OVERDUE FINES:
25¢ per day per item
RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS:

Place in book return to remove
charge from circulation record

 

 

THE EFFECTS OF TWO TYPES OF FIELD BASED
INSERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR TEACHERS
AND TEACHER CONSULTANTS IMPLEMENTING AN
OBJECTIVE BASED PHYSICAL EDUCATION
SYSTEM (I CAN) WITH TRAINABLE
MENTALLY IMPAIRED STUDENTS

BY

Thomas Virgil Sampson

 

 

 

 

 

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the.degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Health, Physical Education & Recreation

1980

 

 

 

//(.—- r”..- 1'

 

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTS OF TWO TYPES OF FIELD BASED
INSERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR TEACHERS
AND TEACHER CONSULTANTS IMPLEMENTING AN
OBJECTIVE BASED PHYSICAL EDUCATION

SYSTEM (I CAN) WITH TRAINABLE
MENTALLY IMPAIRED STUDENTS

BY

Thomas Virgil Sampson

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects
of a massed Versus distributed inservice training approach
for teachers and teacher consultants implementing an
objective based instructional system (I CAN) with trainable
mentally impaired (TMI) students, five to fourteen years of
age. The subjects were special education teachers (N = 18)
and teacher consultants (N = 13) charged with delivering
physical education services to TMI students. Participants
were given inservice training by a Field Service Unit staff
member at one of five school based demonstration/training
centers throughout Michigan. The sixteen week investigation
consisted of the initial information-sharing phase with a
concurrent implementation schedule. The massed training group
was given their information over two consecutive six-hour
days. The distributed group commenced training with a one day,
six-hour session followed by two one-half day sessions spaced
two and four weeks after the initial information session.
Teachers and consultants were given identical schedules for
their respective groups to guide their activities during the

implementation phase of the sixteen week study.

 

Thomas Virgil Sampson

The study was conducted using a quasi-experimental, two
group, post-test design. Upon conclusion of the study, all
participants completed a component mastery test covering the
information given to them during the total program.

In addition, a Field Service Unit staff member assigned
an implementation score for each of the teachers while they
conducted a physical education class using the I CAN system
with their TMI students.

A comparison of scores on the knowledge test was
completed between the two training groups of participants.
Implementation data were also compared between teachers
trained under massed and distributed conditions. A correla-
tion coefficient was calculated between a teacher's knowledge
test score and their implementation score.

The study was based on a limited sample and therefore
generalization is not to be extended beyond the scope of
this investigation. The results suggest:

1) When considering knowledge acquisition and retention
for teachers and teacher consultants both training formats
were effective.

2) When considering teacher implementation scores, both
groups (massed and distributed) were effective. It is
suggested that either instructional format can be implemented
in a field based setting with sufficient time constraints.

3) The significant differences that were found favored
the distributed trained group of subjects.

4) A post-training telephone survey which was conducted

 

Thomas Virgil Sampson
with all participants revealed a strong preference for field
based training to include follow-up classroom support and use

of field based demonstration training centers.

 

DEDICATION

To Nancy

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to thank the following people:
Dr. Eric Gordon for his assistance, especially during the
early phase of this study; Dr. Charles Mange for his logical
thought processes and consistent encouragement during
several difficult phases of the research; Dr. Philip (Sam)
Reuschlein for his editorial assistance and willingness to
provide instant feedback.

A special thanks is due to Dr. Janet Wessel, committee
chairperson and graduate advisor for providing the opporé
tunity to learn and grow.

The author also wishes to gratefully acknowledge the
Special Education Services Area of the Michigan Department of
Education for their support and commitment to inservice

education.

iii

 

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE PROBLEM

Introduction . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem
Scope of the Study . . .
Limitations of the Study
Definition of Terms . .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inservice Training . . . . . . . . . . .
Inservice Constructs . . . . . . . .
Inservice: A Historical Perspective
Inservice Models and Needs . . . . .
Governing Inservice Education . . . .
Research and Development . . . . . .
Massed Versus Distributed Practice:
A Report of Relevant Research . .
Early Research . . . . . . .
The Effects of Reviewing . .

The Effects of Reminiscence
The Effects of Rehearsal .
The Effects of Retention . .
The Effects of Repetition . .
The Effects of Interference . .
The Effects of Meaningful Versus
Non-Meaningful Material . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Purpose 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0
subj eCts O O O O O I O O O O O O 0
Design of the Study . . . . . . . .

Description of Training Procedures . .
General Approach . . . . . . . .
Threats to Internal and External Validity
Instrumentation . . . . . . . .
Component Mastery Test: Knowledge Skills
Summative Status Report: Implementation
Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Post-Training Questionnaire . . . . . . .
Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

P‘H
Homqw

15
15
16
18
25

31

35
35
39
39
41
42
43
44

44
48

Chapter

Data AnalYSj-S O O O O C I O O O O O O O O O 0
Experimental Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Component Mastery Test: Knowledge

Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summative Status Report: Implementation
Skills 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Correlational Analysis: Implementation
and Knowledge Skills . . . . . . . . . . .
POSt-Training Questionnaire o o o o e o o 0

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knowledge Test Scores: Component Mastery . .
Total Test Score Results . . . . . . . . .
Subtest Score Results . . . . . . . .
Subtest Results for Teachers by
Training Schedule . . . . . . . . . . .
Subtest Results for Teacher Consultants
by Training Schedule . . . . . . . .
Subtest Results for All Participants
by Training Schedule . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summative Status Score Results:
Implementation Skills . . . . . . . .
Total Summative Status Score . . . .
Component Summative Status Score .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Correlation Between Teachers' Component
Mastery Test Score and Summative Status
Report Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Distributed Training Correlation . . .
Massed Training Correlations . . . .
Combined Training Group Correlations .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Post-Training Survey Results . . . . . . . . .
Summary Discussion . . . . . . . . ... . . . .

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knowledge Acquisition as Measured by the

Component Mastery Test . . . . . . . . . .
Implementation Skills as Measured by
Summative Status Score . . . . . . . . . .
Relationship Between Knowledge Acquisition
and Implementation Skills . . . . . . . .
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REFERENCES CITED 0 O O O O O C O C O O O O O C

Page

67
67

67
67

68
68

101

 

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
A. I CAN OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
B. LOCATION OF TRAINING CENTERS . . . . . . . . . . . 112
C. TEACHER CONSULTANT ASSIGNMENTS . . . . . . . . . . 113
D. TEACHER ASSIGNMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
E. ROLE OF DEMONSTRATION CENTERS . . . . . . . . . . 125
F. COMPONENT MASTERY TEST DIRECTIONS . . . . . . . . 126
G. COMPONENT MASTERY TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
H. TEST QUESTIONS MATCHED TO TRAINING OBJECTIVES . . 140
I. SUMMATIVE STATUS REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
J. POST-TRAINING TELEPHONE SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . 151

K. COMPONENT MASTERY TEST AND SUMMATIVE STATUS
RE PORT RAW DATA 0 C O O C O C C C O O O . O O O O 1 5 6

vi

1.

 

10.

11.

12.

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Descriptive Statistics by Training

Format and

Participant Type for Total Component Mastery

Test score 0 C O O O O O O O O O

The Effects of Training Format and

Partici-

pant Type on Total Component Mastery Test

Score . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Descriptive Statistics by Training Format for

Teachers' Component Mastery Test

Effect of Training Format Upon the

Scores . . .

Teachers'

Scores for the Five Subtests of the Component

Mastery Test . . . . . . . . . .

Descriptive Statistics by-Training

Format for

Teacher Consultants' Component Mastery Test

Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of Training Format Upon the
Consultants' Scores for the Five
the Component Mastery Test . . .

Descriptive Statistics by Training
Component Mastery Subtest Scores
Participants . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of Training Format Upon All

Teacher
Subtests of

Format for
for All

Participants'

Scores for the Five Subtests of the Component

Mastery Test . . . . . . . . . .

Descriptive Data in Percent Score for All
Components of the Summative Status Report

by Training Format . . . . . . .

Effects of Training Format Upon Teachers'
Implementation Score for All Components of

the Summative Status Report . .

Descriptive Data of the Summative Status Scores
for Each Component by Training Format . . . .

The Effects of Training Format Upon Teachers'

Summative Status Scores for Each Component .

vii

Page

70

71

72

73

74

74

75

76

78

79

8O

80

 

Table

13. Correlation Coefficients Between the Summative
Status Scores and Component Mastery Test
Scores for Teachers Trained Under the
Distributed Format . . . . . . . . . . . . .

l4. Correlation Coefficients Between the Summative
Status Scores and Component Mastery Test
Scores for Teachers Trained Under the
Massed Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15. Correlation Coefficients Between Summative
Status Scores and Component Mastery Test
Scores for All Teachers Trained Under
Massed and Distributed.Format . . . . . . .

16. Summary of Two Way ANOVA's for Component
Mastery Test Scores for Teachers and
Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17. Summary of One Way ANOVA's for Summative
Status Report Scores for Teachers Only . . .

18. Summary of Correlations Between Teachers'

Component Mastery Test and Summative
Status Report Scores . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page
. 83
. 84
. 85
. 90
. 91
. 91

 

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

1. A Specific Time Sequence for the Initial
Training 868810115 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 56

2. Training Follow-Up Schedule for Massed
and Distributed Training Program . . . . . . . . 57

ix

 

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

The responsibility for providing future physical
education services to handicapped students will be fulfilled
to a large extent by those professionals already employed by
public school districts. The constant increase in teacher
salaries during the preceding decade, coupled with the
corresponding rise in the number of available classroom
teachers and the decrease in available jobs, has resulted in
a cessation of the migrant teacher syndrome. As a result of
the current relatively stable nature of teacher retention
patterns, it is safe to assume that the majority of educa-
tors, who will be charged ultimately with providing services
in physical education to handicapped students, are already
members of the educational system (Howe, 1973; McCarty,
1973). Given the stability of teacher job placement, the
need is clear for contemporary inservice training that
Offers these teachers the opportunity for continued profes-
sional growth. This requirement is especially true when one

considers P. L. 94-142; the Education for All Handicapped

Children Act:

 

 

 

2
121a.382 Inservice training.
. . . (f) Each annual program plan must:

(1) Describe the process used in
determining the inservice training needs
of personnel engaged in the education of
handicapped children;

(2) Identify the areas in which
training is needed (such as individual-
ized education programs, non-discriminatory
testing, least restrictive environment,
procedural safeguards, and surrogate
parents);

(3) Specify the groups requiring
training (such as special teachers,
regular teachers, administrators, psycholo-
gists, speech language pathologists,
audiologists, physical education teachers,
therapeutic recreation specialists,
physical therapists, occupational thera-
pists, medical personnel, parents, volun-
teers, hearing officers, and surrogate
parents);

(4) Describe the content and nature
of the training for each area under
paragraph (f) (2) of this section;

(5) Describe how the training will
be provided in terms of (i) geographical
scope (such as statewide, regional, or
local), and (ii) staff training source
(such as college and university staffs,
state and local educational agency person-
nel, and non-agency personnel); . . .

The present state of the art in inservice education has
been described by Davis (1971, p. 39) as "the slum of
American education." Rubin (1971) attributes the failure of
inservice education to three causes: (1) teacher professional
growth is not taken seriously; (2) inservice education has

been poorly managed; and (3) it lacks any systematic

methodology. The latter reason can be interpreted to

 

 

 

 

3
include evaluation practices. At least one other survey
documented the lack of scientific evaluation of school
district inservice programs with regular class teachers
(Edelfelt and Johnson, 1975). Moody (1974) concurs with
Rubin and Davis by stating that research on inservice educa-
tion is scarce and that most practices are reported in "hazy
terms" or as local success stories, rather than in objective
terms.

Not only is there a dearth of statistically valid
research data in the traditional areas of inservice training,
but reportings become even more limited when investigating
the time distribution variable within inservice models. Most
discussions of training schedules were limited to subjective
commentary. Leaders in the field of inservice education have
stated, "First, there is no inherent merit in a particular
form, such as a workshop compared with a short institute, or
with a series of sessions distributed throughout the year"
(Taba, 1965, p. 468). Other authors have made several general
remarks on the topic of time distribution (Bass and Vaughn,
1965). In general, distributed practice was preferential to
a massed approach, especially with regard to motor learning
tasks of adults. Distributed practice was less advantageous,
however, when verbal learning and other complex skills were
considered.

The problems pertaining to inservice that need investi-
gation are many and varied (Rubin, 1978). No particular

order of investigation is superior to another and topics

 

4
must be addressed whenever and wherever possible within the
actual work setting. As a result, progress in the resolution
of these problems will be gradual (Rubin, 1978).

In spite of the recognized lack of data concerning the
effectiveness of various inservice approaches, several
crucial needs have been determined by both the architects
and consumers of inservice education. The requirement of a
field-based (on the job) training program with follow-up
sessions represents a primary need as expressed by teachers.
Several authors feel that since student change occurs in the
classroom, training should also be conducted in the field
(Katz, 1974; Williams, 1976).

The onset of the 1970's witnessed a firm commitment by
the United States Office of Education, Bureau of Education
for the Handicapped (BEH), to develop curriculum materials
for the mentally retarded. As a result of federal funding,
four major curriculum projects were developed to offer
replicable instructional materials for handicapped popula-
tions. The funds which were awarded by BEH to the Field
Service Unit in Physical Education and Recreation for the
Handicapped at Michigan State University, resulted in the
Production of the I CAN objective-based system with accompany-
ing instructional resource materials (see Appendix A for a
Short description of the I CAN system and materials). The I
CAN instructional system is the first set of replicable
physical education materials designed specifically for

mentally handicapped students. The primary emphasis in the

5
early stages of development was to focus on components
developed for trainable mentally impaired students (here-
after referred to as TMI students) 5-14 years of age. Sub-
sequent field testing and data gathering resulted in the
validation and classification of the I CAN system as a
physical education instructional demonstration program by
the Michigan Department of Education.

The means to implement a replicable instructional system
such as I CAN have been made possible by new advances in the
field of instructional design and technology. The concepts
that serve to undergird a replicable instructional program
(Wessel, 1975) generally include the ensuing elements:

1. Goals developed from a philosophy and a body of
knowledge which offer a basis for examining the contribu-
tions made to the quality of life by various types and
amounts of physical movement.

2. Performance objectives succinctly stated in a hier-
archy so as to operationalize the previously stated goals.

3. Student assessment procedures that relate directly
to the stated objectives.

4. Strategies and content that offer instruction based
on the stated objectives.

5. Content and procedures confirmed through formal
Program evaluation methods.

In response to the evident lack of programs in physical
education for the handicapped, the United States Congress

offered special attention to physical education as a direct

 

6

service area to be provided for all handicapped students
covered under the auspices of PL94-l42. This federal
legislation, also known as the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act of 1975, mandates a free appropriate public
education for all handicapped students, three through eighteen
years of age tar September 1, 1978, and three through
twenty-one years by September 1, 1980. This bill was signed
into law by President Ford on November 29, 1975 and is
currently extending and reshaping the basic constructs of
special education in America.

Physical education was included in the definition of
special education in the Federal Register of August 23, 1977,

Part II:

121a.14 Special education.

(a)(l) As used in this part, the
term "special education" means specially
designed instruction, at no cost to the
parent, to meet the unique needs of a
handicapped child, including classroom
instruction, instruction in physical
education, home instruction, and instruc-
tion in hospitals and institutions.

While PL94-l42 offers a clear mandate regarding the
right of handicapped students to take part in regular or
Specially designed physical education programs, this landmark
federal legislation fails to state the nature of the required
training needed by the professional who will actually
deliver the physical education services to the handicapped

students. As a result of the lack of specificity in the

regulations for PL94-l42, physical education inservice

 

 

 

 

7
training programs constructed to meet the requirements of

the federal statutes must be amenable to implementation
according to delivery system requirements of a given state.

When working with so called normal students, several
researchers have reported that classroom teachers are able to
deliver a physical education program, equal in quality to a
program taught by a physical education specialist (Ross,
1960; Scott, 1967). Similar results were reported on selected
primary motor skill objectives when comparing classroom-
based teachers to physical education specialists on their
ability to implement a systematic replicable approach to
physical education with mentally handicapped students
(Vogel, 1974; Wessel, 1977).

Systematic methodology in planning, implementing and
evaluating the effectiveness of inservice training is needed
if teachers are to implement replicable programs as intended
by their developers. Locating such systematic procedures,
however, offers the staff development personnel an arduous
chore.

This study was an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness
0f two types of field based inservice programs to train
Personnel to replicate an objective based instructional

System (I CAN).

Statement of the Problem

 

 

It was the purpose of this investigation to determine

the effects of two modes of field—based inservice training

 

 

8
for teachers and teacher consultants implementing an objective
based instructional system (I CAN) with Trainably Mentally
Impaired (TMI) students five through fourteen years. The
effects were measured by a knowledge test and a teacher
implementation skills report. The investigation was designed
to provide data about the following hypotheses:

1. There are no differences between the knowledge
levels of participants (teachers and teacher consultants)
trained under a massed field-based training schedule (two
consecutive one-day sessions within a total sixteen week
training program) and participants trained under a distributed
field-based schedule (one day followed by two, one-half day
sessions offered the second and fourth weeks of an identical
sixteen week field-based training schedule).

2. There are no differences in the level of teacher
implementation when trained under a sixteen week massed or
distributed field-based training schedule with follow-up
support by teacher consultants.

3. There are no correlations between the teachers'
knowledge of the I CAN objective-based instructional system
and their ability to implement the system as intended.

In addition, data were obtained from all participants in
response to a post-training questionnaire concerning:

a. Inservice training needs;

b. A school-based demonstration/training center;

c. Follow-up support in the classroom;

d. The field-based implementation system in the

 

 

classroom.

Scope of the Study

 

The results of the research offers data on two modes of
field-based inservice training for a period of sixteen
weeks. The participants were eighteen teachers, one class
per teacher, and thirteen teacher consultants charged with
delivering physical education services to their trainable
mentally impaired students in thirteen districts in Michigan.
Each teacher agreed to implement five physical education
objectives with their students during a period of sixteen
weeks for a total of seventy minutes per week per class.
Teacher consultants also agreed to implement a standardized
follow-up schedule with their respective teachers. The
initial instruction of the teachers and teacher consultants
occured at five school-based demonstration/training sites
located in Michigan (see Appendix B for site locations).
Instruction was given by staff members of the Field Service
Unit in Physical Education and Recreation for the Handicapped
at Michigan State. Each trainer used identical instructional
materials, audiovisual aids and time schedules for each
training component. The knowledge level of all participants
(teachers and teacher consultants) and the implementation
skills of the teachers were measured at the end of the
sixteen week training period. The relationship between a
teacher's knowledge level and implementation skills was

determined. Within one week of the completion of the sixteen

 

10
week training period, a post-training questionnaire was

completed for each participant.

Limitations of the Study

 

 

There are several elements within this research study
which preclude generalization beyond the population and
conditions of this investigation.

1. Subjects were selected in accord with certain
requirements which violated a completely random sampling'
procedure; i.e., only those who volunteered and only those
who had received no prior training and had no prior knowledge
of the I CAN objective-based instructional system were
included.

2. Participants were not assigned to mass or distri-
buted training sequences on a random basis. It was necessary
to offer either massed or distributed training at any of the
five school-based demonstration training sites used in this
study.

3. It was necessary to use different trainers at
different training sites. Although trainers did not partici-
pate equally in massed or distributed training, follow-up
procedures were used to control variables of trainer-trainee
interactions.

4. The knowledge skills test was not monitored by the
Field Service Unit trainers during its completion by the
participants. The instructions requested that participants

refrain from use of notes or other materials. The procedures

 

 

11
were agreed upon by all participants.
5. The possible effects of teacher consultant—teacher
interaction during the implementation phase of the study

may be a confounding factor on the outcome of the study.

Definition of Terms

 

Component Mastery Test - This is a knowledge test
measuring each participant's understanding of the five
components of the I CAN implementation system (assessing,
prescribing, teaching, evaluating, planning).

Field Based Training - An objective based, inservice
teacher training program incorporating:

1. A school-based demonstration/training center
for initial instruction;

2. Teachers implementing selected physical educa-
tion program objectives at their school site over a
sixteen week time schedule with a teacher consultant
providing follow-up support in each teacher's class
setting;

3. The use of self-monitor forms for teachers and
teacher consultants that are keyed to the components of
the teacher implementation model: assess, prescribe,
teach, evaluate and plan.

Massed Training - That portion of the field based
training program in which a total of twelve hours of instruc-
tion was completed in two consecutive days at the school-

based demonstration/training site and in which the sixteen

 

 

12
week implementation schedule was completed at the teacher and
teacher consultant's school site.

Distributed Training - That portion of the field based
training program in which a total of twelve hours of training
was completed in an initial six hour session, followed by two
three-hour sessions given during the second and fourth week
of the sixteen week implementation schedule completed at the
teacher's and teacher consultant's school based demonstra—
tion/training center.

Field Service Unit Staff - Members of the Field Service
Unit (FSU) in Physical Education and Recreation for the
Handicapped at Michigan State University, who were trained
and certified to conduct the I CAN inservice training proqram.

Inservice Training - That portion of an educator's
training that occurs after the completion of a professional
preparation proqram and concurrent with professional employ-
ment.

Objective-Based Instructional System - An instructional
program which uses objectives to organize, plan, assess,
prescribe and evaluate a program in terms of student learn-
ing gains.

Performance Objective - A statement of expected student
motor skill behavior expressed in terms which describe an
observable behavior that a student should be able to do upon
completion of instruction.

Post-Training Questionnaire - An eleven item instrument

created to determine participant response on the major

 

 

13
aspects of the study: need for training; use of the school-
based demonstration/training centers; and follow-up support
in the classroom.

School Site - The location or school where each teacher
conducted the sixteen week implementation program with their
students.

Special Education Teacher - An educator, certified in
special education as a teacher of the mentally impaired, who
delivers instruction in physical education.

Summative Status Report - An evaluation form consisting
of nineteen items which was used to measure the degree of
implementation of the I CAN system components by each
teacher who received training in the study.

Teacher Consultant (TC) - A professional educator whose
duties include the provision of inservice training to special
education teachers of the mentally retarded in accord with
the State of Michigan regulations.

School-Based Demonstration/Training Center - A center
based day school program for trainable mentally impaired
students using the I CAN system where the initial massed and
distributed training sessions of the inservice program
occurred.

Trainable Mentally Impaired (TMI) - A student, in accord
with the State of Michigan regulations, classified by an
educational planning and placement committee as moderately
mentally retarded with:

a. a developmental rate approximately three to

 

14
four and one-half standard deviations below the mean,
as determined through intellectual assessment.
b. a lack of development, primarily in the cog-
nitive domain.
c. an unsatisfactory school performance not based

on social, economic or cultural background.

