. II‘II' IIIIIIIIIIII III. I ‘ II“ II”; I N7 in“: II III 'II ‘III "“ ‘mII ‘I’ .II "”‘ “' 'W"'IIIIIIIIIII'I“I ‘II‘II‘.I ..;'II;,-_‘II. II III ' {I “IIIIIIIIIII III I'.. ' II" WI I .. .- II IIIII IIIIIWIIII1 I ‘II"IIII‘I‘. III IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII II'IIIIIII III'IIIIIIIIIII III" ’ - 3!": ‘lxvfi‘f 'III: I’IIIIIII-I- ”I '" ‘III"IIIIIII I'II I‘vI‘;“‘III II‘I III I I I‘ 2‘” ‘ 533;! buggy , 4% LS ‘ I?” I YIIIIO‘H‘” 'I‘II'H'I IN“ I- ‘. ' ‘ huh. ‘3" '11“ 41-1.“. fig ‘ z: 1‘ “III M I. “I. "‘M I" I ' I .13 .~'. 1‘ 2:5: 2sz II’ 513;? III .IIIIII I ‘IIIZ'IIII IIl‘ ’IIIIIIIIIIIII'IIII IIII‘II "‘I‘1I“:!:‘M‘IIIII‘I .L’ I'I‘tlI IIIz. . 3:. .I .I1, . . II I... I II - III III III'II II' I " ,II..II I I'III‘I'IIIII III‘ I‘.”II II'IIIIII‘IH“.HIII’IHm III“ "'IIII"""' ‘ IIIm I; II'IIIII MI I‘- ‘ III I" I III‘II‘I II‘I‘IIII_.‘I'III I‘I ‘I‘I' I‘I" ‘ . I III| ". II II I 'I‘II'. I YIIIIIIIII‘II ‘ I‘LII IIIHHIII I|ft ~ III I‘ ‘I ‘I II "I :' ‘IJ‘I‘LI‘Ii II". “ I I“ l‘IlI‘I ‘ If" WI“ I". ' ' ~' "II 'II‘I .I IIII ‘ Il' -.' I‘ ‘.III III“I I “"I'I IMIII'Z. ‘V‘A‘II: II’I“H 3:: I II" I‘I‘.’..II 5‘ I IIII -:' ' “I“ I‘ II" I III I I H|.“I‘|‘ I I I II'II I II' I II II III I 1"“ Il‘w' I 'I I ‘ I" I I'IV' III | ' . ‘. -“,:‘ I'Il ‘ .‘ :‘I'IV ‘- . I537": .. " :IJ‘II-Zl ,VI'"I."‘:""11I'- II“ III‘EI’I III‘II I'IW‘III ‘I‘ZIII‘ ‘I‘ IIIIIIIII“k II‘II‘f , “I III I'-IIIII‘5I‘I“III‘II" "I IIIII::I.III'“I:‘I,I‘I ‘I‘ .I ' I‘ III‘ - I . . IL” I? I ' ' I I“ I. .I . III»; III .I"’.;II I . LIIIIIII .I II II .IIIIIIII ‘AIIIII‘IIIII'I IIIIIIIIII IIIII-II IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII- II I' ‘I I-II'.‘ ‘II‘, 'I“II I ' " II‘I'I'I‘I‘I, II", ‘II‘IH‘I'I III“ ‘II‘II‘HHI‘I ‘III'IIIIII‘ --’ -. 1": f. @le ‘ '_"-I .... I I ”I ‘* I»: . I' III ‘III‘ “‘ WIN. ‘iI III ‘I II": III“ IIII‘I‘II IIIII" .‘JILIJ III II I’ly I1 ‘ . D“ IIIIII f'- $le II‘ I‘ EII'W II‘I‘ III'V“ IIIIIIII‘MI' " ’I' II II.. " I "“" I"? I"‘I‘II‘ “ IIIIIII' 'I-‘"'II' ”IIIIIIIII II .I "" 1‘I‘II ‘ .IIII II I IIIIIII I I II I I ' IIIIIII'I'I'IIIIIIIIII II'I‘III‘I'I I'IHIIII II‘IIIIII"IIIII.'I I ‘3}. ‘II'JII "' I I WWI III‘I I I I _II{“I[ t “VINE-III III ‘ "I’IIJ‘ I I‘ HIII‘I' I IIWIII (I? II 5‘-.,.._’ ____ 'I‘II‘ . I. II“ II,‘ III: II‘I'I I III‘IIIIII‘I II. II‘ II'II i V “‘ I “I " II I II'IIIII'“‘n.‘ II .I‘ww‘xn‘ “I“ II‘ :1" WI RI? 433’? " I 0&1th IIIIE- “”5 ?§: .. I.I . III I; II In IIIIIII'"'I"III“II.IIII““III'I II} I I“. III IIIHI'IIWHI III'IIIIIIIII‘III‘I‘I‘ ““‘ fi If! ”on” ‘ I‘IIIII'M "I: ‘ I III II III.“ III‘II'IJI v IIIPIIII I I II III I'I I I III!“ ,II . ““III"‘.Ild§‘I;.luIIILILLX.IIIIU&|-nlllI III. ...III..Im.III mu MW LIIILIII "‘ VIII I'I‘WI "Vim ‘III' III" I“? 7,35 IILI!lllllllljfllflllllflllmllllIllfllfllflllfll ~— LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled Participant Reaction To An Inter-Institutional Approach To In-Service Education: Genesee County Workshop 1973-1975. presented by Ronald R. Sutherby has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D, degree‘injdnaamn. Dr. Richard Gardner Major professor Date January 8, 1222 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25C PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. PARTICIPANT REACTION TO AN INTER—INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO IN-SERVICE EDUCATION: GENESEE COUNTY WORKSHOP By Ronald Robert Sutherby A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1979 an inter in Genes StUdy Cc! °Pportuc Versitiet OUn SChC; perSOUS, formEd at A an attitU: t~test. Ti slring to the study 1. cantly moré baSed 0D t: ABSTRACT PARTICIPANT REACTION TO AN INTER-INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO IN-SERVICE EDUCATION: GENESEE COUNTY WORKSHOP By Ronald Robert Sutherby The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an inter-insitutional workshOp model of in-service education developed in Genesee County, Michigan, as it compared to local school district study committee forms of in-service. The inter-institutional workshop was organized to provide an Opportunity for educators to earn graduate credit from one of four uni- versities while seeking solutions to problems they identified in their own school buildings or districts. Local teams of three to eighteen persons, including a local administrator and a university advisor were formed and worked on a pre-identified local problem over a minimum of sixteen weeks. A total of 103 educators from twenty school districts completed an attitude/perception scale and personal background questionnaire. Statistical analysis procedures included factor analysis and t-test. The results of the study provide guidelines for educators de- siring to improve the quality of in-service programs. Specifically, the study indicated: 1. Participants rated the inter-university workshop signifi- cantly more effective than the local school district study committee based on their involvement and knowledge gained. cantly cantly With re cantly , with re. tatOr-C} cantly n with res fiCantIF with res‘ deVQlOPE: the in‘se Change in adminiStri available Ronald Robert Sutherby 2. Participants rated the inter-university workshop signfi- cantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their perceptions of the relevance of the tOpic and ideas presented. 3. Participants rated the inter-university workshop signifi- cantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their perceptions of the implementation of change. 4. Participants rated the inter-university workshop signifi- cantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their perceptions of the leadership role of the facili- tator-chairperson. 5. Participants rated the inter-university workshop signifi- cantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their perceptions of the availability of resources. 6. Participants rated the inter-institutional workshop signi- ficantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to the evaluation of the efforts. Factor analysis of the data indicated guidelines for in-service developers: 1. Participants should be involved in selecting the t0pic of the in-service. 2. The in—service model has the capability of bringing about change in the participants' environment. 3. There should be leadership and involvement from both local administration and the team chairperson. 4. Additional human and printed resources need to be made available to the participants. 1 Ronald Robert Sutherby S. Ongoing and final evaluation must be provided. Recommendations based upon the data were provided, and a sec- tion on reflections was developed for the consideration of staff de— velOpment planners. DEDICATION To my mother and father for their love and guidance in providing ideals and high standards. ii Of my [ else fg Gardner achiev: and gen: t0 Dr. E gan Sta: SuPPOrt’ E SPECt, ad: Marcia, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Grateful appreciation is extended to Dr. Richard Gardner, Chair of my Guidance Committee, for his advice, encouragement, and above all else for his friendship over the years. A special tribute is due Dr. Gardner for the endless assistance he has given me and many others in achieving career and personal excellence. A special note of thanks to Dr. Cas Heilman whose expertise and constructive criticism contributed to the study. Additional thanks to Dr. Howard Hickey, Dr. David Ralph, and the statisticians of Michi— gan State University for their leaderShip and direction in assisting me to pursue my professional goals. To Dr. Robert Stafford, Noreen and Jim Cooper, my special thanks for their efforts in developing the initial stages of this re- search study. To my best friend and wife, Georgia, without whose patience, support, and encouragement I could not have succeeded, I offer my re- spect, admiration, and love. To our three children, Chuck, Bob, and Marcia, I offer my thanks for their patience and understanding. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I II The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significance of the Study . . . . . . Genesee Inter-Institutional Workshop Local Study Committee . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . Scope and Organization of the Study . Review of the Literature . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . In-service Education . . . . . . . . Workshop Model . . . . . . . . . . . Inter-Institutional Cooperation . . . Objectives of the Wayne County Inter- Institutional Workshop . . . . . . Unique Features of the wayne Model Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv vii 10 ll 13 13 13 27 30 34 35 36 3.. 5 r.‘ III IV V Genesee Inter-Institutional Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . Similarities Between the Genesee Inter-Institutional Workshop and Local School District Study Committee . . . suma ry O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 0 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identification and Description of the Papulation . . . . . Sample Selection and Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Printing and Mailing Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . Follow~up Mailings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Return of Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedures for Analyzing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sumary O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O The Findings and Analysis of Descriptive Characteristics of Participants and Their Opinions of Local School District Study Committees and the Genesee County Inter-Institutional wo rkShop O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T-Test O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations, and Reflections . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation and Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 42 43 45 45 45 46 46 54 54 55 55 55 56 58 58 68 93 93 93 93 94 94 95 Appendi: Bibliogr Personal Information Findings . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . Recommendations . . . Reflections . . . . . vi District Local School District Study Committees . Local School District Study Committees Appendices A Population Breakdown . B Participating School Districts . C Personal Background Questionnaire D Distribution of Educators by Sex E Present Position in Education . . F Number of Years in Present School G Attitude/Perception Scale . H Initial Contact Letter I FolloWbup Letter . . . J Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Inter-University Workshop K Inter-University WOrkshop Varimax Roatated Factor Matrix L Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix M Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix N Team Topics . . . . . . 0 Item Mean and Standard Deviation Bibliography . . . . . . . . 95 96 99 99 101 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 115 116 117 120 121 124 125 126 130 l "r; Par Par 14 Par 15 Rel 16 Rel l7 Rel 18 Table 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Educators by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Educators by Level According to Area of Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Educators by Number of Inter- Institutional Workshops Participated in . . . . . . Distribution of Educators by Number of Local Study Committees Participated in . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cluster of Items from the Factor Analysis of the Inter-University Workshop Model . . . . . . . . . . Cluster of Items from the Factor Analysis of the Local School District Study Committee . . . . . . Participant Involvement in Topic Selection . . . . . . . Participants' Involvement with Developing Group Goals and Obj actives O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 Participants' Involvement with the Group Effort . . . Participant's Freedom to Express His Views . . . . . . . The Experience as an Effective Use of the Participants' Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sharing of Knowledge among the Participants . . . . . . Participants' Increase in Knowledge of Topic . . . . Participants' Learning of New Concepts . . . . . . . Participants' Learning of New Problem Solving Techniques Relevance of Topic to Participants' Professional Needs . Relevance of Topic to Participants' Teaching Situation . Relevance of Topic to Students' Needs . . . . . . . . . vii 47 49 50 51 60 63 69 69 70 70 71 71 72 72 73 74 75 75 He. 34 Av; 35 AVA 37 Mei 36 38 Pin 39 M69 40 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 viii Relevance of Topic to School Districts' Needs . . . . . Outcomes Beneficial to Students . . . . . . . . . . . . Participants' Goals Met . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outcomes Implemented in Participants' Classroom . . . . Outcomes Being Used Now in Your Classroom . . . . . . . In-service Model as a Method for Implementing Changes in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In—service Model as a Method for Implementing Changes in Your School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facilitator-chairperson's Knowledge of Group Goals . . . Facilitator-chairperson's Knowledge of the Topic . . . . Helpfulness of Facilitator-chairperson's Involvement . . Adequacy of Amount of Time Facilitator-chairperson Spent with the Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facilitator-chairperson's Participation in Evaluation . Local School Administrations' Involvement in Topic Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Local School Administration's Participation in Sharing of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Local School Administrations' Support for the Implementing of Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Helpfulness of Local School Administrations' Involvement . Availability of Outside Consultants . . . . . . . . . . Availability of Library Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . Method for Evaluating Present School Programs . . . . . Ongoing Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meeting of Groups' Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . 76 77 77 78 78 79 80 81 82 82 83 84 85 86 86 87 88 89 90 90 91 91 _____k a more n VEhiCles as do it serViCe be Value Scientic. 1°C311y A mined Set County, e sented t} 3°1Ving, inVOlved l (1 KEllyls m ity °f in Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM Background From a practitioner's viewpoint, probably no other term evokes a mbre negative response than does "in-service education." Yet, few vehicles offer as much promise for improving the quality of instruction as do in-school staff development activities. During the past thirty years, volumes have been written which have provided guidelines for the improvement of locally designed in- service activities. Often these guidelines have been ignored, found to be valueless, misinterpreted, or, if implemented, have never been con- scientiously evaluated. The fundamental guideline for this research was to identify a locally developed in-service program which was planned using a predeter- mined set of principles. Such a program was identified in Genesee County, employing guidelines established by Kelly and others who pre- sented the need to involve teachers in (l) decision making, (2) problem solving, and (3) working on common goals where they will personally be involved in planning, learning, and evaluation. As no long term or comparative evaluation had been made of Kelly's model, it was important that such attempts to improve the qual- ity of in-service be evaluated. aration study. because requisi‘ cones m1 CODES a after ej several edge in the Oppi tend knl for edui theory i f93510n4 for the difj whi< Introduction A teacher's education includes the whole range of his/her prep- aration in college, professional development on the job, and graduate study. Educators at all levels are concerned with all these stages because it is recognized that quality teachers are the most important requisites of a good school. As the professional educator's role be- comes more complex with changing emphasis and new demands, there be- comes a greater need for a program of continuing professional education after employment. Effective staff development in education is needed to fulfill several professional needs. Teachers need to keep abreast of new knowl- edge in their fields of expertise. It is important that educators have the opportunity through effective staff development to acquire and ex- tend knowledge of human growth and development. There is also the need for educators to keep abreast and extend their knowledge of learning theory and teaching techniques. Dorros indicated that continuing pro- fessional development is required for more specific reasons: 1. Employment of persons who have inadequate preparation -for teaching. 2. Rising standards for teaching and preparation during the career lives of teachers. 3. Varying conditions, phiIOSOphies, and procedures in different school systems. 4. Rapid growth of knowledge in almost all fields in which schools offer instruction. 5. New knowledge of the learning process. 1mg tiOn catL Educ; Univ: for 1 going 6. New instructional materials and devices.1 Additionally, certification requirements in many states mandate con- tinuing education for renewal and maintenance of teaching certificates. As Huggert states: .'. .there is an evident trend among the states, as teacher certification requirements are revised, to issue a provisional or probationary initial certificate upon com? pletion of the bachelor's degree and to mandate completion of a fifth year of preparation during the life of the initial certificate. For the most part, college and university graduate courseslead- ing either to an advanced degree, permanent certification, or comple- tion of a non-degree program have been the main types of continuing edu- cation for teachers; but there are other means of teacher in-service education. The majority of continuing education programs are provided by universities. A number of people, like McIntosh,3 point out the need for teacher education to bear a more integral relationship to the on- going life of the school in which the teacher functions. John R. Wilson believes: Teacher education cannot be divorced from the work of the teacher. Continuing education for the teacher requires a new view of what teachers are doing and the nature and functions of school. 1Sidney Dorros, Teaching as a Profession (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1968), p. 31. 2Albert J. Huggert and T. M. Stinnett, Professional Problems of Teachers (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1956), p. 15. 3Gordon R. McIntosh, "The Clinical Approach to Teacher Educa- tion," The Journal of Teacher Education (Spring, 1971). 4John A. R. Wilson, "A Radical Proposal," Kappa Delta Pi Record (February, 1971), p. 65. Educ; have infl 18 if tion. HOVaI labo] Wayne inteI Wary distr tiOnS and DE Collins5 cites the findings of the National CommissioncfifTeacher Education and Professional Standards in its statement that teachers must have the major voice in teacher education. Dorros cites three means by which teachers can increase their influence on in-service education: 1. Through direct participation in individual and group in-service education activities. 2. Through support of professional association activities such as conferences and publications that provide opportunities for in-service education. 3. Through seeking and accepting informal assistance from other teachers, supervisors, and administrators and offering assistance to colleagues. Several efforts have been made to provide continuing education. One example of local groups' working together in a collaborative effort is in the Wayne County (Michigan) model of inter-institutional coopera- tion. The Wayne County Intermediate School District initiated an in- novative program of educator in—service in 1967 which involved the col- laboration of four major Michigan universities. The Genesee County In- termediate School District patterned its in-service program after the Wayne County model for in-service and initiated such a program in 1967. The Genesee County Intermediate School District instituted an inter-institutional workshop model for educator in-service with a pri- mary purpose of presenting an opportunity for groups of local school district educators to earn graduate credit while working toward solu- tions to local problems. 5Evan R. Collins, "The Impossible Imperatives: Power, Authority and Decision Making in Teacher Education," AACTE (February, 1971). 6Dorros, op. cit., p. 35. ing) credi tirel peci a six build schoo Count al We thrOu sity conce Cern. gradu tiVe . are d tionai but at fectix instit Teams of educators were formed around local (district or build- ing) problems, interests, or needs. Team members were able to earn credit from one of four major universities. Membership was almost en- tirely composed of local school district teachers, administrators, and specialists. Each team selected a local problem to work on and met over a sixteen week period. The work sessions were conducted in the local building or school district. This approach to in-service for educators is similar to local school district study committee groups which were operated in Genesee County. There are two differences which separate the inter-institution- al workshop model of in—service from local study committees. First, through the inter-institutional workshop, participants can gain univer- sity credit while working on solutions to locally identified problems concerned with a local curriculum organizational or administrative con- cern. Secondly, the inter-institutional workshop participants can get graduate credit from any one of four major universities. This coopera- tive effort with the university opens up a team effort to persons who are doing graduate work through different universities. Need for the Study Some research has been accomplished describing inter-institu- tional c00peration as well as short term evaluation of such programs, but no study has been completed which presents perceived program ef- fectiveness over an extended period of time. Research can be identified with addresses the need for inter- institutional cooperation. The research is especially limited in the area of extension and continuing education courses. in me: re; def ye; tilt." prt 8X: DE? vide €1.- trators dEVeIOp t0 USE IESearC tiVeue: cooPer. and f0 Study Other V;v:19 As Patterson has written: Consortia (two or more institutions joining together in a common effort) appear to have unlimited potential with more comprehensive data. Questions which are in need of research include: How effective are the consortia in accom— plishing their stated purposes? Furthermore, there is a definite need for a comprehensive study over a period of years which (1) describes the operation and philosophy of the joint effort, (2) reports the long-range effects of the program as well as the risidual effects, and (3) reports the extended responses of the participants and schools over a period of years.7 Another important need for this study to be conducted is to pro- vide evaluative data on the workshop model so that local school adminis- trators can use these workshops as a tool in providing for better staff development. The need for local schools to have successful in-service models to use in dealing with local problems is an underlying need for further research. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perceived effec— tiveness of a workshop model of in-service operationalized through the cooperative efforts of the Genesee County Intermediate School District and four cooperating universities for the years 1973 through 1975. This study also examined and compared the perceived effectiveness of one other in-service model provided in Genesee County. 7Lewis D. Patterson, "The Potential of Consortia," Compact, V:V:19 (October, 1971). proac volvi as th Sumna more. the ir inforu ments, DC” 15 Methodology The data for the evaluation were collected through the use of an attitude/perception survey instrument administered to participants in the Genesee inter-institutional workshop model. The methodology utilized in this study was the descriptive ap- proach to research. Sax defines descriptive research as "research in- volving the collection of data for the purpose of describing conditions as they exist."8 "Descriptive statistics provide methods to organize, summarize, and describe data which represent populations," reports Ar- more. The research utilized a detailed description and analysis of the inter-institutional workshop model as used in Genesee County. The information for the study was obtained through questionnaires, docu— ments, and information related to the workshop. _§ignificance of the Study Implications may be drawn from this study for the continued im- provement of future Genesee County inter-institutional workshops. An evaluation may supply new data for use by the Genesee County inter-in- stitutional workshop leaders with which to evaluate the program and de- cide on future directions for the Genesee County workshop. 8Gilbert Sax, Empirical Foundations of Educational Research (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), p. 288. 9Sidney J. Armore, Introduction to Statistical Analysis and In- ference for Psychology and Education (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), p. 9. tion t ings c ing in model, effect inter-1 rm .1 ' P 4 "Di' lOWing of sit of: for sess sour util cOur ing to in trators W? eighteen 1 Assuming the idea that each school district supports the posi- tion that in-service education is valuable for its teachers, the find- ings of this evaluation may be the basis for the modification of exist- ing in—service models. Through an analysis of the participant's perceptions of the model, in-service planners may be in a better position to evaluate the effectiveness of both the local school district study committee and the inter-university workshop model program. Genesee Inter—Institutional Workshop The inter-institutional workshop was organized under the fol- lowing principles: 1. A school team of 3-18 members investigated a problem of its own choice. 2. A faculty member from one of the participating univer- sities was assigned instructional responsibility for each team. 3. An intensive effort was made over an extended period of time of sixteen to eighteen weeks. Each team met weekly for three hours. 4. The teams met in their own schools for most of the sessions which provided an opportunity to utilize local re— sources and involve other staff members. 5. Two large group sessions which include all teams utilized to facilitate communication among teams and en- couraged sharing of information, techniques, and interests. Teachers and administrators receive university credit for work- ing to improve their own skills and their school programs. The model was organized around teams of teachers and adminis- trators who worked together on a problem of their choosing. Sixteen to eighteen four-hour sessions which met once each week comprised the time tve CO: I vhi let bv adm i‘ pri- inte1 made labor frame. Teams were aided by staff members from the University of Michi- gan, Michigan State University, Eastern Michigan University, and western Michigan University. Local Study Committee The local study committee consisted of a group of from three to twenty persons, generally all were educators, but a few groups included community representatives or parents. The groups worked on problems which were identified as a local school or a local school district prob- lem. The problem, while locally identified, was not always identified by the group, but rather was identified before the group was formed by administrators and a few others who were on the term. The local study committee was organized around the following principles: 1. The team elected a chairperson from its own ranks. 2. Generally one local administrator served on each. 3. Resource persons from the local district and the county intermediate office as well as the state department of education were available to the teams and generally participated. 4. The teams met in their own school districts for all of the sessions, providing an opportunity to utilize local resources and involve other staff members. Limitations of the Study This study was limited to a description of the Genesee County inter-institutional workshop from 1973 through 1975. No attempts were made to study similar workshop models, with the exception of those col- laborative efforts identified in the review of the literature. I . .--—— <1" ‘."' — 3' por sch CUI‘ sis 11nd. for fall sit: sit} COur inSI 0ft Same their 10 No attempts were made to evaluate the merits of the changes re- ported. Definition of Terms Administrator: any person employed by a public or private school district to direct or manage the affairs of the school(s), in- cluding superintendents of schools, assistant superintendentscfi?schools, curriculum coordinators or directors of instruction, principals, or as- sistant principals. In-service Education: an off-campus formal learning program undertaken by educators for the purpose of professional growth. Genesee Inter-Institutional Workshop: an in-service workshop for educators in the Genesee County area held between fall of 1973 and fall of 1976, staffed by representatives from Central Michigan Univer- sity, Eastern Michigan University, Michigan State University, Univer- sity of Michigan, and coordinated by Dr. Robert Stafford of the Genesee County Intermediate School District. Genesee Inter-University Workshop: a synonym for Genesee inter- institutional workshop. General Session: workshop meeting held in which all teams come together in a common meeting. Local Session: workshop meeting held in local school building of the participating team. Locallyilnitiated Staff Development Progra : a team from the same school district working together to solve a problem common to their district and which has been locally identified. For the purpose IO Ge E‘F. fit idc has tee mir re; IEa Sch 0P9r. 11 of this study, locally initiated staff development program and study committees should be considered synonymous. Participants: persons enrolled for credit and those not en- rolled for university credit, but participating as team members in the Genesee County inter-institutional workshop. .Sgaff: the representatives from Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, Michigan State University, University of Michigan and the Genesee Intermediate School District office. Study Committee: a team working together on a locally identi— fied topic. The team is comprised of educators from that school who identified a school or school district problem to work on. The group has either an elected or appointed leader and also may use outside re— source persons and materials in its problem solving task. Teacher: any person enrolled in the workshop holding a valid teaching certificate, including counselors and librarians, etc., who are presently under contract to a local school district, exclusing ad- ministrators. $322? a group of three to fifteen teachers and administrators representing a school or school district working on a common problem. Team Leader: a team member who acted as coordinator of the team and as liaison between the team and the Genesee County Intermediate School District inter-institutional workshop staff. Scope and Organization of the Study This study was limited to a description of the development and operation of the Genesee County inter-institutional workshop from 1973 to 1‘ pers: chap for ter rega shop stit prim the scho stud Wu? dati 12 to 1967 and to report the effectiveness of the workshop as perceived by persons directly or indirectly involved. This study has been organized into five chapters. Following the chapter of introduction which presents a statement of the problem, need for the study, limitations of the study, and definition of terms, Chap- ter 2 contains a review of literature. Chapter 3 contains the findings regarding the operation of the Genesee County inter-institutional work- shop. Chapter 4 also deals with the findings on the Genesee inter-in— stitutional workshop model over a three-year period which were obtained primarily through the use of questionnaires. This chapter deals with the residual effects over the three years on the participants, their schools and/or school districts. Chapter 5 contains a summary of the study, a listing of the most important findings, conclusions, recommen- dations, and reflections based on the findings and conclusions. rum a C: n CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The review of the literature is primarily divided into four areas. The first section takes an overall look at in-service educa- tion. The next section deals more specifically with the workshOp model of in-service. The other two sections deal with inter-institutional cooperation and the inter-institutional workshop model, respectively. In-Service Education The Dictionary of Education states that in-service includes: All activities that teachers engage in during their ser- vice to contribute to their improvement and effectiveness on their assignment.l Harris defines in-service in slightly different terms: In-service education is concerned with the development of instructional staff members as professional practitioners in such ways as to have a reasonably direct impact upon the quality of instruction in school.2 In-service education is usually distinguished from pre— service education simply by time and sequence. 1Carter V. Good, editor, Dictionary of Education, Second edi- tion (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959), p. 288. 2Ben Harris, Warland Bessent and Kenneth McIntyre, In-service .Egucation: a Guide to Better Practice (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1969), p. 2. 31bid., p. 1. l3 teach prior tion, has; ASso are Kalil}; TE. 1.} l .H f fOr 14 In—service education comes after a teacher's first day as a teacher, whereas pre-service deals with all the training a teacher gets prior to his first day of employment as a teacher. John C. MOffitt, in discussing the need for in-service educa— tion, states that "the growing insistence for more effective teaching has paralleled the increasing complexity of our changing society."4 He also states: This is an age of change. It requires new rapid adjust- ments. Its impact on education is an ongoing challenge. It is the basic reason determining the need for continuous educa- tion of all people and particularly of all teachers. Without continuing study, teacher knowledge and teacher performance soon become obsolete. No one is ever completely educated -- at most one can only be a student of the daily incidents as they occur.5 Based upon the reports of Arnold Finch,6 the National Education Association,7 and the United States Office of Education,8 the following are the major types of in-service education. 1. Apprenticeships: where a master teacher serves as a guide for a beginning teacher. 4John C. Moffitt, In—service Education for Teachers (Washing- ton, D. C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963), p. 3. 51bid., p. 12. 6Arnold Finch, Growth In—service Education Programs That Work (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969), pp. 30-45. 7National Education Association, Research Division, In—service Education of Teachers (Washington, D. C., November, 1966), pp. 6-11. 8United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, What School Systems Are Doing to Promote Teacher Growth, Education Briefs, Number 33 (Washington, D. C., August, 1956), pp. 7-100 am 0 >4: SE ar pr la ti SE? of 8): CO 8} 8) Va im the 15 2. Graduate Courses and Classes: evening, extension, summer, and correspondence courses offered to improve an instructional capacity of practicing teachers. 3. Committee or Study Group: the committee or study group in- service activity involves small, common—interest, problem-oriented study groups, usually composed of faculty members from one specific teaching area. The purpose of these study groups is usually to solve common problems or to improve instruction based on the sharing of ideas. 4. Conference: the conference may be structured in either large or small groups and has the essential feature of giving the par- ticipant the Opportunity to question others and discuss the ideas pre- sented. 5. Conventions and Professional Meetings: in a brief period of time, participants can be exposed to a wide variety of ideas and experienced national education leaders. 6. Consultation: this is defined as either formal or informal conversation or meetings with colleagues. 7. Demonstration: this type of in-service is a description or showing, generally conducted by a master teacher or learning specialist. 8. Encounter Groups: widely used to improve teacher and ad- ministrative relationships. They offer a way to assist instructors in exploring the nature and impact of their attitudes, beliefs, and values. 9. Evaluations: one of the important types of in-service for immroving instructional performance is evaluation. It is generally de- fined as the process of analyzing instructional effectiveness toward the goal of achieving student learning. gene ticl whit COZE SEIV C02? 0H6 teac disc held staf 0Ver time edUc.‘ activ learr1: 16 10. Institutes: this is a series of lectures or presentations, generally given in a short period of one to three days. 11. Professional Reading or Writing: reading professional ar- ticles and writing for professional publications are two more means by which the educator can in-service himself. 12. Professional Association Work: the faculty member can be- come exposed to new ideas in the teaching profession and act as an in- service agent in providing information to other teachers. 13. Seminars: a seminar is a formal group learning activity convened for the purpose of exchanging knowledge, usually dealing with one specific topic. 14. Research: by becoming involved in research projects, the teacher can gain comprehensive insight. 15. Staff Meetings: Departmental meetings may be called to discuss a topic of concern; small discipline-centered meetings may be held or meetings with specialists may be conducted. 16. Staff Retreats: an in-service technique used to build staff enthusiasm and understanding. This activity generally occurs over several days. 17. Travel: usually taken over the summer, other vacation times, as a sabbatical, or as a leave of absence. Travel can be highly educational to the individual. 18. Visitations: many schools encourage their teachers to Visit and observe other teachers or model programs. 19. Workshops: a workshop is a type of practical, hands-on activity in which participants take an active role in the instructional learning process. Workshops take a problem-solving approach, and throu depen probl educa uable but a The I be c< The 4 atte: {ESE 17 through group discussions, conferences with individual members, and in- dependent work, each member attempts to arrive at solutions to the problem. 20. Work Experience: ranging from several hours to a year, an educator may find work experience, outside the field of education, val- uable as an in-service activity in examining the rest of the world. The literature deals not only with various types of in-service, but also with various elements which contribute to good in-service. The literature is rich with research identifying elements which should be considered in planning and implementing quality in-service programs. The elements which keep recurring center on participant involvement, attending to group dynamics, realistic application and evaluation. The research of Sidney Kay produced a list of practices designed to assure effective staff in-service programs. 1. Involvement in determining entry into and in planning aspects of the program. 2. Adequate resources of time, consultant services and materials. 3. Program leaders who encourage participation, coopera— tion, and freedom of expression. 4. Principals and supervisors who were expected to sup- port new ideas. 5. Anticipated peer support which included a willingness to use some of the new ideas. 6. The presence of evaluation at the conclusion of the program.9 9Sidney Erwin Kay, "An Analysis of Teacher In—service Education in an Urban School System" (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colum- bia University, 1971). staff Patti gIOUp added gral qUte SQrV V1, ing 195 18 Prior to this time, in addressing the need for providing evaluation as a necessary component for program improvement, Parker indicated that the atmosphere created for effective in-service should be conducive to building mutual respect, support, permissiveness and creativity. Addi— tionally, be indicated that continuous attention must be given to indi- vidual and group differences of those participating.10 The work of Harris supported the group dynamics/interaction of staff in-service programs, and he also indicated that feedback from the participants would contrast his reactions with those of the larger group.11 In his work with women, Wilson had similar concerns, but added the need to identify and utilize community resources as an inte- gral factor in improving in-service programs. 1. In-service education must recognize personality needs of the staff. 2. In-service education should utilize community resources. 3. In-service education should be planned by the group. 4. In-service education must be integrated and modified in terms of situational needs.12 Moffitt identified positive outcomes which could accrue if ade- qute attention to individual and group needs were to be built into in- service programs at the building level. 1. Staff can more readily and more accurately identify or limit a problem of common concern. 10Cecil J. Parker, "Evaluations Improvement Programs," Chapter VI, Action Curriculum Improvement, ASCD Yearbook (National Education Association, 1951), pp. 103-108. 11Harris, op. cit., p. 45. 12Francis M. Wilson, "What Makes an Effective In-service Train- ing Program?" National Assocation of Deans of WOmen Journal, 16:51-6, 1953. Cert BIO! for for est Par bej be Se. l9 2. Staff is more selective in establishing a method of searching for answers. 3. Staff is able to analyze divergent points of view on any problem. 4. Staff can objectively evaluate an ongoing program. 5. Staff is able to analyze objectively the process of their group growth. 6. Staff can alter or expand their program of investi- gation. 7. Staff can share information. 8. Staff can develop group interest and understanding. 9. Staff can locate personal problems thwarting progress. 10. Staff is able to arrive at conclusions that change behavior. 11. Staff is able to implement decisions as they are made, thereby changing individual and group behavior.13 Parker reinforces Moffitt's findings that the decisions con- cerning procedures, etc., should be a c00perative effort among the group members. Parker also presents a series of similar assumptions for guiding the evaluations of in-service. His work emphasized a need for a comprehensive evaluation plan and follow-through as well as the establishment of a definite set of objectives. Parker also stated that the evaluation, in order to be comprehensive, needed to be a continuous part of the program. He also reinforced the importance of evaluation's being a cooperative effort which involves all participants and that to be effective the persons doing the evaluation need to have a feeling of security.14 13Moffitt, 0p. cit., p. 28. 1“Parker, op. cit., p. 14. ing 1 when He 1 foll C111: 20 Fischler writes of four additional ideas on evaluation in stat- ing the following: 1. Teachers must have an Opportunity to analyze and evaluate their results. 2. There is great advantage when teachers can analyze their behavior. 3. Whenever possible, teachers should be asked to compare their goals with actual results. 4. Teacher teams should be encouraged to engage in coop— erative analysis and evaluation of teaching performance. Otto emphasized that teacher's behavior will undergo change when the teacher's own expectancies are dealt with in the in—service. He lists two important role expectations which teachers have in the following statements about teacher role expectation: 1. Teachers must have adequate chance to voice their feelings about changes and innovations. 2. Teachers have a right to expect in-service leaders to plan carefully, considering factors of time, energy, re- ward, and social needs.16 Along with these two teacher role expectations, Otto also in- cludes three important teacher responsibilities. 1. Prepare in advance for meetings when such prepara- tion is necessary to insure full benefit from the program. 2. Cooperate with other teachers and program leaders in trying out new ideas before accepting or rejecting pos- sible new practices. 15Abraham S. Fischler, "Confrontation: Changing Teacher Beha- vior Through Clinical Supervision," Improving In-service Education: Proposals and Procedures for Change, ed. Louis J. Rubin (Boston, Massa- chusetts: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971), pp. 186-187. 16Wayne Otto and Lawrence Erickson, In-service Education to Im- prove Reading Instruction (Newark, Deleware: International Reading As- sociation, 1973), p. 19. planne factor =r "L I: 12 . O’U the g SeCut that 21 3. Evaluate both existing programs and new ideas in a continuing attempt to improve instruction.17 As Harris states: "Certainly, in-service programs should be planned with the active participation Of those who are to be the bene- factors."18 Gilchrist states: An accepted principle of learning is that one grows in skill as he works on problems which are of real concern to him. This means that those who participate in an in-service program should be involved in identifying the problems on which they are to work, have an opportunity to share in the planning, and take part in determining the degree of success of their efforts."1 Moffitt simply states that, "One learns best when he accepts the goals for learning and has shared in establishing the goals."20 Taylor has also verified this idea in his belief that, "The con- secutive involvement Of teachers in attacking real educational problems that they face is a powerful instrument of continuing education."21 These elements of good in-service encourage a closer look at the need for cooperative efforts for better in-service education. 