~ - i-t. --’, _ u -. u. -'r ..- - 7:: 4,.44444444444444'4'4444"44 4 4' 444 '44444 44444 44 444444444 4 4'4' '4" 4 w M“ ‘1‘.“ ——.~. M” wfiw —_ M - o v» .~¢—o . ~— .. Mo - --—Ov O O - a“ ' o g . n c 4 . o. . o «I—“M . .u ,- “ . . 44...... .3.- :3”- -m. -_... v... .. mw> -—. \ho' >0 4 o c‘ ' 9:? - - No. m .C.‘ —--—..~.q . . . . M ‘c- 35.1”” o . w—dflcw . 'W‘ “l p-—.— ,. o ow.~« .vo— -W.-. —-——-oooo—. 1m 4---.“ v.“ 4‘}... D ” .- ‘ o -.- ..., on“._—.. m“ .. _... . .‘ .‘"“ ~¢~u...- ‘lobt ~ - ~ 43-3.: 4 . 4.444: 4"! "44 . ' v~4-4"."4.' "544“ ‘- , .;.~,:'.-g.._34;:. 442444 44 .4 a: .4: 44444444444444 444.4 4.44, .. . . 41'41 44444-4 44' "My .“ .444‘4344'43 44 44.144424 4 "3444334434: 44444: 44444 " 44'4444 444 4 “144:4 4") 4 .44 4.44.414 44444 4444 4 344': Ea. '44" 41W 4444644444 4447'4‘44 44141444' ' 44.44.14 4'” .5'44444 444" 4 4.4323 ”‘4 4m - ._ m... . - — .- . 47 4:44 ' 0—. 4:4. ‘4 . 4444444141. 4'444'4'4 " 4"144'44'4'“""' 4" 4 4414444 44 4 . '. , . ,.«4.,.'..."~4" «4444444' ‘4 """'4"'1"" 44"""'""" 4 4. . 4 ' ' 44444444444444.4444 44'744'4 444314944 W44 ‘34 44444 44' 44:44 '44.: 444'4 444" .. ".4"'4444 ‘444""444 444! 4'” :'«4 «44444 441"" 4"""'4 4'44 .' 474444441 4444' 44444 44,444 .4,, 4 44, 44 l" 44 ‘ -"' 4444' £34". 4.4: ",4244"'441‘4'1’444'H4444444'4"444'"'44"4'44"v'4" 44"4' 44444444444. "'4 '4'4434'H'4l'444444~v4""144'444 4 4444 444444 4 4 4444'4444 4'44 .4441 44".. 444 4444444' 4 4" , .4 44‘ 4444 44444 '4'444444 44'4'44' '4'" 44'4' 4.4 ' ' . 4444444 "'4444'4444"'4~4'4444 4444 444434 44444444 4444444444444444 ' ' ‘ HM} Mb» 4444. "4444444 3 4444 44 '4". 4444 L144 '44 '44:" 44" 444444 4. ,‘4' H '7 44"! I44 '4I'4 '4'4. .4 44 4 4444.4 44414444444444 4444444 W75 firms-ran L; :1? ram-5.1:; .22 2:42.166 7 .2" J- .. Wu“ ‘. ",7" "MP 5 J} ‘ . ‘ . 57." iii 1—K .\... -rA_i ' . Q .'~ -‘-'~ ~13." “g" E rear! 4‘ “j . f ‘ --". 5- 2‘5“! “h“ , ‘ . I , ) ~' ‘ | a‘b";_¢'" ,‘-‘-’,’. ' f‘ '-.‘A- " ’1‘1 g :v. p .5 . s? . r’ . ,_ n "3 ii‘fi'9j'.‘. .v L; B. “a; ‘v "mix“; WA '- 9' ul’ f '4' L‘ l; K ”“1 ‘mprmmw -a~---~——- This is to certify that the thesis entitled "Teacher and Administrator Perceptions of Factors Related to Implementation of a Curriculum for Trainably and Severely Mentally Impaired Students" presented by Yaser Othman Salem has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Education degree in Mfléfl Major professor Date July 15, 1982 0-7 639 MSU LIBRARIES Ala—scan... RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. Elfl§§ will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. TEACHER AND ADMINISTRATOR PERCEPTIONS OF FACTORS RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF A CURRICULUM FOR TRAINABLY AND SEVERELY MENTALLY IMPAIRED STUDENTS By Yaser Othman Salem A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education 1982 ABSTRACT TEACHER AND ADMINISTRATOR PERCEPTIONS OF FACTORS RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF A CURRICULUM FOR TRAINABLY AND SEVERELY MENTALLY IMPAIRED STUDENTS By Yaser Othman Salem As a response to the right-to-education litigation, many pro- grams have been started to serve and educate low-incidence populations, including severely and profoundly mentally impaired students. The most important legislative action was Public Law 94-l42, which gives high priority to severely and profoundly handicapped children. As a result, many projects have been established in different places around the nation to meet the educational needs of trainably and severely mentally impaired students. To carry out the goals of these projects, a number of curriculum models have been developed. Unfor- tunately, little effort has been made to study the factors that influ- ence the effectiveness and implementation of these curriculum projects. The purpose of this study was to determine factors that influ- ence the implementation of a curriculum for trainably and severely mentally handicapped students as perceived by teachers and administra- tors who work with this population. Sixteen school districts in Michigan were chosen as the target population for the study. All of these school districts were formally involved in the implementation of a curriculum-management system known Yaser Othman Salem as Project Perform, which was developed by an Intermediate School District, Ingham County, Michigan. Project Perform is a curriculum-management system or a com- plete instructional system for the education of trainably and severely mentally impaired and severely multiply impaired students ages 0-25. The system includes three major components that can be used for developing a curriculum. The components are: (1) Performance Objec- tive Catalog, (2) Data Processing, and (3) Staff Development. The research design of the study included three groups of factors that were considered to have the major influence on curriculum implementation. These factors were identified as independent vari- ables. The components of curriculum implementation were specified as dependent variables. The relationship between the independent factors and implementation was studied by surveying teachers who work with mentally impaired students and special education program administrators. Multiple regression was used to evaluate the contribution of each independent variable toward the variance of curriculum implemen- tation. Results showed that the highest predictors of curriculum implementation were the appropriateness of the curriculum to the needs and abilities of mentally impaired students, training the teachers how to use the curriculum components, and administration support of cur- riculum implementation. To Palestine, With Profound Love and Longing ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My appreciation and thanks to the members of my dissertation committee, especially Dr. Don Burke, the chairperson of my committee, for his valuable advice and the gentle way he gave feedback and sug- gestions. A very special thanks to Dr. William Frey, director of the University Center for International Rehabilitation (UCIR), not only for his considerable contributions in this research effort but also for his support and encouragement throughout my doctoral program. Also, my appreciation extends to both Dr. Ellen Strommen and Dr. Charles Blackman for their contributions and willingness to devote their time. I thank Dr. Dave Haarer, Dr. Audrey Gomon, Dr. Harrold Spicknall, Dr. Daun Dickie, and Dr. Dave Fuller from Project Perform for their cooperation. I am grateful to the Beekman Center staff and the Ingham Developmental Center staff for their contributions, especially the teachers who participated in the development of this research instru- ment. Gratitude is extended to the teachers, curriculum Specialists, and administrators from the 16 cooperating districts for their effort in this study. ii My thanks to all the people who supported my doctoral study at Michigan State University, specifically Dr. Don Galvin, Dr. Edwin Keller, Dr. Ron Nolthuis, Dr. Bob Winborn, and the UCIR staff. I thank all of my friends at MSU for their encouragement, especially Mohamad Mahrous, and Kahlil Elaian for the hours he spent doing the needed computer work. I am grateful to my relatives for their personal and finan- cial support, particularly to my brother Mohamad. My deepest thanks to my wife, Hanan, and to my children, Hazem and Jumana, for their support, patience, and their lovely smiles. iii LIST OF TABLES TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ..................... The Problem ..................... Purpose of the Study ................ Delimitations .................... II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................. Review of Curriculum Development in Regular Education ..................... Review of Curriculum Development for the Mentally Impaired ..................... Factors That Influence Implementation of a Curriculum for the Trainably and Severely Mentally Impaired ................. III. METHODOLOGY ...................... Introduction .................... Research Design ................... Dependent Variables (Degree of Implementation) . . Independent Variables ............... Project Perform ................... Instrumentation ................... Questionnaire ................... Development of Questionnaire ........... Validity and Reliability of the Instrument . . Data-Collection Procedures ............ Data Sources ................... Participants ................... Data Analysis .................... Demographic Data ................. Multiple Regression ................ Research Questions ................. Limitations of the Study .............. iv Page —-I \1 01-500 ll Page IV. RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS ................ 57 Results of the Multiple-Regression Analysis ...... 57 Descriptive Analysis ................. 66 V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ 86 Summary ........................ 86 Discussion ...................... 88 Recommendations .................... 95 Specific Recommendations .............. 95 General Recommendations ............... 103 Further Research .................. 103 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... 105 APPENDICES ........................... 113 A. QUESTIONNAIRE ...................... 114 8. PROJECT PERFORM ..................... 128 C. RESEARCH STUDY REQUEST ................. 134 D. TEACHERS' AND ADMINISTRATORS' COMMENTS ......... 141 E. DISTRICTS IMPLEMENTATION ................ 152 F. OUTLINE OF POC SECTIONS ................. 167 G. MULTIPLE-REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE ............ 177 H. RATIONALE FOR USING LIKERT SCALE ............ 181 Table 01th 01 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Most Recommended or Used Teaching and Training Areas in Mental-Retardation Curriculum ............ Dependent and Independent Variables ............ Dependent Variables .................... Independent Variables ................... An Example of the Organization of POC ........... Questionnaire Development: Schools, Stages/Procedures, and Times ........................ Types of Positions of the Schools'/Centers' Representatives ..................... Participating School Districts .............. Number and Percentage of Teachers, Based on the Percentage of Time They Work With Each Category of Students ....................... Number and Percentage of Teachers, Based on Percentage of Time They Work With Each Level of Students ...... Number and Percentage of Teachers in Each Category of Experience ...................... Number and Percentage of Teachers in Each Category of Type of Degree Held ................. Correlation Coefficients ................. Sets/Clusters of Independent and Dependent Variables Multiple-Regression Summary Table for All Predictors of Implementation From All Sets of Factors ......... Multiple-Regression Summary Tables for the Implementation Components (MI'M6) ................... vi Page 16 27 29 3O 32 38 44 47 49 50 50 51 58 6O 61 62 Table Page 17. Multiple-Regression Summary Table for the Three Predictors (Curriculum, Teacher, and Administrator) When Treated as Groups of Dependent Variables (Curriculum Implementation) ............... 64 18. Teachers' Ratings of PP and POC .............. 67 19. Teachers' Ratings of Administrators' Support of PP Implementation .................... 68 20. Teachers' Ratings of Preparation to Use POC Components . . 69 21. Administrators' Ratings of PP and POC ........... 71 22. Administrators' Ratings of Their Support of PP Implementation ..................... 72 23. Administrators' Ratings of Teachers' Preparation ..... 73 24. Differences Between Teachers' and Administrators' Ratings of the PP and POC Components, Administration Support, and Preparation ..................... 74 25. Teacher Implementation Ratings .............. 76 26. Implementation of Assessment-Reassessment Procedures of the POC Content Areas ................ 77 27. Percentage of Instructional School Budget Spending on PP Components .................... 80 28. Percentage of Instructional School Budget Spending on Total PP .......... . ............ 81 29. Percentage of PP Spending on Each PP Component ...... 82 30. Degree of Implementation (Criterion Variable) by District . 83 31. ANOVA Table for Implementation by Districts ........ 84 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The primary goal of this research was to identify the major factors that influenced curriculum implementation by teachers of trainably mentally impaired and severely mentally impaired students. Sixteen school districts in the state of Michigan were chosen as the target population for the study. Teachers in all of these school districts were formally involved in the implementation of a curriculum- management system known as Project Perform (PP), which was developed by the Ingham Intermediate School District. PP is a curriculum—management system or a complete instruc- tional system for the education of trainably and severely mentally impaired and severely multiply impaired students ages 0-25. The system includes three major components that can be used for developing a curriculum. The components are: (1) Performance Objective Catalog (POC), (2) Data Processing, and (3) Staff Development. (PP is described in detail in Chapter III.) A special instrument was developed to collect the needed data. All teachers and administrators who met the criteria for par- ticipation in the survey were asked to fill out a special question- naire. A multiple—regression model and other statistical methods were applied in analyzing the data. As a response to the right-to-education litigation, many programs have been started to serve and educate low-incidence popula- tions, including severely and profoundly mentally retarded students. Court decisions in the early 1970s forced local school districts to take responsibility for educating their handicapped children. Accord- ing to Cobb (1977), some of the more significant cases include the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) vs. the Common- wealth of Pennsylvania 1971. This decision ensured the educational rights of all mentally retarded children previously excluded from school. Another decision, Wyatt-Stickney vs. Aderholt (1971), ensured institutionalized persons the right to full treatment. In 1972, the case of Mills vs. Board of Education (Washington, D.C.) guaranteed a free and appropriate public education to each school-age child, regardless of the degree of the child's impairment. The gen- eral result of these court rulings and subsequent legislation is that severely and profoundly retarded students can no longer be denied their right to a free and appropriate public-school education (Stainback, 1977). The most important legislative action was Public Law 94-142, passed in 1975. Turnbull (1978) noted that the purpose of this law is to assure that all handicapped children have available to them, within specified time periods, a free, appropriate public education that emphasizes special public education and related services designed to meet their unique needs. Since P.L. 94-142 gives high priority to severely and pro- foundly handicapped children, administrators began to develop special programs to fit the needs of that population. Somerton (1978) stated that the inclusion of severely and profoundly handicapped children into public-school programs forces educators to face the question of how to develop instructional programs that are appropriate for the functioning level of the child. After passage of P.L. 94-142, government funding led to the initiation of many curriculum-development projects. For example, Meyer (1976) stated that the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped was supporting curriculum-development projects applicable to the target population as well as projects having curriculum implications. Administrators then began facing the problem of selecting, developing, and guiding staff to make decisions and implement curriculum. The Problem Many projects have been established in different places around the nation to meet the educational needs of trainably mentally impaired (TMI) and severely mentally impaired (SMI) students. To carry out the goals of these projects, a number of curriculum models have been developed. Unfortunately, little effort has been made to study the factors that influence the implementation and effectiveness of these curriculum projects. It is obvious that studying and knowing the characteristics and factors that affect curriculum implementation will increase the awareness of administrators, curriculum developers, and curriculum specialists in their planning for curriculum implementation. Admin- istrators generally focus their attention on the content of a curriculum and its application to students' particular levels of functioning. They rarely focus their attention on factors related to whether the curriculum will in fact be implemented by teachers. It is hoped that this latter kind of information will help adminis- trators to make more efficient and effective judgments when selecting or developing curricula. The review of literature indicated that there is more than one factor affecting curriculum implementation with TMI and SMI students. These factors can be organized into three clusters: the curriculum itself, the teachers, and the administrators. There is a need to identify the characteristics of a TMI/SMI curriculum that affect its implementation. There is also a need to know how teachers and admin- istrators influence the implementation of a curriculum. Thos, this study has focused on: 1. the variables that are purported to affect curriculum implementation and 2. the relationship between these variables and implementa- tion of the curriculum. Purpose of the Study The Ingham Intermediate School District curriculum project, known as Project Perform (PP), is a curriculum-management system that has been developed to serve the educational needs of TMI and SMI students. This model was chosen for study because it is a well-known project, it has been used for more than five years, and it has been implemented in more than 16 districts in the state of Michigan as well as school districts in other states. The main focus of this research was to study the variables that affect curriculum implementation and to study the relationship between these variables and curriculum implementation from the point of view of the users (teachers and administrators). More specifically, the purposes of this study were to: 1. Identify the potential variables that influence curriculum implementation, 2. Determine the relationships between the identified vari- ables and implementation of PP components, and 3. Determine which variables are most predictive of implemen- tation of PP components. Delimitations Based on the special target population of this research, generalization of the findings is limited to this population or a population with similar characteristics and situations: 1. Generalizations are limited to the 16 school districts of the state of Michigan that participated in the study and have been using the Ingham curriculum instructional system for trainably and severely mentally impaired students. These districts used the three major components of PP (POC, Data Processing, and Staff Development) or one of them for at least a year. 2. Generalizations are limited to administrators and teachers who have been involved in the implementation of PP components or one of the mentioned components for at least a year. However, the findings of this research will be helpful to administrators, curriculum specialists, and teachers who are involved in developing, improving, and/or implementing a curriculum for train- ably and severely mentally impaired students. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of related literature is organized under three major headings. These headings are: 1. Review of curriculum development in regular education, 2. Review of curriculum development for the mentally impaired, and 3. Factors that influence implementation of curriculum for trainably and severely mentally impaired students. Review of Curriculum Development in Regular Education Curriculum is a very broad subject in education. For the purposes of this research, the review of curriculum literature focuses on the procedures for developing a curriculum, factors that influence the development and implementation of a curriculum, the types of con- tent of curricula, definitions of curriculum in education, principles that should be included or addressed in the curriculum, sequencing, and goals and objectives. Reviewing these subjects gives a general idea of the characteristics of an effective curriculum in education. The review of the available literature on the definition of curriculum revealed that any individual’s definition of curriculum is a matter of that individual's perception. As stated by Doll (1978), "A pupil might define his curriculum as that which happens to him in the school, while a teacher might view it as what he has been told to teach" (p. 6). This means that the curriculum of a school is the formal and informal content and process by which learners gain knowl- edge and understanding, develop skills, and alter their attitudes, appreciation, and values under the auspices of that school. Doll indicated that the curriculum definition should be broad so as to include both formal and informal aspects of schooling. He stated that what the student learns is the content, how he or she learns is the process, and the outcomes appear as knowledge, understanding, skills, attitudes, appreciation, and values. Among educators there appears to be a general agreement that curriculum means planned experience that is organized in a way and based on a specific philosophy or theory to help the student to achieve broad goals and specific objectives. Hass (1977) defined curriculum as all the experiences that individual learners have in a pro- gram of education whose purpose is to achieve goals and related specific objectives which is planned in terms of a framework of theory and research. (p. 5) More specifically, Hass stated that curriculum means the subject matter taught to the students, the school's written courses and other related materials, and the planned experiences of the learners under the guidance of the school. Similarly, Doll indicated that the cur- riculum emphasis should be focused on (1) guided, preselected experi- ences to which students should be exposed; (2) plans and strategies for learning; (3) products of being educated, and (4) strategies or systems for achieving. In terms of the goals and objectives of the curriculum, the literature emphasized that they should be clearly stated. Taba (1962) indicated that formulation of clear and comprehensive objectives pro- vides an essential platform for the curriculum. Essentially, the objectives determine what content is important and how it should be organized. According to Taba, each curriculum should indicate: first, the goals in broad terms, and second, the objectives with more specific details. These goals and objectives should focus on the needs of the individual. Many years ago, Charters (1924) indicated that "before selecting objectives and dividing them into activities, the major emphasis should be given to certain units which are of importance for children" (p. 101). There appears to be some kind of agreement on the general goals of curriculum. Many of these goals were indicated by Krug (1957): 1. To help every student build adequate mental health resources. 2. To teach the essential understanding, habits, and attitudes needed for physical health. 3. To help every student point toward his occupational future. 4. To help students develop interests. 5. To teach the skills of reflective thinking and problem solving. 6. To help students learn to use their own language as an effective tool in reading, writing and speaking. (pp. 89-93) Along the same line, 0011 (1978) summarized the goals of the curriculum into the following categories: 1. Intellectual dimensions which include: possession of knowl- edge, communication of knowledge, created knowledge, and desire for knowledge. 2. Social dimensions which include: student's relations to other people, to his country, and to the world. 3. Personal dimensions which include: physical, emotional development, ethical, and aesthetic. 10 4. Productive dimensions which include: vocation-selective and vocation-preparation. (pp. 164-65) It appears from the review of the literature that establish- ing or selecting goals and objectives is an important procedure when creating or developing a curriculum. Their careful selection is influ- enced by several factors. Some of the important factors were stated by Hass (1977): Goals and objectives are properly determined through considera- tion of the demands of society, the characteristics of the stu- dents, and the potential contributions of the various fields of knowledge. Because society, learners, and knowledge are all constantly chan ing, goals and objectives must be changed and restated. (p. 9) 0011 (1977) developed criteria in the form of questions regard- ing the goals and objectives of the curriculum. These questions ask if the goals of the curriculum or teaching plans are clearly stated, if the teachers and students participated in defining the goals, if the goals relate to the local community, if they relate to the stu- dents' needs, and if the goals are used in evaluating learning achievement. The objectives and contents of any curriculum are influenced by the philosophy or the rationale behind it. Most of these philoso- phies and their effects on curriculum were explained by Wright (1971). In particular, he cited idealism, realism, experimentalism, and exis- tentialism. The literature on the principles of an effective curriculum revealed that, in addition to the important factors already mentioned, the structure and design of the curriculum is another important issue. 11 The structure of the curriculum includes sequence, continuity, scope, and balance (0011, 1978, p. 135). From the literature cited above and other available litera- ture (Attkisson, 1978; Burns, 1970; Payne, 1974), it is apparent that there are different views among educators about the factors that influence the effectiveness of a curriculum. There is general agree- ment on some characteristics upon which effectiveness depends, such as the content, the goals and objectives, the philosophy of the society, the theory of the planners, the structure of the design, and personnel preparation. However, there is not a comprehensive or standard model in regular education to explain or to use in a syste- matic way to identify the characteristics of the more effective cur- ricula. Review of Curriculum Development for the Mentally Impaired There is consistency in most of the reviewed literature on mental retardation in that most of the educators agreed that the main purpose of teaching and training programs for the mentally retarded is to provide an opportunity, intellectually and spiritually, so that adequate self-care, social adjustment, good planning of leisure time, and satisfying usefulness may be realized for living comfortably (Molloy, 1963). These purposes or objectives of special education and training of mentally retarded students will not be carried out sufficiently unless several conditions are met, such as well-trained teachers and principals, availability of the required materials, and an effective curriculum. 12 Many curriculum models have been established and developed for the mentally retarded, but little effort has been made to study or evaluate their effectiveness. From the review of available mate- rials describing the curricula used in various programs, it appears that some characteristics of these curricula are highly usable and acceptable among curriculum planners for the mentally retarded. Kirk (1951) explained the work of Alice Descoeuders1 regarding the educa- tion of the mentally retarded. In summary form, educators of the mentally retarded must: 1. Utilize the natural ability of the pupil. 2. Emphasize perceptual knowledge and sense training. 3. Individualized instruction. 4. Recognize the utilitarian character of the teaching. Lingren (1977) mentioned several points related to teaching and training of the mentally retarded that are similar to the prin- ciples laid down in Descoeuders' work. Some of Lingren's principles include: 1. Emphasizing use of concrete materials. 2. Mentally retarded students need more attention. 3. Emphasisis on out-of—school resources such as field trips. 4. Learning units should organize around life problems more p. 512 than academic subjects. Rosenzweig (1968) also emphasized that "an effective curriculum must include a well-defined target. The content needs to be psychologically rather than logically organized and needs to be spelled out in detail with the activities and materials of instruction" (p. 165). Snell IDescoeuders‘ book, The Education of Mentally Defective Chil- dren, translated from the French edition. 13 (1978) asserted that "an effective curriculum for the severely men- tally impaired must be entirely flexible to meet the very diverse needs of individuals" (p. 14). In a similar work written by Greene (1972), several principles in using programmed teaching for the mentally retarded were mentioned. In summary, they are: (1) present the material to be learned in a logical sequence, (2) break down the materials into small steps, (3) base teaching on an individual basis, (4) engage the students in active participation, (5) use feedback, and (6) use practice and repetition. Similarly, Burke (1980) focused on five principles that should be accounted for when choosing teaching materials or a curriculum for mentally impaired. In brief, they are: 1. Organization of the materials. Materials should be organized from basic skills to higher levels and from simple to more difficult. 2. Content. Content includes the quality of the materials and the balance among the areas of the curriculum. 3. Assessment. Pretesting or preassessment will help the teacher know where to start with the student and what area and level should be taught or trained first. Assessment should include record keeping. 4. Instructional guide. The guide explains how to teach a task. 5. Flexibility. The material or curriculum must be easy to use in a new situation or community or easily modified for a new situation. 14 Anderson (1976) also considered several criteria that should be taken into account when choosing materials for teaching the severely mentally impaired. Some of these are: 1. The materials should be relevant to the stated objectives of the curriculum. 2. The student should have the prerequisite skills which are needed to be able to use the materials. The materials assist the student to acquire a concept or skill, and not only just to keep him busy. Feedback procedures on systems. The materials should be durable and reusable. The materials should not be too complicated or costly. (p. 75) 0101-5 00 One of the characteristics of an effective curriculum for mentally retarded that emerges in a review of the literature is a concern for the comprehensiveness and appropriateness of the curricu- lum. Such concerns involve decisions about what areas should be covered in the curriculum and the priorities for choosing those areas. Greene (1972) stated that: The curriculum of the mentally retarded must give priority to basic tool subjects and to the vocational needs of the student. The curriculum should be child—centered, and flexible enough to take into consideration the varying individual needs of each child. There must be concentration on building the strengths of the child, rather than hammering away at his weakness. Achievements that have little or no practical value should not be emphasized. (p. 50) Frankel (1966) mentioned three main categories that should be included in the curriculum: self-care, socialization, and expression. These areas can help the mentally retarded to develop adequate habits of moving about, taking care of their safety and health, interacting with other people, behaving toward others in acceptable ways, and developing ways of enjoyment such as participation in games, music, and the like. Frederick (1977) asserted that the curriculum for the 15 severely handicapped child should be as comprehensive as life itself. It not only must teach the child to live as effectively as possible in his or her environment, but must provide the most basic of teaching sequences in self-help, language, and motor skills. From reviewing the literature, it appears that there is a group of categories or areas included or recommended for the content of a curriculum focused on the mentally retarded. Table 1 gives the reader a general idea of the types of content and areas that exist in curricula or programs for mentally retarded students. The table includes a number of references to curriculum projects applied in the field (PP, Lincoln, and MEAD). It also includes theoretical works or recommendations. The works referenced in the table and others not represented in the table have been reviewed and analyzed in terms of their content or, in the case of projects in the field, their actual areas of teaching. The result of the analysis revealed that there are nine categories or areas covered in these curricula. This work is not a comprehensive model for curriculum analysis and does not show the balance between these areas, but it is a useful indicator of the most used and agreed-upon areas of teaching/training among curriculum planners for the mentally impaired. This table demonstrates that there is a great deal of agree— ment among educators of the mentally retarded on the kinds of areas or categories that should be included in the curriculum. They are self- care skills, motor or physical skills, language, social skills, basic communication, and vocational skills. It is not clear from the review of the literature nor does the table reflect the degree of importance 16 .coumozum ha umucwEEoomc Lo pumnoca mgu cw com: coma mo; accompmo m>onm on» wasp mmpmowucw Axv "mpoz >< ><><><><>< ><><><>< X x ><><><>< ><><><>< ><><><><><>< ><><><>< ><><><><><>< >< ><><><><><><><><>< _omp .msaw__m= swap .caseaz mass .cangz wasp .aSCM3 mama .Lcwcm m~m_ .Ppmcm mmm_ .so__oz was, .uamz wasp .coupws mnm_ .=_oucws sump .xth Nkm_ .Ea;m=H camP .mcwtaz swap .mxowtaumta Kemp .mxuwtmuata one. . :OmeU:< F~m_ .ctaap< cave m>wp mpwcz Paco?» cowumowcae -mmcomm -wcmoo \ummm umoo> -Eou owmmm gouoz meoom mmmzmcmm memo le—mm zeommpmu mmocmcmwmm .Ezpzowcgzo cowumvcmpoclpmpcoe :w women mcwcwmeu can mcvsommp uwm: Lo neocoEEoomL pmoZuu.F anm» 17 of each area. In other words, neither the literature nor the table shows what area or areas have actually been used most or should be focused on more than the others based on the priority of the needs of the mentally retarded students and/or any other factors. An effective curriculum also includes broad goals and spe- cific objectives that help the teacher choose the apprOpriate content for teaching the mentally impaired student. Wehman (1981) formulated a criterion that helps teachers to plan the student's goals. This criterion required specification of the student's present level of performance, specification of the student's rate of learning, and a chart that describes a logical sequence of broad skills in each goal. Haring (1976) mentioned that goals and activities are always inter- changeable to some extent. Sometimes it is more convenient to think of a goal and to choose activities that will work toward the goal. 0n the other hand, nearly all activities provide learning opportuni- ties that contribute to more than one goal. Williams (1961) mentioned that in developing goals and objec- tives the basic philosophy should be to help each student realize his or her maximum potential. Review of the literature conveys the impression of general agreement with Williams' statement; i.e., the goals and objectives of teaching the trainably and severely mentally impaired should be relevant and appropriate to the students' needs. The goals and objectives should be clear for any user and easy to be evaluated. Another useful principle that should be met by an effective curriculum for mentally retarded is the appropriateness for the 18 student's characteristics. Klein (1979) declared that a useful cur- riculum must be built upon the results of a comprehensive analysis of the particular students to be taught. The analysis considers the psychological, physiological, and intellectual maturity of students. It should forecast the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will be useful when formal schooling ends. Also, it should accurately diag- nose each student's present level of knowledge and ability. Conse- quently, instruction must begin where students can gain the greatest benefit. This issue is related to the student-centered curriculum. As stated by Burns (1970), the curriculum must be defined in terms of its goals as they apply to students and in terms of the psycho- logical structure and educational experience of students. Many educators consider that the curriculum for the mentally retarded should be assessment-based since this helps the teacher to diagnose the student's potential, knowledge, past experience, and achievement. The time and efforts of both teacher and student can be saved when using the assessment-based curriculum. Klein (1979) indicated that assessment helps to determine the mentally impaired student's current ability, what the student might be able to do, and in what instructional area the pupil is or is not performing success- fully. An assessment-based curriculum also helps the teacher to receive feedback on the progress of the child, make necessary modi- fications in methods or materials, and ascertain whether the instruc- tional sequence is effective or not. It also helps the teacher to verify that the child has attained the objective (Wehman, 1981). Haring (1976) indicated that: 19 One of the most difficult jobs facing educators is the develop- ment of evaluation systems that will allow for the assessment of programmatic variables on a daily, weekly, and yearly basis. One partial answer is the development of curricula with the assessment built directly into the program. (p. 30) The curriculum should also include or develop a special format that the teacher can use for record keeping and for evaluation pur- poses. This format should be provided to the parents or guardians, school or program administrators, and also retained by the teacher in order that they may be aware of the level of the student's progress and the degree to which the student is achieving his or her goals and short-term objectives. Molloy (1963) reported that: The teacher must evaluate objectively the progress of each child for her own information. She must know the child's strengths and weaknesses. She can then revise programming to allow the maximum help to each child. When a goal is not reached the teacher must know whether the child can't do it, won't do it, or doesn't do it. (p. 13) Another issue that appeared in the literature review is that curriculum should be based or built on a learning theory/teaching strategy. Learning theory can help the teacher in terms of under- standing the different aspects of learning among the mentally retarded and nonmentally retarded. Justen (1974) stated that: Differences between non-retarded and retarded children in various learning characteristics have been well substantiated in the literature. . . . Many of these characteristics have important implications to the instruction and classroom behav- ior of these children. (p. 56) Waite (1972) mentioned that mentally retarded children's learning abilities are different from those of normal children. Mentally retarded students are less readily motivated toward a specific task. They also have less control of their emotions and are more 20 likely to become confused, while normal children are better observers. Normal children see many characteristics of things, people, and situa- tions that lie beyond the scope of the retarded persons' perspective. The nonretarded are more adept in the use of symbols, language, num- bers, and so forth. Sniff (1973) concluded that the mentally retarded learn best through concrete experience. Therefore, any opportunity for the teacher of the mentally retarded to change an abstract idea into a concrete experience should be taken. Perry (1960) also men- tioned that the mentally retarded learn by being shown and guided rather than by verbal instructions only. In accordance with these specific learning characteristics of the mentally retarded, Curriculum guides should be based on at least one sound learn- ing theory with the ultimate goal being the attainment of increasingly complex behavior, personal control over the envi- ronment, and behavioral characteristics which are culturally designated as normal. (Payne, 1977, p. 314) Wehman (1981) focused on two types of learning principles. First are the general learning principles that include acquisition, retention, and transfer teaching. The second type includes concept learning, verbal learning, discrimination learning, and learning- connected discourse. These principles should be employed in any teaching strategy for the mentally retarded. In terms of the methods for teaching mentally impaired children, Greene (1972) explained methods that could be applied effectively. These are the Montessori method, reinforcement, and other recent techniques. Others focused on reinforcement procedures as a teaching method with the mentally retarded (Cecil, 1977; Haring, 1975; Snell, 1978). There is more than 21 one learning theory that could be applied in teaching the mentally retarded. One of the well-known theories is by Piaget. Payne (1977) reported: Piagetian Theory has several implications for teachers of the mentally retarded. Assessment of the child according to the developmental sequences will help to determine readiness for certain tasks. Curriculum should take advantage of appropri- ate placement in the deve10pmental sequences of the child. (13. 