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

When reviewing information relevant to inservice educa-
tion published during the past two decades, one is over-
whelmed by the plethora of evaluative data generated by
professional educators and others concerned with teacher
education. The total concept of inservice training is
identified as a concern in many areas of education.

Chapter Two is divided into two sections. Section one
provides an overview of inservice constructs, history,
various inservice needs and models, and research on inservice
training. Section two is a review of pertinent research
concerning the distribution of time as a factor in knowledge
acquisition and retention. A summary is presented at the

end of Chapter Two.

Inservice Training

The literature pertaining to inservice education offers
one a broad yet shallow overview of the current status of
post-graduate teacher training in the United States. Numer-
ous areas of concern are addressed but little is resolved.

15

 

16
For the purposes of this section, the discussion will focus
on: inservice constructs, inservice: a historical perspective,
inservice needs and models, governing inservice education,

and research and development.

Inservice Constructs

 

When we consider the likely sources of an educator's
information about teaching, we must readily admit that the
most prominent origin of that knowledge is the act of
teaching. Educators are advanced on the district pay scale
in accord with their years of teaching experience, implying
that the act of teaching increases a teacher's skill and
knowledge. Therefore, from one point of View, the experience
of teaching offers a large contribution to inservice train-
ing (Jackson, 1971). In order to focus the definition of
inservice sharpenyone must be aware that there is no
specific time when a person starts or ceases being a teacher.
As a result there is no such person as the "consummate"
teacher (Jackson, 1971).

As a concept, inservice education may well involve a
measure of continuing education.

As long as knowledge about education con-
t1nues to increase and new techniques and
devices are contrived, there will be some-
thing new for the teacher to learn regard-
less of his degree or years of experience.
The continuum of preparation can there-

fore cover the teacher's entire career
(Smith, 1969, p. 151).

Broudy (1978) has suggested that the typical

 

l7
undergraduate teacher preparation program may be likened to
the manufacture of automobiles where immediately after
assembly, a trip to the mechanic is often required to make
things right.

In order to develop a working definition of inservice
education for this particular study, it was critical to limit
the broad concept of inservice by differentiating programmatic
staff development efforts from individual attempts at
professional growth. The need for such individual growth is
apparent; however, for the purpose of this study it is
necessary to define inservice education as "planned activities
for the instructional improvement of professional staff
members."

As is the case with continuing education, the litera-
ture on inservice teacher education contains specialized
terminology, some of which is used frequently and inter-
changeably when referring to inservice teacher education,
namely; staff development, professional development, inser-
vice education, inservice training, and growth inservice
activity.

The purpose of inservice education is built upon a
foundation of planned change which is implemented in an
organizational context. As a result, planned change is put
into effect through personnel development.

A schematic design of the conceptual framework for in-

service education follows: (Harris and Bessent, 1969,

p. 15)

 

18

THE FORMAL ORGANIZATION

J/ _________

Organiigtional Organilational
Maintenance Change|
Unplanjgd Change Plannei Change
PhysiciI Ru e Strugtural Funcaional Personiel
Change Change Change Change Change|
Replacifient Reassignment Inserv1ce
Education

Examining the diagram from the bottom up, inservice

education may be defined as:

Inservice:

... the one means of instituting personnel
growth, with personnel change one of
several types of planned organization
revision. Such alteration may be unplanned
or planned, and a formal entity such as a
school district may implement both main-
tenance and change functions. Other
students of inservice education interpret
its purpose as that of promoting the on-
going improvement of all professionals of
a school system. The teacher's perspective
as to the purpose of perennial education
is to remediate pre-service training
shortcomings, advance teaching skills, and
update the practitioner's subject matter
knowledge. The mission of inservice
education is carried to a logical conclu-
sion when one considers the ultimate
intent being to increase student learning
through the alteration of teacher conduct
(Harris and Bessent, 1969, pp. 16-17).

A Historical Perspective

The following section traces the history of inservice

education from its earliest days to our present times. By

conducting an historical review of inservice education in

 

 

 

 

19
America, one is able to comprehend how inservice education
evolved to its present status. A chronological survey of
inservice education reflects the changes and growth of the
teaching profession in the United States, and leads one to a
critical review of current inservice education efforts.

As a result of several factors, an historical review of
inservice education for teachers is somewhat difficult to
pursue. Complications evolve as an outgrowth of the uneven
development of inservice education among and within indivi-
dual states. Such disparity must be recognized when one
considers the power of each state to determine its own
educational policy in meeting the needs of both rural and
urban school districts.

Early accounts of inservice education described it as
a method for providing basic skills to teachers who, in
most cases, possessed something less than a college degree.
With the arrival of the 1860's the inservice education concept
embodied the principles of remedial education. Training was
directed at educators who demonstrated an interest relevant
to their professional knowledge and was done primarily to
‘upgrade teacher competencies in teaching students reading,
vwriting and numbers (Richey, 1957).

During the period between the establish-
ment of state systems of public education
and the recovery from the effects of the
Civil War, the public schools, as a whole,
were staffed by probably the most in-
different, incompetent, and poorly edu-

cated teachers in the history of American
education (Richey, 1957, p. 37).

 

 

 

20
The quality of education in America was in such a state of
mediocrity that Moffitt (1965), cites Horace Mann's Sixth

Annual Report (1843) as proclaiming that hundreds of public

 

schools were terminated due to grossly incompetent teachers.
The institutes or short courses of the 1860's through 1880's,
were designed to bring a teacher's level of knowledge and
tutelage skill to a position commensurate with general
expectancies for teachers of that era.

Inservice education of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries was implemented during summer sessions
at various state normal schools throughout America. These
programs were much more cosmopolitan than the rural short
courses implemented previously, and therefore they offered a
more diverse faculty from which the teachers could choose.

Even though American education of the 1870's to the
1920's continued to stress the importance of content and
class discipline, the ideas and philosophies of several
progressive educators and scientists began to exert influence.
Leading contemporary thinkers such as Charles Darwin and
John Dewey made an obvious imprint on the more progressive
outspoken teachers conducting the summer institutes.
JFrederick Burke of San Francisco Normal College dared to go
:30 far as to lecture on the degree of individual student
(iifferences, and developed a plan in a demonstration school

Vihich included a curriculum and procedures for individualiz-
-iJag instruction. The essential purpose of these institutes

Eirmd summer sessions was to offer teachers assistance in

 

 

21
dealing with such changes in education (Tyler, 1971).

The period between the end of World War I and the Great
Depression produced early quantitative standards for teacher
certification. The primary role of inservice education was
to eliminate deficiencies in degree requirements for the
many classroom teachers who did not possess an undergraduate
degree. This pervasive movement forced college professors to
offer old courses not previously taken by uncertified
teachers rather than planning new progressive classes
(Tyler, 1971).

The onset of America's Great Depression was accompanied
by a sharp rise in school enrollments. This was particularly
true at the secondary level where students who previously
could leave school for a job no longer enjoyed an employment
alternative. Some of these high school students had no
interest in further education, and low morale was prevalent.
This situation forced educators to re-examine their curricula
and teaching procedures, and offer innovative approaches
through inservice education of teachers.

The 1930's also witnessed a growth in the role colleges
aand universities assumed in implementing models of inservice

eniucation. An eight year study commenced in 1933 involved a

vvcxrking relationship between thirty local school districts
Ei11<3 several universities with the intent to develop innova—
tive educational programs. This proto-type of joint
u1'1Ji-‘Jersity-local school district involvement was duplicated

(3'1 as regional basis in the southern United States and in

 

 

 

22
Michigan. The American Council on Education aided in the
selection of the various universities, who in turn updated
both preservice and inservice teacher education (Tyler, 1971).

The post World War II era witnessed another change in
the function of inservice education in America. The rapid
increase in the nation's live birthrate of the late 1940's
resulted in a severe shortage of qualified teachers during
the 1950's. This was particularly true at the elementary
school level. The function of inservice education in the
time of our country's acute teacher shortage was to serve as
an expeditious method of certifying elementary level public
school teachers. Short courses and workshops once again were
offering knowledge in basic teaching methodology.

If the end of the 1960's saw a filling of teacher ranks
in the United States, the early and middle years of the
seventies witnessed a swelling of these once depleted ranks
of professional educators. Once again, designers of inser-
vice programs could turn away from remedial topics, and plan
learning experiences for continual professional growth to
fit the needs of educators in the field. Topics such as
accountability, systematic approaches to education, and
federal and state mandates for free appropriate public edu-
<2ation for all handicapped students became major themes for
<2urrent inservice education programs in the 1970's.

Contemporary inservice teacher education has been
Ciescribed by many consumers and producers as being in a

EState of turmoil and confusion. A closer inspection of the

 

 

23
current status of inservice education offers insight into
several of the causes for the turmoil.

In its present form, inservice teacher education is
implemented by a vast and complicated organization. Even
though there is much dissatisfaction with inservice educa-
tion and many non-professionals and professionals offer in-
service education benign neglect, it does exist in an exten-
sive form (Joyce, et a1, 1976). Rubin (1971, pp. 245, 220)
describes inservice "as having been a lost cause," and as
having been a great void despite the notion "that teachers
must continually upgrade skills." The lack of responsiveness
to teacher change byuniversities and colleges is evident by
the random manner in which inservice education has grown
during the last fifty years. While the typical teacher has
evolved from a person with minimal training to a fully
certified professional, the aim of inservice is still in
many cases one of remediation.

Teacher dissatisfaction concerning their inservice
experiences may be based on several assumptions. While most
teachers have been exposed to a variety of attempts to alter
their attitudes or professional skills, many of these
inservice offerings have not met the teachers' needs. Much
<3f the inservice assistance has proven impractical, and the
astimulus for attendance was instigated at the supervisory or
Eiuthority level (Lippet and Fox, 1971).

The lack of expertise in implementing inservice educa-

tzion is evident in the attempts that have been made to

 

 

24
execute a large scale, coordinated inservice strategy. This
failure results from a lack of commonality in teacher
education programs coupled with numerous and diverse univer-
sity and field based personnel serving as inservice providers
(Fisher, 1971; Joyce, Howey, and Yarger, 1976). Attempts are
being made, however, to provide funding for comprehensive
development projects in inservice training for special and
regular educational personnel by the Bureau of Education for
the Handicapped. An example of this funding pattern is the
Evaluation Training Consortium established at Western
Michigan University to provide project directors with train-
ing in planning and implementing the evaluation strategies
for training programs. A National Inservice Network (1979)
has also been established to identify and disseminate
effective practices in inservice education.

When comparing the present status of inservice educa-
tion with the historical aspects, several generalizations can
be offered. The remediation of certification shortcomings
was given major attention in programming inservice education
through the 1960's. In the 1970's, the major purpose for
inservice education was focused on the dissemination of new
and innovative educational programs (Tyler, 1971). The
continued growth of inservice teacher education programs is
clearly emerging for the 1980's as individual states imple-
ment full service programs for all handicapped children and

youth.

 

 

25

Inservice Models and Needs

 

The various methods of presenting inservice programs
form the basis for identifying contemporary needs of the
producers of inservice education. As a result of numerous
inservice experiences, those closely involved with both offer-
ing and receiving training have identified typical implementa-
tion models and their shortcomings.

Administrative approaches used by school districts to
implement inservice programs may be subdivided into three
major categories:

i l. Centralized Approach - Inservice development is
devised and administered from the central office.

2. Decentralized Approach - The central office assumes
minimal control, and inservice is the responsibility of each
school within the district.

3. Centrally Co-ordinated Approach - This design
features minimal central office domination. Selection of
topics and presenters is under the control of the individual
schools, however, the central office staff completes the
logistical arrangements (Asher, 1967).

The implementation of a standardized format as a problem
solving approach is commonplace throughout the history of
education. During the decade of the sixties, educational
change was seen as a series of sequential steps progressing
from abstract theory through research, development, diffusion,
implementation, and evaluation. The teacher or teacher

Ieducator was generally considered a passive customer

 

 

26
(Atkins and Raths, 1978).

Within a few short years, it became apparent that
change in education was not going to materialize as a result
of applying the aforementioned format. Such a discrepancy
may be documented when we consider the implementation of a
standardized format in several non-educational areas.
Pharmaceutical firms conduct research on various drugs.

When medication is found to be effective, drug detail men
carry the news to physicians in the field. The physicians
try to match symptoms with treatment and effects as portrayed
by the company detail people. Another example, the exten-
sion agent model, as used quite successfully in agriculture,
also appeared attractive to educators during the 1960's.
This information dissemination pattern entails a trouble
shooting approach. Whereas drug detail men inform medical
professionals about new medications, the farm extension
agent produced a diagnosis and a prescription. The result of
the extension agent's effort was measured in terms of crop
production, while drug effectiveness was measured by patient
response. Neither method measured up to expectations when
used in an educational setting. The primary reason being
that few educators can agree as to what observable criteria
should be applied to measure success.

For a variety of reasons, the methods do

not seem to work well when applied to the

field of education. The teacher does not

seem to be interested in 'yield' in quite

the same way as the farmer. Educational

'treatments' do not seem as reliable as
therapeutic approaches in medicine. Some

 

 

27

observers, in retrospective analysis,

point out that incentive systems differ for

teachers as compared with farmers or

physicians. They point out, also, that

teachers, in effect, have considerable

latitude since the practice of one is not

compared readily to the practice of

another (Atkins and Raths, 1978, p. 229).

Despite the fact that numerous authors have offered
the results of surveys supplemented with personal preference,
no one inservice education model has emerged as superior.
While several planners state the need for a continuity based
program, Taba (1965) states there is no inherent merit in
any particular form of presentation. The controversy
concerning inservice models is further exemplified by the
following reports. While McCracken (1968) favored a year-
long approach, another survey of 754 teachers and inservice
leaders resulted in a report terming protracted training as
impractical (Ingersoll, 1975). While some educators have
advocated various well-defined models, other professionals
have reported attempts to implement a flexible inservice
approach to meet the unique needs of individual teachers
(Feaster and Nutter, 1977).
The previously discussed inservice methodologies reveal

a conglomerate of approaches for the delivery of inservice
education. The format for a contemporary inservice experience
may range from personal interviews, single lectures, short
weekend courses, televised or filmed presentations, to on-

site practicums and hands-on experiences through an almost

infinite variety of formats.

 

28

The great majority of the aforementioned inservice
schemes are completely void of any objective criteria to
substantiate their effectiveness (NEA Report, 1967; Monahan,
1970). A nationwide survey of 733 administrators and teachers
was conducted by the National Education Association during
1967 to determine the current practices and trends in
inservice education. For the purpose of this study, the
most important finding concerning the present status of in-
service was that nearly all training programs featured
subjective evaluations. Therefore, a lack of statistical
description was evident in most programs. In a similar
study, an investigator reported that an evaluation was com-
pleted for more than seventy-five percent of the workshops
surveyed (Asher, 1967). However, thirty-eight percent of
these evaluations were oral reactions and another twenty
percent were unsigned questionnaire responses.

The need to determine the success of teacher inservice
education through a measure of instructor implementation has
been documented (Brimm and Tollet, 1974). Furthermore, the
observation of teacher behavior has been demonstrated as
being an effective method of inservice evaluation (Overline,
1972).

The need for inservice planners to make a commitment to
the writing of objectives has been documented (Tarr, 1969).
A further conclusion is that a lack of written objectives
results in the absence of workshop evaluation data (Monahan

and Miller, 1970). Teacher participants also have expressed

29
the desire to have skills and materials presented
that they can implement at once in their respective teaching
situations (Turner, 1970). Similarly, other teacher parti-
cipants have demonstrated a strong preference for such
material to be presented at the local school level to include
field based demonstration centers (Pane, 1973). It was also
demonstrated that teachers need consultant services to
provide follow-up assistance after inservice programs (Sobel,
1971; Feinburg, 1974). A similar need has been expressed by
teachers involved in classroom based training which included
long term follow-up (McCracken, 1968; Williams, 1976).
Conversely, university staff members, as reported in one
study, preferred that the inservice education take place on

campus (Jaquith, 1973).

Governing Inservice Education

 

“The governance system of inservice education has been
described as the decision making framework which gives
credibility to inservice and governs its activities (Joyce,
Howey and Yarger, 1976).

The administration of inservice education, which was at
one time the domain of central office administrators and
university staff, has been decentralized. In contemporary
education, inservice is subject to several forms and numerous
levels of governance. When considering governance, we should
be aware of three phases in the collaborative efforts of
inservice teacher education: (1) the authority to create and

maintain an inservice unit or center, (2) the authority to

30
govern a center, and (3) the governance of the individual
teacher's relationship to a unit or center (Joyce, Howey and
Yarger, 1976).

The federal government has assumed an increased support
role for inservice education. Anyone familiar with PL 94-142,
the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, is aware of
the commitment made in that law for inservice education.
When considering the federal mandates for a comprehensive
system of personnel development to be in effect for all
states, there is strong argument for the federal government
assuming part of the financial burden.

State and federal governments play a similar role in
the management of inservice education through financial
support. Both levels of control have been active in many
areas of teacher education for several decades. The future
posture of the state government concerning inservice manage-
ment is viewed by some educators as being more protrusive.
Other educators view a conflict between the executive branch
and the legislative arm of state government (Atkin, 1973).
At least one other author is of the opinion that the state
must allow local districts to carry out their own programs
(Drummond, 1973).

The basis of an inservice network is built upon local
financial support and control in conjunction with teacher
needs. The role of the local district involving the duties
and control of inservice education is in the midst of change.

Such change is the result of teacher union demands and the

31

changing role of the school administrator.

Research and Development

 

The dearth of valid research, coupled with the extensive
demands made on present inservice systems, results in the
need for an expanded agenda for further investigation. The
plight of contemporary inservice education is of such magni-
tude and intricacy that a definitive sOlution is extremely
unlikely. Present conditions dictate the implementation of
research and development techniques to upgrade the status of
inservice education. A search of the pertinent literature
for inservice education reveals a lack of meaningful data.
This is particularly true for the time period prior to the
early 1970's. The majority of research studies previous to
1970 focused on two topics: teacher Opinions of inservice
techniques and inservice practices of local school districts.

Several conclusions were stated in a study which was
designed to determine the type of program which most nearly
achieved the aims of inservice education in science (White,
1976). The following three programs were implemented:

(1) a six credit hour graduate course taught on campus;

(2) a one week pre-school year workshOp combined with monthly
follow-up visits; (3) a series of eleven one-half day work-
shops scheduled throughout the school year, with release time
provided for all attendees. The investigator demonstrated
that teacher attitude improves less than teacher knowledge,
with the campus-based model producing the least effective

change of the three formats tested. It also was demonstrated

32
that using the curriculum with students in a field-based
setting was a positive factor in attitude formation. The
pre-school year workshop was the preferred model for teacher
improvement in the knowledge of science materials.

The results of a study designed to measure the effects
of a simulation experience within an inservice program as it
effects teacher assessment were reported by Kasden and Kelly
(1969). The teachers (N = 93) were judged on their ability
to select proper student reading levels. The teachers were
assigned randomly to one of the following three groups:
group one was given inservice training prior to the start of
the school year; group two was given a series of five two-
hour training sessions during the school year; and group
three was the control group. After selecting one student
from each teacher's class, the authors determined that any
type of simulation training must be completed prior to the
school year and before students are assigned to a reading
group. This organizational structure may offer support to a
massed training approach when using simulation activities.
The feasibility of using a specific research design to
evaluate teacher inservice training also was claimed.

Another investigator has reported that teachers are not
only amenable to taking part in inservice research, but that
they are not naturally resistant to innovative ideas,
especially when given sufficient time to effect an educational
change (Rubin, 1969). The timing of a particular inservice

experience also must be considered (Vaughn, 1975).

33

Educational change can be implemented in the rather
brief period of three weeks as reported by Scharles (1971).
Twelve special education teachers in the Washington, D. C.
area were trained in several affective content areas as well
as in the knowledge of learning disabilities. The results
of an analysis of variance measurement were calculated
(04== .05) on a pre-workshop test, a post-workshop quiz,
and a three month follow-up test. The investigator reported
no significant gain in the affective areas under study, but
significance was claimed for the cognitive knowledge of
learning disabilities.

A study conducted under the auspices of the Florida
Department of Education analyzed ninety-seven studies of
continuing inservice teacher education (Lawrence, 1974). A
result of the Florida study was a determination that those
programs aimed at improving attitude were the least effective
programs. The inservice offerings that stressed performance
gains were the second most effective programs, and those
programs which were knowledge-based were found to be the
most effective. Lawrence (1974) is of the opinion that, as
a result of past deficiencies, evaluation is the single most
important component of contemporary inservice programming.
Not only is evaluation critical for determining program
success, but proper evaluation is needed to assess cost
effectiveness. Calculating a cost effective factor provides
a report of monies spent in relation to the generated

product, thereby offering a justification for future

34
expenditures.
An exhaustive search of the inservice literature showed
that relatively few of the more than 2,000 studies suggested

any comprehensive guidelines (Nicholson, 1976).

The majority of reports and articles are on
the lowest level of generality; they are
expository descriptions, usually uncritical
of specific existing or completed inservice
projects. Less frequent are works of a
higher order of generality. These include
surveys covering several projects; pieces

of educational research; directories and
guidebooks on reading, workshops, institutes,
or consultants; catalogs of teacher train-
ing products; and proposed models on
suggestions for future inservice. On the
most rarified level are found the few works
that attempt to deal with the subject of
inservice teacher education as a whole:
reviews of literature or research and a few
other comprehensive studies (Nicholson, 1976,
P- 24).

Numerous authorities have called for research beyond the
questionnaire/survey stage of development; paradoxically
these same leaders have apparently failed to produce the
essential data. Three possible errors in judgment and
planning that lead to the current status of inservice educa-

tion are delineated (Turner, 1978):

One, the substance of inservice programs
has not always reflected the true con-
cerns of teachers; two, the retraining
activities have been excessively short-
term, the evaluations of the activities
have relied predominantly upon opinion,
with little attention to tangible evi-
dence of teacher growth, pupil achievement
and undesirable side effects (Turner, 1978,
pp. 262-263).

35

Massed Versus Distributed Practice:
A Report gbeelevant Research

 

The second section of the literature review is devoted
to a discussion of research on massed and distributed
practice for knowledge acquisition and retention. The
material presented in this section is organized under the
following topics: early research, reviewing, reminiscence,
rehearsal, retention, repetition, interference and meaning-

ful versus non-meaningful material.

Early Research

 

The issue as to which of the methods, massed or dis-
tributed practice, provides the greater learning environment
has been debated and tested for centuries. Accounts of this
controversy can be traced to the seventeenth century when
Sir Francis Bacon (1620) alluded to the problem by stating:
"If you read anything over twenty times you will not learn it
by heart so easily as if you were to read it only ten, trying
to repeat it between whiles, and when memory failed look at
the book" (Bacon, 1620, p. 490).