171bid. 18Ben M. Harris, Wailand Bessant, and Kenneth E. McIntyre, 13f service Education: a Guide to Better Practices (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1969), p. 5. 19Robert S. Gilchrist, Clarence Fielstra, and Ann L. Davis,'Tn- ganization of Programs of In-service Education," In-service Education for Teachers, Supervisors, and Administrators, The Fifty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 286. 20Moffitt, op. cit., p. 75. 21Ralph W. Taylor, "In-service Education for Teachers: a Look at the Past and Future," Improvinngn—service Education: PrOposals and Procedures for Change, ed. Louis J. Rubin (Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971), p. 13. lea—”‘— the nee feelin the r as On 8688 Star GT0 22 As early as 1949, the National Education Association emphasized the need to have a cooperative plan for in-service education, stating: A OOOperative plan for the professional growth of teach- ers, in-service includes all of the educational personnel in a given school situation: teachers, superintendents, prin- cipals, supervisors, special service staff, and staff members of colleges and state departments of education.22 In 1967, the National Education Association reemphasized its feelings: School systems should encourage and support professional growth and development of teacher in—service programs by re- warding growth through salary advancement, recognition and status, and by granting leaves of absence for professional reasons. Cooperative programs do not reward the individual by re- warding growth through salary advancement, recognition and status and by granting leaves of absence for professional reasons.23 Cooperative programs do not relieve the individual teacher of the responsibility of achieving professional growth. Freedom to grow as one chooses must not be interpreted as a license to do nothing. The better school systems deveIOp a contagious attitude which assumes that the professional person has a duty and a desire to improve.24 According to Moffitt, in order to grow, a teacher should pos- sess specific qualities: 1. The desire to grow 2. The readiness to participate 22National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, The Teaching Profession Grows Through In-service (Washington, D. C., 1949), p. 9. 23National Education Association, "Professional Growth of Teachers' In-service," NEA Research Bulletin, Number 1 (Washington, D. C., March, 1967), p. 25. 24Moffitt, op. cit., p. 59. te DUZEIC Si he ir is me tl DE Phasi; inclu( good 3 23 3. The sensitivity to the opinions of others 4. Intelligence and knowledge 5. A willingness to discard unproductive habits of teaching 6. The desire to accept new challenges even though they require added effort and present some uncertainty25 Local administration's role in in-service is also discussed by numerous authors. Otto and Erickson's role expectations include that: 1. He takes part in the program and gives evidence that, when necessary, he is committed to changing his administrative/ supervisory behavior. 2. He encourages teachers to express their opinions and he respects their opinions; and while he involves teachers in selecting materials and methods for teaching, he also of- fers his own knowledge and Opinions when decisions must be made. 3. He utilizes his authority and expertise to involve the apprOpriate personnel, to arrange for substitutes, re- leased time, materials, and an entire host of components necessary for productive in-service programing.26 Ellsbree and Reutter's first guideline for good in-service em- phasizes the need for administrative involvement and then goes on to include other basic elements for good in-service. They emphasize that good in-service: 1. Involves all personnel 2. Utilizes a wide variety of media and resources both from within and outside the system. 3. Includes provisions for training personnel to assume positions of responsibility in the school system.27 25Moffitt, op. cit., p. 60. 26Otto, op. cit., p. 20. 27Willard S. Ellsbree and E. Edmund Reutter, Jr., Principles of Staff Personnel Administration in Public Schools (Bureau of Publica- tions, Teachers' College, Columbia University, 1959), pp. 37-40. v.1- -_. —- ‘1‘"- outsid son is by the ef ar be he] SL tc de in p1, fleet the i Still another element of a successful in-service program is the outside resource person or consultant. The consultant or resource per- son is brought in from outside the local setting which is to be effected by the in-service study. Lippitt and Fox state that: Leadership from the outside can often be utilized most effectively if it is involved under a continuing consultant arrangement. Otto lists three criteria for a consultant, if he or she is to be helpful to the in—service project: 1. An invitation to participate requires that the con- sultant insist on knowing what the participants want him to do and how this activity fits into the total in-service design. 2. Learns as much as possible about the present prac- tice of instruction in the schools prior to presenting his position of the program. 3. Prepare and present his activity in a manner con- sistent with the purpose of the program. Lippitt and Fox present the two elements of teacher involvement in planning in-service and the need for an outside consultant in re- flecting that: A systematic program must be developed in which "inside" and "outside" resources can collaborate to provide leader— ship and assistance to teachers. Harris and Bessant present two questions which are a part of the important elements of in-service: 1. Are the necessary materials available? 28Ronald Lippitt and Robert Fox, "Development and Maintenance of Classroom Learning," Improving In-service Education: Proposals and Procedures for Change, ed. Louis J. Rubin (Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971), p. 149. 29Otto, op. cit., pp. 21-22. 30Lippitt and Fox, op. cit., p. 169. i ‘ a 5+ "v-~L‘. ._ (a ' I “ - . -‘ I, :. ceix facl POI‘ sid mEa Ed Ca Te 25 2. Is a continuing supply of materials planned?31 One of the basic elements of in-service programs is the respon- sibility for planning the program. More specifically, responsibility for planning any in-service program should be shared by those who re- ceive the service and those who initiate it.32 Hermanowicz,33 among others, has verified the overall dissatis— faction with in-service programs among teachers. Most of the teachers he studied believed that in-service was needed, but that existing pro- grams were severely inadequate. Still other researchers have reported a problem in selecting the appropriate choice of types of in-service to be used. Frazier34 reports an excessive use of staff meetings. Leavitt and Mueller35 re- port frequent use of lectures. Harris36 points out that very little con- sideration is given to the unique purposes which in-service might serve. There is at present a general calling for new and innovative measures which need to be taken in the area of in-service. 31Harris, op. cit., p. 42. 32American Association of School Administrators, In-service Education for School Administration, report by the Commission on In- service Education for School Administration (Washington, D. C.: Ameri- can Association of School Administrators, 1963), p. 66. 33Henry J. Hermanowicz, "The Pluralistic World of Beginning Teachers," The World of Beginning Teachers (washington, D. C.: National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, 1966), pp. 16-25. 34Alexander Fraizer, et. al., "Sample Studies in Supervision," Educational Leadership (May, 1951), pp. 517—520. 35Harold J. Leavitt and R. A. H. Mueller, "Some EffectscflfFeed- back on Communications," Human Relations (1959), pp. 401-410. 36Ben M. Harris, Supervisory Behavior in Education (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969), pp. 20-31. insti: have a tion a isting should sent p believ gram f (ll: 26 The American Association of School Administrators believes that institutions of higher education, such as universities and colleges, have an obligation to continually strive to improve their service func- tion as it pertains to in-service in an attempt to strengthen their ex- isting progress. Administrators in institutions of higher education should be convinced that there is a definite need to expand their pre- sent programs of in—service. The Association further states that it believes there is no better place for this expansion to start than in a well planned experience of in-service to the public education system.37 Ross38 calls for state departments to develop and begin a pro- gram for new approaches for continuing education for teachers. Luke states: . . . the use of a wider repertoire of delivery techni- ques must become part of our thinking about in-service edu- cation. Perhaps Simerly sums it best when he reports that: . . . continuing professional development for today's educator has become a complex problem that can best be re- sponded to through designing multiple approaches to con- tinued professional development. 37AASA, In-service Education for School Administration (Wash- ington, D. C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1963), p. 121. 38Roy A. Edelfeldt and Wendall C. Allen, eds., The Seattle Con- ference (Olympia, Washington: State Superintendent of Public Instruc- tion, 1967), p. 43. 39Robert A. Luke, "Collective Bargaining and In-service Educa- tion," Phi Delta Kappan, 57:7:469, March, 1976. 40Robert Simerly, "Syracuse University's Office of Extended Campus Continuing Professional Development for Teachers, Administra- tors, and School Board Members," The New Campus, 27:21 (Spring, 1974). Unix out Val 27 Workshop Model The first regularly organized educational activity to be called a "workshop," according to Myers, was conducted in 1936 at Ohio State University.41 Today the workshOp form of in-service has spread through— out the United States. The term workshop has a very wide use. This fact becomes evi- dent upon reviewing the literature On workshops as a method of in- service. Moffitt cites several characteristics which make a workshop a valuable method of in-service education: 1. It emerges to meet the existing needs of the parti— cipants. 2. It provides expert assistance. 3. It provides for the pooling of information and sharing of experiences. 4. It motivates participants to change their behavior where and when such change may be helpful. 5. It gives added support to a change program by as- suring approval of the group. 6. It develops both individual and group skills in attacking new problems. 7. It strengthens working relations with others in different status assignments. 8. It evaluates both the results of the effort and the process by which results are attained.42 In 1938, Lessenger of the Wayne University College of Education formulated six "ideals" for workshop participants: 41Alonzo F. Myers, "Workshops," The Journal of Educational So- ciology, 24:5:249, January, 1951. 42Moffitt, Op. cit., p. 26. 1 I met 1 dil i I 3m ‘ th. fr 28 l. The most important thing about any person is his attitude toward other people. 2. There is a primary need to build in people a way to learn better human relations. 3. Every individual has human worth and has a contri- bution to make to the common good. 4. Learning leads to more learning and the human or- ganism is infinitely curious. 5. The most critical learning at any given time has to do with the individual current problems. 6. COOperation as a technique and as a way of life is superior to competition. Allen believes that one of the major values of the workshop method of teacher in-service is the human relations aspect.44 The in- dividual's growing should be a life-long process and teaching is living and working toward that growth. Teaching success depends largely upon the way each individual relates to every other individual. Another important value of the workshOp is its ability to meet front-line needs -- teacher needs. Not only are they (workshops) highly individualized, but because they are non-credit and non-academic, they do not fit into the established reward pattern of banking credits toward a salary increase. . 5 43Earl C. Kelly, The Workshop Way of Learning (New York: Har- per and Brothers Publishers, 1951), pp. 4-6. 44Frank E. Allen, "In-service Education," Nation's Schools, 48:3:45, September, 1951. 45Luke, loc. cit. Whits. 805‘” cles 0f th insti of so to “run-rim ._’ .—. tIVe 29 1965 is one of the major causes for the increase in inter-institutional COOperation.49 In the sixties, international cooperation also accelerated. Whitman reports that: The half dozen or so assocations of academic institu— tions in existence in 1960 had multiplied by 1968 to one hundred or more. COOperation in the form of consortia and councils was becoming a widely accepted device to meet com- mon educational needs. Ertell reports that there were seventy-nine "important" arti— cles published between 1930 and 1957 on inter-institutional cooperation. Of these, sixty—six were published after 1950.51 While there is literature available on different types of inter- institutional COOperation, there is little reported on the evaluation of such programs. As Howard points out: While the descriptive literature on inter-institutional cooperation is somewhat extensive, assessments of programs are few. Portrayals of successes, apparently prepared to please funding agencies, predominate. Little is recorded on interaction among colleges, its duration, its intensity or significance. Even less is known about the response of participating faculty members, administrators, or students. There is almost nothing on the results for society achieved through cooperative effort.52 Duke University and North Carolina University began a coopera— tive program in International Studies in the year 1967. The program was administered jointly and financed by a grant awarded by the Ford Foundation.53 49Howard, op. cit., p. 5. 5OShepard L. Whitman, Inter—institutional Cooperationauuilnter— national Education (New York: Education and World Affairs, 1969), p. 7. 51Howard, op. cit., pp. 42-63. 521bid. 53Ibid. the CI meshei catim duriu. VEISi tive mark World meats Exten tiES. San 1 H10 s:- Stat I—‘rfl CL IL: 13 r) 30 Inter-Institutional COOperation Inter-institutional cooperation dates back to 600 A.D., when the University of Timbuktu and Morrish University exchanged faculty members.46 In more recent years, the Rockefeller Foundation's General Edu— cation Board attempted to consolidate several small Negro colleges during World War I in order to economize on operating expenses.47 In the 1930's inter-institutional cooperation between the Uni- versity of North Carolina and Duke University, along with the COOpera- tive effort to share classes between Radcliffe and Harvard in 1945, mark two instances of inter-institutional cooperation before the post- World War II period.48 After World War 11, there was a great influx in college enroll- ments due to the returning veterans. This prompted an increase in the extent of inter-institutional cooperation among colleges and universi- ties. By the mid-fifties, the increasing cooperation began to decline as college enrollments decreased. In the sixties, the idea of inter-institutional cooperation be- gan to increase again. Howard says that the Higher Education Act of 46Lawrence C. Howard, "Inter-institutional Cooperation in Higher Education," New Dimensions in Higher Education, No. 21 (United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, April, 1967), p. 19. 47Howard, op. cit., p. 32. 48Merton W. Ertell, Inter-institutional COOperation in Higher Education (Albany, New York: University of the State of New York, 1957), pp. 52-53. share abled Vinst studi lar a pOpul gram moat tral teacl m0de 1975 CEnt tiOn 31 Support given by the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation and shared costs among the three prominent church—related institutions en- abled three institutions of higher learning (Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem State College, and Salem College) to establish an Asian studies program in 1960.54 Ertell points out that the opportunity for students with simi- lar areas of interests to attend other universities is becoming more popular in the United States. The programs just mentioned and the pro- gram at Atlanta University Center and the Associate Colleges of Clair- mont each offered basic course work with advanced studies at the cen- tral university.55 A program very close to the inter-institutional workshop is the teacher-center model for in-serviee education. The consumers —- teachers or principals or parents or teacher aides -- decide what they want to know and how they want to get it. They all have a voice in its services and projects. This kind of ownership captures and motivates peOple as no other management strategy can; in my judgment, it gives strong support and impetus to efforts to bring about major changes, and to preserve and press forward on those major changes which I believe have made Minneapolis Schools, to some degree, unique. . Devaney57 describes her understanding of the teacher center model of in-service as one in which enduring improvements in education 54Whitman, Op. cit., p. 47. 55Ertell, op. cit. 56John B. Davis, Jr., "The Teacher Center as a Strategy for Local School Renewal" (paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Association of School Administrators, Dallas, Texas, Feb., 1975), pp. 8-9. 57Kathleen Devaney and Lorraine Thorn, "Exploring Teachers' Centers" (San Francisco, California: Far West Laboratories for Educa- tional Research and Development, May, 1975), p. 4. come poin1 teacl beta inst They eval in-s Rel] fee? 11103] 32 come about as a result of each individual teacher's identifying starting points for his or her own learning. Also Devaney reports that the teacher center approach is an effective model for teacher in-service, because each teacher takes on added responsibility for curriculum and instructional planning, implementation and evaluation. Denemark and Yff58 state the same type of methods and effects are found among inter-institutional COOperative efforts. They emphasize, as does Devaney, that teacher identification of his or her own problems and background experience in relation to those problems is the key. They also review the necessity of a variety of planned processes and evaluation by each individual teacher as a main element to successful in-service training. Along with the desirability of evaluation by each staff member, Kelly also placed other responsibilities on the individual. It was his feeling that the traditional courses were not creating a relevant at- mosphere. 1. Individuals can assume maximum responsibility for their own learning. 2. Individuals can identify their current concerns in an area and join with others in study of common problems. 3. Individuals will be able to communicate freely. Each participant is encouraged and challenged to express views, relate experiences and present ideas and resources found to be helpful. The size of each group will be small enough to encourage participation by all members of the group. 58George W. Denemark and Joost Yff, "Obligation for Reform" (Washington, D. C.: American Assocition of Colleges for Teacher Edu- cation, Office of Education, DHEW, January, 1974), p. 4. V101 am 1 rela shat De 33 4. The staff will try to provide as much resource help as possible for each group. The library, books, and films will be available for group use.59 Kelly's workshop climate depended upon the ability of the indi- vidual members of the group to freely express themselves in a democratic atmosphere. Kelly agreed with Gordon that critical learning is directly related to the individual's current concerns, which the individual has shared in identifying.60 Kelly put it in these terms: 1. We want to put teachers in situations that will break down the barriers between them so they can more readily com- municate. 2. We want to give teachers an Opportunity for personal growth through accepting and working toward a goal held in common with others. 3. We want to give teachers an opportunity to work on the problems that are of direct, current concern to them. 4. We want to place teachers in a position of respon- sibility for their own learning. 5. We want to give teachers an experience in a coopera- tive undertaking. 6. We want teachers to have an opportunity, in collabo- ration with others, to produce materials that will be useful in their teaching. 7. We want teachers to learn methods and techniques which they can use in their own classrooms. 8. We want teachers to be put in a situation where they will evaluate their own efforts. 9. We want to give teachers an opportunity to improve their own morale.61 59Earl C. Kelly, The Workshop Waygof Learning (New York: Har- per and Brothers, 1951), p. 60. 60Thomas Gordon, Gropp Centered Leadership (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1955), p. 63. 61Ke11y, op. cit., pp. 7-11. and mo. Po ba 34 Kelly, Dworkin, and Delladora of the Wayne County (Michigan) hr- termediate School District, together with representatives of the Univer- sity of Michigan, Wayne State University, Eastern Michigan University, and Michigan State University met to discuss the possibility of start~ ing a new type of teacher in-service program. In addition to Dworkin and Delladora, several others were in- strumental in creating the inter-institutional workshop. Among these were Charles Blackman of Michigan State UniverSity; Robert Fox, then of the University of Michigan and later with the Wayne County Intermediate School District; and Richard Merrick of the Wayne County Intermediate Offices. The workshop concept was implemented in 1967 between the Wayne Intermediate Offices and representatives from Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and the University of Michigan. The workshop model which came out of this meeting, as well as the models later en- acted in Kent County in the fall of 1971, Genesee County in 1973, and Port Huron Intermediate School District in 1973 (all Michigan), were based on the cited work of Kelly. Objectives of the wayne County Inter-institutional Workshop The Wayne Intermediate School District found that the ongoing in-service was not inducing change. The following questions were posed: 1. What would happen to the change process if they could bring the universities and their resources to the teachers and schools? l in an inter inte og- 35 2. What would happen if they could break down the bar- riers, make education inter-institutional, open the door for individual educators to become a community of educators? The District settled on the inter-institutional workshop model in an attempt to answer these questions. Bird best summarizes the inter-institutional workshop objectives: I. To provide a means by which the educational needs of local schools and local school districts can continually be assessed. II. To meet those needs by conducting inter-disciplinary in-service education which recognizes and accepts individual differences among educators. 