16) Klein (1979) declared that the application of Piaget's theory to cur- riculum planning and instruction for mentally retarded children and adults holds promise for enhancing their learning. Some educators have focused their concern on other character- istics of curriculum for the mentally retarded, such as the structure or design of the curriculum (Klein, 1979; Wehman, 1981); others are concerned about the curriculum guide. Payne (1977) recommended that: In order to enhance the use and effectiveness of curriculum guides, it was indicated that there was a need to standardize the terms related to the levels of severity of mental retarda- tion, as well as the education levels. Also, the content infor- mation needed to be presented in a format that was clear, precise, understandable, and retrievable. (p. 314) The review of the literature on the principles of a good cur- riculum for the mentally retarded showed that a number of characteris- tics are agreed upon. But at the same time, there are many issues that reflect different points of view among the curriculum builders. Greene (1972) stated that at present there are many disagreements about a curriculum for mentally retarded students. Most of these dis- agreements are related to the subject matter and the teaching methods. In general, it is obvious that in the last decade a large number of teaching and training projects for the trainable mentally 22 impaired and severely mentally impaired have been established. As documented by Adams (1975), the quality and quantity of educational services available to the moderately, severely, and profoundly men- tally handicapped student have been of growing concern in recent years. Many special-education programs did not give enough atten- tion to developing a comprehensive or effective curriculum for this population. The reason for this was stated by Meyen (1976). He suggested that the priority in special-education programs was given to such aspects as determining eligibility and finding financial resources, and the priority for developing an effective curriculum was ignored. The task of curriculum development was left to one person--the special class teacher. The literature reviewed thus far has pointed out what has been done in defining and studying the characteristics of an effective curriculum for the trainably mentally impaired and severely mentally impaired. It appears from that review that insufficient study and effort have taken place in this area. The present research was intended to study the characteristics of an effective curriculum for the trainably and severely mentally impaired from the teachers' and administrators' points of view and their influence on the implemen- tation of trainably and severely mentally retarded. Factors That Influence Implementation of a Curriculum for the Trainably and Severely Mentally Impaired Implementation of a curriculum is one of the important stages in teaching (training) retarded students. There are a number of 23 factors influencing implementation. One of these is the teacher preparation or training required to implement a new curriculum. Lewy (1977) stated that implementation of a curriculum requires certain changes within the school system, such as adjustment of teacher- training programs to meet the needs of the new program. This includes modification in both pre-service and in-service training activities as teachers will need instruction in the new teaching methods and strate- gies. Teachers should be trained to monitor the program and to diag— nose learning difficulties. Flynn (1960) mentioned that the kind of preparation received by the teacher candidate or the teacher in-service practically predetermines whether the teacher will take an active and intelligent part in curriculum implementation. And since teacher growth depends primarily on this factor, the pre-service and in-service programs should be well-planned and well-balanced. Review of the literature revealed another factor that influ- ences curriculum implementation: the importance of the administrators' role and support. Lewy (1977) focused on the necessity of obtaining cooperation of the administrators by declaring that "without their cooperation one can hardly expect successful implementation" (p. 22). Other variables, mentioned earlier, that affect curriculum implementation are such characteristics as clarity, sequencing, appropriateness, flexibility, and utility. Haring (1976) stated that each objective should specify the competency to be demonstrated or the behavior the instruction is to produce. Each objective is seen as a basis for setting the dimensions of the lesson and provides the format for structuring the activities, evaluating the child's 24 performance, and selecting the sources. Objectives must be well- stated and well-designed. In terms of the influence of the sequenc- ing of the content, goals, objectives, and materials of the curriculum, Wehman (1981) indicated that handicapped students learn more quickly when materials are presented in a logical progression from easy to hard. Other educators also recommended the use of the sequence- method strategy in teaching (0011, 1978; Klein, 1979; Wehman, 1979). Curriculum flexibility is a concern of educators and curricu- lum planners for the mentally retarded. Flexibility of curriculum means that the curriculum should be structured or designed so as to fit different children and programs, and it must be easy to adapt to new situations and materials. Haring (1976) stated that curriculum materials should be developed that are flexible and can be used in a variety of settings. Since mentally impaired students are different from each other in their abilities, aptitudes, interests, experiences, and so forth, the school curriculum should be flexible in a way that can fit all the individuals' differences. Usability and practicability of the curriculum have been reported by more than one educator as important characteristics of curriculum (Haring, 1976; Wehman, 1979, 1982). The curriculum will be usable and practicable if it is not too complicated and if it is acceptable to teachers and parents. It is clear that if the teachers do not accept the new curriculum, they will try to use their own cur- riculum instead. One way that may help the teachers accept the new curriculum is to let them become involved in planning and/or evaluat- ing the curriculum. Haring (1976) mentioned that in today's educational 25 process it is quite natural for teachers to participate in shared efforts in curriculum planning and development. It appears from the review of the available literature that little has been done to study the perceptions of teachers and adminis- trators about the implementation of a curriculum for trainably men- tally impaired/severely mentally impaired. Through the literature review and interviews with curriculum specialists, administrators, and teachers who were involved in the development and implementation of a TMI/SMI curriculum, it can be concluded that there are three categories or three major groups of variables that influence the implementation of a curriculum. They are teachers, administrators, and curriculum characteristics. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction As discussed previously, the primary goal of this study was to identify the major factors that influence the implementation of a curriculum for trainably and severely mentally impaired students. This study was based on the perceptions of teachers and administrators who work in the field of special education, particularly those who work with mentally impaired students. For this purpose, the Ingham Intermediate School District special education curriculum-management system was chosen. This model was chosen for study because it is a well-known project in the state of Michigan and other places and has been in use for more than five years. Teachers and administrators implementing this curriculum-management-system project in 16 Michigan school districts were participants in the study. The focus of the research design was on the measurement of perceptions of implementors of the curriculum-management system (teachers and administrators). In this chapter, dependent and independent variables, population, instrument development, and procedures of data collection are dis- cussed in detail. 26 27 Research Design Table 2 is a graphic depiction of the research design for this study. Table 2.--Dependent and independent variables. Dependent . Variables Independent Variables Implementation Curriculum Teacher Administration Assessment Flexibility Participation in: Monitoring Reassessment Utility Curriculum . _ . improvement Involvement Objectives Clarity . . Development Encouragement Materials Appropriateness of teaching Criteria Sequenc1ng strategies Record Pre-service In-service Dependent Variables (Degree of Implementation) What does it mean to implement a curriculum? For purposes of this study, implementation of Project Perform components meant that the teacher would: 1. Use the assessment/reassessment procedure as suggested in the POC. 2. Choose performance objectives from the POC for Individual Educational Plans (IEP). 3. Use assessment criteria as suggested in the POC. 4. Use data-processing materials as a record—keeping system. 5. Use curriculum materials for assessment purposes. 28 These criteria were decided by four resource groups: the teachers, administrators, curriculum specialists, and the researcher himself. Before selecting the determinants of curriculum implementa- tion, the researcher developed a list of outcome components. He then discussed the components with a number of teachers who were con- sidered by their administrators to be high implementers of that curriculum. Administrators and curriculum specialists were inter- viewed for the same purpose. The result of these discussions and interviews showed that there was general agreement on the five com- ponents listed above as outcomes of curriculum implementation. These variables are described in terms of outcomes and criteria in Table 3. Independent Variables The review of literature indicated that there are many dif- ferent variables affecting implementation of a curriculum. In this research, the variables were narrowed down to three groups or cate- gories, as shown in Table 4. Project Perform PP is described by the Ingham Intermediate School District as a curriculum-management system that helps teachers and parents to plan, carry out, and assess school programs for moderately and severely handicapped students. Performance is a set of three tools that can be used to build a curriculum at the school, program, or individual level. These tools include (1) a bank of performance objectives, (2) the record-keeping 29 Table 3.--Dependent variables. Dependent Variables: Outcomes of Implementation Description of Outcomes Criteria Use assessment Choose objectives Use materials Apply criteria Record keeping Teacher uses the assessment procedures suggested in the POC on a continuing basis, and not just once at the beginning of the year. Teacher chooses objec- tives for his/her students from the POC for IEPs. Teacher uses the mate- rials that are sug- gested for assessment procedures and/or develops his/her own materials (to the students achieve the goals that are adopted from the POC). Teacher applies the criteria that are suggested in the catalogue to evaluate his/her students' progress on achieve- ment of the objectives that were chosen from the POC. Teacher uses the data- processing system as a record-keeping system to record the students' progress. Teacher uses the assessment procedure at least one time after the first assessment at the beginning of the year or at the beginning of the program. Teacher chooses at least 75% of the objectives from the POC. At least 75% of the materials used by the teacher were suggested by the POC. At least 75% of the criteria applied by the teacher are used as suggested in the POC. Teacher uses data processing as a record-keeping sys- tem for recording her/his students' progress in all_ chosen objectives. Table 4.--Independent variables. 30 Categories Factors Description Curriculum Flexibility Utility Clarity Appropriateness Sequencing The curriculum is designed to be open to new, addi- tional goals and objectives, assessment procedures, or materials to fit new situations or unplanned goals. It also is able to meet the very diverse abilities and needs of the TMI and SMI students, who sometimes require modifications of the curriculum. The curriculum is easily used by any teacher who has the minimum training or in-service training for using that curriculum. Also it is acceptable by teachers and does not require too much time for paper work. All parts of the curriculum are easy to understand by the instructor. The directions are not compli- cated and are well explained (i.e., how to prepare, organize, and use the curriculum). The content of the curriculum reflects the needs of the TMI and SMI student population. The areas of the curriculum meet the goals of the district for their students. The curriculum is structured in a logical sequence. The content areas, objectives, materials, and teach- ing activities are organized according to a develop- mental sequence; the degree of difficulty of the tasks, from low level to high levels, is based on the mental ages of the students. Teacher Training Participation in curriculum improvement Teacher training includes the pre-service training in the use of the curriculum that the teacher received before her/his use of the curriculum and the in-service. Teacher participation includes their involvement in curriculum conmittees and curriculum meetings with a view to improving the curriculum. They may also create new procedures or techniques to helpirlusing the curriculum in, for example, record keeping or self-evaluation. Administration Monitoring Cost The administrators planned for some kind of con- tinuing evaluation to measure the effectiveness of the curriculum. The evaluation procedures may include teachers, aides, and parent involvement. The cost consists of the amount of money that the district spends on in-services, materials, develop- ing instructional strategies, pupil and other related spending. 31 assistance of data processing, (3) the ongoing staff-development services of the project disseminator/trainer. The POC is the foundation of a complete instructional system for the education of trainably and severely mentally impaired persons, ages 0-25. The project materials were developed for students attend- ing the Beekman Center (Lansing Public Schools) and the Ingham Developmental Center (Ingham Intermediate School District). The materials were developed with Title I, Public Law 89-313 funds under a grant from the Office of Health, Education, and Welfare. The project is divided into two components for the trainably mentally impaired and severely mentally impaired in conformance with federal Title I require- ments. Approximately 8,000 performance-objective statements, each with its own achievement criterion and assessment procedure, are printed in an eight-section catalog. The sections are titled Physical, Perceptual, Language, Conceptual, Social, Vocational, Recreational, and Personal. The objectives in each section are specifically written for TMI, SMI, Severely Multiply Impaired (SMI), Autistic, and Severely Emotionally Impaired (SE1) students. Thus, the catalog is a performance-objective bank for virtually all skills taught to students with various disabilities, rather than a curriculum for any one stu- dent. Each of the eight major sections is divided into content head- ings, which are further divided into subcontent headings. Each content and subcontent is identified by a three-digit number, with the first digit identifying the section, the second digit identifying the content, and the third digit identifying the subcontent, as in Table 5. 32 .poN .a .mopmumu mm>vuuonao mocmELoecoa “mutaom .ucouaum soc; you» .me zoom soc» Home emu mums macaw cm» ummmp an m:_caauoo muczom o» mm ncaom uqooxm —_o._o~ mo 65am mcwoauoca-cc:om omcoammc acm>o waxes acouaam asp mpo.Fo~ Am>_h=uumzou m zo mumzoammg NV Emu? mcmuzvocauuczom .cmo m.u:muzum scum .me sumo soc» you» 63» moms "meapa Become ummw oza mcwccaooo ucaom use, a 0» mm cczom aamoxm .ppo.po~ we 65am "owes; ”moumcoe mmcoammc acm>o cm nexus «cocaum on» Npo._o~ ammo m:_cmm; m to» umwaucmcu cu Loews .ccoammg go: moot “caaaam a” “who: .tam sgm_t toe mummamc couuacumc~ .ago co :owumm wwwauwsontmswwcwumwwm ”maamwwmwwww Am>_»=ummzou m zo mmmzoamug NV ”staccato ”mo scam .mmconmwc ugo>o co waxes acmuaum .me “Cop m.u=mu:um soc» .me m.u=mu=um $55 .23.... 3 xwm 253. can: so; 35::sz 3 in on: a moxms Loaoacumcw .ucmuaum mg» swam mcwozuoca ucsooo ucaom usop a cu mmconmmg we once; Fmsmw> mo use mcwvcmum -ucaom “mmomcms acm>o cw moxue acmcsum och ppo.po~ any .mucaom —ou:wE:oLw>cm naop o» mucogmmc ucmcaum one o—o.~o~ mczcmooca «cosmmmmm< mpmwcmumz o>wuuonno cmnszz mozsom 4zm wzuhmow~o=< nucmucou 4<=hawumwa "cowuumm .uoa mo cowum~wcomgo on» ma mpasaxm :smmicH mp mum>cmmimce 0: neoomm mmwmmumcpm mo mcwocmzomm m2 wwgouwco NH mcwgommh mo unmanopm>mo cu mmmcmamwegogna< e2 mmememz m< peoEmmmczoocm acmem>ogaEH mu zapsepu m2 mm>wuumwao PP Espaowcczu N< ucmEm>Po>cH zpwpwu: N: pewsmmmmmmmm new comp F< mcwcopwcoz nonwoepsme Pu xuwpmnwxmpm Fz ucmEmmmmm< manmwcm> mmpamwcm> mopnmwem> mmpnmmgm> < compmcumwcweu< H cmzomoh u Espaowcgzu z cowumucmsmpasn muoo m gopmzpu muou N cmpmspu mnou P emumzpu muou e copmspu mmpamwem> pcwvcmamocH mmpnmwem> acoucmamo .mmpnmwgm> “cavemamv use “cavemaoccw mo mgmumapoxmuomiu.¢~ «pack 61 mesmeuecum _oo. sesam.m msooo. Nsoom. moses. sesasps>eo Ne NP _oo. oooso.m Posse. “seem. smsms. soses_o mo __ Foo. PmNNo.s moose. nsmom. smmms. scsoeessem mo o_ .oo. smnmm.s aspoo. _omo~. memos. sos_sswxs2e Fo s .00. omsko.m assoc. oomow. seems. oesessscssoeo m< o _oo. Pawoo.m Poooo. swoop. smmss. sosssos No 5 _oo. smoom.o Fsmoo. moos_. smoms. sawtooeesz _< o _oo. mmnmm.s. moose. sssop. ossms. sandmwmumuw Fe o _oo. osm_w.o mooie. oo~a_. seems. esswuwfimwhmpww Ns s Foo. esmmo.ss Poems. _oao_. moses. mmeeeos_cascas< so o _oo. mos_o.o_ mNsso. osm_.. ssosm. ooe>cem-=o sh N _oe. ooomo.- some. ooooo. spomm. eos>cem-eca me _ assessesessm a _Pscs>o ssMMSo No a o_ssopsz was: s_eswcs> s_mwmws> seem .mgeueem we memo FFe sore eespeuceEeFeew we meeeeweece spa Lew epeee sewagem cewmmecmeeiepesupezii.m— epeep 623 opo. oomoo.m opp—o. poooo. pesoN. oepceupeez _< s oNo. MNMNm.m poooo. mpomo. oppsN. eeeEe>eLesp Espeepcceo pp m mpo. omNoN.s poNNo. pmoso. pmNNN. acese>pe>:~ N< N omo. mmppp.m oopNo. oo—No. ooosp. mop>cemieee mp — egeeem no: oNo. omooo.N .pppo. smooo. ospoN. xemppuo No Q NNo. NomoN.m mwopo. moomo. omomN. oepeeepeez _< m smo. ompms.m mompo. oooso. ooooN. eup>cemiece mp N pso. NoomN.s posNo. posNo. powmp. ocpeeeeeem mo p emceupgo um: _oo. oosz.m oopNo. mmopp. coo—s. eep>eemueee mp s poo. momoo.op oooNo. oosmp. ommom. aceseoeceeeem m< m poo. oompp.Np stNo. mooNp. popmm. pupppuo Nu N poo. Noopo.op opNop. opNop. ooon. mmeeeuepgeecee< so p mpepceuez em: as: poo. mmsoo.o pompo. oooop. owmss. pupcepo no s poo. pmpmN.Np swsmo. memop. pmoNe. eep>cemiece mp m poo. omoom.s_ NwoNo. ooosp. osmom. eeeeeoeceeeem m< N Poo. Noosm.NN oNoPP. seo_p. oposm. omoemosPLQOLaas so _ me>peeeneo "m2 ooo. omoos.m moppo. mmopp. oossm. u=e5e>pe>eu N< e ooo. pmpom.o NoNpo. omoop. opon. geese>eeesp Espeepeceo pp m ooo. msmom.o opsso. omsoo. opkom. eep>eemuego mp N ooo. opomo.o mooso. omoso. ooNNN. eep>cem1=~ sp p acesmmemmeem ”N2 poo. mmpmo.o ppppo. omoNp. omomm. ueeeeoeceeeeu m< s poo. ppMNm.p pNspo. m—opp. ppmsm. mmeeeeepceegee< so m poo. moo—m.o mssNo. Nsmop. omme. eep>cmmieco mp N poo. NsomN.s_ oompo. ooopo. mopoN. eep>cem1=~ sp _ acesmmemm< up: socso_e_=s_m o __scs>o oscseo No No a spaoo_sz was: epoascs> osoo .Ls> soom 11.1.41 I -40 .9 '1. 