However, the majority of the reported research in
American education was conducted during the early part of the
twentieth century. The research reports of this time frame
share a common theme. As rigorous statistical techniques
were unknown, data treatment and research design were less
than robust. Despite this shortcoming concerning data
analysis and research design, the importance of the early

research is recognized. Therefore, a brief summation of

36
studies completed prior to 1925 serves to introduce this
section of the review of literature.

The prototype for much of this early research is a study
completed by Jost (1897). In this study, twelve essentially
random lists of syllables were assembled, with six lists
being assigned to distributed practice and six to massed
learning. The twelve lists were learned with varying
intervals over a seven day period by one subject. Seven
differently arranged sets of the six distributed and six
massed lists were learned over a five month period by the
same subject. Within the limitations of a study with only
one subject, and a high degree of list interference, the
spaced method was reported as being superior to the massed
method. A further note of interest concerning the Jost study
was a control technique implemented by the experimenter to
regulate fatigue. Jost ran a series of the syllable lists in
which a number of repetitions of other non-related materials
were completed by subjects in the distributed group. As a
result, the total repetitions for each group or person were
equal for each learning session. Jost reported that the dis-
tributed group persisted in its superiority over the massed
group. The results obtained by Jost were confirmed in a study
conducted on 203 undergraduate students engaged in the
addition of mathematics problems (Reed, 1924).

An extensive study was completed to determine if results
obtained for nonsense material agreed with results obtained

for meaningful material (Austin, 1925). The author used

37
herself and five fellow faculty members and graduate students
plus 185 undergraduate psychology students at the University
of Michigan for subjects. All subjects studied material
they were interested in, yet unfamiliar with. Faculty and
graduate students participated for at least one year, and
undergraduate student involvement lasted less than one year.
All testing was completed in time spans ranging from two
hours up to six weeks after the original study of the material
as a test for immediate recall and retention. The first
series of tests revealed that the distributed model was
preferable to the massed model especially for periods of
seven, ten and fourteen days of learning and practice. The
distributed model was about as effective as the massed model
for immediate recall. In a second series of experiments with
the researcher and her five colleagues, Austin attempted to
determine the effects on retention when testing was done
after a comparatively long interval between learning and
testing. Ten experiments were conducted with each of the six
subjects. The massed study consisted of five repetitions in
one day with the distributed practice involving one
repetition per day for five days. Testing was conducted
after one day, two weeks, and one month for a total of sixty
tests. Each test used free recall and specific questions,
and resulted in a high degree of consistency among subjects
in their scores. The distributed scores were approximately
three times higher than the massed scores on the free recall

questions, but less than twice as high for the specific

38

questions. Forgetting occurred rapidly for both groups when
they were tested up to two weeks after the learning occurred,
then it leveled off for each model. Specific questions
continually elicited more responses than free recall.

Another study which attempted to measure the effects of
massed and distributed practice produced mixed results when
using meaningful material (Gordon, 1925). In this research,
297 psychology students at the University of California,
Los Angeles, were divided into four separate groups, with
two assigned to each training regimen. The result of the
study was that massed reading was superior for immediate
recall, and spaced reading was superior for delayed recall.

Several other early researchers reported on the efficacy
of the length of a learning task as a predictor of the
superiority of either massed or distributed training. A
study on the learning of nonsense syllables under massed and
distributed practice was conducted by Lyon (1914). It was
concluded that as the length of the list was increased,
distributed practice produced an increasing advantage. In
contrast to the results claimed by Lyon, a later study
recommends the partitioning of longer units of learning,
concommitantly increasing the advantage of massed learning
over distributed learning (Pechstein, 1921). The author
expressed the Opinion that because connection of parts is
more easily learned under massed conditions than under
distributed conditions, such a method is more economical.

The studies cited in this section of the review are

39
representative of the available literature prior to 1925.
They offer data leading to the early conclusion that the
results of distributed learning usually exceeded those of
massed learning when considering acquisition and retention

of both meaningful and non-meaningful material.

The Effects of Reviewing

 

 

At least one attempt was reported in the literature of
an effort to determine the relationship between the timing of
a review and the administration of a test (Peterson, et al.,
1935). Using a specially prepared six page piece of material,
it was found that a reading review done seven days after
the learning exercise was as effective as a reading review
done two or three days after the original lesson. Data
were gathered by administering retention tests to each group
ten and twenty-one days after the original learning. Similar
results were reported with reviews one and nine days after
the original learning. This study concluded with the state-
ment that the time interval between reviewing and testing

for retention was not important.

The Effects gpreminiscence

 

 

The phenomenon of reminiscence has drawn the interest
of numerous psychological investigators. Four studies of
concern are reported herein. A study was completed on the
effects of reminiscence, which was defined as the improvement
in memory occurring after a specific time interval without a

formal review or relearning of specified information

40
(McGeoch, 1937). Reminiscence occurs independent of inten-
tional review in a free recall format. After studying 605
students, nine through eleven years of age, McGeoch concluded
that reminiscence was much more prevalent than it was
originally thought to be by most students of learning.
McGeoch also determined that reminiscence is established
independent of immediate recall, and that factors such as
age, sex, intelligence, and familiarity with materials do not
effect reminiscence in any predictable fashion. Clarifica-
tion of the work completed by McGeoch is offered by Ward
(1937). In this study, support was given to the theory that
distributed practice and reminiscence were minimally dis-
crepant. The two concepts became almost continuous in terms
of experimental operations with the only difference being
that a group under a distributed practice format received
multiple interventions, with reminiscence involving a
single rest interval. A similar, although weaker relation-
ship, was reported by Underwood (1961). One other investi-
gator conducted a study on reminiscence with nonsense
syllables under massed and distributed learning conditions
(Hovland, 1938). The reminiscence phenomenon was verified by
having thirty-two subjects learn sixteen lists of syllables
arranged in random order. The subjects who learned their
lists under the distributed schedule were given a two minute
rest between learning and relearning, while the massed format
contained no intermission in the schedule. While recall and

relearning were greater for the distributed group, pronounced

41
reminiscence was observed after massed practice. Hovland
discounted fatigue as the cause of reminiscence because the
total learning time was brief, and the rest period was only
two minutes in duration. Several of the previously discussed
studies lead this investigator to believe that reminiscence
is a verifiable factor that tends to improve the scores of

subjects trained under massed learning conditions.

The Effects 9f Rehearsal

 

 

Other researchers have offered advice for the control
of rehearsal, a second concept which is inherent in a massed
versus a distributed learning structure (Dore and Hilgard,
1928). Rehearsal may be considered as returning one or more
times to the presented material for further study on a formal
basis. The investigators advise that the control of rehearsal
is maximized when all groups are given equal amounts of
formal instruction time. It was rationalized that even if
the number of learning periods is different between groups,
rehearsal cannot be any more effective than direct instruc-
tion when the total instruction time is constant.

Other studies of rehearsal, as it affects learning,
produced mixed results. One researcher concluded that a
linear relationship exists between the amount of rehearsal
and the magnitude of the test scores (Kimble, 1949).
Conversely, other investigators have found an irregular
relationship between rehearsal, rest periods and test
scores (Hardy, 1930; Rohrer, 1949). As a result of the

reported research, one can conclude that the effects of

42
rehearsal are mixed, with the distinct possibility that
equal amounts of instructional time for massed and distri—

buted groups will control this for variable.

The Effects of Retention

 

 

The various methods of determining information retention
under learning models such as massed or distributed were
discussed by Davis and Moore (1935). The following three
methods of retention measurement were offered for considera-

tion: (1) relearning, which involves learning material to

 

the point of errorless reproduction, leaving the material,
and then after a period of time, relearning the information
to the level of original mastery; (2) recall, the amount of
material produced by a given stimulus that is based on the

original learning; (3) recognition, where relevant items are

 

provided, and the subject must identify those which have
been experienced personally. This article concluded by
advocating that tests be devised to evaluate learning by
using recall and recognition.

Several conclusions of interest concerning a longitudinal
study on retention were reported by Bumstead (1940). While
serving as the only subject between 1915 and 1935, Bumstead

memorized 1,000 lines of Milton's Paradise Lost and 1,400

 

lines from the Bible. It was discovered that: (1) the longer
the interval between readings, the shorter the study time
needed and the longer the total elapsed learning time

needed; (2) when a given passage is divided into portions to

be learned concurrently, the smaller the parts, the shorter

43
the actual study time needed and the shorter the total
elapsed learning time needed. The result of a later study
failed to substantiate the advantage of using a distributed

format over a massed approach (Underwood, 1961).

The Effects of Repetition

 

 

The effect of repetition and the spacing of reviews
upon the retention of a complex and meaningful learning task
was measured by Reynolds and Glaser (1964). The researchers
implemented a programmed learning course using seventy-five
junior high students. The program consisted of 11 forty-
minute sessions and was offered via a teaching machine.
Students were divided into massed or distributed training
groups and were matched by intelligence and pre-test scores.
Retention tests were administered two days later and again
three weeks after the end of the instructional units. In
all cases, the treatment groups scored significantly
(04 = .05) higher than the non-treatment group. Administra-
tion of the second test saw no change in the superiority of
the distributed training group over the massed training
group. The study demonstrated that retention of meaningful
data dissipates rapidly after two days, then levels off for
periods up to three weeks' duration. The results of the
reported data lead one to conclude that retention is more
positively affected by training under a distributed

training model versus a massed model.

44

The Effects of Interference

 

 

Another concept having a potential effect upon the study
of massed and distributed practice is interference. Inter-
ference occurs when other material or learning is introduced
after the text of interest has been presented to the sub-
jects. At least one team of researchers demonstrated that
as a general rule, the lower the meaningfulness of the
material, the less the amount of response integration and
therefore, the higher the susceptibility to learning inter-
ference (Wright and Taylor, 1949). A series of studies was
conducted by Underwood (1961) to determine the range of
materials and conditions which are facilitated by the dis-
tribution of practice. It was concluded that forgetting is
accelerated by the distributed model as a result of increased
interference. The evidence presented also suggests that the
length of the interval between practices or trials is criti-
cal and generally results in poorer performance as time
increases. Underwood found that reminiscence depended on the
length of time interval but was of little importance to the

amount of learning.

The Effects of Meaningful versus Non-Meaningful Material

 

 

An attempt was initiated by Tsas (1948) to determine
the impact of the meaningfulness of the material as it
applied to learning under a massed versus a distributed
practice schedule. Twenty-four college level adults were
used with each subject having ten trials per list of meaning-

ful and non-meaningful material. The results showed that

45
both spaced and massed scores for the meaningful lists
were superior to the spaced and massed scores on the low
meaning list. Furthermore, the differences between the
massed and distributed scores were greater for the low
meaning lists than for the meaningful list. While the spaced
practice proved more efficient than the massed practice for
the low meaning material, there was little difference between
spaced practice and massed practice scores in the high
meaning material. A study of the effects of massed and
distributed learning using meaningful filmed learning
materials was conducted by Ash (1950). The research was
conducted using a one-hour film with 400 undergraduate
psychology students serving as subjects. Three classes of
students were shown the movie in one session. Two other
classes were shown the movie in two thirty-minute sessions
shown on alternate days. A third group of two classes
viewed the same movie in four fifteen-minute sessions on
alternate days. Four classes who did not see the movie
served as the control group. All classes were tested two
weeks later on a seventy-eight item test. Ash found a
significant difference (04 = .05) in favor of the total
experimental group, but no significance among the three
experimental subgroups. It was concluded that training
films up to one hour in length could be shown in a massed
format and therefore reduce financial expense. The investi-
gator also suggested the need for extending this type of

study to more complicated and lengthy material. The studies

46
cited in this review do offer evidence that learning is
enhanced by a subject's exposure to meaningful rather than
non-meaningful material. However, no significant difference
was reported when comparing the massed versus distributed
format in learning such material.

The time span from the middle 1960's to the present day
witnessed a variation in the emphasis placed on research on
the distribution of time in learning activities. Investiga-
tors became more attuned to testing massed and distributed
learning with meaningful material rather than prepared lists
of nonsense syllables or random numbers. The more contem-
porary researchers also were able to avail themselves of more
robust statistical analysis techniques. As an outgrowth of
the aforementioned changes, more of the research on massed
and distributed learning became less laboratory-centered and
more field or classroom-based.

An example of a field-based study is one that was
completed to determine the difference in achievement by
nursing students (N = 100) who learned human anatomy and
physiology material under massed or spaced conditions
(Miller, 1967). Group A (N = 35) was given the material in
sixteen weeks (massed group), while Group B (N = 75) learned
the same amount of material in thirty-two weeks (distributed
group). A pre-test showed no initial difference in knowledge
between the two groups. A post-test found a significant
difference (aC'= .001) in favor of the nursing students

trained under the distributed system (32 weeks). The results

47
of the study reported by Miller were substantiated by Hilgard,
Atkinson and Atkinson (1971).

An investigation which involved two parallel research
studies was conducted to determine the effects of massed and
distributed homework assignments on the achievement of ninth
grade students in a first year algebra course (Butcher, 1975).
The study also measured student preference of the instruc-
tional formats. A total of thirteen teachers taught one
class under each instructional system. Achievement tests
were administered after two chapters of study, and retention
was measured after a third unit had been taught. Students
were divided into low, middle and high intelligence groups.
The results of the achievement test showed an overall
superiority (¢K.= .05) for the distributed training group,
with the low and middle intelligence groups being signifi-
cantly superior to the massed training group (04 = .058 and
04.= .01, respectively). The retention test showed no
significant difference between the groups. The results of
the questionnaire study indicated that the students favored
the distributed model over the massed model (CK = .05).
While Butcher claimed a significant difference between the
massed and distributed models, a similar study resulted in
different conclusions (Weaver, 1976). No significant
differences (6‘ = .05) were found among the scores of 350
eighth grade students on selected mathematics concepts when
trained by a massed or distributed format. The subjects

were divided into low, middle and high intelligence groups

48
for achievement and retention tests. In a study using
various methods of presentation, the efficacy of a self—
instructional, multi-media module, was investigated by
Braffet (1976). The study took place at Nichols State
University and involved fifty-one undergraduate students in
special education. A criterion test was administered to
each group: massed, distributed and control. The test
results showed a statistically significant difference
(a<== .05) between control and experimental groups using
the analysis of variance technique. However, there was no
significant difference between the massed and distributed

groups.

Summary

A study of the published literature pertaining to in-
service training jproduces a wide range of topics with a
meager amount of objective data to support findings and
claims for improvement. Numerous problems are discussed, yet
little data are offered in terms of resolution.

The review of literature in section one is an attempt
to provide an indepth report on several important aspects
of inservice training. While a study of the reported
literature shows a basic weakness in that the methodology
used to implement inservice training is outdated, this same
literature also contains numerous promising practices for
improvement. Several of those promising practices are

presented here. The need is justified for field-based

49
inservice training programs to include visits to sites
(demonstration centers) possessing effective ongoing educa-
tional programs. There is also a documented need for using
field-based teacher consultants to serve as local trainers
and follow-up personnel. Inservice programs that contain a
classroom based follow-up component offer potential as a
viable approach to the improvement of teacher training.
Reports also stated that teachers can properly implement an
innovative program when given an extended time frame for
implementation.including classroom support. The use of
student instructional material that was objective based and
amenable to immediate implementation by teachers was dis-
cussed as a positive step. Another study offered evidence
that inservice training programs which stressed gains in
teacher cognitive knowledge were preferable to inservice
programs aimed at improving teacher attitude. Furthermore,
the use of an objective based system for teacher training
programs shows promise. Another major point is that the
measurement of teacher implementation of new materials may be
an effective method for determining the success of an
inservice program.

When considering massed versus distributed training for
knowledge acquisition and retention, the literature search
resulted in several findings of interest. The preponderance
of evidence indicates that the introduction of time intervals
between practice of learning sessions yields a greater amount

of knowledge skills than the massed training format. However,

50
the reported research also demonstrated the lack of evidence
to declare distributed practice as unequivocably superior.
especially in regard to retention. As a result, the evidence
presented must be considered somewhat inconsistent,
particularly when other factors such as length or amount of
material and type of subject are considered.

A review of the research on massed and distributed
learning gives direction for studying one of the typical
problems in inservice education. By applying a massed and
distributed format to a teacher or consultant training
program, one is able to measure learning in the practical
setting. The data presented in section two of this chapter
offer the necessary background on knowledge acquisition and
retention for an application to inservice education.

The need to systematically develop, implement and
evaluate different field-based inservice training models is
obvious when we consider federal and state mandates concern-
ing personnel preparation in special education. This need
is even more apparent when we consider the current status of
available objective data for inservice education.

The proposed study should add to the data base of
research information useful in determining the feasibility of

a field-based inservice training approach.

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Pur se

The purpose of this study was to investigate the rela-
tive effects of a massed and a distributed sixteen week field-
based inservice training program on the knowledge and imple-
mentation skills of participants using the I CAN objective-
based physical education instructional system. The parti-
cipants were teachers of the TMI and teacher consultants who
provided consultant services to the TMI teachers. The
following hypotheses were tested:

1. There are no significant differences (a<.= .05)
between knowledge levels of participants (teachers and
teacher consultants) trained under a massed field-based
training schedule (two consecutive one-day sessionswithin a
total sixteen week training program) and participants trained
under a distributed field-based schedule (one day followed by
two, one half day sessions offered the second and fourth
weeks of an identical sixteen week field based training
schedule).

2. There are no significant differences (cl = .05) in
the level of teacher implementation when trained under a
sixteen week massed or distributed field based training

51

52
schedule with follow-up support by teacher consultants.

3. There are no significant correlations (a( = .05)
between a teacher's knowledge of the I CAN objective-based
instructional system and their ability to implement the system
as intended.

A post training questionnaire was also administered to
all participants via telephone. The questionnaire dealt with
the need for training, the use of a demonstration/training

center, and the need for follow-up service.

Subjects

The subjects were professionals in special education
who provided direct instructional service (N = 18) in physical
education to TMI students, and/or consultative services (N = 13)
in physical education for teachers. No participant had
previous training with the I CAN system.

The teacher consultant was a logical selection to meet
the expressed needs of special education personnel charged
with delivering instruction in physical education to TMI
students. Their responsibilities are defined according to
State of Michigan Regulations. The recruitment of
teacher consultants for this study was conducted through
awareness presentations at two statewide consultant net-
work meetings sponsored by the Michigan Department of Educa-
tion Special Education Services Area. The selection of

teacher consultants was based on three criteria. Each

53

consultant agreed to:

1. Select one or two teachers from their catchment area
who were responsible for teaching physical education to
TMI students.

2. Provide follow-up consultant service (site visits)
to their teachers during the sixteen week implementation phase.

3. Complete all written requirements (see Appendix C).

The selection of teachers was based on the following
requirements:

1. Teach the selected physical education program

objectives, 70 minutes per week for sixteen weeks.
2. Participate in all training sessions.
3. Complete the implementation requirements as
scheduled.

4. Complete all written requirements (see Appendix D).

As a result of geographical constraints, the random
assignment of teachers and consultants to demonstration/
training centers was not feasible. The subjects used for the
data collection represent a broad geographic base within the
state. There is no reason to believe that similar professionals
in Michigan would not perform in a like manner. Furthermore,
the broad geographical spread of the participants' places
of employment may have minimized the effects of local out-
breaks of contagious illnesses and severe weather conditions
typically affecting educators.

The sample used for the collection of data was composed

of teacher consultants and teachers who volunteered for the

54

project. A brief demographic description of the sample follows:

Number of Consultants 13 Number of Teachers 18

Mean Age 45 Mean Age 21

Age Range: Age Range:
25-35 years 1 25-35 years 15
36-45 years 6 36-45 years 3
46 and older 6 46 and older 9

Years Teaching: Years Teaching:

Mean Years 13 Mean Years 4
1-3 years _I: 1-3 years 9
4-7 years 0 4-7 years 1
8-11 years 2) 8-11 years 1
over 11 11 over 11 1

Design of the Study

 

The specific plan of this study involved two independent
variables:
A. Participant Type
1. Teacher of the TMI
2. Teacher Consultant in Special Education
B. Type of Field-Based Inservice Training Program
1. Massed Training
2. Distributed Training
The two types of inservice training were compared to
determine their influence on the performance of the partici-
pants on a test of knowledge, required during the program.
The implementation skills of the teacher participants was
also compared by training format. A correlational analysis
was conducted to determine the strength of the relationship

between each teacher's knowledge test

55
score and their implementation skill as scored on a summative
status report completed at the end of the sixteenth or
seventeenth week of the training implementation period. The
interaction effects between subject type and instructional
mode also were tested. A post-training telephone question—
naire was conducted to measure participant reaction to the
two types of field based training programs.

A schematic plan for data gathering and analysis appears

 

 

 

 

 

below:
M1 M2 M3 M4

Teacher X X X X
Massed

Consultant X X

Teacher X X X X
Distributed

Consultant X x
x = data generated or analyzed

M1 = component mastery test (knowledge)
M2 = summative status report (implementation)
M

3 = correlation between summative status score and
component mastery test score

M4 = post-training survey data

Description of Training Procedures

 

 

Each group was given a total of twelve hours of formal

training in the implementation of the I CAN system. Training

56

was conducted under two types of inservice training, massed

and distributed. Each participant was trained under one of

the two following formats:

Massed Schedule

two consecutive six
hour days during the
first week of the
sixteen week train—
ing/implementation
schedule

Distributed Schedule

one six hour day during
the first week, followed
by two three-hour ses-
sions spaced two weeks
apart within the sixteen
week training/implementa-

tion schedule

Figure l portrays the initial training sessions.

 

 

 

 

AGENDA
bkmsaigzggggg DisudlmtaiTranfigg

Day 1 Day 2 Total Bay 1 Day 2 Day 3 Total
Inhmdwdjon l/Zlku 1/2 1/2 1/2
Ammssmmt 13Hr. 3 21/2 l/2 3
Prescription 3/4 Hr. 3/4 l/2 1/4 3/4
Temflfing'and
lunssesamau: 1 1/4 1 1/4 2 1/2 1 1 1/2 2 1/2
Asshyment
and,Monitor
Procedures 1/2 Hr. 1/2 1 1 1
Planning 3 1/4 3 1/4 1/2 2 3/4 3 1/4
annam
Evahrnjon l 1 1/2 1/2 1

6 6 12 5 1/2 3 1/4 3 1/4 12

Figure l. A specific time sequence for the initial training

sessions.

Figure 2 depicts the total sixteen week training

implementation schedule.

