ABSTRACT AN EVALUATION OF SELECTED TITLE III INSERVICE PROJECTS IN MICHIGAN AS PERCEIVED BY PARTICIPATING TEACHERS ON THIRTEEN VARIABLES by Marcia Mo Boznango Purpose Because of the large amount of human resources and money that are being invested in the Elementary and Sec- ondary Education Act Title III inservice projects, there is a need to study them to determine if they are effective in View of their goalso Therefore, the purposes of the study were (I) to determine if teachers who participated in Title III projects, which had a strong inservice ele— ment, perceived these projects to be effective and valuable as determined by thirteen variables, and (2) to isolate in— formation that may be valuable to state school systems, the State Department of Education, and Michigan legislators, in making decisions relative to Title III projects, Design Twelve Michigan Title III inservice projects were chosen for the studyo An instrument was administered to the teachers in those schools who were participating in inservice training to determine their perceptions on Marcia M. Boznango thirteen variables. From the data obtained, correlation coefficients were calculated which suggested the rela- tionship between the perceived participation of teachers in the projects, and the perceived quality of the projects and personal effect on the teachers, between the emphasis of the project and how the projects were perceived by the teachers, and between whether teachers were paid for their participation in Title III projects and their perceived quality of the projects and the personal effect on them. Several questions were answered. Findings The data were generally supportive of the first hy- pothesis that there was a relationship between perceived participation of teachers in Title III projects and the perceived quality of the projects and the personal effect on them. Of the twelve operational hypotheses, seven suggested a positive linear relationship between the vari- ables, two of the remaining five showed inverse directions to those predicted by the research hypotheses, indicating there might be a relationship. The data related to the general hypothesis that there was a relationship between the emphasis of the Title III projects and how the projects were perceived, was supported by one research hypothesis and rejected by the other. Marcia M. Boznango The third general hypothesis was supported: a relationship was suggested between whether teachers were paid for their participation in Title III projects and their perceived quality of the projects and the perceived personal effect on them. But this support was obtained through the rejection of the null hypotheses; the computed correlation coefficients suggested an inverse direction to the relationships hypothesized. These findings indicate: 1. That teachers generally perceived the projects to be valuable and to have an effect on them. That teachers did not generally participate in planning and that teacher ideas were not always used in developing the projects, although the data suggested that the more teachers' ideas were used and the more teachers participated in the planning the higher they rated the quality of the projects and their effect on them. That teachers who perceived their participation in Title III projects as voluntary also per- ceived the projects to have higher quality and a greater personal effect on them. That there was a positive relationship between the teachers' perceived emphasis of the projects on teacher growth and the personal effect the projects had on teachers. Marcia M. Boznango That a majority of teachers were paid to participate in Title III projects, that pay influenced many of them to participate, and that there might be a negative relationship between the degree to which teachers are in- fluenced to participate in projects because of pay and the perceived quality of the pro- ject and its effect on teachers. That there might be a relationship between the use of consultants and the teachers' perceived effect the projects had on them. That there was a negative relationship between teachers who participated in the planning pro- cess and their perceived quality of the planning process. AN EVALUATION OF SELECTED TITLE III INSERVICE PROJECTS IN MICHIGAN AS PERCEIVED BY PARTICIPATING TEACHERS ON THIRTEEN VARIABLES By Marcia Ml Boznango A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have made significant contributions to the completion of this dissertation. The writer grate- fully acknowledges their encouragement and assistance. Formal thanks are extended to the following: To Dr. Dale Alam, chairman of my doctoral committee, for his support, counsel, cooperation, and particularly for the professional example he set that was always an inspiration. To Dr. Louise Sause for her contributions to the establishing and confirming of my own philosophy, particu- larly about people, and for her astuteness at cutting through extraneous matters and helping me clarify issues. To both Professor Frank Senger and Dr. Troy Stearns for their support and c00peration as members of my com- mittee. To the many staff members at Okemos Public Schools for their encouragement, understanding, and assistance. To my many friends, who continually encouraged and helped me, who gave so much to me and were understanding when I could give so little to them. To my mother, who was probably the only one who realized the extent of my effort and did everything possi- ble to make my task lighter. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM. II. III. Need Purpose Theoretical Rationale Hypotheses Limitations Definition of Terms Overview of Chapters THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . Review of Research Title III Inservice Other Inservice Research Summary and Implications RESEARCH DESIGN. Hypotheses Questions Procedures Sample Instrumentation Statistical Design for Analysis Summary iii Page ii vi vii l9 “9 Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . 66 Analysis of Hypothesis I Analysis of Hypothesis II Analysis of Hypothesis III Questions-—Findings Summary V. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY . . . . . . . 97 Summary Findings Discussion Implications for Research Recommendations Conclusion BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 iv Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Page Question Items That Define Variables . . . 53 Number of Questionnaires Administered and Returned . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Summary of Hypothesis I . . . . . . . 76 Summary of Suggested Relationships Between Variables. . . . . . . . . . 80 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Reported Participation by Teachers in Planning Projects . . . . . . . . 82 2. Percentage of Teachers Paid to Participate in Projects as Reported by Them . . . 8A 3. Percentage of Teachers Who Reported That They Were Influenced to Participate Because They Were to be Paid . . . . 85 A. Perceived Emphasis of Projects . . . . . 87 5. Extent to Which Projects Are Reported as Valued by Teachers. . . . . . . . 89 6. Extent to Which Teachers Are Doing Things Differently . . . . . . . . . . 91 7. Extent of Planned Change . . . . . . . 92 8. Perceived Extent of Voluntary Participation. 93 9. Perceived Extent to Which Ideas Developed From Teachers . . . . . . . . . 95 10. Pace-Average Ratings on Evaluation Criteria. 133 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Accomplishments, Problems, Dilemmas of Title III During Its First Year of Operation . . . . . . . . . . 126 B. Major Forces, Inadequacies, and Problems Facing Title III in Its Evaluation in 1967. o o o o o o o o o 0 13“ C. Title III Teacher Questionnaire. . . . 137 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM E229. One of the most impressive pieces of educational legislation ever to be passed in the United States was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Known as Public Act 89—10, Congress appropri— ated $1,5A5,981,206 for 1966; $1,395,Al0,000 for 1967, and $1,600,A2A,OOO for 1968.1 There are five titles under which the act is organized and administered, one of which is Title III, "for which the United States Con- gress apprOpriated $75 million in 1966, $145 million in 1967, and over $208 million in 1968."2 Known as PACE, projects which advance creativity in education, the Manual for Project Application described the Title's purposes:' The Title III program . . . is designed to encourage districts to develop imaginative solu- tions to educational problems; to more effectively utilize research findings; and to create, design, and make intelligent use of supplementary centers 1Letter from Norman E. Hearn, Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education, United States Office of Edu— cation, Washington, D. C., July 17, 1968. 2Ibid. and services. Primary objectives are to trans- late the latest knowledge about teaching and learn- ing into widespread educational practice and to create an awareness of new programs and services of high quality that can be incorporated in school programs. Therefore, PACE seeks to (1) encourage the development of innovations, (2) demonstrate worthwhile innovations in educational practice through exemplary prOgrams, (3) Supplement exist- ing programs and facilities. The heart of the PACE program is in these provisions for bring— ing a creative force to the improvement of schools and for demonstrating that better practices can be applied.3 Since the enactment of Title III in April, 1965, u,u35 proposals for Title III projects have been sub— mitted by 9,000 United States school districts, request- ing $509 million. Through March 1, 1967, 1,202 proposals costing $89 million have been funded, and 13,000 pro— posals requesting $198 million are being evaluated for funding. So far, about 39 per cent of the proposals submitted and about 29 per cent of the amounts requested are being funded. Over ten million persons in the United States are being touched by Title III programs. They consist of nearly ten million public and non-public elementary and secondary school pupils, 93,000 preschool children, 250,000 out—of—school youth, 355,000 classroom teachers, and 131,000 parents and other adults.LI 3Manual for Project Applications and Grantees, Title III, ESEA (Washington, D. C.: Office of Edu- cation, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel— fare, May, 1967, Revision). uUnited States Commission of Education, Harold Howe, in testimony before the House of Representatives Under Title III, Michigan received $3 million in 1965-66, $5.5 million 1966-67, and received $7.8 million in 1967-68. The Michigan Department of Education, work- ing with the United States Office of Education, has designated, since the inception of the program, 103 creative or innovative projects, many of which are pointed toward improving teacher effectiveness.5 With a growing number of projects, and the subse- quent large amounts of money being spent to plan and operate them, and with a growing number of people, both in the school and non-school community being affected by them, there is growing concern by citizens, including educators, taxpayers, and legislators, that these projects accomplish what they were established to accomplish. Evidence of such concern can be found in the following statements. Jack Culbertson, executive director of the Uni- versity Council for Educational Administration in Columbus, stated the problem: As a result of the financial concern, two questions are being raised explicitly and with greater frequency by thoughtful citizens. First, Committee of Education and Labor, Spring, 1967. Quoted by Norman D. Kurland, "Better Local Use of Title III," Theory Into Practice, Vol. VI, No. 3, June, 1967 (Columbus: Ohio State University), p. 150. 5Statement by Richard Anderle, Title III Office, Michigan Department of Education, April, 1968. are we getting our money's worth from current in- vestments in education? Second, do we have the necessary planning and assessment arrangement to ensure that future investments will be productive to the highest quality education possibie?6 Robert Huefner, Utah State Plan Coordinator and a member of the American Institute of Planners' Committee on State Planning, gave the thinking of legislators who are appropriating funds: Governors and legislators are no longer satisfied by 'wish-list' planning and are re— quiring, from planning, defensible justifi- cations or priorities before financing programs. The Federal Government is also requiring careful analyses of priorities and strategies by extending its Planning-Programming-Budgeting-System (PPBS) beyond the Defense Department to domestic pro— grams, with their more elusive objectives. . . . Everyone plans--but not well. Most of our actions are influenced by expectations of the future and a written--or at least a mental 'plan' of how that future can be improved. But seldom have these plans been subjected to a critical evaluation of assumptions and objectives, a rigorous questioning of internal consistency, a useful analysis of realistic alternatives, or a careful coordination with other plans to which they must relate. The complex and rapidly-increasing demands facing our governments have been answered with plans that have been little more than 'wish-lists'--when hard- headed strategies of deve10pment have been needed and could have been provided through modern planning techniques.7 6Jack Culbertson, "State Planning for Education," in Designing Education for the Future, No. 3, edited by Edgar L. Morphet and Charles O. Ryan (New York: Cita- tion Press, 1967), p. 269. 7Robert Huefner, "Strategies and Procedures in State and Local Planning," in Designing Education for the Future, No. 3, edited by Edgar L. Morphet and Charges 0. Ryan (New York: Citation Press, 1967), p. l . Richard I. Miller, from the University of Kentucky, who directed the second national study on Title III that dealt with evaluation, said in his report that nine fac- tors are causing an unprecedented concern about the evalu- ation of educational projects, such as Title III: (1) increasing cost of education; (2) increasing complexity of education; (3) greater number of alternatives; (A) accelerating rate of obsolescence; (5) massive Federal support; (6) greater concern about individualized learn- ing; (7) greater use of academic findings from outside professional education; (8) greater assistance from out- side education; (9) increased importance of education.8 He concluded: These nine factors add up to an unprecented concern about evaluation--about finding out whether we are achieving what are set forth as goals or targets; if not, why not; and what corrections should be made to move the program back on 'target.‘ Those who believe the 'evaluation itch' is another fad that will soon join educational history simply misread the times. Quite to the contrary, more and more likely we are standing on the threshold of new understandings and developments in evaluation that can have significant bearing upon the course of our schools.9 C. Clark Davis summarized in this way: 8Richard I. Miller, Evaluation and PACE: A Study of Procedures and Effectiveness of Evaluation Sections in Approved PACE Projects with Recommendations for Im- provements (Washington, D. 0.: United States Office of Education, 1968), pp. 2—6. 9Ibid., p. 7. Writers have developed new strategies for planning, but few of us have had the courage to read, listen, and then become involved in field testing the innovations that grew out of planning. We are usually content to drive down the same road each day which always leads us, incidently, to the same old place.10 As the writer talked to officials in the Title III office in the State of Michigan Department of Education, it was obvious that they have the same concerns and sense the same needs. But because of a lack of time and funds at the state level, little has been done to do any type of evaluation or to study the effectiveness of Title III projects, other than evaluation of proposals; little has been written in this area. The concern becomes greater when it is realized that states are going to be taking more responsibility for the expenditure of Title III funds. Present plans will give the states control of 66 2/3 per cent of the funds by 1971. At present the states have limited control; in 1969 33 1/3 per cent will be given to the states to use at their discretion, and in 1970, 50 per cent.11 The need is obvious: Title III projects need to be studied to determine if they are meeting the objectives loC. Clark Davis, "Planning for Change in Education," in Designing Education for the Future, No. 3, edited by Edgar L. Morphet and Charles 0. Ryan (New York: Citation Press, 1967), p. 38. 