11‘ 9111‘- 11 rial-II. .Aozipzv mueeeeesee cepueuceeepesp ego Lep me—eeu ageeeem :epmmeeoegiepepupezii.op mpeep 63 separate influence cannot be described by saying, for instance, that T3 contributed .02443 to M] variance because T3 presented without T4 will not necessarily produce the same results. The point is that in multiple regression one should consider the influence of a given vari- able in relation to its interaction with other presented variables. According to the summary of the multiple-regression analysis results, in Appendix G, for M], it appears that the highest R2 is found in Step 11, where R2 = .14227, indicating that 14% of the varia- i tion of M1 is explained by all the mentioned variables operating '~ 2 jointly. The same is true with M2, M3, M4, and M5 while R = .12651, .21143, .19737, and .13495, respectively (p s .05). In the case of 2 M R = .08608 was not significant (p S .21). (See Appendix G.) 6’ 3. Dependent variables were treated as one variable (M) and the three groups of independent variables were each treated as one variable (C, T, A). In other words, all the C variables combined to become one independent variable, and the same was true with T and A variables. Table 17 shows the results of the multiple-regression analysis between the dependent variable M and the independent vari- ables C, T, and A. The multiple-regression coefficient for the first set of 2 = .05664. This means that the variables, C, was .23800, and the R variables in the C set (curriculum characteristics), when combined as one independent variable, predict only .05664 of the variance of the implementation, which is, however, statistically significant (p 5 .002). However, the multiple-regression coefficients for the 64 _oo. omoos.o soooo. o_oso. pmm_m. scaeoaap p m Foo. m_oom.o msmmo. Romeo. msmom. eaeoacomseeEss s N moo. copes.s soomo. soomo. ooomN. ss_soeccso o p assesseseseo a Peacaso ssmmeo No a soaeopsz asaz opaasea> apmwmwa> seem .Aeapo -eecesepesp Espeepssoev wepeepce> peeoeeeee pe mezego me eeeeege zen; Ageeeeumpcpsee ece .sezeeep .Eepoepssoev mceeepeece mess» one rep open» ageseom :epmmecoeeiepepupozti.pp epeep 65 second and third sets of variables were .30343 with R2 = .09207, 2 and .31331 with R = .09816, for A and T, respectively. These results indicate that variables in the administration factor explain .09207 of the variance of the implementation when com- bining the variables in the set as one variable. The same conclusion can be derived for teacher factors-~that the variables in that set can predict or explain the variance of curriculum implementation by .09816. Both of these results are statistically significant (p 5 .001). In general, the results of the multiple-regression analysis showed that the independent variables are not very high in predicting or explaining the variation of the dependent variables. However, the influence of all of these variables was statistically significant. Another observation can be derived from the results of the stepwise procedures that were applied. In the first one (1) where each inde- pendent variable (C1’ C2, C3, C4, C5, T1, T2, T3, T4, A], A2, A3) was entered in the multiple-regression equation by using the stepwise method to find its contribution to the variance of the combined dependent variables (M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, and M6)’ the result shows 2 that in one combination of the independent variables, R increased to .20692 (p 5 .001). However, when the independent variables were com- bined into one variable, the R2 was decreased; the highest R2 = .09816 (p 5 .001). One observation can be reported here. The more the researcher combined the variables for treatment as one variable, the smaller were the R2 values obtained. In other words, the contri- bution of these variables to predicting or explaining the variance 66 of implementation decreases. These results are discussed in more detail in Chapter V. Descriptive Analysis This section presents teachers' and administrators' percep- tions of PP and POC components, comparison between teachers and administrators, comparison between districts' implementation, and general comments from teachers and administrators on PP and POC com- ponents. In terms of teachers' perceptions of PP and POC components, Table 18 shows that teachers were generally positive (means 3.3 to 4.0). Also their ratings of "clear objectives" and "clear materials" of POC were very high. However, they rated "POC appropriateness" the lowest (mean 3.3, SD 1.2), from which it can be concluded that it had the greater variability in response. This conclusion was one of the major results of the study--that appropriateness is one of the impor- tant factors that influence curriculum implementation. Table 19 indicates teachers' ratings of administration support of and involvement in implementation of PP components. It appears that teachers were generally positive (means 3.3 to 3.9) but not convincingly high. However, all 505 were a little high (0.9 to 1.2), which indicates that teachers have different perceptions of their administrators' support of implementation of PP components. In terms of teachers' perceptions of their preparation, Table 20 shows that the mean for teachers' ratings of "adequate training" was 3.8 with 67 possess n m emezep u p "euez sop o.o s.m N op MN mop oN sssoaNssascs oes N No, N._ m.m op om sN es op mmasaossesscssa oes s so_ s.o o.m m sF s_ mo_ MN macsseoscs sesammemms cas_o so so_ o.o o.s _ es __ Np, om mosssaoae cameo om oo_ s.o o.s o o_ s opp mm massoossss Lasso so mo_ o.s s.m s s_ NN No_ mN messoossss csa_o so mos o._ o.m o mN oN mo mN moeasaseeo ss s sms o._ o.m m mN NN mo _N sssmmooaes some ss o oo_ s.o N.m _ ON _N mo_ pN m_sssaoae seasonamoa oOs N so, s.s s.m m ss m_ ss ss masssaoscs sesammamma oos _ .az Amw Ame in» Amo saw s .az pepep om .M ocpuem uoe.e:m seem .1IIII .7155 .oos sea ss es asssoss .msasosep--.o_ asssp 68 passes; emezep II II r—N .mseeesempepees we mcepeseeses assesses ooassss so cases es s u so .s u s .p u 2: .N u s .P u so sass: saospso_so as: so ewes "aosz Nos s._ s.m so so mm NN m sessseoas sass ocsssss ass: s_ ms_ s._ s.m s so _s so s_ masssoseom s_ ss_ _.p s.m s ss Ns so NN osaEssssses s_ sop N.s m.m s Ns NN so NN ass: a_s_ssao es ocssssm NF No_ s.s s.m N Np so _s ss osseasssssoss s_ ss_ _._ s.s s _m sN _N on sssosssososss s_ os_ s._ s.s s we pN so ps sesssaomeasss s os_ s._ s.s s NN ss so me Passes as sessssso s e as Ame so. is as .s psuep om .M ocpeem newnesm EepH .ceppsusesepsap ss pe usesssm .mceessempcpees pe mocpesc .msegesepii.op epsep 69 emesop; n m pmezep n p "meez pop o.p s.N pN mm sN pN s assesses pssepppee< mp sop o.o o.m p oN op sop mN ocpcpese eeeaeee< pp oop o.p o.s m op o No os appse so: semses op .e 2% Ame so. is sew, .e om .w ueenesm pseep ospeem EeuH .meceeessee oos ems ee eeppscsoess pe mosses; .msegesepuu.oN epsep 70 SD = 0.9, which demonstrates that teachers' perceptions of the ade- quacy of their training were not highly positive, and the variation between their responses was high. Administrators' perceptions of PP and POC components were very positive (means 4.0 to 4.5), with low variation (SD = 0.5 to 0.8). Table 21 shows that none of the administrators chose "strongly dis- agree" or "disagree" on any of the 15 items. Instead, most of them chose either "strongly agree" or "agree." Similar results are found in Table 22, which indicates that administrators' perceptions of their support was very high, too, especially their ratings of Items 11 and 13, "Encouragement" and "Development" (Means 4.5, 4.5). However, their perceptions of the teachers' preparation was generally similar to the teachers' own perceptions, as shown in Table 23. A comparison between teachers and administrators showed that their perceptions of PP and POC components and of administrator support were different. It is clear in Table 24 that administrators rated most of the items very high, especially Item 6, "Appropriateness" (mean 4.0, SD 0.6), whereas teachers rated the same item lower (mean 3.3, SD 1.2). From this, one can conclude that administrators consid- ered the POC appropriate to the needs and abilities of mentally impaired students, whereas teachers perceived it as less appropriate than administrators. One can explain this difference by concluding that teachers work with students directly and are able to judge the appropriateness of POC to their students' needs and abilities. Admin- istrators' decisions may be based on less-direct application of POC. Also, there are differences between teachers' and administrators' ooassss u N N 71 uoezep u umpez oN o.s s.s s s N __ N ssoosNosssLs oss N o. o.s s.s s s _ oN _ ooasaosscssesss oss o op o.s o.s s s s sN o ossscaose seasoosooa esaNo so oN o.s N.s s s p s_ s oNaosaoae Lasso so op o.s o.s s s s s N oesoooaoss .285 so sN o.s s.s s s _ N o ossoooocos caeNo so o_ o.s N.s s s _ s_ s mosassseso ss s s_ o.s o.s s s s s_ s sssooooscs sees ss o o_ o.s o.s s s _ o o oNsocoose seasooaoos oss N op o.s o.s s s p s sN amasseosss ossEooooos oss _ a x is s s. s o.s psosp .. . sass scooss .oss sss ss es ossooss .ossossoosssEss--._N a_sap 72 oosssos poezep n "meez sp o.p o.m o m m p sgeooeee: cone useesao esez op oN o.s s.s s s _ N oassoossoo sstossp so oN o.s o.s s s s o osaEssNasos oN oN o.s s.s s s _ N ocsssso NN sN s.s o.s s s s s osaessscssoeo N_ so s.s N.s s _ _ o sssossoooocss sN . . assess sp s p p s o p N o iseeepsep pe ospocspoceec: o o_ s.N o.s s s _ _ Nassoo so oassaso o a. o.s s.s so. so o.s .e Nsosp so .N oososso esoo sseoss .eeppspceEepsEp ss pe “seesaw some“ pe mosses; .oceesspopcpaegeoico E E E E E. Nov 8385... Np.oN .. .. .. .. NN.o NN.o Np.o Rm.mp No.os psoeppeosuocm .o:H Non smmupm NomioN NomipN NoNiop smpupp Nopio soup Np o es s» pez ocpecesm pe eospceeses ope: m me e p .oececeseee ss :e oeoeseso eeooss peegeo peceppeosuocp pe eosueeosesiu.pN epssp 81 spent between 16 and 20%. None of the districts spent more than 20% of their budget on strategies. Four districts did not indicate the amount of spending. It appears from Table 25 that 40 to 46.7% of the districts spent less than 1% of their budget on PP components, and 13.3% of them spent between 1 and 5%. Two districts spent between 21 and 25% on in-service and on materials, and only one district spent between 31 and 35% on other. Four school districts did not indicate their spending. In terms of percentage of budget spending on total PP and per-student expenditures, the results show that 40% of the districts spent less than 25% of their budget and 20% of the districts spent 26 to 50%, as shown in Table 28. Four districts did not indicate their spending. Table 28.--Percentage of instructional school budget spending on total PP. Percentage of Spending Not <25% 26-50% 51-75% >75% IndlcaPEd Total PP 40% 20% 6.7% 6.7% 26.7% (6) (3) (l) (l) (4) Percentage of PP spending on each PP component is shown in Table 29. It appears that the highest percentage of districts spent less than 40% of the PP budget on in-service, materials, and other. A few districts spent more on strategies. Also, there were 13.3% of the districts that spent more than 80% of the PP budget on other. 82 E E E E E NN.oN Nm.mp .. .. NN.o No.oN Nm.mm ocespo E E E Nov 5 NN.oN NN.o .. .. Nm.mp Nm.mm No.oN opsoeeesz E E E NNo E NN.oN .. NN.o .. Nm.mm Nm.mp ao.oN eep>seo1eH Ass 5 E E E E NN.oN No.oN NN.o Nm.mp NN.o .. Np.oN mepoeusspm peceppesceocm saoaoosso sss sss-_o sso-_s Nss-_N ssN-p s_ cases a uez ocpecesm ss pe moseeeeses on E o ss .pceceseeo ss some so ocpoceso ss pe eoepceeeesui.oN epsep 83 To compare between districts on implementation, Table 30 shows the number of teachers and the mean of implementation for each dis- trict, standard deviation, and variance. The mean for all the 16 districts was 3.0178. There were eight districts above that mean and eight districts below it. The highest mean was 3.7917, and the low- est mean was 2.1831. The degree of implementation was measured on a scale from 1 to 5. According to these results, none of the districts was considered very high on implementation, based on the criteria of this study. However, some of the districts can be considered low in their implementation. Table 30.—-Degree of implementation (criterion variable) by district. ngéhg:s Mean SD Variance 13 3.7917 .5621 .3160 11 3.4209 .8510 .7241 7 3.3091 .5651 .3194 8 3.2600 .8642 .7469 20 3.2448 .6873 .4723 5 3.1669 .6706 .4497 23 3.1047 .9651 .9314 4 3.0458 .6701 .4491 7 2.9908 .8405 .7065 13 2.9464 .8281 .6858 10 2.8468 .9617 .9248 10 2.8306 .8577 .7356 14 2.7179 .5677 .3223 6 2.6875 1.0463 1.0948 7 2.4554 1.1597 1.3450 4 2.1831 1.0567 1.1167 Total 168 3.0178 .9004 .8107 84 Analysis of variance was done between the districts and implementation, as shown in Table 31,was significant (F = 2, p 5 .02). Table 31.--ANOVA table for implementation by districts. Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square Between groups 23.6248 16 1.4766 J Within groups 111.7640 151 .7402 Total 135.3888 167 F = 1.9949 Sig. = .0167 Part III of both the teachers' and administrators' question- naires was designed for comments or suggestions that a teacher or administrator would like to add regarding implementation of the PP components in particular and/or any additional comments or sugges- tions for implementation of any curriculum for TMI and SMI. One-third of the sample (teachers and administrators) wrote comments and/or suggestions on the implementation of PP components and/or on any implementation of TMI and/or SMI curriculum. Eight conclusions were derived from these responses. These are the conclusions: 1. Objectives: Teachers suggested that many of the POC objectives need to be broken down to more specific objectives or small steps. 2. Appropriateness: Teachers agreed that POC performance objectives are not appropriate for SMI and/or SXI students. 85 3. Assessment procedures: Teachers wrote that they had dif- ficulty with the assessment procedures because they are not consistent. 4. Modification: Teachers mentioned that the physical area of the POC content areas needs modification to be more appropriate for SXI students. 5. Sequencing: Teachers suggested that if the POC objectives were organized according to developmental sequences they would be more appropriate and effective. 6. Use as a guide: Teachers commented that POC was a help- ful guide to them in their work with TMI and/or SMI students. 7. Data processing: Different views were reported by teach- ers on this issue. Some considered it very helpful for record keeping, and it saved their time. Others commented that data processing took up a lot of their time. At the same time, parents found the computer printout hard to understand. 8. Early ages: It was commented that it does not include early ages. These are just a few comments that were presented here. However, there are many comments and suggestions made by teachers and administrators regarding implementation of PP components, especially the implementation of POC, and also comments and suggestions on imple- mentation of TMI and SMI curriculum in general. A sample of these comments and suggestions is reported in Appendix D. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The purpose of this research was to identify the factors that influence the degree of implementation of curriculum for TMI and SMI students, based on the perceptions of teachers and adminis- trators. It was hypothesized earlier in the research model that three factors play a major role in curriculum implementation: (1) curriculum characteristics, which include flexibility, utility, clarity, approp- riateness, and sequencing; (2) teacher variables, including partici- pation in curriculum improvement, development of teaching strategies, pre-service training, and in-service training; and (3) administrator variables, which include administration monitoring, involvement, and encouragement. Two questionnaires were built for the purpose of data collec- tion. The questionnaire items measured the outcomes of curriculum implementation and the factors that influence curriculum implementa- tion from teachers' and administrators' points of view. Data were collected on four categories of variables: 1. Outcomes of curriculum implementation (dependent variables). 2. Curriculum characteristics (independent variables), which include teachers' and administrators' perceptions of PP components. 86 87 3. Teachers (independentvariables),including teachers' per- ceptions of administrative support and teachers' perceptions of their preparation for use of PP components. 4. Administrators (independentvariables),including adminis- trators' perceptions of their support for the use of PP components, their perceptions of the preparation for use of PP components, and the measurable district support, which includes money spent on PP components. Data were collected from 16 schools and centers in different districts and cities in the state of Michigan. All of these schools/ centers offer special education and/or training for mentally retarded students, and they all belong to the public-school system. Data were gathered from the teachers (no aides) and administrators who work with these programs and use PP components. Multiple-regression stepwise procedures were used to evaluate the contribution of independent variables to the variance of curricu- lum implementation. The results of the multiple-regression analysis showed that all of the three groups of independent variables (curriculum char- acteristics, teacher participation and training, and administration involvement) influenced the dependent variables (curriculum imple- mentation). The highest predictors of curriculum implementation were curriculum appropriateness, teacher training, and administration sup- port, especially when these three variables operate jointly. 