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tributed training program.

kaks Temflmr cemmfltant Emojem:8tafif
0 Trahfingskeshmu: Trahfingskssnx1 Cbnhmttnmdnhm;
l Omaflemdffluow
2 Omafiemdfflunw Trahfingskmehxfl' Cbmhxi:Tnflkfing*
Trahfingsksshxfl
3 :kflflfixfitorlkmm Viefi:Temfiem
CNedEmdfnuow Ekflflfixfitorlknm
Cemmflxant\fisit
4 Emu Trahfingskesflxfl' Ommmctflrahfing*
Tnfludngskesflxfl
5 Run
6 Rmn VishzTemfimr
SeLbeniun:FOnn Ekflflfixfitorlkmm
Cbmmfliant‘fisit
7 ]hpdem m lowmek
Eden
8 Shmfina
Body Parts
9 Cbmmflxant\fisit Vfisfl:Tewfl£m
SeLbeniuancnn {kflfrkxfiterfbmm
10
11 [fixecthxuiinsfieme
12 consultant Visit 'Visit Teacher
Selfltxfitorlkmm. Selflkxfitorlkmm
13
14
15
16 Cbmpxmmtbhsflmy' Oamxmem:Mmmxmy bkmiUn:Temier
Teflytbmmfliant— fiketfiflxfitortkatha: quflehesummuive
EiekiSendcetkfit wiuiankntsfiefif EkatnsRegxt
Visit
* FerIxuticuemtsvdthfiaéflsudbuualTrahfinglknmatcxdy.
Figure 2. Training follow-up schedule for massed and dis-

58

All training was carried out at five selected I CAN
school-based demonstration/training centers located in
Michigan (see Appendix B for site locations). The inservice
training program was delivered by three senior staff members
from the Field Service Unit, each of whom used identical
training materials and time schedules across all sites.
Training at a specific demonstration/training center was
conducted by one staff member. Each FSU trainer spent twelve
hours at their respective site(s). Each site had a total of
sixteen weeks from start to completion of the program.

Each of the three Field Service Unit trainers was
qualified for, and designated as senior staff. In order to
achieve this designation, a staff member was required to be
involved directly in workshop preparation and implementation
for a minimum of one year under the supervision of a desig-
nated senior staff member, and to be approved by the director
of the FSU. The twelve hours of instruction were divided
among the seven topics discussed during the workshops. FSU
staff members were assigned to field sites based on several
conditions. All of the trainers had developed professional
relationships with the teaching staff at given demonstration
centers prior to the commencement of this project. (See
Appendix E for a description of the role of the school-based
demonstration/training centers.) As a result of these on-
going positive associations, several administrators requested
specific FSU staff members to serve as the trainers for

their sites. Other commitments within the FSU mandated the

59
specific staff assignments to the training sites. The
effects of the aforestated logistical arrangement resulted

in the following staff distribution:

Trainer I Trainer II Trainer III

 

 

 

l Massed Site 2 Massed Sites 1 Distributed Site
1 Distributed Site

There are four content areas within the primary skills
component of the I CAN system: Aquatics, Body Management,
Fundamental Skills and Health Fitness. Although there are
seventy-eight performance objectives within the four content
areas, all subjects agreed to teach the following objectives
to their TMI students for the duration of the project:
overhand throw, run, heart-lung stamina, body parts and
directions in space. By placing a restriction on the objec-
tives taught, a level of standardization was maintained
between all teachers and consultants concerning content
taught during the training period (see Appendices D anc C
for implementation schedules of teachers and consultants).
Each teacher was required to meet with their consultant for
a task-oriented session at least once every three weeks in
addition to implementing the I CAN program as per the
established schedule. Teachers and teacher consultants com-
pleted the self-monitor forms to task-orient each consultant
session.

During the sixteenth week of the training/implementation
schedule, the component mastery test was administered to all

subjects. The test was written under closed book, no time

60
limit conditions. Since all participants in the training
project volunteered for instruction, it was felt that the
degree of self-motivation exhibited by each trainee made it
possible to self-administer the test. Furthermore, the
inability of the FSU staff to monitor all participants as
they wrote the component mastery test made it necessary to
assume that participants would adhere to the instructions
requesting the non-use of aids when writing this test. The
possibility of using a participant's fellow professional or
supervisor to monitor the test was rejected as such a tactic
diminishes the level of trust and empathy between trainer and
participant.

Several variables were introduced into the testing
situation in an attempt to alleviate the test anxiety of
participants. No time limit was placed on the participants
while they completed the test. Each participant was informed
that the component mastery test was an attempt to measure
inservice training program effectiveness rather than to make
decisions about individuals involved in the project. See
Appendix F for test directions given to all participants in
the study.

The decision to adopt a closed book test format was a
result of what the test items were designed to measure. As
the component mastery test was designed to measure knowledge,
the decision to use a closed book approach seemed most
advantageous in determining overall mastery of the subject

matter.

61
During the sixteenth or seventeenth week of the training/
implementation schedule, a FSU staff member completed a
summative status report on each teacher in the study. This
was done while the teacher was using the I CAN system in

teaching physical education to their class of TMI students.

General Approach

 

A quasi experimental design was employed in this study.
The research method selected for this study is a modification
of the equivalent materials design as described by Campbell

and Stanley (1966) with the following notation:

one person Sample A (0) X0 0
or
group Sample B (0) X0 0

Where (0) = optional pre-test, X = treatment, and 0 =
post-test. The design for this particular study is depicted

as follows:

0

x1 1 3 1
X2 02 °4 r2
Where: x1 = treatment under massed instruction.
x2 = treatment under distributed instruction.
01 = component mastery test score under massed
instruction.
02 = component mastery test score under distri-
buted instruction.
03 = summative status score under massed
instruction.
04 = summative status score under distributed

instruction.

62

r1 = correlation between component mastery test
score and summative status score, massed
group of teachers.

r2 = correlation between component mastery test
score and summative status score, distri-
buted group of teachers.

Threats to Internal and External Validity

 

 

 

Campbell and Stanley (1966, p. 5) describe internal
validity as "the basic minimum without which any experiment
is uninterpretable...." Conversely, factors that are a
threat to external validity if not controlled or minimized
restrict the generalizability to other similar populations,
settings and training programs. Only those elements that are
of direct concern to this study shall be discussed in this
section.

The following classes of extraneous variables are in
need of discussion in relation to internal validity:

1. Selection Bias - All subjects were chosen on the
basis of two criteria:

a. A willingness and agreement to participate.

b. No previous training with I CAN.
The selection method was identical for all subjects, there-
fore selection bias was minimized. As the training program
was voluntary, the available sample had to be drawn from a
population of subjects who expressed a desire to be trained.

2. Experimental Mortality - The selective loss of
subjects during the project implementation should be con-
sidered as a possible confounding factor when interpreting

the results of this study. Seven participants who attended

63
at least the first training session at their respective centers
failed to complete the entire training program (four massed
and three distributed). When considered in conjunction with
the lack of random assignment to massed or distributed
training, subject loss may be a confounding factor.

3. Selection Interaction - This variable has been
minimized in all classes of internal invalidity except for
selective mortality when considering the method of selection
for each training group.

The following variable is explained in relation to
external validity:

Interaction Effects of Selection Biases and Experimental
Variable - While the author was admittedly unable to draw a ran-
dom sample from the population, the sample from which data were
gathered represents a wide geographic specimen of all consultants
in special education and all teachers delivering physical
education service to TMI students. Logistics dictated that all
subjects be assigned to a training site most convenient to their
place of employment. It also should be noted that each training
site was designated as a massed or distributed model by a roll
of the die; an even number on the roll indicating a massed
training model and an odd number being a distributed site. The
roll of the die was completed when three odd numbers were pro-
duced. Training bases also were distributed throughout Michigan
to offer subjects a reasonable choice of a training site.
Interaction of selection and the treatment does diminish the
generalizability of the data to the restricted population of the

study.

64

The design as implemented in this study offers control
for many of the sources of internal and external invalidity.
Given the circumstances, it is an appropriate model to use.
However, it must be noted that the variables of experimental
mortality and the interaction effects of selection biases
should be mentioned as two known threats to design validity,
which may serve to restrict the interpretation of the

results of this research.

Instrumentation

 

The selection of an appropriate measurement instrument
is a vital issue when planning studies which test the effects
of a training program. In conducting research on the effects
of a given training program, care must be taken to insure
that the chosen measure of effectiveness is congruent with
the objectives for the training program. This was not a
characteristic of most of the research reviewed in Chapter

Two of this study.

Component Mastery Test: Knowledge Skills

 

 

The degree to which the I CAN system was mastered by
each subject was determined by a cognitive skills test
(Appendix G) devised by the evaluation staff and the program
development personnel at the FSU. Prior administration of
the test to forty professionals in special education/physical
education for the handicapped yielded a r = .92 when data

were subjected to the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 test for

65
reliability (Wessel, 1977). A similar reliability co-
efficient was calculated for the data in this study. Content
validity has been demonstrated by a reporting matrix match-
ing test items to the learning objectives of the instruction

program. Refer to Appendix H for this matrix.

Summative Status Report: Implementation Skills

 

 

The summative status report consists of items measuring
the classroom implementation skills of each participant for
each component area (planning, assessing, prescribing,
teaching and evaluating) of the I CAN system. The summative
status report for each teacher was intended to reflect the
level of classroom implementation for each component of the
instructional system for a given lesson. The instrument
contains nineteen items, of which seventeen are objective in
nature (Wessel, 1977). The construction of objective type
observation questions was done to reduce the degree of
subjectivity among raters. See Appendix I for the summative
status form. All questions could be answered Yes, No, or
Not Applicable. A FSU consultant completed a summative
status form while the teacher conducted a physical education

lesson using the I CAN system.

Post Training Questionnaire

 

A questionnaire was developed by the author to ascertain
the participants' reactions to their particular training
regimens. Topical areas included in the questionnaire were:

the value of going to a demonstration site for training, the

66
length of the total training program, apprOpriateness of the
spacing of the training sessions and the use of field-based
consultants. See Appendix J for the questionnaire. Results
were tabulated on a percentage basis and reported by training

model (Massed or Distributed).

Dependent Variables

 

The study was designed to provide data on several
dependent measures of a comparative and descriptive nature.

1. Knowledge scores on a component mastery test were
gathered from all participants. Scores were compared
between teacher consultants and teachers trained on a massed
versus a distributed training regimen. Scores were compared
on the following five components of the I CAN system:

a. assessing
b. prescribing
c. teaching
d. evaluating
e. planning

2. A summative status report was completed to measure
the level of implementation skills for each teacher.

3. The strength of the relationship between a teacher's
knowledge test score and their summative status score was
determined through correlational analysis.

4. A post training questionnaire was conducted via
telephone to determine each participant's level of satis-
faction with the overall training and sixteen week implemen-

tation schedules they experienced.

67

Data Analysis

 

Experimental Unit

 

An experimental unit is defined as the smallest division
of the experimental treatment such that any two units may
receive differing treatments while a part of the experiment
(Cox, 1966). For this study, the unit of analysis is the
individual who participated in either massed or distributed

training type over a total sixteen week training schedule.

Component Mastery Test: Knowledge Acquisition

 

 

The comparison of scores on the component mastery test
was analyzed by Multivariate Analysis of Variance. The
design was a participant by treatment type, two by two design
(04 = .05). The total scores were analyzed by a two-way

Analysis of Variance, and reported by percent correct.

Summative Status Report:~ Implementation Skills

 

 

As all questions on the summative status report can be
answered Yes, No, or Not Applicable, data were converted
to a percent of Yes scores. Questions answered NOt Applicable
were considered as non-responses. As with the component
mastery test, the summative status form is divided into five
parts. The data again were treated by Multivariate Analysis
of Variance using treatment as the only independent variable

(aC.= .05).

68

Correlational Analysis: Teacher Implementation and Knowledge
Skills

 

The strength of the relationship between teachers'
mastery test scores and their summative status (implementa-
tion) scores were determined by a Pearson Product-Moment
coefficient of correlation, (a4 = .05). A comparison was
made between teachers trained under the massed cu: distri-

buted training conditions.

Post-Training Questionnaire

 

Data from an ll-question phone survey were tabulated and
presented by training model (massed versus distributed).
Data were gathered concerning the participant's opinions on
their training, the use of a school-based demonstration/
training center, and the need for follow-up. The percentage

scores and frequency scores were calculated for each question.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

 

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects
of two types (massed and distributed) of field based inservice
training programs for teachers and teacher consultants
delivering physical education services to TMI students in
Michigan. The participants were trained to implement an
objective based instructional system (I CAN) over a sixteen-
week schedule.

The results of this study are presented in the order in
which the three research hypotheses were tested. A general
discussion of the results of this study, as they relate to
the selected research reviewed, is provided at the end of

this chapter. Refer to Appendix K for raw data.

Knowledge Test Scores: Component Mastery

 

 

HYPOTHESIS 1: There are no significant differences
(a<p= .05) between the knowledge levels of participants
(teachers and teacher consultants) trained under a massed
field-based training schedule (two consecutive one-day
sessions within a total sixteen week training program) and

69

70
participants trained under a distributed field-based
schedule (one day followed by two, one half-day sessions
offered the second and fourth weeks of an identical sixteen-

week field-based training schedule).

Total Test Score Results

The data generated on the total component mastery test
scores were amenable to analysis by a two-way ANOVA model,
training format by participant type. Table 1 contains the
sample size, mean scores and standard deviations for each

cell within the design.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics by training format
and participant type for total component
mastery test score.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N Mean Scores % S.D.
Format Participant _ Participant Participant
Tch. Cns. Tch. Cns. Tot. Tch. Cns.
Mass 10 7 80.3 78.0 79 ..35 .61
Dist 8 6 83.5 86.6 85 .48 .38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total: N = 31

 

Tch.: Teacher; Tot.: Total; Cns.: Consultant; Mass:
Massed; Dist: Distributed.
The mean percent (knowledge test) scores for all trainees for
both training formats across participant type was relatively
high, 79 percent for the massed group and 85 percent for the

distributed group. The total score obtained by each group

71

exceeds the minimal 75 percent set by the FSU staff as
necessary for minimal competence. It is suggested that in
terms of total test score for the I CAN knowledge skills,
both training formats are effective when providing inservice
training for teachers or teacher consultants. Given the
choice of either training format with teacher consultants,
one might wish to consider the distributed approach as the
difference in total score is greater for teacher consultants
than for teachers. The fact that there was less discrepancy
in total score among the massed and distributed training
groups of teachers may be the result of their having to
implement the system thereby mediating their scores. The
Kuder-Richardson-20 test (Ebel, 1972) for reliability pro-
duced a coefficient of .82 for this test. The interaction
and main effects are detailed in Table 2.

Table 2: The effects of training format and

participant type on total component
mastery test score.

 

 

Source df MS F Probability

 

Massed versus

Distributed 1,29 87.325 1.954 .174
Teacher versus

Consultant 1,29 1.505 .034 .856
Interaction 1 44.288 .991 .328
Error 44.691

 

The interaction and main effects were found to be non-

significant; as a result no further analysis was conducted.

72

Subtest Score Results

 

The data generated by the completion of the component
mastery test are presented by participant type and by train-

ing format.

Sub-Test Results for Teachers 21 Training Schedule

 

 

The data generated by the administration of the component
mastery test are presented in this section (for teachers) by
training format. The descriptive data for the teacher's
performance are found in Table 3.

Table 3: Descriptive statistics by training format

for the teachers' component mastery
test scores.

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers
Massed Distributed
Subtest N i , so N 36 SD
Assess 10 15.40 1.84 8 15.50 2.33
Prescribe 10 11.70 1.89 8 11.13 2.53
Teach 10 10.80 1.32 8 10.88 2.10
Evaluate 10 10.30 1.34 8 10.00 2.67
Plan 10 10.60 1.89 8 12.63 1.41

 

 

The data presented in Table 4 depicts the results of the
one-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance with the five
component (sub-test) scores as the dependent variables for

teachers.

73

Table 4: Effect of training format upon the teachers'
scores for the five subtests of the com-
ponent mastery test.

 

 

 

Source Dependent MS df F P
Treatment Assess .044 .01 .92
Type Prescribe .002 .00 .98

Teach .002 l .00 .97

Evaluate .178 .04 .85

Plan 11.74 4.71 .05
Error Assess 4.28

Prescribe 5.86

Teach 2.74 16

Evaluate 4.48

Plan 2.49

 

The Multivariate Analysis results show that there is a
significant difference (p = .05) favoring the distributed
group of teachers trained under the massed or distributed
training format for planning only. There was no significant
difference on the other four components.

Sub-Test Results for Teacher Consultants p1 Training

Schedule

The data generated for the five components (subtests)
of the component mastery test for teacher consultants were
amenable to treatment by a one-way Multivariate Analysis of
Variance using the subtest scores as the dependent variable.
Table 5 is a presentation of the descriptive statistics for

the teacher consultants.

74

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5: Descriptive statistics by training format
for teacher consultants' component mastery
test scores.

Teacher Consultants
Mass Distributed
Subtest N X SD N x SD
Assess 7 13.86 4.41 6 14.50 2.26
Prescribe 7 10.86 2.41 6 11.33 1.63
Teach 7 10.14 1.95 6 12.50 .04
Evaluate 7 9.43 1.99 6 11.33 1.03
Plan 7 11.86 1.77 6 12.67 1.51

 

 

The results of the Multivariate Analysis are presented

in Table 6.

 

 

 

Table 6: Effect of training format upon the
teacher consultants' scores for the
five subtests of the component
mastery test.

Dependent
Source Variable MS df F P
Treatment Assess 1.33 .10 .75
Type Prescribe .73 .16 .69

Teach 17.95 1 7.49 .02

Evaluate 11.72 4.44 .06

Plan 2.11 .77 .39
Error Assess 12.94

Prescribe 4.38

Teach 2.39 11

Evaluate 2.64

Plan 2.74

 

75

There is no significant difference for the components of

assessing, prescribing, evaluating or planning.

significant difference (p = .02) in teaching in favor of

teacher consultants trained under the distributed format.

Sub-Test Results for All Participants py Training

 

Schedule

There is a

The following section is a presentation of the results

of the Component Mastery Test for all participants by sub-

test score. The descriptive statistics are presented in

Table 7.

Table 7: Descriptive statistics by training format
for component mastery subtest scores for
all participants.

 

 

All Participants

 

 

 

Mass Distributed
Subtest N 32' ‘ so N 56 SD
Assess 17 14.77 3.13 14 15.07 2.22
Prescribe 17 10.77 2.12 14 11.22 2.30
Teach 17 10.53 1.59 14 11.22 1.87
Evaluate 17 9.94 1.64 14 10.57 2.14
Plan 17 11.12 1.90 14 12.64 1.45

 

 

The data was amenable to a one-way Multivariate Analysis

of Variance which is presented in Table 8.

76

Table 8: Effect of training format upon all
participants' scores for the five
subtests of the component mastery

 

 

 

test.

Dependent
Source Variable MS df F P
Treatment Assess .72 .094 .762
Type Prescribe .149 .033 .856

Teach 8.336 1 2.89 .100

Evaluate 3.050 .847 .365

Plan 17.86 6.24 .018
Error Assess 7.724

Prescribe 4.472

Teach 2.885 29

Evaluate 3.599

Plan 2.861

 

The Multivariate Analysis results show that there is
significance with only the planning component (p = .02).
This difference is in favor of the groups trained under a

distributed format.

Discussion

 

In general, the results indicate that both types of
field-based training are effective as measured by knowledge
test scores for teachers or teacher consultants. When
results are compared by training format and participant type,
test scores tend to favor the distributed field-based train-
ing model. Significant differences favoring the distributed
training format were found for teachers on program planning
and for teacher consultants on teaching. For all partici-

pants there was a significant difference on the program

77
planning component. The significant difference for the
planning component in favor of the distributed group of
teachers may be the result of their need to implement the
system with students before attempting to do long term
program planning. During the information sharing portion of
the sixteen-week study, the massed trained teachers received
their planning information during the second day of training,
while those trained under the distributed format were able
to begin using the objectives with their TMI students prior
to having to decide upon a program plan for their students.
There was no difference for teacher consultants on planning
as they did not actually implement a program plan with TMI
students.

Other than the training program itself, no particular
explanation is offered for the difference in teacher con-
sultant scores for the teaching component of the knowledge
skills test. ‘

It would appear that the acquisition and retention of
knowledge to implement a long-term, objective-based instruc-
tional program plan favored the distributed trained partici-
pants. This result may be due to two conditions: (1) the
amount of knowledge required for‘developing the program plan
within the two day format; and (2) the shorter time
between the planning portion of the instructional program and
the time the component mastery test was administered for
the distributed format. Program planning was the final portion

of the twelve hour informational sharing phase of the study.

78

Summative Status Score Results: Implementation Skills

 

 

HYPOTHESIS 2: There are no significant differences
(04 = .05) in the level of teacher implementation when trained
under a sixteen week massed or distributed field based
training schedule with follow-up support by teacher consul-
tants.

The data obtained from the summative status report were
based upon scores earned by teachers only, and therefore the
data are amenable to treatment by a one-way multivariate
analysis of variance. Teacher consultants did not have
direct teaching responsibilities, and therefore a summative
status report was not generated for them. The role of the
teacher consultants was to perform regular follow-up field
visits to assist teachers in the sixteen week implementation

of the I CAN system.

Total Summative Status Score

 

Table 9 is a presentation of descriptive data by train-
ing group for a total summative status score.
Table 9: Descriptive data in percent score for

all components of the summative status
report by training format.

 

 

 

Massed Distributed
N x SD N 3? SD
10 78% .67 8 81% .55

 

 

The descriptive data indicate that on the average both

79
groups of teachers achieved summative status (implementation)
scores in excess of the 75 percent criterion needed for
successful implementation.

The total score on the summative status report was
treated by a one-way analysis of variance. The results are
presented in Table 10.

Table 10: Effects of training format upon teachers'

implementation score for all components
of the summative status report.

 

 

Source df MS F Probability

 

Massed versus
Distributed 1 .201 .243 .628

Error 16 .824

 

The results of the one-way ANOVA are non-significant when
comparing total scores on the summative status form for the

massed and distributed training groups of teachers.

Component Summative Status Score

 

Table 11 is a presentation of descriptive data by
training group and subtest for teachers' summative status

scores .

80

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11: Descriptive data of the summative status scores
for each component by training format.
All Teachers
Massed Distributed
Subtest N i so N 32' SD
Assess 10 92% .42 8 94% .46
Prescribe 10 98% .32 8 87% .54
Teach 10 50% .53 8 87% .35
Evaluate 10 70% .52 8 63% .46
Plan 10 73% 1.73 8 72% 1.58

 

 

The results of the multivariate ANOVA for the component

summative status scores are presented in Table 12 with the

calculated error terms.

 

 

 

Table 12: The effects of training format upon teachers'
summative status scores for each component.
Dependent
Source Variable MS df F P
Treatment Assess .011 .05 .81
Type Prescribe .711 3.92 .07
Teach .625 1 2.96 .11
Evaluate .100 .41 .53
Plan .100 .04 .85
Error Assess .19
Prescribe .18
Teach .21 16
Evaluate .24
Plan 2.18

 

81
There are no significant differences on summative status
scores by component between teachers trained under a massed

or distributed format.