111. To provide the means for the generation of new ideas for the improvement of in-service and pre—service edu- cation. IV. To provide the linkage and liaison among local school districts, the intermediate office, institutions of higher learning, the state department of education and other appropriate institutions and human resources to en- hance the professional growth of educators.62 Unique Features of the Wayne Model Fox and Griffin described some of the unique qualities of the inter—institutional workshop model in Wayne County: 1. Team members could receive graduate credit from their choice of one of four universities' college of edu- cation. This allowed teams to form around a problem of common interest rather than limiting a team to members from the same univeristy. 2. Each team identified its own problems to work on; therefore, each team, for the most part, established its own agenda. 3. The general time allotment for the workshop con- sisted of sixteen sessions, meeting over a twenty week per— iod. Six of the sessions were held at a central location 62Barbara Bird, "Inter-institutional Workshop: a Change Model of In—service Education," The New Campus, 22:21, Spring, 1974. Eva inx SO! 36 to focus on team building, problem solving, and a variety of topics of interest. The other ten sessions were held in each team's individual school building and were used to work on the individual team's problem topic. 4. Each team had one of six representatives from one of the four COOperating universities to serve as a coordina- tor for the team. Each team was responsible for its own problems, identification, planning, etc. 5. Each team was also Open to membership by those not taking graduate credit. Their input was facilitated by the fact that the workshop ran for twenty weeks which gave time to try out ideas and make changes. 6. The fact that four universities, and intermediate school district, and local school districts joined together for such a joint effort is, in itself, unique. Evaluation Participants in each of the Wayne County Workshops have been involved in evaluating each of the workshops, both as to their own per- sonal growth and in terms of the workshops' effects on their schools. Approximately 90 percent of the participants have pro- vided examples of improvements in their schools or in them- selves resulting from involvement in the workshops.64 These evaluations have resulted in three major changes in the Wayne program: (1) involvement with teams prior to their entry into the workshop to assist them in problem identification and clarification, (2) reduction in the number of general sessions and increase in the number of learning sessions, (3) an insistence that a principal or assistant principal be a member of a team or give his support in 63Robert S. Fox and Don A. Griffin, "A New Model for In—ser- vice; When Clients and Resources Cooperate for Growth," Educational Leadership, 31:6:545-547, March, 1974. 64Evaluation Summary of Innovation Workshop for Wayne County Educators (May, 1968), p. 2 (mimeographed). 37 writing before a team can participate in the workshOp. (Early evalua- tions showed a higher rate of adoption for teams that included their principals.) Out of the Wayne County Inter—institutional Workshop have come similar models in Kent, St. Clair, and Genesee (Michigan) Counties.65 It is the inter-institutional workshop model of Genesee County that this study examines. The actual organizational structuring of the 1967 Wayne model is best detailed by Fox: School districts select teams of teachers and adminis- trators who work together on a problem of their choosing. The problem is identified before the workshop begins and has priority for the total school or district. During the course of sixteen, four-hour, one-a-week sessions, the teams work on their problems, assisted by the staff members from the various universities, the state department of education, and the intermediate school district. General sessions are designed to support team activities and to promote inter- team communications. College credit of four semester hours is given at the university of the student's choice. A flat fee is paid by the student to the intermediate school dis- trict which, in turn, pays the student's tuition at the uni- versity of his choice.66 The inter-institutional workshOp was designed to fulfill four major needs: 1. Provide effective in-service education in a realis- tic setting to improve the quality of education. 2. Provide a means by which the educational needs of local schools and local school districts can be continually assessed. 3. Provide a means for the generation of new ideas for the improvement of in-service and pre-service education. 4. Provide linkage and liaison among local school dis- tricts, the intermediate school districts, institutions of 65Ib1d. 66Ibid. mm MI in th Sc 0! SE 38 higher learning, the state department of education, and other institutions and human resources to enhance the pro- fessional growth of educators.67 Fox and Griffin also stress another out-growth of the inter- institutional workshop concept in their discussion of the workshOp model as a facilitator in the development of individual skills. They dis- covered that the participants found the experience to provide a good Opportunity for developing their skills as educational change agents. They also stressed their observation that the inter—institutional model was thought to have a great potential for meeting the demand ofteachers in the United States for more effective professional growth programs. Bird of Kent (Michigan) Intermediate School District reports these benefits of inter-institutional workshops to students: Participants in our workshops feel their efforts have been extremely beneficial to the students in their schools. There is also evidence of changes in attitudes between teach- ers and administrators and an increased rapport among prin- cipals, superintendents, and board members. They have be- come an educational team rather than teacher vs. administra- tor.63 There are several unique aspects of the Wayne Intermediate School District inter-institutional workshop which need to be noted in order to gain a thorough understanding of this model for teacher in- service. 1. Participants are members of school teams that focus on a curriculum or instruction problem in their own schools, one which they have selected. 2. Teams of eight to twelve people from a building pro- vide support systems for one another in facilitating program implementation. 67Bird, op. cit., p. 21. 68Bird, op. cit., p. 23. 39 3. Each team selects a team leader, not an administrator, who assists in planning the workshop and developing leader- ship ability. 4. Administrators must be members of their school teams. Therefore, to the extent that implementation rests with the building principal, he has an opportunity to examine this re- sponsibility and plan action designs for assisting the team with implementing their goals. 5. Team members have a choice of four universities from which they can receive credit for their work. 6. The format of the workshop is flexible for the 16 sessions. 7. All teams meet in a common place for six meetings to focus on team building, problem solving, and to share resources of general interest. The remaining ten sessions are located in their individual schools. This enables them to involve total staff, students, and community members in their study; to report their progress; and to see their sug- gestions in planning. The university faculty serve essen- tially as resource persons. 8. The workshop extends over a five month period which allows time for participants to try out their ideas, assess and refocus if necessary. 9. More effective use of resources are utilized to im- prove education when the four universities, the state depart- ment of education, the intermediate school districts, and local schools join together as a support base.69 Griffin7O found that during the workshOps, participants were reporting improvements in their own schools at an impressive rate. Dur— ing one workshOp, seventy-five percent of the participants reported im- provements in their schools as a direct result of the team's activities. Over ninety percent of the participants told of expected improvements, now in the planning stages, which were a direct result of participation in the workshOp model. 59Ibid. 7oDon A. Griffin, "Follow-up Study on the Effects of Innovation WOrkshops (April, 1969) (mimeographed report). 40 Fox71 reported similar findings from the inter-institutional workshops with which he was involved. Out of nineteen team leadersthat Fox surveyed, fifteen, or seventy-eight percent, of the total number of teams, replied that their teams had remained working on their topics after the workshop had formally concluded. They also projected imple- mentation rates well above the seventy percent mark. ward72 compiled a study on the Kent County inter-institutional worksh0p for the school year 1971-1972. The purpose of his study was to describe in detail the historical development of ongoing operations and short term effects of the model as it related to the Kent County workshop. In that study, Ward presented four major conclusions of the effectiveness of the workshOp: l. The Kent inter-institutional workshop was effective in fulfilling the stated purpose of the workshop: to assist a team from a local school to utilize group effort in solving professional problems related to the educational offerings in their systems." 2. The Kent inter—institutional workshop was effective in facilitating attitudinal and/or behavioral change by par- ticipants. 3. The team's participation in the Kent inter-institu- tional workshop was effective in facilitating program changes within their schools and school districts. 4. Participation in the Kent inter-institutional work- shOp was effective in facilitating change within the coopera- ting universities.73 Ward made several suggestions for further study among which were: 71Fox, op. cit., p. 547. 72Keith W. ward, "An Inter—Institutional Approach to In-ser- vice Education for Public School Personnel: the Kent Inter-Instituu tional Workshop, 1971-1972 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michi- gan State University, 1973), p. 103. 73Ward, Op. cit., p. 107. 41 l. A longitundinal study of the attitudinal and/or be- havioral changes of the participants in the workshop would be helpful in further assessing the effects of the project. 2. A longitudinal study of the program changes within the participating schools would provide valuable informa- tion regarding the effects of the workshop.74 Genesee Inter-Institutional Workshop The model for in-service developed at Wayne County served as the paradigm for the program which was implemented in Genesee County in 1973. There are several unique aspects of the Genesee Intermediate School District inter-institutional workshop which need to be noted in order to gain a thorough understanding of this model for teacher in- service: 1. Participants are members of school teams that focus on a curriculum or instructional problem in their own schools, one which they have selected to study. 2. Teams of eight to twelve peOple from a building pro- vide support systems for one another in facilitating program implementation. 3. Each team selects a team leader, not an administrator, who assists in planning the workshop and developing leader- ship ability. 4. Administrators must be members of their school teams. Therefore, to the extent that implementation rests with the building principal, he has an opportunity to examine this re- sponsibility and plan action designs for assisting the team with implementing their goals. 5. Team members have a choice of four universities from which they can receive credit for their work. 6. The format of the workshop is flexible for the 16 sessions. All teams meet in a common place for six meetings 74Ward, Op. cit., p. 112. E111 r—W 42 to focus on team building and problem solving, and to share resources of general interest. The remaining ten sessions are located in their individual schools. This enables them to involve total staff, students, and community members in their study, to report their progress, and to study their suggestions in planning. The university faculty serve es— sentially as resource persons. 7. The workshop extends over a five—month period which allows time for participants to try out their ideas, assess, and refocus if necessary. 8. More effective use of resources is utilized to im— prove education when the four universities, the state de— partment of education, the intermediate school districts, and local schools join together as a support base.75 Similarities Between the Genesee Inter- Institutional Workshop and Local School District Study Committees The basic purposes behind the inter-institutional workshop and the local school district study committee are very similar. The pur- pose of the inter-institutional workshop model is to provide educators with an opportunity to earn graduate school credit while seeking solu- tions to problems which they identify as existing in their own class- rooms, school buildings, or school districts. (Graduate credit in the Genesee County inter-institutional workshop was given at a rate of four semester or six term hours per workshop. The credit was available through Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, Eastern Michigan University, or Central Michigan University.) With the excep- tions of the opportunity to earn graduate credit, the same purpose could be used to describe the local school district study committees. 75Bird, loc. cit. 43 Summary The review of the literature encompasses four main areas: a review of in-service education, a reporting of the ideas behind the workshop type of in-service education, a consideration of inter-institu- tional cooperation, and a review of the studies done on the inter—insti— tutional workshop itself. In-service education can be a key to relevant education for stu- dents. In-service education can sssume a number of forms: apprentice- ships, study groups or committees, conferences, demonstrations, semi— nars, workshops, work expereinces, etc. The literature reflects many elements of in-service. Topic se- lection for in-service appears often in the literature as needing to be something of local concern. Authorities also stress the desirability of having those educators who will receive the in-service be involved in the tOpic selection. The literature repeatedly mentions the desir- ability of the member's involvement in goal setting and evaluation. Another important element is support. The literature divides support into three major areas. First is the desirability of adminis- trative support for the topical work. Second is support for implimenta- tion of the outcomes. Finally is the element of peer support for the group's work. The literature also speaks of the need for evaluating. In-ser- vice experts stress the desirability of evaluation's being not only a, final part of in-service, but also an ongoing process throughout the in-service. 44 Also found in the literature are the elements of adequate re- sources and adequate participation. Adequate participation includes both voluntary participation by those involved in the in-service and adequate administration participation, as well as support in the in» service. The history of the workshop model of in-service began in 1936. The first formal, continuing workshop began in that year at Ohio State University. Inter-institutional cooperation dates back to 600 A.D. with the cooperation between two universities in the Eastern hemisphere. By 1930, inter-institutional cooperation was under way in the United States, and it continued to expand, especially after World war II. The inter-institutional workshop model had its beginnings in Wayne County, Michigan, in 1967. It was developed by Dworkin and Della- dora, based on the 1940's work of Kelly. By 1971, Kent Intermediate School District was also sponsoring inter—institutional workshops. In 1973, Genesee County Intermediate School District began its program. There is very little literature on evaluation of inter-institu- tional workshOps. In his dissertation at Michigan State University, Ward did limited evaluation on the Kent County workshop. As of this date, no overall evaluation has been attempted on the perceived signi- ficance of the Genesee County inter-institutional workshOp model. Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perceived effec- tiveness of a workshop model of in-service education which was opera- tionalized through the cooperative efforts of the Genesee County Inter- mediate School District, Michigan State University, University of Mich- igan, Eastern Michigan University, and Western Michigan University for the years 1973 through 1975. This study also examined and compared the perceived effectiveness of one other in-service program which had com- mon goals and some operating procedures which were in common with the procedures of the inter-institutional workshop. The procedures followed in this study were designed to gather information and data through the survey method of investigation. This chapter describes the main divisions of the methodology that were used: identification and description of the population, sample selection and 3129: questionnaire, printing and mailing of the questionnaire, follow- I“) mailing, and return of the questionnaire. Identification and Description of the Population The population for this study consisted of the three hundred seventy-four participants of the four Genesee County Intermediate 45 46 School District's inter-institutional workshops from the fall of 1973 through the fall workshop session of 1975. The participants were prac- ticing educators from the school districts in the Genesee County Inter- mediate School District. Information about the population and the teams on which they served was obtained from the director of the Genesee County Intermediate School District's inter-institutional workshop program (Appendix A). The population composed a total of fifty-four teams representing twenty- of the county's twenty-one local school districts (Appendix B). The average team size was seven, and the overall range was three to thir- teen . Sample Selection and Size A thirty-five percent random sample was drawn from the popula- tion utilizing a table of random numbers. The sample was also limited to those persons who had been involved in local school district study committee work as well as the inter-institutional workshop program. They presented a possible population of two hundred, ninety-five parti- cipants which led to a sample number of one hundred, three. Description of the Sample From the original sample of the study, a total of 103 educators responded to the questionnaire. Of the 103 questionnaires returned, all were usable. The following personal background data was gathered through the use of a personal background questionnaire (Appendix C). This was sent with the attitude/perception scale (Appendix D) to each member of the sample. 47 Sex Forty-five of the respondents were male (see Appendix D). This represents 43.7 percent of all respondents. Fifty-eight or 56.3 percent of the respondents were female. Ase Classification of survey participants by age groups yielded the distribution shown in Table l. The largest number of participants was in the age groups of 25-30 and 31-35, with these two groups accounting for fifty-eight respondents or 56.2 percent of the total. The twenty- five and under age group showed a small distribution--ten percent, sur- prising in the respect that the inter-institutional workshop credit hours ndght well be appealing to younger teachers who need eighteen hours of graduate study to obtain their permanent certifica- tion from the State of Michigan. Table 1 Distribution of Educators by Age Age Group Number Percent 25 and Under 1 1.0 25 - 3O 29 28.1 31 - 35 29 28.1 36 - 4O 19 18.4 41 and Over 25 24.4 TOTALS: 103 100.0 48 Present Position in Education Participants were distributed according to nine categories, ranging from teachers to administrators in the three areas Of elemen— tary, junior high, and senior high school. In addition to categories for teachers and administrators, there were also categories for counse- lors and those participants whose job position would not fall into one of these other categories. This ninth category (Other) was comprised of nine participants or 8.7 percent of the total sample. A presentation of the preceding in- formation can be found in Appendix E. Table 2 shows the assignment of educators by level. The distribution of sample participants among the levels of edu- cation categorizes with forty-nine or 47.5 percent of the sample parti- cipants working at the elementary level. There were twenty persons or 19.4 percent working at the junior high level, plus twenty-six or 25.3 percent working at the senior high level of education, for a secondary total of 44.7 percent or forty-six persons. These figures of forty-nine elementary (47.5 percent) and forty-six secondary level (44.7) persons represent a close distribution of sample participants between elemen- tary and secondary educators. The remaining 8.7 percent represents central office and K-12 service people. Four participants or 3.9 percent were central office administrators. The remaining four educators, 3.9 percent of the sam- ple participants, represented services which span K—12. Comprising this category was a reading teacher, a resource teacher, a reading con- sultant, and one librarian. 