88 Discussion Multiple—regression analysis was the major statistical method used to analyze the data collected for this study. As mentioned pre- viously, the purpose of this research was to identify factors that influence implementation of a curriculum for mentally impaired stu- dents and to identify the portion or contribution of each factor in the implementation. It was hypothesized that three main groups of factors influence the implementation of curriculum. These three groups are the curriculum characteristics, the teacher group, and the adminis- tration group. Each of these three groups contains a number of vari- ables that are considered to play a major role in curriculum implemen- tation. The curriculum-characteristics group includes five variables, the teacher group includes four variables, and the administration group includes three. These variables are considered independent variables. The outcome of the independent variables was broken down into six components that were considered dependent variables. (See Table 12, Chapter IV.) The purpose of using the multiple-regression method was to identify which of the independent variables were major predictors of the degree of curriculum implementation and to evaluate the magnitude of each predictor. As explained in Chapter III, multiple-regression procedures were applied to evaluate the predictive power of each variable in three different arrangements. The results of these three stepwise arrangements are the core of this discussion. The first arrangement of the stepwise procedure was set up to identify variables that influence curriculum implementation and to 89 evaluate their degree of influence when combined with other variables. Implementation components were combined and treated as one dependent variable (implementation) in this arrangement. The 12 independent variables, regardless of their sets, were entered into the equation one by one. The first variable entered in the evaluation on step number one of the procedure was the pre-service variable, which was defined in this research as the pretraining of teachers on how to use PP and POC components. According to the multiple-regression stepwise results, the multiple-regression coefficient was .25819 and R2 = .06666. This means that providing pretraining to teachers on how to use PP and POC components is important and can predict by itself 7% of the implementation. Its influence appears not to be very high; however, it is statistically significant (p 5 .001). In addition, its influ- ence on prediction is higher when entered with another variable. The portion of prediction was increased when another significant vari- able was entered into the equation on step number two of the multiple regression. The multiple summary table (Table 13) in Chapter IV shows that when the in-service variable was entered into the equation, the multiple-regression coefficient increased to .34044 and R2 increased to .16781. In other words, assuming that other variables were controlled, these three variables jointly can predict 17% of the implementation. When the last independent variable was entered into the equation in stepwise number 12, the multiple-regression coefficient increased to .45488 and R2 = .20692. Therefore, if the 12 variables operate jointly, assuming other variables are controlled, 90 they can predict 21% of the variation of implementation (p f .001). In the second arrangement of stepwise procedures, where implementation components were treated individually as dependent variables, the 12 independent variables were entered into the equa- tion one by one with each component of implementation. The purposes of this procedure were to find out what implementation components can best be predicted by the independent variables, to determine which independent variables to ascertain the predictive power of these vari- “, ables are the best predictors. The results showed that the highest predictor of the use of assessment procedures is the in-service variable, where the multiple- regression coefficient = .28105 and R2 = .07899. This demonstrates that the more the teacher received in-service training on how to use the assessment procedures, the more he/she used them. And, by enter- ing all the 12 variables in the equation, the multiple-regression coefficient was .37718 and R2 = .14227. Another five multiple- regression stepwise procedures were run on the computer for the remaining five components of implementation. Also, the results showed that "training of teachers in how to use reassessment" was the most predictive independent variable in this arrangement. For two com- ponents of implementation, ”choose objectives" and "use materials," the highest predictor in the two stepwise procedures was the approp- riateness of the curriculum; the multiple-regression coefficient is .3461 and R2 = .11979, and .3206 and R2 = .10278, respectively. In the third stepwise procedures, the highest four predictors of the 91 dependent variable "choose objectives" were appropriateness of cur- riculum, administration encouragement, teacher training, and clarity of the curriculum. These four variables alone predict 20% of the variation of implementing POC objectives. When entered, the rest of the independent variables caused slight changes (the multiple- regression coefficient of .4438 was increased to .45981, and the R2 of .21064 was increased to .21143). This means that the influence of the first four variables on implementing POC objectives was very high when compared to the rest of the variables in the equation. For the "use materials" component, the highest four predictors were appropriateness, utility or usability, encouragement, and teacher training. The multiple-regression coefficient for the four of them operating jointly is .41994 and R2 = .17635. When entering the other independent variables, the multiple-regression coefficient is .44427 and R2 = .19737. This shows that most of the variation predicted by all of the independent variables in the equation can basically be predicted by the first four variables. The results of this multiple-regression analysis showed that 'the component (If implementation that can best be predicted by the independent variables was "use objectives," and the least predicted were "use criteria" and "use record keeping." The independent vari- ables most predictive of curriculum-implementation components were appropriateness of the curriculum, training, in-service of teachers about how to use the components, and encouragement and support of administration. 92 In the third arrangement of variables, independent variables were combined in three sets: curriculum, teachers, and administra- tion, and the dependent variables were treated as one variable, implementation. Stepwise procedures were then applied. Results showed that curriculum characteristics were the highest predictor of implementation; multiple-regression coefficient = .238 and R2 = .05664. When administration was entered into the equation, the coef- ficient increased to .30343, and R2 rose to .09816 when the teacher variable was entered into the equation. It is clear here that the predictive power of these factors was decreased when they combined. That decrease is a result of the combination of independent variables. Results of the multiple-regression analysis and stepwise pro- cedures explain that the power of these independent variables in predicting the degree of implementation was not very high; however, they were statistically significant. So, as the efficiency of these variables increases, the more the degree of curriculum implementation will increase. The results show, for example, that curriculum imple- mentation will increase by providing training and in-service to experienced and inexperienced teachers in how to use a curriculum component. It has been mentioned earlier in the review of literature by Lewy (1977) that implementation of a curriculum required certain changes within the school system, such as adjustment of teacher- training programs to the needs of the new program. This includes modification in both pre-service and in-service training activities. Teachers need to have further instruction regarding the new teaching methods and strategies. Teachers should be trained to monitor the 93 program and to diagnose learning difficulties. Flynn (1960) mentioned that the kind of preparation received by the teacher-candidate or at the teacher in-service practically predetermines whether the teacher will take an active and intelligent part in curriculum implementation. And since teacher growth depends primarily on this factor, the pre- service and in-service programs should be well-planned and well- balanced. The results of the study also showed that appropriateness of curriculum to the needs and abilities of mentally impaired students is one of the most important factors in curriculum implementation. This agrees with what was reported earlier in the review of literature. Klein (1979) declared that a useful curriculum must be built upon the results of a comprehensive analysis of the particular students to be taught. The analysis considers the psychological, physiological, and intellectual maturity of students. It should forecast the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will be useful when formal schooling ends. Also, it should accurately diagnose each student's present level of knowledge and ability. Consequently, instruction must begin where students can gain the greatest benefit. The results also indicated that administration involvement and encouragement of curriculum imple- mentation is an important factor. This agreed with literature reviewed as well. Lewy (1977) focused on obtaining cooperation of the administrators by declaring that "without their cooperation one can hardly expect successful implementation" (p. 22). The results of this research can be summarized in four points: 94 1. There is a relationship between curriculum characteris- tics, teacher factors, and administration factors (independent vari- ables) and curriculum implementation (dependent variable). Thus, these results answered the questions raised earlier in this research. Curriculum characteristics, teacher factors, and administrator fac- tors do influence the degree of implementation of curriculum for TMI and SMI students. 2. The highest predictors of the degree of curriculum imple- mentation for TMI and SMI students were curriculum characteristics, teacher training, and administration factors. However, the approp- riateness of a curriculum to the needs and abilities of mentally impaired students was the most highly predictive factor. This conclu- sion is reached from the results of multiple-regression analysis as well as from teachers' perceptions of curriculum characteristics and from their comments and suggestions on the PP and POC components. The other two predictors were training of teachers in how to use curriculum components and administration support of curriculum imple- mentation. 3. The degree of implementation is computed by combining the six components of curriculum implementation. In this case, degree of implementation of the entire curriculum was not very high. However, if components of implementation were treated individually, it turns out that some components of implementation can be considered highly implemented, such as "use objectives"; some are relatively high, such as "use materials"; and others are low, such as “use criteria" and "record keeping." If implementation is broken down by districts, 95 the results show that some districts are significantly higher than others in the degree of implementation. 4. Both teachers and administrators rated the value of PP and POC components very positively. Some components such as approp- riateness of curriculum, assessment materials, and procedures were not perceived as highly as others. Teachers and administrators differed in their perceptions of some characteristics of the POC, e.g., appropriateness, clarity, data processing, and other issues such as administrators' support and encouragement of implementation. Results show that most administrators in this study tended to rate these char- acteristics or components more positively than did teachers. Recommendations Based on the results of this study, the researcher would like to outline a few recommendations for possible application. Specific Recommendations Specific recommendations regarding PP and POC components' implementation are as follows. Recommendations on characteristics of curriculum.-- 1. Appropriateness. The results of the multiple-regression analysis, teachers' perceptions, and teachers' comments on POC com- ponents indicated that appropriateness of the performance objectives is a major factor that influences implementation of curriculum for TMI and SMI students. However, teachers reported that in some content areas, the POC did not appropriately meet the needs of SXI students, very young mentally handicapped students, or SMI students. 96 According to the PP, the performance objectives in the POC are considered to be designed to help teachers and to guide them in their work with the TMI and SMI students. However, the results of the study indicated that some of these performance objectives of the POC do not meet the needs and abilities of the SMI students. The teachers' comments on these performance objectives were that they were too general. The teachers' suggestion for solving this problem was to break down these performance objectives to become more spe- cific objectives or more specific steps, so as to fit more the abilities and needs of the SMI, SXI, and the very young mentally impaired students. Degree of implementation of POC could be influenced by the philosophy of its users (teachers, curriculum specialists, and admin- istrators). If the POC implementors perceive POC as a curriculum for their TMI, SMI, and SXI students, that will influence the degree of implementation negatively, since some of the performance objectives of the POC will not meet the abilities and needs of some of the men- tally handicapped students, especially SMI, SXI, and very young mentally impaired students, simply because teachers will drop those performance objectives that do not fit the students' needs and abili- ties. However, if the POC is considered or perceived as a guide for building a curriculum, that will influence positively the degree of implementation of POC. More specifically, teachers and parents of mentally retarded students need to plan for their students some specific ultimate goals and objectives so the individual educational plan could be adapted from the POC performance objectives to help 97 particular students reach their ultimate goals, and not necessarily to use performance objectives of the POC exactly as they are in the POC. This philosophy could be summarized by saying that any curricu- lum for TMI, SMI, and SXI students should be flexible enough to be adapted to fit the abilities and needs of mentally handicapped students. Recommendations based on the previous discussion can be stated in two points: (1) some of the performance objectives of the POC need to be broken down to become more appropriate for the abili- ties and needs of the SMI, SXI, and very young mentally impaired children and (2) users of the POC should use or perceive it as a guide more than a curriculum. 2. Assessment and reassessment. Assessment and reassessment procedures mean that teachers need to evaluate each of their students' abilities in order to be able to know their strengths and weaknesses. The results of that evaluation (assessment) can help the teacher, parents, and any other involved people devise an individual educational plan for particular pupils. Without assessment procedures, one can hardly know the ability level of a student and the needs of that student. However, reassessment procedures mean that the teacher needs to reassess the student's abilities in order to know his or her level of progress and achievement. According to PP literature, the POC performance objectives are considered an assessment tool. Users of the POC are expected to use these performance objectives for the purpose of assessment and reassessment. However, results of this study showed that assessment 98 and reassessment were not highly implemented--particularly the assess- ment and reassessment procedures of some areas of the POC, such as vocational and recreational areas,where only 20 to 25% of the teach- ers used those areas for assessment and 16 to 28% for reassess- ment, based on the research criteria of this study. By reviewing procedures of the Project Perform system, as illustrated in Project Perform, it appears that there are five pro- cedures: (l)selection'flncassessment, (2) assessment, (3) selection for training, (4) training activities, and (5) reassessment. The focus here is on two procedures, assessment and reassessment. In terms of assessment procedures, teachers expected to assess their mentally impaired students at the beginning of the year or at the beginning of the term. Performance objectives were chosen from POC to use in the assessment procedure. The reassessment procedure can be considered a method of evaluating the progress of individual stu- dents: in other words, to determine if the performance objectives that were chosen for a particular pupil are appropriate or not, if he/she achieved the objectives or some of them, or if he/she needs more time to work on it, or simply if the objective(s) does not fit the student's needs and/or abilities as stated in POC. Thus, by applying reassessment procedures, teachers/parents are able to evaluate their students' improvement. Unfortunately, the results of this study showed that assess- ment and reassessment procedures were both rated low, particularly reassessment procedures. One explanation of these results could be a misunderstanding of data processing by teachers. That is, teachers 99 may feel that since achievement of performance objectives by each child is reported on the computer and can be easily obtained and understood by them or by parents, why do they need to reassess their students? If this is the case, that philosophy encourages teachers, directly or indirectly, not to implement reassessment procedures, and 1t W11) negatively influence the implementation of these two com- ponents. Since assessment and reassessment are considered to be important components of implementation of curriculum for TMI and SMI, and curriculum-implementation project for mentally retarded popula- tions should consider both of these components. A study or any approp- riate investigation would be helpful to find out what are the causes of the low degree of implementation of these two components. Administration support.--Regarding teachers' perceptions of administration support for implementation of curriculum, the results showed that teachers rated administrators' support highly on only three items. The items showed that teachers considered that their administrators were concerned with understanding how to use or imple- ment PP components; administrators encouraged their teachers to par- ticipate in PP-related activities such as curriculum development, revision, and evaluation; and administrators encouraged them to use performance objectives from POC in daily instructional activities. However, the teachers perceived that their administrators did not highly encourage them to create/develop ways to adapt PP components to their daily routines, and they did not provide teachers with enough consultation, in-service, materials, or incentive. 100 On the other hand, the results indicated that administrators' perceptions of administration support of implementation of PP and POC components were very high. The writer concluded that administrators perceived themselves as supporters of their teachers in using per- formance objectives from POC in their daily instructional activities and supporters also in tangible ways, such as providing consultation, in-service, materials, and incentive. Also, administrators per- ceived themselves as encouraging teachers to create/develop ways to adapt PP components to their daily routines and encouraging them to plan and develop teaching strategies for implementing PP components in their classrooms. A large discrepancy was observed between the teachers' per- ceptions and administrators' perceptions of administration support. Whereas administrators considered themselves to be highly supportive of the implementation of the PP components by providing consultation, in-service, materials, and incentives, the teachers perceived the same issue less positively than the administrators did. One explana- tion of that discrepancy is that administrators perceived their support of teachers' implementation of PP components to be high, whereas teachers expected more support from their administrators than they actually received. Another explanation of this phenomenon is that administrators may tend to give a “nice" picture of their support for implementation. In spite of these explanations of the results, it is clear from these findings that teachers' perceptions of administration support are not positive enough in regard to providing consultation, 101 in-service, materials, and teaching strategies. A study to identify ways of increasing administrators' support for implementation might increase teachers' implementation of curriculum components. Training.--According to the results of the multiple-regression analysis, teacher training was one of the important predictors of cur- riculum implementation. Based on these findings, the researcher would like to recommend two types of training: (1) teacher training: additional training is necessary for those teachers in the study (18.5%) who indicated that they need additional training and for the teachers (12.5%) who indicated that they did not receive adequate training in how to use PP and POC components; (2) administrator training: the focus of that training should not necessarily be similar to the teacher training on how to use PP and POC components. However, training or in-service to help administrators become more involved in curriculum implementation as well as in decision making is needed. That would help administrators understand more fully the procedures of curriculum implementation and be aware of the problems that teachers may face in implementation. This also may narrow the large discrepancy between teachers' and administrators' perceptions of curriculum implementation. An investigation of the necessity of teacher and administrator training in this area is recommended. District implementation.