11National Education Association, Special Report of the Division of Federal Relations, November 3, 1967. as outlined by the United States Office of Education and as stated in the Manual for Project Applications.l2 Although every aspect of Title III needs to be studied and evaluated, one of the most important aspects of Title III is the inservice training of teachers, where the teacher who is already on the job learns more about ways to increase his effectiveness. Don Davies, one of the consultants to the first national study on PACE, who was executive secretary of the National Commission on Teacher Education and Pro- fessional Standards of the National Education Associ— ation, and at present is Associate Commissioner of Per- sonnel of the Professional Development Act, indicated in the study that he saw inservice training as a vital part of PACE. In this writer's opinion, no proposal should be accepted and no project funded unless it takes adequate account of staffing needs and problems-- including recruitment, training, retraining, staff utilization patterns, and interstaff relationships. Hostile, unsympathetic, unskilled, or in- competent teachers can kill the brightest and most promising educational innovations. Overworked, dedicated, competent, tired teachers cannot be ex- pected to respond with enthusiasm or good results when suddently confronted with someone's brand new scheme to be put into action. Inservice training problems and possibilities should be placed high on the list of priority items for the USOE staff and consultants working with Title 111.13 12Manual for Project Applications . . ., op. cit. l3Don Davies, "Teacher Education," in Catalyst for Change: ’A National Study of ESEA Title III (PACE), edited by Richard I. Miller (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Office of Education, 1967), 302. The Michigan-Ohio Regional Laboratory (MOREL) made a similar statement, referring to the importance of in- service training: The essence of school-based education can be found in what the learner sees, hears, feels, and does. These behaviors are shaped in the classroom, through teaching, and although many factors can be associated with pupil behavior, the most potent single controllable factor is the behavior of the teacher. Therefore, in designing a program to im- prove education, there are several advantages in concentrating attention upon the teacher and teacher effectiveness. First, this way of looking at the problem centers on what is presumably controllable. . . . Secondly, nearly all efforts which can result in school improvement, including curriculum change, preservice and inservice training, regrouping for instruction, and so on, sooner or later reach and alter the interchange between the teacher and his pupils and the interchange among pupils. . . . Third, the potent effects of teaching behavior on pupil re- sponse are obvious to the impartial observer. There are other points which could be made which suggest that study of teacher effectiveness is basic to educational improvement.l Although it is recognized that all aspects of Title III need study and evaluation, because of the importance of inservice education, this study was limited to Title III inservice projects. The writer attempted to have the courage Davis15 described by becoming involved in field testing, not content to drive down the same old road, but hoping that what was found might lead to new roads. In summary, the need for this study was to study Title III inservice projects to determine if they were effective in view of their goals. 114MOREL, Annual Report, Vol. II, Michigan-Ohio Regional EducationILaboratory (Detroit, Michigan: MOREL, September, 1967), pp. 1-3. 15 Davis, 0p. cit., p. 38. \0 Purpose The purpose of this study was to attempt some solu- tions to the need enumerated in the section entitled, "Need" of this chapter. According to the guidelines of Title III, projects are designed to, among other things, "encourage school districts to develop imaginative solutions to educational problems," and to "translate the latest knowledge about teaching and learning into widespread educational practice. . . ."16 Under these guidelines, or objectives, some Michigan schools planned Title III inservice pro- jects, hoping to solve some of their educational problems and to train their teachers in order that they might trans— late their learnings into practice. With recognition of the need for study and these guidelines, the following purposes of the study were developed: 1. To determine if teachers who are participating in Title III projects, which have a strong in- service element, perceive these projects to be effective and valuable, as determined by thir- teen variables that will be studied. 2. To isolate information that may be valuable to state school systems, the State Department of 16Manual for Project Applications . . ., op. cit. 10 Education, and Michigan legislators, in making decisions relative to Title III projects. The need which justified the conduct of the study was met to the extent that these purposes were realized. Theoretical Rationale In recent years, a verile and exciting theory has been developing that seems to have unique and profitable understandings for human behavior. Known by many as per- ceptual psychology, it is concerned with questions of man's being and becoming; it sees man not as a thing to be made or molded but a unique event in the process of becoming. Supporters of this view may be called by many names: humanists, phenomenologists, personalists, existentialists, perceptualists, transactionalists, and several others. Among the writers who hold this view are Maslow,l7 Allport,18 Rogers,19 Jersild,2O Kelly,21 and Snygg and Combs.22‘ l7Abraham H. Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962). 18G. W. Allport, Becoming (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1955). 19Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1961). 2OArthur Jersild, When Teachers Face Themselves (New York: College Teachers Press, Columbia University, 1955). 11 This view contends that certain principles govern human behavior and that these principles may be applied to human relationships; when applied, people are free to grow and develop, to become self—directing, and to make more adequate use of their capabilities and abilities. According to Combs, who with Snygg probably has written most about the perceptual theory, particularly as it relates to education, there are three basic princi— 23 of perceptual psychology. ples First, behavior of the individual is the direct result of his field of perceptions at the moment of his behaving. What the perceiver perceives to be true is true --for him. Thus it is not the external facts that are important in understanding behavior but the meaning of the facts to the behaver. To change another person's behavior, then, one must change his way of perceiving. Combs summarized what this means to educating teach— ers, which is also relevant for inservice education of teachers: If behavior is a function of perception, it follows that teacher education must concern itself with the 21Earl C. Kelly, Education for What is Real (New York: Harper & Row, 1957). 22Arthur Combs and Donald Snygg, Individual Behavior (New York: Harper & Row, 1959). 23Arthur Combs, The Professional Education of Teachers (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1965), p. 12. l2 inner life of its students. Simple exposure to subject matter is not enough. The maturation of an effective professional worker requires changes in the student's perceptions—-his feelings, atti— tudes, and beliefs and understandings of himself and his world. This is no easy matter, for what lies inside the individual is not open to direct manipulation and control. It is unlikely to change except with the active involvement of the student in the process.2 This does not mean that teachers should not be in— formed people and know facts, but it means that it is essential that individuals discover the personal meaning in those facts in order that they will behave differently as a result of being exposed. Much has been done in teacher and inservice education to help teachers learn facts, but little has been done to help them understand the personal meanings that each individual brings to those facts. Second, another basic principle relates to the self- concept; of all the perceptions that an individual has, none are so important as those he has about himself. It is the self that is the most important single influence affecting an individual's life. The self-concept is some— thing that is learned as a consequence of experience.25 This means that inservice education must be con- cerned about the developing self of its teachers; it must be teacher-centered. If an adequate curriculum is to be developed, teachers must have an accurate understanding of 2uIbid., p. lu. 25Ibid. 13 the kinds of self-perceptions associated with effective teaching. The third principle of perceptual psychology sees man as continually striving for self—fulfillment of his self-concepts. It means striving not only for self— maintenance, but self—enhancement, both for the present and the future. This need for adequacy is the funda- mental motivation of every human being from birth to death.26 As far as education is concerned, this means that peOple already are motivated; it is not necessary for some— one from the outside to attempt to motivate. This changes the role of the teacher; he becomes a facilitator, en— courager, helper, assister, and friend. In summary, then, individuals bring their own mean- ings to people and events, and these meanings are influ- enced by what the person needs to maintain and enhance self. How people perceive themselves and the world in which they live is an internal personal matter; it is not directly open to manipulation. Individuals cannot make people perceive. Effective, satisfying human relation- ships can only be developed through individuals helping themselves and others to perceive more freely and accur— ately. The perceptual View sees man as a growing, dynamic, creative being, continuously in search of adequacy, and 261bid., p. 16. 14 thus leads to methods of dealing with people that recog- nize the internal character of perception and seek to affect behavior through processes of facilitation, help- ing, assisting, or aiding the growth strivings of the individual. Where human dignity and integrity is valued, when people are treated as though they were able and given assistance in their search for adequacy, and confronted with challenging tasks, creativity and spon— taneity result.27 Thus in attempting to evaluate Title III inservice programs, using the above principles, it seemed essential to study them in the light of the teachers' perceptions and human relationships, since these are the heart of behaviorial changes. Hypotheses It was out of the above rationale and need that the general hypotheses for the study generated: Hypothesis 1. There is a relationship between the perceived participation of teachers in Title III projects and the perceived quality of the projects and personal effect on the teachers. ' Hypothesis II. There is a relationship between the emphasis of the project and how the projects are perceived by teachers. 27Snygg and Combs, op. cit., pp. 313—314. 15 Hypothesis III. There is a relationship between whether teachers are paid for their partici- pation in Title III projects and their perceived quality of the projects and the personal effect on them. Limitations The study is limited to twelve Michigan Title III projects and the responses of 2A2 teachers participating in them. The schools in the projects that were selected were those that had Title III grants for their inservice programs during the 1967—68 school year. The data were limited to that expressed in response to the questionnaire develOped for the study. Because the projects were classi- fied as innovative, there were a variety of kinds of pro- jects and organization of these projects that might have made for unique conditions that influenced the results of the study. The responses from the twelve projects were considered as a group since the purpose was to study the over-all perceived effectiveness of the projects; but there might have been circumstances in a project that caused different perceptions of and responses to the questionnaire. Definition of Terms The following definitions, in addition to the oper- ational definitions stated in Chapter III, may be helpful in understanding the study: 16 Planning Process refers to a series of actions that begin by an awareness of a need and continue to develop an approach or procedure toward meeting that need. Personal Effect refers to how the teachers feel they have been influenced and changed by a project. Project refers to the organized activities which are a direct result of Title III funding and that are under the supervision of a project director. Qualitygof the Project refers to eight items in the questionnaire that rate the project as to what extent it is accepted, the lasting effects of it, etc. It does not deal with personal effect. Overview of Chapters Chapter I--Introduction of the Problem The needs for, purposes of, the theoretical rationale, limitations of, definition of terms, and an overview of the dissertation are presented here. Chapter II--The Review of Literature The research reviewed in this chapter is presented under two headings: 1. Analysis of research related to the evaluation of Title III inservice projects. l7 2. Analysis of research, related to the evaluation of other inservice projects, which attempted to look at perceptions and human relation— ships. Chapter III--Research Design In Chapter III, the general hypotheses are reviewed and the operational hypotheses, operational definitions and questions of the study are presented; the procedures are explained, the sample is described, and the develop- ment of the instrument is presented. The statistical design for analysis and a summary complete the chapter. Chapter IV--Analysis of Results Data relevant to the three primary hypotheses are presented under three headings in Chapter IV. 1. Those data pertinent to the first hypothesis are given in the first section: there is a relationship between the perceived partici- pation of teachers in Title III projects and the perceived quality of the projects and the personal effect on teachers. 2. The data pertinent to the second hypothesis are given in the second section: there is a relationship between the emphasis of the Title III projects and how the projects are perceived by teachers. 18 3. Those data pertinent to the third hypothesis are given in the third section: there is a relationship between whether teachers are paid for their participation in Title III projects and their perceived quality of the projects and the personal effect on them. A. Those data pertinent to the questions of the study are given in the fourth section, as well as some additional findings. Chapter V--Discussion and Summary 1. Summary--This section offers a concise statement of-review in which the need, purposes, pro— cedures, and findings are capsulized. 2. Findings-~In this section the findings of the study are listed. 3. Discussion-~Considerations related to the find— ings are discussed in this section. A. Implications for Future Research--Severa1 sug- gestions are presented as to what future re- search needs to be done. 5. Recommendations—-This section makes some recom- mendations to the State Department of Education that might improve the operation of Title III inservice projects. 6. Conclusion-—This section presents a summary statement. CHAPTER II THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE Review of Research Direction for the review of the literature came from the need, purpose, and theoretical rationale of the study. 1. nggf-there is a need to study Title III in- service projects to determine if they are effective in view of their goals. Purpose--the purpose of the study is to deter- mine if teachers who are participating in Title III projects, which have a strong inservice ele- ment, perceive these projects to be effective and valuable, and to isolate other information that may be valuable in making decisions re- lated to Title III. Theoretical Rationale--the theoretical basis for this study is perceptual psychology theory, and particularly two principles: that the per- ceptions of people and human relationships are basic to behaviorial changes. 19 20 Therefore, the research is presented in two cate- gories: 1. Analysis of the research related to the evaluation of Title III inservice. 2. Analysis of research, related to the evaluation of other inservice projects, which attempted to look at perceptions and human relationships. Title III Inservice Since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed only in 1965, it is not surprising that little has been written regarding Title III and that scarcely any re— search has been done. After an extensive search, including correspondence with the National Education Association, the United States Office of Education, and Michigan Repre— sentative Charles Chamberlain from the sixth congressional district, three pertinent pieces of research were found. First National Study The most extensive research was the study on Title III prepared for the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of the United States Senate.28 Printed in April, 1967, the study was funded through the Kentucky Research Foundation by a cost 28Miller, Catalyst for Change . . ., op. cit. 21 reimbursement contract for the Office of Education. Richard I. Miller, from the University of Kentucky, directed it. The study had five basic purposes: to analyze the approved, first-year Title III proposals and to make recommendations for future developments; to look for gaps between where a particular subject area seems to be headed and where the projects are pointed; to study the overall directions and developments of Title III; to View PACE in the broader context of trends in American education; and to study interrelationships among the other ESEA titles and federal programs. Emphasis was placed on the first three purposes. Twenty areas were selected for special attention, growing out of the studies completed by the research section of the Office of Education, Title III division. Areas chosen were most popular in terms of numbers of proposals submitted, and three were chosen to include areas judged to be important for the future development of PACE. The following six imputs formed the basis of the study: (1) reports and views of twenty nationally-known educators, (2) analysis of proposals funded for the first year, (3) survey of views of project directors, (4) sur- vey of state department personnel for Title III, (5) preparation of special papers, and (6) activities of the director, Richard Miller. 