t s of Teacher Inservice on Instruction and Learning. Tucson, A r i z . , 1969. ED 037 383. Roberts, D. E. A Modest Proposal—1972 E d i t i o n . International Reading Association, Conference Paper, May 1972. ED 063 078. Rosner, Benjamin. The B r i t i s h Teacher Center: A Report on Its Develop- ment, Current Operations, E f f e c t s and A p p l i c a b i l i t y to Teacher Education i n the U.S. Nov. 1972. ED 090 165 (abstract). Ross, Marlene. School-College Collaboration i n Preparing School Personnel: A Guide to Selected Documents i n the ERIC C o l l e c t i o n , 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 L i t e r - ary Teaching Model, Project DELTA. Univ e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley, 1972. ED 085 652. Russe l l , D. Inservice Programs i n Reading. Highlights of the 1967 Pre- Convention I n s t i t u t e s , International Reading Association, 1967. ED 071 062. RX P r e s c r i p t i o n f o r Teacher Preparation i n Reading Instruction. Washing- ton, D.C., O f f i c e of Education, A p r i l 1975. ED 109 597. Sanders, J . E. Preparing Educators i n an Inservice Program i n Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . Merrimack, Mass., March 1973. ED 075 967. Saturation Reading Program. Phoenix, A r i z . , 1967. ED 016 016. Schankerman, Maurice. Inservice Education: A Study of the P a r t i c i p a t i o n Patterns of a Selected Group of Elementary School Teachers. Indiana Un i v e r s i t y , Bloomington, 1968. D i s s e r t a t i o n . ED 034 118 (abstract). Schiffman, G. B. A Pattern f o r Improving the E f f e c t of Reading Personnel. 1969. ED 037 332 (abstract). Schult, V e r y l , and T. L. S h e l l . Inservice Mathematics Education. Washington, D.C., 1964. ED 001 306. Seagren, A. T. Design for E f f e c t i v e Staff Development. Kansas C i t y , Missouri, 1974. ED 088 811. Selden, David, and David Darland. Teacher Centers: Who's i n Charge? 1972. ED 086 674 (abstract). Shearron, G. F. Inservice/Needs Assessment/Competency Based Teacher Education. March 1974. ED 091 331 (abst r a c t ) . Shepherd, Terry, and Nancy Quisenberry. Project Follow-up: A Model for Developing Professional Competencies i n F i r s t Year Teachers. Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. ED 083 207 (abstract). S h i r l e y , D. D. Kansas Right-to-Read Program Evaluation, Summer Workshop, 1974. Sept. 1974. ED 096 629 (abstract). S h i r l e y , J . M. S i t u a t i o n a l 'Givens' and Graduate and Inservice Teacher Education. 1974. ED 101 367. 196 Shorey, L. L. Some Factors A f f e c t i n g the Personal and P r o f e s s i o n a l Growth of Teachers. Windsor, Ontario, Feb. 1970. ED 036 769 (abstract). S i k u l a , J . P. Teacher Education for an Urban Setting. Educational Com- ment, 1973. 1973. ED 087 712 (abstract). Singleton, Roy, J r . I n s t r u c t i o n a l Packaging: The E f f i c a c y and U t i l i t y of the Learning Module as a Major Vehicle i n Competency Based Teacher Education Programs i n Reading and Language Arts at the U n i v e r s i t y of North F l o r i d a . 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 i n Changing T r a d i t i o n a l In- service Training Procedures. Nov. 1971. ED 083 146. Stander, A. C. Assessing Teachers' Needs, A F i r s t Step i n Planning CBTE (Competency Based Teacher Education). March 1975. ED 103 886. Steen, M. T., and Dewey Lipe. The Use of the Teacher Observation Scale i n 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. S t i c h t , T. G. The A c q u i s i t i o n of L i t e r a c y by Children and Adults. Paper from Second Delaware Symposium on Curriculum, Instruction and Learning: The A c q u i s i t i o n of Reading, Uni v e r s i t y 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 U n i v e r s i t y , Columbus, Aug. 1967. ED 017 596. Suiter, P. E., and Bernard Queen. Rationale, Development, and V a l i d a t i o n of a Series of S e l f - I n s t r u c t i o n a l Modules i n Interaction Analysis. May 1970. ED 041 867 (abstract). Suloway, I. J . , and M. Shugrue. Promising Practices i n the Teaching of English—1963. National Council of Teachers of English, 1963. ED 058 180. Summary of the S p e c i f i c a t i o n for a Comprehensive Undergraduate and In- service Teacher Education Program for Elementary Teachers. Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y , New York, Oct. 1968. ED 035 594. 1 9 7 S w e e n e y , T . J . A D e v e l o p m e n t a l P r o g r a m f o r V o c a t i o n a l C o u n s e l o r s D i r e c t e d T o w a r d S e r v i n g D i s a d v a n t a g e d Y o u t h M o r e E f f e c t i v e l y . U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h C a r o l i n a , 1 9 6 6 . E D 0 1 0 0 7 4 . S y r o p o u l o s , M i k e . E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e F e d e r a l l y A s s i s t e d S t a f f T r a i n i n g ( F A S T ) P r o j e c t . D e t r o i t , O c t . 1 9 7 2 . E D 0 7 7 8 4 9 ( a b s t r a c t ) . A S y s t e m a t i c A p p r o a c h t o I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g f o r T e a c h e r s i n L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . M e r r i m a c k , M a s s . , N o v . 1 9 7 1 . E D 0 5 8 1 6 1 . T a m m i n e n , A . W. A n I n s t i t u t e f o r t h e T r a i n i n g o f P a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e E S / 7 0 P r o j e c t s . M i n n e s o t a , A p r i l 1 9 7 0 . E D 0 4 2 7 3 8 ( a b s t r a c t ) . T a n n e r , J . R . , a n d G . W. D e n e m a r k . T h e F o c u s o f t h e T e a c h e r C e n t e r i n a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e n e w a l S i t e . F e b . 1 9 7 2 . E D 0 8 6 6 7 5 ( a b s t r a c t ) . T a y l o r , S . S . , a n d I . R . J a h n s . T h e E f f e c t s o f M i c r o t r a i n i n g f o r A t t e n d - i n g B e h a v i o r s i n A d u l t T e s t i n g . E D 0 9 4 1 0 8 ( a b s t r a c t ) . T h e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n C e n t e r : A U n i f y i n g A p p r o a c h t o T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . M a r y l a n d U n i v e r s i t y . E D 0 7 3 0 7 2 . T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n L e a r n i n g C e n t e r s . N o v . 1 9 7 4 . E D 0 9 7 2 1 2 ( a b s t r a c t ) . T e a c h e r T r a i n i n g i n C a l i f o r n i a . N o v . 1 9 7 4 . E D 1 0 6 2 8 8 ( a b s t r a c t ) . T e a c h i n g I n n o v a t i o n s i n S c h o o l s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f A m e r i c a . I n s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n a n d S t a f f U t i l i z a t i o n . C l e v e l a n d , 1 9 7 1 . E D 0 5 7 4 6 8 . T e i t e l b a u m , D e e n a . A n E v a l u a t i o n o f a n E x p e r i m e n t a l P r o g r a m o f A s s i s t a n c e f o r N e w l y A p p o i n t e d T e a c h e r s i n S p e c i a l S e r v i c e E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l s . N e w Y o r k , J u n e 1 9 6 1 . E D 0 0 2 3 4 4 . T e x a s A d u l t B a s i c E d u c a t i o n P r o d u c t i o n W o r k s h o p . A u s t i n , J u n e 1 9 6 8 . E D 0 3 0 8 3 0 . T h e i m e r , W. C , J r . U t i l i z a t i o n o f C o n s u l t a n t s i n I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g . A p r i l 1 9 7 2 . E D 0 6 8 4 3 6 ( a b s t r a c t ) . T h o m p s o n , J . L . , a n d N . C . J o h n s o n . I n s e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n : N e w D i r e c t i o n s f o r C o l l e g e s o f E d u c a t i o n . 1 9 7 5 . E D 1 0 9 0 8 8 ( a b s t r a c t ) . A T h r e e - P a r t , F l e x i b l e , I n d i v i d u a l i z e d T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m . M i n n e s o t a , N o v . 1 9 7 3 . E D 0 8 5 3 5 9 ( a b s t r a c t ) . T h u r b e r , J . C . I n d i v i d u a l i z e d I n s e r v i c e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n ( P r o j e c t I n - S t e p ) . F l o r i d a , D e c . 1 9 7 1 . E D 0 5 9 1 6 1 . T r a i n i n g P r o g r a m f o r T e a c h e r s i n t h e T e c h n o l o g i e s . F i n a l R e p o r t f o r F i s c a l Y e a r 1971-1972. J u n e 1972. E D 067 494 ( a b s t r a c t ) . 198 T r e f f i n g e r , D. J . , et a l . Teachers' Attitudes About C r e a t i v i t y . 1967. ED 013 803. Trosky, 0. S. Modifications i n Teachers' Questioning Behavior i n the Development of Reading Comprehension and a Series of Supervisory Conferences. Toronto, A p r i l 1971. ED 051 982. Urbach, F. D., et a l . I n s t r u c t i o n a l Staff Development. July 1972. ED 077 853 (abstract). The Usefulness of Minicourse I i n the Inservice Training of Elementary Teachers. State U n i v e r s i t y of New York, 1972. ED 072 006. Van F l e e t , Alanson. F l o r i d a ' s Teacher Education Centers: A New State P o l i c y f o r Teacher Education. May 1975. ED 106 267 (abstract). V i a l l , W. P., et a l . 