--For the purpose of measuring the degree of implementation, degree of implementation was broken down into six components (assessment, reassessment, objectives, assessment materials, training materials, record keeping, and criteria). Teach- ers rated each of these components from one to five. Then the scores 102 were combined to produce only one score for each item of implemen- tation. Furthermore, scores of all teachers in each district were combined to produce one score for all teachers in each school dis- trict. Based on this explanation, there were 16 degrees of imple- mentation. None of these degrees can be considered to be very high according to the research criteria. However, by looking at each implementation component, it appears that the degree of implementa- tion was relatively high on some components, such as "use of perform- ance objectives," and it was low on other components, such as "assessment, reassessment, and criteria." The low degree of imple- mentation of these three components caused the decrease in the degree of total implementation. In terms of the relationship between instructional school budget spending and implementation of the district, it did not com- pute statistically, due to the sample size of the districts, since four school districts did not indicate the specific figure of spending on PP components by their schools. However, in terms of district implementation, each school district was treated as a unit, and the analysis of variance showed a significant difference among school districts in their degree of implementation. Since this study was not designed to study this phenomenon, identifying the factors that increase the degree of implementation of curriculum in some school districts was not considered appropriate in this research. Thus, further research to study the factors that increase curriculum imple- mentation in the districts that rated high in implementation is 103 highly recommended so that the results can be generalized to other school districts that use the PP and POC components and were rated low in implementation. General Recommendations The results of this study give curriculum developers, evalu- ators, and users a general idea regarding the major factors that influence implementation of curriculum for TMI and SMI students. The implications of these results can be used by curriculum specialists, administrators, and teachers of mentally regarded students when they need to choose a curriculum. Their focus, based on the results of this study, should be on the appropriateness of the curriculum to their population of students, teacher training on how to implement the curriculum, and administration support of that implementation. Further Research As mentioned before, this research did not cover all the areas that related to curriculum implementation. In addition to the suggested studies already mentioned by the researcher in his recom- mendations, investigation in another two areas may be helpful to curriculum developers or Specialists: first, a study of the type of training or in-service needed by teachers who use a particular cur- riculum; and second, a study of the influence of teaching methods/ strategies on the implementation of curriculum for TMI and SMI students. In the latter case, the goal would be to identify the teaching strategies or methods used with each level and category of 104 mentally retarded students and to study the influence of each of these teaching methods on curriculum implementation. A research model Similar to that designed for this research could be used, and multiple-regression analysis would be recommended for application to this purpose. BIBLIOGRAPHY 105 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, J. L. 1975 An Education Curriculum for the Moderately, Severely, and Pro- foundly Mentally Handicapped Pupil. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Akin, R., et al. 1980 ”P. L. 94-142 and Local District Governance." Journal of Educa- tional Leadership (November). Alpern, G. 0., et a1. 1971 Education and Care of Moderately and Severely Retarded Children. Special Child Publications, Inc. Altman, R. 1979 "Special Education for All Educational Personnel.” Educational Training of the Mentally Retarded (December). Anderson, R. M., et a1. 1976 Educating the Severely and Profoundly Retarded. University Park Press. Attkisson, C. C., et a1. 1978 Evaluation of Human Service Programs. New York: Academic Press, Inc. Beauchamp, G. A. The Curriculum of the Elementary School. Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon, Inc. Blake, K. A. 1976 The Mentally Retarded--an Educational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Blodqet, H. E., et a1. 1959 Understandinngentally Retarded Children. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, Inc. Burdin, J. L., et a1. 1971 Elementary School Curriculum and Instruction. New York: The Ronald Press Company. Burke, 0. 1980 Lecture, Michigan State University, unpublished. 106 107 Cay. R. F. 1966 Curriculum: Desigp_for Learning. New York: The Bobbs- Merrill Company, Inc. Charters, W. W. 1924 Curriculum Construction. The MacMillan Company, NW. Cobb, H. B., et a1. 1977 "A Survey of Special Education Paraprofessional Training Program in Community Colleges." Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded (Octoberll Davis, W. E. 1970 'Activity Programs for the Severely and Profoundly Retarded --Creative or Chaotic." The Journal for Special Educators of the Mentally Retarded, VII, 1. 0011, R. C. 1978 Curriculum Improvement--4th Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1978. DeJong, G. 1981 Environmental Accessibility and Independent Living_0ut- comes. University Center for International Living. Edwards, A. L. 1957 Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Century - crofts. Erickson, M. J. 1965 The Mentally Retarded Child in the Classroom. New York: The MacMillan Co. Flynn, R. J., et al. (eds.) 1980 Normalization, Social Integration and Community Services. Baltimore: University Park Press. Frankel, M., et a1. 1966 Functional Teching of the Mentally Retarded. Charles C. Thomas. Fredericks, H. D., et a1. 1977 'Curriculum for the Severely Handicappedf' Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 12,4 (December). Gollay, E. 1977 Greene, R. 1972 Guilford, 1954 Haring, H. 1975 Haring, N. 1976 Hass, G. 1977 Hedbring, 1977 108 "Deinstitutionalized Mentally Retarded People." Educa- tion and Training of the Mentally Retarded (April). Forgotten Children: Techniqpes in Teaching the Mentally Retarded. USA: Leswing Press. J. Psvchometric Methods. New York: McGrawcHill G. Special Education for the Severely_Handicgpped. Council for Exceptional Children. 0., et a1. Teaching the Severely Handicgpped, vol. 1. Grune & Stratton, Inc. Curriculum Planning--2nd Edition. Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon. C., et a1. "Getting It Together with P1 94-142." Education and Train- ing of the Mentally_Retarded (October). Herrick, V. E., et a1. 1965 Strategies of Curriculum Development. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc. Ingham Intermediate School District. 1979 Justen, J. 1974 TMI—SMI Instructional System Performance Objectives Cata- logue. Mason, Michigan. E., et al. "The Instructional Implications of Learning Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded." The Journal for Special Educa- tion of the Mentally Retarded, IX, 1 (Fall). Kerlinger, F. 1973 Foundation of Behavioral Research, 2nd ed. New York: Holt Rinehart Winston. Kirk, S. A., et a1. 1979 Educating the Retarded Child. Houghton Mifflin Company. Klein, N. K., et a1. 1979 Curriculum Analysis and Design for Retarded Learners. Bell & Howell Company. Klein, N. K., et a1. 1977 "Application of Piaget's Theory to the Study of Thinking of the Mentally Retarded." II, 2. The Journal of Special Education, 109 Kolstoe, 0. P. 1970 Teaching Educable Mentally Retarded Children. USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Krug, E. A. 1957 Curriculum Planning. New York: Harper 8 Brothers. Lazar, A. L. 1970 Curriculum Guide Evaluation: TMI 8 EMR Programs. Reha- bilitation Retardation Psychology Education Guidance, VI, 2. Lincoln Campus--Grand Rapids Public Schools 1979 A Guide for SMI 8 TMI. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Lindgren, H. C. 1967 Educational Psychology in the Classroom--3rd edition. New York. Litton, F. W. 1978 Education of the Trainable Mentally Retarded: Curriculum, Methods, and Materials. St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Co. MacMillan, D. L. Mental Retardation in School and Society. Mann, L., et a1. 1976 The Third Review of Special Education. Bruce 8 Stratton, Inc. McIver, J. 1981 Unidimensional Scaling. McMaster, J. M. G. 1973 Toward an Educational Theory for the Mentally Handicapped. Edward Arnold. Mehrens, W. A., et a1. 1978 Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 2nd edition, Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston. Mercer, C. D. 1977 Learning Theory_Research in Mental Retardation: Implication for Teaching. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. "’I¢E:yen, E. L. 1976 'Public School Programming for the Severely/Profoundly Handi- capped. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, II, 1 (February). Mo lloy, J. S. 1963 Trainable Children: Curriculum and Procedures. New York: The John Day Company. 110 Myers, 0. G. 1979 Individual Educational Programming for All Teachers of the Special Needs Learners. Charles C. Thomas. Myers, 0. G., et a1. 1973 The Right-to-Education Child: Curriculum for the Severely and Profoundly Mentally Retarded. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Nunnally, J. 1970 Introduction to Psycho-Measurement. New York: McGraw Hill. Nunnally, J. 1970 Psychometric Theorv. New York: McGraw Hill. Nie, N. H., et a1. 1975 Statistical Package_for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Oakland Schools 1978 Modular Educational Achievement Descriptions (MEAD). Pontiac, Michigan. Payne, 0. A. 1974 Curriculum Evaluation. 0. C. Heath 8 Company. Psyne, J. S., et a1. 1977 Strategies for Teaching the Mentally Retarded. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. Pedhazur, E. J., 8 F. Kerlinger 1982 Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research, 2nd ed. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Perry, N. 1966 Teaching the Mentally Retarded Child. New York: Colum- bia University Press. Phillips, 8. S. 1976 Social Research. Popham, J. W. 1975 Educational Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Reynolds, M. C. 1977 Teaching Exceptional Children in All America's Schools. Council for Exceptional Children. Rosenzweig, L. E. 1968 "Teaching Problems with the Trainable Childl' Digest of the Mentally Retarded, IV, 3. 111 Sawyer, H. W., et a1. 1981 A Teacher-Parent Communication Training Approach. Coun- cil for Exceptional Children. Schedgick, B., et a1. 1978 "Curriculum for the Severely Handicapped." Education and Training of the M.R., l3, 4 (December). Sharpes, D. K. 1976 ”A Development Curriculum for the Mildly Retarded of Im- mediate and High School Age!‘ Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, II, 2 (April). Snell, M. E. 1978 Systematic Instruction of the Moderately and Severely Handicapped. Bell 8 Howell Company. Snell, M. E., et a1. 1979 ”Providing Inservice to Educators of the Severely Handi- capped." Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded (February). Sniff, W. F. A 1973 A Curriculum for the Mentally Retarded Young Adult. Charles C. Thomas. Somerton-Fair, M. E., et a1. 1978 ”An Education Planning System for the Severely/Profoundly Handicapped.” Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded (April)ff Sontag, E., et a1. 1977 "The Severely/Profoundly Handicapped." The Journal of Special Education, II, 1. Stainback, S., et a1. 1977 "Training Teachers for the Severely and Profoundly Re- tarded." Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded April). Stephens, B. 1976 "The Severely and Profoundly Retarded: Current Issues and Needs." Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, II, L. 3 (£3.ba, H. 1962 Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace 8 World, Inc. ' Urnbull, H. R., et a1. 1978 "Documentation Procedures for PL 94-142." Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded (April). 112 VanEtten, G. 1980 The Severely and Profoundly Handicapped. The C. V. Mosby Company. Waite, K. B. 1972 The Trainable Mentally Retarded Child. USA: Charles C. Thomas. Wehman, P. 1979 Curriculum Design for the Severelyyand Profoundly Handi- capped. New York: Human Sciences Press. Wehman, P., et a1. 1981 Program Development in Special Education. McGraw Hill. Weiss, C. H. 1972 Evaluation Research. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Williams, H. M. 1961 Education of the Severely Retarded Child. U. S. Depart- ment of HEW, Bulletin No. 20. Winschell, J. F., et a1. 1978 'Educability Revisited: Curricular Implications for the Mentally Retarded." Education and Training of the Men- tally Retarded, 13, 2 (April)? Winschell , J. F. 1977 "Curriculum Strategies for the Mentally Retarded." Educa- tion and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 12, 1 (February) Idood, D. W. 1960 A Guide to Curriculum Planning for the Trainable or Severely_Retarded--3rd Edition. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan: Central MiEhigan University Press. Wright, 8. A., et a1. 1971 Elementary School Curriculum. New York: The MacMillan Company. APPENDICES 113 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 114 115 Dear Teacher/Administrator: We are interested in teacher and administrator percep- tions related to implementation of a curriculum for trainable and severely mentally impaired students. This study is an effort by Michigan State University, Division of Special Education. The primary purpose of this research is to determine school district or center character- istics which influence special education curriculum implemen- tation. We have identified school districts contracting with Ingham Intermediate School District and Project PERFORM as our target population. We would like your responses to this short administrative/teacher survey. Indeed, your effort is very important in this research. We highly appreciate your cooperation in completing this questionnaire. Thank you very much for your help. Sincerely, AQ/a/écx/Z/AA/m/u‘, Donald Burke, Professor Michigan State University Yaser Salem, Research Assistant Michigan State University 116 Personal Data Sheet Please indicate the following: 1. In your work, please estimate the percent of your student population for each of the following categories: a. ( %) TMI b. ( %) SMI c. ( %) SXI d. ( %) other, explain 2. In your work, please estimate the percent of your student population for each of the following levels: ( %) Pre-primary ( %) Primary ( %) Intermediate ( %) Secondary ( %) Other (specify) 3. How many years of teaching experience do you have in working with TMI, SMI and/ or SXI including the year 1981-82? Years 4. How many years of experience do you have in using the Project PERFORM Management System (i.e. Performance Objectives Catalog, or Data Process- ing Forms/Procedures or Staff Development). Years 5. Circle the highest degree held: BA/BS Ed.S. MA/MS Ed.D./Ph.D. 6. List special education areas of approval (endorsement): Thank You H7 Teacher Survey Introduction When answering these questions, please keep in mind that we are interested in your views of your school program and the students of your class, not all programs/ schools or students in general. 32 in this questionnaire refers to Project PERFORM, which has been developed by Ingham Intermediate School District, as a curriculum management system to help teachers and parents plan, carryout and assess school programs for moderately and severely handicapped students. This management system is a set of three components: the Performance Objectives Catalog (POC), Data Processing Forms/ Procedures and Staff Development Activities. Please rate each item below by marking (X) the one response which best rep- resentsyoux'Opinion. A Not Applicable column has been provided should you feel unable to make an appropriate response to a particular item. However, we recommend you try to respond to all items. All references to the administrator of your program refer to that person to whom you are directly responsible. Such references do not refer to your school liaison with Project Perform, your curriculum Specialist or the Project Perform teacher-contact person unless your administrator also happens to perform one of these jobs. Part I Strongly Strongly Not Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree Applicable The POC assessment ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) procedures are use- ful to you in deter- mining performance objectives for your students. 118 Strongly Strongly Not Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree Applicable The POC recommenda- ( ) ( ) tions for assessment materials are useful to you in assessing student performance. The PP data proces- ( ) ( ) sing forms/procedures for recordkeeping are useful to you ,in monitoring student performance. The components of PP ( ) ( ) adopted by your school district are easily adapted to fit the procedures you pre— fer to use in operating your classroom. In general, the fol- lowing items in the POC are clearly written: a. Overview/ ( ) ( ) Directions b. Objectives ( ) ( ) c. Materials ( ) ( ) d. Assessment ( ) ( ) Procedures In general, the content of the POC is appropriate to the range of needs and abilities of all of your students. In general, the ( ) ( ) organization (sec- tion, content area, sub-content area, numbering system, etc.) is helpful to you in understanding and using the POC in your classroom. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 10. 11. 12. 13. 119 Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Administrative ( ) ( ) ( ) action concerning changes in school policy, routine, or procedures have been helpful to you in implementing PP. The administrator(s) ( ) ( ) ( ) of your program is concerned that you understand how to use or implement PP. The administrator(s) ( ) ( ) ( ) encourages your participation in PP related activi— ties, such as cur- riculum develOpment, revision, and evalua- tion. In general, the ( ) ( ) ( ) administrator(s) of your program encour— ages teachers to use Performance Objectives from the POC in daily instructional ac- tivity. The administrator(s) ( ) ( ) ( ) of your program is supportive in tang- ible ways of your use of PP (e.g. he/ she provides con- sultation, in- service, materials, incentives, etc.). The administrator(s) ( ) ( ) ( ) of your program en- courages you to create/develop ways to adapt PP com- ponents to your daily routine. Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable 120 Strongly Strongly Not Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree Applicable 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. The administrator(s) of your program en- courages you to plan and develop teaching strategies/instruc- tional methods for implementing PP in your classroom. The administrator(s) of your program offers you more support/encourage- ment than is neces- sary for implement— ing PP. The administrator(s) of your program designated a person to be "on-call" when you have or have had questions concerning PP. You have received adequate training in how to use PP components in your classroom. You need additional training on how to use PP components in your classroom. Part II ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) For the next six items, please circle the 8 that you feel fits your classroom situation. Indicate how many of your students have been assessed (i.e. initial assessment for determining performance objectives) in each of the following POC content areas since September, 1981. Also indicate how many of your students have been reassessed (i.e. using the assessment procedures to monitor progress of students) in the same content areas since September, 1981. have been made): (Leave blank any areas for which 32 assessment 121 Content Areas % Assessed 8 Reassessed <25% 25% 50% 75% >75% <25$ a. Personal: y 311‘: I J b. Vocational: J J: i 9 c. Social: d. Conceptual: e. Recreational: f. Physical: 9. Language: h. Perceptual: 3‘ at J :1 I! N aim * U“ 0 d“ \l U! d? V \1 U1 d‘ (25% 25% 50% 75% >75% (25% 25% 50% 75% >75% 3: (25% 25% 50% 75% >75% (25% 25% 50% 75% >75% (25% 25% 50% 75% >75% (25% 25% 50% 75% >75% Indicate how many IEP performance objectives came from the POC (i.e. out of all objectives for all students). less than 25% 25% 50% 75% more Indicate how often you use the materials that are suggested in the less than 25% 25% 50% 75% more * ‘fif 4% rat Indicate how often you use the materials that are suggested in the less than 25% 25% 50% 75% more i see! 44% fl than 75% j: 7‘ POC for assessment. than 75% Al n POC for training. then 75% u I" 2. 122 Of all the time you devote to record keeping, how much of this time do you use Data Processing materials from PP. Ll L! 7‘ n less than 25% 25% 50% 75% more than 75% 3! LL n 1" Indicate how often you apply the assessment criteria suggested in the POC for each objective. less than 25% 25% 50% 75% more than 75% Part III Please feel free to make any additional comments about: The Project Perform Components. Major factor(s) that influence the implementation of a curriculum for TMI/SMI/SXI. Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire. 123 Administrator Survey Introduction When answering these questions, please keep in mind that we are interested in your views of your school program and the students of your school, not all pro- grams/schools or students in general. 