22 Consultants were encouraged to analyze the proposals according to their own approaches, with these questions as guidelines: 1. 2. 9. What were the objectives addressed to? Were the objectives addressed to important? Did objectives seem related to program in a meaningful manner? Did the proposals indicate a reasonable familiarity with the literature on the subject? Were the overall designs of the studies coherent and sound? Were the proposals, or at least a portion of them, creative and imaginative? Did the proposals have a plan for local and state dissemination? Did the proposals have a strategy for moving from approval to action—-a process for bringing about change? 29 Were there plans for evaluation? A statistical analysis of 418 proposals was made for the purpose of the study. The conclusions were divided into four categories: major accomplishments the first year, major problems, dilemmas, and recommendations (see Appendix A). 291bid., p. 387. 23 One of the twenty areas chosen for review was that of teacher education; much of which was written related to inservice training. The review was written by Don Davies, who was chosen because of his background and knowledge in the area. He introduced the study, saying: Inservice teacher training is the slum of American education——disadvantaged; poverty- stricken; neglected; psychologically isolated; riddled with exploitation, broken promises, and conflict. But the time of renewal is at hand. New forces, new resources, new needs, new di- rections emerge; the next decade is almost cer- tain to bring great change and great controversy. The shape of the future is as yet shadowy, but the problems and forces which will influence that shape are clearly etched. Understanding these is of central importance to any sensible analysis and evaluation of the inservice aspects of Title III projects and to intelligent planning by the educators responsible for directing the renewal of inservice training of teachers.30 What are these central problems and forces? 1. Public school systems have not been willing to make a significant financial commitment to in- service training and staff development activities. 2. Colleges and universities have found offering courses for school teachers and administrators lucrative but have not allocated major finan- cial and academic resources to the activity. 3. Genuine cooperation and joint planning by schools and colleges with reference to teacher training—-preservice and inservice--has been rare 0 3ODavies, "Teacher Education," op. cit., p. 295. 24 The transient nature of the teaching pro- fessional has reduced the effectiveness of inservice training efforts. Too much of the content in inservice train- ing has been irrelevant to the real concerns and problems of teachers or to the objectives of the school system. The problems of fatigue have often been over— looked. Teachers themselves have seldom been involved in determining policies, governing inservice training, or in planning the programs. There has been an inadequate relationship be- tween changes in the school program and in- service training. Inadequate attention has been given to pre- paring teachers to make the process of school integration work well.31 Davies saw new developments on the horizon and new forces and pressure which will influence the renewal process in inservice training. The following are some of the most significant: 1. School systems are increasingly establishing their own teacher-training programs. Teachers and their organizations are more aggressive and militant; they are beginning 3lIbid., pp. 295-297. 25 to demand a larger share in managing their own affairs and in making educational decisions. New ways are being sought to differentiate be- tween transient and career teachers. Very different approaches to staff utilization are being tested and put into practice. Metropolitan area and regional cooperation and consolidation are becoming an economic and edu- cational necessity, and there will be strong political and economic pressures for inter— district and intercollege cooperation in all aspects of education, including inservice train- ing. The extension of education for nearly all people downward to ages three and four, and upward through at least two years past high school is becoming a real possibility that will call for different approaches to recruitment and train- ing.32 After this introduction, Davies synthesized his observations whichvmnwabased primarily on reading approxi- mately thirty proposals for Title projects which placed major emphasis on inservice training of teachers. About half of the proposals were for projects in rural and small town settings; the others were either 32Ibid., p. 297. 26 for metropolitan areas or entire states. About half of the proposals were to plan projects for teachers in several subject fields or grade levels. Nearly half of the projects proposed would provide for the establish- ment of a center or a facility that would be for demon- stration and training. At least five provided for planning or operating workshOps, institutes, or courses. Many were concerned in some way with instructional materials. In most of the proposals, the objectives were clearly stated and educationally significant; and in most cases, the programs proposed seemed related to the stated objectives. One or both of two themes were found in most of the statements of objectives: a desire to put into practice more quickly some of the new ideas and pro- cedures in education; a desire to improve the inservice training opportunities for teachers in rural and remote areas.33 Many of the proposals-—perhaps half——lacked clear and coherent designs. With only a few exceptions, the proposals reflected little familiarity with the research and literature, but Davies admitted that "the research and literature on inservice training is remarkably thin, so the failure to be familiar with it may not be too "34 serious. 33Ibid., p. 299. 3uIbid. 27 In those projects that were primarily directed to inservice training, there was virtually no attention given to either research possibilities or evaluation of the projects. Very little concern for dissemination was expressed in the proposals. The lack of attention to strategies for bringing about change also characterized the Title III proposals. Very few could be classed as imaginative or inventive, even though these words were used frequently throughout nearly all of the proposals. 35 General strengths of the inservice proposals were: 1. They recognized the need for staff training and development activities to precede and accompany changes in school programs. They recognized the need for focused training activities with specific objectives related to individual and/or school district needs as opposed to activities that might lead to general improvement. They recognized the inadequacies of much past inservice training activity and sought to sug- gest alternatives. They rested on the assumption that the bulk of the cost of staff development should be borne by the school district rather than by the individual. 35Ibid., p. 300. 5. They recognized the necessity for inter- district planning and cooperation. 6. They recognized, but cautiously, the possibilities of tapping new resources in the community and of creating new relation- ships between public school and others, edu- cational and cultural institutions, and business and industry.36 Most important weaknesses were: 1. There was virtually no evidence of the involve- ment of teachers themselves in developing and planning the proposals or projects described in them. 2. There was practically no evidence of the in- volvement of local and state teachers organ— izations or learned socieites in the develop- ment or consideration of the proposals. 3. There was almost no evidence of the involve- ment of subject matter organizations in the development of the proposals, even though the project might be addressed to improving the training in such areas as science. 4. Inadequate attention was given to the possi- bilities of utilizing new technology, such as micro-teaching, in improving the training of 36Ibid., p. 301. Out 29 teachers. The training procedures suggested were largely verbal, with traditional emphasis on bringing in consultants, organizing summer workshops, and offering courses. There was little evidence that there had been or would be productive school-college collabo— ration in planning or conducting the proposed projects. The inservice training proposals did not typi— cally consider the supply and demand situation and new staff utilization practices.37 of Davies' studies came seven recommendations: Title III guidelines shouldrequire that teach- ers be involved in substantial ways in planning, conducting, and evaluating projects. Title III guidelines should encourage genuine collaboration between schools and colleges in planning and conducting inservice training activities. Title III guidelines should encourage proposals which provide for the development and testing of models of inservice training. Title III guidelines should encourage programs which directly and imaginatively deal with the problems of the disadvantaged and integration. 371bid. 3O 5. Some Title III funds should be designated for "seeding" imaginative and innovative ideas in the field. 6. Ten per cent of Title III funds should be set aside for projects which are truly creative. 7. Some Title III funds should be used to establish and operate a national center, which would demonstrate imaginative new models for in- 38 service training. Second National Study Since evaluation was the issue mentioned most fre- quently in the first national study of Title III proposals, and since evaluation seemed to be the major weakness of PACE proposals, a second national study,39 limited to evaluation of PACE, was funded; again Richard I. Miller was director. It was sponsored by a Title III grant to the Center for Effecting Educational Change in Fairfax County, Virginia, which subcontracted the assignment to the Uni- versity of Kentucky's Research Foundation. After the study identified nine major forces in society which demand evaluation, the present inadequacies in evaluation, and the major problems in 1967 Title III 381bid., pp. 3o3-3ou. 39Miller, Evaluation and Pace . . ., op. cit. 31 PACE proposals (see Appendix B), reports were given by twenty special consultants in different areas, one of which was inservice which was reviewed by Don Davies. He examined thirteen proposals, each of which had some major emphasis on the inservice of teachers. He re- ported that proposals showed: 1. A lack of attention to the need for a model or comprehensive strategy in their plans for evaluation. An enormous gap seems to exist between the views and knowledge about evalu- ation of these on—the-scenes educators and the experts in evaluation who are writing papers and delivering speeches on the topic. Proposal writers were apparently not concerned about the question as to whether data was to be gathered quantitatively or qualitatively or both. In no case were the projects' objectives pre- sented behaviorally in an adequate way. There is considerable confusion about what is "product" or "process" and what roles each can play in evaluation. There was no one full-blown experimental re- search design. In every proposal, some effort was made to identify relevant and significant questions. 32 7. With two or three exceptions, little emphasis was given to program improvement or more ef- fective decision-making. The material in the proposals, taken as a whole, could be used to support the contention that evaluation is some- thing that one must do but not something that is terribly relevant to the real world in which educational decisions are made. 8. In view of the usual strong support for local control among American educators, it was sur- prising that only a few specified that the evalu- ation plan be closely oriented to local purposes, needs, problems, and conditions. Standards were simply ignored. 9. In a majority of the proposals, there was no reference to evaluation except in the evaluation section. 10. There was incomplete evidence as to the staff- ing and funds for evaluation. 11. The number and variety of specific instruments named was smaller than might have been expected in light of the vast number of instruments available. 12. Only two of the thirteen proposals could be said to include an innovative approach to evaluation.“0 uoDon Davies, "Inservice Teacher Education," in Evalu- ation and PACE: A Study of Procedures and Effectiygness of Evaluatipn Sections in Approved PACE ProjectpiWith Recommen- dations for Improvements, edited by Richard I. Miller (Washington, DI C.: U. S. Office.of Education, 1967), 28-A37. 33 Davies concluded with three recommendations: 1. The Office of Education's requirements and expectations for the evaluation component of Title III projects should be raised signifi- cantly. 2. Title III funds should be allocated to pro- vide to local school districts consultant help by evaluation experts. 3. Emphasis should be given to uses of evaluation and should be provided by Title III officials --through conferences, written materials, and films.)41 Theory Into Practice Report Much of what else has been written on Title III is an outgrowth of Miller's studies. One of the most compre- hensive reports appeared in the June, 1967, issue of Theory Into Practice, entitled, "Title III."142 Guest editor, Blaine R. Worthernu3 told about the current developments in PACE. Estes,uu Associate ulIbid., pp. A37-A39. uzBlaine R. Worthern (ed.), "Title III," Theory Into Practice, VI, No. 3 (June, 1967). ”31bid., p. 104. uuNolan Estes, "The Intent and Nature of Title III," in Theory Into Practice, edited by Blaine R. Worthern, VI, No. 3 (June, 1967), p. 112. 34 Commissioner of the United States Office of Education, ,explored the strategy, purpose, and focus of PACE. Richard I. Miller,“5 who directed the two national studies, reiterated the weaknesses and problems; Archerl46 compared the PACE model of innovation with Cuba-Clark's change model. The lack of evaluation of Title III was “8 attacked the explored by Stufflebeam,!47 while Hopkins problem of manpower caused by Title 111. Barton and Tiller,49 discussed the relationship of PACE to other federal programs; and Jacobs50 discussed problems at a local level. Kurland51 stressed the need to make uSRichard I. Miller, "An Appraisal of ESEA Title III," in Theory Into Practice, edited by Blaine R. Worthern, VI, No. 3 (June, 1967), p. 116. “6N. Sidney Archer, "The Rational Model for Change and Title III," in Theory Into Practice, edited by Blaine R. Worthern, VI, No. 3 (June, 1967), p. 120. u7Daniel R. Stufflebeam, "The Use and Abuse of Evaluation in Title III," in Theory Into Practice, edited by Blaine R. Worthern, VI, No. 3 (June, 1967), p. 126. “8John E. Hopkins, "Internal Training of Title III Specialists: An Imperative for Changing Educational Practice," in Theory Into Practice, edited by Blaine R. Worthern, VI, No. 3 (june, 1967), p. 134. ugRoger L. Barton and Martha Russell Tiller, "The Need to Relate Title III Programs to Other Federal Pro- grams," in Theoryglnto Practice, edited by Blaine R. Worthern, VI, No. 3 (June, 1967), p. 141. 50James N. Jacobs, "Constraints and Operating Problems in Title III," in Theory Into Practice, edited by Blaine R. Worthern, VI, No. 37(June, 1967), p. 146. 51 Kurland, op. cit., p. 150. 35 innovative uses of Title III funds to deal with basic needs, and the final article by Porter and McLuckie52 was a narrative of how Title III operated in one project. Other Inservice Research Lack of Research As the literature on inservice training was surveyed, it was necessary to agree with Donald Davies' previously quoted statement that "the research and literature on inservice training is remarkably thin."53 Denemark and MacDonald, writing the section, "Pre- service and Inservice Education of Teachers" for the June, 1967 issue, Teacher Personnel, Review of Educational Re- search, which reported the research in the area for the past four years, supported Davies' view: "Research on in- service education, considered as an integral part of teacher education, was disappointingly scanty."5u When Rhynard reviewed the literature for the same publication in 1963 for a four-year period, he said: Publications by both professional educators and lay- men highlighted the current intense interest in the preparation of teachers. Unfortunately, indications of bold experimentation either in curriculum offerings 52Richard A. Porter and Benjamin F. McLuckie, "A Study of One Title III Project," in Theory Into Practice, edited by Blaine R. Worthern, VI, No. 3 (June, 1967), p. 154. 53Davies, "Teacher Education,"'op. cit., p. 300. 5“George W. Denemark and James B. MacDonald, "Pre- service and Inservice Education of Teachers," Review of Educational Research, XXXVIII, No. 3 (June, 1967), 240. 