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 I n s t r u c t i o n Through Inservice Education. ED 102 129 (abstract). Ward, Ted, and S. J . Levine. Y o u r s — F o r a Better Workshop! Oct. 1971. ED 085 974 (abstract). Werner, E. R., et a l . The Minicourse as a Method for Training Teachers to Stimulate Divergent Thinking. 1972. ED 064 340 (abstract). Westby-Gibson, Dorothy. Inservice Education—Perspectives f or Education. Far West Laboratory, 1967. ED 015 161. White, M. A., et a l . A Study of Contrasting Patterns i n Inservice Educa- t i o n . Texas U n i v e r s i t y , Austin, 1967. ED 021 807. Williams, R. P. Expanding Practices i n Secondary Reading Inservice Pro- grams. International Reading Association, Conference Paper, A p r i l 1968. ED 026 201 (abstract). . The F i n a l Report of the I n s t i t u t e f o r Advanced Study i n Reading for Teams of P r i n c i p a l s and Teachers, Grades 7-12, Conducted at New Mexico State U n i v e r s i t y. Oct. 1967. ED 020 074. Williams, R. T., and M. A. Kaman. A Model f o r the Development of a Reading and Study S k i l l s Inventory for Every Content Area. 1975. ED 108 115 (abstract). Wilson, U., et a l . A Guide for Conducting a Teacher Self-Improvement Program. June 1972. ED 079 259 (abstract). Winsand, J . E. A T r i - U n i v e r - C i t y Project for Teachers i n Inner-City Schools. A p r i l 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 i n Biology Classes Engaged i n Inquiry Learning. D e t r o i t , March 1973. ED 089 942 (abstract). Wright, W. R. The Wabash Val l e y Education Center, F i n a l Report. Indiana, 1970. ED 059 146 (abstract). Yarger, S . J . A Tool f o r the Analysis of Teacher Centers i n American Education—A Working Paper. 1973. ED 086 676 (abstract). Z i t o , Alan, and Bernard Gross. A Procedure for Development of Competency- Based Performance Statements and Module Development f o r Use with Inservice and Preservice Education. Rochester, New York, 1972. ED 084 255 (ab s t r a c t ) . The 1970-71 Revision of the Five-Year Master Plan f o r Inservice Teacher Education. F l o r i d a , June 1970. ED 079 262. Diss e r t a t i o n s Adams, H. B. A Model of Inservice Education. Wayne State U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. Adams, R. J . B u i l d i n g a Foundation f o r Evaluation of Ins t r u c t i o n i n Higher Education and Continuing Education. Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. Ainsworth, B. A. Stated Perceptions of Teachers Regarding Inservice Programs. U n i v e r s i t y of Maryland, 1974. A l l e n , B. B. An Inservice Education Model and E f f e c t s of Implementation on Teacher Perception of Students. Brigham Young Un i v e r s i t y , 1974. Almase, A. G. M o d i f i c a t i o n of Teacher Behavior Through an Inservice Biology Methods Course. Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. Anderson, G. R. A Study of Inservice Education i n the Public Secondary Schools of Texas. North Texas State U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. Angius, Dushan. The Appropriateness of Selected Inservice Education Prac- t i c e s as Perceived by Secondary School Educators. U n i v e r s i t y of the P a c i f i c , 1974. Apple, E. T. A Study of the Effectiveness of Workshops for Vocational Teachers of Disadvantaged High School Students i n Oklahoma. Oklahoma State U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. Archer, D. E. An Inservice Training Program for Teachers on Dr. Rudolf Dreikurs's Approach to D i s c i p l i n e : A Case Study. U n i v e r s i t y of Massachusetts, 1975. 200 Arnold, J. A. The Design and Evaluation of an Individualized Inservice Program f o r Elementary Teachers. U n i v e r s i t y of Pittsburgh, 1973. Ashley, J . P. A Study of the Impact of an Inservice Education Program on Teacher Behavior. U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, 1967. Atkins, J . P. Inservice Experiences f o r Secondary S o c i a l Studies Teachers i n Selected Public Schools i n Tennessee. U n i v e r s i t y of Tennessee, 1968. Auer, N. B. Miniteaching Unit: The Development of an Inservice Program for I n d i v i d u a l i z i n g Reading Instruction. U n i v e r s i t y 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 i n Texas. Un i v e r s i t y of Houston, 1975. Bean, R. M. An Inservice Program Designed to Change Teacher Questioning Behavior During the Teaching of Reading Comprehension. U n i v e r s i t y of Pittsburgh, 1974. Beck, W. W. A Study of Models f o r Inservice Education: An Analysis of a "Growth" Workshop as Applied to the Inservice Education of Secondary S o c i a l Studies Teachers. Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. Berck, L. F. The Relative Effectiveness of Two Methods of Inservice Education i n Reading. Hofstra U n i v e r s i t y , 1971. Bigelow, E. B. A Survey, Analysis, and Proposed Program of Inservice Education i n Selected School D i s t r i c t s i n Six Midwestern States. U n i v e r s i t y of South Dakota, 1969. Bonorden, H. J . An Analysis of Inservice Education i n the Public Schools of Texas as Related to the Ten Days of Inservice Education Law as Enacted by the S i x t y - f i r s t L e g i s l a t u r e . Texas A & M U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. Borgealt, A. J . Teacher Perceptions of Inservice A c t i v i t i e s : An Exploratory Study. U n i v e r s i t y of Iowa, 1969. Brown, L. H. A Study of a Process of Inservice Education for Teachers of English with Reference to Chicago School C r i t i c i s m and the Tyler C u r r i c u l a r Rationale. State U n i v e r s i t y of New York at Albany, 1972. Bushman, J . H. Studies i n Classroom Interaction as They Relate to the Preparation and Continuing Education of Teachers of English. U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s at Urbana, Champaign, 1971. Campbell, D. C. An Inservice Program for Personalizing Teaching i n Secondary Schools. U n i v e r s i t y of Massachusetts, 1974. 201 C a r s e t t i , J . K. A Demonstration of the Effectiveness of an Evaluation of an Inservice Program i n Terms of Changes i n Teacher Behavior. U n i v e r s i t y 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 F a l l 1969 Through the Academic Year 1971-72. Uni v e r s i t y of Texas at Austin, 1972. Chapman, S. J . Inservice Education Programs for Teachers i n the Winnipeg School D i v i s i o n #1. A Survey of P o l i c i e s , Practices and Opinions. Un i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, 1967. (M.Ed.) C i a g l i a , E. R. The E f f e c t s of an I n s t r u c t i o n a l Behavior and S k i l l s Development Program Upon Inservice Teacher Behavior. U n i v e r s i t y of Missouri, Columbia, 1973. Dahl, T. C. Attitudes of Ontario Secondary School Teachers Towards Teaching of Reading i n Ontario Secondary Schools. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970. (M.A.) Dexter, B. L. Simovation: E x p e r i e n t i a l Teacher Education Workshops. Duke Un i v e r s i t y , 1975. Durkin, J. E. "Mini-Sabbatical": An A l t e r n a t i v e Model of Staff Develop- ment for Urban Schools. University of Massachusetts, 1975. Dutro, R. F. The E f f e c t of Inservice Education of Teachers on Student Achievement Scores While Using Three Approaches to Teaching Read- ing. Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. Edwards, Peter. A Computer Generated Corpus and L e x i c a l Analysis of English Language I n s t r u c t i o n a l Materials Prescribed f or Use i n Grades 8, 9 and 10 i n B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary Schools. Uni- v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974. Edwards, P. K. D. Teachers' Perceptions of Present P r a c t i c e s , Process- Needs, A l t e r n a t i v e Delivery Systems and P r i o r i t y of Inservice Education. U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1975. E l l i s , B. J. A Study of Inservice Education Programs i n the New Hampshire Public Schools. Boston U n i v e r s i t y , School of Education, 1975. E l l i s , G. B. Determination and Testing of a Needs Assessment Technique for Harvesting the Educational Needs of Professionals. U n i v e r s i t y of Utah, 1974. Fahy, P. J . A Survey of Reading Ins t r u c t i o n i n the Senior High Schools of Alberta. U n i v e r s i t y of Alberta, 1972. (M.A.) Feinberg, M. W. An Analysis of Guidelines f o r Inservice Teacher Education Practices i n Selected Schools—Grades 5-9. Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. 