Discussion

 

There was no significant difference in the implementa-
tion skills of teachers for any of the five components:
assessing, prescribing, teaching, evaluating, and planning.
When considering both groups of teachers, all participants
who were assigned instructional responsibilities functioned
at a level acceptable for proper implementation of the I CAN
objective-based physical education instructional system. This
was accomplished with the help of a teacher consultant using
a structured, systematic implementation schedule with both
teachers and teacher consultants using self-monitor forms
for all consultation sessions. These forms were keyed to
the five components of the implementation system.

The results of the data analysis for teacher implementa-
tion are generally in basic congruence with teacher component
mastery test findings. The only significant difference for
teachers on the knowledge skills test was in favor of the
distributed group for program planning. When considering
these results, one might suggest that the actual implementa-
tion of a prOgram plan tends to mediate the differences in
knowledge test scores. It should be noted that teacher
consultant/teacher interaction was not totally controlled,

and their interaction could have influenced the level of

performance. However, given the fact that all teacher

82
consultants chose their own teacher(s) and visits were
structured through teacher and teacher consultant self

monitor forms, this variable may have been controlled.

Correlation Between Teachers' Component Mastery
Test Score and Summative Status Report Score

HYPOTHESIS 3: There are no significant correlations
(oC.= .05) between the teachers' knowledge of the I CAN
objective based instructional system and their ability to
implement the system as intended.

The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients
between component mastery test scores and summative status
scores are presented by type of training (massed versus
distributed) for all teachers in the study. For the purposes
of interpreting the correlation data, a moderate relation-
ship will be defined as Z .39 [re] 5. .69 and a high relation-

ship as [rc] 5:..70 (Heusner, 1976). The chosen alpha level

for claiming significance isé .05.

Distributed Training Correlation

The data presented in Table 13 represent the correla-
tions between the summative status scores and component
mastery test scores for teachers (N = 8) trained under the
distributed format. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
Coefficients are presented by subcomponent of the I CAN
implementation system. The top figures represent the correla-
tion coefficients and the bottom figures are the calculated

alpha values.

83

Table 13: Correlation coefficients between the
summative status scores and component
mastery test scores for teachers
trained under the distributed format.

 

 

SUMMATIVE STATUS REPORT

 

AssaflfimgfRnaxzihthTamflfingflanfluathEVPhmufingflkxal

 

Assessing .8653*
.003

Prescribing .6861*
.030

Tamfifing .1683
0345

Evaluating .3322"

PLmufing .0481
.455

COMPONENT MASTERY TEST

'Ibtal .8375*
.005

 

 

* Significant,a< =3 .05.

There are significant correlations for assessing, prescrib-

ing, evaluating and total score.

Massed Training Correlations

 

The Pearson Product Moment Coefficients of correlation
for the teachers (N = 10) trained under the massed schedule
are presented in Table 14. The top figures in each cell are
the correlation coefficients and the bottom figures are the

calculated alpha values.

84

Table 14: Correlation coefficients between the
summative status scores and component
mastery test scores for teachers
trained under the massed format.

 

 

SUMMATIVE STATUS REPORT

 

AsaamflnyflmemzfibthTEmdfingflmnfluathrVPLmufingflkfial

 

Assessing .5449
.052
B ..
m Prescribing .5727*
E3 .042
w .
g Temjung -.2461
a .230
m
#33 Evaluating .4308
e .107
E
g Phnufing .5806*
m .015
8
U ToUfl. .4600
.900

 

 

* Significant,o<f, .05.

The results of the Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of
Correlation Analysis reveal significant correlations for the

prescribing and planning components.

Combined Training Group Correlations

 

The correlation coefficients between summative status
scores and component mastery test scores for all teachers
(N = 18) is presented in Table 15. The top figures represent
the correlation coefficients and the bottom figures are the

calculated alpha values.

85

Table 15: Correlation coefficients between summative
status scores and component mastery test
scores for all teachers trained under
massed and distributed format.

 

 

SUMMATIVE STATUS REPORT

 

Assaflfingflhrscnfifing/RammdngflamfluathrVTLmufing/Rfizd

 

Assessing .7257*
.001

Prescribing .6056*
.004

Tamflfing -.0504
.421

EValuating .3348"

Planning .3288
.091

COMPONENT MASTERY TEST

Total .6543*
.002

 

 

* Significant,o( 5;, .05.

The results of the correlation analysis for both groups of
teachers (N = 18) shows a significant positive correlation

for assessing, prescribing, evaluating and total score.

Discussion

 

The results of the correlation analysis indicate that in
general, a relationship exists between a teacher's knowledge
and implementation scores for both types of inservice train-
ing. In most cases, there appeared to be a stronger cor-
relation between knowledge and implementation scores for the

teachers trained within the distributed format.

86

The correlation coefficients for teaching were similar
for each group, in that the coefficients were non-significant.
The consistently low relationship between the teachers'
knowledge and implementation scores for this subtest may be
attributed to the need to expand the number of items on the
summative status report to more closely match what was
measured on the component mastery test. The teaching com-
ponent is the only element of the I CAN instructional system
to produce a low correlation across both training groups.
Other aspects of teaching were covered in assessment,
prescription, and evaluation. (See Appendix I for a summa-
tive status report.)

The correlations for the evaluation component were
positive for both groups of teachers, with a significant
coefficient for the distributed group and for teachers across
both groups. Therefore, the data suggest a consistent
positive relationship between a teacher's knowledge level and
their ability to implement the basics of student evaluation.

The major difference in correlations between massed and
distributed trained teachers occurred for the planning
component. While the massed trained group had a significant
positive correlation, the distributed group attained a non-
significant relationship. The massed group produced a
stronger relationship.

Although the correlation coefficient for the massed
group of teachers was non-significant for total score, the

distributed group produced a significant relationship. When

87
teachers were combined across training groups, the result was
a positive, significant correlation between knowledge scores
and teacher implementation scores. The significant correla-
tion appears to be the result of combining the training

groups, thereby increasing the number of subjects.

Post-Training Survey Results

 

Upon completion of the sixteen week training program,
all participants completed a post-training questionnaire
administered to determine subject attitude toward three
major areas:

a. The need for training:
b. The use of a demonstration center for training;
c. The need for follow-up support in the class-
room for implementation of the system.
The following is a brief summary of the results of the
questionnaire administration (see Appendix J for a more
detailed report of the results).

a. All participants expressed a need for formal train-
ing versus being given the material without training.
Participants also felt the twelve hour training portion of
the total program was the minimum time required, with 46
percent opting for fourteen hours or more of instruction.

All thirty-one participants felt that given the circumstances,
the FSU staff should conduct the formal training sessions.

b. All participants, N = 31, expressed the need to be

trained at a field based demonstration/training site versus

88
a university setting. A majority of participants, 67 per-
cent, felt that training visits should be completed during
the early stages of the total training/implementation pro-
gram.

c. A large majority, 86 percent, felt that follow-up
reports should be given to teachers in their teaching
situation. The participants were in favor of the teacher
consultant (TC) providing the follow-up service rather than
the FSU staff (52 percent to 32 percent). In addition, 66
percent of the respondents expressed the feeling that the
teacher should receive at least three site visits, with
another 26 percent preferring four site visits during the

implementation phase of the sixteen week program.

Summary Discussion

 

The results of this study indicate that, in general,
both types of training are effective for use with a field—
based inservice training program used to implement an objec-
tive-based instructional system in physical education for TMI
students. A significant relationship is suggested between a
teacher's knowledge and implementation skills. Any signifi-
cant differences between training groups were in favor of the
distributed trained participants.

The results of this investigation offer support and
contradiction to the research cited during the formative
phase of the study. The results reported herein are in

partial agreement with several other studies in which no

89
significant difference was found between massed or distri-
buted training formats (Tsas, 1948: Ash, 1959; Weaver, 1976;
Braffet, 1976). However, numerous other studies had con-
flicting results in favor of the distributed approach
(Reynolds and Glaser, 1964; Miller, 1967; Hilgard, et al.,
1971; Butcher, 1975). At least one author reported results
in favor of the massed approach (Underwood, 1961).

The results of the comparison of teacher implementation
(with the assistance of a teacher consultant) during the
sixteen week training/implementation period was measured by
the summative status report. This evaluation revealed no
significant difference between the massed and distributed
trained teachers. No similar research was reported using
teacher implementation as a means for judging the success of
an inservice program. However, two authors have stated the
need for using teacher implementation as a measurement of
inservice success (Brimm and Tollet, 1974). Another author
demonstrated the success of teacher observation as a criterion
for determining the value of inservice education (Overline,
1972).

The relatively strong correlation between the teachers'
knowledge test scores and their implementation.scores may
reflect the need for either a sufficiently high level of know-
ledge and/or sufficient time to properly implement an objective
based instructional system such as I CAN, regardless of train-
ing format. The low correlation coefficient found between

teachers' knowledge scores and their implementation scores

90

for the teaching component is constant across both training
formats. This result may be due to an insufficient number
of items for the teaching component on the summative status
report. Elements of teaching were included in other com-
ponents of the instructional system, namely assessing, pre-
scribing and evaluating.

The information found in Tables 16, 17, and 18 provides

a summary of data for the three hypotheses tested in this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

study.
Table 16: Summary of two way ANOVA's for
component mastery test scores
for teachers and consultants.
Teachers Consultants Total
Sig. Direct. Sig. Direct. Sig. Direct.

4.)

3 Assess No No No

a _

>‘ Prescribe No No No

u

3 Teach No Yes Dist. No

0‘)

m

2 Evaluate No No No

4..)

8 Plan Yes Dist. No Yes Dist.
:

é‘ Total No No No

0

g

 

91

Table 17: Summary of one way ANOVA's for

summative status report scores
for teachers only.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Significance Direction
rfi’
’6
8‘ Assess No
m Prescribe No
In
3 Teach No
.‘S’
m Evaluate No
0
.3 Plan No
4..)
m
g Total No
m
N = 18
Table 18: Summary of correlations between teachers'
component mastery test and summative
status report scores.
Massed Distributed Total
Significant Significant Significant
Assess No Yes Yes
Prescribe Yes Yes Yes
Teach No No No
Evaluate No Yes Yes
Plan Yes No No
Total No Yes Yes

 

N = 18

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the
effects of massed and distributed, field-based, inservice
training programs on teachers and teacher consultants who
were being trained to use an objective-based physical educa-
tion system (I CAN). The study was conducted over a sixteen
week training period. The participants trained under the
massed approach were given two consecutive days of instruc-
tion, while the participants trained under the distributed
schedule received their instruction via a one day training
session with two one-half day sessions spaced at the second
and fourth weeks of the sixteen week training/implementation
program. Each group of participants was given identical
instruction and training content by the FSU staff who used
the same materials and agendas for their respective training
and follow-up sessions. Teachers and consultants were
issued implementation schedules with specific tasks to guide
their respective activities during the follow-up component
of the sixteen-week training schedule. Each teacher imple-
mented the same physical education program objectives
selected from the I CAN resource materials for equivalent

92

93
time periods and received a visit from their teacher con-
sultant every three weeks.

This study was designed to measure the effects of two
field—based inservice training approaches upon the knowledge
acquisition and implementation skills of teachers and teacher
consultants using the I CAN objective-based physical educa-
tion instructional system.

All participants completed the component mastery know-
ledge test during the sixteenth week of their training
schedule. In addition, a summative status report was used by
a FSU staff member to evaluate the implementation skills of
those participants with direct teaching responsibilities
in physical education while they conducted a physical educa-
tion lesson using the I CAN system. A correlation coefficient
was calculated between teachers' component mastery test
(knowledge) score and their summative status report
(implementation) score when teaching with I CAN. The
reliability of the component mastery knowledge test was
high, (R = .82).

A post-training questionnaire was administered via
telephone within two weeks of the completion of the sixteen
week training/implementation program. The questionnaire
was designed to measure participant reaction to the overall
training/implementation program. The twelve item question-
naire was divided into three areas:

a. The need for training:

b. The use of a demonstration center for training;

94
c. The need for follow-up support in the class-
room for implementation of the system.

Three hypotheses were investigated which dealt with the
effect of the training program upon knowledge, implementation
skills and the relationship between each of the aforemen-
tioned variables.

The results of the study are reported in summary form
by hypothesis.

Hypothesis One. There are no significant differences
between the knowledge levels of participants (teachers and
teacher consultants) trained under a massed field-based
training schedule (two consecutive one-day sessions within a
total sixteen-week training program), compared to those
participants trained under a distributed field-based schedule
(one day followed by two, one-half day sessions offered the
second and fourth weeks of a sixteen week field-based train-
ing schedule).

For hypothesis one, the data analysis suggests that:

1.1 When comparing all participants by massed or
distributed training groups, there was no significant
difference between knowledge levels as measured by the com-
ponent mastery test total score. The mean total score for
the distributed group was 85 percent while the massed
trained group average was 79 percent. Both group scores
exceed the competency criteria of 75 percent established by
the Field Service Unit staff as the minimum knowledge level

required for implementation.

95
1.2 The following results are suggested when comparing
training groups on the five components (assess, prescribe,
teach, evaluate, plan) of the I CAN system:

1.2.1 When comparing only teachers by training
group there was no significant difference on test
scores for assessing, prescribing, teaching and
evaluating. There was a significant difference on one
component, planning, in favor of the distributed group
of teachers.

1.2.2 When comparing only teacher consultants'
subtest scores, there was a significant difference in
favor of the distributed group for only the teaching
component test score. There was no significant differ-
ence between teacher consultants for any other subtest
of the component mastery test.

1.2.3 When considering all participants' subtest
scores by training group there was a significant
difference in favor of the distributed group for the
planning subtest only.

Hypothesis Two. There are no significant differences in
the level of teacher implementation when trained under a
massed or distributed format within a sixteen week field—
based training schedule including follow-up service by their
teacher consultant.

For hypothesis two, the data analysis suggest that:

2.1 For the summative status report, which is a

measure of teacher implementation skills, there was no

96
significant difference on total score for teachers trained
under the massed or distributed formats. Teachers trained
under the massed format implemented at the 78 percent level
of efficiency and those within the distributed approach
averaged 81 percent efficiency. Both groups of teachers
exceeded the minimum implementation criteria of 75 percent
established by the Field Service Unit staff as indicative of
acceptable implementation of the I CAN system.

2.2 There were no significant differences between the
massed and distributed trained groups (teachers only) when
comparing subtest scores.

Hypothesis Three. There are no significant correlations
between a teacher's knowledge of an objective-based instruc-
tional system (I CAN), and their ability to implement a
system as intended.

For hypothesis three, the data analysis suggest that:

3.1 When calculating the correlation between a teacher's
component mastery test score and summative status report
score, there was a significant relationship forthe assessing,
prescribing, and evaluating components of the I CAN system
for teachers trained under the distributed format. Those
teachers trained under the massed approach had significant
correlations for the prescribing and planning components of
the I CAN system.

3.2 When considering all teachers across both training
programs, a significant correlation was produced when con-

sidering each teacher's summative status report and component

97
mastery test scores for the subtests of assessing, prescrib-
ing, evaluating and total scores.

The administration of the post-training questionnaire to
the thirty-one participants resulted in several findings of
interest. All subjects expressed a need for the twelve hour
training segment with a sizeable minority opting for several
more hours of instruction. The concept of being trained at
a field-based demonstration center drew a positive response

as did the use of teacher consultants as follow-up personnel.

Conclusions

 

Within the limitations of these data, the following

conclusions were formulated:

Knowledge Acquisition a§_Measured by the Component Mastery
Test

 

 

 

Although participants score at a high level of profi-
ciency for total test score under both types of training
when testing for knowledge acquisition and retention of the
I CAN system, several differences were found for subscores in
favor of the distributed trained teachers or teacher con-

sultants.

Implementation Skills 3§.Measured by_Summative Status Score

 

Teacher implementation of the I CAN system during the
total training period was not significantly different for
teachers trained under the two training programs. Both

training formats were equally effective when teacher

98
implementation skills were measured. Teachers can be
trained to implement an objective-based instructional system
on specified physical education objectives.

Relationship Between Knowledge Acquisition and Implementation
Skills

 

There appears to be a moderate to high relationship
between teachers' knowledge skills attained during training
and their ability to implement these skills in their own
teaching assignment when using an objective based instruc-
tional system (I CAN). The distributed trained teachers had
more significant correlations and generally higher relation-
ships between knowledge and implementation than did the massed
trained teachers. The correlations may reflect the need
for either a high level of knowledge and/or sufficient time
to properly implement an objective based instructional

system regardless of training format.

Implications

 

l. Field-based inservice training involving an
objective-based physical education instructional system (I
CAN) can be conducted effectively using either a massed or
distributed training program for teachers and teacher con-
sultants of TMI.

2. The decision to implement either a massed or
distributed inservice training model could be made based on
whichever approach is the most cost-effective and preferred

by participants for a given situation.

99

3. Evaluation of a field-based inservice-training
program, using both knowledge acquisition and implementation
skills, may be an effective methodology for determining the
success of inservice training for teachers and teacher con-
sultants who deliver physical education services to TMI
students.

4. Teachers are able to acquire and retain significant
amounts of knowledge when given the opportunity to internalize
and immediately apply this information to their teaching
situation and when given regular follow-up support by a

teacher consultant.

Recommendations

 

The following recommendations are offered as a result
of this study:

1. Implement a follow-up study to determine the impact
of the long-term use of an objective-based instructional
system (I CAN) in the selected school sites and demonstration
centers. Determine if teachers are implementing the system
as intended, and if teacher consultants are providing staff
development, causing a ripple effect to other teachers and
teacher consultants in local situations.

2. Refine the instruments used for data gathering
through an item analysis procedure to analyze the essential
component items for both knowledge and implementation skills
of the I CAN objective-based system.

3. Use the self-monitor forms for the total evaluation

100
process for teachers and teacher consultants.

4. Investigate the effectiveness of the field-based
training program in terms of student learning behavior gains.

5. Develop training manuals that are self-instructional
for use by both teachers and teacher consultants incorporat-
ing self-monitor forms which focus on identifiable com-
petencies required to implement an objective-based instruc-
tional system.

6. Analyze cost benefit results in terms of teacher
consultant and student gains to include knowledge and imple-
mentation skills and long-term program modification.

7. Teacher consultants who offer continuing or follow-
up service during a similar training program should be
trained prior to, rather than concurrently with, their

teachers.

REFERENCES CITED

REFERENCES CITED

Books

Atkin, Myron J. and Raths, James D. "Changing Pattern of
Teacher Education in the United States." In The In-
Service Education of Teachers' Trends, Processes 35d
Prescriptions, pp.-227-229. Edited by Ecuis Rubin.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978.

 

Atkin, Myron J. "Governmental Roles." In New Perspectives
pp Teacher Education, p. 99. Edited by Donald J.
McCarty. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1973.

 

Bacon, Sir Francis. Novum Orgarum. Edited by Joseph Devey.
London: Henry G. Bohn, .

Bass, Bernard M. and Vaughn, James A. The Psychology of

Learning for Managers. American Foundation for MSEage-
ment Research, .

 

Brady, H. S. "In-Service Teacher Education - Paradoxes and
Potentials." In The In-Service Education of Teachers'

Trends, Processes, and—Prescriptions, p. 587’ Edited
by Louis Rubin. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978.

 

 

Cambell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and
Quasi Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand
McNally College Publishing Company, 1963.

 

Cox, David R. Plannin of Experiments. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1366:

Davis, Donald. Notes and Working Papers Prepared for the
Senate Sub-Committee on Education, April 1967.

Drummond, William H. "Role of State Department of Education."
In New Perspectives on Teacher Education, p. 99.

Edited by Donald J. MECarty. San FranciSco: Jossey
Bass, 1973.

 

Ebel, Robert L. Essentials pf Educational Measurement.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-HaIl, 1972.

 

 

101

102

Fischer, Louis. "In-Service Education." In Improving Ip-
Service Education, p. 233. Edited by Louis J. Rubin.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971.

 

 

Harris, Ben M. and Bessent, Wailand. Ipfservice Education:
A Guide 59 Better Practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1969.

 

 

Howe, Harold II. "Improving Teacher Education Through
Exposures to Reality." In New Perspectives pp Teacher
Education, p. 61. Edited b§_Donald J. McCarty.

San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1973.

 

 

Jackson, Philip W. "Old Dogs and New Tricks." In Improving
IpfService Educatiop, p. 28. Edited by Louis J. Rubin.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971.

Joyce, Bruce R.; Howey, Kenneth R.; and Yarger, Sam J.
ISTE Report I, Issues to Face. Palo Alto: Stanford
Center for Research and—Development in Teaching, June
1976.

 

Lippitt, Ronald and Fox, Robert. "Development and Mainten-
ance of Effective Classroom Learning." In Improving
IpeService Education, p. 117. Edited by Louis J.
Rubin. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971.

 

 

McCarty, Donald J., ed. "Responsibilities of the Dean of
Reform." In New Perspectives pp_Teacher Education, p.
243. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1973.

 

 

Nicholson, Alexander M.: Joyce, Bruce R.: Parker, Donald W.:
Waterman, Floyd G. In-Service Teacher Education
Re orts. Vol 3: LiEErature. Palo Alto: National
Dissemination Center of Syracuse University, 1976.

 

 

Nie, Norman H.: Hull, C. H.; Jenkins, G.; Steinbrenner,
Karen; and Bent, D. H. Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.

 

 

Richey, Herman G. "Growth of the Modern Conception of In-
Service Education, In-Service Education for Teachers,
Supervisors, and Administrators." In'Fifty-Sixth Year-
book of the National Society for the Study of Education,
p. 357— Chicago: University of Chicago Pre§§,-I957.

 

 

Rubin, Louis J., ed. Improving IpeService Education,
Prpposals and Procedures for Change. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, 1971.

 

 

 

 

Rubin, Louis J., ed. The Ip—Service Education pf Teachers,
Trends, Process and Prescriptions. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, 1978.

 

 

103

Turner, John C. ”Practical Observations from the Field." In
The In-Service Education pf Teachers, pp. 262-263.
EditEd by Lofiis J. RuBin. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
1978.

 

Tyler, Ralph W. "In-Service Education of Teachers: A Look
at the Past and Future." In Improving In-gsrvice
Education, pp. ll-l4. Edited by Louis 37 Rubin. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 1971.

 

 

Articles

Ash, Philip. "The Relative Effectiveness of Massed Versus
Spaced Film Presentation." Journal pf Educational
Psychology, 41 (1950): 19-30.

 

 

Asher, James J. Ip-Service Education Psychological Perspec-
tives. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction
Serv1ce, ED 015 891 (1967).

 

Austin, Sarah D. M. "A Study in Logical Memory." 32
(July 1921): 370-403.

