AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS' EXPRESSED JUDGMENTS OF BARRIERS TO CURRICULUM CHANGE IN RELATION TO THE FACTOR OF INDIVIDUAL READINESS TO CHANGE I Thesis 'Ior «1L3? bum a} Dh,D,' 7 - MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY f C Richard Allen Dempsey , ~ 1963 THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS' EXPRESSED JUDGMENTS OF BARRIERS TO CURRICULUM CHANGE IN RELATION TO THE FACTOR OF INDIVIDUAL READINESS TO CHANGE presented bg Richard Allen Dempsey has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .1). degree in Education mam Major professor Date May 13. 1963 0-169 L I BR A R Y Michigan State Universitv .. AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS' EXPRESSED JUDGMENTS OF BARRIERS TO CURRICULUM CHANGE IN RELATION TO THE FACTOR OF INDIVIDUAL READINESS TO CHANGE By Richard Allen Dempsey AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1963 . ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS' EXPRESSED JUDGMENTS OF BARRIERS TO CURRICULUM CHANGE IN RELATION TO THE FACTOR OF INDIVIDUAL READINESS TO CHANGE By Richard Allen Dempsey Statement of the Problem This study is an attempt to investigate what certain teachers working in one school system and assigned to grades kindergarten through twelve, judge to be barriers to curriculum change, to determine the relationship between these barriers and the teacher's readiness-to- change, and to relate both the barriers and readiness-to change variables with the demographic data variables. Procedure A group of four hundred teachers in an industrial community were selected to react to two scales. The first was the Readiness to Change Scale developed by Donald A. Trumbo in his unpublished doctoral thesis, Richard Allen Dempsey An Analysis of Attitgdes Toward Change Among the Emgloyees of an Insurance Comgany, 1958, Michigan State University. The second was a questionnaire designed by the author to attempt to analyze teachers' expressed judgments of barriers to curriculum change. The statements on the questionnaire were thought to be rather universal concerns of teachers about obstacles which prevent them from carrying out curri- culum changes. These statements were categorized into internal-barriers-to-change and external-barriers-torchange. The internal-barriers were said to originate from within the "self" and the external-barriers were said to be based on perceived external forces -- time, children and parents, other school personnel, school policy, school plant and equipment. The internal and external barriers and readiness- to-change variables were compared with the following demographic factors: age, sex, marital status, degree held, teaching experience, continuing education, teaching level, tenure status, occupational classification, father's occupation. The data obtained from the analysis of these variables were analyzed in terms of a chi square statistic using a five percent (.05) level of significance as a limit. Findings The results of the statistical analysis produced the following significant findings: 1. Teachers who were ready-to-change perceived few total barriers to change. Richard Allen Dempsey 2. Teachers who were ready-to-change perceived few external barriers to curriculum change. 3. Younger teachers perceive fewer internal-barriers- to-change than do older teachers. 4. Younger teachers perceive fewer external-barriers- to change than do older teachers. 5. male teachers sense fewer internal-barriers-to- change than do female teachers. 6. Secondary teachers see fewer external-barriers-to- change than do elementary school teachers. 7. Teachers with masters degrees sense fewer internal barriers to change than do those without masters degrees. 8. Teachers with masters degrees see fewer external barriers to change than do those without masters degrees. 9. Teachers with little teaching experience are more ready to attempt job-related change than those with more teaching experience. 10. Teachers with little teaching experience perceive fewer internal-barriers-to-change than those with more teaching experience. 11. Teachers with little teaching experience perceive fewer external-barriers-to-change than those with more teaching experience. Richard Allen Dempsey 12. Teachers who are not on tenure see fewer internal- barriers-to-curriculum change. 13. Teachers who are not on tenure see fewer external- barriers-to-curriculum change. AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS' EXPRESSED JUDGMENTS OF BARRIERS TO CURRICULUM CHANGE IN RELATION TO THE FACTOR OF INDIVIDUAL READINESS TO CHANGE By Richard Allen Dempsey A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1963 9.17% :3 \I3' \4« [1.4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I should like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Charles A. Blackman, major professor who, with his limitless faith, understanding, and patience provided the encouragement which helped to make this project a reality, Dr. William A. Faunce, member of the doctoral committee, for his technical assistance and interest in this study, Dr. William V. Hicks and Dr. floyd G. Parker, members of the doctoral committee, for their helpful suggestions and criticisms, mr. Dean H. Olds for his unfailing technical assistance, interest, and encouragement, mr. Elwin Cammack for his helpful advice and criticism, the teachers who gave freely of their time in completing the questionnaire, and my wife, Marion, without whose encouragement, patience, and tolerance I could not have completed this study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 11 LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 v Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O 1 Significance of the Study 3 Purpose of the Study 5 Statement of the Problem 7 Related Assumptions 7 Statement of the Hypotheses 7 Definition of Terms 21 Limitations of the Study 24 Organization of the Study 26 II. RELATED IDEAS AND LITERATURE . . . . . . 27 Curriculum 28 Change and Resistance to Change 31 Literature Related to the Study 43 Summary 52 III. PROCEDURES USED IN THE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF THE DATA . . . . . . . 53 Collection of the Data 53 Source of the Data 57 Description of the Instruments Used 63 Procedures for Data Analysis 76 Summary . 77 iii Chapter IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . The Readiness-to-Change Variable The Barriers as Variables Demographic Variables Regrouping of the Demographic Variables A Statistical Analysis of the Data Summary V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND IMPLICATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A . APPENDIX B . APPENDIX c . APPENDIX 0 . APPENDIX E . OF THE STUDY . O O O O O O O O O O 0 Statement of the Problem Comparison of the Variables Conclusions Implications for Practice and Summary 0 0 Suggestions for further Study iv Page 78 78 80 B1 86 113 114 114 115 115 136 141 142 148 158 192 200 210 Table 3.1 3.3 4.1 LIST OF TABLES Characteristics of the Sample: Age, Sex, Marital Status and Teaching Level Characteristics of the'Sample: Highest Degree Held, Professional Standing Actively working Toward, and Total Years Experience Characteristics of the Sample: Years Experience in the School System and Father's Occupation ' Characteristics of the Sample: Occupational Classification of the Principal wage Earner in the Teacher's family Characteristics of the Sample -- Revised Age, Sex, Marital Status, Teaching Level and Degree Held Characteristics of the Sample -- Revised Continuing Education, Total Years Teaching Experience and Occupational Classification Characteristics of the Sample -- Revised Tenure Status and father's_Occupation An Analysis of the Readiness-to-Change, Total Barriers, and Internal Barriers to Change Characteristics An Analysis of the Readiness-to-Change, External-Barriers, and High Internal- External Barriers to Change Characteristics An Analysis of the Readiness, Internal Barriers, and External Barriers to Change and Age Characteristics An Analysis of the Readiness, Internal Barriers, and External Barriers to Change and Sex Characteristics V Page 59 60 61 62 83 B4 85 BB 89 91 94 Table 4.8 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 5.4 5.5 An Analysis of the Readiness, Internal Barriers, and External Barriers to Change and Marital Status Characteristics An Analysis of the Readiness, Internal Barriers, and External Barriers to Change and Teaching Level Characteristics An Analysis of the Readiness, Internal Barriers, and External Barriers to Change and Degree Held Characteristics An Analysis of the Readiness, Internal Barriers, and External Barriers to Change and Continuing Education Characteristics An Analysis of the Readiness, Internal Barriers, and External Barriers to Change and Teaching Experience Characteristics An Analysis of the Readiness, Internal Barriers, and External Barriers to Change and Tenure Status Characteristics An Analysis of the Readiness, Internal Barriers, and External Barriers to Change and Occupational Classification Characteristics An Analysis of the Readiness, Internal Barriers, and External Barriers to Change and Father's Occupation Characteristics Comparison of the Variables in Terms of Levels of Significance A Comparison of Sex to Teaching Level A Comparison of Age to Teaching Level A Comparison of Teaching Level and Teaching Experience A Comparison of Tenure and Teaching Level A Comparison of Teaching Experience and Age vi Page 96 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 112 121 124 125 125 128 Table 5.6 5.7 5.9 5.10 5.11 A Comparison of Teaching Experience and Tenure Status A Comparison of Tenure Status and Age Characteristics A Comparison of Tenure Status and Sex Characteristics A comparison of Occupational Classification and Age Characteristics A Comparison of father's Occupation and Age Characteristics A Comparison of Father's Occupation and Sex Characteristics vii Page 130 130 131 133 134 135 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION In the past two decades a considerable amount of research and writing has been done concerning the importance of curriculum change which leads to curriculum improvement. Much of this research and writing has been done from the perspective of the role of the administrator, curriculum worker, or colleges of education to provide some magical atmosphere in which all "good things" occur. The class- room teacher is treated as a catalytic agent -- someone to accelerate and make the reaction work. All too often, however, the reaction has not been what the administrator, supervisor, or curriculum worker expected. The reaction often times seems to produce no reaction or a reaction of catastrophic proportions. A major reason for the failure to produce the desired results, and one that is rarely considered in the ensuing evaluation, is that of how the individual teacher perceives and reacts to the curriculum alteration. It is highly unlikely that all of the individual teacher's fears or felt barriers to the change could be allayed but if those who initiate change have an under- standing of what others perceive as obstacles to a change, and if a sincere effort is made to reduce these obstacles, then it would seem that the proposed change might have a better chance for success. It is evidence whenever one talks with teachers about curriculum improvement and change that certain barriers often exist which to them tend to impede change. While these barriers are all "real” to the individual, on close evaluation by the neutral observer they sometimes appear to be more rationalizations. This, in part, may be due to the teacher’s desire to maintain the status-duo (in which case the "real” barriers may be only pseudo obstacles), or it may come about because of a teacher's lack of security in coping with a given situation. Furthermore, these expressed barriers appear to be structured into two categories: internal and external. The internal barriers are here considered to be those which the individual perceives as being the result of inward stimulation. Examples of internal barriers would be the teacher's perceived lack of ability to do an adequate job in a new frame of reference, or the fear of failure in attempting to undertake a task differently. External barriers, on the otherhand, are those that are thought to originate outside the self. Barriers imposed by parents, children, school plant and equipment, school personnel, and school policy are here considered to be examples of external obstacles. Regardless of what the teacher expresses as barriers to curriculum change, it becomes necessary for the curriculum worker to attempt to discern what constitutes, in the mind of the teachers, obstacles to change. Fortified with this knowledge, he may then endeavor to work toward a more immediate and last- ing solution to many existing curriculum problems. Significance of the Study Today, as never before in our history, a heavy burden rests on the shoulders of all who call themselves educators. It is a burden composed of conflicts -- social, economic, and political in nature. These conflicts are derived from seemingly cold and naked problems on the one hand and nebulous and intangible solutions on the other. International controversy and domestic strife, poverty and insecurity, passions and prejudices are all elements of the burden. Each conflict has what seems to be over- whelming ramifications: each conflict taxes the combined efforts of the world's most astute minds; each conflict holds as ransom for its solution the physical and spiritual existance of mankind. But there is a thread that may lead to a solution to this seemingly endless maze of problems, and that thread lies within the grasp of educators. It lies in an understanding of people: their values, attitudes, percep- tions, and beliefs. When educators sincerely become aware of the beliefs and concerns of their fellow man and conscientiously attempt to dispel his problems, then they will be on the road to solving the conflicts that plague all mankind. For the interaction that is permitted in schools between peoples of divergent beliefs, the oppor- tunities to attempt to understand the perceptions of others, the occasion to practice what are known to be valid methods of guiding people, presents untold possibi- lities for solving the problems that are currently perplexing the world. Educators cannot, however, continue as they have in the past. They must want to help people find solutions to their present problems of existance. They have tried to solve these problems and have tried to shape education to help people to solve these problems but they have not succeeded. Therefore, educators must drop the facade of knowing what is all important for all people. They must acknowledge research -- taking what is most useful and putting it to practice. Educators must begin to live their lives as others see life, to understand others' perceptions of the world. In short, educators must change: the school's curriculum must change; not for change sake, but for improvement. This, then, is the significance of the study. By looking at one aspect of the total problem it may be possible to discern what a group of teachers judge to be barriers to curriculum change in relation to their readi- ness to change. Purpose of the Study This study is exploratory in nature; it seeks to test several hypotheses in an attempt to Open broader areas in a field of which little is known. The hypotheses are, for the most part, concerned with what teachers perceive as barriers to curriculum change from the related aspect of their readiness to accept change. And since this study is related to people, and their attitudes toward change, it is evident that it will be Principally a social- psychological study with the fundamental emphasis on teachers' attitudes toward the perception of the complex issue of change. It is with this in mind, then, that one purpose of the study will be to attempt to observe teachers' expressed judgments about potential barriers to curriculum change. This aspect will be examined in light of the teachers' perceived judgments about restrictions derived from factors related to school personnel, school policy, school plant and its equipment, the ”self", children and parents, and time. The meaningfulness of this examination, then, will be to analyze the possible relationships these factors have with readiness to change.1 A second, but equally important, purpose of this study will be to examine the reactions of four-hundred teachers toward Trumbo's, figgginess to Change Scale. (See footnote 1. below) The major emphasis here will be to observe the varying degrees of readiness to change of a sample of teachers -- especially in relation to their perceptions of barriers which tend to restrict change. A third and final purpose of this investigation will be to consider the relationship of certain personal data variables -- such as job tenure, total teaching experience, age, sex, marital status, teaching level, father's occupation, degree held, and professional status actively working toward -- to the teachers' attitudes toward change and their perceived barriers to change. These factors will be studied primarily because the rather nebulous conceptions which commonly surround such ideas can only be substantiated or dispelled through the accumulation of accurate evidence. 1. See Chapter III for a more detailed discussion of the instruments used in this study. Statement of the Problem This study is an attempt to investigate what certain teachers working in one school system and assigned to grades kindergarten through twelve, judge to be barriers to curriculum change, to determine the relationship between these barriers and the teacher's readiness to change, and to relate each the barriers and readiness to change variables with the demographic data variables. Related Assumptions The teachers sampled will evidence varying degrees of readiness to change. The teachers sampled will see different obstacles as barriers to change. It is possible to construct a group of statements that will provide some indication about what teachers perceive as barriers to curriculum chance. Statement of the Hypotheses 1. Those teachers who score high on the Readiness to Egggge Scale willI also, perceive few total barriers to chang_. The stimulus of change elicits varied reactions within people confronted with the concept of change. Those people opposed to the change may see multiple reasons which prohibit them from affecting change. Also, to the degree to which the change poses a threat to the individual, he may invent a myriad of pseudo excuses in an effort to protect himself. On the otherhand, those peOple who perceive a change positively may behave in a manner that would suggest that they see few, if any, restrictions. This may be due to the lack of any perceivable obstacles to the change, or the ability of the individual to cope with or unconsciously discount the existing barriers. II. Those teachers who score low on the Readiness to Change Scale will perceive more internal obstacles or barriers that relate to the "self". III. Those teachers who scgre low on the Readiness to Change Scale will perceive more external obstacles or barriers that relgte to school personnel, hildren and parents, school policy, schoolgplant and eguipment, and time. IV. Those teachers who score high on the Readiness to Change Scale will gerceive more internal barriers to change than external barriers to change. All true change is based upon the individual's need for change. The more ready he is for change, the more likely he is to perceive himself as an integral part of the total change pattern. His perceptions of what is happening and how it affects him will do much to influence his response to change. As he proceeds toward change he -- consciously and/or unconsciously -- destroys many of the barriers which stand in his way and prohibit him from achieving his goals. And the first of these restrictions to be dispelled are the external obstacles, for they are usually the most obvious. Far more difficult to dispel, however, are these barriers which are here called internal. They are founded in values, attitudes, and beliefs which have been built up over a long period of time and which are part of the individual's personality. They are much more nebulous and elusive to perceive. Furthermore, to clearly understand internal barriers requires considerable insight into one's self and one's behavior. This is a difficult process for some and a distasteful process for others, but when the individual reaches this point in his maturation he then is more likely to begin to see himself as a factor in the change process. but this does not necessarily preclude that he sees himself or his behavior as a barrier to change. V. The following sub-hypotheses are all based on the demographic data collected in this study and are related to the three major variables -- readiness 10 to change, internal barriers, and external barriers. A rationale for these hypotheses may be found below. A. Age 1. Readiness to change is inversely related to teachers' ages. 2. The magnitude of internal barriers to curri- culum change that teacherskperceive is directly relategyto their ages. 3. The magnitude of external barriers to curri- culum change that teachers_perceive is directly related to their ages. One rationale advanced for stating Hypothesis V A-1 was that the older the teachers were, the more rigid they would become in their methods of teaching, and the less ready they would be to change. It was assumed that the primary cause for this rigidity would be based on certain types of instructional procedures which a teacher had developed over a period of years and the teachers, finding these procedures workable. would not sense a need to change. On the other hand. younger teachers would probably not have developed these methods and would be more ready to change. 11 Hypotheses V A-2 and V A-3 state that older teachers 'would see more barriers to change and younger teachers few barriers to change. This might be caused by the younger person having more mobility in changing jobs if he could not change in the way he wants to, the feeling of the older person for the need of security in which case pseudo barriers become ”real" barriers (the only real barrier here being the need of security), or the ability of the younger person to cups with or overlook possible existing barriers depending on his training and/or naivete'. 1. Readiness to change is inversely related to the sex of teachers -- males are more ready to change_than females. 2. The magnitude of internal barriers to curri- culum change that teachers gerceive is directly related to the sex of teachers -- females will gerceive more internal barriers than males. 3. The magnitude of external barriers to curri- ‘gglum chaggg that teachers_perceive is directly Eglated to the sex of teachers -- females will gerceive more external barriers than mglgg. The rationale for Hypothesis V 8-1 was based on the generally accepted dominant role that the male plays in our 12 society (the male usually having a significant voice in family decisions and changes) which might make him more flexible. Another factor is the attractiveness of the secondary teaching routine which usually embodies less supervision (and thus more opportunity for decision making) and greater administrative organizational flexi- bility. Hypotheses V B-2 and V 8-3 were stated in the above manner in the belief that males -- perhaps by virtue of a dominant role -- would feel a greater faculty to cope with barriers to change -- especially those external in nature. C. Marital Status 1. Readiness to change is directly related to teachers' maritgl statusp:e married teachers are less ready to change than unmarried teachers. 2. The magnitude of internal barrggrs to curriy culum change that teachers perceive is inversely related to their marital status -- ggpgied teachers will perceive more barriers to change than unmarried teacners. 3. The magnitude of external barriers to curri- culum changg that teachers perceive is inversely related to their marital status -- 13 married teachers will perceive more barriers to change than unmarried teachers. The rationale for Hypotheses V C-1, V C-2 and V C-3, was that good teaching requires considerable amounts of time in planning, preparation, and professional growth. If these are the ingredients of good teaching then the un- married teachers would probably have more time to devote to the tasks and would probably be more likely to be ready to try new things and see fewer barriers to change. If consideration is given to the previous set of hypotheses (V 8-1, V 8-2, and V 8-3) and if these are confirmed then by sheer weight of numbers they would influence the above hypotheses. 0. Teaching Level 1. Readiness to change is directly_rglated to teaching_level -- secondary teachers are more ready to changpthan are elementary teachers. 