202 F i r t h , J . L. An Investigation of the E f f e c t i v e n s s of the Bessell-Palomares Inservice Training Program on Teacher A t t i t u d e s . Arizona State Uni- v e r s i t y , 1974. Forte, M. C. A Comparative Analysis of Pupil-Teacher Interaction During Episodes of Reading Instruction. Hofstra U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. F r a z i e r , J . G. E f f e c t s of a Systematic Inservice Training Model on the Teaching Performance and S k i l l s of a Group of F i r s t Grade Teachers. Wayne State U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. Gabbard, L . J . A Description of the Processes and A c t i v i t i e s -and the A p p l i c a t i o n of an Evaluation Model to a Continuing Inservice Project f o r Curriculum Renewal. Indiana Un i v e r s i t y , 1973. Gibson, E. H. The C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Secondary School English Teachers i n the State of Colorado for the Years 1968-1970, i n the Areas of Preparation, Working Conditions and Inservice Conditions. U n i v e r s i t y of Northern Colorado, 1971. Goodson, R. A. The Development of Three Instruments to Aid i n the Analysis of Teacher P r a c t i c e s , Problems and Theoretical B e l i e f s Concerning the Teaching of Reading i n the Later Elementary Grades. Columbia Un i v e r s i t y , 1965. Green, G. T. The E f f e c t s of an Inservice Education Program on the S k i l l s and Attitudes of Elementary and Secondary School Personnel. U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1974. Green, P. F. A Participant-Observer Evaluation of an Inservice Teacher Workshop. Un i v e r s i t y of Massachusetts, 1970. G r e l l a , M. A. An Investigation into Inservice Education i n Reading i n the Public Elementary Schools of West V i r g i n i a . West V i r g i n i a Univer- s i t y , 1974. Gygi, Carole. Development of a Teacher Rating Instrument: Methodological Implications. Portland State U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. Hargrave, D. M. A Needs Assessment i n Secondary English. Arizona State U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. Hargrove, G. W. An Investigation of Attitudes of Secondary Teachers Toward Reading i n the Content Areas as Measured by a Modified Likert-Type Scale. U n i v e r s i t y of South Carolina, 1973. Hatch, J . C. T e l e v i s i o n Performance Effectiveness: A Study of Related Variables and the E f f e c t s of Inservice Training and Evaluative Feedback. U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin,' 1968. Hebert, Adlar. A Study of the Preservice and Inservice Education of E l e - mentary School Teachers i n the Teaching of Reading and Their S p e c i f i c Needs and Problems i n Teaching Reading. McNeese State U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. 203 Heeney, W. C. A Study of the E f f e c t of Inservice Training Upon Academic, Vocational, and Spec/Lai Education Teachers' Performance i n I n d i v i d - u a l i z a t i o n of I nstruction. U n i v e r s i t y of Texas at Austin, 1973. Hennessey, L. F. The Gloucester Plan of Inservice Training. U n i v e r s i t y of Ottawa, 1952. Houston, A. V. The E f f e c t s of Inservice Education i n Interaction Analysis on Teacher Classroom Behavior with an Emphasis on Self-Improvement. Un i v e r s i t y of Texas at Austin, 1974. Hrivnak, J . T. The Use of Interaction and Feedback i n an Inservice Education Model. Uni v e r s i t y of Pittsburgh, 1970. ED 050 036. Hunter, G. W. P r o f e s s i o n a l Growth-In-Service of the Teachers i n the Public Schools of the C i t y of Vancouver. Uni v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1938. (M.A.) Huseth, D. H. A D e s c r i p t i v e Analysis of an Inservice Counselor Training Program for M i n i s t e r s . U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon, 1973. Hutchinson, E. J . A Study of Reading Ins t r u c t i o n i n Wisconsin Public Secondary Schools i n 1955 and 1960 with Special Reference to the Teachers of English. U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, 1961. Hyslop, D. J . A Study of Inservice Education at Selected C a l i f o r n i a Com- munity Colleges i n Relation to I n s t i t u t i o n a l Needs and Posture. Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. Iverson, M. R. E f f e c t s of Inservice Training on Teachers' Perceptions Toward Dia g n o s t i c - P r e s c r i p t i v e Reading In s t r u c t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of Utah, 1974. J a f f a , N. N. An Evaluation of the Planning Aspect of the Inservice Teacher Education Program of the Elementary D i v i s i o n of the Baltimore C i t y Department of Education. Un i v e r s i t y of Maryland, 1957. James, J. H. Evaluation of a Junior High School Inservice Program Designed to Help Teachers Provide for P u p i l s ' Individual Differences i n Reading A b i l i t i e s . U n i v e r s i t y of Miami, 1969. Jaquith, C. E. An Analysis of Perceptions of Junior High/Middle School Teachers, P r i n c i p a l s , and U n i v e r s i t y S p e c i a l i s t s Concerning Inservice Education. Un i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1973. Jenkins, J . A. The Teaching of Reading by English Teachers i n Indiana Public Schools. U n i v e r s i t y of Tennessee, 1972. Jones, R. M., J r . The E f f e c t of Inservice Training on the Performance and Attitudes of Inner-City Teachers. Un i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1972. Kaz , S. E. An Analysis of Teacher Inservice Education i n an Urban School System. Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1971. 204 Kel i h e r , E. C. A Survey of Inservice Education Pra c t i c e s i n Southeastern Michigan. Wayne State U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. K e l l y , H. D. E f f e c t s of an Inservice Education Program U t i l i z i n g Simulated Classroom Procedures on Classroom Teachers' Awareness of P u p i l s ' I n s t r u c t i o n a l Reading Levels i n the Classroom. Case Western Reserve U n i v e r s i t y , 1967. Kennedy, G. W. An Inservice Program Designed to Improve the Teaching of Reading Study S k i l l s . U n i v e r s i t y of Pittsburgh, 1972. Kerns, H. V. A Des c r i p t i v e Study of the Development and Presentation of an In-School T e l e v i s i o n Program for the Inservice Education of Junior High School Science Teachers. Auburn Un i v e r s i t y , 1962. Kies, D. A. Curriculum Changes i n the Preparation of Reading Teachers. U n i v e r s i t y of Arizona, 1970. Kinzer, C. K. A Status Survey of Reading Programs i n B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary Schools: 1976. Uni v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976. (M.A.) Ki t e l e y , J . W. A Survey of Reading Ins t r u c t i o n i n Nine Burnaby Schools with Recommendations to the Burnaby School Board. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. Major Paper (M.Ed.) Kochan, J . M. A Study i n the P r e d i c t i o n of Teaching E f f i c i e n c y . Univer- s i t y of Manitoba, 1957. (M.Ed.) Larson, 0. P. A Study of Inservice Education i n the School D i v i s i o n s and Counties of Al b e r t a . U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon, 1962. Light, J . D. A Model f o r the Formative Evaluation of Teacher Inservice Education Programs. B a l l State U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. L i s t e r , R. L. A Study of Certain Factors Which Contribute to Good Inser- v i c e Education Programmes for Elementary Teachers. U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , 1970. (M.A.) Lloyd, D. M. The E f f e c t s of a Staff Development Inservice Program on Teacher Performance and Student Achievement. Uni v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Los Angeles, 1973. McGuire, E. E. Development of an Inservice Workshop Model to E f f e c t Change i n Teacher Behavior and Atti t u d e s . U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, 1971. McKay, J . W. A Summary of S c i e n t i f i c Research and Professional L i t e r a t u r e on Reading Interests of Secondary School Students—Grades 7-12, 1889- 1965. U n i v e r s i t y of Pittsburgh, 1968. 205 McNamara, M. V. D. The E f f e c t s of Inservice Reading Demonstrations Upon Student Reading Achievement Scores i n Selected T i t l e I Schools. Loyola U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, 1975. Magnus, A. M. K. Evaluation of Inservice Training f o r School D i s t r i c t Personnel: Development and Implementation of an Evaluation Proce- dure with Reference to the I n s t r u c t i o n a l Development I n s t i t u t e . U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1974. Margules, M. A Comparison of Supervisors' Ratings of Most E f f e c t i v e and Least E f f e c t i v e I.A. Teachers on Three Competency Dimensions. U n i v e r s i t y of Ottawa, 1968. Mark, J . L. Training and U t i l i z a t i o n of Paraprofessionals: A Study of the Nation's Public School Systems E n r o l l i n g 5,000 or More Pu p i l s . U n i v e r s i t y of Massachusetts, 1975. Mason, W. E. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Inner-City Inservice Training Variables Most S i g n i f i c a n t i n M o d i f i c a t i o n of Authoritarian Teacher Atti t u d e s . Saint Louis U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. Massey, R. M. The A p p l i c a t i o n of a Systems Model of I n s t r u c t i o n a l Design to the Development of Inservice Training Materials f or Professional Educators. F l o r i d a State U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. Matthews, S i s t e r M. A. A Design f o r Inservice Programs for the Twenty- four High Schools i n New Jersey Administered by the S i s t e r s of Charity. Columbia Un i v e r s i t y , 1973. Maudlin, R. M. A Des c r i p t i v e Analysis of a Series of Inservice Meetings Based Upon a Curriculum Evaluation. B a l l State U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. Means, H. J . Analysis of the Content, Proportion of Time Spent on Con- tent, and Course Structure of Secondary English Methods Courses i n Iowa. Un i v e r s i t y of Iowa, 1974. Melvin, J . E. Developing and F i e l d - T e s t i n g Modular Materials i n the Area of Reading for Use With Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s . U n i v e r s i t y of Georgia, 1975. Merryman, D. P. A Case Study of Individualized Inservice Training of Teachers i n Educational Media. Temple Un i v e r s i t y , 1973. M i l l e r , J . P. The E f f e c t s of Inservice Human Relations Training on Teacher Interpersonal Functioning. U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1971. Moon, H. H., J r . Middle School Teacher Development: A Continuous Education Model. Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. Neale, J . L. An Examination of an Inservice Course to E f f e c t Change i n Teachers' Attitudes Toward Teaching A r t : A Study Conducted i n Economically Poor Areas of Chicago. New York Un i v e r s i t y , 1973. 206 Newhouse, W. J. A Simultation Inservice Model Program for Elementary Teachers of the New S o c i a l Studies. Ohio U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. Norman, B. L. C. Comparing F i r s t Year Teaching of Former Undergraduate Interns and Former Student Teachers as Determined by P u p i l Reading Achievement Gains. University of Houston, 1973. Owen, A. R. Teacher Preparation and Student Course A v a i l a b i l i t y i n Texas Junior High School Reading Programs. Texas A & M U n i v e r s i t y , 1970. Pane, I. F. A Survey to Determine the Need f o r Specialized Preservice and Inservice Programs for Junior High/Middle School Teachers i n the State of Nebraska. Un i v e r s i t y of Nebraska, L i n c o l n , 1973. Paulausky, E. E. An Evaluation of the Workshop as a Learning and Motiva- t i o n a l Experience for Adults. Loyola Un i v e r s i t y of Chicago, 1973. Pennington, F. C. Program Development i n Continuing Pr o f e s s i o n a l Educa- t i o n : A Comparative Analysis of Process i n Medicine, S o c i a l Work, and Teaching. Un i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s at Urbana, Champaign, 1976. Piper, M. K. The Development and Evaluation of a Televised Science In- service Program. Uni v e r s i t y of Texas at Austin, 1974. Post, L. M. A Survey 'of the Perceptions of Teachers and Supervisory Staff of Inservice Education and Teacher S k i l l Needs, with Implications for a Model of Inservice Education. Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. Powell, D. R. A Study of the Role of the U n i v e r s i t y i n the Education of Teachers i n Service. Northwestern Un i v e r s i t y , 1974. Reed, D. F. The Development of an Observational System for Classroom Management. Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Teachers College, 1975. R e i c h i r t , D. M. A Case Study of a Workshop Designed to Define, Evaluate, and Develop Teaching Competence i n the Open Classroom. U n i v e r s i t y of Rochester, 1974. Roseborough, R. A. The Communication of Useable Feedback from Tape Record- ings of Classroom Interaction i n a Teacher Inservice T r a i n i n g Pro- gram. A P i l o t Study. U n i v e r s i t y of Alberta, 1968. (M.Ed.) Roy, R. J . Study of the Effectiveness of a Systematically Planned Teacher Inservice Education Program to F a c i l i t a t e Implementation of an Open-Space, Open-Education Junior High School. Wayne State Uni- v e r s i t y , 1975. R u f f i n , Herbert. A Proposed Model for Inservice Training of Inner C i t y Teachers. Un i v e r s i t y of Kansas, 1973. 207 Ruiz, E l i s e o , J r . A Training Component Designed to A f f e c t the Attitudes and Behavior of Educational P r a c t i t i o n e r s Toward Mexican American Students. University of Texas at Austin, 1975. Rush, D. L. Preservice Preparation of Prospective Secondary Teachers of . Reading. B a l l State U n i v e r s i t y , 1970. Sabin, J . E. The Effectiveness of Reading Methods Courses i n Developing Certain Competencies V i t a l to E f f e c t i v e Reading Instruction. B a l l State U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. Sanders, J . H. A Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Analysis of Inservice Education i n a Five State Region. Un i v e r s i t y of Iowa, 1969. Scharles, W. W. Development and Evaluation of an Intensive, Short-term, Inservice Teacher Training Program on Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . The American Un i v e r s i t y , 1971. Schoenholz, B. L. An Analysis of E f f e c t i v e Teaching Behavior as Related to Vocabulary Instruction i n Grades Seven, Eight and Nine. Hofstra U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. Schreiber, F. 0. Inservice Education Preferences of Teachers and Admin- i s t r a t o r s i n the Province of A l b e r t a . U n i v e r s i t y of Montana, 1975. Schumer, A. B. An Educational Change Model: Preservice, Inservice Continuum. U n i v e r s i t y of Massachusetts, 1973. Smith, A. J . Techniques f o r Educating Teachers Inservice. U n i v e r s i t y of Connecticut, 1966. Soloway, M. M. The Development and Evaluation of a Special Education Inservice Training Program for Regular Classroom Teachers. Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Los Angeles, 1974. Sorsabal, D. K. A C r i t i c a l Evaluation of Inservice Training for C l a s s i - f i e d Employees i n Selected Educational Organizations i n the United States. U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 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 U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. Steck, K. D. A Study to Determine the E f f e c t s of Inservice Education on Teachers' B e l i e f s , Attitudes and Values. Un i v e r s i t y of Utah, 1975. Stephens, C. A. Developing and F i e l d - T e s t i n g a Content Area Reading Pro- f i c i e n c y Modular-Based Inservice Program. Uni v e r s i t y of Georgia, 1973. S t o l l , R. H. The Mini-Course as a Supervisory Strategy to Improve Instruc- t i o n . Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. 208 Tetley, D. F. The Relationship of Certain Teacher C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to Pu p i l Achievement i n Reading. Uni v e r s i t y of Alberta, 1964. (M.A.) Thompson, D. E. An Inservice Program Designed to Change Elementary Teacher Attitudes Toward Black D i a l e c t . Western Michigan Un i v e r s i t y , 1973. T i l l e y , H. T. Inservice Teacher Education: A Tool f o r Change. Uni v e r s i t y of Massachusetts, 1971. Timms, A. F. An Analysis of Classroom Teachers' Translations of the Ideas Gained from Inservice Experinces into Classroom Procedures. Un i v e r s i t y of Pittsburgh, 1975. Turner, I. S. A Study of Teachers' Perceptions of an Inservice Program i n Three Southern Maryland Counties. George Washington U n i v e r s i t y , 1970. Uche, W. W. A Study of the Perceptions of Occupational Instructors and Administrators of Inservice Education Programs i n the Technical I n s t i t u t e s and Community Colleges of North Carolina. U n i v e r s i t y of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1973. Usova, G. M. A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Reading Ins t r u c t i o n Among Secondary P r i n c i p a l s , Secondary Reading S p e c i a l i s t s , and Secondary Content Area Teachers i n Secondary Schools i n Pennsylvania and West V i r g i n i a . U n i v e r s i t y of Pittsburgh, 1973. Ward, K. W. An I n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l Approach to Inservice Education for Public School Personnel: The Kent I n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l Workshop, 1971-72. Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. Weipert, L. F. Inservice Education i n the So c i a l Studies. U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado, 1975. Westbury, R. C. P. To Design and F i e l d Test an , Inservice Education/ Curriculum Development Model. F l o r i d a State U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. White, S. M. Examination of Inservice Programs i n New Brunswick. Uni- v e r s i t y of New Brunswick, 1974. (M.A.) Whitworth, R. C. An Appraisal of the Problems Experienced by and the Techniques Used by English Teachers i n Indianapolis, Indiana, Secondary Schools i n Improving Student Reading Tastes. Indiana Un i v e r s i t y , 1964. Williams, D. G. A Comparative Evaluation of Two Humanizing Approaches to Inservice Training of Teachers. North Texas State U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. Williams, F. J . Teacher Continuing Education Program Needs Through Pro- f e s s i o n a l Negotiations. U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska, 1972. 209 Wright, A. W. The Problems of Beginning Elementary Teachers i n Newfound- land Schools and the Relationship of These Problems with Preser- v i c e and Inservice Programs. Uni v e r s i t y 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. Un i v e r s i t y of Pittsburgh, 1973. 210 APPENDIX A Assessing Inservice Needs i n Reading SECTION ONE Please complete the following: 1. Present P o s i t i o n (check most appropriate) A. Classroom teacher B. Administrator or Supervisor C. Other • Explain: 2. Course or Content Area i n which most teaching time i s spent: 3. Grade with which you spend most of your teaching time 4. Years of teaching experience 5. Number of Courses i n : Developmental Reading Corrective or Remedial Reading ' 6. Number of Inservice Programs i n Reading you have attended 7. Please rate each of the following types of Inservice on t h i s s c ale: 1 - preferred, 2 - acceptable, 3 - unacceptable a. Lecture e. Simulation A c t i v i t i e s _ b. I l l u s t r a t e d l e c t u r e f. Teacher Centers _ c. Demonstrations g. V i s i t a t i o n s to other programs _ d. Workshops h. Supervision from l o c a l Reading Resources Personnel 8. On the following time-place matrix, please i n d i c a t e your wi l l i n g n e s s to attend Reading Inservice Programs. F i l l i n each square, a-1, using 2 - usually 3 - sometimes 4 Inservice i n our school or neigh- boring school t h i s s c ale: - seldom 5 Inservice anywhere within d i s - t r i c t or within 30 mis. 1 - Almost always - never Inservice outside d i s t r i c t beyond 30 mis. After-school a. b. c. Saturdays d. e. f. P r o f e s s i o n a l 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 i n Sections Two and Three (on the page to your right ) as to how e s s e n t i a l they are to your teaching. Use the scale below and place your responses i n Column,. I (Important Practices) . 1. e s s e n t i a l 4. of l i t t l e importance 2. important 5. of no importance 3. of moderate importance 6. lack of f a m i l i a r i t y STEP (2) A v a r i e t y of circumstances (e.g., lack of time, resources, training) may i n t e r f e r e with the use of s k i l l s and techniques which are considered important. What teachers consider important may not be what they can p r a c t i c e . To help us understand present classroom p r a c t i c e s , please go through the items i n sections Two and Three i n terms of your present classroom practices and rate them on the frequency scale below. Place your responses i n Column II (Present P r a c t i c e s ) . A. almost always D. r a r e l y B. often E. never C. sometimes F. not applicable STEP (3) F i n a l l y , to i n d i c a t e your p r i o r i t i e s f o r Reading Inservice, please rate each item i n Sections Two and Three on a scale of 1 - 5 using the c l a s s i - f i c a t i o n s below. Place your responses i n Column I I I ( P r i o r i t y of Need). 1. high p r i o r i t y 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 I MP OR TA NT  PR AC TI CE S Co lu mn  I I PR ES EN T PR AC TI CE S Co lu mn  II I PR IO RI TY  O F NE ED S 1. Determination of the reading l e v e l s of material 2. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and s e l e c t i o n of appropriate i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials 3. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and s e l e c t i o n of appropriate supplementary materials 4. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , use, and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of standardized tests f o r assessing student p o t e n t i a l 5. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and use of informal techniques for assessing student p o t e n t i a l 6. Determination of students' reading i n t e r e s t s and attitudes 7. Determination of st r a t e g i e s f o r dealing with disabled readers 8. Determination of st r a t e g i e s f o r dealing with superior students 9. Determination of st r a t e g i e s f o r dealing with divergent i n t e r e s t s and attitudes 10. P r o v i s i o n f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g i n s t r u c t i o n (e.g., small groups) 11. Determination and development of appropriate reading objectives 12. U t i l i z a t i o n of various questioning techniques 13. Development of motivational s t r a t e g i e s f o r the classroom 14. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s t r a t e g i e s f o r teaching s p e c i f i c subject s k i l l s r e l a t e d to reading (e.g., graphs, maps, diagrams) SECTION THREE: S k i l l Development 1. Pro v i s i o n f o r vocabulary s k i l l s development 2. P r o v i s i o n f o r comprehension s k i l l s development 3. Pro v i s i o n f o r the development of c r i t i c a l reading 4. I n s t r u c t i o n i n study s k i l l s 5. Ins t r u c t i o n i n research and reference s k i l l s 6. P r o v i s i o n f o r the development of rate and f l e x i b i l i t y 7. Pr o v i s i o n f o r the development of word recognition s k i l l s TINA TEACHERS INSERVICE NEEDS ASSESSMENT (TINA) Third E d i t i o n Developed By: Dr. Charles T. Mangrum I I Adapted from Workshop Packet f o r 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) i s an assessment device designed to i d e n t i f y and place i n p r i o r i t y rank the i n s e r v i c e needs of teachers who are responsible for the teaching of reading s k i l l s and habits. I t i s designed to be used by Inservice Coordinators, Reading S p e c i a l i s t s , and others responsible f o r developing long-range i n s e r v i c e plans. This assessment device was f r e e l y adapted from the Workshop Packet for Educational Goals and Objectives; a Model Program for Commun- i t y and Professional Involvement d i s t r i b u t e d by PHI DELTA KAPPA, Inc. Components: The TINA packet consists of the following components: 1. Background Information and Directions f o r Inservice Leaders 2. Directions f o r P a r t i c i p a n t s 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 f a c u l t y of a s i n g l e school or with large groups of teachers from a number of schools i n the same school d i s t r i c t or system. 