49 ¢.m c o.m e m.m~ 0N «.mH ON n.5c me ”mHuom NHIx st: uoHcom stm MOHssh humanoEOHm huHHHpHmcoomom mo mou< Ou wsHouooo< Ho>OH kn mucumosom mo GOHuanHuumHn N OHan dis 3?? the pre tha gor and per per had Show 50 Number of Years in Present School District The data obtained on length of service in the present school district is presented in Appendix F. Eight categories of responses were applicable for the respondents, ranging from one year of service in their present school districts to over twenty years of service in their present school districts. Of the sample, less than six percent had less than four years of teaching experience in the district. Number of Inter-Institutional Workshops As can be seen from the summarized data in Table 3, as the cate- gory of number of inter-institutional workshops increases, the number and percent of participants decreases. Seventy-five respondents (72.8 percent) had been in one inter-institutional workshop. Eighteen (17.5 percent) had been in two workshops, and six participants (5.8 percent) had been in three. Four educators (3.9 percent) had been in four work- shops, while no respondents reported being in more than four workshops. Table 3 Distribution of Educators by Number of Inter- Institutional Workshops Participated in Inter-Institutional Work- shops Participated in Number Percent l 75 72.8 2 18 17.5 3 6 5.8 4 3.9 TOTALS: 103 100.0 scho scho pate Stud W OTA 51 Number of Local School District Study Committees All of the people sampled had participated in a minimum of one school district study committee. Table 4 reports the number of local school district study committees in which the respondents had partici- pated. Table 4 Distribution of Educators by Number of Local School District Study Committees Participated in Number of Local School District Study Committees Participated in Number Percent l 39 37.8 2 19 18.4 3 15 14.6 4 - 5 12 11.7 6 - 10 11 10.7 11 - 15 4 3.9 16 - 20 3 2.9 TOTALS: 103 100.0 Questionnaire A questionnaire was developed and used as the primary document in determining participant attitudes on the effectiveness of the Genesee Inter-institutional workshop and local school district study committees. The questionnaire was developed to respond to the following hypotheses which were generated as part of this study: 52 Hypothesis 1: Participants will rate the inter-institutional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study com- mittee, based on their involvement and knowledge gained. Hypothesis II: Participants will rate the inter-institutional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study com- mittee with respect to their perception of the relevance of the topic and ideas presented. Hypothesis III: Participants will rate the inter-institutional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study com— mittee with respect to their perception of the implementation of change. Hypothesis IV: Participants will rate the inter-institutional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study com- mittee with respect to their perception of the leadership role of the facilitator-chairperson. Hypothesis V: Participants will rate the inter-institutional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study com- mittee with respect to their perceptions of the leadership role of local school administrators. ‘Hypothesis VI: Participants will rate the inter-institutional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study com- mittee with respect to their perception of the availability of resources. Hypothesis VII: Participants will rate the inter-institutional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study com- mittee with respect to the evaluation of the efforts. The questionnaire consisted of two parts: Part I was designed to gather demographic data, and Part II consisted of a series of ques- tions which were selected based upon criteria identified as being rel the the _. -3 Cip Sey (BC. if 53 related to the organizing purposes of the workshop model. Specifically, the questionnaire included items related to each of the following areas: 1. Involvement in topic selection by participants 2. Involvement in planning and implementation 3. Local administrative support and involvement 4. Evaluation 5. Availability of adequate resources 6. Relevance of topic 7. Involvement and support of group leaders In preparing the survey, attention was given to information on the preparation of opionnaires as described by Best, who states the following: The information form that attempts to obtain the measured attitude or belief on an individual is known as a opinionnaire or attitude scale. . . How an individual feels, or what he believes, is his at- titude. . .The researcher must depend upon what the individual says as to his beliefs and feelings. This is an area of opin- ion. Through the use of questions, or by getting an indivi- dual's reaction to statements, a sample of his opinion is ob- tained. From this statement of opinion, may be inferred or estimated his attitude -- what he really believes.l Ahmann and Glock write: The concept of attitude refers to the way individuals act and think toward and about people, objects and situations they encounter, as a result of their previous experiences. . .Eval- nation ofzattitude formation and change becomes just as impor- tant. . . A participant questionnaire was developed to reflect the prin- ciples which guided the organization of the inter-institutional 1John W. Best, Research in Education (Englewood Cliffs,New Jer- sey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 155. 2J. Stanley Ahmann and Marvin D. Glock, Evaluating Pupil Growth (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1961), p. 463. 54 workshop and following the advice and guidance of the research depart- ment of the College of Education at Michigan State University. Many thus assisted in the formulation of the items of the questionnaire. As- sistance was also obtained on the format, usability, appearance, and other factors of concern regarding the questionnaire. Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted with twenty participants to deter- mine the validity of the questionnaire. The twenty participants were not a part of the sample group. Those selected to assist in the pilot study were chosen so as to offer a variety of expertise in developing a final draft of the questionnaire. Members of the pilot study group consisted of local teachers and administrators, university faculty, in- termediate office personnel, and other educators who had been involved as leaders of, or participants in, the inter-university and local study committee models. Each was contacted and asked to complete the ques- tionnaire, check for clarity and correctness, and list any other cri- ticisms of the questionnaire. Four items were modified for clarity. Four items were deleted and one item was added. A copy of the final questionnaire used in this study appeared in Appendix G. Printing and Mailing of Questionnaires The cover letter, Appendix H, was prepared and sent with each questionnaire and stated the purpose of the study, gave an overview of its importance, and requested the assistance of each participant in completing and returning the questionnaire. An addressed envelope was also enclosed for returning the completed questionnaire. 55 The questionnaire, with cover letter and return envelope, was mailed to all of the participants in the sample on May 6, 1977. Follow-ungailings A follow-up letter, Appendix I, along with a second OOpy of the questionnaire, was prepared and mailed to all participants who had failed to return the questionnaire within ten days. Return of the Qpestionnaire As questionnaires were received by the researcher, they were categorized by session and school district, and then checked for com- pleteness of responses. The data from the questionnaires were trans- ferred to key punch cards for statistical analysis. Procedures for Analyzing the Data Analysis of the responses of the subjects is reported in terms of a factor analysis and a t-test in Chapter 4. A factor analysis was completed on the attitude/perception scale. The factor analysis was carried out in order to determine whether clusters of items responded to in a similar fashion could be identified. Based upon the recommendations of the research department staff of the Michigan State University College of Education, for factor analysis purposes, a factor loading Of +.45 or above was considered sufficient to include the item(s) as the underlining factor or con- struct, and the figure of +.45 was used for the factor analysis. A t-test was employed to determine whether significant differ- ences existed between the respondent's perceptions of the effectiveness 56 of the inter—institutional workshop and the study committees. For the purposes of this study, the .05 level of significance was employed. Eta-1.111.831 The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perceived effec- tiveness of the inter-institutional workshop through the comparison of the workshop model to the local school district study committee model of staff development. This chapter has identified the population to be sampled, deter- mined the sampling techniques to be used, and identified the nature of the questionnaire which was developed to secure responses pertaining to the two purposes of this study. The questionnaire was constructed with, and participants re- sponded to, a five point Likert type scale. Information relative to the age, sex, personal and professional characteristics of the participants was also gathered via the questionnaire. A pilot study was conducted for the purpose of validating the questionnaire, and modifications were made as determined necessary by the pilot study. Items were modified, deleted, or added to the questionnaire based upon the responses of the pilot group. The population to be sampled included teachers and administra- tors who have participated in both the inter-institutional workshop and local school district study groups. The 103 returns represented thirty- five percent of the total possible pOpulation. A followbup letter was sent when responses were not received within ten days of the initial mailing of the questionnaire. The re- turned questionnaires were categorized by session and school district 57 and checked for completeness of responses before being submitted to key punch translation. The factor analysis was accomplished to determine if certain common responses could be identified. Analysis of variance was employed to see if there were significant differences among participants' re- sponses as to the effectiveness of the inter-institutional workshop when compared to local school system study programs. tive value ties, in the SPODSG on the for the mos: Us, to .86) late I More f Chapter 4 THE FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR OPINIONS OF LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDY COMMITTEES AND THE GENESEE COUNTY INTER-INSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP This chapter contains the findings and analysis of the descrip- tive characteristics of the sample, their reports on the frequency and value of participation in the two types of in-service education activi- ties, and their reports and opinions on the various elements involved in their participation in these two types of in-service education. The data for this chapter were obtained from questionnaire re- sponses given by the participants. A factor analysis was then performed on the data obtained. Factor Analysis A factor analysis was performed on the attitude/perception scale for the inter-institutional workshop model and the local school district study committee. The six factor solution was selected as providing the most useful data for this study. Factor solutions of 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were employed in reaching such a determination. Thirty items (Appendix J) emerge as having high loadings (+.45 to .86). All thirty-four items are listed in Appendix K, as they re— late to responses for the inter-institutional workshop model. Of the thirty-four variables, only one variable registered a more favorable mean response for the local school district study 58 m1, were 0 commi vorat were for 1 the i trict loadi naire educa schoo. were 5 ta mer tas Mm 59 committee. The remaining thirty-three items each registered a more fa- vorable mean for the inter-institutional workshop. Thirty variables were significant at the .05 level of significance. The attitude/perception scale: Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix for the local school district study committee (Appendix L) summarizes the items with high loadings (+.45 to .86). For the local school dis- trict study committee model, thirty-three items emerged as having high loadings. (All thirty-four are listed in Appendix M.) The variables are based on thirty-four items from the question- naire that was administered to 103 educators from Genesee County. The educators were treated as individual respondents, rather than using a school mean of items as a basis for factoring. The thirty variables were grouped for analysis purpose into six major categories. For the inter-institutional workshop model, the categories were: 1. The participant's knowledge, learning and implemen- tation of the team topic 2. The facilitator-chairperson's knowledge and involve- ment in the in-service 3. The participant's involvement in the in-service 4. Local administration's involvement in planning, task completion, and evaluation 5. Evaluation 6. Topic relevance For the local school district study committee, the categories were: 1. The participant's involvement and topic relevance 2. The facilitator-chairperson's knowledge and involve- ment in the in-service 3. Implementation of ideas in the classroom V“ . _-, .____.,.._-_._, .- «up:- t2 tutioz Factor \ Item 9 \ 60 4. Local administration's involvement in planning, task completion, and evaluation 5. Evaluation 6. Access to outside resources The items clustered in the factor analysis for the inter-insti- tutional workshop model in the following manner: Table 5 Clusters of Items from the Factor Analysis of the Inter-Institutional Workshop Model Factor 13M: 1: 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 25. 29. 33. 34. Participant's knowledge, learning, and implementation of the team topic Did the experience increase your knowledge of the topic? Did you learn new concepts? Did you learn new techniques in problem solving? Were the ideas presented relevant to your teaching situa- tion? Were the outcomes of the experience implemented in your classroom? Are you using the outcomes of the experience in your class- room now? Was the experience an effective use of your time? Were your personal goals for the experience met? was the experience a good method for implementing change in your classroom? Was the experience a good method for implgnenting change in your school? Were the group's goals and objectives met? Were the outcomes of the group's efforts beneficial to stu- dents? learn: This 1 out 11 low r: an ovq Fact01 Item i range V sented E 61 Twelve factors loaded under Factor 1: participants' knowledge, learning, and implementation, with loadings at or above the +.45 level. This accounted for forty percent of the thirty variables which factored out in the six factor solution. The characteristics of Factor 1 were low range means and a wide range of standard deviation. This signifies an overall positive response to Factor 1. Factor 2: Facilitator-chairperson's knowledge and involvement in the in-service. Item #: 20. Did the facilitator-chairperson have an adequate knowledge of the group's goals? 21. Did the facilitator-chairperson have an adequate knowledge of the topic? 22. Was the facilitator-chairperson's involvement in the group helpful? 23. Did the facilitator-chairperson spend an adequate amount of time working with the group? 24. Did the facilitator-chairperson participate in the experi- ence? Factor 2 was characterized by all means falling below the mid- range with the standard deviations being represented by a wide range. This indicates a positive response to the five factors which loaded under Factor 2. The five factors which loaded under Factor 2 repre- sented seventeen percent of the total of thirty variables. Factor 3: Participants' involvement in the in-service. 5. Were you involved with developing group goals and objec- tives? 6. Were you involved with the group effort? 7. Did you have freedom to express you views? 62 The three variables which factored out represented ten percent of the thirty variables. Factor 3, participants' involvement, had the lowest means of all six factors. The standard deviations were also low. These low overall means indicate a very positive response by the parti- cipants to this factor. The item on "freedom to express one's views" was rated most positive of all the questionnaire items. Factor 4: Local administration's involvement in planning, task comple- tion, and evaluation. Item #: 16. Was local school administration involved in the topic se- lection? 17. Did your local school administration participate in the sharing of knowledge? 18. Was local school administration involvement helpful? 19. Was there local school administration support for imple- menting change? Four factors loaded under Factor 4, local administration's in- volvement in planning, task completion, and evaluation. These four factors represented thirteen percent of the thirty possible variables. Factor 4 had the highest means of any factor, indicating a less posi- tive response. This factor was also the one factor of the six which the data indicated had no significant difference between the two models studied. Factor 5: Evaluation 30. Is this a good method for evaluating present school pro- grams? 31. was there ongoing evaluation during the group effort? 32. Was there final evaluation at the end of the group effort? 63 Factor 5, evaluation, was characterized by means which fell in the high mid-range with standard deviations which were closely aligned. This, too, was a positive response. Three factors or ten percent of the total of thirty variables that factored out using the six factor solu- tion were accounted for under Factor 5. Factor 6: Topic relevance Item #: 2. Was the topic relevant to your professional needs? 3. Was the topic relevant to the needs of your students? 4. Was the topic relevant to the needs of your school district? This final factor accounted for three variables. This repre- sents ten percent of the thirty variables which factored out in the six factor solution. The standard deviation was low as were the means. This signifies a positive response to the variables in Factor 6, topic relevance. In the same manner, the six categories produced by the factor analysis on the local school district study committee clustered as fol- lows: Table 6 Clusters of Items from the Factor Analysis of Local School District Study Committees Factor 1: Participants' involvement and topic relevance Item #: 1. Were you involved in the topic selection? 2. Was the topic relevant to your professional needs? 3. was the topic relevant to your students' needs? 4. Was the topic relevant to the needs of your school district? 64 5. Were you involved with developing group goals and objec- tives? 6. Were you involved with the group effort? 7. Did you have freedom to express your views? 11. Were the ideas presented relevant to your teaching situa- tion? 14. was the experience an effective use of your time? 15. Were your personal goals for the experience met? 28. Was there a sharing of knowledge among the group menbers? Factor 1, participants' involvement and topic relevance, ac- counted for eleven or thirty-two percent of the thirty-four total vari- ables that factored out in the six factor solution. Factor 1 accounted for the most variables in reference to the local school district model. This first factor was characterized by the lowest means of the six fac- tors and a wide range of standard deviations. The responses were the most positive of the six factors obtained regarding the local school district study committee model. Factor 2: The facilitator-chairperson's knowledge and involvement in the in-service. Item #: 9. Did you learn new concepts? 20. Did the facilitator-chairperson have an adequate knowledge of the group's goals? 21. Did the facilitator-chairperson have an adequate knowledge of the topic? 22. was the facilitator-chairperson's involvement in the group helpful? 23. Did the facilitator-chairperson spend an adequate amount of time working with the group? 65 The second factor was comprised of five items which represented fifteen percent of the total thirty-three variables that factored out of the six factor solution. The means of responses fell in a very close pattern in the lower mid-range, which indicated a slightly less positive response. The standard deviation was in the lower range, with all the standard deviations falling together in a close range. Factor 3: Implementation of ideas in the classroom. Item #: 10. Did you learn new techniques in problem solving? 12. Were the outcomes implemented in your classroom? 13. Are you using the outcomes of the experience in your class- room now? 25. Was the experience a good method for implementing change in your classroom? Implementation of ideas in the classroom, Factor 3, had high means. The standard deviation for the four items, which represented twelve percent of the total thirty-three variables, was low. The high means signified a less positive response to this factor by the partici- pants. Factor 4: Local administration's involvement in planning, task comple— tion, and evaluation. 11:21:14}: 16. Was local school administration involved in the topic se- lection? 17. Did your local school administration participate in the sharing of knowledge? 18. Was local school administration involvement helpful? 19. Was there local school administration support for imple- menting change? 66 The four items in Factor 4 represented twelve percent of the total thirty-three variables that clustered out in the six factor solu- tion. Factor 4, local administration's involvement in planning, task completion, and implementation, was also the factor which was found to hold no significant differences between the two in-service models. This factor did have the highest means of the six factors and the widest standard deviation. This represents the least positive response of the six factors. Factor 5: Evaluation 29. Was the experience a good method for implementing change in your school? 30. Was this a good method for evaluating present school pro- grams? 31. Was there ongoing evaluation during the group effort? 32. Was there final evaluation at the end of the group effort? 33. Were the group's goals and objectives met? 34. Were the outcomes of the group's efforts beneficial to students? Factor 5, evaluation, accounted for six variables, representing eighteen percent of the total of thirty-three variables which were fac- tored out using the six factor solution. This factor had a low stan- dard deviation and a low mid-range mean. This represents an overall positive response. Factor 6: Access to outside resources Item #: 24. Did the facilitator-chairperson participate in the evalua- tion? 67 26. Were consultants from outside the school district available to help the group? 