2. The magnitude of internal barriers to curri- culum change that tegghers perceive is inversely related to teaching level ~- secondary teachers will perceive fewer internal barriers than elementary teachers. 14 3. The magnitude of external barriers to curri- culum change that teachers perceive is inversely related to teaching level -- secondary teachers will perceive fewer external barpiers than elementapy teachers. The rationale that was advanced for this group of hypotheses was that if males were more ready to consider job-related change and also to acknowledge fewer obstacles to curriculum change and if there were more males than females in the secondary schools than by the sheer weight of numbers the teaching level variable would be influenced. Also considered in determing these hypotheses was the greater overall administrative organizational flexibility in the high school and which may permit the individual a greater opportunity for independent decision making. E. Degree Held 1. Readiness to change is directly related to the college degree held -- teaghers who hold masters degrees are mgpe reapy to change than those with bachelors degrees. 2. The magnitude of internal barriers to curri- culum change that teachgps‘perceive is directly related to the college degree held ~- teachers who help masters degrees will 15 perceive more internal barriers tp change than those with bachelors degrees. 3. The magnitude of externalbarriers to curri- culum change that teachers perceive £3 gigpctly related to the college degree held-- pggphers_who hplppmasters_gggpees will perceive more extpppal bargiers to change than those who hglg bachelors degpggg. The rationale which was considered in developing Hypothesis V E-1 was that these teachers who held an advanced degree would be more ready-to-change primarily because of their exposure to more educational ideas. While it was felt that the master of arts degree per so would not guarantee the rationale the reading, thinking and discussions that accompany the program might. Hypotheses V E-2 and V E-3 were stated in the above form because it was felt that although an advanced degree would enable people to become more ready-to-change it would also make them more aware of and more sensitive to potential barriers to curriculum change. F. Continuing Education 1. Rggginess to chapge is directly_related to Eggphers' continuing education--teachers who are continuigg_their educations are more ready to change than those who are not. 16 2. The magnitude of internal barriers to curgi- culum change that teachers perceive is directly related to their continuing educations -- teachers who are continuing their educations will perceive more internal barriers to chapge than those who are not. 3. The magnitude of external barriers to curri- gglum changp_that teachers perceive is directly related to their continuing educations -- teachers who are continuing their educations gill perceive more external barriers to chapgg than those who are not. The rationale behind Hypotheses V F-1, V F-2, and V F-3 was the same as that advanced for Hypotheses V E-1, V E-2, and V E-3. The rationale in the latter instance suggested that an advanced degree would make people more secure in changing (thus being more ready-to-change) but at the same time make them more aware of certain barriers which might impede their progress to change. C. Teaching Experience 1. Readiness to change is inversely related to teachers' total teaching experience --_those with more experience are less ready for change. 17 2. The magnitude of internal barriers to curri- cuium change which teachers pegceive is directly related to their teaching experience -- those with more experience wili perceive more internal barriers. 3. The magnitude of external barriers to curri- culum change which teachers perceive is directly related to their teaching experience -- those with maps experience will perceive more external barriers. It was assumed in the development of Hypotheses V 6-1, V 8-2, and V 8-3, that there would be about the same relationship between the major variables and teaching experience as there was with the major variables and the demographic factor of age. It was thought that the rationale for these hypotheses (V 6-1, V 8-2, V 6-3) would be similar to that advanced on pages 10 and 11. H. Tenure 1. Readiness to change is inversely related to teachers' tenure status -- those who are on tenure arefiiess ready for change than thogp who are not. 18 2. The magnitude of internal barriers to curri- culum change that teachers perceive is directly related to their tenure status ~- those who are on tenure are more likely to pegceive internal barriers than those who are no. 3. The magnitude of external barriers to curri- culum change that teachers perceive is directly related to their tenure status -- those who are on tepgre are more likely to perceive external barriers than those who are not. Much of the current literature concerned with value of having teachers on tenure status rather than non-tenure status extol the fact that tenure produces security and peace-of—mind and the teacher is therefore more willing and able to try new ideas in the classroom. This writer. however, felt that other factors (such as age, sex, teach- ing experience) might influence the outcome of Hypotheses V H-1, V H-2, and V H-3. 19 1. Occupational Status* 1. Readiness to change is positively related to the ocgupational status of the princippl wage earner in the teachers's family -- profegsionals are more ready for change than non- professionals. 2. The magnitude of internal barriers to curri- culum change that teachers perceive is directly related to the occupational status of thp principal wage earner in the teacher's fppiiy -- professionals will perceive fewer internal barriers than non-professionals. 3. The magnitude of external barriers to curri- culum change that teachers perceive is directly related to the occupational statps of the principal wage earner in the tegpher's family -- professionals will perceive fewer external barriers than nongprofessionals. * The occupational status was determined by taking the job title that each teacher listed and categorizing it in terms of the United States Census Bureau 1960 Occupational Title Classification. 20 J. Father's Occupation 1. Readiness to change is inversely related to teacherp: father's_occupatin_-- those whose fathers ho d held wh te co lar ositions are {were} more ready to change than those whose fathers are were farmers or blue collar workers. 2. The magnitude of internal barriers to curri- culum change that teachers perceive is directly related to teachers' father's occupation ~- those whpse fathers hold {held} white collar positions will perceive fewer internal barriers than those whose fathers are (were) farmers or blue collar workers. 3. The magnitude of external barriers to currie culum change that teachers perceive is directly related to teachers' father's occupation -- those whgse fathers hold (held) white collar positions will perceive fewer external barriers than those whose fathers are {were} farmers or blue collar workers. The rationale developed for Hypotheses V I-1, V 1-2, and V I-3 (in which the major variables were compared with the occupational status of the principal wage earner) and 21 V J—1, V J-Z, and V J-3 (in which the major variables were compared with teachers' father's occupation) were grouped together because they reflect the sample's class origin. In Hypotheses V I-1 and V J-1 the rationale used was that education would be an instrumental factor in class origin and attitudes of the professional over the non-professional and white collar worker over the blue collar worker. It was also felt that because of this educational factor those teachers' of a higher class origin or status would be more ready to change and perceive fewer obstacles to change. Definition of Terms 1. Barrier: Any limitation (physical, social, or internal) that restricts or impedes an individual's 2 progress to achieve. Used synonymously with obstacle. 2. Change: The perceived phenomena which occurs when the balance and stability of a situation is altered; when there is a variation or modification in a procedure or object; when there is a substi- tution of one thing for another. 2. Horace B. and Ava Champney English, A Com rehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psyghoanalytical Terms p. 35. , 22 3. Curriculum: The whole of the interacting forces of the total environment provided for the pupil by the school -- as a social institution -- and the pupil's learning experiences within that environment which leads him to undergo the process of induction into the culture. (See Appendix E) 4. Curriculum Change: ". . . is the task of altering the existing curriculum to attain a more desirable level of development."3 It is a change in behavior on the part of all those concerned with, and involved in, the process of curriculum development. ". . . a type of social change, change in pepple, not mere change on paper.” 5. force: Any condition that produces, influences, or affects the change in behavior or experiences 6 within an individual. 6. Insecurity: An indefinite condition of feeling anxious, unsafe, threatened, or apprehensive and 7 often characterized by lack of trust in oneself. 3. B. 0thanel Smith, William 0. Stanley, J. Harlan Shores, Fundamentais of Curiiculum Development, p. 620. 4. Vernon E. Anderson Princi lee and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, p. 5. 5. Alice miel, Changing the Curgiculum : A Social Change‘Process, p. 10. 6. English, pp. cit., p. 212. 7. Ibid., p. 26A. 10. 11. 12. 8. 9. 23 Security: "A complex attitude of self-possession, self-confidence, and certitude that one belongs in B valued social groups." Threat: Any imagined event, believed likely to happen, that excites dread or induces fear or 9 anxiety. External Barriers: Those restrictions which the individual perceives as originating or being imposed from outside himself. Internal Barriers: Those restrictions which the individual perceives as originating or being imposed within the self. Children and Parents as Barriers: Those obstacles which the individual perceives as originating within the group or groups commonly referred to as children and/or parents. School Personngi as Barripig: Those obstacles that are construed by the individual as originat- ing from members of the school system or school staff, i.e., members of the board of education, superintendent, curriculum workers, principals, other teachers, and janitors. Ibid., p. 483. Ibid., p. 554. 24 13. School Plant and Eguipment as Barriers: Those obstacles or restrictions which the individual perceives as being imposed by deficiencies or shortcomings in the physical facility in which he works and/or the material or apparatus with which he works. 14. Self as a Barrier: Those obstacles or restrictions which the individual perceives as resulting from within himself. They may be barriers over which the individual may exert varying degrees of control at specified times and over which the individual may exert varying degrees of control depending upon his understanding of himself. 15. Time as a Barrier: Those barriers imposed by the lack of time (defined here as a measureable duration). Limitations of the Study It was recognized from the outset that this study might at best shed some light on one aspect of the major problem of helping teachers toward curriculum change. If one is to derive any value from this study, he should be cognizant of the following limitations: 25 1. The judgments and reactions to the two instru- ments by the teachers participating in the study created limitations. One should raise the question, perhaps only for academic reasons, about the honesty of judgments and reactions to rather controversial statements. 2. The author's dual role as an administrator in the school system and a researcher could have influenced the reactions of teachers to the instruments and produced a greater degree of threat than if an outsider had administered the questionnaire. There was genuine concern on the part of many participants as to how the data would be used. 3. A situational factor should also be related for it could conceivably have altered the results of the study. Several principals preferred not having their staffs participate in the study on either a voluntary or an involuntary basis. 4. Another limitation, that of the size of,the sample (only four-hundred teachers), could also play an important role in the results. One wonders if there would have been any significant changes in the collected data if the entire teaching staff (eight-hundred teachers) had been able to take part in the study. suburban. 6. An individual's or group of individual's readiness- to-change as measured in one instance, rather than over a prolonged period using a pretest and posttest, may be construed as a limiting factor in this study. Organization of the Study a rationale for the study, to introduce the design of the study, to state the hypotheses, and to acquaint the reader with the significance, definitions, sample, and limita- tions of the study. Chapter II will deal with ideas and data, the source of the data, a description of the data gathering instruments, and the type of statistical analysis used in the study. Chapter IV will present and CHAPTER TWO RELATED IDEAS AND LITERATURE The second chapter of this paper considers some of the ideas and literature which are felt to be directly related to the nature of this study. Since this study is primarily concerned with barriers which tend to provoke resistance to curriculum change, it is thought that it should be more appropriate in the first section of this chapter to include what are perceived to be the concepts of curriculum as well as the concepts of change and resistance to change. This is achieved through the use of essays which attempt to reflect not so much a direct report of the appropriate readings as much as a meaningful interpretation and value judgment of the literature's worth. Through this approach one is perhaps more able to see the results of the distillation and crystalization of ideas rather than the original ideas themselves. The second section of this chapter, however, does review the rather limited amount of literature which relates to teachers' perceived barriers to curriculum change in the public schools. 27 28 Curriculum As one attempts to develop an understanding of the word "curriculum" he must first carefully observe the role of the school in its proper perspective within the society: it is through the role of observing that a clearer appreciation may be gained. The first step that one must take in attempting to understand "curriculum” is to recognize that one of the most fundamental demands of the society is to have its schools continue to permit its youth to develop certain beliefs, skills, attitudes, values, conventions, and customs which are generally deemed by the majority to be important to the perpetuation of the culture. And, for the most part, this can be seen in our culture. Through a myriad of experiences the school attempts to permit youth to develop the necessary values, attitudes, and skills which are judged by the society to be important. But this is a very difficult and hazardous task for any one institution to undertake. A society as complex as ours is continually changing. Its values are not constant from one generation to the next. What is highly prized by one generation is often looked upon with disdain by another. Skills that were once considered valuable no longer exist today. They have often been replaced by skills either more or less complex but definitely thought to be more desirable. And, as a result of these shifting 29 values and skills, attitudes have also been immeasurably altered giving rise to the questions of what experiences -- the content of the school program -- should be provided in today's schools and how they should be presented to the learner. Needless to say, it is quite impossible for any individual to encounter all conceivable experiences, attitudes, values, and skills existent within a culture such as ours. It becomes necessary, therefore, for the society to make certain decisions regarding the selection and implementation of those experiences that are thought to be most advantageous to youth. These experiences must then be dependent upon the interpretation given to the society's values by the members of that society. These decisions are based to varying degrees upon concern about such factors as beliefs, needs, and knowledge of youth. The members of the society who are charged with the task of managing and operating the schools are in a rather difficult position of assisting in the decision making process of selecting experiences. They must be able to see the needs of the total society on the one hand and meet the demands of small segments of that society on the other. They must assist in interpreting the total society's needs in an unbiased manner. They must help to formulate these needs into objectives toward which youth are guided. There must also be some adequate form of social control 30 under which the learner is to develop progressively in his selected school experiences and, there must be some highly effective way of assisting and guiding the interaction between the school and the learner. Furthermore, education must have methods as well as objectives and content. The methods will be partly determined by the objectives and the needed experiences but, also, based upon well grounded psychological study of the development and growth of youth and in methods of thinking which the society accepts as important in continuation of the culture. Experiences, objectives, and methods are all very much a part of the role of the school as an institution within the society, but they do not complete the picture. Only with the addition of the factor of people's human relationships ~- teacher -- student -- administrator -- parents -- other laymen -- interacting with all other factors will education be meaninoful. This leads to the definition of curriculum as the whole of the interactigg2£orces of the total environment provided for pupiis by the school -- as a social institution -- and the pupils' learning experiences within that envigpnment which lead them to undergo the_process of deliberate {pgpgiign into the culture. This definition has some strong implications for education and people. It means that the curriculum cannot be thought of as a constant; a list of courses or a group of experiences that never change. It implies change -- 31 social change -- and as miel has so forcefully stated: ". . . curriculum change is something much more subtle than revising statements written down on paper. To change the curriculum of the school is to change the factors interacting to shape that curriculum. In each instance this means bringing about changes in people -- in their desires, beliefs, and attitudes, in their knowledge and skill. Even changes in the physical environment, to the extent that they can be made at all, are dependent upon changes in the persons who have some control over that environment. In short, the nature of the curriculum change should be seen for what it really is -- a type of social change, change in people, not mere change on paper.” 1 ' If, then, curriculum change is social change -- and the author believes that it is -- it might serve a useful purpose to explore briefly the concept of change and resistance to change. Change and Resistance to Change It would seem appropriate in a discussion of change to first attempt to clear away some semantic obstacles. The word "change" often tends to produce some rather strong emotional reactions primarily because. to many people, change is threatening. Change is not a neutral word for it often conjures up visions of a manipulator, a 1. Miel, pp. cit., p. 10. 32 dissatisfied idealist, a trouble maker, a revolutionary, a malcontent. Nicer words referring to the process of changing people are education, training, orientation, guidance, or therapy. We are usually far more ready to have others "educate" us than to have them "change” us. We feel less guilty in "training"others than in ”changing" them. But why do we have these conflicting emotional responses about words which are somewhat similar in definition? Perhaps it is due in a large part to the fact that the safer words -- education, therapy, orienta- tion or guidance -- seem to carry the rather implicit guarantee that the only changes which are produced will be virtuous ones, acceptable within the framework of a commonly held value system. The cold, unmodified word "change", on the otherhand, promises little or no respect for values; in fact, it might even be perceived as altering the values themselves. Perhaps for this very reason it will foster straight thinking to use the word "change” and thereby force ourselves to struggle directly and self consciously with the implied problems of values that are involved. Words such as education, training, or guidance, by the very fact that they are not quite so disturbing, may close our eyes to the fact that they also involve values. Thus far, we have discussed the semantics involved when the word "change" is considered but, in this context, we have not defined it. It may be well to recall the 33 definition of "change”, stated in Chapter I as, "The perceived phenomena which occurs when the balance and stability of a situation is altered; when there is a variation or modification in a procedure or object: when there is a substitution of one thing for another."* The phenomena referred to above can perhaps be thought of as resulting from a complex of forces (such as new ideas, a readjustment to a new set of perceptions, or one's realignment to a new environment) arising out of any dynamic situation involving the interaction of an indi- vidual with his perceptions of the unknown. To further clarify the definition we must state that this concept of change must take into consideration change resulting from structure of framework, technological innovations and processes, as well as altered behavioral characteristics. We have already expressed the point-of—view that the word ”change” frequently elicits varied reactions within people but perhaps the idea of the process of change has an even greater impact on human beings. It is pleasant to hold to familiar ideas, procedures, and materials for this engenders a sense of security; at the same time, however, it is pleasant to encounter the new and unexpected for this adds variety to our lives. But in any event change, which has been found to be present in every culture, proceeds at an accelerating pace in * See Chapter I, p. 21. 34 American society. The cultural conflicts and the seemingly ambivalent attitudes toward change frequently cause strains within a group of people trying to work together and, indeed, within any one person in a group. Why some changes are made smoothly while others are resisted, why some people tend to welcome change while others seem to turn their backs to it, and why emotion is often so easily aroused in connection with change have been the subject of concern for no little time. Some things have been learned but much more needs to be learned about people and change. It might be well to look briefly, then, at the subject of resistance to change for, in the minds of many, resistance to change is a corollary to change. Resistance to Change It has already been said, in essence, that man's life is constantly changing. It is true that most of these changes are slow and gradual: so slow in fact that the individual is often not aware of the changes he is under- going. Many of the changes exist in the subconscious or unconscious, some are willfully self imposed, and usually, if not always, these changes are voluntary. A greater portion of man's life is change in this manner and he thus accepts it with little or no resistance. When changes are externally imposed, however, and the 35 individual is forced to accept an unwanted change, then rejection of change, or at least resistance to it, often -occurs -- this can be seen-most vividly when it is imposed as.part of the supervisory function, whether in business, education, or industry. 2 Perhaps a significant reason for this reluctance or resistance to change stems from the individual's perception .of himself -- his self image -- in relation to change. Imposed change implies that the individual is not as ' acceptable to others as he would like to be, and this may result in varying degrees of insecurity. This idea, coupled with the concept that most people like themselves the way they are and usually find themselves and their behavior acceptable to others, may be a prime factor in the individual's resistance or reluctance to change. Industrial studies have explored this subject to some degree of depth and have found that basically there are three reasons why employees resist proposed company changes; they are economic, personal, and social in 2. Paul R. Lawrence, "How to Deal With Resistance to Change," Harvard Business Review, May-June 1954, p. 49-57, makes an interesting statement concerning types of resistance to change. "Actually, what employees resist is usually not technical change but social change -- the change in their human relationships that generally accompanies technical change." p. 49. 