2. Once the decision has been made to develop an i n s e r v i c e plan the f a c u l t y should be informed of t h i s d e c i s i o n . A l e t t e r such as the following may be h e l p f u l for preparing teachers for the assessment. The l e t t e r s p e c i f i e s the purpose, place, date, and time of the assessment. Dear Teacher: We are i n the process of formulating our long-range i n s e r v i c e plan f o r the school d i s t r i c t . We need your assistance i n helping us project the i n s e r v i c e needs of teachers as they r e l a t e to reading i n s t r u c t i o n throughout our d i s t r i c t . To, determine the need for reading i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g , I am asking that you p a r t i c i p a t e i n a needs assessment program to be held at Stonewall Jackson School on March 5, 19 at 7:30 p.m. Your involvement w i l l insure that the i n s e r v i c e program designed for our school d i s t r i c t i s formulated on the basis of a survey of teacher needs. P r o f e s s i o n a l l y , John P. Jones Inservice Director 1 Appendix B (continued) 215 3. Using TINA at l e a s t 1% hours are needed for the assessment of in s e r v i c e needs. Time should be scheduled when teachers are not under other pressures so they are free to think through t h e i r needs while p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the process of assessment. An environment containing tables and chairs i s advised since the materials used by each teacher require considerable surface area. 4. Select from option A or B. A. Once the p a r t i c i p a n t s are assembled, discuss the competen- cies needed by teachers to teach reading. L i s t the various competencies offered on a blackboard f o r a l l to see. Write a b r i e f d e f i n i t i o n or l i s t issabactivities associated with the competency. A l i s t such as the SELECTED COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHING READING Form B may be obtained. When no new items are added to the l i s t , close o f f the discussion. Have each teacher write the competencies on Form A of SELECTED COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHING READING. Go to 5. B. T e l l the teachers you would l i k e to show them a l i s t of competencies needed f o r teaching reading. D i s t r i b u t e a set of the SELECTED COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHING READING, Form B,to each teacher. Have the teachers examine the l i s t to determine i f a l l the competencies they believe to be important are on the l i s t . They may add or delete as they f e e l the need. They may also modify competency statements. Go to 5. 5. When each teacher has a l i s t of competencies for teaching reading and has made her desired modifications, d i s t r i b u t e 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 a l l agreed upon. Then d i r e c t the teachers to take out of the packet containing colored d i s c s , 2% discs f or each competency. The remaining discs should be l e f t i n the packet. Each packet should contain 38 discs which i s s u f f i c i e n t f o r 15 competencies. A d d i t i o n a l discs w i l l be needed i f 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 l i n e s to form separate statements. Then have each teacher place the statements on the DISPLAY BOARD under the heading "TEACHING COMPETENCIES." 9. Have the p a r t i c i p a n t s read the DIRECTIONS TO THE PARTICIPANTS. Elaborate on d i r e c t i o n s as requested. Once the teachers understand the procedures, allow t h i r t y minutes f o r completing the task. As each teacher completes the task, they are to i d e n t i f y themselves by r a i s i n g t h e i r hand. 10. When each teacher i d e n t i f i e s h e r s e l f , go to the teacher's s t a t i o n 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) a l l the teachers have completed the task, t o t a l the number of points for each objective to obtain a t o t a l score. Divide the t o t a l score by the number of p a r t i c i p a n t s 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 s u f f i c i e n t importance to become objectives for the i n s e r v i c e program. The rank order of objectives w i l l t e l l the i n s e r v i c e leaders the preferred order f o r i n s e r v i c e i n s t r u c t i o n . 12. The r e s u l t s : (a) objectives of the i n s e r v i c e program and (b) rank order f o r i n s e r v i c i n g should be reported to the teachers. A sugges- ted format follows: Dear Teacher: You recently p a r t i c i p a t e d i n an a c t i v i t y designed to i d e n t i f y and place i n p r i o r i t y your i n s e r v i c e needs r e l a t i v e to the teaching of reading. Results have been tabulated and are being d i s t r i b u t e d f o r your information. These r e s u l t s w i l l be used i n e s t a b l i s h i n g our long-range i n s e r v i c e plan for the teaching of reading. Thank you for your cooperation and valuable information which w i l l help us develop an i n s e r v i c e plan relevant to your needs. Teacher Inservice Needs L i s t e d According to P r i o r i t y : Grades K-3 1. I n d i v i d u a l i z i n g i n s t r u c t i o n 2. Diagnosis 3. P r e s c r i p t i v e teaching 4. Motivation 5. Evaluation Grades 4-8 1. Motivation 2. I n d i v i d u a l i z i n g i n s t r u c t i o n 3. Materials 4. Diagnosis 5. Developing i n t e r e s t s , a t t i t u d e s and appreciation i n reading John P. Jones Inservice Director 13. The assessment i s now completed. You are now ready to plan the i n s e r v i c e program. 3 217 Appendix B (continued) Note: The BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND DIRECTIONS FOR INSERVICE LEADERS i s not to be d i s t r i b u t e d to p a r t i c i p a n t s . The p a r t i c i p a n t s packets need to contain only the following: 1. Directions to P a r t i c i p a n t s 2. Competencies for teaching reading 3. Display Board 4. Summary Form for Individuals 5. Two and one ha l f (2%) discs per competency DIRECTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS 1. In order to complete t h i s a c t i v i t y you w i l l need the following mater- i a l s : a. Directions f o r P a r t i c i p a n t s (what you are reading) b. Competencies f o r teaching reading c. Display Board d. Summary form f o r i n d i v i d u a l s e. Two and one-half (2Jg) colored discs per competency 2. Examine the l i s t containing competencies for teaching reading. The l i s t contains competencies followed by a number of statements which define the competency. Read each competency with p a r t i c u l a r atten- t i o n to the d e f i n i t i o n or s u b - a c t i v i t i e s associated with the compe- tency. These are provided to help you understand the f u l l meaning of the competency. 3. Cut or tear the competency statements along the l i n e s 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 d i s c s . Count the number of competencies you have placed on the Display Board. M u l t i p l y the number of competencies by two and one-half. Round o f f f r a c t i o n s upward. This w i l l give you the t o t a l number of discs you w i l l need to complete t h i s a c t i v i t y . 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 s u b - a c t i v i t i e s associated with each competency statement. A f t e r read- ing each competency statement, place a red di s c a f t e r the statement i n column 1. 7. Re-read each statement a second time. As you do so, answer one of the following questions: a. I f you are a teacher, answer t h i s question: "Do I need to advance my competency i n t h i s area more than i n the other areas?" 5 218 Appendix B (continued) b. I f you are a p r i n c i p a l , answer t h i s question: "Do my teachers need to advance t h e i r competency i n t h i s area more than i n the other areas?" 8. As you read, you w i l l 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 d i s c beside each i n 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 t h i r d d i s c beside each i n 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 d i s c beside each i n column 4. 11. Re-read the statements which have four discs beside them. For those competencies you believe to be more important., place a f i f t h d i s c beside each i n column 5. 12. A l l the discs must be used. I f you have not used a l l your d i s c s , continue to make comparisons between competencies u n t i l a l l discs have been used. 13. The following two rules must be abided by i n t h i s a c t i v i t y : a. At l e a s t one competency statement must have f i v e colored discs beside i t . b. No more than f i v e colored discs are allowed for any one st a t e - ment . 14. Once you have completed the a c t i v i t y , transfer the t o t a l number of points f or each statement to the SUMMARY FORM FOR INDIVIDUALS. Then r a i s e your hand to a t t r a c t a monitor's atte n t i o n . 15. You have now completed the task. The monitor w i l l incorporate your i n s e r v i c e needs into a SUMMARY FORM FOR GROUP. Later the monitors w i l l provide you with a ranking of i n - s e r v i c e needs for your school or school d i s t r i c t . 16. Thank you. We hope you enjoyed p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s teacher's i n - s e r v i c e needs assessment. 6 Appendix B (continued) SUMMARY FORM FOR INDIVIDUALS Di r e c t i o n s : Record your score f o r each a c t i v i t y : 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 P r a c t i c e a c t i v i t i e s that match i n s t r u c t i o n a l objectives ,. 2. Provide for mass and d i s t r i b u t e d p r a c t i c e CURRICULUM: 1. L i s t the major goals of a com- prehensive reading program. 2. D e t a i l the s p e c i f i c objectives for each goal area DIAGNOSIS: 1. Determine reading l e v e l s . 