36 or in methods used in teacher education could not be found. . . . It is apparent from a review of the literature that the large grants for teacher education have been given for program development and not for theory develOpment and research activity.55 With so little research in the whole area of teacher education and inservice education, it is not surprising that very little could be found that related to inservice projects that dealt with teacher per- ceptions and human relationships; but there was some. Goodman found that growth cannot come by force; teachers want to have a voice in developing policies which relate to teacher growth.56 In a study of schools found in cities with popu- lations of over 100,000, Stoops found that 81 per cent use salary increments to promote inservice growth of teachers.57 Parker studied the effects of a three-year inservice education program and showed that teachers who learned through the group process had a significantly higher ratio of expressed child develOpment concepts and higher pro- portions of warm and accepting attitudes toward children 55Harold E. Rhynard, "Preservice and Inservice Edu— cation of Teachers," Review of Educational Research, XXXIII, No. 4 (October, 1963), p. 369. 56Nathan C. Goodman, "Incentive for Growth Must Come from Within: A Comment on Inservice Education," School and Society, LXIII (1946), p. 115. 57Emery Stoops, "Professional Growth of Teachers in Service," Educational Administration Supplement, XXVII (1941), p. 698? 37 than did those teachers who participated in leader- centered groups.58 Silverberg, in a study of Texas schools that sought improvement through inservice education, found that ef- fective inservice education programs were organized and administered according to democratic, cooperative pro— cedures, and that directors of instruction did not neces- sarily support the democratic approach of certain in- service activities, but that the principals did.59 In a study of teacher inservice programs in Fairfax County, Virginia, York concluded that formal inservice activities were considered by teachers to be ineffective in producing improvements on the part of participants; that inservice activities are most successful when con- ducted at the local school level and when they deal with topics or problems of concern to teachers; that teachers prefer to do inservice work at the grade level or in sub- ject fields in which they teach; that teachers recognize their own weaknesses and are ready to work on these areas; that the most successful inservice activities are con- ducted during the normal workday; that participation, on 58H. V. Parker, Jr., "Effects of Climate and Curriculum in Group Learning," Journal of Educational Research, XLIV (1950), 269. 59Edwin Silverberg, "A Study of Texas Programs of Curriculum Improvement Through Inservice Education in Senior High Schools" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Houston, 1966). 38 an active basis, in inservice activities has a direct relationship to the value placed upon the activities by participants and that proper evaluation is a major pro— blem.6O Rodgers reported a study of inservice practices in terms of changes in curriculum and teaching procedures in suburban Chicago elementary schools. The sixteen elementary schools had reputations as those providing leadership in the area of inservice training. He re- ported that major instructional changes were consistently reported with greater frequency in subject matter fields; these revisions were followed by changes in teaching ap- proaches. The schools considered most favorably the consultative contributions of their own local staff mem- bers. He reported that: . . . repeatedly throughout the study, it was ap- parent that the teachers were respected, deeply in- volved, and influential in programming and con- ducting teacher education activities. This con- sistent recognition of the important contributory role of the teacher is considered by this investi- gator to be the key reason why these school systems are recognized as the best in suburban Chicago.61 OHenry Edward York, "A Study of Teacher Inservice Education Programs in the Fairfax County, Virginia School System for the School Year 1964—65" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington University, 1966). 61Paul Ray Rodgers, "A Study of Inservice Practices in Terms of Changes in Curriculum and Teaching Procedures in Selected Elementary Schools in Suburban Chicago" (ugpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 19 . 39 Savage found, when he compared the perceptions of Chicago administrators and teachers on inservice edu- cation, that males and females perceive the effectiveness of inservice differently, that teachers of different subject matter areas perceive the effectiveness of in- service differently, and that teachers with different levels of professional training perceive it differently. He concluded: The single most important implication of this study is that inservice education must not be something which is done to teachers, but must be something which teachers do to and for themselves. Only with an acceptance of this premise can inservice edu- cation programs hope to become more effective.62 Kraft did a study to determine the types and degrees of on-the—job perceived behaviorial changes which resulted from the laboratory method of learning as reflected by a group of secondary seminar instructors. After thirty- four instructors participated in a laboratory training workshOp, he found that there was a significant perceived behaviorial change as the participants functioned in the on-the-job situation six months following the workshop. He found them to be more open with their feelings, more cooperative, more willing to experiment, more willing to involve others in decisions, more tolerant of others, more sensitive to the needs of others, and more self understanding.63 62John Guyot Savage, "A Comparison of Administrator- Teacher Perceptions of Inservice Education" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1967). 63Larry John Kraft, "The Influence of Human Relations 40 Weber reported the reactions of teachers to various inservice devices. He found that one group used techniques characterized as cooperative, and the other group used principal—centered traditional techniques. The author concluded that shared experiences, such as policyshaping, planning, and conducting faculty meetings, and cooperative problem-solving were "far superior."6u Brandt, who reported a survey for the National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, analyzed 397 brief reports on current and promising prac- tices of inservice education and discerned a trend to- ward (a) more released time during the day for inservice work, (b) compensation for time when outside the regular day, week, or year, (0) extending the school year to pro- vide inservice program time, (d) greater use of school system personnel to staff such programs, and (g) a con- tinued absence of systemmatic evaluation using concrete data.6S Laboratory Training Upon the Perceived Behaviorial Changes in Secondary School Seminar Instructors" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967). 6&0. A. Weber, "Reaction of Teachers to Inservice Education in Their Schools," School Review, L1 (1943), 234. 65Willard J. Brandt (ed.), "Current Practices in Inservice Teacher Education," (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1965), quoted in Review of Educational Research, XXXVIII (June, 1967), 241. 41 Although the actual research on teacher inservice education has been scattered, much has been written. Combs' book on the Professional Education of Teachers,66 Conant's book on The Education of American Teachers,67 and Moffitt's Inservice Education for Teachers68 are among the professional books which have been written on the topic. One of the best known, although earlier books, on inservice training is the Fifty-sixth Yearbook of the National Sociepy for the Study of Education. Although only limited empirical research is recorded, the authors speak from a background of experience and empirical in— 69 formation. Several points were made relative to this study. Stephen M. Corey introduced the book: 66 0p. cit. 67James B. Conant, The Education of American Teachers (New York: MCGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 3 . 68John C. Moffitt, Inservice Education of Teachers (Washington, D. C.: Center for Applied Research on Education, Inc., 1963). 69Nelson Henry (ed.), Inservice Educationszifty— sixth Yearbook,yNationa1 Society for the Study of Edu- cation, Part 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19577.— Combs, The Professional Education of Teachers, 42 Inservice education that rests heavily upon cooperative group action and appraisal requires of its participants a host of attitudes, understand- ings and skills most of us have not adequately learned. We are insufficiently competent in re- spect to communication and cooperation in small face-to-face group situations as well as to the intricacies and subtleties of problem-solving and research processes. Unless we can train ourselves so as to improve our competencies on these two related dimensions, instructional improvement as a consequence of cooperative problem-solving will remain little more than a hope.7O In a chapter on change, Coffey and Golden, after developing a perceptual foundation for change within an institution, concluded: We have evidence that change takes place most significantly in a relationship which is participative and collaborative. What is trans- mitted to the trainee is most significantly com- municated through two-way communication. It is a relationship which is essentially cooperative even though there may be a division of labor. For change to be significant in its effects, it must involve the central regions of the person, the deeplying values and attitudes about the self. For this to occur, the change must be oriented to felt needs and greater sensitization and must in- clude opportunities to engage in the process of interaction which express these feelings and translate them into concrete action steps.7l Parker, utilizing the results of the California Cooperative Study of Inservice Education, suggested the following guidelines for inservice education: 70Stephen M. Corey, "Introduction," in Inservice Education: Fifty~Sixth Yearbook, National Society for the Study ofJEducation, edited by Nelson Henry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 9. 71Hubert s. Coffey and William P. Golden, Jr., "Psychology of Change Within an Institution," in Inservice Education: _Fifty-Sixth Yearbook, National Society for the Study of Education, edited by Nelson Henry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 76. lo. 11. 43 People work as individuals and as members of groups on problems that are significant to them. The same people who work on problems formulate goals and plan how they will work. Many opportunities are developed for people to relate themselves to each other. Continuous attention is given to individual and to group problem-solving processes. Atmosphere is created that is conducive to building mutual respect, support, permissive— ness, and creativeness. Multiple and rich resources are made available and are used. The simplest possible means are developed to move through decisions to actions. Constant encouragement is present to test and to try ideas and plans in real situations. Appraisal is made an integral part of inservice activities. Continuous attention is given to the inter— relationship of different groups. The facts of individual differences among members of each group are accepted and utilized. 44 12. Activities are related to pertinent aspects of the current educational, cultural, political, and economic scene.72 A study that utilized many or all of Parker's guidelines was reported by Kinnick, in which four Minneapolis Schools purposed to provide a better pro- gram for education of students and to help teachers be— come better teachers. Results showed that the arithmetic program was better and that there was an improvement in the mental and emotional health of the children as the general classroom atmosphere changed. In general, the reaction was positive among teachers. At the beginning, people were slow in getting started, and everyone felt confusion. But teachers felt the study had added to their growth and had improved teacher relationships. They also felt that by working together in a common field they were more closely knit and more respect had developed.73 Kinnick concluded with twelve generalizations: l. Inservice education means a program by which all persons engaged in education learn and grow together and not a program for making up teacher deficiencies. 72J. Cecil Parker, "Guidelines for Inservice Edu- cation," in Inservice Education: Fifty-sixth Yearbook, National Society for the Study of Education, edited by Henry Nelson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957). pp. 104-123. 73B. J. Kinnick, "The Teachers and Inservice Education," in Inservice Education: Fifty—sixth Yearbook, 45 2. An interested, fair-minded administrator is essential to the success of any inservice program. 3. The emotional climate which prevails in the inservice program is an important as the goals sought and largely determines the goals attained. 4. Teachers should have some part in setting up programs of inservice education, if only the privilege of voting on several plans, prefer- ably more than two. 5. Individual differences among teachers should be recognized in setting up inservice edu- cation plans. Sometimes recognition of these differences will supply different learning experiences for beginning teachers, for teach- ers new in a school system or a school building but not new to teaching, for teachers in various subject—matter fields, for teachers at the same grade level, for teachers of all stages of professional growth who need and want inservice programs of extension; that is, programs pre- senting their subject—matter fields in new dimensions. National Society for the Study of Education, edited by Henry Nelson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 138. lo. 11. 12. 46 A primary purpose of inservice programs should be the development in every participant of a sensitivity to the vieWpoints of others. Whenever possible, inservice programs should utilize the values of informal groups within the structure of formal organization. The boundaries of teacher participation and decision within each school need to be clearly defined so that inservice groups will know what problems they are free to tackle. Good communication at teacher level and between all levels of the school society are necessary for the maximum success of the inservice guide- lines in action. Conflicts between administrative values and goal values are more easily solved when dis- cussed frankly by teachers and administrators. Time is the most pressing resource problem in inservice education. In areas where the level of teachers' salaries makes it necessary for family heads to undertake supplementary jobs, inservice education should not involve after— school time. Such education should be an opportunity, not a penalty. Evaluation of inservice programs by "evidence" of improved classroom teaching is the best 47 evaluation, but we need many studies to help us discover why and how teachers change their perceptions and how those changed perceptions result in improved learning experiences in the classroom.7u Miles and Passow concluded the book and hypothesized: . . . that if program planners and participants give careful attention to locating gaps in the teachers' preparedness for instructional services, to planning and carrying out meaningful training experiences, and to research on the effects of the experiences, then the inservice program will go deeper and farther, and educational experiences of boys and girls will be improved.75 Although they believe this idea has been tested, wider testing is needed. Summary and Implications The research and literature reported in this section support the following conclusions and implications. Although there are many weaknesses, problems, and dilemmas in the PACE projects, there have been accomplish- ments, and Title III has been successful. And it must be remembered that weaknesses in federal programs closely parallel weaknesses in the braoder spectrum of American education. There remains much to be done to improve the 714Ibid., p. 151. 75Matthew B. Miles and A. Harry Passow, "Training in the Skills Needed for Inservice Education Programs," in Inservice Education: Fifty-sixth Yearbook, National Society for the Study of Education, edited by Henry Nelson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. 48 projects, some of which are evaluation of the projects and the involvement of teachers in developing and planning the projects, both of which have relevance for this study. Very little research has been done in the area of inservice education; what has been done and what the literature suggested was that inservice education was more effective when teachers were involved and cooperative procedures were used, that formal activities planned by administrators did not make for improvement, that pro- grams were most effective when teachers were released during their regular working day and when participation was voluntary, that evaluation of inservice was a pro- blem, and that the reactions and relationships of teachers were the reason for inservice and the key to effective activities, even though the inservice might be geared to improvement in other areas, such as in teaching arithmetic. These findings indicate the need for improvements of and study of Title III inservice projects and the need for more study in the area of inservice, particularly as it related to theory. Because these findings have not been widely tested, some parts of this study will add to these findings, as well as add closely related aspects. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN The purpose of the study was: (1) to determine if teachers who participated in Title III projects, which had a strong inservice element, perceived these projects to be effective and valuable, and (2) to isolate infor— mation that might be valuable to state school systems, the State Department of Education, and Michigan legis- lators, in making decisions relative to Title III pro- jects. The design of the study was directed toward the collection of data that would provide evidence for the acceptance or rejection of the general hypotheses and accomplish the purposes of the study. Hypotheses There were three general hypotheses of the study that made predictions as to possible relationships that existed among the several variables. Whether the three general hypotheses were accepted or rejected depended on whether the research hypotheses of each was accepted or rejected. It was from the data collected from the re- search hypotheses that generalizations were made as to 49 50 whether the general hypotheses were accepted or rejected. Listed below are the general hypotheses with the support- ing research hypotheses. General Hypothesis I There is a relationship between the perceived participation of teachers in Title III projects and the perceived quality of the projects and the personal effect on the teachers. Supporting Research Hypotheses.—- A. There will be a positive linear relationship between the perceived participation by teachers in the project planning process and their per- ceived quality of the planning process. There will be a positive linear relationship between the perceived participation by teachers in the project planning process and their per- ceived quality of the project. There will be a positive linear relationship between the perceived participation by teachers in the project planning process and the per— ceived personal effect of the project on them. There will be a positive linear relationship between the perceived voluntary participation by teachers in the project and the perceived quality of the project. 51 There will be a positive linear relationship between the perceived voluntary participation by teachers in the project and the perceived personal effect on them. There will be a positive linear relationship between the attendance at the programs related to the projects and the perceived quality of the projects. There will be a positive linear relationship between the attendance at the programs related to the projects and the perceived personal effect on teachers. There will be a positive linear relationship between the attendance at planning sessions and the perceived quality of the planning process. There will be a negative linear relationship between the use of people outside the school system(s) as consultants, leaders, or speakers and the perceived quality of the project by teachers. There will be a negative linear relationship between the use of peOple outside the school system(s) as consultants, leaders, or speakers and the perceived personal effect on teachers. There will be a positive linear relationship between the degree to which ideas related to 52 the project are seen as ideas developed from teachers and the perceived quality of the project. L. There will be a positive linear relationship between the degree to which ideas related to the project are seen as ideas developed from teachers and the perceived personal effect on them. General Hypothesis II There is a relationship between the emphasis of the Title III projects and how the projects are perceived by teachers. Supporting Research Hypotheses.-- A. There is a positive linear relationship between teachers' perceptions of the quality of the projects and the projects' emphasis on teacher growth. B. There is a positive linear relationship between teachers' perceptions of personal effect of the projects and the projects' emphasis on teacher growth. General Hypothesis III There is a relationship between whether teachers are paid for their participation in Title III projects and their perceived quality of the projects and the per- ceived personal effect on them. 53 Supporting Research Hypotheses.-— A. There is a positive linear relationship between the perceptions of teachers who are paid and the quality of the projects. B. There is a positive linear relationship between the perceptions of teachers who are paid and the projects' personal effect on them. The thirteen operational definitions that were used in developing the research hypotheses were taken from the forty—four-item questionnaire which was developed for the study. Six of the thirteen definitions were obtained from a single question. Seven of the definitions were obtained through a mean of several scores (see Table 1). TABLE l.--Question items that define variables. Variable Questionnaire Numbers Attendance at programs B Participation in planning C-l Attendance at planning meetings C-2 Perceived emphasis D Voluntary participation in project E—2 38, 39 Quality of the program 1-8 Quality of program planning process 9-19 Personal effect 20-30 Use of people outside system 40-42 Ideas develOped from teachers 43-44 Teachers paid E-l Extent of participation in planning process 31-37 Extent of influence to participate because of pay E-2 NOTE: See Appendix C. 54 Questions The four main questions of the study were: 1. What per cent of the teachers, who participated in the projects, reported that they partici- pated in the planning of prbjects? What per cent of the teaChers, who participated in the projects, reported that they were paid to participate in the projects? What per cent of the teachers, who participated in the projects, reported that they were in— fluenced to participate in the projects because they were paid? a. What per cent of the projects emphasized subject matter as reported by participating teachers? What per cent of the projects emphasized teacher growth, as reported by participating teachers? What per cent of the projects emphasized almost equally teacher growth and subject matter, as reported by participating teachers? What per cent of the projects emphasized mostly teacher growth but some subject matter, as reported by participating teachers? What per cent of the projects emphasized mostly subject matter but some teacher growth, as reported by participating teachers? 55~ Procedures The first phase of the study was to determine how many of the Title III projects in Michigan had inservice programs as an integral part of their projects during the 1967-68 school year. The Michigan-Ohio Regional Labora— tory identified twenty-two projects. This list was taken to the State Department of Education's Title III office, and from it, twelve projects were suggested as those hav- ing the strongest inservice aspects. Twelve were chosen for two reasons: first, a large amount of ground work was necessary to prepare for the administering of the instrument, and time and resources_did not allow for a more comprehensive study. Secondly, of the twenty-two projects identified by MOREL, some were similar in scope, and thus only one of the similar projects was chosen. The second phase of the study was a telephone con- versation or a personal visit with the director of each project in order that an appointment might be made to visit the project and discuss the research. As a follow-up of the second phase, each project director was Visited at least once; several were visited more than once; two were visited four times. During the first visit, the researcher obtained information relative to what the purposes of the project were and how it was trying to accomplish them. It was at this time that the instrument was discussed with the directors and that they were asked to cooperate in administering a questionnaire 56 to the participants in their projects. They were assured that all projects in the study would remain anonymous. All project directors contacted agreed to participate; most expressed a need for such information as would be obtained from the questionnaire. Each project director was assured he would obtain a copy of the results of the study. The next step was to deliver the questionnaire to project directors for administration to teachers. The questionnaire, in most instances, was given to the project director with a cover letter to the teachers from the director asking the cooperation of the teachers and indi- cating that the help that might be obtained through the collection of such data. An attached envelope was given to each teacher in order that he might return anonymously the questionnaire to the project director. The project directors agreed that there would be no attempt to clarify any items on the questionnaire so that each teacher could bring his own perceptions to the study. In two projects, the questionnaires were returned to the writer. In one of the twelve projects, the project director asked the writer to write the cover letter and send the questionnaire; in the other the project director wrote the cover letter and the writer sent out the questionnaire. When the project directors had collected the questionnaires, they were returned in a unit to the writer. 57 During the time the questionnaires were being re- turned, the writer kept in contact with the project directors and encouraged follow-up. But this was the extent to what the writer could do to obtain a larger percentage of returns. Sample Twelve Title III projects were identified by the State Department of Education as having strong inservice aspects. All of the twelve projects were located within a 200-mile radius of Lansing, Michigan although location was not a criterion for selection. Some of the projects contained only one school district, and one contained as many as sixty-nine districts. Projects were located in urban, suburban, and rural areas. The data used in the study were taken from responses made by 242 public school teachers, kindergarten through twelfth grade, who were participating in a Title III in- service project during the 1967—68 school year. Teachers participated in a number of kinds of activities, such as learning how to teach new materials, to visiting schools across the United States. Because the background of each project was so different, and the proposals unique, it was difficult to set up a system of categorization; thus, some perti- nent available information on each project follows. 58 Project 1 The program was geared toward innovative teaching procedures. Only one small elementary school, located in an urban, noncentral city area of 65,000, with thir- teen teachers, was involved in the project. Although there were about 1,600 children in the area, under 300 children attended the school. The amount proposed for the project was about $78,000. Project 2 The project took place within one school district in an urban area with a population of 75,000. The pro- posal requested funds for about $267,000 to bring about self-renewal by 315 teachers over a three-year period. The program was set up so that teachers would work in small groups, called lab sessions, toward a process of self-renewal. Project 3 Thirty local school districts, located in urban, suburban, and rural areas and representing over 200,000 children, participated in the project which attempted to get an innovative program in a subject matter field into each of the participating schools. At the heart of the program was the training of forty-one teachers who were willing to try an innovative idea in their schools. The proposal was presented by one intermediate school district and requested over $700,000. 59 Project 4 The project, requested almost $100,000, was di- rected toward introducing new procedures, organization and content for teaching a subject—matter field, and the subsequent and necessary training of eighteen high school teachers. Located in a metropolitan area, the project was centered at one school. Project 5 One of the smallest projects, as far as number of participants, trained eight teachers to work with a small number of families in a metropolitan area of about 700,000, and requested about $100,000. Project 6 Another small project, in which only four teachers were trained, requested almost $100,000 to train teachers to develop and use subject matter materials. Located in an urban and suburban area, three local education agencies were involved, one of which was a parochial school. Project 7 Located in a population of 18,300, covering ninety square miles, and representing two counties and one board of education, this project attempted to change the philosophy of teachers toward a subject matter field, with the hope that the students' philosophy would be changed, since the school had a student "drop-out" problem. Twenty-four teachers took part in the inservice project. 60 Project 8 The project took place in one school district with a population of about 25,000 and a school enrollment of about 5,000; the district was largely urban. The pro- ject requested about $500,000 to train forty teachers how to develop materials for and use new technological inno- vations. Project 9 Eventually planning to train about 140 teachers, in order to promote teacher growth and community change, the project hOped to influence almost 2,000 teachers in posi- tive directions. Representing one county and thirty-one public schools and seven parochial schools, the proposal requested about $600,000. Project 10 Located in a largely suburban area of about 9,000, the project requested about $300,000 to train approxi— mately forty teachers in a new subject-matter field. Project 11 The largest of any of the projects, the project represented seven counties and sixty-nine local edu- cational agencies and requested over $800,000. Over 27,000 students were enrolled in the schools which employed about 1,250 teachers. All kinds of inservice activities were planned, both in large groups and indi- vidual schools, such as conferences and visitations. 61 Project 12 Requesting almost $100,000, the project proposed a center where teachers could use materials and be trained in their use. Small groups were given special kinds of training, but all teachers in the two-county area were exposed to the materials through special conferences. Although all of the projects had inservice aspects, it must be realized that the projects had other components. For the most part, along with the teacher training, teachers worked with students, incorporating teacher ideas. The proposals designated money amounts requested, but it must be pointed out that revisions were made and are continually being made in the budgets. It should be kept in mind, also, that projects changed directions as different aspects were tried and found successful or un- successful. Some turnover in staff caused the projects to change complexion. It must be remembered, too, that the 1967-68 year was the first year most of the projects had operated. Project directors were new, and even the State Department of Education's Title III office was still in the process of growth and organization. All of these factors caused a struggling for right direction and movement. 62 Instrumentation Collection of data relevant to the support or re- jection of the hypotheses and to the answering of the questions were facilitated through the development of an instrument designed to measure the variables, as no instrument could be found that made any attempt to mea- sure the variables on which data was sought. The instru- ment was developed with the help of the Educational Re- search Bureau at Michigan State University. After the instrument was completed, it was piloted in a suburban Michigan school in which teachers had partici- pated in inservice training; forty—one teachers partici- pated in the pilot, all of whom were typical of the groups to which the instrument was to be administered. Since data on thirteen variables were being collected on the forty- four-item questionnaire, one of the standard ways of running a reliability check, such as a split—half reliability test, was not possible. Therefore, in administering the pilot, teachers were asked to put question marks beside any items about which they had doubt. When the results of the pilot questionnaire were returned, each item was analyzed as to the number of questions teachers had regarding it. Those that had more than four questions were reworked and some were discarded. A majority of the Title III projects participating in the study had research consultants who had to approve 63 the questionnaire before it could be administered; there were no disapprovals. The questionnaire was administered to teachers in twelve projects. In projects where an exact number of teachers were participating somewhat regularly in the inservice program, the number of questionnaires adminis- tered and those returned was easy to tabulate. But in some of the twelve projects, the inservice training was not a regularized activity; different teachers partici- pated at different times. For example, a project director may have taken enough questionnaires for three different activities, at which three different groups of teachers would have attended, but not knowing at which one he might administer the questionnaire. Since the project directors did not keep track of how many were administered, these figures were not available. Available information on the number administered and returned are listed in Table 2. Statistical Design for Analysis Data were analyzed as a group; although individual project data will be analyzed, it was not included in the study as this was an attempt to look at the projects as a group and to evaluate their effectiveness. The design for analysis of hypotheses involved cor- relations between the variables in the hypotheses. Re— sponses to all questions of every category were analyzed by correlation, but the writer was selective in summarizing 64 TABLE 2.