36 3 nature, all of which may be interrelated. Ecpnomic Reasons People frequently fear that proposed company changes may result in unemployment, in a substantial reduction in their total working hours, in an ultimate demotion, in a reduction of their basic pay, in loss of incentive or bonus pay (as in the case of speed-ups), and hence in a loss of self-esteem and status. Personal Reasons Sometimes the resistance is-founded in resentment of the implied condemnation that the present method of Operation or work routine is inadequate. It may be based on the belief that the change may bring about a higher degree of specialization resulting in greater boredom, monotony, or in a substantially decreased feeling of accomplishment. The change may be resisted because of the fear that it will require skills and training which the individual does not possess or is unable to acquire. It may be resisted because of the fear that the employee may be transferred to another department or division where he will have to reestablish himself in his work role. 3. See studies reported in Mason Haire, Psychology in Mana ement, p. 176-183; L. Coch and J. P. R. French "Overcoming Resistance to Change" Human Relations, 1949, I 512-532; B. Van Heller Cilmer, Industrial Ps cholo y, p. 210-212, 420-422: Ida Russakoff Hoos, I‘When the Computer Takes Over the Office," Harvard Business Review, 38 : 102-112, July-August, 19 O. 37 Social Reasons In our society the individual often looks to his occupation to satisfy certain social needs as well as economic and personal needs. This brings about certain types of legitimate concerns when the individual is faced with the prospect-of change. Some people will resist change because they fear that it may break some long established social contacts and working relationships with people whom they know and like. Related are those who might resist change because they strongly dislike making new social adjustments and fear that a new social situation may bring about reduced personal or occupational satisfactions. The change may cause resistance when it involves the lives of the individual's family as in the case of transfers to another location. Or, it may meet with resistance because of the perceived loss of prestige a person may suffer when required to make changes. Sometimes resistance to change makes people appear stubborn, perverse, or contrary, at least by those who favor a specific change. Spicer points out, however, that people do not naturally resist change for they realize that change is part of living. He points out that people do resist change when: 1. They believe their basic securities are threatened. 3B 2. They do not understand the change. 3. They resent being forced to change. 4 It is very easy for the individual who sees the value of a proposed change and feels adequate in taking the .initial steps to assume that the other fellow perceives the situation the same as he. And, therefore, any .reluctance in the latter tends to look like stubbornness or senseless opposition. In reality, however, one or more .of Spicer's factors or perhaps, still other conditions, may be operating to hinder new perception. But people are able to change without any seemingly significant resistance. Change happens when it is recognized that certain causal factors such as the individual's behavior is preceeded by his thoughts, his past experiences, his beliefs, his perceptions, and his attitudes, all tempered by years of habit patterns; when it is recognized that all lasting change must be indivi- dualized in relation to these causal factors. Overcoming Resistance to Change Thus far the discussion has focused upon why people tend to resist change. The implications of the discussion to this point are that if it is possible to isolate those factors which cause resistance to change then it should 4. Edward H. Spicer, Human Problems and Technological Change, p. 18. 39 also be possible to suggest the means for overcoming or preventing resistance to change.5 (It:should be noted here, however, that for inidivduals to overcome all resistance to change is probably never possible, but to reconcile and reduce the resistance factors within oneself to their lowest terms will make the change easier on all concerned.) It is believed here that with an awareness of certain definite understandings one may be able to cope with the problems of change and resistance to change in a more intelligent manner. The person in the leadership role is then able to be more sensitive to people's needs and to be able to vary his working relationships to meet these needs. With this in mind, then, the following "understandings" have been developed for consideration. S. The reader may wish to refer to the following writings for a greater degree of depth on the subject: Ronald Lippitt, Jeanne Watson, and Bruce Westley, 122 D namics of Planned Chan 9, Chapter 4, "Motivation and the Client System," p. 71-90; Alvin Cardner, "Exploration in Applied Social Sciences," Social Problems, 3 : 173-181, January, 1956; Alvin Zander, "Resistance to Change : Its Analysis and Prevention," Advanced Management, 15-16 : 9-11, January, 1950; Alfred J. Morrow and John R. P. French, Jr., "Changing a Stereotype in Industry," Journal of Social Issues, 2 : 33-37, January 1945; Elting E. orr son, 'A ase Study in Innovation," En ineerin and Science Ma azine, A publication of California Institute at Tecfinology, Pasadena, California, April, 1950; Richard P- Calhoon, C. A. Kirkpatrick, Influencin Em lo ee Behavior; Charles P. Loomis and J. Allan geegte, Rural Sociology : A Stratggy of Change. 40 Understanding I. Peo le Chen a When They See a Need to Ctange People can be expected to change only when they perceive a need for change. Discontent with themselves in their present situation, a changing concept of their image of.self, or the belief that the change will benefit them in a positive manner are the most common reasons for people to see a need for change. Understanding II. People Change When They Know How to hange In order to effect change one must modify his beliefs, attitudes, and values. This, then, requires that the individual see himself in a different role and that he make some value judgments about himself in that role. When he is able to do this with a degree of certainty about the outcome, when he believes that he knows how to accomplish the change and how this change will affect him in the eyes of others, than there is every reason to believe that the change may be accomplished in a manner producing t little resistance. Understanding III. Peo le Chan 9 When The Are Activel Involved in the Change Process Change in people's attitudes, beliefs, or behavior does not come about when people remain passive -- they must take an active part in the change process if lasting 41 change is to take place. The individual must see himself as an integral part of the change pattern. His perceptions ofhwhat is happening to himself and how he will be affected will do much to influence his attitudes and degree of resistance to change. If the individual is actively involved -- intellectually and emotionally -- he is likely to construct new habit patterns that will become a permanent part of his future behavior. Understanding IV. People Change When They Are Secure in Changing People know how things are in the present and how they were in the past but they are often unduly fearful of the new because they are unsure of themselves and their abilities to adjust to something different. It is for this reason, because they are uncertain -- and thus insecure -- of the future, that change is often threaten- ing to people. The degree to which the individual's fears can be allayed will usually determine his willingness to accept and co-Operate with the proposed change. Understanding V. Peopie Do Not Necessarily Change on the as 5.2_ ew Know edge one Newly acquired knowledge does very little by itself to bring about change, especially where long standing habits and beliefs are involved. The individual is often oblivious to new knowledge because it does not meet any 42 need of his that is not already being-met to his level of satisfaction in some other manner. Furthermore, new knowledge may be threatening to him because he may fail to understand its implications or may be unable to perceive how to use it to make his job-more productive. Understanding VI. P90 is Chan a When The Are Encoura ed and Supported In Changing Change is usually perceived as involving a certain degree of risk. An individual is more likely to initiate change and to carry through change if he believes that those whom he respects are supporting him. The knowledge that others are engaging in similar activities and efforts often provides considerable support to the individual and his change. But to live in an atmosphere of self-doubt, expectation of the worst, and unsupported risk will not enable an individual to initiate the most positive change. Understanding VII. People Change Some Attitudes Slowly Abrupt changes in attitudes occasionally occur from some dramatic experience but change generally is gradual and frequently difficult. Not only are related changes in habits of action involved, but prior to that must come changes in perceptions. Changes in people's conceptions are often difficult and even painful for the individual to achieve, for his current perceptions are deeply rooted in 43 earlier experiences, unquestioned assumptions, and unanalyzed beliefs. When people sincerely work toward these understandings, real and lasting change in behavior can be accomplished. For people often fear, reject, or resist the unknown or untried. They tend to reject the new and hold to the secure that has served them so well. But once their fears are alleviated, regardless of whether or not they are real or imagined, and once they see that they will not lose, they usually accept change as a challenge and co-operate with it. Literature Related to the Study The colleges of education, the researchers, the local school administrators, the curriculum workers are all responsible for much of the research, writing and discussion in the field of education. But, in the final analysis, it is none of these who determines the true face of public education. The role belongs to the teacher in the classroom -- the person directly responsible for the education of children and youth. How the individual teacher perceives the colleges of education, the administrator, the curriculum worker, the research, the writings, the dimensions of education, determines how and what he will eventually teach behind the closed door of 44 his classroom. The professor may stress his philosophy, the curriculum worker may point to research, and the administrator may cajol, assist, or dictate, but their impact upon the teacher is only proportional to the degree to.which the teacher feels a need for the product they are offering. Their impact is only proportional to the degree to which the teacher feels secure in accepting their offerings. Their impact is only proportional to the degree to which the teacher senses the proclivity to accept their offerings. And all of these -- need, security, and natural inclination -- are dependent upon the teacher's perception of himself and of his freedom to operate within a given framework, autonomous of internal or external obstacles. It is only when these factors -- perceived need, perceived security, and proclivity based upon freedom from perceived barriers -- are brought into meaningful focus that the individual teacher is able to accept ideas and institute significant change. The primary attention here is on what one group of teachers judge to be barriers to curriculum change in relation to their readiness for change. Consequential literature is related to this specific topic; 1.8. what teachers see as obstacles to carrying out their assignments,and some of the general categories of barriers actually expressed by teachers. It should be noted that related research and studies, especially those 45 concerned with curriculum improvement were not found to be abundant. The first of these was a study in 1951 by William Fullagar who examined the issue of teacher-sensed problems to.curriculum improvement.. This study reported the following ideas concerning the obstacles to curriculum improvement or change: 1. Unprofessional conduct and attitudes within teacher groups. 2. New programs did not grow out of teachers' suggestions but rather from administrative edict. 3. The administrative staff failed to define the dimensions or framework in which teachers could work. 4. Teachers were suspicious of the motives of the administrative staff. Fullagar concluded that there was a real necessity for the curriculum worker to work more closely with and have a greater understanding of the perceptual field of the teacher. 6 Banning's 1951 study of junior high school teachers' attitudes toward curriculum change which used data collected by a structured interview and questionnaire, suggested that the degree of favorable attitude toward curriculum change was affected to some degree by three types of personal relationships: teacher-administrator, . 6. William A. Fullagar, Some Teacher-Sensed Problems in Curriculum Im rovement, (Unpublished Doctoral Disserta- tion), ColumEia University, New York, 1951. 46 teacher-pupil, and teacher-community. Banning's study indicated that the relationship between the teacher's favorableness toward curriculum change-correlated significantly with the teacher's personal feelings that he was an active or real participant in the formulation of curriculum policy and a factor in the implementation of these decisions. It was also discovered in this study that those junior high school teachers who were more ready for change or who had more favorable attitudes toward change were those teachers who had the most con- gruous relationships with the pupils in their classrooms and were the most active participants in the life of the community. 7 What do teachers perceive as being significant obstacles or barriers to the fulfillment of their assign- ments in the most effective manner? A partial answer to this question lies in Prewett's study of barriers which teachers judged to be restricting factors to effective teaching and learning. Data collected from over four- hundred classroom teachers on conditions and circumstances which prevented them from doing their best teaching indicated that, categorically speaking, barriers could be isolated and placed in the following general areas: 7. Evelyn I. Banning, Teacher Attitude Toward Curriculum Chan e A Stud of the Junior Hi 5 School Teachers of Pittstield. !Unpublished Doctoral Disserta- tion, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1951). 47 barriers in the classroom, barriers in the school, barriers within the community, and barriers of a personal nature relating to the teacher himself. These barriers are listed below. In the Classroom: Interruptions (mentioned most frequently) Overcrowded conditions Unattractive rooms Poor heating and lighting Dirty floors Room in need of painting Inadequate furniture Lack of instructional equipment Lack of window shades' Teacher confusion over scholastic standards Lack of time for necessary work Too much clerical work Discipline problems Lack of insect control Inadequate display spaces Within the School: Building too noisy (mentioned most frequently) Burning trash immediately outside Too much money-collecting -- too many drives Inadequate special facilities (gym, lunchroom, etc.) Different socio-economic groups not integrated Unwholesome boy-girl relationships (”going steady") Lack of wholesome recreation for children Teacher cliques “Bossy" teachers Lack of co-operation among teaching staff No group planning Lack of common understanding about school objectives No real group feeling among the staff School plant unattractive Wholesale confusion about routine matters. Within the Community: Fear of being misunderstood by parents and patrons Expectations that teachers be the "moral light” Poor economic resources in the community 48 Lack of parental co-OPeration in school affairs Narrow religious, social and economic views of citizens Other community organizations jealous of school Acceptance not as a person but "just as a teacher" Expecting teachers to do too much service work Low esteem of teaching profession Lack of understanding of the problems of teaching Misconception of modern educational practices View that teachers have it "too easy" Lack of recreational facilities for teachers School used as scape-goat by some groups Rigid social structure in community Personal Factors: Conflict between home responsibilities and after hour school duties Afraid of not pleasing parents Financial worries Jealousy of other teachers' social status Fear of not being accepted by the teaching staff Feeling hemmed in by community customs Feeling of being continually pushed and rushed Pressures from various community groups No time for relaxation during the school day Feeling of being of no real importance in the school program Insecurity about "where I stand" with administration No gestures of encouragement which help so much No place to take personal or professional problems 3 Although Prewett's study is concerned with barriers to good teaching it is assumed that good teaching and curri- culum improvement are rather closely related. It will be seen in subsequent chapters that a similarity exists between the barriers which Prewett cites and those judged to be significant by the participants in this study. The most recent research concerned with the subject of barriers to curriculum improvement was reported by 8. Clinton R. Prewett, ”Let's Remove the Barriers to Good Teaching," The School Executive, LXXV - May, 1956, p. 83-85. 49 9 Donald Cay in 1960. The data used in-the study were collected from one hundred (100) secondary school teachers by means of an interview and questionnaire. The question- naire was divided into four areas of professional relation- ships (situations involving administrators, other teachers, parents, and pupils) and each area contained fifteen "school life situations" concerned with attitudes toward curriculum improvement. Cay found that of the sixty statements used the following ten items were thought to be most limiting or preventative of curriculum improvement: "Parents and teachers meet together to try to discuss important school problems. You notice that the parents act completely bored with the whole affair during the meeting.- "For several years, you have seen a real need for many changes in your high school English program. The changes would modernize the program to meet the pupils' needs. When you suggest these changes to the faculty, the resistance is overpowering. "Soon you will be ready to bring to the total faculty a new approach to the use of supplementary materials in mathematic classes. You try out the ideas on three other mathematic teachers in your school and their reactions are strictly negative. "Your parents are upset over a new method of grading that your school is experimenting with this year. Instead of coming to you for explanations, they call a public meeting to openly criticize and condemn your attempts. 9. Donald Frederick Cay, Selected Teachers' Ex-ressed Jud-ments.Concernin- Barriers to Curr cu um m-rovemen . npu- s e- Doc oral D sser at on, Universi y of F or da, Cainesville, Florida, 1961). 50 ”Your parents constantly give you an 'I don't care' attitude about almost all phases of your class work. “Your school enrolls a sizeable number of pupils. Your principal calls out the parents for a night meeting to explain and discuss school needs. Only five percent of the parents show up for the meeting. "After working closely with most of your parents on a class project, you feel that parents just don't seem to care about 'quality' work in class from their children. "As you work with your pupils and try to encourage them to ’reach out' intellectually, you find that they seem perfectly satisfied to do just enough work to pass your course. "You are the hostess at a dinner party for the other six English teachers in your department. Four of the six teachers call up to cancel their invitations, with a logical excuse, the day before the party. "You are told by your principal that all teachers must visit the homes of all their homeroom students this year. "Of the ten items chosen as most limiting or preventative to participating in curriculum improvement activities, the teachers in the sample picked five in the area of teacher-parent relationships. This holds true to the results shown on questionnaire and interview returns. The area of teacher-parent relationships stands out in all aspects of the study as the area where the greatest number of barriers to curriculum improvement occur, from the teachers' point of view. Three items were chosen in the area of teacher-teacher relationships, and one item each in the areas of teacher-pupil and teacher-principal relationships. Barriers to participation in curriculum 51 improvement activities were apparent to the teachers in the sample in all four areas, yet, the teacher-parent area was chosen at every opportunity as the area of most concern to them." 10 From the findings of his work, Cay drew the following conclusions: 1. Strong indications were given by the teachers, in the data returned, that factors which they see as barriers to curriculum improvement can be isolated in the four areas of relationships investigated in this study. 2. In order to feel encouraged to participate in curriculum improvement activities, teachers need to know the following things: a. That they are included by principals in planning and policy-making decisions which affect school operation. b. That principals will consult them before making arbitrary decisions which affect daily school routine. c. That other faculty members are supportive of curriculum change. d. That they are accepted, both professionally and socially, by most other faculty members. e. That pupils are interested in sharing class planning and evaluation procedures. f. That they can see changed behavior patterns in the pupils they teach. 9. That their goals and practices with pupils are similar to those of the parents. 10. Cay, pp, cit., pp. 192-193. 52 h. That parents will show interest in and support of the school program. 11 Summary In summary, these studies of teachers' perceived and expressed judgments of barriers to curriculum change would seem to indicate that obstacles do exist and the natural outgrowth is resistance to change. Furthermore, they indicate that teachers are aware of and concerned with problems and are willing to speak of them. These studies would seem to indicate, too, that feelings are facts and if a person believes that feelings are facts and if a person believes that he has obstacles in his path he Egg them -- evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. A problem which exists in the individual's mind is no less a problem than the one which can be substantiated by the outside observer. With this background as a basis we shall now turn to Chapter III and examine the process used in the collection of the data, the source of the data, a description of the instruments used, and the data analysis procedures. 11. Cay, _2, cit., pp. 199-207. CHAPTER THREE PROCEDURES USED IN THE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF THE DATA This chapter shall be concerned with the procedures used in the collection and treatment of the data. The steps used in the collection, the source of the data, the description of the instruments used, and the procedures for data analysis are treated in order. Collection of the Data An initial-step was to meet with the superintendent of schools to (1) explain the project, its purpose, and its significance, and (2) to solicit his support for the study. The superintendent's reaction was favorable and he also made several suggestions that could be followed to facilitate the collection of the data. The first step being successfully accomplished and the superintendent's support secured, the next step was to contact building principals for permission to present the Readiness to Change Scale and barriers questionnaire to the staffs in their schools. It should be interjected at this point that the schools selected for the study 53 54 were chosen randomly from the thirty-four schools that comprised the school district. (The school names and faculty sizes were placed on cards and randomly selected from a box. The staff sizes were tabulated and, when about five-sights (5/8) of the school systems' teachers were accounted for, the schools were then contacted. If.permission to conduct the survey was not received than another card was drawn.) Included in the sample were fifteen elementary schools, three junior high schools, and two senior high schools. One can readily see that the number of schools exceeds the one-half sample that the study originally intended to use. However, this was a deliberate action, for it was assumed that on any given day the entire teaching staff would not be available to complete the questionnaire on barriers to curriculum change and the Reagiggss to Change Scale -- this was found to be especially true in the secondary schools. This assumption proved nearly correct. The thirty-four schools employed 786 classroom teachers at the time of the survey.1 The twenty schools employed 493 teachers but the total that were available to take part in the study or who, upon hearing an explanation and seeing the 1. The term "classroom teacher" is here defined as any teacher assigned to one building on a full-time basis -- regardless of subject(s) taught. This definition eliminated those physical education teachers, vocal and instrumental music teachers, speech correctionists, etc. who were assigned to several buildings. 