2. Ide n t i f y primary areas of reading d i f f i c u l t y 3. Administer informal tests of readiness, word recognition, comprehension and rate: 4. Using standardized t e s t s EVALUATION: 1. Determine s p e c i f i c s k i l l s growth 2. Determine change i n reading l e v e l s 3. Determine change i n habits, a t t i t u d e s , and i n t e r e s t s MOTIVATION: 1. Reducing learner tension 2. Manipulate v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d to motivation: a. Purpose c. Results b. A t t i t u d e d. Success 3. E x t r i n s i c and i n t r i n s i c moti- v a t i o n RECORD KEEPING: 1. Daily p u p i l progress i n reading 2. Reading l e v e l s 3. Standardized t e s t r e s u l t s 4. Observations CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT: 1. D i f f e r e n t i a t e use of s t a f f 2. Intraclass grouping 3. Interclass grouping 4. Parents and paraprofessionals 5. Peer tu t o r i n g PRESCRIPTIVE TEACHING PROCEDURES: 1. Select appropriate objectives 2. Match material to i n s t r u c t i o n a l objectives 3. Prepare a Directed-Thinking A c t i v i t y STUDENT MANAGEMENT: 1. Use s o c i a l and non-social r e i n f o r c e r s to increase achieve- ment i n subject areas 2. Use s o c i a l and non-social r e i n f o r c e r s to change the unde- s i r a b l e behavior of: the c h i l d who f i g h t s too often, the "I don't want to", overly a c t i v e or noisy c h i l d METHODS OF TEACHING: 1. Word recognition 2. Vocabulary 3. Comprehension 4. Study st r a t e g i e s 5. Rate and f l e x i b i l i t y DEVELOP INTEREST, ATTITUDES, AND APPRECIATION IN READING: 1. Develop "Read Aloud" program 2. Develop school-wide reading environment 3. Select l i b r a r y books 4. Promote p o s i t i v e d i s p o s i t i o n s toward reading MATERIALS: 1. Prepare d i r e c t o r y of commercial reading materials a v a i l a b l e . within your school 2. Evaluation c r i t e r i a f or s e l e c t - ing materials 3. Prepare i n s t r u c t i o n s materials 4. Code reading materials to read- ing objectives 9 222 Appendix B (continued) INDIVIDUALIZING INSTRUCTION: IDENTIFYING PROBLEM READERS: 1. By reading l e v e l s 1. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 2. By s k i l l s 2. Causes of reading f a i l u r e 3. By habits 3. Referring and helping problem 4. By i n t e r e s t s 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 4 5 6 7 ; 8/9 10 11 12 13 14 _15 Tot a l Avg. Rank •2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 11 224 APPENDIX C The Basic Model P a r t i c i p a n t Agency Coordinators Late .Self Diagnosis August .Testing •Development and Selection of Course of Study .Provides Diagnosis .Negotiate Objec- t i v e s .Pre-test .Provide I n s t r u c t i o n i n General Topics (Drug Abuse, etc.) . Specify Obj ectives .Inventory Resources .Negotiate Objectives .Disseminate Info. Counsel 4- September .One Day D i s t r i c t Wide Workshop .Hand T a i l o r s to D i s t r i c t Needs .Evaluates and Pro- vides Feedback .Coordinators Meeting 4- 4- October .One Day Observation i n Another School •Assesses P. Needs •Develops Spring Program .Collects Evaluations and Reports 4- November .One Day Inter- D i s t r i c t Workshop .Provides General and Individualized Instruction .Fie l d Tests Spring Objectives .Assists with F i e l d Test .Evaluates Workshop December . P a r t i c i p a t i o n Completed f o r F a l l Term •Post Testing .Reviews Evaluative .Assists with Evalua- and F i e l d Test Data t i o n F i n a l i z e s Spring .Disseminates Informa- Program t i o n .Coordinators Meeting Late .Two Day D i s t r i c t January Workshop .Re-As ses sment, Self-Diagnosis .Provides Program .Counsels re: Spring Program .Individual P a r t i c i - pant Heeds Assessment •Negotiates Objective 4- 225 Appendix C (continued) P a r t i c i p a n t Agency Coordinators February •Assists with Development of March Program . Begins Summer Needs Assessment .Evaluates Programs not Reviewed to Date March .One Day In t r a - D i s t r i c t Workshop .Hand T a i l o r s Program .Assessment .Synthesis of a l l A c t i v i t i e s A p r i l .One Day Observa- t i o n i n Another School .Provides Summer Preliminary Objectives f o r Review . Commences Evaluation May .Post Testing .Needs Analysis f o r 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. V e r i f i e s 17. Corrects 18. Interrupts 19. C r i t i c i z e s 20. Ignores Teacher P u p i l C* *Both teacher and p u p i l behaviors are recorded by code i n chronological order. A t a l l y i s placed i n the C column oppo- s i t e the code record whenever con t r o l i s more the issue than task. **A t a l l y i s placed i n the P column oppo- s i t e the code record whenever personal experience i s c i t e d as a reference f or 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 w i l l ever see your answers. The person who i s temporarily i n charge of your cl a s s w i l l , during t h i s period, c o l l e c t a l l reports and seal them i n an envelope addressed to Western Michigan U n i v e r s i t y . Your teacher w i l l receive from the U n i v e r s i t y a summary of the answers by the students i n your c l a s s . The Uni v e r s i t y w i l l mail t h i s summary to no one except your teacher unless requested to do so by your teacher. Aft e r completing t h i s report, s i t q u i e t l y or study u n t i l a l l students have completed t h e i r reports. There should be no t a l k i n g . 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 h i s teaching f i e l d ? 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 f a i r and impart i a l i n h i s treatment of a l l students? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 4. CONTROL: Does he keep enough order i n 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 t h i s c l a s s i n t e r e s t i n g and challenging? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 7. ATTITUDE TOWARD SUBJECT: Does he show i n t e r e s t i n and enthusiasm f o r the subject? Does he appear to enjoy teaching t h i s 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 af t e r day and month a f t e r month, or are d i f f e r e n t and appropriate teaching methods used at d i f f e r e n t times (student reports, class discussions, small-group discussions, films and other audio-visual aids, demonstrations, debates, f i e l d t r i p s , teacher l e c t u r e s , guest l e c t u r e s , etc.)? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 10. ENCOURAGEMENT OF STUDENT PARTICIPATION: Do students f e e l f r ee to r a i s e 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 clas s time well spent? Is l i t t l e time wasted? Below Average Average Good Very Good The Very Best 13. ASSIGNMENTS: Are assignments (out-of-class, required work) s u f f i c i e n t - l y challenging without being unreasonably long? Is the weight of assigments reasonable? Much too l i g h t Too l i g h t Reasonable Too heavy Much too heavy 14. Please name two or more things that you e s p e c i a l l y l i k e about t h i s teacher or course. 15. Please give two or more suggestions f o r the improvement of t h i s teacher or course. Note on R e l i a b i l i t y 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 cor r e l a t e d , the r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s obtained f o r the f i r s t 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 i n d i c a t e the r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s of the questions when answered by 24 to 32 students per c l a s s . The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the chance halves were converted to the reported c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r whole classes by means of the Spearman-Brown formula for computing test r e l i a b i l i t y . 229 APPENDIX F MERRIMACK EDUCATION CENTER T i t l e of Program Staff Development Program Feedback Sheet Date 4. 