-—Number of questionnaires administered and returned. Project Number Number Percentage of Number Administered Returned Returns 1 13 10 80% 2 59 33 56% 3 41 23 56% 18 8 44% 5 8 4 50% 6 4 3 75% 7 24 11 46% 8 40 30 75% 9 45 35 78% 10 -- 31 -- 11 -- 38 -- l2 -— 16 __ The total percentage of returns on projects 1—9 was 62 per cent. all the findings that were available. A frequency cross tabulation was made on all items to answer the questions of the study. Again, additional information was avail- able that was not necessarily a part of the study. A t test was used to determine significance of correlation. The correlations were run on a Control Data Corporation 3600 Computer at Michigan State University Computer Center. 65 Summary Twelve Michigan Title III inservice projects were chosen for the study. An instrument was administered to the teachers in those schools who were participating in inservice training to determine their perceptions on thirteen variables. From the data obtained, correlation coefficients were calculated and questions were answered, which estimated the relationship between the perceived participation of teachers in Title 111 projects and the perceived quality of the projects and personal effect on the teachers, between the emphasis of the project and how the projects are perceived by the teachers, and between whether teachers were paid for their participation in Title III projects and their perceived quality of the projects and the personal effect on them. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The following chapter includes an analysis of the information gathered from the responses of 242 teachers to the forty-four-item questionnaire that was developed for the study. There were three general hypotheses of the study that made predictions as to relationships that existed between the several variables. Whether the three general hypotheses were accepted or rejected depended on whether the research hypotheses of eachvmnmeaccepted or rejected. It was from the data collected from the research hy- potheses that generalizations were made as to whether the general hypotheses were accepted or rejected. The design for analysis of the hypotheses involved correlations between the variables in the hypotheses. In order to test significance of the correlations the hy- potheses were stated statistically as null hypotheses: HO: R = O (The obtained r is merely a chance deviation in the sampling distribution in which the population R is O). 66 67 A 2 test was run on thecorrelationstm>determine if they were significantly different from zero. If the probability was small that chance variation might have produced the results then the null hypothesis was re- jected in favor of: H1: R > O (one-tailed test) The level at which the null hypothesis was rejected was according to the following: Decision rule: Reject HO if z is Z 1.64 at a = .05. Analysis of Hypothesis I Hypothesis I There is a relationship between the perceived parti- cipation of teachers in Title III projects and the per- ceived quality of the projects and the personal effect on them. Hypothesis A.--There will be a positive linear relationship between the perceived participation by teachers in the project planning process and their per- ceived quality of the planning process. Correlation.--r = -.l2926. Test for Significance.-- HO: p i O 68 Decision Rule.--Reject HO if z is‘: 1.64 at a = .05. z = -2.0194. On the basis of the computed statistic, there was a failure to reject the null hypothesis. However, the computed statistic suggested that the relationship was in the opposite direction from that which was predicted; that is, the data suggested an inverse relationship be- tween perceived participation in planning and perceived quality of the planning process. Hypothesis B.--There will be a positive linear relationship between the perceived participation by teachers in the project planning process and their per- ceived quality of the project. Correlation.--r = .21523. Test for Significance.-— HO: p :}0 Decision Rule.--Reject HO if z is l 1.64 at a = .05. z = 3.4143. On the basis of the computed statistic, the null hypothesis was rejected. Therefore, the alternative hy- pothesis was accepted, suggesting a positive relationship between perceived participation in the planning process and perceived quality of the project. (0 significantly greater than 0). The data supported the research hy- pothesis. 69 Hypothesis C.--There will be a positive linear relationship between the perceived participation by teachers in the project planning process and the per- ceived personal effect of the project on them. Correlation.--r = .21984. Test for Significance.-- H : p i 0 Decision Rule.-—Reject HO if z is i 1.64 at a = .05. z = 3.49123 On the basis of the computed statistic, the null hypothesis was rejected. The data indicated that there was a positive relationship between perceived partici- pation in the planning process and perceived personal effect of the project. The data supported the research hypothesis. Hypothesis D.-—There will be a positive linear relationship between the perceived voluntary participation by teachers in the project and the perceived quality of the project. Correlation.--r = .20578. Test for Significance.-— H : p i 0 70 Decision Rule.--Reject HO if z is Z 1.64 at a = .05. z = 3.2577. On the basis of the computed statistic the null hypothesis was rejected. The data indicated a positive relationship between perceived voluntary participation and perceived quality. The data supported the research hypothesis. Hypothesis E.——There will be a positive linear relationship between the perceived voluntary participation by teachers in the project and the perceived personal ef- fect on them. Correlation.--r = .19254. Test for Significance.-- HO: p i 0 Decision Rule.--Reject HO if z is Z 1.64 at a = .05. z = 3.0396. On the basis of the computed statistic the null hypothesis was rejected. The data indicated a positive relationship between perceived voluntary participation and perceived personal effect of the project. The data supported the research hypothesis. Hypothesis F.-—There will be a positive linear relationship between the attendance at the programs related to the projects and the perceived quality of the projects. 71 Correlation.-—r = .02698. Test for Significance.-- HO: 9‘: 0 Decision Rule.--Reject HO if z is Z 1.64 at a = .05. z = .41815. On the basis of the computed statistic there was a failure to reject the null hypothesis. This suggested that there was no relationship between attendance at the programs related to the projects and the perceived quality of the projects. Hypothesis G.--There will be a positive linear relationship between the attendance at the programs re- lated to the projects and the perceived personal effect on teachers. Correlation.—-r = .08795. Test for Significance.—— HO: p i 0 Decision Rule.--Reject HO if z is Z 1.64 at a .05. z = 1.36785. 0n the basis of the computed statistic, there was a failure to reject the null hypothesis. This suggested 72 that there was no relationship between attendance at programs related to the projects and perceived personal effect by teachers of the projects. The research hy— pothesis was not supported. Hypothesis H.--There will be a positive linear relationship between the attendance at planning sessions and the perceived quality of the planning process. Correlation.--r = .15057. Test for Significance.-- H : p i 0 Decision Rule.--Reject HO if z is i 1.64 at a = .05. z = 2.35946. On the basis of the computed statistic, the null hypothesis was rejected. The data indicated a positive relationship between attendance at planning sessions and perceived quality of the planning process. The data supported the research hypothesis. Hypothesis I.--There will be a negative linear relationship between the use of people outside the school system(s) as consultants, leaders, or speakers and the perceived quality of the project by teachers. Correlation.--r = -.04885. 73 Test for Significance.-- H : p i 0 Decision Rule.—-Reject HO if z is Z 1.64 at d = .05. z = -.7576. On the basis of the computed statistic there was a failure to reject the null hypothesis. This suggested that there was no relationship between the use of people outside the school system and the perceived quality of the project by teachers. The research hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis J.--There will be a negative linear relationship between the use of people outside the school system(s) as consultants, leaders, or speakers and the perceived personal effect on teachers. Correlation.--r = .10652. Test for Significance.—- H : p i 0 Decision Rule.—-Reject HO if z is Z —1.64 at a =.05. z = 1.65967. On the basis of the computed statistic, there was a failure to reject the null hypothesis. The data indicated 74 a relationship in the direction opposite from the one that was predicted. That is, the data suggested that there is a positive relationship between the use of out- side consultants and perceived personal effect on teachers. Hypothesis K.--There will be a positive linear relationship between the degree to which ideas related to the project are seen as ideas developed from teachers and the perceived quality of the project. Correlation.--r = .28086. Test for Significance.—- H : p‘: 0 Decision Rule.--Reject HO if z is Z 1.64 at a = .05. z = 4.5336. On the basis of the computed statistic, the null hypothesis was rejected. This indicated a positive relationship between the development of ideas by teachers and the perceived quality of the project. The data sup- ported the research hypothesis. Hypothesis L.--There will be a positive linear relationship between the degree to which ideas related to the project are seen as ideas developed from teachers and the perceived personal effect on them. 75 Correlation.——r = .23645. Test for Sigpificance.-— H : p i 0 Decision Rule.——Reject HO if z is Z 1.64 at a = .05. z = 3.7699. On the basis of the computed statistic, the null hypothesis was rejected. This indicated a positive relationship between the development of ideas by teachers and perceived personal effect on teachers. The data sup— ported the research hypothesis. Analysis of Hypothesis II Hypothesis II There is a relationship between the emphasis of the Title III projects and how the projects are perceived by teachers. Hypothesis A.-—There is a positive linear relation- ship between teachers' perceptions of the quality of the projects and the projects' emphasis on teacher growth. Correlation.--r = .06138. Test for Significance.-- HO: p i 0 -< 76 1 h v ~ 1 8 u TABLE 3.-—Summary oi liypotlm sis l. 2 Level at thich Null Statement of Hypothesis Accept or Was Accepted ' Reject or Rejected Research ihqrnln33123 '>. w' . There will he a positive linezr Mi Lip z = —2.0l94 The research hy- between the reiceind arilvlgiilcn t' teiwncr" pothesis was re— in the project planning proccss Rn:i {181? per— jected. (inverse ceived quality of the planning process. direction) w J ‘ tere will be a posit' linear relationship 3 = 3.4143 The research hy- etw’?en the pe'ccEVei particiilu i 11; teachers pothes s was in the project planning p1 cess and their per— accepted. ceived quality of the projett. [:13 (D L‘. 121e1*c 31,1 t;e a ytq:ii.iixe l irmiar" r ela lorxclzir; z = 3.}li'12‘3 ll.e PEfSthI‘Cil hgz— tec~v~n lie {cruel rd partic {align iv trainers pothesis was i: the pr t..c { rr_>.le:c: 3 His} trze p%:?\?e iawtd lwral it;, (a: re j€“‘i'3d. the grojects. 3. There will be i rrsitLve iinhir r laifcn Lir “ = l.jh"*h The re march Lu" 1 - - j bet ween the 31'. t rrr'l-i'irrreg‘ '1' i F I"’.;.'1‘f:r'ri.~1 re .1 '1 T. dwi putter i 3 '33:" ta: tim- gyrofec‘g; '11.! tin; {war-aw i.’ 1i gjr-I'.‘r,r'.r‘ii l"'f‘,ft‘t5‘l c1. effwc: on tea HPFS. i. i?;e1*e wi ll iv? :1 g) -ti*,i=;e 111.c'1r re lat.i3:.:?.?;~ : : £'.3":9m1 'jtke x‘e.;e’xr:il in;— tetwewn the alt 1.1u vi a? {Linning fie :i‘cg YWH}UJIES was and the pe‘ceivli qunlity of the planning accwytud. process. I. ’-here will he a nngtive linear rclaticrfhir : = —.Th?t The research hy— tie Ix.ee:‘1 the:11re er {WV){LO 11.3' ie 1:.: .“'(9Jl patz.e,l.."a‘ systtflm(v as con ulfiht , leaicrs, or 1'1..:: re'ec*ed. and the per e vei qualiiu of ti» prz’tci :: teachers. J. There will he a negative linelr relaticnxhit : = l.rh‘t7 The research Ry- between the use of people out lie the :11. pwtnc - .1 r:- syntenm’s) as consnLtints, leairrs, hr speineru jected. (in? r: and the perceived per anal effect on tea‘h~rs. dire-{j n) PI. Ci Ll'é 211 ll. twe :1 run 1 ti'Je ii!;n“:i‘ :wal-zz ivr .l I; = 4 V ,r Elie rc- . '1 "; ' — between the degree to which liens cila- L» . of'he ‘ W3- the pr cicct are seen as lie 7 ievelor ed .rom accepied. ttvrtheruz and t ‘n? [erwurivei rnhility :A‘ the project. L. There will he a positive linear relationsnip 2 = 3.7c}; The research Ly— bet weeql the LL} gree 1J3 whicl; Llext rm.lated t«1 punlnrsis ifiifi the project are seen as ideas devcl.mre1 from accepted. teichers and the perceived Personal effect or iii-I‘m . 77 Decision Rule.--Reject HO if z is Z 1.64 at a = .05. z = .95272. On the basis of the computed statistic there was a failure to reject the null hypothesis. This suggested that there was no relationship between perceived quality of projects and emphasis on teacher growth. The research hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis B.—-There is a positive linear relationship between teachers' perceptions of personal effect of the projects and the projects' emphasis on teacher growth. Correlation.--r = .2u39u. Test for Significance.-- H z p i 0 Decision Rule.--Reject HO if z is Z 1.64 at a = .05. z = 3.8967. On the basis of the computed statistic the null hypothesis was rejected. The data indicated a positive relationship between perceived personal effect of the projects and emphasis on teacher growth. The data sup- ported the research hypothesis. 78 Analysis of Hypothesis III Hypothesis III There is a relationship between whether teachers are paid for their participation in Title III projects and their perceived quality of the projects and the perceived personal effect on them. Hypothesis A.--There is a positive linear relation- ship between the perceptions of teachers who are paid and the quality of the projects. Correlation.-—r = -.ll680. Test for Significance.-- H : p i 0 Decision Rule.—-Reject HO if z is i 1.64 at d = .05. z = -l.8219. On the basis of the computed statistic there was a failure to reject the null hypothesis. The data suggested a relationship in the opposite direction from that which was predicted. That is, an inverse relationship between pay and perceived quality of the projects was suggested. Hypothesis B.--There is a positive linear relation— ship between the perceptions of teachers who are paid and the projects' personal effect on them. 79 Correlation.—-r = -.18205. Test for Significance.-- H : p i 0 Decision Rule.--Reject HO if z is 1 1.6“ at a =.05. z = -2.86826. On the basis of the computed statistic there was a failure to reject the null hypothesis. But, the data suggested a relationship in the opposite direction from that which was predicted. That is, an inverse relation- ship between pay and perceived personal effect of the project was suggested. Questions--Findings Four questions were asked as a part of this study: 1. What per cent of the teachers, who participated in the projects, reported that they particih pated in the planning of projects? 2. What per cent of the teachers, who participated in the projects, reported that they were paid to participate in the projects? 3. What per cent of the teachers, who participated in the projects, reported that they were in- fluenced to participate in the projects because they were paid? 80 wuomnoma mo pommmm Hmcomnmm muowtha mo mafiamso mpoonong mo pommmm HQQOmpmm mpomnopa mo muHHQSG mpomnopa mo pomwmm Hmcomnmm mpomnopm mo szHmSG mpomnopo go pommmo Hmcommmm mpomhopa mo mpHHmsa mmooopa wcaccmfia mo mafiamsa mpomnOha mo pomwmm quommmm mpoohomd mo mpfiamsa mpommona mo uommmm Hmc0mmmm wpoonOQQ mo mufiHmso muomnomm mo pommmm Hmcomhmm mpomnonm mo mpfiHwSG mmmoona mcficcmaa no mafiamsa Ammpm>cfiv oz Ammpm>cav oz m>HpHmom oz m>aufimom m>Hpfimom Ammmo>cfiv oz 02 m>apamom 02 oz 1s 1s m>HpHmom m>Hpfimom 1s m>fipamom m>fiufimom 1s Ammmo>CHv oz chad who on: whosomme wfimwnmem mpmcommp Song ooQOHm>mo mmmUH vaEmpmzm moflmpso manomg mo om: mQOHmmmm mcfiscmam pm mocmocmpp< mpomnOLQ ou woumamp mEmhMOQQ pm mocmocmpu< coaumgfiofiphmm mhwpcsao> mmmoona wcficcmfia CH coaumafiofippwm .moaomfimm> somzpon mafinwcofipmaop ompmmmwSm go mnmsesmll.: mqm¢a 81 4. a. What per cent of the projects emphasized subject matter as reported by participating teachers? b. What per cent of the projects emphasized teacher growth as reported by participating teachers? 