55 nature and format of the questionnaire chose to partici- pate was 412. (No effort was made to keep track of those who preferred not to complete the questionnaire. The number probably exceeded no more than twenty.) Three percent (.03), or twelve (12) questionnaires were rejected because they were incomplete. (All questionnaires that were not completely filled out were rejected.) It can be seen that slightly over one-half of the teachers participated in the study -- 400 teachers were studied, 393 would have been a fifty percent (.50) sample. This phase of the project -- that of securing the assistance of the building principals -- was carried out on an individualized basis and the principal of each school to be surveyed was contacted. A meeting was held at which time the writer explained the nature and scope of the study as well as the function and use of the instruments to be used. This meeting provided the build- ing principal with an opportunity to explore in depth any questions that he might have concerning the project. At the end of this meeting each principal was asked to set aside a convenient date (preferably a regularly established faculty meeting) for the presentation of the survey material to the staff. This study elicited some rather interesting reactions from the school principals who were approached about participation in the project. Some accepted quite readily for the staffs while others were 56 more reticent and non-committal, preferring to discuss the study with the staffs prior to making a decision. In only one instance was there a request that the proposal be presented to a staff or staff committee for approval. Still other principals (six) displayed conduct that was interpreted by the author as being insecure and/or fearful that the schools' faculty might react in a manner that would cast an unfavorable.light on them as administrators. These principals had three things in common: they showed a high degree of conern that the study would compare their schools with other schools in the system; they pro- vided an infinite number of excuses as to why their staffs could not participate; they were all females. These schools were subsequently deleted from the sample and other schools selected to participate. The purpose of the first meeting that was held with the teachers on the prearranged date was primarily twofold; to explain the study and to request their participation in it. The proceudre that was used to carry out the presentation was as follows: first, the teachers were given a copy of the questionnaire to peruse while the purpose, nature, and significance of the study was presented. Then, the instructions for completing the questionnaire were discussed in detail. The teachers were then requested to participate in the study by completing the questionnaire in their DOSSEboion truthfully and 57 thoughtfully. Lastly, the group was informed that their individual reaction would be kept completely confidential. They were also informed that if they felt threatened to any degree by the thought that their personal judgments would be used in any other way than in that which was stated, then they could either leave the room or turn in a blank questionnaire. The group of teachers having received these instructions were then ready to begin work on the questionnaire. Source of the Data It has already been noted that the source of the collected data was 400 elementary and secondary school teachers employed by one school system. The sample consisted of 215 elementary school teachers and 185 secondary school teachers. The school system subscribed to a 6-3-3 organizational plan for the placement of pupils. However, for the sake of convenience, this study will consider the elementary schools to embrace grades kindergarten through grade six and the secondary schools to comprise grades seven through twelve. The following tables (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4) provide the reader with a more detailed insight into the personal characteristics of the 400 classroom teachers who made up the population of this study. These demographic factors include age, sex, 58 marital status, teaching level, degree held, continuing education, teaching experience, tenure, occupational classification of the principal wage earner in the teacher's family, and father's occupation. (The data about the occupational classification and father's occupation were collected to provide some information about the social status and origin of the individual). 59 TABLE 3.1 CHARACTERISTICS or THE SAmpLE: AGE, SEX, mARITAL STATUS AND TEACHING LEVEL W frequency Percentage Characteristic Observed Observed Age 20-24 51 12.75 30-34 60 15.00 35-39 62 15.50 40-44 30 , 7.50 45-49 29 7.25 50-54 47 11.75 55-59 34 ,8.50 60-or more 26 6.50 Total 400 100.00 Sex Male 136 34.00 Female 264 66.00 Total 400 100.00 Marital Status married 308 77.00 Single , 70 17.50 Other 22 5.50 Total 400 100.00 Teaching Level Elementary 215 53.75 Secondary 185 46.25 Total 400 100.00 60 TABLE 3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE: HIGHEST DEGREE HELD AND PROFESSIONAL STANDING ACTIVELY WORKING TOWARD AND TOTAL YEARS EXPERIENCE W W lIIIIII-Illl-IIIIII-unununnn~. Frequency Percentage Characteristic Observed __ Observed Degree Held Bachelors 261 62.25 Masters 131 32.75 Doctorate --- --- *Other 8 2.00 Total 400 100.00 Continuing Education Toward Bachelors 3 .75 Masters 141 35.25 Doctorate 16 4.00 **Other 12 3.00 "Ten Hours" 25 6.25 Six-Year Certificate 23 5.75 None 180 45.00 Total 400 100.00 Total Years Experience 0-4 119 29.75 5-9 90 22.50 10-14 63 15.75 15-19 31 7.75 20-or more 97 24.25 Total 400 100.00 * "Other" was specified in all cases as non-degree. ** "Other" was specified in all cases as preparing for work outside the field of education. 61 TABLE 3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE: YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND FATHER'S OCCUPATION W Frequency Percentage Characteristic Observed Observed Years Experience 0 42 10.50 1 14 3.50 2 48 12.00 3 27 6.75 4 35 8.75 5- 9 111 27.75 10-14 52 13.00 15-19 34 8.50 20-or more 37 9.25 Total 400 100.00 Father's Occupation White Collar 179 44.75 Blue Collar 142 35.50 Farmer 79 19.75 Total 400 100.00 — *— 62 TABLE 3.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE: OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION* OF THE PRINCIPAL WAGE EARNER IN THE TEACHER'S FAMILY .1— W L W Frequency Percentage Characteristic Observed Observed Occupational Classification Professional, technical, kindred workers 247 61.75 Farmers and farm managers 7 1.75 Managers, officials, proprietors (except farm) 17 4.25 Clerical and kindred 16 4.00 Sales workers 17 4.25 Craftsmen, foreman, kindred workers 33 8.25 Operatives and kindred workers 36 9.00 Private household workers 1 .25 Service workers (except private household) 21 5.25 Farm laborers and . foremen 1 .25 Laborers (except farm and , mine) 4 1.00 400 100.00 Total taking.the job title that each teacher listed and *The occupational classification was determined by categorizing it in terms of the United States Census Bureau 1960 Occupational Title Classifications. 63 Description of the Instruments Used The data gathered for use in this study were collected from two instruments; Trumbo's, Readiness to Change Scale and the questionnaire which was used to measure teachers' perceived barriers to curriculum change. These instruments were administered to all of the 400 teachers in the sample. Copies of the instruments may be found in the Appendix. The Readiness to Change Sgglg was perfected by Donald A. Trumbo in his unpublished dissertation, An Analy§i§_g£ Attitudes Toward Change Among the Employees of gg Insurance Company (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958). Trumbo's study was designed to explore the attitudes toward change of 232 employees and forty-six supervisory personnel. The stimulus used was the introduc- tion of an International Business Machine ”650" electronic digital computor designed to perform several clerical Operations and resulting in a degree of job mix, change in work flow, and change in operational procedures. Trumbo's Readiness to Change Scale used a Lickert-type scale and measured the degree of agreement or disagreement to the following nine items: 1. If I could do as I pleased, I would change the kind of work I do every few months. 2. One can never feel at ease on a job where the ways of doing things are always being changed. 64 3. The trouble with most jobs is that you just get used to doing things one way and than they want you to do them differently. 4. I would prefer to stay with a job that I know I can handle than to change to one where most things would be new to me. 5. The trouble with many people is that when they find a job they can do do well they don't stick With its 6. I like a job where I know that I will be doing my work about the same from one week to the next. 7. When I get used to doing things in one way it is disturbing to have to change to a new method. 8. It would take a sizeable increase in pay to get me to accept a different job here. 9. The job that you would consider ideal for you would be one where the way you do your work (is always the same). 1 The responses to each of these nine items were coded from one to five and punched -- together with personal data -- on key-sort cards. (Items "c" in the footnote, ”I neither agree nor disagree” and "Changes somewhat" were scored three). The possible range of scores from this scoring method was nine to forty-five. The actual range obtained, however, was twelve to forty-three. 2. The first eight items used the following responses: a. I strongly agree. b. I agree a little. c. I neither agree nor disagree. d. I disagree a little. e. I strongly disagree. Item number nine used a different response format: a. Is always the same. b. Changes very little. c. Changes somewhat. d. Changes quite a bit. e. Changes a great deal. 65 An analysis indicated that the Readiness to Change Scale was a reliable and valid measure of attitudes. Tests of the validity of the scale were based on the assumption that favorable attitudes toward change, per se, should be associated with favorable responses to specific change events and with evidence of preparation for change through participation in training programs. These predictions were supported by the data; change scale scores were predictive of responses to past, current, and antici- pated future changes in work, to a large element of change as a job characteristic, and to opportunities for preparing for change through additional training. 3 Faunce also described the reliability and validity of the Readiness to Change Scale in the following terms: . . . Item score means of upper and lower groups.selected from the total score dis- tribution were significantly different at least at the .01 level for each of the nine items. The product-moment correla- tion between scores on this scale for the two administrations of the questionnaire was .63. This would seem to indicate adequate test-retest stability over the six-month period when factors which could be expected to increase or decrease "readiness to change“ during this period are considered. The validity of the scale is more difficult to assess but there is evidence of logical or construct validity. Respondents with high scores on the Readiness to Chaggg Scale reacted more favorably to the particular changes in their jobs occurring during the period of this study. They were also more likely to be engaged in 3. Donald A. Trumbo, An Analysis of Attitudes Toward Chan e Amon the Em lo ees of‘in Insurance Comgany, (Unpublished Doctoral DisserEaEion, micfiigan State University, 1958), Abstract. 66 their jobs through participation in formal training programs. . . . The coefficient of correlation between scores on the Readiness to Chan e Scale and scores on a joE satistactlon scale was -.15. While this is a statistically significant relationship (P< .05), job satisfaction accounts for very little of the variance in attitudes toward change in work content. 4- The above documentation provides the foundation of the relative reliability and validity of the Readiness to Change Scale which constituted one of the two instruments used in the study. The other instrument, the questionnaire, will be examined next. The Questionnaire The questionnaire used in this study-was primarily based upon the interpretation of statements made by teachers with whom the writer has had contact in his work in Michigan public schools; it was based in part on research,5 and in part on the direction given him by administrative colleagues who evaluated the initial drafts. The questionnaire consisted of ninety (90) state- ments, each of which was construed to be a perceived 4. William A. Faunce, Social Stratification and Attitude Toward Chan 8 in J05 Content. Soclal Forces, Dec. 1960, 39, 130-128. 5. See these studies by Banning, Cay and Prewett discussed in Chapter II of this study. 67 barrier to curriculum change. These ninety (90) state- ments, or barriers. were categorized into six general ) areas: those which related to school personnel, to the "self," to children and parents, to school policy, to the school plant and/or its equipment, and to time. Each of the six categories consisted of either ten or twenty statements based upon what were thought to be teachers' primary areas of concern. The develOpment of the final questionnaire resulted from a two phase evaluation of statements. First, a list of 125 statements were developed and submitted to a.panel of five judges -- administrators in the school system studied -- for criticism. The criticism was based upon the clarity of the statements (did they understand each statement well enough to respond to it) and if the statements reflected, in their opinion, a genuine concern of.teachers (had they heard similar statements expressed by teachers before). The evaluation by the five admini- strators resulted in a reduction in the number of initial statements from 125 to 110. The second phase in the development of the question- naire was to submit the statements to a group of teachers in the same school system who were not to take part in the study. This was done by requesting the twenty-one (21) teachers at the school in which the writer was employed to 68 evaluate the 110 statements on the basis of the same criteria used by the first group -- the five administrators. They were asked if the statements reflected clarity and in their opinion, genuine concern by most "other“ teachers whom they knew. The result of this second group of evaluators was the ninety (90) statements used in the study. It might be well to look at the questionnaire not as it appeared in its final form -- the final form may be seen in Appendix D -- but in a categorical format that will illustrate the exact statements used in each of the six areas. School Personnel as Barriers to Curriculum Change 10. I feel that I would receive strong support from my superiors_if I attempted any significant teaching changes. 13. The principal spends too much time keeping parents happy and not enough doing the things he should be doing. 19. The superintendent is concerned with the real instructional problems in the school. 22. Other teachers are helpful to me as I work with new ideas. 28. The board of education is sincere about trying to solve teachers' problems. 31. Other teachers are critical of one's new ideas. 37. I have no desire to improve my teaching methods because the principal is fault finding. 40. The curriculum workers in our school district do not understand the true picture of how things are in the classroom. 46. 49. 55. 58. 64. ~ 91. 94. 69 I do not ask the librarian for assistance in planning new ideas because she is not helpful. The people who plan and make the curriculum have a lot of reckless ideas. Whenever I try out new ideas I talk to the principal because I find him helpful. The counselor or visiting teacher is helpful in solving students' problems. I don't like committee work because it seems that the able people get outvoted by the average. There are too few administrators who believe in the adage, "Let well enough alone." The older teachers seem-to get their ways. There is no professional unity among our faculty. Our principal is only friendly when he wants us to do something. There is so much continual petty bickering among our staff that one doesn't care to do anything new. Our staff couldn't work together on anything because the morale is too poor. I find the janitor helpful when I want to put up a display or have something built. The ”Self" (internal barrigrs)_as a Barrier to Curriculum Ctange 11. I seem to be competing with others who teach the same grade or subject as I. 14. I am optimistic about new methods of teaching. 20. I feel hostile to those who suggest that I change the way I teach. 23. I work well with others when assigned to committees. 7O 29. I would feel secure in changing my methods of teaching. 32. I am discouraged with the quality of my work. 38. I feel that I am not intelligent enough to teach in the.manner in which I would like. 41. When I try something new I feel frustrated. 47. I lack the self-confidence to carry out my plans. 50. I hesitate to make changes in the way I teach because I fear failure. 56. I feel that my educational training is adequate for the kind of teaching I would like to do. 59. I do not have enough experiences to do the ' kind of teaching I would like to do. 65. I seem to lack the energy needed to try new ideas. 68. I don't dare leave the room because the kids would be all over the place. 74. I am accepted professionally by other teachers. 77. I am accepted socially by other teachers. 83. Other teachers seem to be more even tempered than I. 86. My personality is not suited for all the changes the administration expects of teachers. 92. I find it difficult to be at ease with parents. 95. I seem to lack the incentive I need to do a better job of teaching. Children and Parents as a Barrier to Curriculum Changg 12. Teachers should be expected to try out new teaching methods only when the students are grouped according to ability. 15. 21. 24. 30. 33. 39. 42. 4B. 51. 57. 60. 66- 69. 75. 7B. 71 I do all that I should in the way of public relations. Parents don't care about new teaching methods so why waste our time talking to them. You don't dare try anything new in our school because the parents would object to it. We should invite more parental help in deciding what to teach in our schools. I would not want any part of a situation in which parents were involved in a curriculum study. If parents do not worry about their children's school work, the teacher should not be expected to worry either. Teachers and parents should discuss various teaching methods in order to decide which methods are best for a specific school. PTA meetings are not good for the teaching profession because they only open the door for criticism. I do not feel that I can try out new teaching methods when the student's work is behind that of other classes. You can't expect a teacher to try out new ideas when there are 30 or more pupils in a class. The only way to bring about a change in the curriculum is to involve the students in the proposed change. Today's children are very difficult to teach. We should not waste time deciding what pupils should learn when most of them are adverse to learning. The only time the parents show an interest in the school is when their children are performing in some activity. Most parents aren't intelligent enough to be of value in discussing what should be taught in the schools. B4. 87. 93. 96. 72 The only type of school that the parents seem to understand is the one they attended twenty years ago. It seems that these days pupils want to shirk their responsibilities. Parents don't want to accept their responsibi- lities as citizens. Prior to entering school, children should be taught to respect the teacher's word. School Policy as a Barrier to Curriculum Change 16. 25. 34. 43. 52. 61. 70. 79. BB. 97. No one bothers to consult the individual teachers about changing school policy. It isn't much use to work on committees in our school because solutions are all "cut-and-dry." The methods we use for reporting student progress to their parents is very adequate. If the principal wants his teachers to be concerned about improving instruction he shouldn't burden them with so much clerical work. Teachers should be encouraged to take whatever disciplinary action is necessary whenever it is needed. The outstanding teacher does not have much incentive when his salary is fixed to a rigid schedule. School administrators should discourage the organization of parent groups like the PTA. The school's policy toward student-teacher ratio is realistic. Teachers are the persons best able to diagnose a child's personality difficulties. Teachers should avoid active participation in local political affairs. 73 The School Plant and Eguigment as agBarrier to Curriculum enable us to teach in the most effective manner. My school seems to be designed for the type of Faculty meetings in which curriculum improvement Teachers have more important things to do than ange 17. I can't make any changes in my teaching until the school provides sufficient supplies and materials. 26. The schools have enough money if it were spent wisely. 35. I have all the equipment I need with which to teach effectively. 44. The equipment I need never seems to be in operational order. 53. My classroom gets dreary. 62. There is a lack of good textbooks. 71. I would use more films if they were available when I wanted them. 80. We do not have enough supplementary books to 89. My school seems to have a warm inviting atmosphere. 98. teaching I prefer to do. Time as a Barrier to Curriculum Changg 18. I have enough time to teach those things that are most important for students to know. 27. Committee work is a waste of teachers' time. 36. is discussed are of value to me. 45. to waste their time taking duties. 54. A teacher can't be expected to do a good job of teaching and fulfill all the other tasks expected of him. 74 63. Teachers should not be expected to participate in making curriculum changes when they have to spend so much time correcting papers, etc. 72. We could save a lot of time if we were given intelligently worked out answers to curriculum problems. 81. Teachers would have more time if they were more efficient. 90. With all the time that teaching consumes, teachers shouldn't be expected to be able to keep up with new trends. 99. To be realistic, time doesn't permit one to be able to provide for individual differences. Scoring procedures The teachers who took part in the study were requested to rate each statement in the questionnaire in a manner similar to the way they responded to the Readiness to Change Scale, (See page 64). Scores were assigned to each response on a one to five point scale. The teaChers were requested to rate each statement in terms of the degree to which that statement was a significant obstacle to a particular type of change he would like to see in the grade or subject he taught. The degree to which each statement affected the teacher is revealed in the degree of the response he volunteered. The results obtained from the questionnaire were therefore interpreted to be the teachers' expressed judgments of what they perceived as barriers to curriculum change. There were no preconceived ideas as to 75 the relative importance of any statement to any other. It was felt that the study would be more valuable if each teacher determined the extent to which he agreed with the statement as he perceived it. 6 A total questionnaire score was derived by adding all scores given to the ninety items. The possible range of 90 to 450 was thus obtained. Sub scores or independent scale scores were obtained in a similar manner. The possible and actual range of the scale scores were as follows: Possible Range Actual Rangg 20 - 100 20 - 100 School Personnel as Barriers 20 - 100 20 - 100 The "Self" as a Barrier 20 - 100 . 