27. Were library facilities available for the group's use? The three items in Factor 6, access to outside resources, ac- counted for nine percent of the thirty-three variables which factored out in the six factor solution. Factor 6 reported low mid-range stan- dard deviation. The following seven hypotheses were tested: Hypothesis I: Participants will rate the inter-institu- tional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee, based on their involvement and knowledge gained. fiypothesis II: Participants will rate the inter-institu- tional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their percep- tions of the relevance of the topic and ideas presented. Hypothesis III: Participants will rate the inter-institu- tional workshop significantly more effective than local school district study committee with respect to their perceptions of the implementation of change. hypothesis IV: Participants will rate the inter-institu— tional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their percep- tions of the leadership role of the facilitator-chairperson. _flypothesis V: Participants will rate the inter—institu- tional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their percep- tions of the leadership role of the local school administra- tion. Hypothesis VI: Participants will rate the inter-institu- tional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their percep- tions of the availability of resources. hypothesis VII: Participants will rate the inter-institu— tional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to the evaluation of the efforts. 68 T-Test Following is a discussion of the comparison of the thirty-four variables through the use of the t-test analysis. Of the thirty-four variables, taken separately, only four produced data that tended to re- ject any of the hypotheses. A t-test of significance was employed to determine the differ- ences between the mean scores for the inter-university workshop and the local study committee model. The range of differences between the means was —l.0194 to +.29l3. The t-test data were grouped using the clustering effect and the elements of in-service reviewed in Chapter 2. Table 41 showing all means and standard deviations by factor was pre- sented in Appendix 0. All hypotheses were treated at the .05 level of significance. The first set of items used in this analysis deals with participants' involvement and knowledge gained from the experience: ,flypothesis I: Participants will rate the inter-institu- tional workshop significantly more effective than local school district study committees, based on their involvement and knowl- edge gained. Nine items in the questionnaire dealt with this issue. Of these, none produced data that tended to reject the hypothesis. Based on these re- ported findings, they hypothesis could not be rejected. An analysis of the data in Table 7 reveals that educators felt that the inter-institutional model furnished them with greater involve- ment in the selection of the tOpic under study than did local school district study committees on which they had served. 69 Table 7 Participant Involvement in Topic Selection (Item 1) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-institutional 2.0388 1.461 Local study committee 3.0583 1.539 Mean difference -l.0194 significant at .000 Table 8 Participant's Involvement with DevelOping Group Goals and Objectives (Item 5) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-institutional 1.6796 .962 Local study committee 2.4951 1.101 Mean difference - .8155 significant at .000 Again educators felt that the inter-institutional model fur- nished them a greater opportunity for involvement in the planning of the in-service than did local study committees. The educators sampled continued to rate the inter-university workshOp higher than the local study committee. The mean difference is less than the two previous items, but both forms of in-service continue to increase in their mean ratings. 70 Table 9 Participants' Involvement with the Group Effort (Item 6) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 1.5146 .778 Local study committee 2.2524 1.109 Mean difference - .7379 significant at .000 Table 10 Participant's Freedom to Express His Views (Item 7) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-institutional 1.3301 .600 Local study committee 2.0874 1.121 Mean difference - .7573 significant at .000 Table 10 reports the continuing increase in positive ratings for both the inter-institutional workshOp model and local study committee form of in-service. Both means represent the highest responses in this factor for each type of in-service. Again, the sample rated the inter- institutional workshop higher than the local study committee. The sam- ple mean for the inter—institutional model was close to a "definitely yes" in the area of freedom of expression, and the local school district study committee experience was a "yes" rating. 71 Table 11 The Experience as an Effective Use of the Participants' Time (Item 14) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-institutional 1.9903 1.080 Local study committee 2.8155 1.153 Mean difference - .8252 significant at .000 While the participants stated that the local school district study committee experience was a "somewhat" effective use of their time, their response to the question as it related to the inter-institutional model was a "yes." Table 12 Sharing of Knowledge among the Participants (Item 28) In—service Model Mean S.D. Inter-institutional 1.6893 .741 Local study committee 2.3010 .979 Mean difference - .6117 significant at .000 Again the inter-institutional workshop model was rated signifi- cantly higher than the local study committee when the participants were asked which facilitated the greatest sharing of knowledge among the participants. 72 Table 13 Participants' Increase in Knowledge of the Topic (Item 8) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-institutional 1.7670 .992 Local study committee 2.3981 1.123 Mean difference - .6311 significant at .000 Item 8, Table 13, as did Item 28, Table 12, elicited very simi- lar responses from the sample. Both questions dealt with knowledge. Item 28 dealt with the sharing of knowledge, and Item 8 dealt with the participants' increase in their knowledge of the tOpic area. In the case of both items, the educators sampled rated the inter-institutional model significantly higher than the local study committee model. The local study committee model was rated at slightly below the second most positive of the five point rating scale ratings, while the inter-insti- tutional model received ratings slightly above the second highest rating response. Table 14 Participants' Learning of New Concepts (Item 9) In-service Medel Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.000 1.010 Local study committee 2.7282 1.031 Mean difference - .7282 significant at .000 73 Items 9 and 10, Tables 14 and 15, both deal with participants' learning. Table 14 dealt with the‘learning of new concepts by those in- volved in the survey. The sample reported a significantly higher degree of learning of new concepts in the inter-university model than in the local study committee model of in-service education. Table 15 Participants' Learning of New Problem Solving Techniques (Item 10) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.6505 1.064 Local study committee 3.1748 1.024 Mean difference - .5243 significant at .000 Table 15, while rating the inter-university significantly more positive, shows the lowest rating of the three items (8, 9, 10) which directly dealt with "participant learning." The respondents stated that their learning of new problem solving techniques through local study committees was "somewhat." They state their learning of new problem solving techniques via the inter-university model was toward a more pos- itive "yes." The second cluster of questions was comprised of four items from the questionnaire which dealt with relevance of the topic and ideas pre- sented: Hypothesis II: Participants will rate the inter-university workshop significally more effective than the local school dis- trict study committee with respect to their perceptions of the relevance of the topic and ideas presented. 74 Based on the following reported findings, the hypothesis could not be rejected. Tables l6, 17, 18, and 19 report the data from this area. Table 16 Relevance of TOpic to Participants' Professional Needs (Item 2) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 1.4951 .655 Local study committee 2.2427 1.014 Mean difference - .7476 significant at .000 Both types of in-service models received overall positive ra- tings. The inter—university workshop model received a rating between ' "definitely yes" (1.0) and "yes" (2.0). This was one of the highest ra- tings for either of the in—service models. The local school committee model also received a positive rating of slightly less than an overall "yes" response. The sample population did rate the inter-university workshop model significantly more positive than the comparative model. The analytical findings as reported on Table 17 for the rele- vance of ideas presented to the participants' teaching situations re- flected means for the inter-university workshop model of in-service edu- cation which were significant, representing a response of slightly more than "yes." The mean findings for Item 11 (Table 17), as related to the local study committee form of in-service education, reflected responses midway between "somewhat" and "yes." While both means reflected a 75 feeling that both forms of in-service education were effective, those persons sampled again rated the inter-university workshop significantly more positively than the local study committee. Table 17 Relevance of Ideas Presented to Participants' Teaching Situation (Item 11) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 1.9320 .899 Local study committee 2.5631 1.063 Mean difference - .6311 significant at .000 Table 18 Relevance of Topic to Students' Needs (Item 3) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 1.6311 .816 Local study committee 2.2233 1.102 Mean difference - .5922 significant at .000 Table 18 reports the findings as the participants perceived the two in-service forms in regards to the in-service model's tOpic being relevant to students' needs. Again the participants rated the inter- university workshop significantly better than the local study committee. 76 Table 19 Relevance of Topic to School District's Needs (Item 4) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 1.5534 .751 Local study committee 2.0485 1.070 Mean difference — .4951 significant at .000 Item four on the relevance of topics to the school districts was reported in Table 19. As with the other items on relevance, the parti- cipants rated the inter-university signficantly better than the local study committee. The three items which dealt with relevance (participants' needs, students' needs, and school districts' needs) all reported very similar means for both types of in-service. All three showed that those educa- tors sampled rated the inter-university as significantly better in meet— ing the needs of those three groups. All four of the questions on relevance had means between 1.4951 and 2.5631, which represents a positive "definitely yes" response to a "yes" response, based on the five possible responses of "definitely yes," "yes," "somewhat," "very little," and "not at all." Each of the four items reported a significant difference in favor of the inter-university workshop model. Table 20 indicates that educators sampled felt that the inter- university workshop produced significantly more beneficial results for students than did the local school study committee form of in-service. 77 Table 20 Outcomes Beneficial to Students (Item 34) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.2233 1.128 Local study committee 2.8641 1.103 Mean difference - .6408 significant at .000 Table 21 Participants' Goals Met (Item 15) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.1262 1.054 Local study committee 2.9417 1.074 Mean difference - .8155 significant at .000 Item 15 had the largest mean difference of all the items in this cluster (.8155). The educators sampled produced a mean of 2.1262 ("yes") for the inter-university model and a mean of 2.9417 ("somewhat") for the local study committee model. The next group of items analyzed dealt with change and its im- plementation: Hypothesis III: Participants will rate the inter-univer- workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their perceptions of the implementation of change. 78 Based on the following reported findings, the hypothesis could not be rejected. Table 22 Outcomes Implemented in Participants' Classrooms (Item 12) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.4951 1.290 Local study committee 2.9029 1.142 Mean difference - .4078 significant at .001 Table 22 reports outcomes implemented in participants' class- rooms. .The mean figure of 2.4951 for the inter-university model repre- sentedalsignificant difference over the mean score of 2.9029 for the local school district committee model of in-service. This mean repre- sentedaireSponse of "somewhat" for implementation of the outcomes of the local study committees. The mean score generated for the inter-univer- sity model representedziresponse midway between "yes" and "somewhat." The next item (Table 23) continues along this same line. Table 23 Outcomes Being Used Now in Your Classroom (Item 13) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.7184 1.375 Local study committee 3.1456 1.192 Mean difference - .4272 significant at .002 79 As with the previous item (reported in Table 22), Table 23 re- portedcnlthe present use of those ideas which were implemented. The positive responses for each type of in—service decreased very slightly from the initial item on implementation. The mean score for each type of in-service represented some of the most negative mean responses given for the models on any of the other items. The last two tables in this cluster, 24 and 25, dealt with the in-service models as vehicles for implementing change in the classroom and in the participant's school. Table 24 In-service Model as a Method for Implementing Change in the Classroom (Item 25) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.2913 1.177 Local study committee 2.8932 1.047 Mean difference — .6019 significant at .000 Table 24 reported the mean for the data from the inter-univer- sity as 2.2913 or slightly below a "yes" response. The local study committee model data mean was 2.8932 or slightly above the "somewhat" response. The difference in means was significant, with the inter- university workshOp model's being rated more favorably. As to the question of which model was best for implementing change in the school, those surveyed reported that the inter-university model was significantly better than the local study committee model. 80 The means for the inter-university model were slightly less positive for implementation efforts in the school than the means for implementation efforts in the classroom. The local study committee model mean was in- versely higher with the slight positive mean increase for implementation in the school. Table 25 In-service Model as a Method for Implementing Change in Your School (Item 29) In—service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.4466 1.118 Local study committee 2.7670 1.040 Mean difference — .3204 significant at .002 The third factor group identified from the review of the litera- ture and the factor analysis was leadership. The factor analysis identi- fied two aspects of leadership. The first subset of the leadership cluster”wasrelated to the role of the facilitator-chairperson. The five items included the facilitator-chairperson's knowledge of group goals and topic, his/her involvement and helpfulness, and the amount of time s/he invested in the group effort. The second part of the leadership factor centers around local school administration support. There were four items on the question— naire devoted to such things as: local school administration's involve- ment in the topic selection, participation in knowledge sharing, and support and helpfulness. Of these four items, three were not 81 significant (the only three of the total thirty-four items), and the fourth item was inversely significant, being the only item which scored more positively for the local school study committee model than the in- ter-university workshop model. The third factor dealt with the leadership role of the group leader: Hypothesis IV: Participants will rate the inter-univer- sity workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their per- ceptions of the leadership role of the facilitator-chairperson. Based on the following reported findings, the hypothesis could not be rejected: Table 26 Facilitator-chairperson's Knowledge of Group Goals (Item 20) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 1.9903 1.043 Local study committee 2.4466 .967 Mean difference - .4563 significant at .001 Table 26 indicated that those educators participating in the survey rated the inter-university team leader's knowledge of the group's goals significantly more positive than the team leaders of local study committees' knowledge of their teams' goals. Table 27 reportedthe participants' perceptions of the team lea- ders' knowledge of the topic for both forms of in-service. The mean 82 for the local school study committee was less positive than the mean for the inter-university workshop model. Table 27 Facilitator-chairperson's Knowledge of the Topic (Item 21) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.0000 .950 Local study committee 2.4466 .936 Mean difference - .4466 significant at .001 The participant means for Items 20 and 21 were identical for the local school study committee model. In Items 20 and 21, the means for the inter-university model were very similar. Table 28 Helpfulness of Facilitator-chairperson's Involvement (Item 22) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.0777 1.169 Local study committee 2.3981 1.013 Mean difference - .3204 signifiCant at .005 The third question, Table 28, related to the facilitator-chair- person's effectiveness in the in-service models and dealt with the help- fulness of the facilitator-chairperson's involvement. While the 83 responses of those sampled did produce a significant difference between the two in-service models, the means were only slightly different when converted to one of the five possible choices from the questionnaire. Table 29 Adequacy of Amount of Time Facilitator-Chairperson Spent with the Group (Item 23) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.1359 1.155 Local study committee 2.4563 1.027 Mean difference - .3204 significant at .011 The data reported on Table 29 produced the same mean difference as the data reported on Table 28 (Item 22). Again, the means were close when translated into one of the five questionnaire choices and, again, the difference in the means were significant and in favor of inter-uni- versity workshop model. The means showed a close relationship between the participants' perceptions of each kind of model when it comes to the helpfulness of involvement of the facilitator-chairperson and the amount of time the facilitator-chairperson spent with the group. Table 30 indicated a significant difference in the perceptions of the sample population in favor of the inter-university model based on the facilitator-chairperson's participation in the evaluation of the in-service model. 84 Table 30 Facilitator-chairperson's Participation in Evaluation (Item 24) Inrservice Model Mean S.D. Inter—university 2.1456 1.106 Local study committee 2.5243 1.074 Mean difference - .3786 significant at .002 All five means for the inter-university workshOp model were very closely related with a range of only 1.9903 to 2.1456. This would translate into a mean reply of "yes" to each of the five questions con- cerning the facilitator-chairperson. The five means for the local study committee model also fell within a very tight range (2.3981 to 2.5243). This range translates to a response of slightly less than a "yes" response, but slightly more positive than "somewhat." The mean difference range for all five questions was from .4563 to .3204, and each of the items showed the inter-university model of in- service to be perceived as significantly more effective at the .05 alpha level than the local school study committee form of in-service. The second part of the leadership factor was comprised of four items which related to local school administrations' involvement and support for the in-service group's efforts: Hypothesis V: Participants will rate the inter-univer- sity workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their per- ceptions of leadership role of local school administration. 