0. What per cent of the projects emphasized almost equally teacher growth and subject matter, as reported by participating teachers? d. What per cent of the projects emphasized mostly teacher growth but some subject matter, as reported by participating teachers? e. What per cent of the projects emphasized mostly subject matter but some teacher growth, as reported by participating teachers? A frequency tabulation was done to determine how teachers responded to the four questions. The following resulted: 1. What per cent of the teachers, who participated in the projects, reported that they participated in the planning of projects? Teachers were asked: Did you participate in planning the program/project? Responses numbered 2H1. Six gave no answer (2.u9 per cent); 73 teachers, or 30.29 per cent, said they participated, and 162, or 67.22 per cent, said that they did not participate in planning (see Figure l). Per Cent 100 90 80 7O 6O 50 #0 3O 2O l0 82 \ 2043/ No Answer Did Participate Did Not Participate 7 Amount of Participation Figure l.--Reported participation by teachers in planning projects. 83 2. What per cent of the teachers, who participated in the projects, reported that they were paid to participate in the projects? There were 242 responses. Four, or 1.65 per cent, did not answer; 16“, or 67.77 per cent, said they were paid to participate, and 7“, or 30.58 per cent, indi- cated that they were not paid, as shown in Figure 2. 3. What per cent of the teachers, who participated in the projects, reported that they were in- fluenced to participate in the projects because they were paid? Teachers were asked the following questions, if they had responded to the previous question that they were paid: to what extent did the fact that you were to be paid influence you to participate in the project? Of the 16“ teachers who were paid, 22 per cent reported that they were influenced to no extent, 14 per cent indicated that they were influenced to a small extent, 37 per cent said that they were influenced to some extent, 19 per cent reported that they were influenced to participate to a large extent because they were paid and 8 per cent indi- cated that they were influenced to a large extent. In other words, 78 per cent of the teachers who were paid said that they were influenced to some degree to partici- pate in the projects because they were paid. Figure 3 charts the percentages. Per Cent 811 100 90 .. 80 J, 70 . 60. 50 . no; 20. 307 10. * o 3’ 3L165 1’ 1// //J No Answer Paid Not Paid \ Report of Pay Figure 2.--Percentage of teachers paid to participate in projects as reported by them. 85 .pfimg on on mmmz moan mmsmomn mmeHOprmQ op ooocmSchH who: mono pas» owpnoamm on: mnonommp mo mwmpcmomomun.m mpswfim zmm mo mmSMomn mummaofiphmm ou mucosamcH mo pompxm oopnoamm pampxm mmamq sum> pampxm «mama pampxm msom pampxm Hamsm pampxm oz .oa .om is: \\ \\\\\\ \\\\\\\ .om .0: .om row row .om rOOH queo Jag 86 A. What per cent of the projects emphasized subject matter as reported by participating teachers? This question attempted to obtain the perceptions of teachers as to the emphasis of the projects-~whether it was on teacher growth or subject matter. The largest group, about 31 per cent, saw the emphasis half on sub- ject matter and half on teacher growth. The next largest group, 23 per cent, saw the emphasis mainly on teacher growth, while 22 per cent saw the emphasis mostly on subject matter but partly on teacher growth. Fifteen per cent reported that the emphasis was mostly on teacher growth but partly on subject matter and 9 per cent said that the emphasis was mainly on subject matter. Figure 4 charts the findings of the 2M2 responses to the question. Five additional findings were of interest to the study. Each of the findings came from a single response on the questionnaire. j When teachers were asked to what extent they valued. the entire project 96 per cent indicated that it was valued to some extent. The largest group, 50 per cent, reported that it was valued to a large extent, and the next largest group, 24 per cent, reported that the pro- gram was valued to a large extent. Fifteen per cent said that they valued the project to some extent, 7 per cent reported a small extent and u per cent said no extent. 87 .mpomnOAQ mo mHmMQQEm pm>fimoummnl.z mpzwam mammnaam oopnoamm hoppma npzonw poonQSm pmnomop co mannma co mam: npzomw Locomop _£pzonw p39 .npzonw cam mounds co zflpumm pan nonommp Amnommp poanSm so .pmppme noon so hacamz co mapmoz .mamn uzon¢ loam so mapmoz poupme poanSm co macaw: \ \\a\ .\..\ \. \\\\ a. \\\ f OH om om 0: om om ow om om OOH queo Jag 88 This means that of the 242 teachers responding, 7U per cent, or nearly three-fourths of the teachers, valued the projects to a large or very large extent. Figure 5 shows the results of the responses. An attempt was made to determine the perceived differences in those teachers who did not value the pro- jects to any extent and those who valued it to a large extent, as they reported in answer to one question, as charted in Figure 5. The following areas were studied to determine the differences in the two groups: the emphasis of the project, whether or not the teachers were paid, to what extent they were influenced to participate because they were paid, whether or not they participated in the planning, whether participation in the project was volun- tary, and to what extent outside personnel used. There was no significant difference in any of these areas be- tween the “ per cent who did not value the projects to any extent and the 50 per cent who valued it to a large extent. Most of the 4 per cent did come from one project. When teachers were asked to what extent they were doing things differently because of the project, 92 per cent reported that to some degree they were doing things differently. Forty—three per cent said that they were doing things differently to some extent, 22 per cent re- ported to a large extent, 15 per cent reported to a very large extent, 12 per cent said to a small extent, and 89 .mmmzommu an Umzam> mm copAOQop mam mpomnoaa Sean; on pcmpxmnn.m muzwfim poonopm so pmomfim msHm> ho pampxm pampxm mwmmq zho> pcmpxm mwmmq pampxm mEom ,ucmpxm Hamsm pampxm oz \\\a\\ <\\\\\k\\\\\\\\§\ OH om om on om om ow a. om OOH quao Jag 9O 8 per cent indicated that they were doing no differently because of the project. Figure 6 shows the responses. Because all of the teachers were not in a position to make some of the desired changes immediately, they were asked to what extent they planned to make changes because of the project. All but 6 per cent indicated that they planned to make changes or to do things differently. Thirty—five per cent reported that they planned to do things differently to a large extent and 21 per cent reported to a very large extent. In_other words, over half of the teachers, 56 per cent, plan to do things differently to a large or very large extent.- Thirty per cent plan to change to some extent, 8 per cent to a small extent, and 6 per cent to no extent. Figure 7 charts the findings. When teachers were asked to what extent they per- ceived their participation in Title III inservice as voluntary, 82 per cent perceived it as being voluntary to a large extent or a very large extent; 3 per cent reported that it was not voluntary, and 15 per cent reported that it was voluntary to some extent, as shown in Figure 8. When teachers who were participating in the pro- jects were asked to what extent the ideas for the project developed from teachers, 74 per cent reported that they did to some extent. Twenty—six per cent reported that 91 .maucmpmM%fip mmcfinp mcfioo mam mnmnommp Sean; on u:mponu.m onsmam pcopxm mwmmq.mnm> mwcmno mo pampxm .pcmpxm ownmq pampxm 080m pcmpxm Hamsm pampxm oz \\. mm \\\\ \ , .\_ XKN N OH om om oz om om ow ow om ooa quag Jag 92 .mwcmzo umccmaa mo pampxmnl.~ opswfim sapcmnmooao mwcfine oe 0» swam mpmnoame moans on pampxm pcouxm mwpmq m9m> pampxm mmmmq pcmuxm mEom pampxm HHmEm pampxm oz \ . \ \ \\\a \\s \\x row fiom flow on " .OOH queo Jag 93 .cofipmafioaumma zAMpGSHo> mo pompxo om>fioopmmll.m mhsmfim . mhmuczao> mm Um>amonmm mm: mpomhomm HHH mHuHB CH cofipmafioauhmm 50H53 op pampxm ucmpxm . mwhmq zum> pampxm mwnmq pcopxm mEom pcopxm Hamem pampxm oz \\\\\K\\\N\ \\\\ \\m\ fioa .om .om .o: .om .ow .ow .om .om r00H queo deg 99 the ideas for the projects did not come from teachers. Figure 9 charts the responses. Summary The data presented in this chapter were generally supportive of the first hypothesis that there was a relationship between perceived participation of teachers in Title III projects and the perceived quality of the 8 projects and the personal effect on them. Of the twelve research hypotheses, seven suggested a positive relation- ship between the variables; two of the remaining five suggested inverse directions to those predicted by the research hypotheses. The data gathered to test the general hypothesis that there is a relationship between the emphasis of the Title III projects and how the projects are perceived was supported by data from one research hypothesis and rejected by the other. The third general hypothesis was supported: a relationship was suggested between whether teachers are paid for their participation in Title III projects and their perceived quality of the projects and the per— ceived personal effect on them. But this support was obtained through the rejection of the null hypothesis; the computed correlation coefficients suggested an inverse of the relationship hypothesized. 95 .mhmzommp Song omaoam>mo mmmofi scans ow pcmpxm pm>fimohmmll.m mpswfim maonomme Eosm ooaoam>ma mm om>Hmopmm who; moocfiopm HHH mapae 2H mmmpH map Sofia: 0p pampxm pcopxm mMpmq msm> pampxm mmhmq pampxm mEow pampxm HHmEm pcmuxm oz Qxxxxx? . \\N\\ W om tom Dom .OOH queg Jag 96 Other findings, not related to the main hypotheses of the study, conclude the chapter. For a detailed analysis and discussion of these findings, see Chapter V. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY Summary Because of the large amount of human resources and money that are being invested in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title III inservice projects, there is a need to study them to determine if they are effective in view of their goals. Therefore, the pur— poses of the study were: (1) to determine if teachers who participated in Title III projects, which had a strong inservice element, perceived these projects to be effective and valuable as determined by thirteen vari- ables, and (2) to isolate information that might be valu- able to state school systems, the State Department of Education, and Michigan legislators, in making decisions relative to Title III projects. The review of research was presented in two cate- gories: (1) analysis of the research related to the evaluation of Title III inservice; (2) analysis of re— search, related to the evaluation of other inservice projects, which attempted to look at perceptions and human relationships, since these two aspects were basic 97 98 to the theoretical rationale from which the hypotheses generated. The findings seemed to indicate: although there are many weaknesses, problems, and dilemmas in the PACE projects, there have been accomplishments, and Title III has been successful. And it must be remembered that weaknesses in federal programs closely parallel weaknesses in the broader spectrum of American edu- cation. There remains much to be done to improve the projects, some of which are evaluation of the projects and the involvement of teachers in developing and planning the projects, both of which had relevance for this study. Very little research has been done in the areas of inservice education; what has been done and what the literature suggested was that inservice education was more effective when teachers were involved and cooperative procedures were used, that formal activities planned by administrators did not make for improvement, that pro— grams were most effective when teachers were released during their regular working day and when participation was voluntary, that evaluation of inservice was a problem and that the reactions and relationships of teachers were the reason for inservice and the key to effective activities, even though the inservice might be geared to improvement in other areas, such as teaching arithmetic. 99 The findings indicated that there was a need for study in the area of inservice, particularly of Title III, and as inservice relates to theory. Twelve Michigan Title III inservice projects were chosen for the study. An instrument was administered to the teachers in those schools who were participating in inservice training to determine their perceptions on, thirteen variables. From the data obtained, correlation coefficients were calculated which suggested the relation- ship between the perceived participation of teachers in the projects and the perceived quality of the projects and personal effect on the teachers, between the emphasis of the project and how the projects were perceived by the teachers, and between whether teachers were paid for their participation in Title III projects and their perceived quality of the projects and the personal effect on them. The data were generally supportive of the first hy- pothesis that there was a relationship between perceived participation of teachers in Title III projects and the perceived quality of the projects and the personal effect on them. Of the twelve research hypotheses, seven sug- gested a positive linear relationship between the vari- ables; two of the remaining five suggested an inverse direction to that predicted by the research hypotheses, indicating that there might be a relationship. 100 The data related to the general hypothesis that there was a relationship between the emphasis of the Title III projects and how the projects were perceived was supported by one research hypothesis and rejected by the other. The third general hypothesis was supported: a relationship was suggested between whether teachers were paid for their participation in Title III projects and their perceived quality of the projects and the personal effect on them. But this support was obtained through the rejection of the null hypotheses; the computed corre— lation coefficients suggested an inverse direction of the relationship hypothesized. Several questions were answered, also. Findings In analyzing the results of the study, the following findings emerged: l. A positive relationship between the teachers' reported participation in the planning process and their perceptions of the quality of the planning process was not supported by the data. It did suggest that there might be a negative relationship; that is, the more teachers participated in the planning process the lower they rated that process. 101 The findings indicated a positive relationship between the teachers' reported participation in the project planning process and how they reported the quality of the project and its personal effect on them. The more they parti- cipated in planning the higher they rated the projects quality and its personal effect on them. The data indicated a positive relationship be- tween the teachers' perceived voluntary partici- pation in the project and how the teachers per- ceived the quality of the project and its per- sonal effect on them; that is, the more teachers perceived their participation as voluntary the higher they rated the project's quality and effect. The number of programs or meetings teachers attended in relation to the project seemed to have no relationship as to how teachers perceived the quality of the project and its effect. But the data did suggest a positive relationship between the number of times teachers attended planning sessions and how they perceived the quality of the project and its effect. There appeared to be no negative relationship between the teachers' perceptions of the use of people outside the school system and the perceived quality of the project and its 102 personal effect. However, the data suggested the possibility of an inverse relationship be- tween the use of outside personnel and the project's effect on teachers; that is, there might be a positive relationship between the two. The findings indicated that there was a posi- tive relationship between whether ideas related to the project were seen as ideas developed from teachers and their perceptions as to the quality of the project and its effect on them. In other words, the more the ideas of projects were seen as teachers' ideas the higher the projects were rated and the more personal effect they seemed to have on teachers. There appeared to be no relationship between the teachers' perceptions of the emphasis of the project on teacher growth and how they perceived the quality of the project. But the data did suggest that when teachers perceived the emphasis to be on teacher growth the more personal ef- fect the project had on them. The research hypotheses indicated that there was no positive relationship between teachers' perceptions as to whether they were paid to participate in the project and how they per- ceived the quality of the project and its 103 effect. However, an inverse direction was suggested and there might be a negative relation- ship between pay and how the projects were per- ceived. The statistical findings were as follows: A. About 67 per cent of the 2A2 teachers re- ported that they did not participate in the planning of Title III projects. About 67 per cent of the teachers reported that they were paid to participate in the Title III projects. About 78 per cent of the teachers who were paid reported that they were influenced to some extent to participate in the projects because they were paid. The largest group of the teachers, 31 per cent, reported that the emphasis of the projects was about half on subject matter and half on teacher growth. Twenty-seven per cent reported the emphasis as mostly on subject matter but partly on teacher growth and 23 per cent saw the emphasis as mostly on subject matter but partly on teacher growth and 23 per cent saw the emphasis as mainly on teacher growth. 