28 - 93 Children a Parents as Barriers 1O - 50 1B - 48 School Policy as a Barrier 1O - 50 14 - 49 School Plant & Equipment as Barrier 1O - 50 16 - 50 Time as a Barrier 6. The ninety items used the following response format. strongly agree. agree a little. neither agree nor disagree. disagree a little. strongly disagree. HHHHH It should be noted that the questionnaire contained several reverse statements and the scoring thus would proceed from five to one instead of one to five. The reversals were: 10 28 52 77 96 14 29 55 79 9B 1B 30 56 BO 19 34 58 B1 22 36 6O 89 23 43 74 94 76 Procedure for Data Analysis The data was first transferred from the questionnaire to mechanically sorted punched cards. The cards were then fed into an IBM series 1401 electronic digital computer for preliminary results to determine possible errors. A new deck of cards was then punched to comply with the Chi Square Program used on Michigan State University's MISTIC computer. The program produced the percentages, frequencies, means, standard deviations, product moment correlations, and chi square statistics used in the following chapter and appendicies. A chi square test was used for the analysis of the data. The researcher established specific limits to elimi- nate chance error. The selection of a specific rejection region is dependent Upon certain "practical" aspects of the experiment in question -- such as sample, size, and also on circumstances of the effect of a particular level of significance. The level of significance fixes the relative number of chance outcomes the researcher is willing to interpret mistakenly as real effects in the study. It was for this reason that five percent (.05) level of significance was chosen for this study as the amount of error to be allowed. 77 Summary This chapter has considered the source and collection of.the data, the instruments used, and the procedures used in the data analysis. Chapter IV will be concerned with an analysis of this data. CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The elements of Chapter IV include the presentation and analysis of the collected data, a discussion of the variables, an explanation of the need to regroup the demographic variables, and statistical analysis of the hypotheses. Additional data are reported in Appendicies A, B, and C. These data were thought to be of interest but were not central to the purpose of this study. The Readiness to Change Variable The readiness-to-change variable used in this study represented an attitude of generalized readiness to accept job-related change of a rather nebulous and unspecified nature. It can also be interpreted as reflecting a converse point—of-view; that of opposition or resistance to obscure job-related changes. This variable, and the scale from which it was derived, has 78 79 1 been used in previous studies and can be seen in Appendix D of this investigation. The actual variable measure used in this study is defined as: the individuals' readiness to accept job- related changes on the basis of his attitudes toward unspecified change at the time he completed the Readiness to Change Scale. The readiness to change variable is conceived as a general personality measure. This study did not attempt to introduce any factors which might conceivably alter attitudes over a prolonged period. Therefore, it was not determined to be necessary to attempt to measure the possible variance of attitudes toward change through the use of a pretest-posttest approach over a specified period. The experimental sub- jects used in the study were thus categorized as being more or less ready for change in terms of their responses at the time the questionnaire was presented to them. The Barriers as Variables The barrier variables used in this study represented ninety (90) statements which were construed to be perceived barriers to curriculum change. These ninety items (See Appendix 0) while categorized into six 1. See footnotes 3 and 4, pages 65 and 66 in Chapter III of this study. 80 general areas -- school personnel, "self", children and parents, school policy, school plant and equipment, and time -- were analyzed in terms of total-barriers-to- curriculum-change, internal-barriers-to-curriculum-change, and external-barriers-to-curriculum-change. The assumption was made that resistance to job- associated change would be directly related to the individual's cognitions of barriers which he perceived to stand between him and the fulfillment of his goals. While these barriers were all "real" to the individual, on close evaluation they could be judged, by the neutral observer, as rationalizations. Furthermore, it is assumed that there were at least two general types of barriers-to-change -- those judged to be internal and those judged to be external in nature. These types were treated separately. The basic premise on which the major hypotheses were founded is that some dimension of these barriers ought to be important in producing measurable effects upon teachers' attitudes toward change. Demographic Variables At the outset of this investigation, it seemed reasonable to collect certain additional information. about the composition of the sample. It was thought that perhaps certain demographic data, collected on the B1 questionnaire, might in some manner account for and lend support to the results obtained from an analysis of the readiness-to-change and barrier variables. It was, therefore, deemed important to consider certain demo- graphic factors for their possible effect on the readiness-to-change and barrier variables used in this study. Since there was no way of knowing in advance which factors would be significantly related to the major variables, a list of demographic variables was selected. The list is as follows: Age Sex Marital Status Teaching Level Degree Held Father's Occupation Actively Working on an Advanced Degree Teaching Experience Tenure Occupation Status of Primary Wage Earner Each of these demographic variables was considered in relation to the readiness-to-change and barrier variables and their analysis appears on subsequent pages of this chapter. Regrouping of the Demographic Variables The demographic characteristics of this sample are listed in Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 and present the total number observed and percentages observed actually 82 found in each of the following categories of the question- naire: age, sex, marital status, teaching level, degree held, whether actively working on adwanced preparation, teaching experience, tenure, occupational classification of the major wage earner, and father's occupation.2 The number of people in each segment of a category was some- times small and for that reason it was determined that the segments could be grouped to provide for both fewer segments in each demographic category as well as the probability of.more significant results from the.consideration of larger numbers. Therefore, Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 have been revised. It is on the basis of these revised tables -- 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 -- that all analyses of the demographic variables were considered. 2. See Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, pages 59, 60, 61, and 62 of Chapter III. 83 TABLE 4.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE -- REVISED AGE, SEX, MARITAL STATUS, TEACHING LEVEL AND.DEGREE HELD W Frequency Percentage Characteristic Observed Observed Age Low (20 - 34) 172 43.00 Medium (35 - 49) 121 30.25 High (50 or more) 107 26.75 Total 400 100.00 Sex Male 136 34.00 Female 264 66.00 Total 400 100.00 Marital Status Married 308 77.00 Other 92 23.00 Total 400 100.00 Teaching Level Elementary 205 32.75 Secondary 185 67.25 Total 400 100.00 . 3 Degree Held Bachelors 261 66.58 Masters 131 33.42 Total 392 100.00 3. There were eight (8) subjects in the sample of 400 who reported not having a degree. Because of this small number -- 2% -- they were not reported in this characteristic. 84 TABLE 4.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE -- REVISED CONTINUING EDUCATION, TOTAL YEARS TEACHING EXPERIENCE, AND OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION W Frequency Percentage Characteristic Observed Observed Continuing Education Yes 180 45.00 No 220 55.00 Total 400 100.00 Total Years Teaching Experience Low ( O - 4) 119 29.75 Medium (5 - 14) 153 38.25 High (15 or more) 128 I 32.00 Total 400 100.00 Occupational Status Professional 247 51.75 Non-Professional 153 38.25 Total 400 100.00 85 TABLE 4.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE -- REVISED TENURE STATUS AND FATHER'S OCCUPATION Frequency Percentage Characteristic Observed Observed 4 Tenure Status Tenure Status 269 67.25 Without Tenure Status 131 32.75 Total 400 100.00 . 5 Father's Occupation White Collar 179 44.75 Farmer 142 35.50 Blue Collar 79 19.75 Total 400 100.00 4. It was the policy of the school system studied to either place a teacher on tenure after two years of service or place him on a third year probation. At the end of the third year he would then be placed on tenure or released. It was therefore determined that every teacher with more than three year's experience would be classified as a tenure teacher. 5. The father's occupation -- white collar, farmer, or blue collar -- was determined by asking each subject to list the actual occupation of his father. This response was then compared with the 1960 United States Census Occupational Classifications and arbitrarily assigned to one of the three categories. B6 A Statistical Analysis of the Data It was observed in Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, that the demographic data were regrouped into fewer but larger categories. The major variables were also regrouped. It was determined that the actual range of scores on the Readiness to Change Scale and barriers-scales would be divided into groups of low, medium, and high. Each of these groups contained approximately one-third of the sample. This procedure permitted an analysis of segments of one variable -- low, medium, high -- to be compared with similar groups in another variable. It also permitted segments of the major variables to be compared with seg- ments of the demographic data. This was done in an effort to determine what factors really mattered when compared with each other. What followed was an analysis which examined readiness-to-change, internal-barriers-to-change and external-berriers-to-change in relationship to all of the demographic factors. Hypothesis I Those teachers who are mgre ready to chang§_willypercgi1§ fewer total-barriers-to-changg. It was hypothesized that there would be an inverse relationship between teacher's readiness-to-change and their total perceived barriers to curriculum change, that 87 is, that there would be a close relationship between teachers' readiness-to-change and the total-barriers which they expressed. The statistics in Table 4.4 indicates that this was true (x2 = 21.19, d.f. . a, p< .001, r = - .22) and that the correlation was in the predicted direction. Hypothesis II Those tegghers who score low in the Readiness to Chgggg Scale will perceive a_greater magnitude of internal-obstacles or barriers thg; relate to the ”self". The second major hypothesis in this study was con- cerned with the degree to which teachers who, when rated on the Readiness to Change Scale continuum, perceived and expressed internal-obstacles or barriers related to the "self" as a principal factor inhibiting them in their quest for curriculum change. It can be seen in Table 4.4, that the relationship between the sample's readiness-to- change and its expressed internal-barriers-to-change is considered in terms of the statistical methods used in this study. It can be seen from Table 4.4 in the relation- ship between the two considered variables that the confidence level of acceptability is marginal (P> .05) and, also, that the correlation is in the predicted direction. 88 TABLE 4.4 AN ANALYSIS OF THE READINESS TO CHANGE, TOTAL BARRIERS AND INTERNAL BARRIERS TO CHANGE CHARACTERISTICS . W Readiness to Chan e Low Medium High Characteristic Statistic Total Barriers Low 30 s1 52 x2 e 21.19 Medium 51 41 43 d.f. : 4 High 61 46 25 P< .001 1‘ = .22 Total 142 138 120 Internal Barriers Low 37 as 41 x2 = 9.21 Medium 46 48 49 d.f. 4 High 59 42 3O P> .05 _ __ __ 1‘ = -.13 142 138 . 120 Total Hypothesis III Those teachers who score lower on the Readiness to Change Scale will perceive a greater magnitude of external- ggstacles or barriers that are related to school personnel, children and parentg. school policy, school glant and equipment. and time. It was hypothesized in the third major hypothesis that there would be an inverse relationship between readiness-to-change and the magnitude of external-barriers 89 TABLE 4.5 AN ANALYSIS OF READINESS TO CHANGE, EXTERNAL BARRIERS AND HIGH INTERNAL-EXTERNAL BARRIERS TO CHANGE CHARACTERISTICS W Readiness to Chan e Characteristic Low Medium ngh Statistic External Barriers Low 27 49 54 x2 e 25.27 Medium 51 46 4O d.f. = 4 High 54 43 25 p< .001 ___ ___ ___ r = - .25 Total 142 138 120 Internal Barriers High 59 42 30 x2 is 0.42 d.f. : 2 p< .90 External Barriers High 64 43 26 to-curriculum-change that was judged by the study's sample to be important. It can be observed from the collected data, which is reported in Table 4.5, that the relationship between the two variables was statistically significant. The correlation between the variables was in the predicted direction. It has been seen that Hypotheses I and III were significant within the levels set for this study. It may 90 be well, at this point, to look at the following sub- hypotheses which are all based on the demographic data collected in this study and are related to the three major variables -- readiness-to-change, internal-barriers, and external-barriers-to-curriculum-change. Hypothesis IV Those teachers who score higher on the Readiness to Egggge Scale will perceive more internal barriers to chgpgg than external barriers. The analysis Hypothesis IV (Table 4.5) indicated that when the readiness-to-change score was compared with both the high internal barrier score and high external characteristic the results yielded a statistic of little significance (x2 = 0.42, d.f. 2, P< .90.) On the other- hand, when the high internal-barrier score was analyzed with the readiness-to-change score the results indicated a significant statistic (x2 = 9.55, d.f. 2, p< .01). A similar result was obtained when the high external-barrier score and readiness-to-change score were analyzed (x2 = 16.45, d.f. 2, p< .01). 91 TABLE 4.6 AN ANALYSIS OF THE READINESS, INTERNAL BARRIERS, AND EXTERNAL BARRIERS TO CHANGE AND AGE. CHARACTERISTICS ~ Characteristic A 9 Low Meaium ‘HIgfi Statistic Readiness-to-Change Low Medium High Total Internal Barriers Low Medium High Total External Barriers Low Medium ,High Total 51 42 49 x2 = 9.04 50 44 34 d.f. e 4 51 35 24 p> .05 1‘ = -.15 172 121 107 71 31 29 x2 ~ e 15.55 54 55 34 d.f. e 4 47 35 44 p< .01 1‘ = .15 172 121 107 71 35 27 x2 e 10.20 49 4e 40 d.f. = 4 52 35 40 p< .05 I' = .12 172 121 107 92 Hypothesis V A. Age 1. Readiness-to-change is inversely related to teachers' ages. 2. The magnitude of internal-barrigrs-to-curriculum- change that teachers perceive is directly related to their ages. 3. The magnitude of external-barriers-to-curriculum- change that teachers perceive is directly related to their ages. The data presented in Table 4.6 suggest that the correlation between teacher's readiness-to-change and age is in an inverse direction as predicted but not significant within the five percent level of acceptability (P> .05). The relationship of the variables of internal-barriers to Curriculum change and age is within the one percent (.01) confidence level. (See Table 4.6) The relationship of the variables of external-barriers to change and age is also within the five percent level of acceptability (P< .05). The latter two correlations are both in the predicted direction. 93 8. Sex 1. Readiness to change is inversely related to the sex of teachers -- mples are more rpgdy to change than females. 2. The magnitude of internal-barriers to curriculum change that teachers perceive is directly related to the sex of teachers -- females will_perceive more internal- barriers than males. 3. The magnitude of external barriers to curriculum change that teachers perceive is directlypreiated to the sex of teachers -- females will perceive more external barriers than males. The direction of the relationship between readiness- to-change and the variable of sex is as predicted. An examination of the collected data (Table 4.7) indicates that the probability of this relationship falls outside the limits set for this study (P< .30). The internal and external barrier variables, on the otherhand, show a higher degree of relationship when compared with the characteristic of sex. A comparison of the internal-barriers-scale score with sex (Table 4.7) produces a chi square value significant at less than the one percent level (P< .01). An analysis of the.relation- ship of external-barriers and sex (Table 4.7) suggest a 94 TABLE 4.7 AN ANALYSIS OF THE READINESS, INTERNAL BARRIERS, AND EXTERNAL BARRIERS TO CHANGE AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Sex Characteristic Male Female Statistic Readiness to Change Low 44 95 x2 s 2.75 High 48 72 P< .30 r = -.08 Total 136 264 Internal Barriers Low 55 75 x2 = 9.43 Medium 49 94 d.f. = 2 High 31 95 P< .01 1‘ = .15 Total 136 264 External Barriers Low ' 53 80 x2 e 5.71 Medium 50 87 d.f. = 2 High 33 97 P< .05 1‘ :2 .12 Total 136 264 95 somewhat weaker relationship but, nevertheless, one that is .within five percent (.05) level of confidence. These correlations are all in the predicted direction. C. Marital Status 1. Readiness-to-change is directly related to teachers marital status -- married teachers are less reapy to change than unmarried teachers. 2. The magnitude of internal barriers to curriculum change that teachers perceive is inversely related to their marital status -- married teachers will perceive more barriers to change than unmarried teachers. 3. The magnitude of external barriers to curriculum change that teachers perceive is inversely related to their marital status -- married teachers willyperceive more barriers to change than unmarried teachers. A consideration of the relationship between marital status and major variables -- readiness-to-change, internal- barriers, and external-barriers -- suggests that in no instance is there a relationship which is within the previously determined level of significance (See Table 4.8). 96 TABLE 4.8 AN ANALYSIS OF THE READINESS, INTERNAL BARRIERS, AND EXTERNAL BARRIERS.TO CHANGE AND MARITAL STATUS CHARACTERISTICS Marita S atus Characteristic arr e or Statistic Readiness to Change Low 113 29 x2 = 1.47 Medium 107 31 d.f.: 2 High 55 32 p< .50 r = .06 Total 308 92 Internal Barriers Low 99 32 x2 s 0.93 medium 114 29 d.f.: 2 High 95 31 P< .98 1‘ = .00 Total 308 92 External Barriers Low 103 30 x2 = 1.25 Medium 109 28 d.f.: 2 High 96 34 P< .70 r : .03 Total 308 92 97 D. Teaching Level 1. Reaginess to change is directly related to teaching level -- secondary teachers are more ready to change than elementary teachers. 2. The magnitude of internal barriers to curriculum change that teachers gerceive is inversely related to teaching level -- secondary teachers will perceive fewer ipternal barriers than elementary teachers. 3. The magnitude of external-barriers to curriculum change that teachers pprceive is inversely related to teaching level -- secondary teachers will percegyp fewer pgternal-barriers than plementary. The data presented in Table 4.9 revealed a correlation in the predicted direction but a chi square statistic that falls outside the level of acceptance (x2 = 3.57, d.f. 2, P< .20, r = .04). The analysis presented in Table 4.9, in which internal-barriers to curriculum change are compared with teaching level, yields a somewhat similar pattern with a correlation in the predicted inverse direction (X2 = 4.07, d.f. = 2, P< .20, r = -.OB). An analysis of the external-barriers and teaching level variable (Table 4.9) produced a significant relationship within the one percent (.01) level of confidence and a correlation in the predicted direction. AN ANALYSIS OF THE READINESS, INTERNAL BARRIERS, L BARRIERS_TO CHANGE AND EXTERNA 98 TABLE 4.9 AND TEACHING LEVEL CHARACTERISTICS- Teachin Level Characteristic Elementary 5 a econ ary Statistic Readiness to Change Low 75 55 x2 = 3.57 Medium 82 56 d.f. = 2 High 57 63 P< .20 1‘ = .04 Total 215 185 Internal Barriers Low 57 54 x2 = 4.07 Medium 71 72 d.f. = 2 High 77 49 P< .20 r z -.08 Total 215 185 External Barriers Low 58 75 x2 = 10.11 Medium 75 62 d.f. = 2 High 82 48 P< .01 1‘ = -.16 Total 215 185 99 E. Degree Held 1. Readiness-to-change is directly related to the college degree held -- teachers who hold masters degrees are more ready for chagge than those with bachelors degrees. 2. The magnitude of internal-barriers to curriculum change that teachers gerceive is directly related to the college degree held -- teachers who hold masters deggggg will gerceive more internal-barriers to chagge than those with bachelors degrees. 3. The magnitude of external-barriers to curriculum change that teachers gerceive is directly related to the college degree held -- teachers who hold masters dpggggg will gerceive more external barriers to chaggp_than those who hold bachelors degrees. The sample's readiness-to-change score when related to the degree held characteristic (Table 4.10) resulted in a chi square statistic that was not within the five percent (.05) level of acceptance. Table 4.10, in which the internal-barriers and degree held variable are compared, indicates a chi square statistic that is within the five percent level of significance (P< .05) and a correlation in the predicted direction. The external-barriers and degree held characteristics -- Table 4.10 -- are significant within the two percent level of confidence (P< .02) and also in the predicted direction. TABLE 4.10 100 AN ANALYSIS OF THE READINESS, INTERNAL BARRIERS, AND EXTERNAL m BARRIERS TO CHANGE AND DEGREE HELD CHARACTERISTICS De ree Held Bachelors Masters Characteristic Statistic Readiness to Change Low 94 45 x2 s 2.75 High 72 45 p< .30 r = .05 Total 261 131 Internal Barriers Low 95 33 x2 = 5.00 Medium 91 49 d.f. = 2 High 74 49 P< .05 __ __ 1‘ = .12 Total 261 131 External Barriers Low 100 31 x2 = 5.79 High 76 51 P< .02 r = .14 Total 261 131 101 F. Continuing Education 1. Readiness to change is directly related to teachers continuing education -- teachers who are continuing their educations are more ready to change than those who are not. 2. The magnitude of internal-barrpprs to curriculum change that teachers perceive is directly related to their continuing_education -- teachers who are continuing their educations will perceive morefiipternal-barriers to changp than those who are not. 3. The magnitude of external-barriers to curriculum change that teachers perceive is directly related to their continuing education -- teaphers who are continuing their educations will perceive more external-bgpriers to chppgp than those who are not. The relationships between the population's active interest in continuing their educations and the variables of readiness-to-change and internal and external barriers to change are not significant within the predetermined level of significance. The readiness-to-change and continuing education variables -- Table 4.11 -- yield the following statistic: x2 = 4.14, d.f. = 2, p< .20, r a .10. The internal-barriers and continuing education variables produce this statistic (X2 = 0.32, d.f. = 2, P< .99, r = -.OO). (See Table 4.11) The external-barriers and continuing AN ANALYSIS OF THE READINESS, AND EXTERNAL BARRIERS TO CHANGE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION CHARACTERISTICS 102 TABLE 4.11 INTERNAL BARRIERS, Continuing Education Characteristic No Yes Statistic Readiness to Change Low 73 59 x2 = 4.14 Medium 60 78 d.f. = 2 High 47 73 P< .20 1‘ = .10 Total 180 220 Internal Barriers Low 55 73 x2 = 0.32 Medium 67 76 d.f. = 2 High 55 71 P< .99 r = -.00 Total 180 220 External Barriers Low 52 71 x2 = 0.57 Medium 63 74 d.f. z 2 High 55 75 P< .80 —_ 1 r = -004 Total 180 220 103 education variables yield this statistic (x2 = 0.57, d.f. = 2, P< .80, r = -.04). (See Table 4.11) 0. Teaching Experience 1. Readiness-to-changppis inversely related to teachers total teaching_pxperience -- those with more experience are less ready for chang . 2. The magnitude of internal barriers to curriculum change which teachers perceive pg directlyyrelated to their teachingppxperience -- those with more apperience will perceive more ppternal barriers. 