5. To what extent do you f e e l t h i s program i s meeting your learning needs? ( C i r c l e one number) 1 Not at A l l 8 9 Extremely Well To what extent do you f e e l you w i l l be able to apply your learning from t h i s program i n your work? ( C i r c l e one number) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not Extremely at Well A l l Check a l l of the words i n the following l i s t that describe your f e e l i n g s at t h i s point i n the program: (Write i n other words as appropriate) _Angry Confident Discouraged _Happy _Motivated _ S a t i s f i e d Troubled Annoyed Confused _Elated Hopeful _Optimistic _Stlmulated Worried _Anxious Contented Exhausted _Interested _Pessimistic Successful Bored Depressed _Frustrated J o y f u l _Pleased Threatened What have been the most us e f u l parts of the program for you? If you could change t h i s program i n order to make i t more u s e f u l f or p a r t i c i p a n t s , what change(s) would you make? (Use the other side of t h i s sheet i f necessary) 230 APPENDIX G EVALUATION IN-SERVICE EDUCATION PROGRAMS Don Means C l a r i o n State College, C l a r i o n , 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 i n s e r v i c e programs eit h e r because of a lack of commit- ment concerning evaluation or lack of expertise. Accountability i n education, which the public i s increa s i n g l y demanding, i s as important i n in - s e r v i c e programs as i n the day-to-day i n s t r u c t i o n a l o f f e r i n g s . An instrument need not be complex to provide feedback information about an i n s e r v i c e pro- gram. The intent of t h i s a r t i c l e i s to provide administrators and teachers with c h e c k l i s t s which may be used for evaluating i n s e r v i c e programs. The following c h e c k l i s t s may be modified or used i n toto. THE FOLLOWING CHECKLIST MIGHT BE USED WHEN CONSULTANTS ARE BROUGHT INTO THE SCHOOL, FOR SPECIFIC SESSIONS CONSULTANT CHECKLIST D i r e c t i o n s : Following i s a l i s t of i n s e r v i c e consultants. Please rate t h e i r o v e r a l l presentation r e l a t i v e to impact, content, d e l i v e r y , etc., by c i r c l i n g your response. 1. Consultant X Excellent Good F a i r Unsatisfactory 2. Consultant Y Excellent Good F a i r Unsatisfactory 3. Consultant Z Excellent Good F a i r Unsatisfactory MANY TIMES FACTORS THAT SEEM INSIGNIFICANT HAVE TREMENDOUS EFFECT ON THE INSERVICE PROGRAM OTHER FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED THE INSERVICE DAY Dir e c t i o n s : Please check your response to the following questions. 1. Small group discussions were: Excellent Good F a i r Unsatisfactory 2. Coffee breaks were: Excellent Good F a i r ' Unsatisfactory 3. The time provided f o r me to ask questions was: Excellent Good F a i r Unsatisfactory 231 Appendix G (continued) 4. The time schedule of the i n s e r v i c e day was: Excellent Good F a i r Unsatisfactory 5. The materials brought or used by consultant X, Y, or Z were: Excellent Good F a i r 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 Di r e c t i o n s : Please express your opinion to the following questions by pla c i n g an X i n the appropriate column. Not at Very Consid- a l l L i t t l e Some erably 1. How much has the i n s e r v i c e day c o n t r i - buted to your ways of varying your i n s t r u c t i o n a l patterns? 2. How much has the i n s e r v i c e day c o n t r i - ( buted to your knowledge of a d d i t i o n a l materials f o r use i n your classes? 3. To what extent has the i n s e r v i c e pro- gram stimulated a reevaluation of your teaching goals? ' 4. To what extent has the i n s e r v i c e pro- gram contributed to your knowledge of how to design s k i l l s i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r actual needs of your students? 5. How much have you gained i n your know- ledge of s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l tech- niques which can be u t i l i z e d i n your class? 6. How much has the i n s e r v i c e program increased your knowledge of ways to u t i l i z e children's e x i s t i n g i n t e r e s t s to b u i l d involvement i n your classes? 7. To what extent has the i n s e r v i c e pro- gram motivated you to spend more time i n preparing f o r your classes? ' ' 8. How much has the i n s e r v i c e program contributed to your awareness of ways of providing f o r i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r - ences? 232 Appendix G (continued) Not at Very Consid- a l l L i t t l e Some erably 9. To what extent has the i n s e r v i c e program contributed to your understanding of means of evaluating i n d i v i d u a l 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 i n giving a statement of your f e e l i n g s about the i n s e r v i c e day as i t s meeting your needs, i t s shortcomings, i t s f a i l u r e s , and i t s strengths. Plans If we plan a d d i t i o n a l i n s e r v i c e days t h i s year, what would be your suggestions as to what should be included? Recommendations What consultant would you recommend for an i n s e r v i c e day? PERHAPS THE QUICKEST WAY OF OBTAINING FEEDBACK ABOUT AN INSERVICE DAY IS A ONE-STATEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH MIGHT READ AS FOLLOWS Dir e c t i o n s : Rate the e n t i r e i n s e r v i c e day as compared to other i n s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s or programs you have attended by c i r c l i n g the most appropriate d e s c r i p t o r . Excellent Good F a i r Unsatisfactory One of the important rules to remember i n using any of these questionnaires i s 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 i n s e r v i c e programs. 233 APPENDIX H APPENDIX B Over-All Rating of Inservice Program Four possible outcomes of t h i s i n s e r v i c e program are described below. Please rate each outcome i n the two ways requested. Be sure to rate t h i s program on each item by comparing i t d i r e c t l y with your own previous exper- ience. C i r c l e the correct response. I. UNDERSTANDINGS: Developed Poor F a i r Aver- Good Excel- understandings about learning, age lent the i n s t r u c t i o n a l process, and human r e l a t i o n s h i p s . A. How would you rate the best i n s e r v i c e program you have previously experienced with respect to Outcome I. above? 1 2 3 4 5 B. Now, how do you rate t h i s i n - service program on Outcome I? 1 2 3 4 5 I I . SKILLS: Developed s k i l l s i n work- ing with i n d i v i d u a l groups for more e f f e c t i v e learning. A. How would you rate the best i n s e r v i c e program you have previously experienced with respect to Outcome I I . above? 1 2 3 4 5 B. How would you rate t h i s i n - service program on Outcome II? 1 2 3 4 5 I I I . ATTITUDES: Developed improved attitudes toward the importance of i n s e r v i c e growth and the value of reading. A. How would you rate the best i n s e r v i c e program you have previously experienced with respect to Outcome I I I . above? 1 2 3 4 5 B. How would you rate t h i s i n - service program on Outcome III? 1 2 3 4 5 IV. PRACTICALITY: Provided p r a c t i c a l assistance i n dealing with prob- lems encountered on the job. A. How would you rate the best i n s e r v i c e program you have previously experienced with 234 Appendix H (continued) Aver- Excel- Poor F a i r age Good lent respect to Outcome IV. above? 1 2 3 4 5 B. How do you rate t h i s i n s e r v i c e program on Outcome IV? 1 2 3 4 5 P o s i t i o n : Date: 19 APPENDIX C D a i l y Evaluation D i r e c t i o n s : Please c i r c l e the appropriate number for each item below, to i n d i c a t e your reaction to each workshop session. 1 - Poor 2 - Weak 3 - S a t i s f a c t o r y 4 - Well Done 5 - Excellent 1. Interest 1 2 3 4 5 2. Organization 1 2 3 4 5 3. C l a r i t y of ideas 1 2 3 4 5 4. Functional for your p a r t i c u l a r r o l e as an educator 1 2 3 4 5 5. Interaction between i n d i v i d u a l groups 1 2 3 4 5 6. Interaction between leader and group 1 2 3 4 5 7. Feedback to the e n t i r e group from planned projects 1 2 3 4 5 8. Content of planned projects 1 2 3 4 5 9. Composite evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 Please write further comments evaluating the workshop sessions i n the space provided below. 235 APPENDIX I Administrators, teachers, and other school personnel working with consultative s t a f f DETERMINE BROAD GOALS 4- GATHER INPUT DATA Ind i v i d u a l : Education, Length of Service, Concerns, Interests, etc. I n s t i t u t i o n a l : Setting (Urban, Suburban, Rural), School Size, Time Blocks A v a i l a b l e , 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 U t i l i z a t i o n , Communication Methods, etc. 4- DECIDE ON TRANSMISSION VEHICLES Intensive Group Experiences, Interaction Analysis, Microteaching, etc. 4- COLLECT, DESIGN, PRODUCE SPECIFIED MEDIA Open or Closed C i r c u i t 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 L o g i s t i c s o u o M 2 PH 3 H !25 W U II IMPLEMENT A. Select Personnel B. Motivate P a r t i c i p a n t s C. Organize f o r Instruction D. Provide Ins t r u c t i o n E. Apply i n Classrooms F. Secure Feedback II I EVALUATE A. Assess Continuously B. Make Terminal Appraisal C. Provide Follow-up Data

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 31 0
Russia 8 0
China 6 5
Japan 5 0
Poland 4 0
Pakistan 3 0
Canada 2 0
India 1 0
Argentina 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 18 6
Buffalo 9 0
Tokyo 5 0
El Dorado 5 0
Beijing 3 0
Henderson 3 0
Islamabad 3 0
Atlanta 2 0
Phoenix 2 0
Ashburn 2 0
Montreal 2 0
Mumbai 1 0
Arlington Heights 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items