22 in this questionnaire refers to Project PERFORM, which has been developed by Ingham Intermediate School District, as a curriculum management system to help teachers and parents plan, carryout and assess school programs for moderately and severely handicapped students. This management system is a set of three components: the Performance Objectives Catalog (POC), Data Processing Forms/ Procedures, and Staff Development Activities. Please rate each item below by marking (X) to the one response which best represents your opinion. A Not Applicable column has been provided should you feel unable to make an appropriate response to a particular item. However, we recommend you try to respond to all items. Part I The POC assessment procedures are use- ful to your teachers in determining per- formance objectives for their student. The POC recommenda- tions for assessment materials are useful to your teachers in assessing student performance. The PP data pro- cessing forms/ procedures for recordkeeping are useful to your teachers in moni- toring students per- formance. The components of the PP adopted by your school dis- trict are easily adapted to fit the procedures that your teachers prefer to use in operating their classroom. In general, the following items in the POC are clearly written: a. b. C. d. Overview/ Directions Objectives Materials Assessment Procedures Strongly Agree 124 Agree Undecided Disagree ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Strongly Disagree ( ) Not Applicable ( ) 10. ll. 12. Strongly Agree 125 Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree In general, the con- tent of the POC is appropriate to the range of needs and abilities of all of your students. In general, the organization (sec- tion, content area, sub-content area, numbering system, etc.) is helpful to your teachers in using POC in their classrooms. You had to make some changes in your school policy routine or procedures in order to make PP easier to use. You are concerned that teachers under- stand how to use or implement the PP. You encourage the participation of teachers in PP related activities such as curriculum development, re- vision, and evalua- tion. In general, you en- courage teachers to use performance objectives from the POC in their daily instructional activity. You are supportive of PP use by your teachers in tangi- ble ways (e.g. you provide consulta- tion, in-service, materials, incen- tives, etc.). ( ) Not Applicable 13. 14. 17. 18. You ers 126 Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable encourage teach— ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) to create/develop ways to adapt the PP components to their daily routine. You encourage teach- ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ers to plan and de- velop teaching strategies/instruc- tional methods for implementing PP in their classrooms. You offer more sup- ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) port/encouragement to your teachers than they think is neces- sary for implement- ing the PP. You have designated ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) a person to be "on— call“ when a teacher has questions con- cerning the PP. You have provided ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) adequate training for your teachers in how to use PP com- ponents in their classrooms. Your teachers need ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) additional training in how to use PP components in their classrooms. PmtII Please indicate the following: 1. 2. Total instructional school budget for 1981-82: Actual cost of spending on developing instructional methods/strategies for PP in 1981-82: Actual cost of spending on in-service training related to PP in 1981-82: Cost of spending on materials related to PP in 1981-82: 127 5. Other cost related to the PP in 1981-82: 5 6. Number of students trained by the use of PP in 1981-82: # Part III Please feel free to make any additional comments about: 1. The Project Perform Components 2. Major factor(s) that influence implementation of a curriculum for TMI/SMI. Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire. APPENDIX B PROJECT PERFORM 128 129 Project PERFORM: The Ingham Special Education Curriculum System WHAT 15 PROJECT PERFORM? Project PERFORM is a curriculum management system which helps teachers and parents to plan, carry out and assess school programs for moderately and severely handicapped students. The management system is a set of three tools which can be used to build a curriculum at the school, program or individual level. These tools are (l) a bank of performance objectives, (2) the record keeping assistance of data processing, (3) the ongoing staff develop- ment services of the project disseminator/trainer. More specifically the three components are these: THE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE CATALOG Approximately 8,000 performance objectives statements, each with its own achievement criterion and assessment procedure are printed in an eight-section catalog. The sections, titled Physical, Perceptual, Language, Conceptual, Social, Vocational, Recreational and Personal contain objectives specifically written for TMI, SMI, SXI, Autistic and SEI students. The catalog is a performance objective bank of virtually all skills to be taught to various disabilities, rather than a curriculum which every student experiences. THE DATA PROCESSING Four major data processing programs function to record data entered by professionals concerning individual students' educational plans and achievements. On request, these data are printed as reports 130 which can be shared with parents or are used by teachers in planning students' instructional programs. THE STAFF DEVELOPMENT Training sessions for three groups, teachers, support staff and administrators permit them (1) to use the catalog, (2) to send data to be processed in a variety of reports, (3) to design and sequence instruction in order to implement the students' individualized educa- tional plans. HON WAS PROJECT PERFORM DEVELOPED? Project PERFORM was developed using the resources of 15 Michi- gan intermediate school districts, over a 3-year period (l975-78). Ingham Intermediate School District Coordinated the development and invested over a half million dollars (primarily Title I funds) in the production of the project components and the maintenance of the data processing component. Sixteen special education centers in Michigan and Iowa have contracted to use the Project PERFORM Curriculum Management System, with 2,200 students. As these centers used the system, components were revised and new components developed in response to user evalua- tions. Presently, the field-tested project components are available to centers at a cost of $16-40 per student, averaging $24 per student, during l98l-82. (First year costs are usually higher.) In addition to Project PERFORM's contracting participants, several hundred centers and libraries use the catalog and assessment 131 sheets as a reference for TMI/SMI curricula throughout the United States and in several foreign countries. HOW DOES PROJECT PERFORM NORK? ASSESSMENT is the key to the Project PERFORM instructional system. Teachers assess students and enter achievement information, which data are processed into group and individual program planning and achievement reports. The PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES CATALOG, as goal provider and assessment guide, is used by the teacher in a performance- based instructional process. Selection of objectives alternates with assessment and training activities in the cycle illustrated below. SELECTION FOR ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT SELECTION+FOR TRAINING TRAININg’ACTIVITIES iv REASSESSMENT HOW DOES DATA PROCESSING SUPPORT THE PROJECT PERFORM INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEM? The teacher receives help in the record keeping and progress reporting tasks of this instructional system from four data process- ing programs. One of'Project PERFORM's data processing programs, the BASE- LINE.ASSESSMENT.RECORD is used to record present level achievement. Prior to instruction, the teacher may assess a student in a content area to determine the student's present skill level. The performance objectives which have been achieved already are recorded by the 132 teacher. These student history data are processed and are available to teachers as a help in planning instruction through the CAC REPORT. Another of Project PERFORM's data processing programs, the CONTENT.ACHIEVEMENT BY CLASS or CAC REPORT, assists the classroom teacher in planning and managing instruction. A teacher can submit a list of content areas s/he expects to be teaching, and a list of the students in the class. These data are processed to show each student's achievement history in the requested content areas. This CAC document serves as a planning aid for the teacher in determining which objectives to assess and which to select for instruc- tion for each student's individual educational program. Often this CAC report is used by the teacher as a recordkeeping instrument to chart student progress and to mark next-step objective selections for each student. Still another of'Project PERFORM's data processing programs, the IEP REPORT, details a particular student's IEP goals and objec- tives, the outcomes of'the yearly IEPC. A teacher selects possible educational objectives for a student from the Performance Objectives Catalog. This input is processed to yield the POSSIBLE IEP OBJECTIVES REPORT. The report is sent to parents several days before the IEP conference so that they can participate effectively with teachers and support staff in choosing the best yearly plan for their student. IEPC decisions recorded at the conference become the data which is processed as the FINAL IEP REPORT FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR. Finally, another of'Project PERFORM's data processing pro- grams, the PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT/SELECTI ON PROCESS, is a 133 method of recording student achievement and reporting to parents. The ASSESSMENT/SELECTION sheets show all active objectives for each student. They designate which ones are also IEP objectives and pro- vide spaces for the teacher to select new objectives. The teacher updates the achievement record after instruction and assessment. These data are processed as the PROGRESS REPORT which shows the cumu- lative yearly achievement to date and functions as a report card for parents. This report also tells parents what objectives have been added to the student's continuing program. In addition to curriculum development, Project PERFORM's com- ponents can help teachers handle repetitious manual writing tasks which can be time consuming when individualized, performance objective- based instruction is the goal of a special education program. You may wish to develop an integrated curriculum using Project PERFORM's components at your center. If so, inquiries concerning the purchase of Project PERFORM components or participation in the project should be sent to the Disseminator/Trainer of Project PERFORM. Audrey Gomon, Ph.D. Disseminator/Trainer Project PERFORM Ingham Intermediate School District 2630 West Howell Road Mason, MI 48854 5l7/676-105l, ext. 273 APPENDIX C RESEARCH STUDY REQUEST 134 1135 INGHA M INTERMI‘ZDIATF. SCHOOL DISTRICT DIVISION OF SPEC! \l Hill?” It W 2030 n HOWELL IOAD Mason; Mucn.c,a~ 4085a none 01? owned: RISLARCH STUDY REQUEST Special Education Division Ingham [50 Ramada meow. Name _"_ Yaser Salem- Tit1e/Agency Grad ASSistant - MSL‘ Hork Address thiversny Center for International RehabTelephone 355-1824 (work) " ‘ 353-0903 (htiméT"" MSU. East Lansing, MI Zip Code 48824 *9--.” pest y} .971ng or__ slop; Title "Teacher and Administxator Perceptions of Factors Related to Implementa— ti‘oTn of a CurricUfim Tbr Trainable andSeverer Refit—aTIS‘Tm’pa'ir‘f‘d‘Studer Purpose/Objectives j‘gggterminegiafcjler an_d__a_d_m_inistrator per.c_e_p_t._ion5_r_elated to implementation of a curriculum f_or trainable and seve relylnfptfilly .--.~—“ impailgd student. -.. -.-».-— —.—.—— Beginning Date Immediately Completion Date June, 1932 -—.--- -.—-.——.-—_— —_——~... ---.--__ --~ Immuguwm Please use a one page attachment to answer the following questions. Also attach a Summary of the research proposal, if available. A. How much time (school) will be involved? 8. Number of students needed and particular characteristics (boy, girl. age, etc.)? C Information needed for individual students? D What are space/room requirements? E. will school supplies/equipment be required? F Hill financial support be requested from the Ingham ISO? G How will teachers be required to help in the study? H. How will other school personnel be involved in the study? I. Hhat data will be collected? (Specify names of commercially-available tests and attach copies or researcher-developed instruments.) 136 RESEARCH STUDY REQUEST Page 2 J. What methods of data analysis will be used? K. How will parental consent be obtained (if appropriate)? L. How will human subjects be protected in view of the Family Rights and Privacy Act? RESULTS Do you agree to provide a copy/summary of the completed study to the Ingham ISD Special Education Office? Yes Signature Date DCszb 9-25-80 T37 INFORMATION REQUIRED A. Staff only. B. None C. None D. None E. No F. No G. By completing a quesionnaire. H. No I. A questionnaire developed by researchers. J. The major stat. method will be used is the Multiple Regression, however, other appropriate stat. methods will be applied. K . No L. Perceptions of teachers and administrators only. CD 138 Ingham ‘0‘ Intermediate School District Division of Special Education “ Education Service Center 2630 West Howell Road Mason. Michigan 48854 5| 7-676- I OSI February 5, 1982 Mr. Yaser Salem 1575 J Spartan Village Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48823 Dear Yaser, Your research study request entitled "Teacher and Administrator Perceptions of Factors Related to Implementation of a Curriculum for Trainable and Severely Mentally Impaired Students" has been reviewed and approved for implementation. 1 would suggest that you communicate directly with Dr. Harrold Spicknall or Dr. Audrey Gomon to determine when the letter from the Ingham Intermediate School District should be sent out to your survey recipients. I wish you the best of luck in completing this dissertation study. Very truly yours, . c9C£2244~c2, CD‘gzmcméLA:;La) Daun C. Dickie, Ph.D. Assistant Director Special Education DCD:cb The Ingham Intermediate School District is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity District. “'5 139 '(D Ingham 66% Intermediate School District mi... PERFORM Division 0! Special Education 1630 West Howell Road Mason. Michigan 48854 5| 7-676— I OSI M E H O R A N D U H 1.0: 0......0... Project Perform/User District Representative FROM: Audrey Gomon,. Project PERFORM Disseminator/Trainer RE: Michigan State Study on Special Education Curriculum Implementation oars: January 14, 1982 I understand that a study is being undertaken at Michigan State University to determine school district or center characteristics which influence speCial education curriculum implementation. Professor Donald Burke and Research Assistant Yaser Salem of NSU have chosen the use of our Project Perform Components to represent "curriculum implementation". They would like your staff's responses to an administrative and a teacher survey they have designed to collect your perceptions. Burke and Salem will be contacting you about your willingness to participate in the study. That decision is, of course, yours to make. I am sure the study findings will be interesting to us and I testify to the legitimacy of the two researchers--but your participation in the study is entirely voluntary-—and not obligated in any way by our Project Contract. Here's to even better professional understandings in the field of special education. Anzjh The Ingham Intermtdiate School District is an Aiiirmanve ActionIEQual Opportunity District. I40 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY CENTERS FOR INTERNATIONAL REHABILITATION $13 ERICKSON HALL TELEPHONE (517) 355-1824 EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824 Karch , 1982 Project Perform/UserDistrict Representative We want to thank you for your contribution to our survey of teachers and administrators working in districts using components of Project Perform. The cooperation has been excellent. When the results of the survey are available, we will forward a summary report to each cooperating school district. Once again, thank you for your part in making this survey a success. Sincerely, Cm draw/{y Donald Burke, Professor Michigan State University Yaser Salem, Research Assistant Michigan State University MS U is at Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution APPENDIX D TEACHERS' AND ADMINISTRATORS' COMMENTS 141 I42 ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS' ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT PP COMPONENTS AND/OR SUGGESTIONS ABOUT MAJOR FACTORS(S) THAT INFLUENCE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CURRICULUM FOR TMI/SMI/SXI. Administrators' Comments There is a need to review criteria for achievement; this should pro- bably be done at an individual user district level. It would be terrific if all schools could hire a person to be in charge of PP and curriculum only, so other responsibilities would not over- shadow the PP potential. Developing some of the content areas to meet our SMI/SXI need. Factors-implementation: administrative support/direction teachers' needs/acceptance (involvement) available resources inservice/planning time DOOM—4 Although involved in its devel0pment, I do believe it is the best avail- able system for TMI/SMI/SXI students. Staff involvement in the development of it; participation in the deci- sion making process--team approach. I. district philosophy and financial 2. teacher preference-relevancy 3. ease in use 4. cost-effective Staff attitudes, staff communication and training, leadership and coor— dination, legal requirements for student program documentation, staff facility and materials, resoufes, and parents. Teacher attitudes, parents' attitudes, administrative attitude, stu- dents' needs. Most curriculums are too high for SMI. I43 A more efficient assessment/recording system would be of value--particu- larly as relates to a placement of new students within the system and long range individual student profile. The eight subcontent areas are well defined instructional components for a curriculum for a mentally impaired student. The catalog does an ex- cellent job covering a wide range of disabilities. Some objectives are not finite enough for our population. After reviewing several curricula, I find this to be one of the best in the country. Cost per student could be less if others would use it. We needed a curriculum to help unify our program. We had been a field test component and found it applicable to our situation. The objectives for the SMI and SXI population are hard to fit into the program. I think that it is not a fault of this PP but that our stu-- dents are so low functioning and move along at such a slow rate. Teachers' Comments I feel that the physical section could be expanded for the SXI popula- . tion to include range of motion, positioning, equilibrium and protective reactions. Our major problem still is in creating and organizing teaching ideas so that we teach the objective and not just the assessment procedure. We also are working on age appr0priateness for materials. I like the project perform and find it quite helpful in organizing my teaching and makes it much easier to uses according (to) student indivi- dual needs. The administrator does not give information about PP. The curriculum specialist does. monitoring evaluation of teachers parents' expectations teachers' expectations teachers' attitudes and aides students' wanting to learn Otm-bOON-J In the "personal" section, assessment procedures could be more clearly defined regarding breakdown of many individual objectives into steps. While data processing has been a valuable aid, it somehow does not meet some of the needs. For example, when a student "graduates," I would like to see him/her take along a compilation of all objectives achieved--in words, not just numbers--so that this information can be used by people dealing with the student in future placement, whether vocational or living situation. ' ' 'J "3 V. . - I . .~ . if ‘ rt-L” i .' w , I .. V i; . i f 3....“41‘11 , .l ' t4 "H .‘ ., . ‘ ‘7, i . . - - 3.1} “"u at“ 3w: “ii .}...i~ . s-‘r , s . . __i HO. . J .- , at“ w ‘t o. ‘ i a a 'J -. I U: r a: " -- 1:; so a“; to ”1:.1;?"r','fi it -..‘,;~ .u‘ fur.» 3173(4‘9) n; Wmfia; .33?!” mm 5: i ‘ Ar. .=,-.i main ~91: ii. 433?th your: .v _-.