3. The magnitude of external barriers to curriculum change which teachers perceive_;s directly related to their teaching expprience -- those with more egperience will perceive more external barriers. The analysis of the readiness-to-change score to the demographic factor of total teaching experience is inversely related as was predicted. The level of confidence was within the five percent range of significance (P< .05, Table 4.12). The analysis of the internal variable score with the experience variable was also in the hypothesized direction. This comparison resulted in a statistic (Table 4.12) within the one percent level of significance (x2 = 15.25, d.f. = 4, p< .01). The external-barrier 104 TABLE 4.12 AN ANALYSIS OF THE READINESS, AND EXTERNAL INTERNAL BARRIERS, BARRIERS TO CHANGE AND TEACHING EXPERIENCE CHARACTERISTICS Teaching Experience Characteristic Low Medium High Statistic Readiness to Change Low 33 53 55 x2 = 10.07 Medium 44 49 45 d.f. a 4 High 42 51 27 P< .05 r = - .15 Total 119 153 128 Internal Barriers Low 57 35 35 x2 = 15.25 Medium 34 62 47 d.f. z 4 High 25 53 45 p< .01 1‘ a: .15 Total 119 153 128 External Barriers Low 54 43 35 x2 = 14.07 Medium 35 50 52 d.f. = 4 High 30 60 4O P< .01 I‘ = .11 Total 119 128 153 105 variable and teaching experience variable was also in the predicted direction and yielded a result at less than one percent level of confidence (Table 4.12, x2 = 14.07, d.f. s 4, AK .01). H. Tenure 1. Readiness to change is inversgly related to teachers' tenure status -- those who are on tenure are less ready for chapgp than those who are not. 2. The magnitude of_£nternal-barriers to curriculum change that teachers perceive is directly related to their tenure status -- those 950 are on tengre are more likely to perceive internal-barriers than those who are not. 3. The magnitude of external barriers to curriculum ghange that teachers perceive is directly related to their tenure status -- those who are on tenure are more likely toppercpive external barriers than those who are not. The data presented in Table 4.13 compares the readiness- to-change variable with the variable of teachers' tenure status. The resulting analysis indicates that the chi square statistic is not within the five percent level of significance (P< .30). Table 4.13 presents the data collected from the analysis of internal-barriers to curri- culum change and teachers' tenure status. This analysis indicates that the results are in the predicted direction 106 TABLE 4.13 AN ANALYSIS OF THE READINESS, INTERNAL BARRIERS, AND EXTERNAL BARRIERS TO CHANGE AND TENURE STATUS CHARACTERISTICS Tenure Status Sharacteristic Non-Tenure Tenure Statistic Readiness to Change Low 39 103 x2 = 2.80 Medium 49 89 d.f. = 2 High 43 77 P< .30 r = -.07 Total 131 269 Internal Barriers Low 62 59 x2 = 18.80 Medium 3? 106 d.f. = 2 High 32 94 P< .001 r = .19 Total 131 269 External Barriers Low 59 74 x2 = 12.27 medium 38 99 def. 3 2 High 34 96 P< .01 t = .16 Total 131 269 107 and significant within the .001 confidence level. An examination of the external-barriers and tenure status characteristics yields a value significant within the one percent level (P< .01). Table 4.13 in which this last analysis may be observed, also illustrates that the data is in the predicted direction. I. Occupational Status 1. Readiness-to-change is_positively related to the occupational status of the principal wage earner in the teacher's family -- professionals are more ready for changp than non-professionals. 2. The magnitude of internal barriers to curriculum change that teachers perceive is directly related to the pccupational status of the principal wage earner in the teacher's family -- professional will perceive fewer internal-barriers than non-professionals. 3. The magnitude of external-barriers to curriculum change that teachers perceive is directly related to the occupational status of the principal wage earner in the teacher's family -- professionalywill perceive fewer external barriers than non-professionals. The frequencies for occupational status of the principal wage earner in the teacher's family were determined by reclassifying the twelve general occupational areas , AN ANALYSIS OF THE READINESS, INTERNAL BARRIERS, ‘ AND EXTERNAL BARRIERS TO CHANCE 108 TABLE 4.14 I AND OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHARACTERISTICS W Occu ational Classifications Characteristic Professional Non-5rofessIonaI Statistic Readiness to Change Low 90 52 x2 = 3.46 Medium 77 61 d.f. = 2 High 80 40 p< .20 r = -.02 Total 247 153 Internal Barriers Low 82 49 x2 z 0.09 Medium 87 56 d.f. = 2 High 78 4B P> .95 r = .00 Total 247 153 External Barriers Low 81 52 x2 = 1.17 4 Medium 81 56 d.f = 2 \ High 85 45 P < .70 1‘ = -.04 Total 247 153 109 (See Table 3.4) into two major categories -- professional and non-professional. This resulted in a professional group of 247 and a non-professional group of 153. Table 4.14 illustrates that the relationship between two measured variables -- readiness-to-change and occupa- tional classification -- are not within the five percent level of significance. Table 4.14 illustrates that the relationship between the internal-barriers and occupational status characteristics are not significant. Table 4.14 also shows no significance in the relationship between the two measured variables of external-barriers to curriculum change and occupational status (X2 = 1.17, d.f. = 2, P< .70). J. Father's Occupation 1. flgppiness-to-change is inversely related to teachers' father's occgpation -- those whose fathers hold (held) white collar positions are more ready to change than those whose fathers are (werel farmers or blue collar workers. 2. The magnitude of internal-barriers tp_curriculum gppppe that teachers_perceivevis directly related to £§achers' father's occupation -- those whose fgthers hplp Lfleldlwhite collar_positions will perceive few internal- Eagpiers than those whose fgthers are (were) farmers or blue collar workers. 110 TABLE 4.15 AN ANALYSIS OF THE READINESS, INTERNAL BARRIERS, AND EXTERNAL 8ARRIERS.TO CHANGE . AND FATHER'S OCCUPATION CHARACTERISTICS Father's Occu ation white Blue Characteristic Collar Farmer Collar Statistic Readiness to Change Low 64 28 50 x2 a 0.05 Medium 81 27 50 d.f. = 4 High 54 24 42 p> .99 r = -.00 Total 179 79 142 Internal Barriers Low 58 23 52 x2 = 3.61 Medium 81 34 4B d.f. = 4 High 82 22 42 p< .50 r = -006 Total 179 79 142 External Barriers Low 58 25 50 x2 = 1.14 Medium 59 30 48 d.f. = 4 High 82 24 44 p< .90 r = -.04 Total 179 79 142 111 3. The magnitude of external-barriers to curriculum change that teachers perceive is directly related to teachers' father's occupation -- those whose fathers hold (held) white collar positions will perceive fewer extgpgal barriers than those whose fathers are (were) farmers or blue collar workers. The frequencies in the father's occupation characteristic were determined from reclassifying the exact expressed occupation of each participant's father to three general groups, white collar, farmer, and blue collar. The white collar group consisted of 179, the farmer group 79, and the blue collar 142. The relationships between each of the pairs of variables were not significant within the five percent (.05) level. Table 4.15, in which readiness-to-change is considered in terms of the demographic variable, shows the following results: x2 = 0.05, d.f. = 4, p> .99. The internal- barriers and fathers' occupations (Table 4.15) indicate a result of X2 = 3.61, d.f. = 4, P< .50. The external- barriers and fathers' occupations (Table 4.15) indicate a result of x2 e 1.14, d.f. = 4, p> .99. 112 TABLE 4.16 COMPARISON OF THE VARIABLES IN TERMS OF LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE W Readiness Internal External Eariable to Change Barriers Barriers Readiness to Change --- P> .OS P< .001 Total Barriers P< .001 --- --- Age p> .05 p< .01 p< .05 Sex P< .30 P< .O1 P< .05 Marital Status P< .SO P< .98 P< .70 Teaching Level P< .20 P< .20 P< .01 Degree Held P< .30 P< .OS P< .02 Continuing Education P< .20 P< .99 P< .80 Teaching Experience P< .OS P< .O1 P< .O1 Tenure Status P< .30 P< .OO1 P< .02 Occupational Status P< .ZO P> .95 P< .70 Father's Occupation P> .99 P< .50 P< .90 f 113 Summary Chapter IV presented an analysis of the collected data. This was accomplished through an examination of the variables used in the study, through an analysis of certain descriptive statistics, and through a statistical analysis of the hypotheses. Table 4.16 summarizes the collected data in terms of the level of significance of all the compared variables. Chapter V will be concerned with a summary of the study as well as the conclusions and implications of the 3tUdyo CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY Chapter V is organized into three sections. In the first part a restatement of the problem and a comparison of the variables are stated. The second section of this chapter relates the conclusions drawn from the statistical analysis of the hypotheses and discusses the findings. The third and final section of this chapter presents what are thought to be the implications for practice and suggestions for further research. Statement of the Problem This study was an attempt to investigate what four hundred teachers working in one school system and assigned to grades kindergarten through twelve, judged to be barriers to curriculum change, to determine the relation- ship between these barriers and the teacher's readiness- to-change, and to relate both the variables of barriers and readiness-to-change with the demographic data variables. 114 115 Comparison of Variables Table 4.16 on page 112 indicates the probability level of each of the variables considered in this study. It is on the basis of the data in this table that the conclusions of this study are based. Conclusions The major problem of this study was to investigate the expressed judgments of four hundred (400) classroom teachers in grades kindergarten through twelve, relative to their readiness-to-change and their perceived barriers-to- .curriculum-change. The Read§ness to Change Scale was used to assess teachers readiness to change and the questionnaire was used to obtain teachers' judgments about barriers-to-change. It was on the basis of all of the data returned through the use of these two instruments that the following conclusions seem to be in order. These con- clusions are actually restatements of the thirty-four (34) hypotheses and follow the same general format. A dis- cussion of the findings follows the statement of the general conclusions. 116 1. Teachers who scpred high on the Readiness to n e cale e ceive fe t ta bar is s to curriculum change. (See Hypothesis 1) The data gathered through the use of the questionnaire and change scale served to confirm the first hypothesis. Those teachers in the sample who seemed to indicate a higher degree of readiness-to-change also expressed few total barriers to curriculum change. Those teachers who had a high propensity to change and perceive change positively behaved in a manner that would suggest that they saw few, if any, restrictions or barriers to curriculum change. If this is true, it may have been due to the lack of any perceivable barriers-to-change or it may have resulted from the personal feeling of ability to cape with or unconsciously discount existing obstacles. Those teachers who indicated a relatively low readiness-to-change, on the otherhand, may have seen multiple reasons which prohibited them from effecting change. Also, to the degree to which change may have posed a perceivable threat or sense of insecurity to the individual he may have conjured up excuses to postpone or circumvent change in an effort to protect himself. 11. Those teachers who appeared to be less ready to change perceived more internal-barriers to curriculum change. (See Hypothesis ll) 117 III. Those teachers who expressed a low degree of readiness-to-change saw more external-barriers to change than those who were more ready tg change. (See Hypothesis III) IV. Those teachers who scored high on the Readiness to Change Scale did not perceive more interngl barriers to change than external barriers to changp. (See Hypothesis IV) The collected data from the four hundred (400) teachers who took part in this study tended to confirm Hypotheses II and III which predicted that there would be a direct relationship between readiness-to-change and perceived internal-berriers-to-curriculum-change. The data did not support Hypothesis IV. It was pointed out in Chapter II, in the discussion of resistance to change, that certain fundamental "understandings" should be considered in bringing about positive change. It was said, in effect, that change is based upon the individual's need to change; that change is more likely to take place in an atmosphere that produces few perceivable barriers; that the individual can be expected to change when he perceives himself to be an integral part of the change pattern; that the more ready the individual is to change the more likely he is to see himself as an integral part of the pattern. His lierceptions of what is happening around him and how it 11B affects him are sharper and do much to influence his response to change. But when he reaches the point where he desires to become a part of some type of change in his work routine, he is more likely to see himself as part of the overall change process. It is at this point in the individual's development that he is more able to look at his values, his beliefs, and his behavior (especially in the manner in which he sees himself in relation to other people) and more adequately appraise his position. It was hypothesized that there would be an inverse relationship between internal-barriers-to-change and readiness-to-change. This was partially supported by the analysis of the collected data when it was found that there was a marginal inverse relationship between the two vari- ables. The rationale that is advanced for this outcome ~- in relation to the ideas above -- is that those teachers who were more ready-to-change may have taken into account the certain internal-barriers used in their questionnaire, in the same manner that they have the external-barriers -- and are in a position to cope with them. They, perhaps perceived the internal-barriers as no more of a threat than external-barriers. On the otherhand, the fact that the questionnaire contained twenty (20) statements related to internal-barriers and seventy (70) statements related to external-barriers may have produced the marginal results in HYpothesis II. 119 It has already been stated that readiness-to-change and kinds of perceived barriers to curriculum change may be dependent upon the maturity of the individual teacher to distinguish real from imagined barriers. If this is the case than perhaps the first perceived barriers-to- change might be those which can be classified as external. The external-barriers-to-curriculum-change would probably be the first obstacles perceived since they usually are more obvious and lend themselves more readily to rationalizations. It would seem then -- and the collected data in Hypotheses II and III tend to confirm it -- that those teachers who are less ready-to-change should acknowledge more external-barriers-to-curriculum-change than those who are more ready-to-change. V. Sub-H otheses A. Age 1. Teacher's age and reagigess to change are not significantly related. (See Hypothesis V A-1) __--—— 2. Younger teachers perceived fewer internal-barriers to change than did glder teachers. (See Hypothesis V A-2) 3. Younger teachers perceived fewer external-barriers to curriculum change than did older teachers. (See Hypothesis V A-3) The analysis of the three major variables to the tiemographic factors of age produced marginal results on _—...‘_._ 120 one of the relationships and rather conclusive results on the two others. One cannot help but wonder to what degree other factors or combination of factors come into focus to produce these results. Are readiness-to-change and barriers-to-change a manifestation of age or of attitudes formed during one's life span? B. Sex 1. There appeared to be no significant relationship between thp variables of readiness-to-change and sex of the pespondent. (See Hypothesis V B-1) 2. Males sgw fewer internal-barriers to curriculum change than did females. (See Hypothesis V B-2) 3. Males saw fewer external-barriers to change than gig females. (See Hypothesis V B-3) One rationale that was advanced for the hypotheses that related the three major variables to the sex variable was that by the very nature of the percentages of teachers in the various teaching levels -- seventy-seven percent (.77) of the males in the secondary schools and about seventy percent (.70) of the females in the elementary schools (See Table 5.1) -- and the general organizational rigidity (thirty-(30) children in one.room all day) of the elementary school compared with the organizational flexi- bility (classes changing every hour) of the secondary Eschool might tend to attract certain types of personalities. 121 It was assumed beforehand that there would be more males in the secondary schools and more females in the elementary schools. If, then, organizational structure was a factor in attracting certain types of personalities (regardless of sex) then the secondary schools would attract a more flexibly oriented teacher 7- one who might be more ready- to-change and one who might perceive fewer barriers-to- change. Another factor might be equally important in influencing the results of this section of the study. The secondary school teachers -- predominately male -- usually teach in their major subject fields. This fact might cause the secondary teachers to be more secure than the elementary school teachers who must work with the subject matter of many fields. TABLE 5.1 II COMPARISON OF SEX T0 TEACHING LEVEL W Male Female req. req. Characteristic Obs. Obs. Obs. Obs. Teaching Level Elementary 32 23.5 183 69.3 Secondary 104 76.5 81 30.7 Total 136 100.0 264 100.0 122 C. Marital Status 1. Marital status is not significantly related to teachers' readiness-to-change. (See Hypothesis V C-1) 2. Marital status is not significantly related to teachers' perceived internal-barriers to curriculum chagg_. (See Hypothesis V C-2) 3. Marital status i3 not significantlyrelated to ppgghers' perceived external-barriers to change. (See Hypothesis V C-3) It was felt at the outset of this study that unmarried teachers might be more ready-to-change and therefore perceive fewer barriers-to-curriculum-change. The basis for this statement was that good teaching requires a con- siderable amount of time-in planning, preparation, and professional growth. If these are the ingredients of good teaching then the unmarried teachers would probably have more time to devote and would probably be more likely to be ready to try new things and see fewer barriers to change -- especially those related to time. It was assumed that the majority of the participants in the sample would be married -- seventy-seven percent (.77) were married -- and that the majority of the total sample would be composed of women -- sixty-six percent (.65) were women. It was pre- Supposed that if the previous set of hypotheses (V B-1, V B-Z, V B-3) were true than by sheer weight of numbers they would influence the hypothesis related to marital sHiatus. 123 D. Teaching Level 1. Teach n leve is at s n ficantl related to teachers' reapiness-to-change. (See Hypothesis V D-1) 2. Teach n is -- ementar o sec dar -- is not significantly related to teachers' perceived internal- barriers to change. (See Hypothesis V 0-2) 3. Secondary school teachers perceive fewer external- barriers to curriculum change than do elementary school teachers. .(See Hypothesis V D-3) It was postulated at the beginning of this study that readiness-to-change would be directly related to teaching level, 1.9. secondary teachers would be more ready to change. It was also postulated that secondary teachers would perceive fewer barriers to change. The reason for these assumptions was that if male teachers were more ready-to-change than female teachers, as hypothesized, and if there were more males than females in the secondary schools (See Table 5.1) then these two factors should greatly influence the statistical result. An additional demographic factor was examined in an effort to provide more information about the teaching level characteristics. Table 5.2 provides an analysis of the teaching level -- age variables. This table indicates that almost fifty-one percent (.51) of the secondary 'teachers were in the low age group -- as compared to 124 thirty-six percent (.36) of the elementary teachers. It was seen that over seventy-six percent (.76) of the secondary school teachers were males and, also, that age was a factor in the type of barriers seen by teachers. It can be seen in the analysis presented in Table 5.3 in which teaching level is compared with teaching experience that the majority of the elementary school teachers were in the medium and high teaching experience groups and most of the secondary school teachers were in the low and medium teaching experience groups. Table 5.4 in which teaching level and tenure status are compared seem to produce no significant relationship. An examination of Tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 leads to the speculation that the factors of sex, age, and teaching experience may have had an influence on the outcome of this hypothesis. TABLE 5.2 A COMPARISON OF AGE T0 TEACHING LEVEL Age Characteristic Low Medium High Total Teaching Level Elementary Freq. Obs. 7B 63 74 215 % Obs. 38.3 29.3 34.4 100.0 Secondary freq. Obs. 94 SB 33 185 % Obs. 50.8 31.4 17.8 100.0 125 TABLE 5.3 A COMPARISON OF TEACHING LEVEL AND TEACHING EXPERIENCE _ fit‘_ ‘1 0‘0_.' Teachin» Ex 8 ience - ”-0 ’ Characteristic Low Medium ngh Total Teaching Level Elementary Freq. Obs. 53 83 79 215 % Obs. 24.6 38.6 36.8 100.0 Secondary freq. Obs. 66 70 49 185 % Obs. 35.6 36.8 27.6 100.0 TABLE 5.4 A COMPARISON OF TENURE AND TEACHING LEVEL Teachin Level Characteristic Elementary Seconaary Total Tenure Status \ Non-Tenure Freq. Obs. 66 65 131 1 % Obs. 50.7 49.3 100.0 Tenure 1 ' Freq. Obs. 149 120 269 K % Obs. 55.1 44.9 100.0 126 E. Degree Held 1. Readiness-to-change is ngt significantly related tg the college degree which teachers hold. (See Hypothesis V E-1) 2. Teaghgrs with masters gegrees perceive more internal-barriers to change than those with bachelors pegrees. (See Hypothesis V [-2) 3. Teagherg with masters degrees see more external- barriers to change than those with bachelors degrees. (See Hypothesis V E-3) The rationale behind Hypotheses V [-1, V E-Z, and V E-3 was that an advanced degree, and the uncovering of new ideas that are usually related to education, would help peOple to desire to be more ready to change. It was believed, too, that continued education would help to produce a greater awareness of and sensitivity to barriers to curriculum change. F. Continuing Education 1. Reapiness-to-change is not significantly related to continuing education. (See Hypothesis V F-1) 2. Teachers perceived internal-barriers to curriculum change are not significantly reiated to continuing education. (See Hypothesis V F-2) 127 3. Teachers perceived external-barriers to curriculum change are not significantly related to continuing education. (See Hypothesis V F-3) It was assumed, when the hypotheses were first deter- mined, that there might be a high degree of similarity between V E Degree Held and V F Continuing Education. The results obtained did not substantiate this assumption. The analysis produced results that were insignificant. C. Teaching Experience 1. Teachers with little teaching experience are more ready to change than those with a lot of teaching W- (See Hypothesis v C-1) 2. The less teaching experience a teacher has the fewer internal barriers he perceives. (See Hypothesis V C-2) 3. The less teaching experience a teacher has the fewer externai-barriers to curriculum change he perceives. (See Hypothesis V C-3) It was found that there were significant relationships between the three major variables and total teaching experience. This may have been caused by the close relationship of age to teaching experience. An examination Of'Table 5.5, indicated that of those teachers in the low teaching experience group almost eighty-five percent (.85) FM... 128 are also in the low age group. Conversely, over sixty-eight percent (.68) of the teachers in the high teaching experience group were also in the high age group. TABLE 5.5 A COMPARISON OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE AND AGE A e Characteristic Low Medlum High’ Total Teaching Experience Low Freq. Obs. 101 15 3 119 % Obs. 84.8 12.8 2.8 100.0 Medium Freq. Obs. 67 70 16 153 % Obs. 43.8 45.8 10.4 100.0 High Freq. Obs. 4 36 88 128 % Obs. 3.2 23.5 68.3 100.0 H. Tenure Status 1. Teachers readiness to change is not siggificantly related to their tenure status. (See Hypothesis V H-1) 2. Teachers who_gre not on tenure perceive fewer igternal-bargiers to curriculum change than those who are EflLlfifllfifli- (See Hypothesis V H-2) 129 3. Teachers who are not on tenure perceive fewer external-barriers to curriculum change than thgse who are on tenure. (See Hypothesis V H-3) The rationale behind the hypotheses that related the three major variables to tenure status was that tenure by itself does not release people to become more ready to change or sense fewer obstacles to change. It was assumed that if readiness-to-change and tenure were inversely related then the internal and external-barriers'-scales would probably be directly related to tenure status. This was proved to be true. It was stated above that it was assumed that tenure itself does not release people to change or perceive fewer barriers to change. A factor that should be con- sidered with tenure is the characteristic of age (Table 5.? compares tenure status and age). It may be observed that of those teachers in the sample who were not on tenure, almost eighty-two percent (.82) were in the low age group and less than three percent (.03) were in the high age cate- gory. Similar results were found when tenure status and teaching experience were examined (Table 5.6). This suggests that age as well as teaching experience may be an integral factor in the results of this analysis. 