85 Based on the following reported findings, the hypothesis could be re- jected at the .05 level of significance. Table 31 Local School Administrations' Involvement in Topic Selection (Item 16) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.7573 1.606 Local study committee 2.4660 1.434 Mean differences .2913 significant at .029 In Table 31, participants reported local school administrations' involvement in the topic selection. The results as reported on Table 31 showed a negative significance with the local study committee model rated in a more positive manner than the inter-university model. This indicated that the participants felt that local admin- istration had more to say about the topic to be studied in the local school study committee in-service than in the inter-university model of in-service. This would be a positive comment for the inter-university model as one of its initial goals was to provide participants (rather than the school administration) with the choice of topic and problem selection. The second of the four items devoted to local school administra- tion involvement was reported in Table 32. This item asked the parti- cipants to rate local school administrators' participation in the shar- ing of knowledge. When the data were compiled and analyzed, they 86 yielded a composite score that was not significant. The mean for the inter-university workshop (2.7767) was not significantly different from that of the local study committee (2.8155), both translating to a ques- tionnaire choice of response of slightly above "somewhat." Table 32 Local School Administration Participation in the Sharing of Knowledge (Item 17) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.7767 1.508 Local study committee 2.8155 1.297 Mean difference - .0388 not significant Table 33 Local School Administrations' Support for the Implementation of Change (Item 19) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.7573 1.368 Local study committee 2.9223 1.289 Mean difference - .1650 not significant Table 33 showed the data compiled from the participants' responses to the question of the effectiveness of local school administrations' support for the implementation of change. Both the inter-university model and the local study committee model were rated at barely better 87 than having "somewhat" support for the implementation of change from local school administration. The mean of 2.7573 for the inter-univer— sity model and 2.9223 for the local study committee model failed to pro- duce any significant difference between the two forms of in-service. Table 34 Helpfulness of Local School Administrations' Involvement (Item 18) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 3.0874 1.401 Local study committee 3.1650 1.130 Mean difference - .0777 not significant Table 34 shows the responses of the sample in rating the help- fulness of local school administrations' involvement. This item (18) produced only "somewhat" responses for both the inter-university model and the local school study committee model. In addition to the low mean scores for both in-service forms, there was also no significant differ- ence produced by the data compiled for the two in-service forms. All the mean responses for the four items devoted to local school district administration involvement represented some of the least positive responses for both types of in-service. This would indicate that while there was no significant difference between the two types of in-service, there also was a consensus of the participants sampled that both forms of in-service were weak in this area. 88 The next factor, as identified through the review of the litera- ture in Chapter 2, is the availability of resources for the participants of the in-service: Hypothesis VI: Participants will rate the inter-university workshop significantly more effective than the local school dis- trict study committee with respect to their perceptions of the availability of resources. Based on the following reported findings, the hypothesis could not be rejected. Two questions on the survey instrument were dedicated to this factor, and the resultswere reported in Tables 35 and 36. Both items show low ratings for this aspect of in-service for both forms of in-service. Table 35 Availability of Outside Consultants (Item 26) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.5146 1.154 Local study committee 3.0971 1.167 Mean differences - .5825 significant at .000 Table 35 dealt with the availability of outside consultants. The participants, while rating the inter-university workshop model sig- nificantly more positive, did only rate it as being mid—way between "somewhat" and "yes," as to having access to outside consultants. The local study committee form of in-service received only a "somewhat" re- sponse from the sample. 89 Table 36 Availability of Library Facilities (Item 27) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.3883 .921 Local study committee 2.6796 1.031 Mean difference - .2913 significant at .002 The availability of library facilities also received a more p03" itive rating for the inter-university model than for the local school study committees. Although it had a lower mean difference (- .2913)than the majority of other items, it remains a significant difference. The final cluster or factor was comprised of four items on eval- uation: Hypothesis VII: Participants will rate the inter-univer- sity workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to the evaluation of the efforts. Based on the following reported findings, the hypothesis could not be rejected. Table 37 dealt with the in-service models as methods for evalu- ating present school programs (Item 30). The data produced a signifi- cant difference at the .05 alpha level in favor of the inter-university workshop model. 90 Table 37 Method for Evaluating Present School Programs (Item 30) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.3786 1.049 Local study committee 2.8058 1.048 Mean difference - .4272 significant at .000 Table 38 Ongoing Evaluation (Item 31) In—service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.3981 .922 Local study committee 2.9612 .959 Mean difference - .5631 significant at .000 Likewise, Table 38 produced a significant difference in favor of the inter-university workshop model. Item 31 (Table 38) indicated that the sample population perceived the inter-university model as more ef- fective in providing ongoing evaluation than did the local school study committee. Just as Table 38 spoke to ongoing evaluation, Table 39 compiled the responses to evaluation at the end of the in-service. Again, the participants' responses indicated their perceptions to be that the inter- university modelwas significantly better at providing final evaluation 91 of the in-service than the local study committee model. In Table 39, the mean response for the local study committee represented a question- naire response of slightly more than "somewhat" while the mean response for the inter-university model represented a response close to "yes." Table 39 Final Evaluation (Item 32) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.0583 1.037 Local study committee 2.7670 1.173 Mean difference — .7087 significant at .000 Table 40 Meeting of Groups' Goals and Objectives (Item 33) In-service Model Mean S.D. Inter-university 2.0874 .971 Local study committee 2.7767 .989 Mean differences - .6893 significant at .000 The final item for the evaluation factor was reported in Table 40. This item dealt with the meeting of groups' goals and objectives by the in-service models. The means yield a significant difference in favor of the inter-university model of in-service. 92 Of the six factors and thirty—four items, a vast majority indi- cated significant differences between the two in-service models, with the inter-university model's being perceived more effective. Five of the six factors presented data which showed the inter-university workshOp significantly more effective than the local study committee at the .05 level of significance. The remaining factor was made up of nine items on leadership. The four items on the role of the facilitator-chairper- son's role showed the inter-university model to be perceived as more effective. The remaining five items were on the local school adminis- trations' role; four were not significant, and one item showed the local study committee to be more effective. Chapter 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFLECTIONS Introduction Drawing from data presented in the preceding chapters, this chapter brings together crucial and key elements of the findings of this study. A summary of the study is presented herein along with general conclusions formulated from the data collected. Recommendations for further study, research, and possible future action are presented, and a section on reflections, based upon data and dialogue, is presented. Puppose of the Study The study was an attempt to answer the question: Is the inter-university workshop perceived as more effec- tive by the participants than the locally initiated staff develOpment program? Study Design This study was designed to determine the perceptions of educa- tors who had participated in the inter-university workshop model in Genesee County, Michigan, from 1973 through 1975, and to ascertain their perceptions toward that model as compared to the local study com- mittee as a form of in-service education. The pOpulation description included: (1) basic personal char- acteristics such as age and sex; (2) educational background such as 93 94 academic degree, years in teaching, present position in education and number of years in present school district; and (3) in-service back- ground as to the number of inter-university workshops and local study committees in which they had been involved. The main facet of the study was to determine if the participants perceived the inter-university workshop as more effective than the lo- cally initiated staff development program. Instrumentation and Data Analysis An attitude/perception scale was developed, tested, and revised to a total of thirty-four items, and then administered to one hundred, three persons. A total of six variables were studied. The procedures utilized for tabulation of the data included a factor analysis and t- test. All data manipulation was accomplished using the Computer Ser- vices Center at Michigan State University. The .05 level of probability was adopted as the criterion of significance. Assumptions The study was based on two main assumptions: 1. Teacher educators, curriculum directors, and univer- sity personnel are interested in providing quality in-service programs. In addition, and, as a result of such commitment, they are interested in obtaining information useful in evalua- ting the programs and in determining the direction of in-service. 2. For this study to be of value, it must have the capa- bility of inspiring further research, particularly of a longi- tudinal and comprehensive nature. Both descriptive and evalua- tive studies related to the program described and the partici- pants in that program would serve to make the preliminary data more meaningful. 95 Limitations The following limitations were seen as bearing upon this parti- cular study: 1. The study was limited to the inter-university work- shOp in Genesee County, Michigan, from 1973 through 1975. 2. Results were not generalized to programs outside of the local school district study committee. 3. The study relied on the perceptions, opinions, and attitudes of those educators surveyed. Personal Information The educators sampled were closely divided between males and females. Of the 103 persons surveyed forty-five were men and fifty- eight were women. All but one of those surveyed were over twenty—four years old. Fifty-eight of those sampled were between twenty-five and thirty-five years old. Twenty-five of the one hundred, three persons sampled were forty-one years old or older. Forty-six persons held Bachelor's degrees and fifty-one held Master's degrees. Only one person in the sample population held a Ph.D. degree, and only six persons held degrees beyond the Master's level. Fifty-three persons had taught over ten years. Ninety-six per- sons had taught at least four years. All those sampled had taught at least two years. Seventy-seven participants sampled were teachers. Seventeen were in some form of administration, and seven persons were specialists. 96 Findings The factor analysis of the data was based on the responses of participants to their perceived effectiveness of the inter-institutional workshOp model and of the local school district study committee model. A six factor solution provided the most usable data for both groups of responses. Thirty items which dealt with the inter-institutional work- shop and items dealing with the local school district study committee had factor loadings of + .45 or greater. The most positive response to the inter-institutional workshop model was related to the participants' involvement in tapic selection, planning, and implementation. Very positive responses were also indi— cated with respect to the relevance of the tOpics. The most positive responses for the local school district study committee model were found to be participant knowledge, learning, and implementation, and access to outside resources. It is important to note that the means of the inter-institutional workshop and local school district committees fell at or below the mid-range on the five point Li- kert type scale, indicating an overall positive response to both methods of in-service training. This study, descriptive and comparative in nature, was hypothe- sis testing. In summary, the data indicated that six hypotheses were accepted at the .05 level of significance: Hypothesis I: Participants will rate the inter-university workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee based on their involvement and knowl- edge gained. the 97 Hypothesis II: Participants will rate the inter-univer- sity workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their per- ceptions of the relevance of the topic and ideas presented. Hypothesis III: Participants will rate the inter-univer- sity workshOp significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their percep- tions of the implementation of change. Hypothesis IV: Participants will rate the inter-univer- sity workshOp significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their per- ceptions of the leadership role of the facilitator-chairperson. Hypothesis VI: Participants will rate the inter-univer- sity workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their per- ceptions of the availability of resources. Hypothesis VII: Participants will rate the inter~insti- tutional workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to the evaluation of the efforts. Data indicated that one hypothesis could not be accepted at .05 level of confidence: Hypothesis V: Participants will rate the inter-univer- sity workshop significantly more effective than the local school district study committee with respect to their per- ceptions of the leadership role of local administraiton. The findings of this study indicated that the participants per- ceived the inter-university workshop model of in-service as more ef- fective than the local school district study committee form of in-ser- vice in six of the seven areas reported. The factor analysis provided a view of the items which the par- ticipants responded to in similar fashion. These items constitute guidelines which should serve as a foundation for considering the de- velopment of future in-service programs: 1. The recipients of the in-service should be involved in the identification of the problem to be studied. 98 2. A second key factor is that the topic must be rele- vant to those participating. It follows, naturally, that if the participants are involved in the topic selection, the investigation of solutions to that problem will be rele- vant to those participating. 3. The in-service program must have the capability of bringing about an improvement within the participants' en- vironment. 4. Active leadership by both the team leader and local school administration is essential. 5. Resources must be available for the participants' use. 6. The in-service program should provide for continuous evaluation as well as final evaluation. The participants perceived the inter-university model to be more effective with regard to the knowledge they gained and the involve- ment they put forth toward the group effort. It was also found that educators believed that the inter-university model topics (Appendix N) were thought to be more relevant than those topics the educators had worked on in local study committees. Those in-serviced also were found to have believed that the inter-university workshop led to a signifi- cantly greater amount of implementation of the ideas presented. The participants also believed that the facilitator—chairperson in the work- shop model had significantly more knowledge of the group topic and group goals. The facilitator-chairperson was more actively involved and in- vested more time with the group in the workshop model, according to the participants. Resources were also perceived to have been more avail- able through the inter-university workshop than in local study commit— tees. The leadership role of local school administrators, as far as involvement in selection of the topic, sharing of knowledge, support for implementing change and helpfulness are concerned, proved not to be 99 perceived as significantly different when the two types of in-service were compared. Conclusions Based upon the data generated,the inter-institutional workshop was perceived as a more effective in-service strategy than was the lo- cally developed in-service program. The principles presented by Kelly and others regarding the desirability of involving participants in the decision making process with regard to topic selection, goal development in relationship to outcomes, and decision making strategies with regard to methodology were validated through this research. It is also appropriate to recognize the possible significance the generation of graduate level credit in the inter-institutional model may have had. This difference may have been one of the most significant contributing factors to the participants' strong support of the inter- university workshop model. Another fact to be considered is that with university graduate credit came university staff involvement, which may also have been a contributing factor. The participants of the two models for in-service rated both forms of in-service in a positive manner. The most positive mean rating was 1.33, and the least positive mean rating was a 3.17. This signified a positive attitude toward both in-service models. Recommendations 1. Additional research should be undertaken to gather informa- tion on the comparison of the inter-university workshop model and other forms of in-service, other than locally initiated study committees. 100 Data regarding the satisfaction with such in—service forms as on-campus classes, off-campus graduate classes, and short term (8 day or 1 day) district sponsored in-service programs should be gathered. 2. A study should be conducted to determine the relationship between faculty participation in the inter-university workshop model and improvement in instructional performance. Research is needed to analyze changes in teaching performance, to isolate instances of improved teach- ing effectiveness, and examine the in-service activities which prompted the improved teaching performance. 3. Throughout the review of the literature, the recurring theme of the need for continuous patterns of in-service education is mentioned. Strong indications are that the present short term (2 day, 1 day) in- service programs without planned follow-up are of little value. It is recommended that a design for a continuous in-service activity model be developed to assure the continuity of effort toward professional growth. Such a design could be an extension of currently approved curriculum within the universities. 4. The success of the inter-university workshOp program hinges upon the cooperation of participating universities. In addition to re- commending that public relations personnel expand their efforts, it is recommended that the universities attempt to define the criteria, meth- od, and role definition of those local education agency personnel who function as field coordinators for the in-service model. The liaison responsibility for university personnel should also be clearly estab— 1ished as part of the process recommended. ' 5. As the inter-university workshop model for in-service ex— pands, it will necessitate increased staff demands. It is recommended 101 that full-time equivalent information be develOped with respect:to staff- ing patterns and that this information be described in terms of bothtnrb- versity personnel and local education agency personnel. The whole area of shared responsibility for professional development is inherent hathis type of in-service program. To insure the successful completion and continuance, there is every likelihood that administrators will be vi- tally interested in cost-reward related studies. These, also are recom- mended for consideration in program purposes as well as research pur- poses. 6. Further research, particularly of a follow-up nature, could be undertaken to review the inter-institutional workshop model partici- pants to determine what, if any, changes in attitude toward teaching and education occur. 7. A follow-up longitudinal study should be conducted to moni- tor the career paths of those educators who take this type of workshop. Of particular interest should be the question of whether or not the par- ticipants remain in their present positions and how they perceived the workshop experience as facilitating their careers. Reflections The data gathered through this research has provided insight for educators concerned with providing effective staff development Oppor- tunities. Aside from the data reported through this research, much in- formation has been gathered through personal experience and in dialogue with other educators which may have relevance for the planners and re- cipients of in-service. 102 1. Most evaluation is accomplished at the end of the in-service program. Evaluation at the end is useless in terms of making changes and adjustments in the in-service program that has been concluded. Of- ten such final evaluation is so superficial and meaningless that it doesn't benefit future in-service attempts, either. To be successful, evaluation should be continuous, beginning with day one. Evaluative data on in-service education should be maintained, both on an institutional-wide basis and on an individual instructor ba- sis. These data should serve as a device to change and improve the ex- isting in-service education program. 2. There is evidence to suggest that ownership and closure are of key importance to successful in-service. Group consensus on the problem to be addressed at the workshop and involvement and support from local school administration add up to a high level of commitment. The teachers and administrators involved decide what problem they wish to work on and how they want to approach the chosen problem. Knowing exactly how many meetings and what length of time each meeting will last adds closure, facilitates a time line, and puts emphasis on fina« 1izing the solution, rather than moving haphazardly toward a possible end point at some unknown time in the future. 3. The budgeting for in-service needs to be improved to the point that it holds more priority. Presently, staff development is a low priority item in too many districts. It is one of the first items to be deleted from the budget when cuts are made and one of the last items to be increased from year to year. Too often in-service has become a negotiated item which also identifies the low priority which it often commands. Presently, 103 in-service is used as a bargaining element by some local education asso- ciations, and is given away to limit the total number of teacher work days or is limited to short half-day sessions. It is time for local education associations to demand in-service time rather than limit it through contract negotiations. 4. A review of the literature and an examination of the data gathered through this study would suggest that the involvement of uni- versity personnel assists them in remaining updated on current problems in the schools. A cooperative in-service such as the inter-university workshop establishes lines of communication among the faculties of the universities involved. 5. The workshop model seemed to develop a group cohesiveness or a sense of closeness among the participants. This atmosphere is most conducive to effective problem solving. There is a need to examine the model to determine the elements which foster and promote this atmos- phere. 