Brimm, Jack L., and Follett, Daniel J. "How Do Teachers
Feel About In-Service Education?” Educational Leader-
ship, 31 (March 1974): 523.

 

Bumstead, A. P. "Distribution of Effort in Memorizing Prose
and Poetry." AmeriCan Journal sf Psychology, 50 (July
1940): 423-427.

 

 

Davis, Robert A. and Moore, C. C. "Methods of Measuring
Retention." Journal 9f General Psychology, 12-13 (1935):
144-155.

 

Dore, L. R. and Hilgard, Ernest R. "Spaced Practice as a
Test of Snoddy's Two Processes in Mental Growth.”
Journal sf Psychology, 23 (1938): 359-374.

 

Edelfelt, Roy A., ed. and Johnson, Margo, ed. Rethin King
Ip-Service Education. Ann Arbor, MI.: ERIC Document
ReproductiOn Service, ED 106 300 (1975).

 

 

Gordon, Kate. "Class Results with Spaced and Unspaced
Memorizing." Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8

(1925) : 337-373“. " ‘ —'

 

Hardy, M. D. "The Effect of Distribution on Practice in
Learning a Stylus Maze." Journal pf Comparative Psy-
chology, 10 (1930): 85-96.

 

104

Hoveland, Carl I. "Experimental Studies in Rote Learning
Theory, Reminiscence Following Learning by Massed and
by Distributed Practice." Journal 9: Experiment Psy-

chology, 22 (March 1928): 20I3224.

 

Ingersoll, Gary M.; Jackson, Janet H.; and Waldon, James D.
Teacher Training, Needs, Conditions and Materials: A
Preliminary Survey pf Inservice EducatiOn Report Np. 8.
Bethesda, Mc.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service,

ED 108 407 (1975).

 

 

 

 

Jost, A. Die Assoziations festig Keit in ihrer Abhangry Keit
von der Verteilung der Wiederhalungen (The Association's
Celebration of the Study of Dependence of Distribution
of Repetition). A. Psychol. Physiol. Sinnersorgane,

14 (1897): 436-472.

 

 

 

Kasdon, L. M. and Kelly, D. "Simulation: Inservice Educa-
tion for Teachers of Reading." Journal sf Experimental
Education, 38 (Fall 1969): 79-86.

 

 

Katz, L.: Morpurgo, J.; Aspen, L.; and Wolf, R. "The Advisory
Approach to Inservice Training." Journal sf Teacher
Education, 25 (1974): 154-159.

 

Kimble, G. A. "Performance and Reminiscence in Motor Learn-
ing as a Function of the Degree of Distribution of
Practice." Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39

(1949): 500-510. _—

 

Lyon, D. O. "The Relation of Length of Material to Time
Taken for Learning and Optimum Distribution of Time."

Journal of Educational Psychology, 5 (1914): 1-7,
85-91, 155-I63 passim.

 

McCracken, Robert A. Establishing Guidelines for Effective
Inservice Programs i2 Readin . Bethesda, Mc.: ERIC
Document Reproduction Serv1ce, ED 022 637 (1968).

 

 

McGeoch, Grace 0. "The Conditions of Reminiscence."
American Journal of Psychology, 47 (January 1937):
65-89. '—_

 

 

 

Moburg, Lawrence G. lp-gervice Teacher Training is Reading.
Ann Arbor, MI.: ERIC Document Reproduction SerVice,
ED 065 833 (1972).

Monahan, William G. and Miller, H. E. Planning and Develop-
ing AA-Service Education. Ann Arbor, MI.: ERIC
Document Reproduction Service, ED 045 611 (1970).

 

 

Moody, Charles D. Sr. ed. Introduction 39 Part II, A Look
As the Education pf Teachers: Preservice afid‘AA-Service.
Bethesda, Mc.: ERIC Document Reproduction Serv1ce,

 

 

 

105
ED 111 910 (1974).

Pechstein, L. A. "Mass ys. Distributed Effort in Learning."
Journal g£_Educationa1 Psychology, 12 (1921): 92-97.

 

Peterson, H. A. "Some Measurements of the Effects of
Review." Journal sf Educational Psychology, 26 (1935):
65-72.

 

Reynolds, James H. and Glaser, R. "Effects of Repetition and
Space Review Upon Retention of a Complex Learning
Task." Journal pf Educational Psychology, 55 (1964):
297-308.

 

Reed, H. B. "Distributed Practice in Addition." Journal pf
Educational Psychology, 15 (1924): 248-250.

 

Rohrer, J. H. "Factors Influencing the Occurrence of
Reminiscence: Attempted Formal Rehearsal During the
Interpolated Period." Journal of Experimental Psy-

chology, 39 (1949): 484-491. _—

 

Ross, B. "A Study of the Performance of Boys and Girls
Taught by the Specialist and the Non-Specialist."
Research Quarterly, 31 (1960): 199-207.

 

Scott, R. S. "A Comparison of Teaching Two Methods of
Physical Education with Grade One Pupils." Research
Quarterly, 38 (1967): 151-154.

 

Sobel, Francis T. "What Variables Appear Important in Chang-
ing Traditional In-Service Training Procedures."
Bethesda, Mc.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service,

ED 083 14 (1971).

Underwood, B. J. I"Ten Years of Massed Practice on Distributed
Practice." Psychological Review, 68 (July 1961):
229-247.

 

Ward, L. B. "Reminiscence and Rote Learning." Psychological
Monograph, 49 (1937): cited by John A. McGeoch, The
Psychology of Human Learning, pp. 138-189. New Yark:
LongmanTs, Efeen and Company, 1952.

 

 

 

 

Williams, Patricia W. A Comparison of Inservice Methods for
Training Teachers E9 Comprehend_3nd Implement the
DeciSiOn-Making,Model‘for Diagnostic Teaching.
Arlington, Va.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service,

ED 130 480 (1976).

 

 

 

 

Wright, S. T. and Taylor, D. W. "Distributed Practice in
Verbal Learning and the Maturation Hypothesis."
Journal sf Esperimental Psychology, 39 (1949): 527-531.

 

106

Public Documents

 

 

U.S. Congress. House. Education for All Handica. ed
Children, H. Rept. 322 two accompany H. 7217, 94th
Cong., lst sess., 1975.

U.S. President, Proclamation. "Education for All Handicapped
Children Act." Federal Register, 42, no. 163, 23 August
1977, 42480, 42492-3.

 

Unpublished Documents

 

Acanfora, Anthony G. "A Inservice Needs Assessment of Ohio
Elementary and Secondary School Physical Educators."
Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1975.

Braffet, Richard F. "Development and Evaluation of a Self
Instructional Module: Massed Learning versus Spaced
Learning Format." Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana
University, 1976.

Butcher, John D. "Comparison of the Effects of Distributed
and Massed Problem Assignments on the Homework of Ninth
Grade Algebra Students." Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers
University, 1975.

East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan State University. William
W. Heusner Papers.

Feaster, Anne, and Nutter, Barbara. "Graduate Credit Con-
tract Course as a Flexible Model for Inservice Designs."
Paper presented at 57th annual meeting of National
Association of Teacher Educators, Atlanta, Georgia,
February, 1977.

Feinberg, Marvin W. "An Analysis of Guidelines for In-
Service Teacher Education Practices in Selected Schools -
Grades 5-9." Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern
University, 1974.

Jaquith, Charles E. "An Analysis of Perceptions of Junior
High/Middle School Teachers, Principals, and University
Specialists Concerning Inservice Education." Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Michigan, 1973.

Lawrence, Gordon. "Patterns of Effective In-Service
Education." Department of Education, Tallahassee,
Florida (December 1974).

Michigan State University: Computer Laboratory, Supplement
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences - 6000 (1978).

107

Miller, Beverly W. "A Study of Distributed Versus Massed
Practice in Human Anatomy and Physiology Instruction in
a Collegiate Program for Student Nurses." Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Toledo, 1967.

Moffit, John C. "In-Service Education for Teachers."
Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Research in
Education, 1965.

Oberline, Harry M. "An Investigation into the Effects of an
Inservice Program in Learning Disabilities on Elementary
School Teachers' Attitudes in Classroom Instructional
Activities." Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University,
1972.

Paine, Francis I. "A Survey to Determine the Need for
Specialized Pre-Service and In-Service Program for
Junior High/Middle School Teachers in the State of
Nebraska." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nebraska -
Lincoln, .

Rubin, Louis J. "A Study on the Continuing Education of
Teachers." The Center for Coordinated Education,
University of California, Santa Barbara, 1969.

Scharles, Winifred W. "Development and Evaluation of an
Intensive Short-Term, In-Service Teacher Training Pro-
gram on Learning Disabilities." Ph.D. dissertation,
American University, 1971.

Scheifley, Verda M., and Schmidt, William, ed. Occasional
Paper No. 22: Office of Research Consultation, School
of Advanced Studies. East Lansing: Michigan State
University, 1973.

Smith, Othanel B.; Cohen, Saul B.; and Pearl, Arthur.
Teachers for the Real World. Washington, D.C.:

American AssociatiEn of Colleges for Teacher Educators,
1969.

 

Tarr, John E. "An Analysis of Inservice Education Programs
in Iowa Schools." Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Iowa, 1969.

Tsas, J. C. "Studies in Spaced and Massed Learning: II
Meaningfulness of Material and Distributions of Practice."
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1 (1948):

7 g-g4 o —

 

 

Vaughn, Ann L. "Utilizing Instruction Staff Preference of
Selected In-Service Processes as a Source of Directive
for In-Service Education Program." Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Virginia, 1975.

108

Vogel, Paul G. "The Effect of Teacher Type and Instructional
Time on the Achievement of Selected Fundamental Motor
Skills by Elementary Age Trainable Mentally Retarded
Children." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1974.

Weaver, J. R. "The Relative Effects of Massed Versus
Distributed Practice Upon the Learning and Retention of
Eighth Grade Mathematics." Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-
sity of Oklahoma, 1976.

Wessel, Janet A. "Programmatic Research and Demonstration
Project in Physical Education for the Severely Mentally
Retarded." Project 443CH60613, Grant G007604892,
Michigan State University, Field Research Service Unit
in Physical Education, 1977.

Wessel, Janet A. "Programmatic Research Project in Physical
Education for the Mentally Retarded Child in the
Elementary School." Final Report. Project 322718,
Grant OEG-0-71-3905 (608), Michigan State University,
Department of Health Physical Education and Recreation,
1975.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

I CAN OVERVIEW

I CAN OVERVIEW

I CAN is an objective-based instructional system de-
signed to improve the delivery of physical education services
to handicapped populations. It can be used by physical
education specialists, classroom teachers or a combination
of both. Design specifications resulted in a program which:
1) provides for diagnostic-prescriptive teaching of students
who range in ability from near zero competence to functional
competence on a wide variety of physical performance skills
and knowledges; 2) is responsive to the needs of local
educational agencies to either build a rational program or
select materials to supplement an already existing program;
3) is not dependent on elaborate equipment and/or facilities:
and 4) provides for user compliance with PL 94-142 and other
accountability laws when implemented as intended.

The system consists of two major components. A
teacher's implementation guide provides the information
necessary to appropriately use the instructional materials,

and secondly, the instructional resource materials guide the

 

systematic teaching of a large variety of independent
physical education content (termed performance objectives in
the program). Inservice procedures and materials have also
been developed to guide the education of teacher and teacher

109

110
consultants in the use of the system.

The implementation guide provides the information

 

necessary to conduct 1) program planning, 2) long-term plan-
ning, 3) assessment of student status, 4) prescription of
instruction based upon assessed needs, 5) implementation of
teaching-learning activities associated with prescriptions,
and 6) student and program evaluation of the results of
instruction. Program planning and long-term planning are
concerned with the derivation and appropriate placement of
relevant program goals and objectives. Assessment, prescrip-
tion and teaching chapters describe the mechanics of systema-
tic teaching. The evaluation section describes the proce-
dures necessary for reassessing and reporting student achieve-
ments and deciding on instructional and program plan
modifications.

The instructional resource materials are divided into

 

primary and secondary skills. Primary content includes 71

 

performance objectives (PCs) for ages 5 through 14 and 79
secondary level PCs for ages 15 through 25. The primary

skills are divided into: Fundamental Motor Skills (12 loco-

 

motor and 11 object control POs); Body Management (7 body

 

awareness and 11 object control POs); Health Fitness (6 fit-

 

ness and growth and 9 postural control PCs): and Aquatics (7
basic skill and 8 swimming and water entry skills PCs).

The secondary skills are divided into: Backyard/Neighborhood

 

 

Activities (7 badminton, 2 croquet, 2 horseshoes, 4 roller-

 

skating and 2 tetherball POs); Team Sports (8 basketball, 3

 

lll
kickball, 4 softball, and 6 volleyball POs); Outdoor

Activities (2 backpacking, 4 camping, 2 hiking and 6 cross

 

country skiing P05), and Dance and Individual Sports (3

 

bowling, 7 folk dance, 11 gymnastics and 6 track and field
POs).

Performance objectives are included for both psychomotor

 

(skill) and cognitive activities. Each skill objective is

 

divided into sequential instructional levels which range in
performance competence from assisted performance, 2) rudi-
mentary (modeled) performance, 3) qualitative pattern (bio-
mechnically efficient), 4) qualitative pattern plus a distance
and/or control criterion, and 5) functional performance (a
qualitative pattern plus distance and/or control and accuracy
at a criterion level enabling participation in sports of the

culture). The cognitive objectives are also divided into

 

instructional levels represented as: 1) physical performance,
2) modeled performance, and 3) functional performance
(criterion performance is initiated with a verbal or equiva-
lent cue). The instructional levels of all PCs are stated in
behavioral terms and have both qualitative and quantitative
standards. The standards are operationally defined by Eggs;
points (discrete, measurable elements of skill) within each
instructional level. Focal points are the units upon which

assessment, teaching and performance improvements are based.

APPENDIX B

LOCATION OF TRAINING CENTERS

 

éharlotte

Kalamazoo

O
Goldwater

4

Components of Demonstration Sites:

1.

2.

3.

Training site for interested persons who wish to gain skills in planning and implementing
a diagnostic-prescriptive instructional system.

Replicable model {Or implementation of an accountability system {Or the delivery of physical
education services.

Resource center to aid trained teachers with specific problems in the implementation and
management of a diagnostic-prescriptive instructional systes.

112

APPENDIX C

TEACHER CONSULTANT ASSIGNMENTS

General :

Week'Dwo

Week
Three

Four

Five

Six

Teacher Consultant Assignments

For the duration of the training program we are request-
ing that the teachers operate within the following
constraints: (1) Select one class of trainable mental-
ly retarded students, ages 5-14; (2) Teach the assigned
objectives for approximately two 35-ufinute classes per
week; (3) Follow the assignments as closely as possible.

Contact teachers and confirm visitation.
Visit demonstration center.*

1. Visit teacher.

2 . Arrive approximately 20-30 minutes prior to the
scheduled class observation. Discuss procedures
for monitoring with teacher. Request teacher to
danonstrate, during the class, any problans being
encountered.

3. Work with teacher in the implenention of the
lesson. Complete consultant monitoring form.

4. Using teacher self-mutating forms and consul-
tant monitor forms, discuss with teacher problems
of concern. Attanpt to identify alternative sol-
utions .

5 . Record problems and alternative solutions
suggested.

6. Review the Rm objective. Assign the Rm as
next objective to be iuplemented.

1. Visit demonstration center.*

2. Bring consultant monitoring forms , identified prob-
lem and suggested alternatives.

3. Bnn'deg Perfomame Objectives and Inplanentatim
Gui .

1. Confirm week six visitation with teacher.

1. Visit teacher.

2. Arrive approximately 20-30 mimtes prior to the
scheduled class observation. Discuss procedures
for monitoring with teacher. Request teacher to
demonstrate, during the class, any problans being
encountered.

* Only participants trained under distributed format.

113

Week
Eight

Week
Nine

Week
Twelve

Week
Fifteen

Week
Sixteen

\lO‘U‘I

114

Work with teacher in the implementation of the
lesson. Complete consultmt monitoring form.
Using teacher self-monitoring forms and consultmt
monitoring forms, discuss with teacher problems

of concern. Attempt to identify alternative solu-
tions.

Record problems and alternative solutions suggested.
Revien and assign Stamina and Body Parts objectives.
With teacher, design a program plan for the bal-
mce of year. Weeks seven-sixteen plan for objec-
tives as assigned. Total time needed - approxi-
mately three hours for planning.

Confirm week nine visitation with teacher.

...:

boom)-

Visit teacher .
Review yearly program plm for ccmpleteness and
accuracy.

Visit teacher.

Arrive approximately 20-30 minutes prior to the
scheduled class observation. Discuss procedures
for monitoring with teacher . Request teacher to
demonstrate, during the class, my problems being
encountered.

Work with teacher in the implementation of the
lesson. Complete cmsultmt monitoring form.
Using teacher self-monitoring forms md consultmt
monitoring forms, discuss with teacher problems
of concern . Attempt to identify alternative solu-
tiais .

Record problems and alternative solutions
suggested.

Confirm final visitation with teacher.

Canplete evaluation of training program.

Complete consultmt evaluaticn-—posttest.

Visit teacher with project representative.

Arrive approximately 20-30 minutes prior to the
scheduled class observation. Discuss procedures
for monitoring with teacher. Request teacher to
demonstrate, during the class, my problems being
encountered.

115

Work with teacher in the implementat ion of the
lesson. Complete consultant monitoring form.

Using teacher self—monitoring forms and consultant
monitor forms , discuss with teacher problems of
concern. Atterpt to identify alternative solutions.

APPENDIX D

TEACHER ASSIGNMENTS

116

.ucoooum comm mom cow»

Iosuumcfi mom mucwom Hmoow meusoow one uwmcm ouoom mosoEuomuom mmmao 30H>mm
.ucmEmmommm you Show mcwuouflcoalmaom muoamsoo

.omnoucoooco mEmHnoum has ouooom

.ummcm ouoow mocwsuomumm mmmflo may no mocmEHOMme ucoonum ouoomu pom mmomme

.ommmmmmo coon o>ma mucoosum on»
Ham Hausa mufl>fluow usmEmmommm can uooocou .mufl>fiuom mcflmmommm may ucoameEH

 

.3ouce ocmcuw>o on» mcwmmmmmm mom Amado :30
snow cmfimoo HOV meow zeu H so mean: mufi>wuom unmammomms no spam can pooamm

 

.oououcooocm mEoHnoum was oucomm
.ummnm ouoom mocofiuomumm mmoHU one so mocmEAOMHmm Homosum onoomu osm mmommm

.oommmmmm coon o>mn mucoooum
map Ham Hausa mufl>fluom ucoEmmommm uosocoo .muw>wuom mowmmmmmm on» ucoEmHmEH

 

.3ouna ocmcum>o on» mcwmmmmmm How “:30 Moo»
cmwmoo HOV mamwnouma z<o H was Eoumjwufl>wuom ucofimmommm as spam can pooamm

 

.H

.oanflmmom mm mammoHo mm mucoecmflmmm ocu 3oHHom Amy .xwo3

mom mmmo OBD .mwuscHE so» hawumfiflxoummm Mom o>wuoomno oosmflmmo comm comma Ame

.va

um moms .mucmosum omoumumu aaamucwe wanmcfimuu mo mmmao moo pooamm Adv "mucwmuum
Icoo mcfizoaaom msu cacpfl3 mumuomo ommoam Esumoum oneness» on» no cowuouoo on» non

mBZmZZGHmwd m.mmm0¢m8
02¢ Edmwomm wZHZH¢MB

wco won
038 xme

039 xoa

woo woo
oco xom3

"Rdmmzmw

.waso masonm omcwmuu oouonwnumflo «

.oououcooocm mEoHooum has ouoomm
.momcmco onooou ammmmmmmu com comma

.cmam.o0mmma maflmo ouonEoo

 

.mpcflom HMOOM ooflmflucoow anaconda How mpw>fluoo meow s uomamm

.ucoooum comm How cow»

nonhumcfi How wucflom HMUOH ammusoofl one poocm muoom oocmEHomuwm mmmau 3mfl>om
«.ucmuHSmsoo cuw3 Houcoo coflumuumcoemo no mowcfimuu m>wooom

.GOfiumeommum How Euom mcwuouficoelmamm ouonEou

117

.oououcoooco mewaooum has onooom

.momcsco phonon .mmommmon can cocoa

.cmam acmmoa Magoo mponEoo

.mucwom Hmoom oowmwucoofi mcwcomou How mowuw>wu0s Hmcoauoonumcfi Domaom

.ucoozum some now soap
nonhumcfi mom mucwom Hooom mmeucoow ocm umonm whoom oocmEHomnmm mmmao 3ofi>om

.oonoucoooco mEmHnoum has oncomm
.momcmno onooou “mummmmmu pom comma
.GMHQ commoa waflmo ouonEou

.mucflom HMOOM powMHuson maflcomou How mwflufl>wuom HMGOfiuoouumcw nomamm

.H

.H

.w

.m

woo woo
mouse xomz

mouse won

038 woo

118

.ano emnoum manHeuu oeuncuuumuo *

*.uneanmnoo cuHB ueuneo nowueuumnoeeo ue manHeHu e>He0em

.uneEmmemme How Show mnHHoanOEluHem eueHmEou

.oeueunnoone mEeHcoum mne ouooem

.ueecm enoom eoneEuomuem mmeHUmflfiuno eoneEHomuem uneonum ouooeu one mmemme

.oemmemme neec e>ec muneonum ecu
HHe HHunn muH>Huoe uneEmmemme ecu uononou .huH>Huoe mnHmmemme ecu uneEeHmEH

.nnm ecu mnHmmemme How Aeeem n30
Moo» anmeo uov eEeu znu H ne mnHmn muH>Huoe uneEwmemme ne neHm one uoeHem

 

.oeueunnoone mEeHcoum mne ouooem
.ueecm euoom eoneEHomuem mmeHU ecu no eoneEuoHuem uneonum ouooeu one meemmc

.oemmemme neec e>ec muneonum
ecu HHe HHunn muH>Huoe uneEmmemme uononoo .auH>Huoe mnwmmemme ecu uneEeHmEH

.nnm ecu mnmmmemme How An3o Moo»
anmeo uov mHeHueueE zeu H ecu Eoum NMH>Huoe uneEmmemme ne neHm one uoeHem

 

.nnm I uneEanmme 3en e>Heoem

.meunoeooum nouueuneEeHmEH one mauom
mnHuoanoE uneanmnoo .mEuow mnHuoanoEImHem 3eu>eu .uneanmnoo uecoeeu cuuz

.ueecm mmeumoum uneonum ecu no ouooeu one emneco uneonum wmuuneoH
.ueecm euoom eoneEHomuem mmeHo ecu no mmeuooum uneonum ouooeu one mmemmeem

 