130 TABLE 5.6 A COMPARISON OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE AND TENURE STATUS Teachin Ex erience Characteristic _ Low Medlum HigF Total Tenure Status Non-Tenure Freq. Obs. 107 21 3 131 % Obs. 81.7 18.0 2.3 100.0 Tenure Freq. Obs. 21 128 122 289 % Obs. 7.4 48.8 45.8 100.0 TABLE 5.7 A COMPARISON OF TENURE STATUS AND ACE CHARACTERISTICS 9_ Characteristic Low Medium High Total Tenure Status Non-Tenure Freq. Obs. 107 21 3 131 % Obs. 81.7 16.0 2.3 100.0 Tenure Freq. Obs. 65 100 104 269 % 083. 24.2 37.2 38.8 100.0 L 131 Still another possible influencing factor was that the factor of sex might have altered the outcome. It can be seen in Table 5.8 that the percentages observed did not tend to substantiate this assumption. TABLE 5.8 A COMPARISON OF TENURE STATUS AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Sex Characteristic Me a ema a Total Tenure Status Non-Tenure Freq. Obs. 51 80 131 % Obs. 38.7 61.3 100.0 Tenure Freq. Obs. 85 184 269 % Obs. 31.6 68.4 100.0 I. Occupational Classification I lflg£2_ggpgp£gg to be no significant relationship b_tween readiness-to-change and the occupational classi- fication of the major wage earner in the teacher's famiiy. (See Hypothesis V I-1) 2. Internal-barriers to change and teachers' ,Occupational classification are not significantly related. (See Hypothesis V I-Z) 132 3. Extgrnal-bargiers to change are not significantly relateg tg ogcupationgl ciagsification. (See Hypothesis V 1-3) J. Father's Occupation 1. Teachers' father's occUpation was not a significant factor in teacher's degree gf readiness-to-changp. (See Hypothesis V J-1) 2. {gther's occupation was not a factor in teacher's pgggeiyeg inierngl-bgirierg io change. (See Hypothesis V J-2) 3. Fathgr's occupation was not a factor in tegcher's perceived external-barriers to curriculum change. (See Hypothesis V J-3) Occupational classification and father's occupational "level" are grouped together here because they deal with the sample's class of origin. It was found that there was no relationship in the difference between the major vari- able of readiness-to-change and occupational classification or father's occupation. Some data were developed in Tables 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 which relate the sample's age and sex characteristics with occupational classification a nd father's occupation. 133 A COMPARISON OF OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND AGE CHARACTERISTICS F TABLE 5.9 :3.» Characteristic Low Medium HigE Occupational Classification Professional Freq. Obs. 114 66 67 % Obs. 88.2 54.5 81.4 Non-Professional Freq. Obs. 58 55 4O % Obs. 34.8 45.5 32.6 Total Freq. Obs. 172 121 107 \ % 083. 100.0 100.0 100.0 134 TABLE 5.10 A COMPARISON OF FATHER'S OCCUPATION AND AGE CHARACTERISTICS Age Characteristic Law MedIum High Father's Occupation g White Collar 1 Freq. Obs. 90 54 35 % Obs. 52.4 12 35.6 Farmer Freq. Obs. 19 28 32 % Obs. 12.0 24.0 30.0 Blue Collar Freq. Obs. 63 39 40 % Obs. 35.6 31.4 3?.4 Total Freq. Obs. 172 121 107 % Obs. 100.0 100.0 100.0 135 TABLE 5.11 A COMPARISON OF FATHER'S OCCUPATION AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Sex Characteristic Male Female Father's Occupation White Collar Freq. Obs. 54 125 7% Obs. 39.6 47.3 Farmer Freq. Obs. 22 57 % Obs. 16.2 21.6 Blue Collar Freq. Obs. 60 82 % Obs. 44.2 31.1 Total Freq. Obs. 136 264 Obs. 100.0 100.0 136 Implications for Practice and Suggestions for Further Study A major purpose of this study was to determine teachers' readiness-to-change in relationship to their perceived barriers-to-curriculum-change. This was done in an effort to provide additional information for curriculum workers whose job it is to work with teachers toward curriculum change and curriculum improvement. The collected data, and the conclusions drawn from these data, suggest some direc- tion for curriculum workers to concentrate their efforts as they consider what groups of teachers are more or less ready-to-change and what groups sense more internal- barriers and external-barriers-to-curriculum-change. Their efforts can perhaps achieve greater results if they come to realize that both internal and external barriers to curriculum change are inversely related to readiness-to- change, 1.9. that those teachers who are ready to accept job-related changes perceive few internal and external barriers to curriculum change. Their efforts can perhaps achieve greater results if they come to realize, as Arthur Combs has stated that, ”. . . behavior is the result of flow thiggs 333m to the behaver. That is to say, behavior is seen, not as a question of the stimuli or the forces to which the person is exposed, but rather, as the product of the perceptions existing for the individual at the moment 137 1 of his behaving." This suggests that if behavior is a function of per- :zeption, and if perceptions of change are influenced by readiness-to-change and barriers-to-change, then people's arttitudes must be modified if they are to see few barriers and become more ready to change. What they ultimately become is dependent upon the ability of the curriculum worker to provide an environment conducive to change and relatively free of barriers to change. This environment or atnnosphere must be one of acceptance, support, and under- standing. It must be one which permits a free sharing of common concerns, for without this, the concerns can ulti- mately lead to barriers to change and attitudes which reduce a person's readiness to change. If this is seen in light (if' one of the major findings of this study -- that those teachers who are disposed to change sense few total barriers to change -- then the implications of this idea for the cH-lrriculum worker are profound. They suggest that perhaps "Fle curriculum worker must first change the way he works "'i-th people in order that they may perceive him differently. FTCir if teachers' behavior is the result of their perceptions C’F‘ the curriculum worker and the atmosphere for working that ha creates and if certain discernable segments of a teach- ‘ng staff perceive few internal and/or external barriers to change, then it would seem imperative that the curriculum \ 1. Arthur 0. Combs. "Personality Theory and Its ggplications," Learning More About Learning. ASCD, NEA, 59, p. 7. 13B worker attempt to find ways in which the environment that supports and nutures positive growth can be maintained. An example of this can be seen in the significant results of the analysis listed below. 1. Younger teachers perceive fewer internal-barriers- to-change than do older teachers. 2. Younger teachers perceive fewer external-barriers- tca-change than do older teachers. 3. Male teachers sense fewer internal-barriers-to- crzange than do female teachers. 4. Male teachers sense fewer external-barriers-to- change than do female teachers. 5. Secondary school teachers see fewer external- barriers-to-change than do elementary school teachers. 6. Teachers with masters degrees sense fewer internal bElrriers to change than do those without masters degrees. 7. Teachers with masters degrees see fewer external belrriers to change than do those without masters degrees. 8. Teachers with little teaching experience are more l‘eady to attempt job-related change than those with more t eaching experi ence. L 139 9. Teachers with little teaching experience perceive fewer internal-berriers-to-change than those with more teaching experience. 10. Teachers with little teaching experience perceive fewer external-barriers-to-change than those with more 1: eaching experience. 11. Teachers who are not on tenure see fewer internal- barriers-to-curriculum change. 12. Teachers who are not on tenure see fewer external- K barriers-to-curriculum change. It can be readily seen that several of the findings rGalate to age. If, as an example, a curriculum worker ‘Jrnderstands that young teachers see few barriers to change, his problem then becomes how to maintain the level at which ‘ttfie younger group now works. If the younger group's per- c=eptions are deemed to be positive then what type of S’Eihavior must the curriculum worker maintain in order to support these positive attitudes? The answer to this question does not come easily and t;*1is study did not produce results that would unlock all 53" the mysteries of the problem. But it was stated in [ztiapter I that a purpose of this study was to examine the f‘iactor of readiness to change in relation to certain ti‘arriers to change in so doing several ideas were developed 140 which need to be investigated. These ideas are listed below and serve as a basis for further testing and study. 1. People change when they see a need to change. 2. People change when they know how to change. 3. People change when they are actively involved in ‘the change process. 4. People change when they are secure in changing. 5. People do not necessarily change on the basis of rIew knowledge alone. 6. People change when they are encouraged and sup- ported in changing . 7. People change some attitudes slowly. 8. An environment free of expressed obstacles to I czhange is conducive to change in perceptions. 9. It is possible to discern the differences between real and imagined barriers to change. 10. Teachers' attitudes toward curriculum change are :lnfluenced more by certain types of barriers -- external or internal. 141 Summary Educational leaders have much to learn about people and change for the greatest problems that face the twentieth century today are problems concerned with changing human relationships. This civilization's survival may very well depend upon man's ability to create social inventions capable of harnessing, for society's constructive benefit, the extensive physical and intellectual energies and inventiveness that man now has at his disposal. Perhaps to simplify it, a way must be found to release people to change the way in which they want to behave toward each other; a way must be found to reduce resistance and obstacles-to-change. In rather broad outlines the require- ments for a good society are quite clear, but a critical technical riddle remains unsolved: How can people be helped to change so that neither their potential for growth nor their freedom is impaired; so that they respect and accept each other's religion, color, nationality, values, attitudes, and autonomy; so that all nations can exist in a world without the threats of war; and so that the results of our technological progress can bring happiness to all peoples of the world? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Anderson, Vernon E. Princi 185 and Procedures of Curri- culum Oevelo ment. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 195%. Argyris, Chris Personality and Organization. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Barthy, John A. Administration As Educational Leadership. Stanford, Ca i ornia: Stanford n versi y Press, 1956. Bendix, Reinhard, and Seymour Martin Lipset. Class Status and Power : A Reader in Social Stratification. Glencoe, Illinols: Its Free Press, 1957. Blackman, Charles A., and David H. Jenkins. Antecedents and Effects of Administrative Behavior. College of use on, e o a e Un vers y, Columbus, Ohio, 1956. Briggs, Thomas H. and Joseph Justman. Im rovin Instruc- tion Throu h Su ervision. New Yort: Tfie Macmlllan tompany, 1953. Calhoon, Richard P., C. A. Kirkpatrick. Infiuencing Em lo ee Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hi 1 Book Company, Inc., 1956. Caplow, Theodore. The Sociolo of Work. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Unlversity of Minnesota Press, 1954. Cartwright, Oorwin, Alvin Zander. Crou D namics : Research and Theor . Evanston, Illlnols: Row, Peterson, ana Company, 1960. Cummings, Elaine, and John Cummings. Closed Ranks : An Experiment in Mental Health. Cambridge, Massachuse ts: he Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University Press, 1957. 143 144 Edwards, Allen L. Techni ues of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Appleton-tentury-Crotts, Inc., 1957. English, Horace B. and Ava Champney English. A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Pa choanal tical Terms. New York, Longmans, Green an3 Co., 1955. Gilmer, 8. Von Haller. Industrial Ps cholo . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., nc., . Hare, Mason. Psychology in Management. New York: McGraw- Hill Book 0., nc.. . Harrell, Thomas Willard, Industriai Psychology. New York: Reinhart and Company, nc., 19S . Homans, George C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, . Jersild, A. T. When Teachers Face Themselves. New York: Bureau of Publicatlons, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1955. Lippitt, Ronald, Jeanne Watson, Bruce Westley. The O namics of Planned Chan a. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1955. Mazlow, A. H. Motivation and Personalit . New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. Miel, Alice. Chan in the Curriculum. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1946. Nosow, Sigmund, William H. Form. Mana WorkI and Society. New York: Basic Books, Inc., . Parten, Mildred. Surve 3 Polls and Sam les : Practical Procegures. New York: Harper and BrotFers, Pu is are, 1950. Payne, Stanley L. The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton, New Jersey: Pr nce on Universi y Press, 1951. Smith, 8. Othanel, William 0. Stanley, J. Harlan Shores._ Fundamentals of Curriculum Oevelo ment. Yonkers- on-Huason, New York: World Book Eompany, 1950. Snicer, Edward H. Human Problems and Technolo ical Change. New YorE: Russell Sage Founaatlon, 1952. 145 ARTICLES Banning, Evelyn 1. “Personal Relationships Do Affect Curriculum Change," The School Executive, 73:47-49, September 95 . Bills, Robert E. "Believing and Behaving : Perception and Learning," iearning More About Learning, Association for uperv s on an urr cu um evelop- ment, NEA, 1959. Coch, Lester, John R. P. French, Jr. "Overcoming Resistance to Change,“ Human Relations, 1:512-532, 1948. Coffman, William E. "Teacher and Curriculum Change : A Statistical Analysis to 8 Reaction Inventory," Journal of Experimental Education, 19:305-331, June 95 . Combs, Arthur.W."Seeing Is Behaving," Educational Leadership, 16:21-26, October 1958. Combs, Arthur W. "Personality Theory and Its Implications for Curriculum Development,“ Learning More About Learnin , Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA, 1959. Elting, E. Morison. "A Case Study of Innovation," En ineerin and Science Ma azine, published by Callfornla Instltute of 'eanology, Pasadena, California, April 1950. Faunce, W. A. "Social Stratification and Attitude Toward Change of Job Content," Social Forces, 39:140-148, December 1960. Could, Arthur. “The Mental and Physical Health of Teachers," School and Society, 53:706-711, May 1941. Gouldner, Alvin W. "Exploration in Applied Social Sciences,” Social Problems, 3:173-181, January 1956. Hines, V. A., and Hulda Grobman. "What A Principal Does Matters," Phi Delta Kappan, 37:308-310, April 1956. "Gas, Ida Russakoff. "When the Computer Takes Over the Office," flarvard Business Review, 38:102-112, July- August 1960. 146 Lawrence, Paul R. "How to Deal With Resistance to Change," Harvard Business Review, 32:49-57, May June 1954. Lewin, Kurt. “Frontiers in Group Dynamics," Human Relations, 1:5-41, 1947. McNeil, J. D. “A Deciding Factor in Curriculum Development : The Superintendent's Attitude," School Executive, 77:46-47, July 1958. Morrow, Alfred J., and John R. P. French, Jr. "Changing a Stereotype in Industry,“ Journal of Social Issues, 2:33-37, January 1945. Newell, C. A. et al. "Can You Change a Teacher's Attitudes?" —School Executive, 77:76-77, February 1958. Oliver, W. A. "Teachers Educational Beliefs Versus Their Educational Practices," Journal of Educational Research, 47:36-47, Septem er 5 . Prewett, Clinton R. "Let's Remove the Barriers to Good Teaching," The School Executive, 75:83-85, May 1956. Rogers E. M. and G. M. Beal. "The Importance of Personal Influence in the Adoption of Technical Change," Social Forces, 36:329-340, May 1958. Shumsky, A. "Teachers Explore Their Attitudes Toward Research," Educational Research Bulletin, 37:31-36, 19 . Zander, Alvin. "Resistance to Change : Its Analysis and Prevention," Advanced Management, 15-16:9-11, January 1950. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL Banning, Evelyn I. Teacher Attitude Toward Curriculum Chan 8. A Study at the Junior HI h School Teachers of Plttstield. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard Unlversity, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1951. Cay, Donald Frederick. Selected Teachers' Ex ressed Jud ments Concernin Barriers to Currlculum lm r t I t ovement. Unpublished Doc oral D sser ation, Unlverslty of Florida, Gainesville, 1961. 147 Duncan, James K. An Instrument for Measurin Readiness for Curr’culum Chan 8. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fullagar, William A. Some Teacher-Sensed Problems in Curriculum Im rovement. Unpubllsfied Doctoral Dissertation, leachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1951. Nangle, John E. The Effectiveness of Communications in Pre aration for Cfian e In an Insurance Com an . UnpuEllsRed Doctoral Dlssertatlon, Mlcfilgan State University, East Lansing, 1961. Trumbo, Donald R. An Analysis of Attitpges Toward Chan 8 Amon Em lo 883 at an Insurance Com an . Unpubl shed Doctoral Dlssertation, Mlcfilgan State Dniversity, East Lansing, 1958. APPENDICES APPENDIX A 149 TABLE A 1 AN ANALYSIS OF THE TOTAL BARRIERS TO CHANGE AND AGE CHARACTERISTICS d.f’, P< Age Characteristic Low Medium High Total Total Barriers Low 71 37 24 132 Medium 48 45 42 135 High 53 39 41 133 Total 172 121 107 400 M 11.71 .02 N .13 150 TABLE A 2 AN ANALYSIS OF THE TOTAL BARRIERS TO CHANGE AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS . Characteristic Male Sex —F355l3 Total Total Barriers Low 51 81 132 Medium 55 BO 135 High 30 103 133 Total 136 264 400 x2 e 11.78 d.f. = 2 p< .01 '1 II .14 151 ‘ TABLE A 3 AN ANALYSIS OF THE TOTAL BARRIERS TO CHANGE AND TEACHING EXPERIENCE CHARACTERISTICS MW Teachin Ex erience Characteristic Low Medlum High Total Total Barriers Low 55 43 34 132 Medium 34 52 49 135 High 30 58 45 133 Total 119 153 128 400 x2 e 14.07 d.f. = 4 p< .01 -.14 n N 152 TABLE A 4 AN ANALYSIS OF THE TOTAL BARRIERS TO CHANGE AND TENURE STATUS CHARACTERISTICS W W Tenure Status Characteristic Non-Tenure lenure Total Total Barriers Low 80 72 132 medium 37 98 135 High 34 99 133 Total 131 269 400 x2 = 14.54 d.f. e 2 p< .001 APPENDIX B . 154 TABLE 8 1 STATISTICS OBTAINED FROM COMPARING ngographic READINESS TO CHANGE SCALE AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Data x2 d.f. p r Age 9.04 4 <.1O -.15 Sex 2.78 2 <.3O -.08 Marital Status 1.47 2 (.50 .06 Teaching Level 3.67 2 <.20 .04 Degree Held 2.78 2 <.30 .05 Continuing Education 4.14 2 <.20 .10 Teaching Experience 10.07 4 <.02 -.15 Tenure 2.80 2 <.3O -.07 Occupational Classification 3.46 2 <.20 -.02 Father's Occupation 0.05 4 >.99 -.OO 155 TABLE B 2 STATISTICS OBTAINED FROM COMPARING TOTAL BARRIERS SCALE AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Demographic Data x2 d.f. p r Age 11.71 4 <.02 .13 Sex 11.76 2 <.01 .14- Marital Status 4.25 2 <.20 .02 Teaching Level 9.95 2 <.O1 -.16 Degree Held 4.67 2 <.10 -.11 Continuing Teaching Experience 14.20 4 <.O1 .14 Tenure 14.54 2 <.OO1 .17 Occupational Classification 0.88 2 <.98 -.05 Father's Occupation 1.21 4 <.9O -.OO 156 TABLE B 3 STATISTICS OBTAINED FROM COMPARING INTERNAL BARRIERS SCALE .AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA W Demographic 2 __Data X d.f. p r Age 15.66 4 <.01 .15 Sex 9.43 2 <.O1 .15 Marital Status 0.93 2 <.9B -.00 Teaching Level 4.07 2 <.20 -.08 Degree Held 6.00 2 <.05 .12 Continuing Education 0.32 2 <.99 -.00 Teaching Experience 18.25 4 <.O1 .15 Tenure 18.80 2 <.001 .19 Occupational Classification 0.09 2 >.99 -.01 Father's Occupation 3.61 4 <.99 -.00 157 TABLE B 4 STATISTICS OBTAINED FROM COMPARING EXTERNAL BARRIERS SCALE AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Demographic 2 Data X d.F. p r Age 10.20 4 <.05 .12 Sex . 6.71 2 <.05 .12 Marital Status 1.25 2 <.70 .03 Teaching Level 10.11 2 <.01 -.16 Degree Held 8.79 2 <.02 .14 Continuing Education 0.57 2 <.BO -.04 Teaching Experience 14.07 4 (.01 .11 Tenure 12.27 2 <.001 .16 Occupational Classification 1.17 2 <.7O -.04 Father's Occupation 1.14 4 >.99 -.O4 158 TABLE B 5 COMPARISON OF READINESS TO CHANGE AND TOTAL BARRIERS CHARACTERISTICS Total Barriers Characteristic Low Mealum High Total Readiness to Change Low Freq. Obs. 3O 51 61 142 % Obs. 22.58 37.78 48.21 - Medium Freq. Obs. 51 41 48 138 % Obs. 38.35 30.37 34.85 - High Freq. Obs. 52 43 25 120 % Obs. 39.10 31.85 18.94 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 133 135 132 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 159 TABLE B 6 COMPARISON OF READINESS TO CHANGE AND INTERNAL BARRIERS CHARACTERISTICS Internal Barriers Characteristic [ow Mealum ngh Total Readiness to Change Low Freq. Obs. 37 46 59 142 % Obs. 29.37 32.17 45.04 - 1 Medium 1 \ Freq. Obs. 48 48 42 138 % Obs. 38.10 33.57 32.06 - High Freq. Obs. 41 49 30 120 % Obs. 32.53 34.27 22.90 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 126 143 131 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 160 TABLE 8 7 COMPARISON OF READINESS TO CHANGE AND EXTERNAL BARRIERS CHARACTERISTICS w External Barriers Characteristic Low Mealum ngh Total Readiness to Change Low Freq. Obs. 27 51 64 142 % Obs. 20.77 37.23 48.12 - Medium Freq. Obs. 49 46 43 13B % Obs. 37.69 33.58 32.33 - High Freq. Obs. 54 40 26 120 % Obs. 41.54 29.20 19.55 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 130 137 133 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 161 TABLE B 8 COMPARISON OF READINESS TO CHANGE AND HIGH INTERNAL-EXTERNAL BARRIERS CHARACTERISTICS High Internal High External Charcteristic Barriers Barriers Total Readiness to Change Low Freq. Obs. 59 64 123 % Obs. 45.04 48.12 - Medium Freq. Obs. 42 43 85 % Obs. 32.08 32.33 - High Freq. Obs. 3O 26 56 % Obs. 22.90 19.55 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 131 133 254 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 162 TABLE B 9 COMPARISON OF READINESS AGE CHARACTERISTICS TO CHANGE AND Characteristic Eow High Total Readiness to Change Low Freq. Obs. 51 42 49 142 % Obs. 29.65 34.71 45.79 - Medium Freq. Obs. 6O 44 34 138 % Obs. 34.88 36.36 31.78 - High Freq. Obs. 61 35 24 120 % Obs. 35.47 28.93 22.43 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 172 121 107 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 COMPARISON 163 TABLE 8 10 OF INTERNAL BARRIERS AND AGE CHARACTERISTICS agglum Characteristic Low High Total Internal Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 71 31 29 131 % Obs. 41.28 25.82 27.10 - Medium Freq. Obs. 54 55 34 143 % Obs. 31.40 45.45 31.78 - High Freq. Obs. 47 35 44 128 x Obs. 27.32 28.93 41.12 - TOTAL ' Freq. Obs. 172 121 107 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 164 TABLE B 11 COMPARISON OF EXTERNAL BARRIERS AND AGE CHARACTERISTICS ‘h‘ r figs Characteristic Low edium 'Righ Total External Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 71 35 27 133 % 083. . 41.28 28.93 25.22 - Medium Freq. Obs. 49 48 40 137 % Obs. 28.49 39.67 37.38 - High Freq. Obs. 52 38 40 130 % Obs. 30.23 31.40 37.39 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 172 121 107 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 165 TABLE 8 12 COMPARISON OF READINESS TO CHANGE AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Sex Characteristic Mile Fehhle Total Readiness to Change - Low Freq. Obs. 44 9B 142 % Obs. 32.35 37.12 - Medium Freq. Obs. 44 94 138 x 083. 