6. Most certainly, there is a need for staff development pro- grams for those persons serving in leadership roles. Leaders should have a knowledge of the total school program if they are to deal with the solving of local district problems. As the number of participants increases, so will the need for qualified in-service leaders increase. 7. Consideration should be given to the question of whether there is a possibility that those who choose the inter—university pro- gram are, in fact, progressive in their view of education. 8. It appears that many educators are less concerned with re- ceiving graduate level credit. As more teachers and administrators ful- fill advanced degree requirements and/or meet permanent certification 104 criteria, participation may dwindle. Colleges and universities need to examine alternative strategies which provide for flexible yet quality in-service programs which attract the educator who is no longer con- cerned with earning college credit. 9. In the same vein, educators working with in-service need to address the problem of grades. Graduate grades are very important psy— chologically to most involved in graduate classes, and they create ap- prehension for a number of graduate class enrollees. How can we best take away the barriers of grades? Can this be accomplished with a pass— fail system and yet not acquire the reputation that the program is an "easy" class for those who want to achieve graduate credit in the eas» iest possible way? 10. The state department of education policy makers and state legislature should review the importance and sc0pe of in-service and incorporate the data from this study into their plans for staff develop- ment in the state of Michigan. This goes hand-in-hand with the proceed- ing problem presented by grading. Those involved with planning in-ser- vice programs need to find other reasons for in-service than graduate credit and grades. It is time for planners to look at in-service tech- niques of private firms, industry, and government as they adopt the successful elements of their programs into the education in-service 88C tor. APPENDICES APPENDIX A POPULATION BREAKDOWN Population Breakdown Session Teams Participants Range of Team Sizes Fall, 1975 13 104 5-13 Spring, 1975 21 148 3-13 Fall, 1974 10 60 4-10 Fall, 1973 10 62 4-11 TOTAL: 54 374 AVERAGE: 13.5 ' 93.5 105 APPENDIX B PARTICIPATING SCHOOL DISTRICTS _. ““IL . School Districts Participating in the Inter-University WorkshOp Atherton Community Schools Beecher Community Schools Carmen School District Clio School District Davison Community Schools Fenton School District Flint Community Schools Flushing Community Schools Genesee Catholic Schools Goodrich Community Schools Kearsley Community Schools Lake Fenton School District LakeVille Community Schools Lapeer School District Linden Community Schools Montrose Community Schools Swartz Creek School District Westwood Heights School District 106 APPENDIX C PERSONAL BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE Genesee County Inter-University WOrkshop Participant Survey Sex: Male Female Age: Under 25 25-30 31-32 36-40 41 and over Highest academic degree earned: Bachelor's Master's Specialist's Ph.D. Number of years in present school district _1 _2 _3 _4-5 _6-10 _11-15 _16-20 _over 20 I. Present position in education: ___Preschool ___Counselor ___Teach Lower Elementary (K-3) ____E1ementary School Administrator ___Teach Upper Elementary (4-6) ___Junior High Administrator ' -__;Teach Junior High (7-8) ___High School Administrator ___Teach High School (9-12) ‘___Other: please specify Number of years in : Present School District: Present School Building: Number of inter-university workshops in which you participated{____ Number of local school district study committees in which you have participated: 107 APPENDIX D DISTRIBUTION OF EDUCATORS BY SEX Distribution of Educators by Sex Sex Number Percent Male 45 43. 7 Female 58 56. 3 TOTALS: 103 100. O 108 APPENDIX E PRESENT POSITION IN EDUCATION Distribution of Educators by Present Position in Education Present Position Number Percent Lower elementary teacher 19 18.4 Upper elementary teacher 23 22.4 Junior high teacher 16 15.5 Senior high teacher 17 16.5 Counselor 5 4 . 9 IZlementary administrator 6 5.8 JIunior high administrator 3 2.9 SSemior high administrator 5 4.9 ()ther 9 8.7 TOTALS: 103 100. 0 109 APPENDIX F NUMBER OF YEARS IN PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Distribution of Educators by Number of Years in Present School District Number of Years in Frasent School District Number Percent l 0 0.0 2 l 1.0 3 5 4 9 4 - 5 21 20 4 6 - 10 45 43 6 ll - 15 19 18 4 l6 - 20 8 7.8 Over 20 4 3.9 TOTALS: 103 100. 0 110 APPENDIX C ATTITUDE/PERCEPTION SCALE Attitude/Perception Scale Please answer EACH of the following items comparing your experi- ences with EACH of these types of local problem solving types of teams (local school district study committees and the inter-university work- ShOp). To complete the following items, circle your response from :1. to 5 for EACH type of problem solving team experience, using the fol- lowing coding sys tem: :221) Definitely Yes (2) Yes (3) Somewhat (4) Very Little (5) Not at All Local School Inter-University District Workshop Study Committee 1. Were you involved in the topic selection? 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 2. Was the t0pic relevant to your professional needs? 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 _ 3. Was the tepic relevant to your students' needs? 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 4. Was the topic relevant to the needs of your school district? 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 5. Were you involved with developing group goals and objectives? 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 6. Were you involved with the group effort? 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 7. Did you have freedom to express your views? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 8. Did the experience increase your knowledge of the topic? 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 9. Did you learn new concepts? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 10. Did you learn new techniques in problem solving? 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 111 1 112 1J2. 3.3. 1.4. 3L5. 116. L17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. ‘_\ 3:) '[)efinite1y Yes (2) Yes (3) Somewhat (4) Very Little (5) Not at All Were the outcomes of the experience implemented in your classroom? Are you using the out- comes of the experience in your classroom now? Was the experience an effective use of your time? Were your personal goals for the experience met? Was the local school ad- ministration involved in the topic selection? Did your local school ad- ministration participate in the sharing of knowl- edge? Was local school admin- istration involvement helpful? Was there local school administration support for implementing change? Did the facilitator- chairperson have an adequate knowledge of the group's goals? Did the facilitator- chairperson have an adequate knowledge of the t0pic? Was the facilitator- chairperson's involve- ment in the group helpful? Local School Inter-University District Workshop Study Committee 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 .5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 113 (1) 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Definitely Yes (2) Yes (3) Somewhat (4) Very Little (5) Not at All Did the facilitator- chairperson spend an adequate amount of time working with the group? Did the facilitator- chairperson participate in the evaluation? Was the experience a good method for imple- menting change in your classroom? Were the consultants from outside the school district available to help the group? Were library facilities available for the group's use? Was there a sharing of knowledge among the group's members? Was the experience a good method for implementing change in your school? Is this a good method for evaluating present school programs? Was there ongoing eval- uation during the group effort? Was there final evalua- tion at the end of the group effort? Were the group's goals and objectives met? Local School Inter-University District Workshop Study Committee 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 114 (l) Definitely_Yes (2) Yes (3) Somewhat (4) Very Little (5) Not at All Local School Inter-University District Workshop Study Committee 34. Were the outcomes of the group's efforts beneficial to students? 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 APPENDIX H INITIAL CONTACT LETTER MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM ERICKSON HALL May 6, 1977 Dear Fellow Educator: We are seeking your help in gathering information regarding your experiences with the inter-university workshop and local school district study committees. As a part of my doctoral requirements at Michigan State University, I am attempting to evaluate the inter-university workshop in Genesee County as it compares to locally initiated study committees. Along with Dr. Robert Stafford of the Genesee County Intermediate School District Office, I am interested in your perceptions of the inter-university workshop you took part in and your perceptions of the study committees you have taken part in in your own school district. Would you assist us in this endeavor by completing and returning the attached questionnaire? An addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. No postage is necessary; just deposit it in your school mail. Please feel free to answer all questions openly as your responses will be treated confidentially. Thank you for your help. Cordially, Ronald R. Sutherby enclosure 115 APPENDIX I FOLLOW-UP LETTER MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM ERJCXSON HALL 8032 Castleward Drive Davison, Michigan 48423 May 20, 1977 Dear Fellow Educator: Two weeks ago you were mailed a questionnaire requesting informa- tion on the inter-university workshop and local school district study committee. Since many responses have not been received, I am writing this follow-up letter to again ask for your assistance in completing and returning the questionnaire. I have tried to make the document very easy to complete-~within a minimum of time. Would you please take 5 minutes of your time to complete this questionnaire? Thank you very much. For your convenience I have attached an additional copy of the questionnaire. Also enclosed is an addressed envelope which needs HQ postage; just deposit the completed questionnaire and envelope in your school mail. If you have any questions, please call me at 653-8635 or Dr. Robert Stafford's office at the Intermediate School District. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please disregard this letter, and thank you for your assistance. Cordially, //7 7 .7 :3}:’ / 4, 1141“ f" Ronald R. Sutherby Graduate Student Michigan State University enclosure 116 APPENDIX J VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX INTER-UNIVERSITY WORKSHOP I1: maonm. moo~0.| «Ammo. omooo. mHHNH. acmquw. sooummmao mam ca moucoEoHoEH moEoouao NHM<> swoon. Noamfi. mmo~o.- aommm. oHoNH. «woman. monsoooo oo momma mo oo=o>oHom Ham<> moqmo. qumm. «oomc.n mmHoH. qumN. «momma. msmaoouo o>~om cu mums 3o: oosuwoa oam<> coaco. «Hmmfi. nooma. mmmmm. ommom. «wmomm. muooocoo so: mosumoa mom<> «maao.l momma. «mono. mwmmm. comes. «ommom. owooaaosx UHQOu ommouoca wox<> ummno. «mono. Amoco.l «mmomm. Hmomo. «mama. msofi> momma Ixo ou Eooooum mom<> omoam. ooaoa. omooa.- «aoooa. omomo. omHoN. oooooo oooum a“ unoEo>Ho>cH oom<> mason. omoom. oNHmo.- «owoao. ooooo. ooaom. oHoom mooooao>oo cw ucoso>ao>ca mom<> «mmomn. amwmo.n Ammoo. nowwo. mmamo.a mmmam. momma .mucooaum ou oocm>oaou UHQOH mom<> «emonq. mmmmfi. mmmoo.n mmmmo. mNNNH. maqmm. momma .mucmowowuumo ou oocm>oaou canoe Nom<> o pauowm m wouomm o wouomm m wouomm N acuomm H wouomm odomaum> oonmxuoz uuamuo>ficaluoucH «xenon: acuomm ooumuom xmsaum> 117 118 mqmmo.l wmmqo.l macho. mmmmo. nooao.l woNHH. Nmnao.l ommmo. mnmam. Howoo.l Nmmwo. wmwom. mocNH. wHNou. chq0.I awmeo. HquH. qumo.l smmqo.l moHoH. «qmmoo. «macaw. «Hmwww. kwmwmo. maeso. mommo. unnoo. Hemmo. aaonmw. wwNQH. «qoomm. mmmao.l Hmooo.l ommmo. mmoqa. commo.l meca. Nmnmo.l Nummo. wqomm. mmmma. ammmm. ommom. Humoo.l ommno. Hmooo. oaooo mo owooaaocx m.som spooufimaoIHOumufiHaomm mooam. oaoow mo owooazocx m.com luoouwmnoIHOumuwHfioom Hummw. owcmau How uuoo Imam cowuwuumwcfiso< Hmomo. ucoeo>ao> Isa cofiumuumfisfie now no mmocazmoaom Oswmo.l owooasocx mo wcfiumzm m.s0fiumuumasaao< omeH.I soauooaom ofioou :« acoEo>Ho> Isa sofiumuumacaao< «mnemn. mHmow Hmcomnoo mo usoecfiMuu< kmmwON. mafia «0 mm: o>Huoowwm «mammn. ucmmoua um moaoouoo mafia: HNM<> o~m<> mam<> mam<> NHM<> 0Hm<> mHm<> cam<> MHM<> o Houoom m nouomm c ocuomm m acuomm N nouomm AooacfiDGOUV H Houomm manowuo> 119 moa u z amuOH oooa oooooo ems: * Hoooo. oomoa. ooomo.- aaosm. Hooso. .Hona. mooooooo oo ooEoo -ooo oo sooaoooaoooom omm<> ooooo.- aaoam. Nmooo.- ammam. omamo.- «omaoo. oo>oooofi -oo oo ooaooaosoo mme<> oofioo. «oouom. oooma. oammm. omomo. mNooo. coooooao>o Hosea Nme<> moooo. «ammoo. Hoows. mmmaa. mommm. «Nooa. ooooooao>o woaoooo Hmm<> momow. {Nammo. ommaa. mmmmo.- omooa. moomm. meoowooo ooooooo wosoooao>o mo ooeooz omm<> Noomo. omoom. oomao. oomaa. ooama. «souoo. aooooooao on owoooo wooooosoaoao oo oosooz o~m<> amouo.- onNo.- ooooo.- roaoom. kooom. oommm. owoofisoox oo woaooom o~e<> ooHoN. omNNH. mammo.- omooa. “Hooa. «oNooo. owooeo eooooooao was nooosososs oo ooeooz m~e<> Noaao. NoAMN. oaoao. Hoomo. «Roman. Haamm. ooaomoso>o ca acoEo>Ho>sa m.:om -ooooooeouoooooaaaooo o~m<> maaao. mmoam. moNHN. aHmoo. «comes. Nomad. ooosooo>oo mass o.=oo -ooooooao-ooooosasoom mNm<> HAHNo. oHoHo.1 ooaoa. amass. «aoomo. momaa. ooooaoooaoo o.=oo unwouwmnoIHOuoufiHHoom NNm<> o wouomm m acuomm q HOuomm m u0uomm N heuomm H nouomm oHamfiuo> Aoosswucoov APPENDIX K INTER-UNIVERSITY WORKSHOP VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX INTER-INSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 VAR01 .23504 -.03879 .43024 .05023 .31140 .14203 VAROZ .25419 .12275 .42253 .00253 .13933 .47434* VARO3 .21732 -.05127 .08897 .09827 -.03829 .78622* VARO4 .03811 -.01559 .25791 -.02473 .16775 .61117* VAR05 .34748 .09868 .61828* -.O3126 .24430 .33978 VAR06 .26154 .05894 .70697* -.10458 .16104 .37458 VAR07 .16154 .02631 .75035* -.00437 .03054 —.07352 VAR08 .54884* .40266 .39883 .07634 .12369 -.01134 VAR09 .58988* .30536 .28789 .12467 .15514 .04106 VARlO .45349* .23104 .14158 -.03044 .29492 .02445 VARll .57388* .12614 .25347 -.02653 .19782 .34884 VAR12 .82470* .12113 .06430 .03974 -.02663 .27415 VAR13 .73719* .07250 -.00771 .00737 -.03342 .31573 VAR14 .70829* .24920 .22559 .05203 .14281 .05520 VARlS .75033* .17753 .25048 .07495 .06989 -.Ol752 VAR16 .18199 .05272 —.05782p .62878* -.O4444 .11208 VAR17 .03870 .16381 -.02594 .82851* .20218 -.Ol667 VAR18 .08031 .14099 .05230 .86663* .12603 -.08555 VARl9 .29321 -.00951 -.O9233 .60354* .36838 .17086 VAR20 .27468 .85904* .14288 .10107 .08222 -.O4558 VAR21 .04691 .85561* .02241 -.O4357 -.00801 -.03547 VAR22 .11385 .85667* .11714 .16184 —.Ol6l6 .02151 VAR23 .18367 .71330* .00319 .21263 .27623 .07173 VAR24 .22791 .59347* .05641 .07670 .23972 .07102 VAR25 .66028* .16017 .09699 -.05572 -.12250 .24144 VAR26 .29678 .28856 .15986 .31139 -.05240 -.00794 VAR27 .08926 .21148 .31695 .08981 .20879 .19326 VAR28 .33348 .24017 .54976* -.O8499 -.02329 -.02033 VAR29 .60284* .15748 .17246 .07283 .36050 .02667 VAR30 .39045 .16030 -.05323 .17320 .63372* .20395 VAR31 .16324 .22503 .17235 .12641 .60327* .08983 VAR32 .09625 .03839 .23514 .15066 .59240* .00188 VAR33 .68734* -.03730 .27557 -.04852 .21877 -.09966 VAR34 .73191* .04641 .21077 -.02964 .19566 .04601 TOTAL N - 103 120 APPENDIX L VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDY COMMITTEE mHoNo. omamo. mmwma. chwc. mHNON. «omaoq. wowsommu cu mmmofi mo mo=m>mHmm Ham<> oanma. mmmma. 0quo. «Ncqme. oowmm. comma. memaoouo m>Hom cu who: am: omcummd o~m<> Nmamo. mmmmfi. Hmwfio. Noame. «Nahum. mmHmm. muomocoo 3m: omaummq mom<> mammo. HmomN. NoNNH. NMmON. Nmmom. «mwmmm. m3ma> mmmuoxm ou Eoommum Nom<> momma. «mama. waqa. mwoNN. «comm. «mmmmm. uuommm osouw a“ ucmam>ao>cH oom<> momNo. momofl. asses. oooma. oommm. «seamo. oaoow was Imoam>mo cm unmem>ao>cH mom<> owmco. NmeH. ONNNN. Nwaoa. mfiqu. eOwaN. momma .mHoosom ou mosm>mHmu uwooe <0m<> CNNmo. comma. NmoNH. maqwa. mNNQN. kwomqn. momma .mucmo Imam cu mosm>mHmu ounce mom<> meaaa. moaofi. owmqo. HmNHm. mwNHH. «oaawm. momma .musmowofiu lama cu mocm>mamu owooh Nom<> Nmem. wmmwc. wnmao.l NNNwH. mmwmo.l «NHoNq. somuomamm owoou cm ucmEm>Ho>cw osmomowuumm Hom<> o acuumm m ocuomm q homomm m powomm N homomm H mouomm manmfium> mmuuNEEoo mosum uofiuumaa Hoogom Hmooa «xfiuumz acuomm omumuom Xmafium> 121 122 NquN. qumH. mammo. Homao. «omNHN. HNmmm. mmmcaswoam: m.comumouwmnoIMOumuNHfiomm NNM<> omwma. wmmoa. mNmmo. «Nome. «wNmHN. Nwomm. afioou mo mwomaaocx m.comumoufimsouuoumuuamomm HNN<> Haomw. snows. omoma. mmooo. «ommmo. omaom. oaoom mo owooaaoos m.comummufimsoluoDmuNHNomm ONM<> mHNNo.I moamN. smooch. «mmHN. mHmNH. mmmNN. mwcmno now uuoomsm m.cowumuumwcwao< mam<> onom. Named. «Nmmwm. NN¢ON. NmNNo. HHmQN. ucmEm>Ho>sfi .msoaumuu -ooosaoo mo ooocaoooaom mam<> mamma. OmoON. «moamm. NNHNH. Hwooo.l momma. mwomaaocx mo wcunm:m .mcowumuumaswao< Nam<> NmNNo.I memH. «mNmHN. mmono. OmeN. momma. cowuomamm ofioou ca acme Im>Ho>sN m>wumuumaoaeo< mam<> moNoN. HHwNH. munco. mnmoo. mNmHm. *mmmcm. mamom Hmcomumo mo uamssumuu< mHm<> Nach. mmNmN. NeHHH. Nwoom. NONmN. «moamm. mafia mo mm: m>Nuommmm cam<> momso.u moooa. Nomad. romaoa. somso. moooa. ooooooo om ooEooooo momma mae<> «Home. memo. mwoma. «aowmm. NNHNo. whwmm. Eooummmao ca omusmamaosw mmaoouso NHm<> o wouomm m nouomm a wouomm m uouumm N sauomm H neuomm maomwum> Avmscfiucoov mos u z Hoooa ooofi oooooo cwo=« 123 AomscHucoov mooom. «mmooo. maoom. hasom. Noooa. woman. oocooooo moo oo mosoo sooo mo sosaooomooooo ome<> maooo.- «momoo. mooHH. AHoHN. awoom. aaoom. oo>aoooHoo oo ooooofloaoo mmm<> monoo.- «Nmooo. NoooN. mmNHo.u osoma. momma. ooooooso>o House ~me<> manoa. «moNoo. moooo. aaooa. oomoa. HMNNH. ooooooao>o moaowoo Hme<> omaos. oaaooo. oNHoN. Hooks. seams. oNooN. oeoowooo ooooooo woooooao>o mo ooEooz ome<> swoon. «oooao. asoom. Nomoo. oaomo. maoom. oHooeoo as owooeo masocoaoaoeH mo ooeooz o~e<> mmoou. monom. ooNNN. mammo. smooa. shooom. owoossoox oo wooooem o~e<> «omsmo. ammoo. mmooo. commo. Nmsofi. somoo. mooosssooo soooooa oo soHHHooHHo>< a~e<> woooam. Hoooa. Naoao. momma. mooom. nomad. oooooaooooo ooooooo mo sosaaooHHo>< o~m<> amoom. momoa. momoN. «oomom. momoa. oooofi. owcoeo soooooofio wosoooaosoas oo oosooz m~m<> «soooo. ooHoH. omaaa. mmNNN. oomoo. somoo. ooooooao>o om ocoao>Ho>oH m.comumouHmsoluOumuHHHomm «Nm<> scooo. Hoomfl. momma. Noomm. «momoo. HaHmH. oooEooo>oa osoo m.comumauHmnoIHOumuHHHomm NNM<> m nouomm m nouomm q acuomm m ecuomm N neuomm H HOuUmm mHanum> APPENDIX M LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDY COMMITTEE VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDY COMMITTEE VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 VAROl .47021* -.O9879 .18777 -.01678 .08368 .38232 VAROZ .58110* .11786 .31761 .04580 .16906 .11143 VAR03 .74548* .24775 .18419 .17697 .13890 .03720 VAR04 .78320* .20419 .10987 .23720 .14982 .04988 VAR05 .63714* .25299 .13490 .17471 .10389 .07508 VAR06 .68933* .34044 .27685 .14881 .15854 .05747 VAR07 .56885* .36692 .20837 .17702 .25951 .05696 VAR08 .44333 .42650 .35769 .17979 .24272 .06402 VARO9 .35155 .47797* .43107 .01891 .16633 .09132 VAR10 .09564 .35800 .45447* .06420 .15575 .15790 VARll .49150* .30219 .48703 .19853 .03150 .07015 VAR12 .36878 .07172 .69869 .16988 .03258 .07614 VAR13 .16493 .01394 .76752 .19342 .14045 -.01395 VAR14 .53165* .28203 .50082 .11147 .23759 .24392 VAR15 .50553* .31675 .40575 .04778 .17811 .20299 VAR16 .05597 .28230 .07036 .71929* .13185 -.07297 VAR17 .17865 -.04081 .17133 .69105* .20950 .15699 VAR18 .24311 .07262 .20972 .68357* .14611 .30324 VAR19 .22953 .12615 .21584 .70446* .23105 -.07216 VAR20 .38736 .65536* .08635 .15056 .18034 .23671 VAR21 .36082 .71528* .03024 .06529 .14354 .16839 VAR22 .23921 .71784* .01591 .08648 .15442 .24187 VAR23 .15171 .66543* .23402 .13388 .15861 .09044 VAR24 .04207 .46308 .22253 .17726 .14166 .46664* VAR25 .18884 .10545 .58298* .20593 .19563 .24837 VAR26 .11145 .28603 .15708 .09072 .14681 .57088* VAR27 . 09584 . 19152 . 03540 . 00633 . 03837 . 65126* VAR28 .50847* .19634 .05175 .22766 .30798 .28953 VAR29 .26413 .03614 .44382 .30017 .47664* .31427 VAR30 .20829 .15911 .17001 .28126 .60917* .16138 VAR31 .12231 .16396 .19917 .08043 .60243* .14313 VAR32 .12598 .15410 -.01253 .20947 .68852* -.00383 VAR33 .39477 .28087 .21417 .11936 .48365* .09813 VAR34 .33368 .14442 .36177 .20813 .46625* .28495 TOTAL N = 103 124 APPENDIX N TEAM TOPICS Team Topics Have Included: Self Concept and Motivation The Open School Individualized Math Record Keeping and Evaluation Career Education Computer Programming Individually Guided Education Math and Science Computer Program Secondary Math Open Education Middle School Organization Individualized Typing K-12 Reading Program Media Centers Parent-Child Fun Kit Reading Problems Adult Education Standardization Middle School Curriculum Bicentennial Simulation Updated Social Studies Institutionalization of an IMC Center 125 coo. Hc.H mm. mm. I «N.N cm.H momma .mucmoHo IHupmo cu mocm>mHmu m.oHooa N awhzmwmmm mMHmm .N «OhuHom ow mmmz 3mm omcummH OH ccc. mc.H Hc.H mm. I mN.N cc.N muomocoo 3m: wchummH m ooo. ~H.H so. no. I oo.~ AN.H ooooo mo owoossoox :H mmmmuocH uamoHoHuumm w ccc. co. on. Hm. I cm.N oc.H mwcmHsocx mo wCHumsm cN coo. mH.H cc.H mm. I Nc.N oo.H mEHu «0 mm: m>Huomwmm «H ccc. NH.H cm. on. I oc.N mm.H mamH> mmmuoxm ou aoommum N ooo. HH.H we. ma. I m~.~ Hm.H ooomoo oooom so oooam>Ho>cH o coo. cH.H cm. No. I cm.N co.H mHmow wcHoon>mc :H unmEm>Ho>cH m ooc. om.H cq.H Nc.HI cc.m eo.N GOHuomHmm oHoou cH acmEm>Ho>=H uamoHoHuumm H mozmHmmmxm mm? 20mm nmzHHo>zH .mhzmD QMmHmu m.oHo0H c ccc. cH.H Nc. am. I NN.N mc.H momma .mucmoaum ou mosm>mHmu m.oHooH m ooo. oo.H oo. no. I cm.N mo.H :oHooooHo meHnoomo ou mmmoH mo mosm>mHmm HH a< .o.m .o.m .mch z< AN coo. NH.H mH.H cm. I cH.m Hm.N musmuHsmcoo ooooooo mo sosflaooafio>< ow mmcmDOmmm mo NHHHHm< no moacHo>cH .mcoHu ImuuchHEom mo mmmsHsmonm cH .m.z o~.H am.H as. I ~o.~ oa.~ owooeo moo uuoooom .mcoHumuumHsHso< mH .m.z cm.H Hm.H cc. I Nm.N cm.N mHQOu No mwomHaocx .m60HumuumHaHEo< NH mNc. mo.H Ho.H oN. + No.N cm.N :OHuomHmm oHoou cH acmEm>Ho>sH .msoHumuumHsHEo< oH onBm sH ucmEm>Ho>sH m.somumouHm:o noumuHHHomm «N HHc. mc.H cH.H Nm. I cm.N «H.N ucmsumm>cH maHu m.comumouHm50IuoumuHHHomm mN mcc. Hc.H NH.H Nm. I cm.N cc.N mmmsHsuon: m.comumouHmnoIHOumuHHHomm NN Hoo. so. no. no. I mo.~ oo.~ ooooo mo omooaaoos m.somumouHmnquoumuHHHomh HN H< .c.m .o.m .mmHo zHuomnoo mo GOHumHoEoc mm occ. NH.H qc.H Hm. I NN.N cc.N coHumon>m Hmch Nm occ. mo. Nm. cm. I cm.N cm.N cOHumon>m wsHomsc Hm coc. mo.H mc.H mo. I Hc.N cm.N mmmuwouo ucmm Imuo wcHumnHm>m mo conumz cm memommm was no chHm ”N moac