.Bouca onecue>o ecu no noHuonuumnH eueHmEou

.H eeucB hen

.m

.H

.w

039 men

eno hen
unom xeez

.nnm ecu no noHuonuumnH eueHmEou
.oeueunnoone mEeHcoum hne ouooem
.memneco ouooeu ammemmeeu one coeea

.neHm nOmmeH hHHeo eueHmEoU

 

.eunHom Heoom oeHmHuneoH manoeeu How wuH>Huoe eEeu e uoeHem

.uneonue coee How nOHu

IonuuwnH mom munHom HeooH mmuuneoH one ueecm euoom eoneEuouuem mmeHU 3eH>em
.oeueunnoone mEeHcoum >ne ouooem

.wmmflmno UHOUOH ammmwmmmh Huh—m £0005

119

.neHm nOmmeH hHHeo eueHmEou
.munHom Heoom oeHHHuneoH manoeeu How meHuH>Huoe Henowuonuumnw uoeHem

.uneonum coee mom noHu
nonhumnH Mom munHom Heoom mmuuneou one ueecm euoom eoneEuoHuem mmeHU 3eH>em

.oeueunnoone mEeHcoum mne ouooem

.memneco ouooeu ammemmeeu one coeeB

.neHm nOmmeH mHHeo eueHmEou

.munHom Heoow oeHHHuneoH manoeeu uoH meHuH>Huoe Henowuonuumnfl uoeHem

.uneonum coee Mom nOHu
nonuumnu now munHom HeooH AHHuneoH one ueecm euoom eoneauomuem mmeHU 3eH>em

.H

.H

038 >eo

eno men
me ceez

eno men
e>um new:

120

.ueecm euoom eoneEuomuem mmeHU ecu no eoneEuowuem uneonum ouooeu one mmeemc

.oemmemme neec e>ec muneonum
ecu HHe Huunn muu>uuoe uneEmmemme uononou .muH>Huoe mnuememme ecu uneEeHmEH

.enHEeum mcHMmemme Mom Anao Moo»
nmumeo uov mHeuueueE zen H ecu Eoum wuu>uuoe uneEmmemme ne neHm one uoeHem

 

.oeueunnoone mEeHcoum ace ouooem
.ueecm euoom eoneEuomuem mmeHU ecu no eoneEuomuem uneonum ouooeu one mmemmm

.oemmemme neec e>ec muneonum
ecu HHe HHunn >uu>uuoe uneEmmemme uononoo .muH>Huoe mnummemme ecu uneEeHmEH

 

.muuem woom ecu mnummemme Mom Anso unom
nmumeo uov mHeHueueE zco H ecu Eoum Nuu>uuoe uneEmmeeme ne neHm one uoeHem

 

.uneanmnoo uecoeeu cuHB neHm Seymoum aHueem e moHe>eo

.me>uuoenco eoneeuomuem unoH mnHmn neHm cee3 neu e nmumea

 

.enHEeum one muuem woom I unefinmumme Ben e>Heoem

.meunoeooum noHueuneEeHmEH one mEuoH
onuuouunoa uneanmnoo .mEuom mnuuoanOElmHem 3eH>eu .uneanmnoo uecoeeu cuuz

.uuomeu mmeumoum uneonue ecu no ouooeu one emneco uneonum mmuuneoH
.ueecm euoom eoneEuomuem mmeHU ecu no mmeumoum uneonum ouooen one mmemmeem

.xuu>uuoe mnHmmemme ecu uneEeHQEH

.nnm ecu mnHmmemme How “:30 Room
nmumeo Hoe mHeHueueE zcu H ecu Eoum muu>uuoe uneEmmeeme ne neHm one uoeHem

 

.H 039 wen

.H eno wen
ne>em ceeB

121

Hmoou emuuuucmeu

 

lue>o one .enHEeum

Havoc emueuucmeu

 

Ine>o one enHEeum

umooe emuenucmeu

 

Iue>o one .enHEeum

.munuon
onucoeeu mom meEem H0\one meuuu>uuoe Henouuonuumnu uoeHem

 

.nowuonuumnu uoH munuon Heoom mmuuneou one souca onec
.nnm .muuen moon mom ueecm euoom eoneEHOHHen mmeHU 3eu>em

 

.nouunuuomeun now show mnuuouunoEIHHem eueHnEoo
.oeueunnoone mEeHcoun mne ouooem

.memneco ouooeu «mmemmeeu one coeea

.neHn nOmmeH mHueo eueHnEou

.munuon
manoeeu MOM meEem u0\one meuuu>uuoe Henouuonuuenu uoeHem

 

.nOHuonuumnM Mom munuon Heoom mmuuneou one zouca onec
.nnm .muuen moon now ueecm euoom eoneEuomuem emeHo 3eu>em

 

.oeueunnoone mEeHcoun mne ouooem
.memneco ouooeu ammemmeeu one coeee
.neHm nOmmeH mHHeo eueHnEoo

.munuon
onucoeeu now meEem u0\one meuuu>uuoe Henouuonuumnu uoeHem

 

.nomuonuumnu now eunuon Heoom muuuneou one Bouce onec
.nnm .muuen moon Mom ueecm euoom eoneEuoHuen mmeHU 3ew>em

 

.oeueunnoone mEeHcoun mne ouooem

.H

.v

eno men
enHz gee:

039 men

eno men
unmun gees

122

HeOOH oeHHHuneoH

 

lue>o one .enHEeum

Hmoou emueuucmeu

 

nue>o one .enHEeum

.nouunuuomeun Mom Snow mnHHOanOEImHem eueHnEoo
.oeueunnoone mEeHcoun mne ouooem

.memneco onooeu «mmemmeeu one coeee

.neHn nonmeH mHHeo eueHmEoo

.munuon
onucoeeu now meEem n0\one meHuH>Huoe HenoHuonuumnH uoeHem

 

.nowuonuumnu Hem munuon Heoom mmuuneou one zouca onec
.nnm .muuem Noon Mom ueecm euoom eoneEuoHuen mmeHU 3eu>em

 

.oeueunnoone mEeHcoun mne ouooem
.memneco ouooen «mmemmeeu one coeee
.neHn nOmmeH mHHeo eueHnEou

.munuon
mnucoeeu Mom meEem u0\one meuuu>uuoe Henouuonuumnu uoeHem

 

.nouuonuumnw How munuon Heoow meuneoH one zoucB onec
.nnm .muuem moon How ueecm euoow eoneEHOHHen mmeHU 3eH>em

 

.ueem

Ho eoneHec Mom neHn Eeumoun eNHHenum .meunoeooun nowueuneEeHnEH one mnuom
mnuuouunoe uneanmnoo .mEuoH mnuuoanOEIHHem 3eH>eu .uneanmnoo uecoeeu cuuz

.oeueunnoone mEeHcoun mne ouooem
.memneco ouooeu .meemmeeu one coeeB

.neHn nommeH mHHeo eueHmEou

039 men
nee ceez

eno men
nee xeez

123

 

one .enHEeum .nnm .muuen moon uom ueecm euoom eonenuouuen mmeHo 3eu>em
.oeueunnoone mEeHcoun mne ouooem

.memneco ouooeu “mmemmeeu one coeea

.neHm nOmmeH mHHeo eueHnEou

.munuon
Heoom oeuuuuneou onucoeeu uou meEem u0\one meuuu>uuoe Henouuonuumnu uoeHem

 

IIIIIII. Ill.nmwuonuumnm uom munuom Heoom muuuneou one souca onec
Iue>o one .enHEeum .nnm .muuen moon you ueecm euoom eoneEHOHHen mmeHU 3eu>em

 

 

.oeueunnoone mEeHcoun mne ouooem
.ueecm eoneEuouuen mmeHU ecu no eoneEuouuen uneonum ouooeu one mmemmn

.oemmemme neec e>ec muneonum
ecu HHe Huunn muu>uuoe uneEmmemme uononov .muu>uuoe mnummemme ecu uneEeHnEH

 

.mnouuoeuun mcmmmemme now Anso unom
nmumeo uov mHeuueueE znu H ecu Eoum muu>uuoe uneEmmemme ne neHn one uoeHem

 

.uuoneu mmeumoun uneonum ecu no ouooeu one emneco uneonum mmuuneoH
.ueecm euoom eoneEuouuen mmeHU ecu no mmeumoun uneonum ouooeu one mmemmeem

.muu>uuoe onummemme ecu uneEeHnEH

 

.muuem moon mnmmmemme How An3o unom
nmumeo uov mHeuueueE znu H ecu Scum Nuu>uuoe uneEmmemme ne neHn one uoeHem

 

 

.muuen Noon no nouuonuumnu eueHnEou

.H 05. men

.H eno men
neeumum
Ie>He39 exeez

.H 038 men

.N

.H eno men
ne>eHm xeez

124

.uunn eou>uem oHeum one uneanmnoo uecoeeu
mc noHueuneEeHnEH Ho nouuenHe>e uecoeea .uecoeeu mc Eeumoun mnunueuu Heuou Ho nouuenHe>m

.uuoneu mmeumoun uneonum ecu no ouooeu one emneco uneonum mmuuneoH
.ueecm euoom eoneEuomuen mmeHO ecu no mmeumoun uneonum ouooeu one mmemmeem

 

 

.BOHcB onecue>o one mnOHuoeuun ecu no nouuonuumnu eueHnEoo

.uuoneu mmeumoun uneonum ecu no ouooeu one emneco uneonum muuuneoH
.ueecm euoom eoneEuomuen mmeHU ecu no mmeumoun uneonum ouooeu one mmeemeem

.nnm one enuEeum ecu nu nouuonuumnu eueHnEou .umeB mueumez unenonnou eueHnEou

.oeueunnoone mEeHcoun mne ouooem
.memneco ouooeu “mmemmeeu one coeea
.neHn nommeH mHueo eueHnEou

.munuon
HeooH oeuuuuneou onucoeeu uom meEeo u0\one meuuu>uuoe Henouuonuumnu uoeHem

 

.nouuonuumnu uom munuon HeooH muuuneou one 3ouca onecue>o

.H 039 men

.N

.H eno men
neeuxum ceez

APPENDIX E

THE ROLE OF DEMONSTRATION CENTERS

The Role pf Demonstration Centers

 

 

The I CAN demonstration centers were established in
geographically strategic locations throughout Michigan. The
centers were designed to serve as training sites for pro-
fessional educators who volunteered for training in imple-
menting a diagnostic-prescriptive physical education program.
Each center was staffed by at least one teacher who demon-
strated the ability to conduct a replicable physical education
program using the I CAN system. Each demonstration site also
served as a resource center to assist participants with
specific concerns in the implementation and management of a
diagnostic-prescriptive instructional system. The fact that
centers were decentralized also served to promote the utiliza-
tion of an instructional system implemented on a local level
to meet the mandates for equal physical education for all

handicapped students.

125

APPENDIX F

COMPONENT MASTERY TEST DIRECTIONS

Component Mastery Test Directions

 

The following is an excerpt from a memorandum sent to
all participants instructing them to complete the component

mastery test.

All teachers and consultants should com-
plete the enclosed Component Mastery Test
(closed book -- without referring to
teacher's guide, notes, etc.), prior to
the scheduled visitation. (The purpose
of this test is to help us assess the
effectiveness of our training program --
no one will be "graded" on this.) The
test can then be reviewed and any questions
answered during the discussion session at
the time of the visitation.

126

APPENDIX G

COMPONENT MASTERY TEST

PLEASE NOTE:

Copyrighted materials in this document
have not been filmed at the request of
the author. They are available for
consultation, however, in the author's
university library.

These consist of pages:

127-139

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uni '
l Mic. Ilms

300 N. ZEEB RD, ANN ARBORMI 48106613) 761-4700

I CAN Implementation

". 12:1/76

COMPONENT MSTERX‘ ease

ASSESSMENT

Teacher‘s Name

Date

1. There are five sequential steps that
tops with their process statement.
correct assessment process statement
apprOpriate step in the process.

Igpeps in Assessment

First step in Assessment

Process.

Second step in Assessment
Process.

Third step in Assessment

Process. .

Fourth step in Assessment
Process.

Fifth step in Assessment

Process.

should be taken to properly implement
the assessment process of I CAN. It is your task to match the sequential

To do this place the letter of the

in the blank space next to the

Assessment Process Statement

Review the assessing activity
provided for each objective.
Identify the focal point in each
objective to which you will
instruct each student.

Review objectives from your Program
Plan for this week.

Study the Class Performance Score
Sheets (CPSS) and learn the recording
process.

Be prepared to implement teaching
strategies.

Set up and begin the assessing
activity.

Study the focal points at the skill
levels for obj ctives you plan to
teach and assess.

2. Below you will find 6 concepts which are integral to the process of assessment.
It is your task to match every tern'with its correct definition. To do this,
place the letter of the correct definition in the blank space next to the

appropriate term.

Esme

_____Asse sament
____?erformance Objective
____!bcal Point

Class Performance Score
Sheet

Assessmcnt Activity

.flkill Level

1227

Definitions

a. .A technique for determining students
status.

b. Provided so that the teacher may keep
a record of student status.

c. Contains suggested procedures for
determining performance on a selected
objective.

d. A behavioral statement related to a

f.

specific motor skill.

A component of skilled performance at
a specified skill level.

A sequential learning task.

c»

For

1228

Your monthly program plan consists of a number of objectives. Circle the
letter below that represents how many performance objectives you should
initially assess during that month.

a. Only the skill you will sphnd the most instructional time with.

b. Assess only those skills which you plan to devote at least 3
instructional class periods to.

c. All skills that are listed in the monthly plan need to have an
initial assessment,

d. There is no absolute rule as to the specific number of obJectives that
should be assessed, and the actual number depends upon a combination of
factors. '

Items h and 5 put a check in the appropriate box to indicate if the statement
is True or False.

To make effective use of your assessing period, at least 50% of the students
who are being assessed should be visible to the teacher.

'lrue ' D False D

Assessment activities are preceded by an accurate demonstration of the
performance objective.

True D False E]

129

CAN We! OIJECTNE: In

 

2
3
O
3
O
7
I
9

 

I CAN

PERFORMANCE OMCTWE: To Mount-to A Functloml Run

I [ma- shut-nu m mama. manly. S Gum: ud- uudx M'! mania! sly-k to demot- mm: vow lrn’hm‘
2‘ “at you Ind. "a. "w"... ""7 Mann 0mm 9mm omolvr mini 0' nonmhl “mm-um cl ‘mmucm

J, Mm mu..." Mum, «and "m, m.“ m the (”in Mlov- 6 Hon Mun autumn. m duh-m" Indus-d that anemia-do- you:
nuke Sum Shed who“! duet-on wk

‘ Now a.“ land "a “a"! M and, 1‘ Commu- Io Inch «4 mi“! nu I (‘AN Intact-om! Admin.

 

 

”ECHO!“ ORGANIIAW l IAMMLS

 

Guam to «arm mu man... an. no an M and a now at»: I... ”in: “but
W "mun hm- num an at m.- 4 mu

haul-vaunt- “hwmmm.m.dwbuk€m-~Mm
On-Inhsnpma‘
O—W IW—O

- In! In.

. m ton on a In M:

— 0' MI "I a «IMO “I
’ "m’m‘z'" m.” Stat-n 3
- M ,

 

Slot-II

 

V uxxx

 

 

M1
--finufl°uollflnn m
l—hflqwuo-rtumufluolm
-mnmfi
mm. nouns IWIAS‘I
“niacin-nominal“ Mufi-umuvhamm

Mum mum at. Ina-v .uatdmumm|‘wom.muh'm¢~
(blah-w SM .1"

Icy-Human, uldWhmwwwlo-fiw‘m‘m

 

 

 

 

t” a.“ .Ill 3

1L30

I CAN Implementation 12/1/76
COMPOHENT MASTERY TEST
PflESCRIPTION

Teacher's Name

Date

1. There are four sequential steps that should be taken to properly implement
the prescription process of I GAE. It is your task to match the sequential
steps with their process_statement. To do this place the letter of the
correct prescription process statement in the blank space next to the

appropriate step in the process.

Steps in Prescription Prescription Process Statement

First step in Prescription a. Identify the focal point in each
Process. objective to which.you will instruct
each student. -
Second step in Prescription b. Study the CPBS and learn the
Process. recording process. .
‘0. Review C 93 you have marked.
Third step in Prescription d. Review the instructional
Process. activities, select methods you plan
to use in your next teaching sessions.
Fourth step in Prescription e. Review the teaching strategies and be
Process. prepared to implement then.

f. Organize all these activities into a
daily lesson.' '

I (AN

131

1
BASE RUNNING

”NANCE m: Rtlt

 

W:
S-IOcat asatsot rubber bars

- (‘osnnetes otth soothe: student
- Eahmts courtesy loosed othevs

 

Pb: W And Age Ohlact:

medwumluoupfllv-Sldyeau Tomauosadhasesinac‘ecle.

ORGANIZATDN: salesmen:

CIR" FormscmleItthh-esflsveeachstsdentstadoashaaeJheee-ayhemhases
than students

Say: WHEN I SAY GET READY. GET SET. 00. YOU RUN AROUND THE CIRCLE
0N THI: BASES RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN KEEP RUNNING UNTIL I SAY
STOP, LH‘S TRY IT. GET READY. GET SET, 00! A . . We WHEN I SAY S‘IO'.
FIND A BASE AND STAND ON IT (demonstrate)

Have students pesctke. Stop and start ml tunes to 't used to the stash I! a
student does not understand the name. run 'Ilh tom. Midis. hm hand Emphauu
mnmn. AS FASI AS YOU CAN, and the stop and p «mats

mmscmuwm pant—slum aslmasthepmtsplayed

mm “mamas:

I. Snanalstoc stopsndaooashelsadetoasit youuyh. You may suitcases
vhntIc m muss lot Mauls

1 Usr nus pm: to: othet Iocotlsotot filtrates. hop. skip. side. etc

 

I CAN

PERFORIANCE ”OWE: Run

 

1. Run Vllth Assistance

I Ina-I and Parties the M.
3. Nammtatr thoa' studrnts who do not tun he mama. "In! sum and

runmn: «w tym. a rope amend then aunt and pullma 1h» m.» h.
anomphshed by sauna. a sludrol who runs out: one who does not

 

 

 

FOCAL FONTS WHAI’ 70 00 WHAT TO SAY “AERIAL! ORGANIZATDN

( musket pun“ of ans Guess the student‘s hand late sate us Rae tau Na- nce-es Smite-e4
Inn-m dent s othev hand as her to stun M

swam s, u- not

Tesmatoaaldu'soahlhfltm Roman lapse-Item

In!" tuna.

New stasaat tea does a m

Hoist the MINI M our. at no Du um 'aldl me me last as last as you Nuns weaned

slates- pnuds 0t mop-n LI”

i—OAIES——-1 ACMN WORDS

RUN UAII II
k lens-es test on was

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ems-muons s

1L32

3. Circle the letter next to the conditions you should consider in selecting
focal point(s) for instruction:

a. Possible instructional groupings
b. Teacher's ability to demonstrate the focal poin.(s)
c. Closeness of student performance to the focal point

d. Size of the physical education facility

For Items 5 and 6 put a check in the appropriate box to indicate if the statement
is True or False.

5. All games played during on task time must relate to objectives found in the
program plan.

Me [3 False D

6. Use the time definitions from your yearly plan to help generate daily
lesson plans.

'a-ue D False C]

re: questions 7 through 10. write on the blank the term that is defined by
the statement. ‘

 

 

 

1. organised play activities for practicing skills
8. a process involving the selection of instructional
activities based on assessed needs
9. contains ways to organise students, model and give
verbal cues related to specific skill levels and focal
points
10. key concepts Judged as important for emphasis in

 

helping the student translate instructions to
appropriate actions.

I CAN Irnlerentation

Teacher's flame

D3

2.

ts

1L33

1:2] if 3 .s

COMPONENT MASTZRY TEST

TEACHISG

 

 

Below you will find 5 statements, h of which constitute the teaching
Process of I CAN. Indicate if the statement belongs or does not belong
in the teaching process by circling either the Yes or the !g_by each

statement.
Yes no
Xes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes he

Motivate and reinforce

Determine the amount of change fer each student
Assemble the teaching materials and equipment
Instruct

Review the teaching strategies and be prepared to
implement them

Pill in the term which best describes the concept that is being defined.

game play.

h.

Interpersonal skills which may be taught during

The amount of time spent in instruction or practice

of planned objective.

Place a check by the statementIs) which are reasons for using Action
Horde within the context of a lesson.

 

b.

 

to facilitate transfer of the learning to other subject matter.

to teach the students to respond to short commands, in order to
increase the on-task time.

!b stress the connection between the concrete action and the
abstract word representing it.

Fox

\‘5
s

1334

‘ Item h put a check in the apprOpriate box to indicate if the statement is

True or False

The best way to maximise on-task time is to group students according to
their abilities, thus facilitating organization.

True D False C]

Read the lesson described below and answer the questions which follow.

It is well into the school year and the physical education specialist at
Sunshine School, Ms. Klutz, is conducting a prescriptive lesson on the
overhand throw to a class of 12 primary age THE students. The classroom
teacher, Er. Teachless, deposits his students -nsidc the gym door at
10:15 a.m. and rushes away to an important appointment with the coffee pot
in the staff lounge. While Ms. Klutz and a student get the equipment for
hat day's lesson from the equipment closet, the full-time aide, Mrs. Helpful,
carefully positions each student in a circle and keeps them sitting quietly.
At 10:22 Me. Klutz begins the lesson by standing in the middle of the circle
and demonstrating a mature overhand throw, emphasizing the arm motion and
weight transfer.

"OK, now I want Susie, Mike, John and Mary to go with Mrs. Helpful," Ms.
Klutz directs. Mrs. Helpful leads the four students to one corner of the
gym and places each student individually on small rubber mats. They remain
there while Ms. Klutz and Mrs. Helpful locate the rest of the class in two
other stations in a similar fashion, until by 10:30 all the students are
in stations.

At one station, Ralph, who is the oldest student and highly skilled,
demonstrates the overhand throw and gives simple directions to the students

at that station. The students at Mrs. Helpful's station all need to work

on the arm.motion for throwing, so Mrs. Helpful works with one of them at

a time while the others at that station stand on their mats watching.

when a student makes a little improvement in performance, Hrs. Helpful gives
them an M d M. Meanwhile Ms. Klutz has all the students at her station
practicing weight transfer as she moves from one to another giving instruction.

After 10 minutes of throwing practice, Ms. Klutz realises that the gym

period is nearly over, so she shouts, ”Time to step! Everybody come to the
circle." Some of the students don't hear her directions so they keep
throwing, while others decide to play tag. Mrs. Helpful and Ms. Klutz round
up the students by grasping hands or arms and physically moving students

to the circle. One they are all sitting again, Ms. Klutz reviews the focal
points as Ralph demonstrates the overhead throw to end the lesson at lO:h5 a.m.

1L35

Circle the correct answers to the items below.