32.35 35.81 - High Freq. Obs. 48 72 120 % Obs. 35.30 27.27 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 136 264 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 166 TABLE B 13 COMPARISON OF INTERNAL BARRIERS AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS ==============a============================================= Sex Characteristic Male Female Total Internal Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 56 75 131 % Obs. 41.18 28.41 - Medium Freq. Obs. 49 94 143 % Obs. 36.03 35.61 - High Freq. Obs. 31 95 126 % 083. 22.79 35.98 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 136 264 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 167 TABLE B 14 COMPARISON OF EXTERNAL BARRIERS AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Sex Characferistic Male Female __ Total External Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 53 80 133 % Obs. 38.98 30.30 - Medium Freq. Obs. 50 87 137 % Obs. 38.78 32.98 - High Freq. Obs. 33 97 130 % Obs. 24.26 38.74 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 136 264 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 168 TABLE 8 15 COMPARISON OF READINESS TO CHANGE AND MARITAL STATUS CHARACTERISTICS Marital Status Characteristic Married Other Total Readiness to Change Low Freq. Obs. 113 29 142 % Obs. 36.69 31.52 - Medium Freq. Obs. 107 31 138 High Freq. Obs. BB 32 120 % Obs. 28.57 34.78 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 308 92 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 169 TABLE B 16 COMPARISON OF INTERNAL BARRIERS AND MARITAL STATUS CHARACTERISTICS Marital Status Characteristic Marriea Other Total Internal Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 99 32 131 % Obs. 32.14 34.78 - Medium Freq. Obs. 114 29 143 % Obs. 37001 31.52 C High Freq. Obs. 95 31 126 TOTAL Freq. Obs. 308 92 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 170 TABLE 8 17 COMPARISON OF EXTERNAL BARRIERS AND MARITAL STATUS CHARACTERISTICS Marital Status Characteristic Married‘T Other Total External Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 103 30 133 % Obs. 33.44 32.61 - Medium Freq. Obs. 109 28 137 High Freq. Obs. 96 34 130 % Obs. 31.17 36.96 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 308 92 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 171 TABLE B 18 COMPARISON OF READINESS TO CHANGE AND TEACHING LEVEL CHARACTERISTICS Teaching Level Characteristic Eltmentary Secondary Total Readiness to Change . Low Freq. Obs. 76 66 142 % 083. 35.35 35.88 - Medium Freq. Obs. 82 56 138 % Obs. 38.14 30.27 - High Freq. Obs. 57 63 120 % Obs. 28.51 34.05 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 215 185 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 172 TABLE B 19 COMPARISON OF INTERNAL BARRIERS AND TEACHING LEVEL CHARACTERISTICS A in. l Teachin Level Characteristic Elementary econ ary Total 1 Internal Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 67 64 131 % Obs. 31.16 34.59 - Medium Freq. Obs. 71 72 143 % Obs. 33.02 38.92 - High Freq. Obs. 74 . 49 126 % Obs. 35.82 26.49 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 215 185 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 173 TABLE B 20 COMPARISON OF EXTERNAL BARRIERS AND TEACHING LEVEL CHARACTERISTICS Teaching Level Characteristic Elementary Secondary Total External Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 58 75 133 % Obs. 28.98 40.54 - Medium Freq. Obs. 75 62 137 % Obs. 34.88 33.51 - High Freq. Obs. 82 48 130 % Obs. 38.14 25.95 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 215 185 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 174 TABLE B 21 COMPARISON OF READINESS TO CHANGE AND DEGREE HELD CHARACTERISTICS De ree Held Characteristic Bachelors Masters Total Readiness to Change Low Freq. Obs. 94 48 140 % Obs. 38.02 35.11 - Medium Freq. Obs. 95 39 134 7 Obs. 38.40 29.78 - High Freq. Obs. 72 46 118 % Obs. 27.58 35.11 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 261 131 392 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 175 TABLE B 22 COMPARISON OF INTERNAL BARRIERS AND DEGREE HELD CHARACTERISTICS W W De ree Held Characteristic Bachelors Masters Total Internal Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 96 ’ 33 129 % Obs. 36.78 25.20 - Medium Freq. Obs. 91 49 140 % Obs. 34.87 37.40 - High Freq. Obs. 74 49 123 % Obs. 28.35 37.40 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 261 131 392 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 176 TABLE B 23 COMPARISON OF EXTERNAL BARRIERS AND DEGREE HELD CHARACTERISTICS M De ree Held Characteristic Bachelors Masters Total External Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 100 31 131 % Obs. 38.31 23.88 - Medium Freq. Obs. 85 49 134 % Obs. 32.57 37.40 - High Freq. Obs. 78 51 127 % Obs. 29.12 38.93 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 261 131 392 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 177 TABLE B 24 COMPARISON OF READINESS TO CHANGE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION CHARACTERISTICS Cont. Educatipp Characteristic No Yes Totai Readiness to Change Low Freq. Obs. 73 69 142 % Obs. 40.58 31.38 - Medium Freq. Obs. 60 78 138 % Obs. 33.33 35.45 - High Freq. Obs. 47 73 120 % Obs. 26.11 33.18 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 180 220 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 178 TABLE B 25 COMPARISON OF INTERNAL BARRIERS AND CONTINUING EDUCATION CHARACTERISTICS * m Cont, Education Characteristic No Yes Total Internal Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 58 73 131 % Obs. 33.18 32.22 - Medium Freq. Obs. 67 76 143 % Obs. 34.55 37.22 - High Freq. Obs. 55 71 126 % Obs. 32.27 30.56 - TOTAL Freq. Obs.. 180 220 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 179 TABLE B 26 COMPARISON OF EXTERNAL BARRIERS AND CONTINUING EDUCATION CHARACTERISTICS . Cont. Educat on Characteristic No Yes Total External Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 62 71 133 % Obs. 34.44 32.27 - Medium Freq. Obs. 63 74 137 % Obs. 35.00 33.64 - High Freq. Obs. 55 75 130 % Obs. 30.56 34.09 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 180 220 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 180 TABLE B 27 COMPARISON OF READINESS TO CHANGE AND TEACHING EXPERIENCE CHARACTERISTICS Teachin Ex erience Characteristic Low Mealum ngh Total Readiness to Change Low Freq. Obs. 33 53 56 142 % Obs. 27.73 34.84 43.75 - Medium Freq. Obs. 44 49 45 138 % Obs. 36.98 32.03 35.16 - High Freq. Obs. 42 51 27 120 % Obs. 35.29 33.33 21.09 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 119 153 128 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 181 TABLE B 28 COMPARISON OF INTERNAL BARRIERS AND TEACHING EXPERIENCE CHARACTERISTICS W m Teachin Ex erience Characteristic Eow flealum RIgh Total Internal Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 57 3B 36 131 % Obs. 47.90 24.84 28.13 - Medium Freq. Obs. 34 62 47 143 % Obs. 28.57 40.52 36.72 - High Freq. Obs. 28 53 45 126 % Obs. 23.53 34.64 35.18 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 119 153 128 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 182 TABLE 8 29 COMPARISON OF EXTERNAL BARRIERS AND TEACHING EXPERIENCE CHARACTERISTICS Teaching Experience Characteristic Low Medium High Total External Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 54 43 36 133 % Obs. 45.38 28.10 28.13 - Medium Freq. 083. 35 50 52 137 % Obs. 29.41 .32.88 40.83 - High Freq. Obs. 3O 6O 40 130 % Obs. 25.21 39.22 31.24 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 119 153 128 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 183 TABLE 8 30 COMPARISON OF READINESS TO CHANGE AND TENURE STATUS.CHARACTERISTICS Tenure Status Characteristic on- enure enure Total Readiness to Change Low Freq. Obs. 39 103 142 z 083. 29.77 38.29 - Medium Freq. Obs. 49 89 138 % 083. 37.40 33.09 - High Freq. Obs. 43 77 120 A Obs. 32.82 28.82 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 131 269 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 184 TABLE 8 31 COMPARISON OF INTERNAL BARRIERS AND W— M TENURE STATUS CHARACTERISTICS W Tenure Status Characteristic Non- enure Tenure Total Internal Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 62 69 131 % Obs. 47.33 25.65 - Medium Freq. Obs. 37 106 143 % Obs. 28.84 39.41 - High Freq. Obs. 32 94 126 % Obs. 24.43 34.94 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 131 269 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 185 TABLE 8 32 COMPARISON OF EXTERNAL BARRIERS AND TENURE STATUS CHARACTERISTICS W W Tenure Status Characteristic Non- enure enure Total External Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 59 74 133 % Obs. 45.04 27.51 - Medium Freq. Obs. 3B 99 137 % Obs. 29.01 36.80 - High Freq. Obs. 34 96 130 % 083. 25.95 35.89 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 131 269 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 186 TABLE 8 33 COMPARISON OF READINESS TO CHANGE AND OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHARACTERISTICS w Occu ational Classification Characteristic Professional Non-Professlonal Total Readiness to Change Low Freq. Obs. 9O 52 142 % Obs. 38.44 33.99 - Medium Freq. Obs. 77 61 138 % Obs. 31.17 39.87 - High Freq. Obs. BO 40 120 % Obs. 32.39 28.14 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 247 153 400 % 083. 100.00 100.00 100.00 187 TABLE 8 34 COMPARISON OF INTERNAL BARRIERS AND OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHARACTERISTICS *_ n: m _* Occu ational Classification Characteristic Protesslonal Non-Protesslonal Total Internal Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 82 49 131 % Obs. 33.20 32.03 - Medium Freq. Obs. 87 56 143 High Freq. Obs. 7B 48 126 % Obs. 31.58 31.37 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 247 153 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 188 TABLE 8 35 COMPARISON OF EXTERNAL BARRIERS AND OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHARACTERISTICS W W Occu ational Classification Characteristic Professional Non-Professional Total External Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 81. 52 133 % Obs. 32.79 33.99 - Medium Freq. Obs. 81 56 137 High Freq. Obs. 85 45 130 % Obs. 34.42 29.41 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 247 153 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 189 TABLE 8 36 COMPARISON OF READINESS TO CHANGE AND FATHER'S OCCUPATION CHARACTERISTICS Father's Occupation White Blue Characteristic Collar Farmer Collar Total Readiness to Change Low Freq. Obs. 64 28 50 142 % Obs. 35.75 35.44 35.21 - Medium Freq. Obs. 61 27 50 138 % Obs. 34.08 34.18 35.21 - High Freq. Obs. S4 24 42 120 % Obs. 30.17 30.38 29.58 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 179 79 142 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 190 TABLE 8 37 COMPARISON OF INTERNAL BARRIERS AND FATHER'S OCCUPATION CHARACTERISTICS .—____ . —_ ___~.._.— ~-—_ ‘5 Fathe;75 Occu ation White Blue Characteristic Collar Farmer Collar Total Internal Barriers Low Freq. Obs. 56 23 52 131 % Obs. 31.28 29.11 38.82 - Medium Freq. Obs. 81 34 48 143 % Obs. 34.08 43.04 33.80 - High Freq. 083. 82 22 42 128 % Obs. 34.64 27.85 29.58 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 179 79 142 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 191 TABLE 8 38 COMPARISON OF EXTERNAL BARRIERS AND FATHER'S OCCUPATION CHARACTERISTICS Father's Occu ation Whlte Blue Characteristic Collar Farmer Collar Total External Barriers Low 1 Freq. Obs. 58 25 50 133 % Obs. 37.40 31.85 35.21 - Medium Freq. Obs. 59 3O 48 137 % Obs. 32.96 37.97 33.80 - High Freq. Obs. 62 24 44 130 % 083. 34.64 30.38 30.99 - TOTAL Freq. Obs. 179 79 142 400 % Obs. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 APPENDIX C 193 TABLE C 1 DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES -- READINESS TO CHANGE SCORES -- L Score Frequency Score Frequency 43 1 27 33 42 1 26 28 4O 1 25 1B 39 2 24 23 38 3 23 15 37 12 22 16 36 13 21 14 35 1O 20 6 34 16 19 7 33 12 18 7 32 20 17 2 31 3O 16 3 3O 31 15 1 29 27 12 1 28 47 Total: 11,209 Mean: 28.02 Median: 28.02 Possible Range: 36.00 Actual Range: 31.00 194 TABLE C 2 DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES --"SELF” SCALE SCORES -- W Score Frequency Score Frequency 100 1 76 13 99 1 75 8 93 3 74 14 97 3 73 S 96 12 72 1O 95 11 71 6 94 7 70 6 93 6 69 6 92 1O 68 5 91 15 67 7 9O 7 66 7 89 12 65 5 88 22 64 5 87 16 63 3 B6 17 61 4 85 1O 60 7 84 B 59 3 83 16 58 2 82 16 57 5 81 11 55 1 BO 20 53 1 79 9 52 1 78 16 47 1 77 19 20 8 Total: 31,674 Mean: 79.19 Median: 81.00 Possible Range: 80.00 Actual Range: 80.00 195 TABLE C 3 DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES -- PERSONNEL SCALE SCORES -- Score Frequency Score Frequency 100 2 72 12 99 1 71 8 97 1 7O 12 96 2 69 11 95 3 68 13 94 3 67 10 93 6 66 6 92 9 65 5 91 7 64 6 9O 9 63 6 89 4 62 1O 88 11 61 6 87 11 60 1O 86 12 59 4 BS 8 58 2 B4 12 S7 2 83 17 56 5 82 15 54 1 81 17 S3 6 BO 17 49 1 79 14 48 1 7B 17 35 2 77 9 34 1 76 9 29 1 75 6 23 2 74 22 20 2 73 10 Total: 30,127 Mean: 75.32 Median: 77.00 Possible Range: 80.00 Actual Range: ‘ 80.00 196 TABLE C 4 DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES -- CHILDREN AND PARENTS SCALE SCORES -- Score Frequency Score Frequency 93 1 67 25 92 1 66 1O 9O 2 65 15 89 4 64 7 88 3 63 12 B7 5 62 11 86 7 61 7 85 4 60 9 84 17 59 6 83 6 58 10 82 6 57 3 B1 11 56 2 80 17 55 4 79 1O 54 5 78 16 53 2 77 23 52 3 76 1O 51 4 75 19 50 1 74 11 49 1 73 14 47 1 72 20 43 1 71 17 4O 4 7O 16 36 1 69 16 34 1 68 15 28 2 Total: 28,231 Mean: 70.58 Median: 71.00 Possible Range: 80.00 Actual Range: 65.00 197 TABLE C 5 DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES -- SCHOOL POLICY SCALE SCORES -- W W Score Frequency Score Frequency 48 1 34 35 46 1 33 27 45 2 32 35 44 4 31 26 43 8 30 23 42 11 29 12 41 14 28 19 4O 19 27 11 39 12 26 5 38 32 25 4 37 21 22 2 36 36 19 4 35 35 18 4 Total: 13,682 Mean: 34.21 Median: 34.00 Possible Range: 40.00 Actual Range: 30.00 198 TABLE C 6 DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES -- PLANT AND EQUIPMENT SCALE SCORES -- Score Frequency Score Frequency * 49 1 33 30 47 1 32 20 46 1 31 23 45 4 3O 32 44 2 29 14 43 7 28 17 42 9 27 12 41 14 26 8 3 4O 19 25 5 39 12 24 3 i 38 32 23 3 ; 37 21 20 3 i 36 36 17 2 ‘ 35 35 16 2 34 34 14 2 1 1 Total: 13,551 Mean: 33.89 Median: 34.00 Possible Range: 40.00 Actual Range: 35.00 199 TABLE C 7 DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES -- TIME SCALE SCORES -- Score Frequency Score Frequency 50 1 32 20 47 1 31 29 46 5 3O 26 45 2 29 25 44 3 28 19 43 7 27 23 42 12 26 11 41 11 25 14 40 11 24 12 39 20 23 9 38 15 22 9 37 21 21 4 36 21 20 3 35 18 19 3 34 20 18 3 33 19 16 3 Total: 12,894 Mean: 32.24 Median: 32.00 Possible Range: 40.00 Actual Range: 34.00 APPENDIX D ‘ ‘ -pye " -' loy‘. \ -. 3‘! . :- ' 1 ‘ ~’, I“. ' \ ‘ l‘ 4- u | II:‘ w '\ 7‘. u I Q 1 _ r..- u - u 1 a l D. u’ l ‘w . I" . I . n a , \ 1 - .\«n . ‘ \ I | . e ., I \ ' \ I ' '2‘ '1 r) . f.‘ .11) I . ."l! '1 '\v I . 1'!!- o ‘5' .1, I l. I A n I 1 '. \ ' E III' '. , 1 . 1.1:" -1\.’. ' n ‘\ \a. O a t n 0 l I. .-w ‘. I ‘ I I \ . .4 f. -, -.-— ' l - ‘.' k- I . _ I! an ' I Vii-:3 ‘1 .._ .1" ' '- 1'. w. I ’ r e , I .‘ >' . Is I .. -»-- v _— .._..—.--—..-—-__.-- _.-~ 1 I I . . - ' . . . . I ' ‘ I I . . , \ . . I ~ ' . o ' s 4 '-‘ . . ' ‘ , . . .' I . g n u - E. I r . , .- ,vr , . e 3 v I ‘ .- \ a p e l , , . y \‘ ‘r . ' I w _ 'i . _- ) 0 ,~ ~ . . .‘ ' ‘ 1 . . . I . r 7 I ' I ~ \ . 1. , . '. l nl—l‘ LI_‘..)1‘L:) , H‘ . 1.-—- "P— - . r l D r r I O D l I I a . .--—'—.—~_ __....g .‘ . . .‘ . v a .-— c .J ’ \ ~ Q o a . I . _‘ \ as n .‘ ‘ I I l o 1 . . I I I . —-d t, I q .. I - as w J - . ,. ,-.'. r . 1 I I l I y'— \\.I|.I||||IIII III. 11 I \ . III III... . . Ii 1 1- . I . \ r \. . TIIII \ . . _ IIIIIIIITTTIIII. \ .4 III III II t z 4 III - a .I s w - . . '11:" \ ‘ I I \D. .l I Il'l I . I. llllllbllll . . -I . I'll . 1|-11111II .. .. . Ill Till || 0 I k 111 I I III .) . . .1 I I- I J A. . _ u A . s f. a II II, _ I I 1 I II r.. . _ t. 1 \ (I - .u . . ll . I I (I x. t . I: - I II .\ x. a ll... snip \ . a . ./ . . e .I I. no IIIIII . . IIIIIII I . II 1 . _ . 1. IL 1.1111111! Rf . . II 11‘: l 7 . | l — 3. \ -. . . . r . — I . . . a. . . IIIII'lI .lr -III I \ . x In I \ l K '4 \ I a II .I 4 . . . I \ . . I I b a I I n I t I 3": I e n a). .\ I e I I! I n a I I! \ 4 \I . I . . I. I . . . , . ”In .5 .I o I .. I I h a I w P l I I t \V I I ll . o I | I . .. . I . . . . . . i . . x .1 . a . I ’1. \. VI‘ — p g I. I \ . . . v I a. I; r . . I ~ \ I l 1 4 we! I v . _ T. .. . v . II V \ . . r a . 1 . . 3 .\ . .r- .I' I I . r. 1 ., . . . .s. .. . . . I r .1 . u . 1 . I . u I ,4. r . .7 I. I .. t . . . . r I -. . ‘l ' O ‘ I w . . .I _ v I . 1 vi . I I . . I. I II . .. .l. I e . \ \I . . o \ . . . . p \I c I ‘ I 1 .I . . . .I I - I III -|l . I v . .- . _I-_ . . . I . l e I s I \w I _ _ . . \ . . I. n. .. I r . _.. I. 1 . n .. I . I T . . .1: l I I \ l . r \I AI h I \r I 4 . . ~ . . . . . r I . s .. f. r (I r | I a \ \ v u e \ 1' e I A I _. . I a ‘ . . I u. I I In A V a . l r . . . I n n I I u I! 3‘ . 0» \ \- l I I I I .4 I Z r . . . I .n . 1 .. . . ( . v . 1 . \ r 1 w I . I I. In I a I r 7 . . _ l I! o . w _ I ‘ I a a . 1 r 9‘ ‘ w \ l a u . I a u (I o | n l l I I I s . , . I . . . . . . . . r . . r . . A 7| _._-- -_.- q-.— II I I III ll . I I I 5 _ \\ n \ \ - I I II It IIIII I II I If I r o \ . . . \ I ‘37 m I 0 «SI _ I \ . .II '1: III! II I II III I I- ...I I .r. _ \ I — \ \ I . \ I . I * ‘ n I . I... \ \ _ l .1. . . III . I. .II J I . I ./ a .\ \.( m r. I F I .I. . . . L I. . .3. . A II II III I I l v f \— ..Iv.\ . A . .I I u . K/Ir. . I . \ . . . . I I ‘ - I s. . \ \_ III III IIIIIIIIIII [Illa ICI II. IIIIIII II 1 I I [I I I. II .liIIlI IIIIIIII. I I I fin . m . I r . \ I II I a I. P}! I a. I m .. .. _ h‘. l ’ l \‘ II I I II I III II I I I II III IIII III III III I III III 0. II t A . II I I - II . . I . _ I. \ . . I ‘I b \ ‘I III I \I _ . . ‘I r It ‘ vl ‘ r \I r I c I 1» _LI ,1. . . I. . n . . .. . r. I I \ .I . . \l I . I .\ .HIL xl ., . K I . I ‘ . I I I .. \ II . . I‘ ‘§ -\l D u . II I I I I I I I II I I. . I. I I I . c. . . I I . . . \ I I . ru . _ I I C . . ‘ III 1 . :1 I . I k I I I In I . III I I 0 . . - I - I , . . I . . I . . I I. II I _ I. .. I I I - I — i . \ . I . I \l . II I. . s . .I . - V I . \ I I . .I I I I I \. \ w I II . . I .. I . u I . LI. II . I I I . . I I I II . I I INI I 4 I .l I . ‘J I. ‘ \I I I I I I. r 4 . I I I . I II I: I \ - \4 I II I 1| I. x. I H. . . r - I . . II 1 . \I I .. VI .4 . ,I . . I I . II p I . a I I. I . —I I I R .I o . . I C . I I .. . I I . . . . . I I I 4 r I II I . I . ,I u . I I I I . I I _ .II I . I I x I - I . . I . I L . I I . \ I I . . x I I. I. s I . ,.\ I I I _ II \ II . I I I I I a II I I I _ v p \ ‘ v Q. I. . . . I I II II I I I r! . I .I . I . _ . l I .11. I I . . . . . I . .x I . I . I I I . I . . . . I I I "I1\ I‘\ I ‘afu up". 5 206 r§ . \ In . x, . I I\ ll I. O n O x . I . .l . . H .. . .l . HI ‘ I I c . . . ‘ w ‘ . . v . u I. .- . .- » c \ v, n I v . f n I I . I I \. . n . . u I H . u \l . a n u I s I I v . . “.3 o I. ul 4 l l x . u l. . I I u - 5... l a. 0 v .0 u . n . . b I n . . . a—— (I (I. kill! III .1 4...}- . I nil." . 1 u y 4 o . ‘14 A .( ‘ D ‘, A t. ‘ a; . l .. ‘J n l.» - . c A ‘ ~\I . t. t 'I l- I ‘ I. . b o I W . r. u: a "n \ I . u . in J a ’9 I. . I. . . . ’ r. . II: . 7 VV .. .\ . \ ‘ \ - A. ~ A... . . . . . o .. . ~ . . 9 . n n J \l . I a ‘l I .I" Ii! I III“ ’Iul "I.l.'. ~a V u. . t . Vs \1 . u . t n x \ . .5 . . p a 4 . u r . . t . . .. x. . v 1. u . . u ‘ l _. .V ‘l . t - y i . | . l .1 . I . v c v I r s v :1 . .In. .Illlllll.llllnl . -“a-m III I" I I ‘I‘IIII; ll IllIr. .|.Il I IIIIIIIf . II! . III; .VI. ., II III III'IIDI I II Illll - -‘Ia‘lill A - I'ltl II It‘lcl \ . I n l I a ‘ 4 \‘ 1 I I II I . . o I d . . . \. A \I I I x. \ I \ l I ' I ‘ I _ . o .I ~ I . I . ‘ . (I I \a ‘ l . \. r I \ . 8 I . I I w c ‘ V I D I . 2 I . _ . I. I . . \ _ o A ‘ I I . L D l \I \ . o I . Iv II . I U r . I — \ 4 I. I u l . I D I. o I . v I . q I I k x I u I n . I . . I v I t I I .I I _ . I I I .I I . I .. \I _ a . . \ _ s ( _ I .I I o o - o . '1‘... I . II I I )III \| I It‘s-'- III I . l I . I -,.Ilnilr.lu-II.I|I I II D . -l 'I III II. ‘III I- II l‘lfu- I." II I: 'I I II- - Lain It. I . I I: I 9 . nU _ 2 .. . V V I I. ul \ v u I - . v . t. I I .I (\. a. I . i. p \I u r \ . . s I 1. I. v . . _ , o . ~ C u .I 11.11}: .IIIII II I f.l.'.1I| . .II“. .‘I I l . . il II I I I .I .C ‘I (I I I Il.l I I I'll, IIIIIIII I I II I III I IIlIIIl'I I a I I I I ..I I I ' II ' o . I \I I l u 1 I . \I r I II I . I a I * s \ . L I I I . [I I o I I \ I . ~ I I I I ' . (s . I I I . II 1' II h h I| . u . I o o I I II I t I :o _ \. 1 . . f. I I. . . I k. I I I I . - x. v I .o I o I. I r I I I . I s .. I I. I I . I I . \ I I I I ¢ . _ \I \ I‘ r I . I? ‘ i]. h g l ' I \ . . I _ I I \ I o I. l I I . l f I I .I I \ . . . . I ~ I I (I I I I ‘ —. . I I. I \ l x I I I o I | I _ I I. I I I I I 1 . I. . I a v ; I. ..-— ——-~ _- .- APF’ENDIX E 211 DEFINITION OF CURRICULUM It is evident that the definition of "curriculum" is, in most respects, similar from one author to another. At the same time, however, it may vary in some cases. This can be seen when the curriculum is defined as, "A sequence of potential experiences ... set up in the school for the purpose of disciplining children and youth in group ways of thinking and acting."1 Anderson points out that curriculum has been defined in terms of courses of study, courses offered, subject matter content and planned experience. 2 Perhaps the first to emphasis the planned experience point- of-view were Caswell and Cambell (Curriculum DeveIOpment). Many subsequent writers have extended this concept to in- clude purpose and the existing culture which encompasses the school. Pritzkau states that, "If the school is to be considered as an institution designed to promote some degree of societal change, the curriculum must develop the conditions which will produce some degree of complusiveness on the part of young peopl; and teachers to gain insight relative to that change." 1. Smith, Stanley, Shores. Ibid, p. 4. 2. Anderson, Ibid, p. 7-10. 3. Philo T. Pritzkau, Dynamics of Curriculum Improvement, p. 175. 4 I _ E f _ . .1 u . .c n 8 ‘ mr- ‘ n 1 l . w. i - . — 3 ../t.. t a J, Z I ' c U x J m R ' .II. Lift Fatty}. T . . .. . _ . . .1 vinyl: ‘ \\ f MICHIGANS 31 a- n-- -._. r..- ..-.... ni‘ D. .I l. . III... I I Int!" . 4I|ll -I‘ .l I .lf ‘l‘i'u‘ III: II. ulcllnl« ‘ I l. ii I ‘ I II ’I'I‘l III-Iv .Il‘lll It'll vtlll II II ‘tlll |III It It'll..- III .II- L ‘1"- I _-.~_ __...__I III. I .II‘ I‘IIJI IKI I. NIHII‘ I. .1. III- II II I I II I: II I I. (I III I | I 2 I I III II I I a L. I I I II I I. . II I III II I II I I I I‘IIIII III IIIII‘IIIIIII I III. I I It II‘III I I I , I I a II I I I I I... IIIIII 7. III II I I II . I . . \I I . Q A t .i I . I \II I, I q \ ' .f. it I . I I v I I \ . . \ II . I . I . I I \I x I. \3 I. I I. u. . ’1 K. v " I .I . (I r . I ‘ \ I . .I \ \ ‘ x . l‘ I . ‘ I . ,. . 4 I. A d \ I. I I. I I I I. n. ‘ x I I \ ‘ I I \ I 9 . . I . I . II I 0 _ I . . . I I .I {I . I 7. I I I . II . I I I .. I I I \ \ n e I I . . I . I I . . \I I . I I I II III cl I .un I I I I I . . - 5‘ t f t \ u ‘ V. u ‘ ll { l . I . I. \ ~ . u .I r .\ I N O ‘ I I I I I I U I I I. J 9 . o .l I II I I I I. p . W. I a I\ \ V I \ l. I I\ II L I . I q . I I I . . I . I x. . . .y I . I . — H I II\ I I .. \ I . I I n I t. l I . . I . . as. I . I I .i I . . . . . .. I I. . \. \ I II I .l L a I ( 1 I I I l I . _ I. .. I . I . . . . II I I I. I . I I- .. I II. I . . _ f I. . .I I. . I . k . . I I. x. . . H . . i Q n c 'l I I I a . . I. . . I 1 I .I . I I I . . I r. I I I. .I . I . . _ III. r\ \ \ A . I I I . I.| 9 .ln u. I _ \z — r I I U I . I . — _, I u L I . r . .k I . \ . .II o I HI 0 .. I v a — . | ‘ Q C \ \I I A. I \ ~ 1 i - I I r . _ , I I‘ I \ I — . .I . I I . \I o. I _ ~l I I I p I s I i ‘ o I A I I . .. . I . . I I .\ I . . a . r I I . . I . ’ l l l . ¢ . _ ‘ V . O I t n O - . I I I. l APPENDIX E 211 DEFINITION OF CURRICULUM It is evident that the definition of "curriculum" is, in most respects, similar from one author to another. At the same time, however, it may vary in some cases. This can be seen when the curriculum is defined as, "A sequence of potential experiences ... set up in the school for the purpose of disciplining children and youth in group ways of thinking and acting."1 Anderson points out that curriculum has been defined in terms of courses of study, courses offered, subject matter content and planned experience. 2 perhaps the first to emphasis the planned experience point- of-view were Caswell and Cambell (Curriculum Develogment). Many subsequent writers have extended this concept to in- clude purpose and the existing culture which encompasses the school. Pritzkau states that, "If the school is to be considered as an institution designed to promote some degree of societal change, the curriculum must develop the conditions which will produce some degree of complusiveness on the part of young pepplg and teachers to gain insight relative to that change." 1. Smith, Stanley, Shores. Ibid, p. 4. 20 Anderson, Ibid, p. 7.10. 3. Philo T. Pritzkau, Dynamics of Curriculum Improvement, p. 175. ROOM USE ONLY ROOM USE ow“ v.1... .___..-_— IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ilHIHMIHUIL‘MHflbLMfllfl/ILIHMUWHIINNb