~_":, a -‘ - « fflk$ ? . - kl . , a ~ — . .0. -, ,, . - . - -_ ,- 42,. — ~v - .. ‘- “0 ‘ J- v . > I. o - ‘ I V 4". 7 ‘.‘ ' .0 1" ' .1. .- - - V gas—a- ' - - 144 Recognizing need for organized, sequential programming at that level Ease of usability of the curriculum format and data processing. Funding from the local district to allow for the cost. Administrative acceptance of the curriculum. Having equipment and supplies necessary for implementation. Regular updating of changes made in the curriculum. Ease with which the curriculum fits into the IEP requirements for goals and objectives. meth—a I have fbund that some steps are too high--not broken down enough for SMI students. A simple one page sheet to write down all students' objectives for the year. To be able to quickly pull it out and see which objectives have not been hit yet and those met and not yet met. A form that everyone could use for record keeping. TMI--meets needs of 30% of the study body; SMI--meets needs of 10%. i For myself as a therapist, the curriculum project cannot get specific enough for each individual child to help me with treatment, scanning, and reassuring. Deals too much with milestones, and not enough with quality of movement and transitional stages. I feel my time could be more efficiently used by writing up specific treatment plans for each child. Too much genera- lization yet would be impossible to work with a project with all the specifics and qualities of movement. Great program for organization and implementation and assessment in the classroom; it is a great deal of work for certain periods of the year, but it makes the rest of the time easier and more efficient. Time--in the beginning it is difficult to get all the work done in time; you feel a great deal of pressure. Materials are sometimes hard to assemble. I disagree with some of the assessment criteria. Does not allow for a child to have gained a skill, regressed and lost that skill and have the curriculum print it in such a way that a person can tell that. With many children it is important to know that they once could do something and now can't--it may give evidence that some- thing neurologically is going on with that child. As far as therapy is concerned, I have found the curriculum project to be difficult to use. It does not allow for the individuality of each child and the components of movement he/she has. The curriculum tends to deal with milestones; for example, that a child can sit in a position unsupported. I am interested in the components of movement he/she uses to get into that position and his/her ability to maintain the position in a correct posture. The curriculum only allows for a "yes" or "no" he/she can do it and, therefore, is not helpful to me. I would much prefer to use my time to write specific therapy treatment plans. ' - :a ‘J :-~i~t'.-V“'."‘.'.i'1."J'i'h-‘ an? .i-rumq in). . - 4,4." -n- -. i .- i: .-.-..-..'r ‘o- :? swarm-ms .tas :l'i? - I “an in v.._"i‘fl".I AVA-ii arm a: at!!!" . ‘ . -_ ‘_1 .._—"'_ - . .'2 F2: s ‘--l.. ’ I45 Saves time Well written Easy to perform--not too difficult Not boring for students Some are not sequential and could be revised; basically good though. There needs to be work in the area of continuity. Each class needs to be aware what objectives they are responsible for. There should be some way to check to see if these objectives are being addressed on a regular basis. Regular inservices should be held to give suggestions of ways to approach and meet objectives. A basic philosophy for each area which are consistent with one another would help. Not always apprOpriate for materials available. I have used the Ingham Instructional System as a basis for P.0. objec- tives and have implemented charts and record keeping systems which I use on a daily basis to record pre-vocational progress which is valuable for my information. There are many places that require additional steps between objectives and rearrangement in objectives, but this is often due to very special- ized needs of individuals. A good program but too little support from administrators and too little inservice for teachers. I. a more complete program than what is available elsewhere 2. the print-outs are nice for the objectives needed for the IEPC Many of the objectives are not broken down into small enough steps for SMI students. student needs skill development in a sequential manner physical handicaps emotional handicaps potential employment needs social adjustment needs self care needs Nmmwa-J I feel the assessment procedures are very good, but I feel it would be better if they gave some suggestions on teaching the objectives in more creative ways. I wanted to explain that my results are based on being a "specialized teacher" using only the P.E. area and that I also serve the total school population. I feel that many of the content areas could have even higher prefor- mance levels added to them in that it seems to be a moving trend to en- roll very high TMI/Low EMI students in our school now. .u "min/:3 ‘ (in ’t: 9 '--—‘;,.' -,’F .- . .392 .f 2‘6. 1.. m; we] -;yeii;. H- 1 34:"? “u f‘:'(‘ ‘ ti} I I “rentals inasostmsz .t’lifi21stfid» vies-in”; 'ueat mu 7 I46 POC is very useful and beneficial; data processing a mass of paperwork. I work with this population only minimally for two mornings a week. The rest of my time is spent in a local public school, so my involve- ment with the program is limited and population of TMI/SMI students is small. I don't agree with all the assessment procedures. Ex.: some items the student does once and he/she passes it. For my p0pulation, I don't feel one time in a lot of those areas is adequate. I don't teach any of the three groups (TMI/SMI/SXI) that the curriculum is recommended for, so it is difficult finding objectives to fit my students at times. PP components are not adequately examined and deadlines are set that do I not give me adequate time for classroom daily management and paperwork. ' New forms are sprung on us without enough explanation and when the in- formation is returned from the computer we are then told how to use it . instead of explaining the purpose before we fill out the forms. I end up writing more notes to explain the information received. The curriculum guide is (has been) very useful in my classroom. Weak areas are in reading programs but there just aren't enough reading series for TMI. Another weak are is pre-vocational because of the limitations of our own situation--we don't have the resources used in the curriculum guide. Could use more cross-reference index. Have the time free of students and available others to explain structure of program. The method of assessment is too frustrating and time-consuming. There must be a better way! I really like project perform--feel it has helped me very much professionally. l. ease of training para-professionals 2. ease of communication of goals/objectives with parents 3 how appropriate goals/objectives are for students who live in a home, institution, group home, etc. POC does not follow any develgpmental sequence. This makes it extremely difficult to implement. I employ other devel0pmental guides to assess students and develop IEPs and the POC only to satisfy the district and have a uniform print-out. Educator philosophy/parental dictates/geographic location The Project Perform components are quite easy to use after you get a basic understanding of the system. Some assessment criteria are con- fusing and not applicable. M’s “m ‘ ,. ”J., 9m. i, . I‘VE" V's. "IIV', T‘- V‘. i i ‘ ‘7‘ i i - .'\ - r- . I .“ 'f s L4 _| . h I . i‘ ‘ i ' 2. 5:5..." --i "“;Etili!!;i-'.?‘:Ifi. 71‘“ ‘2:- 7r- si.-‘_-.,.1L;oao£5‘1d ._ , a :3}; -Vr-..’~s_;;am1m1_t:s2?‘ii 95.WI.P;¢I. . .pvteg‘i'nn wwgiixaoorng, ~ . ' - i, .i 4- . I rig. t A a i“: O 0.1” .- W 147 Overall, I feel that a major problem with the implementation of the PP curriculum is that parents are very confused with the computer print-out sheets and at IEP parent conferences, much time is spent explaining the curriculum. Some areas of the curriculum could still be expanded or broken down into smaller units per objective. For my SXI students, objectives dealing with physical manipulation therapy and sensory stimulation are needed. The assessment procedures are not always appr0priate fbr low SXI stu- dents; i.e., many of my students do not respond to a visual/auditory cue to stimulate a certain response. Because my students are mainly functioning at a 0-2 month level, there is not too much in the Project Perform curriculum that pertains to them. It is not low enough in certain areas, and it is incomplete when dealing with occupational therapy needs (in the sensory integration area). Parents have not the training necessary to understand PP. Parents' re- ports are a waste of time and money. I like the performance objective catalog. Although there are additions that could be made, I do not like the computer sheets for parent use or record keeping. Teaching supplies available; functioning level of students; individual needs of students. Time allotment; curriculum priorities as determined by staff and admin— istrator; student population needs. My only complaint is that the objectivesirnthe language section do not cover all the areas/objectives I use with students-~I write in quite a few objectives "missing" in the catalogue. Also, the sections on sign language and fluency/stuttering are extremely incomplete and often use- less to me. In general, I like the system because of its convenience (for the most part) and its possibilities due to the computer printouts. Future employment after workshop training. Some assessment criteria have more tasks required than our workshop has. Employment after workshop experiences; CARF requirements. The vocational components need to be revised/updated with an emphasis on current employment trends in post-school programs; i.e., service related industries, W.A.C. and sheltered employment. Potential employment opportuntities. Could be written so it would be more applicable to our shop. Some of the objectives are so detailed it is difficult to complete the objec- tive as written. 148 Placement of students after completion of school program. Students can pass an objective using the recommended assessment proce- dure but not be able to perform it Spontaneously later. Carryover must be implemented. Not appropriate to all students; lots of holes. Time, repetition, overload of paper, not appropriate for all students, too high for most and too low for some. The materials and assessment procedures are lacking in the program. The assessment procedures are not consistent and in some cases unrealistic. Overall, the program is very beneficial to me, and I use it very much. With most experience and time to organize, I plan on increased usage of materials for assessment and record keeping. I expect higher assessment criteria--more consistency than in POC. Hard to coordinate materials to objectives to record keeping in the beg- ginning; hard to locate objectives in beginning; need more variety in training/material selection. We have not really used all the components for a complete year. IEP requirements. Not very adequate for low levels SXI; needs much modification. I like the consistency factor built into program--since students are as- signed to new classrooms/teacher often. I also like the record of the goals and assessment that becomes a part of students' files. Consistency throughout the various programs. Realistic levels covered. I would like to see revisions include all ob- jectives listed in the order that learning takes place especially in the conceptual skill. I would like to see more leisure skills objectives. The performance objectives should be broken down more for SMI. More sug- gestions for accessing or teaching suggestions would be nice. A section on modified objectives for physically impaired should be added. Difficulties I have in implementation of PP: Difficult to get an over- view on student functioning in order to begin assessment. Often I use other assessment and then use PP to be more specific as to a breakdown in objectives. Non developmental--I find I need a generalized develop- mental sequence in order to use PP--I feel it is very easy to work on a skill that a student may not be ready for even though it is next in the sequence. Because of the need for modification, I, at times, find it easier to use my own assessment or assessment in variety of other cur- riculum and then find the closest corresponding objective in PP. This fulfills administrative expectations, students are assessed; however, it means additional work for me. . . t "N? ' J- g u, ' ' v‘r ‘ ~ - .-'~.- rut) L3: ea ._ A" .~ :4 - ;' ;':fi;.;.r'.1 “3:: "cc! {ts-u z. .' :1 Mi. . M' I: :4 '.'. ”“*"" (:7 we,“ mi? ‘ n. ,. int“! n: ' (“untagged me 7 ‘ .? p" .1.- . flay-Jug: rat, out: mt}; ’fl .M- «M giazeagza a u . ' . I , - - .. ,. s 7",. .fl‘ . < _’ _‘ . . '-i- _._: q 149 I do not like the system for my own use. The POC gets in the way and the forms, etc., are more of a chore than a help. Often the published POC are unsuitable to our students. For reference, the system is okay, but for daily use it's far too cumbersome. Of great influence, I feel, are the personalities and style of the teacher, students, and the learning environment. If a teacher was not aware of basic child developmental steps and the learning process, the organization of the system might be very helpful. I find, however, that the POCs are stifling, limiting, and not always well-suited to the situations we are dealing with in a population of handicapped infants and their parents (i.e., nutrition, basic care, health, safety, accep- tance, etc.). Very time consuming, especially when you're not familiar with sequence and available information. Some loop holes large for SMI population—- especially noted in signing area. The program has given us a reasonable foundation. Sometimes students and objectives have no relationship, but this would happen in all pro- grams. Overall, we just need an occasional burst of morale and a flash of fresh material. The needs of the student and how well material available can be adapted to those needs. Basically, I like the components. However, many of the language, con- ceptual, pre-voc areas and self-help could be task analyzed more. I wish the baseline would come through the computer in a form other than just stating numbers. I have found PP to be too specific in some areas, grossly general in others and totally lacking objectives in areas that are essential in programming according to normal development. Also, the same goal is often re-stated in two or more sections, and often goals that belong together are scattered through several sections. I never the use materials provided by the PP due to the kinds of stu- dents I have. PP allows for neat, more concise, and easier ways of up- dating IEPs. Some gaps appeared between objectives (e.g., feeding, general self-care skills). Intermediate steps were elminated. A consistent program throughout the school; a major factor was convinc- ing staff that initial problems of a curriculum would dissolve the next year it was used. Another factor is simplicity. Also the more detailed and number of objectives, the more the curriculum is used and no other sources are needed. Number of students in class; academic area which is affected by stu- dent's handicap; extent of student's impairment; material available; number of interruptions during classtime; behavior of students in class; attitude of students. -: I' .V Q Y ' f I I v , . . .... ' "-‘,-‘.c H“ :1 {"3 Eh "I " W '_ :; ; ~-’ — 5m. hS'II.:!n 4"». ‘---_‘ .-l "74:1 . . In 1;." ,.-q , ‘iPéi' 1!! "u have» 2: HIV?“ no: at“. .- m' Cit“ nun 3E 3:33.51" an; £33291; :; PM a $2“ ofvbzoé .Jsl) 1732:“: _.dldol 'vc fgyolm Jan? 2 gm” to iéegxg” .37” '5": m mm; 40 “to“, . hunch entree #91 $3; , i .. .- , , -'l . 55g“ ’ -- - r.. .2" - :n- A va~-. v..»# “71., . ar;_. ~... ’ z. .— , . " . ':. ’-'.)‘ " . -.. . - ' -- ‘x_).-' 7' ’ ' 1“ . _ . l. - v ‘ 5' (rt ;."_ ‘o 150 Could be more complete for areas more applicable to our school situa- tion. I like the testing format of Brigance in notebook form and the way it is recorded in a booklet. I think Ingham could benefit from these ideas. I think the data processing components are real time savers. They also help keep records current and exact. The curriculum is not splintered enough in task breakdown to meet the needs of institutionalized students. Swimming section is incomplete and not suitable for students here. There are not enough objects appropriate to the needs of low functioning SMI and SXI students. It really gives you a base to work from. It gives you ideas of areas to assess that one would not have thought of. Also, the suggested material list is also helpful in making training materials. Readiness of assessment materials/time it takes to develop appropriate materials. More valuable to me when I taught TMI students. For SXI, the PP is not broken down enough to pass very low functioning and physically impaired students on objects. Many of the needs of these students are not even within the curriculum; much time is spent on the children's needs which does not allow as much time for PCs. In past TMI classroom, very helpful. POs were at a level that children were able to achieve rather smoothly. Used as a guide to teaching, it is an essential tool! Needs much more perceptual objectives. This curriculum is quite useful to me; but for low functioning SXI stu- dents that do not exhibit consistent responses, it needs some changes in the passing criteria. The PP components serve as a good guideline in organizing and assessing classroom materials for the appropriate use with each individual student There is still much room for improvement of the entire system. I feel the books are thorough and well organized for our lower-average functioning autistic children. I use the books to assist in goal writ- ing for every child. I have my own assessment procedures that I feel comfortable with, so I have not needed to use the Project Perform assessment. The prepared system of assessment and goals was not useful in my area, but the record keeping and computer printouts are great to reduce paper work after our own goals were put on the system. I up} V" V ‘r 151 Because we are involved in a length of school year study in conjunction with PP, I follow the IEP and PP suggestions very closely. Also they are a clear cut guideline. Also record keeping is a must for the LSYS. This year we have had enough money to order and receive required ma- terials. We have been fortunate. Ingham County Curriculum alone cannot suggest ways to deal with some of our most aggressive students, so we look elsewhere for that information. Some of the steps need to be broken down into smaller steps still. Ne rotate the classes, and I only teach and stress vocational. Others teach the other areas. Best overall program we could find. Since we were plugged into the program early, we assisted with the developing of the program. APPENDIX E DISTRICTS IMPLEMENTATION 152 Teachers' Perceptions Broken Down by Districts DISTRICTS 153 \° ~o E>c>¢>a>c>c> c>c>c>q-c>c> c>c>¢>os¢>c> H 00.... 000.00 000... O H N H N m OOOONO OQOOOO ooooooxoo H 00000. 000000 00000. 0 MH M v-Iv-I N <- OOONNO ONOQ’OO oooomoo H 00.00. 000.00 00000. O v-lr-l H N r—Ir-i N m OOOquo ONwaNO oceoaooo H 0000.. 0000.0 coo-o. 0 \TN r-l \‘Tv-i v-Ix‘f N N 000000 ONNOOO OOx‘i’x'rxDO H 00.. o .0000. .0000. O M v—Ir—IM NN N H oowoqo oomooooo Ox'erxDNN H 00.00. 0.0000 0.000. O v-lMN r-Ix'Tr-l N Fix? N o NNOOOO oooooomo \ONOOQO H 0.000. 00.000 .0000. r—lv—l MM H «H H MN N O\ \ONOOOOO \DNOONOO oomoooo H H v-lv-4v—I v—lv—l N 00 0000000 OOOomz DISTRICTS 155 :2 000000 000000 000000 N H H 2 0000N0 0000N0 0000N0 HH HH NH : 0N0000 000000 00NN00 H N N HH 2 00N000 00NLfiN0 N000N0 H0 HLnH HN 0H N 000NNO 0NO0N0 000000 p—4 ...... ...... ...... 0H H 0H N N :3 000000 000000 NN0000 mm. 0H HHNM S 0NON00 00NON0 00N000 H 0H HOH H HNN 0 000000 00N000 000N0© N HH N H ° 0 000000 000000 0NON00 N N H H 000000 0N0000 000000 I’\ ...... ...... ...... N HHO 0H0 H H 0 000000 000000 000000 N H N Ln 0N0000 00Nl\00 NN0000 ...... ...... ...... H [\N HHON HOHm 0 000000 000000 00NON0 H0 NH HHH 0 0000N0 000000 00N000 NH (*3 HN N 00N000 000000 0N0000 ...... ...... o..... HMH In HHM H 00NON0 0NOH00 000N00 o..... ...... ...... HOH H 0 N 0H 5 U* 0 <1 2 Q<2 '0 <2 Z 0<fl <2 2 0cacnz o. A m. In"! elm! . . «m. :mefi..f.. ‘ v'».|l y . . Yl‘ . Uri DISTRICTS 2 OOOQOO OOOQ’OO OQOOOO N N H 2 oonoo OCDONGO \Dx‘fONOO Fir-l H H N H \‘T OOONQ‘O 000000 000000 H 000... not... .0000- I—IN m m m \DQNOQ’O OOOQ’QO NCDNQNO H 000... one... 0000.. Nr-i N LnN HHHNH N 00N000 0000000 ONONOO H 0.0000 00.000 0000.. HM