6.

On-task time in this lesson is:
a. High (71% or stove)
b. Moderate (505—705)

C. Low (LQZ or below)

is. Klutz makes efficient use of assistants in this lesson.

a. Yes

b. Ho, but only because she doesn‘t have enough people to help her.

c. Ko, but it would have been more efficient if Mrs. Helpful had worked with
an entire group of students rather than one at a time.

There are two types of motivational methods evident in this lesson.

They are:

a. Reinforcement and self—direction

b. Peer modeling and reinforcement

c. Knowledge of results and repetition and practice

d. None of the above

Check to indicate if statement is True or False

This lesson demonstrates good organization and efficient movement of students
from one formation to another.

True [3 False D

136

I CAN Inplenentation 12/11'fi

gggcher's Name

Date

COMPONENT MASTER! TEST

EVALUATION

1. Below you will find 6 statements, 5 of which constitute the evaluation
process of I CAI. Indicate if the statement belongs or does not belong
in the process by circling either the Yes or §g_by each statement.

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No
lo
lo

No

lo

lo

Select an appropriate action
Develop a list of Action words
Determine the appropriate amount of positive change

Examine the class performance score sheet and
determine the amount of change for each student

Determine the amount of change for the total group.

Reassess during class instructional activities.

2. Complete each sentence.

b.

The number of X marks over 0's on reassessment is an indication

of

A permanent record of individual student's achievement is called

 

Circle the correct answers to the itens below

3. The evaluation process in I GAE is based upon

b.

c.

Pro-post testing

Continual appraisal and reappraisal

leither pre-post testing nor continual appraisal and reappraisal

For

137

The determination of meaningful student gain in I CAN is determined
a. by the amount of time it takes to teach one focal point

b. by the amount of time it takes to teach one skill level

c. through a statistical procedure

a. by the teacher

Items 5 and 6 put a check in the appropriate box to indicate if the statement
is True or False.

The significance of any individual gain is determined relative to the
students' abilities and the amount of time allotted to the performance
objective.

True D False [3

Whenever less than 501 of the students show a significant gain, it is
obvious that there was less than 50% on-task time during instruction.

True D False E]

138

I ChN Implementation
C CE-iPONEIJT MASTERY TEST
PLAJ‘H‘! TNG

Teacher's Name__

 

Date

1. There are five sequential steps that constitute the planning process of
I CAN. It is your task to match the sequential steps with their process
statement. To do this place the letter of the correct planned process
statement in the blank space next to the appropriate step in the process.

steps in Planning_ Planning Process Statement
First step in Planning Process a. Select performance objectives.

Second step in Planning b. Identify the skill levels for each
Process . performance objective.

Third step in Planning Process c. Adapt the sample plan to your class
needs.

Fourth step in Planning

Process d. Schedule time.

Fifth step in Planning Process e. Develop monthly plan.
f. Establish physical education program
goals.

2. For each one of the terms listed below, indicate, by circling, if it refers
to a program goal, or to a performance objective.

 

 

 

 

a. Abdominal strength goal _ performance objectiv

b. Underhand roll goal performance obJectiv1

c. Competence in fundamental J
motor skills L___g_oa.l performance objectiv

d. Aicinding and descending goal performance obJectiv
a a rs

 

e. Develop and maintain function goal performance ohjectivJ
level of physical fitness

 

f. Knowledge of cognitive concept: fgoal performance obJective

 

 

 

 

T

139

3. During your first year with I can your plan for eacn month should be
based upon:

a. What you were teaching last year during the same month.

b. The time allotments for each performance objective on your yearly
program plan.

c. The relative contribution of the objectives to your goal for the
month.

For Items h and 5 put a check in the appropriate box to indicate if the statement
is also: isles

h. In order to adapt the sample long—term plan provided in the Implementation
Guide, you need to change the Physical Education Time Available Table.

True I I False D

5. As a guideline for planning, 60 minutes should be allotted for body
management objectives.

True' [::] False I::]

APPENDIX H

TEST QUESTIONS MATCHED TO TRAINING OBJECTIVES

l.

2.

Test Questions Matched to Training Objectives

 

 

 

ASSESSMENT

OBJECTIVES:

 

Knowledge of the steps for assessing in I CAN.
Knowledge of terms related to assessment:

a. Assessment

b. Performance Objective

c. Skill Level

d. Focal Point

e. Class Performance Score Sheet
f. Assessing Activity

Identification of performance objectives which need to
be assessed.

Identification of 2 methods for learning to recognize
skill components.

Identification of the Class Performance Score Sheet and
Assessing Activity for I CAN Performance Objectives.

Correct completion of a Class Performance Score Sheet.

Ability to design or select an appropriate assessing
activity.

PRESCRIPTION

 

OBJECTIVES:

Knowledge of the steps in prescribing I CAN.
Knowledge of terms related to prescription:

140

141
a. Prescription
b. Instructional Activity
c. Action Words
d. Games

Identification of the Instructional Activities and Games
for I CAN Performance Objectives.

Identification of two things to consider when selecting
focal points for instruction.

Ability to select appropriate Instructional Activities.

TEACHING

OBJECTIVES:

 

Knowledge of the steps in teaching I CAN.

Understanding of the teaching strategies described in
the Instructional Activities Sheet.

Knowledge of the purpose and use of action words.
Describes procedures for maximizing "on-task" time.

Understands the use of motivational strategies.

EVALUATING

OBJECTIVES:

 

Knowledge of the steps in evaluating, using I CAN.
Knowledge of terms related to evaluation in I CAN:

a. Evaluation

b. Individual Records of Progress

c. "Change"

Knowledge of the rationale for continuous assessment.

Correct completion of a CPSS.

Knowledge of the basis for determining significant or
satisfactory student gain.

 

6.

7.

142
Identify change for each student.
Identify change for an entire group of students.

PROGRAM PLANNING

OBJECTIVES:

 

Knowledge of the steps in the I CAN proqram planning
process.

Identification of goal statements appropriate to a
particular physical education program.

Identification of performance objectives which operation-
alize physical education goal statements.

Classification of performance objectives by student
developmental levels.

Completion of a time planning matrix for a one-year
physical education program. Projects total amount of
instruction time required by using the planning matrix.

Development of monthly program plans for one school year
derived from the time matrix.

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.m>Huommno monoumz coHumwsO umma u x
x “A
x x
x
x,.x x x
x x
x
x x
x
x
vn vn x x X

x

vH MH NH HH 9H m m h m v m wH 5H mH mH vH MH NH HH 0H m m h m

mcowummso coHumHHommum

EmmB Mmmaméz BszOQZOU

mCOHummsO ucmfimmmmmd

c-‘INMQ'LOSDI‘ HNMV‘LO

quemssessv uorqdrzosaia

 

 

# 8A¥409Cq0

144

«H MH NH HH 0H m m h w v m N H

mGOHummso mcHGGMHm

.0>Huomnno mucous: coHumoso umma u x

NH HH 0H m m h w m v m N H

mGOHU mmflo COHHMDHM>M

Emma wmmamdz BZMZOQZOU

vH MH NH HH OH m m h m m v m

mGOHumoso mcHnommB

x
H

 

0

an 133

buruuetd

suorqenIEAg

Surqoeam

APPENDIX I

SUMMATIVE STATUS REPORT

I CAN Implementation

SUMMATIVE STATUS REPORT
ASSESSMEIT

Teacher's Name

 

Date

Interview
1. Is there a plan?

2. Is there a CPSS for each objective taught in the
last 16 weeks?

3. Does the CPSS include correct recording symbols
and procedures?

h. Looking at a Fundamental Skills, Aquatics or
Health/Fitness CPSS, have skills been assessed
without violation of Skills Level sequence?

*Not applicable

145

Yes

No

No ‘

No

19/1/76

151*

NA

NA

NA

146

I CAN Implementation

Teacher's Name

SUMMATIVE STATUS REPORT

PRESCRIPTION

 

Date

 

Interview

1. Ask the teacher to show you that day's lesson plan.

Does one exist?

Does it contain an introduction, body and summary?

2. Is there a completed CPSS for each objective taught

in that lesson?

3. a. Randomly

b. Randomly

select one performance objective.

select 5 students in the class.

c. Ask the teacher to indicate which Focal Point

from the
each one

d. For each student selected, write down the CPSS

selected objective she will teach to
of the 5 students.

12/1/76

Yes No NA“
Yes No. NA

Yes No NA

 

 

 

 

 

mark for the Focal Point indicated by the
teacher.
Student Focal Point CPSS Mark

1 _.a_
2
3
h
5

 

 

 

 

 

“Not applicable

A. What reason does the teacher give for selecting the
Focal Points in item 3 (d)?
key.

a.

b.

5. Does the lesson plan include activities that allow for
instruction on the Focal Points selected in question 3
(d)?

147

Closeness of performance to the Focal Point.
Instructional grouping according to the Focal Point.

The Focal Point selected meets the unique needs of

the student.

Other reason:

Please use the following

 

Student Circle as manygas apnly
l a b c d
2 a b c d
3 a b c d
L a b c d
5 a b c d

 

'Not applicable

Yes No NA

 

148

I CAN Implementation
SWEATIVE STATUS REPORT

TEACHING

Teacher's Name

 

Date

 

Observation:

Did this lesson allow for at least 50% on-task time?

'Not applicable

Yes

No

12/1/76

NA*

149

I CAN Implementation
SUKXATIVE STATUS REPORT
EVALUATION

Teacher's Name

 

Date

 

1. Has reassessment been recorded for all students?

2. Is every skill level gain accompanied by a date
inserted on the IRP for all students?

'Not applicable

Yes

Yes

No

No

12/1/76

NA*

NA

150

I CAN Implementation
SUMMATIVE STATUS REPORT
PLANNING
Teacher's Name
Date
1. Ask the teacher to show you a program plan with stated
goals and performance objectives for the developmental
level that is of concern,to-himr
a. Does it exist?
b. Are there performance objectives for each goal?

2. Ask the teacher to show you the yearly program time
matrix?

a. Does it exist?
b. Are the performance objectives listed?

c. Does it have the total physical education time
for each month?

d. Is the total projected time for each P0 listed?

3. Ask the teacher to show you all the monthly plans for
the 16 weeks of instruction.

a. Do they exist?

b. Are PO and corresponding time allotments
indicated for each instructional day?

“Not applicable

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No,

No

No

No

No

No

12/1/76

NA"

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

 

APPENDIX J

POST-TRAINING TELEPHONE SURVEY RESULTS

 

Post-Training Telephone Survey Results

Within two weeks of the completion of the sixteen week
training program, a telephone survey was conducted involving
the thirty-one participants who took part in the study. Each
subject was asked to respond to the following series of
questions concerning the inservice program they had just
finished:

1. Do you feel the inservice training was necessary
for proper implementation of I CAN?

2. How many hours do you feel were necessary for
training?

3. Who do you feel should have conducted the training?

4. How many physical education periods did you need or
would you have needed before you would be comfortable using
I CAN?

5. Do you feel the follow-up support was valuable?

6. Who do you feel should conduct the follow-up
visits?

7. How many follow-up visits, if any, are needed?

8. At what point during the training should the
visits take place?

9. How important was it to be trained at a demonstra-

tion center?

151

 

152

10. At what point, if any, during the training period
should visits to the demonstration center be completed?

11. How many visits, if any, are needed to the
demonstration center?

12. What is the optimal length in weeks of the train-
ing program?

The responses to each question have been tabulated and
are formulated by both training and participant type.
Answers are given by raw score and percent of total respon-

dents.

 

153

 

 

 

 

am 8 do. an "magmas mamas
N N flmN N
S 3
NM N N N N N N N mwN N MNN N MN N
mum .1 Hate 98 Ba 2:: S New 8» N
madame
NN N mNN N
3 3
N3. N MNN N N N N N Wm M NAN. N WNN N
mum TH 350 use ems m7: 3 mm 8» N 96
68: gas
.....N N slum N
S 3
mNm M MN N N N N N NWN NH. mwN N N N
mum TH 850 emu 8m m7: 3 MNN 8» Nm
madame
malmN N mm N
3 3
Mm N NmN N N N N N MN M NN N NWN N
Tm TH ...mfio 96 Ba MT: 3 almm 8» N 96
accuse figs mfifimh.
2.38.560 88.8 3:88 358m 9E 8 minus. gun. not 802

mcoflmmmm Nam: 30m

 

mm codename flammflogm

 

HOW 8802 mg

 

3mm 23 flammflflumm
amen: Emma:

 

154

 

 

 

 

am am Nm Hm "magnum mmesz
NI N MN N slo. N MN ”52905: N
S 3:: a M. 32 N
MN N NM N MI N Nmu N N mane? N
man: 3 Tm NA MN 3.30 N sion 8» N
3288
IN N mi: N ml N N Eggs N
3 3.3 s N 33 N.
MN N N N MN N MN N N 382 N
fl..: 3 In NA MN hum... N NNm mm» N so
floss Ema
, engages o: H
N N MI N N. N MN 3399.5» N
3 3-: v N 82 N
as. N Na N MI N M... N N mafia N
2-: S Tm «A Nm 3.48 N NNN 8s N
madame
“I N NM N ml l N 329053 N
3 3:: s N 32 N
NAN N MN N M... N MN N N 3%? N
2-: S In «A MN 3H8 N MN 8» N we
383 c.0950 son... “8050 s03

Excess Eng gene
832m no 593 Bingo
m< cognac ucawofiuumm

 

Iwogm B 5.39%
.3»ch scan—@5998 B
@0802 mind“ m0 352

 

$5.998 £83 338m
mufimfloflsmm ewes eoflmm
wanes fi 95. m8.

 

lmfimflgmfl um gag
mm 8. newscasts .3 pH
name on: 33333

 

.HNQQA Gamma:

155

 

 

 

 

NN mm om Hm "magnum Ems?
M #85385 N NN m N
NN Baa N a N N
MN 382 N M m N NN N MN N MN N
MN 3.80 N NN m N .850 96 8m NNN N
manomme
NN #529053 N . NNN m N
M 33 N NN N N
MN 382 N NM m N NN N NmN N MN N
wlm 3.80 N NNN N N .850 Bu :2 MN N 98
.582 Ema
wlo m N
MN 38985 N MN v N
MN 8.2 N MN m N
M mafia N NN N N M N M... N MN N
MN 358 N M. o N “930 emu 8m MN N
mags
NM uSnmsoHn N M m N
wlo 32 N NM N N
NN 282 N MN m N NN N MN N MN N
NN 358 N mm m N .850 98 2mm MN N 96
$35 fiofinm 8% moguwm maLSfiom panama as

NO COUBNfimND mo
“53stqu unaNoNuHmm

 

muNmN> «0 g m0
EUBNEH uqafloflnmm

 

0350.5 3.52m 0&3 mo
GOUMONUGH unaNoNuumm

 

.3033 mo 81.5 “.38
-85 83 fiqfifloflfim

mum—09¢ Bmmmz

 

APPENDIX K

COMPONENT MASTERY TEST AND SUMMATIVE STATUS REPORT
RAW DATA

uomunoocN u N .uomnHoo u N .NNIN mcowummsc uhomom maumum 0>Numfiasm " ma . om

uowunoocfi n N .uowuuoo u N .NNIN mcoflummna name humummz ucmnomaoo " on - m

vNo mummm o¢a I m .vNo mummm m¢nom I N .vHo mummm mmumN I N "
muwmm NH A u q .mnmmh Naum n m .mnmmm mu¢ I N .wcanomou mummh n-H I N "
Macaom I N .onz I N

uamuNSmaou Hmnommk u N .Hmauwma I N

md’anh

wmcflmua vmuanwnumwa.uN .uchMHH vmmmmz n H "

Hmaasz DH 0 N - H
"AmeESHou

 

 

hmx mama 3mm

¢H<fi 34m mmoum mDH<Hm
m>HH<ZZDm Qz< Hmme wmmhm<z Bzmzomzoo

156

157

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HHHHHHHNHHHHHHHHNNHHNHHNHN
NHNHHHNNNNHNHHHHHHHHHNHHom
HHWHHNHINHHHLMHHHHNNquNNNNN
HHHHFHINNNHNJNNHLNHNHHNNHNmN
HHHHHHHHHHNHNHHHHHHHHNHHNN
HMNFHMHHNNHNHHNHHHHHHHAHQN
HHNHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH~¢NNHmN
HHHHHHJNAHHdalflaaaaawqwaaN
NHHAHNNHHHHHHWHHHHANIVNNNnN
HNHHHHHNWN. “H HHHHHAHHHWA MN
HHHHHHNNNNHHHHHHHHHHHHNNHN
HHHHHHNNHHHHHHAHNHHANNN om
LMHMAMIRMNHALNAAHa4mHHHNHHmH
HHHHHHNNHHHNHHHHHNHHHNJIAINIH
-AHHHNHNNAHNNHHHF .4m¢~fiam.
NHHHHNHHHHHHHHNNNNHHHNHHoH
HHN~H4HHH4HNHHNHNANANNHHnA
NANNHHNNHJHWHNNNNWNNnNNHqH
HHHWHJNNHHHHHHNAAHHmNNNHn
HHHHNINHNNNHNHNNNNNNNNHNHNN
HAH.HANH. H HHNNNHHWNHFHH
HHNNHNNHNNNHNHHNNNHHNHHNOH
TIIIIIIIIHHPMHrahwagamATHNNNHHHNHNmo
HHHHHNHNNHHHHHHHHHHNMNNNmo
NHHAHHHHHAAAHHHHHHaaHHANmo
AHNHHHNNNHfiNHHHNNNHNmNNJNoo
HNHHHHNafi.HHHHrHrNHHHHHNHNmo
NHMHHHHNNNNHNNHNHHHNmHNNNo
HHNHNAHHHNHHHNHHHIN LNMNNWAO
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNJfiHmHHNNo
HHHHAIHAJHIHHMHHHHLNNNNHHHHO
eNquNmNNNNONEESSQSMHNHSSommomqmma

 

 

1%

 

H
m

 

HH

L

rm
NH

O
M

 

 

L

{NM

 

HHMH

HNNHH

 

NN

 

HHH

THHHL

 

 

I
V

_.I
I—‘

_.I
r U

 

_.I
I—1

HHHHNH

 

 

HNNHNNH

_l
r—I

.N

.NNH%HH

 

_J
I' I

.rfiHNNHHJu—C

A J

 

H HNHHJH

 

 

_J
[—I

_I
I

 

r1

 

 

_l
I I

 

_l
I"

 

rfi' 1

 

 

 

J

 

_l
u I

U

 

 

 

_l
I I

HHHNNHNNNH

HAHNNNHNHH

HN :4qu C‘

 

 

_l
r1

H

 

~~.

 

v-h-l

 

FT

I-l

NIN N NIH N10? H N

.HNHNHHNHHNN

 

b

1

 

v—{H

NNNNHNHNNNNI—IN

r-lI-ir-l

 

_l
I I

 

L

 

NHHNH

HNHHHNNNPHHWW

 

NNNHNHHNH

r—h-CI-IIH
LI-h-lr-II-l

 

 

 

I-I

 

I-h-lr-‘NNAH

 

_.I
I' '

HHHNNHHNHHNMH
r i

H

 

Hie-11H N v—€ fl =IINIH H FIT—l I-l

NH

 

jNfiHH

Hl-‘Hf—"H H H

NNNNHHWHNHHNH

 

l__l
t—VI

 

 

HHHIHHHHHHHHHNH
N

 

 

 

 

H
J

 

 

 

dry-1H

 

 

u—h-lr-h-l

HHNJ

 

 

 

Ema

 

NHHH

 

 

 

HHHHNHHHNNN

HHNNHHHHNNNHJ

I—IHHHHNF‘xfiNr-ifiIHINIHNHHNI—lv—IHHHI—l

HNHHNHflHHfiH

 

#:HHNI—Ir-h-i

 

__1
fl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HNNHNNHHHNHHHHHHHNHHHNHHHPH

 

 

[—1

HF‘Hl—‘HHNHHHNNNIHHF‘HH‘HHHNH

 

 

i

 

 

 

HHHfir—IIF‘HHHHHN

 

 

ONNH
n

 

mNNMNNHHNNHNHNHNNNN

¢

QNHNHHHHNHHfifiNfiNNHH

gHNHNNNHHNNHNHNNNN

QNNHHHHHNNNHNHNJH

gNHfl
gHHNNNHHHHNHNHNNH

gHHHNHHHHNJHHHHfiH%

HHNHHN

HNNNNHHHHHHHHNHHNNHN

oHHNHHHHHNfiHflHHJHF

NHHHHHN

HNNN

0.
4

HNMHHN HNNHHHflHHH

 

oHHHHNHHHHHNHHHHHHH

.HHHHHHNNHNHHHHHHHH

HNHHNN

NHHHHHHHNNHNNHHHMHHHHHH

_l_l

r1

 

OHNNJHMHHHNHN

oHMHNNNNHNNN

HHHHHHHfifiHHNHJHHfl
8

«HHHHHH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

159

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H [H H H N H
H H H H H A H H H N H N N H H H H H H H H H H1 HW
H H H N . N H H H H H N H H H H H H .Hr H H N N
H H H H H H H H H H H N HtrH H H H H H H H H H H
H H H H H F H H H m H Hr N H H H H H H H H H H H
H H H H N N N ..Nw HH H H N H H H N H H H H N H H H
H H H N N H N H H H N N H [m 9H .H H H H H JHW H LN! H
H H H H N N N N N H H H H .N. H H H H H H H H H H
H H H H H H H H H H H H IH H H H H H .Hn H H H H
H H H H N N N H H H H H H N {w H H H H H H H H h
H H1 H H H H H1 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
H H H H H H H H H H H N H H H H H H H H H LNF N H
H H H H H H H H H H H H H. % H H Hm H H H H H H H
H H H H H H H H H H H H N H H H H H H H H H N Hr
H H H H H H H H H H: H HF N H H H H H H H H H N N
N H W H LH JHW H HIH m Him N H w HW H H HIH H H H H
H H H H N N N N H H H N N H H H H H H N N H H H
H H H1 N N . H H HH . N .N. H N (H H N H H H H H H
H H H1 H H H H H H{ H H m H N H N H H H H N H H H
H H H H N N N H H H H] H N H W LN H H N H N H H H
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H . fl H H N H N N N
H H H N N H W H H H H H H H H H H H H VHF m N 1H!
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H UH Hde H 1H IH Hflr H
H H H H H H H H H H H N H H H H H H H H H H H H
LHLHFHLHT.HHNHHH r HHHYNWH
H H H H H N N H H H N N N H H H H H H H H H N H
H H H L H H Hy H [w H H N Hf H H H H H H N H H H
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
H H H N H H H H H H F N H N H N N N N N N H N H
N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
NN NN HfiE mo 8 a 8 3 $ 9 No Ho 8% on R on no Hm. mnNn Hm

 

 

 

160