104 Ninety-six per cent of the teachers reported that they valued the projects to some ex- tent and 50 per cent of the 2A2 teachers valued it to a very large extent, and 2A per cent to a large extent. All but 8 per cent of the teachers reported that they were doing things differently be- cause of the project. All but 6 per cent planned to some extent to do things differ- ently in the future. A majority of 68 per cent of the teachers reported that to a very large extent it was a voluntary decision to participate in the Title III project. Only 3 per cent reported it was not a voluntary decision. The other 29 per cent reported it was voluntary to some degree. Seventy—four per cent of the teachers re- ported that the idea(s) for the projects developed, to some extent, from the teachers. Only 11 per cent saw the ideas coming largely from teachers, while 26 per cent reported that the projects were not a result of teacher ideas. 105 Discussion Teacher Participation Findings of the study indicate that teachers need to participate in the planning of the projects, that their participation in the inservice training needs to be voluntary, and that the teachers' ideas need to be developed and used, and that the planning process needs to be improved--if there is concern that teachers have positive feelings and that they grow as a result of the inservice training. The above was concluded from the following: 1. About 67 per cent of the teachers in the study did not see themselves as participating in the planning, yet the data of the study suggested that the more teachers participated in the planning the higher they rated the quality of the project and its effect on them. 2. Ninety-seven per cent of the teachers perceived their participation in the inservice sessions as voluntary and the research hypothesis sup- ported the prediction that the more teacher participation in the inservice projects are seen as voluntary the higher will be the per- ceived quality of the project and its effect on the teachers. 106 3. Twenty-six per cent of the teachers did not see the ideas of the project as being developed from the teaching staff, yet the research indi- cated that the more the ideas developed from the teachers the higher they rated the quality of the program and its effect on them. A. About 33 per cent of the teachers participated in the planning process and the more they per- ceived to have participated in it the lower their rating of that process seemed to be. It would appear that Title III project leaders have been wise in allowing participation in the inservice pro- jects to be voluntary, but it would appear, also, that these same leaders should attempt to improve the planning process, to insure teacher participation in planning the projects, and to insure the use of teacher ideas in developing the projects. Some of the following may be considered in an attempt to interpret the above findings. Title III is still in its infancy, and there are weaknesses, as mentioned in Chapter II, one of which is the timing of distribution of funds and resultant dead- lines. Often money has not been appropriated until shortly before deadlines, and then prOposals have had to be put together hurriedly, and in some instances, guideline rules, particularly for planning, were followed 107 only to the extent that it was necessary ”to keep the letter of the law." Teacher participation may have been quite superficial and hurried and thus teachers who did participate in the planning may have been aware of these weaknesses. This might suggest that if proposals must be hurriedly written and real participation on the part of the teacher is not possible that perhaps it would be best not to attempt to superficially involve teachers. It might be best to honestly admit that there was not time for their participation. Since the teachers did value the projects and started doing things differently it would seem obvious that planning was done. But by whom? This study did not obtain information to answer the question, but from the writer's vieWpoint, after several conversations with project directors and participants, it seemed that the projects were, for the most part, planned by one person or a small group. As mentioned earlier, 26 per cent of the teachers did not perceive the ideas for the projects as developing from their own ranks. Since the instructional problems of a school would seem to be problems because they were identified as such by the instructional staff, it would seem that solutions for those problems would have to come from teachers—-if these solutions were to be meaningful. The heart of Title III, as summarized in Chapter I, seems 108 to be directed toward the innovative and creative solu- tions to the problems of local school districts. Another factor to be considered in interpreting the above results is: with such large amounts being spent on Title III projects something would seem bound to happen, and the data seemed to suggest that teachers, for the most part, perceive what has happened as posi- tive. But those interested in Title III projects, or any other inservice projects, need to consider how much better and greater the effects might be if the ideas for the projects did come from teachers as they proposed solutions to their own school or area problems and if they actually participated in cooperatively planning the projects. It would seem that every effort should be made to Optimize what could happen, with the resources avail- able, through COOperative planning and procedures. Attendance The study attempted to show a positive relationship between the number of times teachers attended inservice programs or meetings related to the project and their perceptions of the quality of the project and its effect on them. But the data did not suggest this. No relation- ship was indicated. It is interesting to note that an inverse relation- ship was not suggested; that is, the more one attended meetings, the lower evaluation he gave. Teachers often 109 seem to be "meeting" saturated, and the more they attend meetings or programs, the more negative they seem. But this hypothesis did not suggest this. There was no re- lationship. Many other aspects need to be considered in a study of attendance: the time of attendance, such as after school, during school, on Saturdays; the period of atten- dance, such as over a month span or a year's span; length of the session, one hour or eight hours; and other factors that might affect the relationship. One hypothesis predicted that the greater the atten- dance at planning sessions the greater would be the per- ceived quality of the planning process. The data supported this statement. But it may be questioned why this relation- ship was suggested when a negative relationship was sug- gested between perceived participation in the planning process and the teachers' perception of the quality of the planning process. Perhaps the explanation is due to the definition of "participation in the planning process. The Operational definition was determined by seven items in the questionnaire, only one of which was related to attendance. Participation in the planning process in- volved involvement in decision-making, in selecting per— sonnel who were to lead or instruct the program, and in receiving communications about the planning. Teachers could participate in the planning process through communi- cations and individual contacts and not attend any 110 planning meetings. The research might mean that if teach- ers were involved only in this way that the planning pro- cess was not perceived as effective. But when teachers actually attended meetings and had an opportunity for discussion the planning process was perceived as more effective. Another factor might be that only those who were deeply involved in the planning process attended meetings; therefore they would perceive them to be more effective. Perhaps, too, because of the amount of atten- dance, the teachers felt they had to react positively. Consultants The hypothesis predicted that there would be a linear negative relationship between the use of outside personnel and the quality of the program and its effect was rejected. The data suggested that there was no relationship between the use of consultants and the teaChers' perceptions of the quality of the project but that there might be a posi— tive relationship between the use of consultants and the project's effect on teachers. Much more study needs to be done to determine the value of the consultants and role of the consultants, but if the above relationship would be supported the value of the consultant may lie in his inter- action with teachers, not in a role as a speaker or a large- group instructor. 111 Emphasis of the Project The hypotheses predicted that projects which emphasized teacher growth would be perceived as having more quality and more of an effect on teachers. The data indicated no relationship between the emphasis on teacher growth and the quality of the programs but a~ positive relationship between the emphasis on teacher growth and the personal effect it had on teachers was suggested. This seems to say that what the emphasis of the project is makes no difference as to how the teacher rates it. It can be rated as having quality and not affect the teacher. But if teacher change, or growth is sought, this would suggest that the emphasis of the pro— jects should be seen by teachers as being on teacher growth. Yet the study showed that only 23 per cent of the teachers perceived the emphasis to be mainly on teacher growth (see Figure A, p. 87). It would appear that inservice education should be geared toward activi— ties that emphasize teacher growth. However, from this study we did not determine what types of things were being done to make the teacher perceive the emphasis to be on teacher growth. Teachers were asked to check on a continuum of five as to what the emphasis of the pro- ject was, ranging from mostly on teacher growth to mostly on subject matter. Although there were some projects that were developed to train teachers in subject matter 112 areas, some of the teachers in those projects perceived the emphasis to be on teacher growth. Further study needs to be done to determine what kinds of things are being done in order that teachers perceive the emphasis to be on teacher growth. Pay The research hypothesis did not support a positive relationship between whether a teacher was paid and his perceptions of the quality of the project and its effect on him. It did, however, indicate that there might be a negative relationship. In other words, teachers who are paid might perceive the projects to have less quality and less personal effect. In other words the more teach- ers were influenced to participate in Title III projects because they were paid the lower they might have rated the quality of the project and its effect on them. It would seem reasonable that if the aspect of pay is re— moved from any consideration as to whether or not a teacher would participate in inservice training, one could assume that only teachers who were motivated to learn would participate and thus would perceive the projects to be more valuable and to cause them to change. But no conclusions should be drawn from this since this relation- ship was only indicated through the rejection of the null hypotheses and by the computed correlations that suggested 113 an inverse direction. From the study it was found that 67 per cent of the 242 participating teachers reported that they were paid to participate, but the study did not tell such things as whether released time was con- sidered the same as pay. Of the 67 per cent who were paid, 78 per cent reported that they were influenced to participate because of that pay; 27 per cent reported that they were influenced to a large or very large ex- tent to participate because of pay. But the study did not find if pay was the main consideration in a teacher's decision to participate. And even if it were, this does not mean that the teacher could not be influenced in a positive direction through the inservice activities. It should be recognized, too, that teacher responses on questions related to pay would probably depend largely on the person and the project. Although there are no conclusive findings, questions can be raised. Why are teachers volunteering to participate in Title III inservice--for the money or because of a de- sire to improve? Should all volunteers for Title III in- service be accepted as participants and paid? Are the projects reaching the teachers who need to be reached? Since both the federal government and school systems are spending more money each year to pay teachers for inservice training it would seem wise to raise even more questions and to attempt some answers. 11A Value of the Projects From the data it could be concluded that the pro- jects were perceived as having value and as having an effect on teachers. Seventy-four per cent of the 242 participating teachers valued the projects to a very large or large extent; 92 per cent of the teachers were doing things differently to some extent because of the projects, and 9“ per cent were planning to do things differently. Since teachers perceive the projects to have this degree of value and effect, even with some of the recognized weaknesses associated with them, as men- tioned earlier in the study, the possibilities of what could happen, with improvements, seems almost limitless. Other Considerations It must be recognized that the teachers participating in the study were volunteers and as such probably had rather positive perceptions with which to begin partici- pation in the projects. Perhaps some of the teachers who needed help the most did not participate and consequently their perceptions were not reflected. It must be remembered that in three projects the project director administered the questionnaire to what- ever group was available and that the directors did not keep track of the number of questionnaires administered. Title III is in its early stages of operation and for some schools the funds it provides are the first 115 large amounts of federal monies the schools have had. Thus school personnel become enthusiastic in having some funds to develop something that may be a little different. A similar study as this done five years from now when the newness of federal programs has faded might give alto- gether a different picture. For the most part the findings suggested here sup- port other research that has been done previously related to inservice and they support the theory suggested in Chapter I. But in a number of areas related to inservice little research has done. There appears to be a need for much more. Implications for Research This study Opened up several areas for future re- search. 1. There is a need to do continuous evaluation of Title III projects, not only in the area of inservice but in the many other facets of the projects. 2. There is a need to set up controlled experi- ments to look at the differences between pro— jects that use consultants and those that do not, between projects that pay their teachers and those that do not, between projects that emphasize different areas, such as teacher growth or subject matter, and between those 116 projects that have different attendance patterns. There is a need to study the planning pro- cedures of Title III. Do these procedures coincide with the best theory and practice? Recommendations It is recommended that: 1. The State Department of Education set up the necessary guidelines to insure that Title III projects be developed as results of the needs of teachers, and to insure teacher participation in the planning and an improved planning pro- cess. If the State is committed to cooperative procedures, a continuance of some form of planning grant would seem imperative. The State Department of Education establish a research department that would study and evaluate some of the aspects of Title III and that would serve as a consultant for school systems with, or anticipating, Title III projects. Perhaps some type of internship program could be estab- lished, using doctoral students from state colleges and universities. That the State Department make an effort to examine the cooperative role it might be per- forming with local schools or projects, other 117 than giving research advice as mentioned above. With all of the knowledge available through Title III activities and with the important role teachers play, it would seem that the same COOperative procedures might be estab- lished between the State Department of Edu- cation and the schools in order to make the work of each more effective. Conclusion The purposes of this study were to determine if teachers who participated in Title III projects during the 1968-69 school year perceived these projects to be effective and valuable as determined by thirteen vari- ables and to isolate information that might be valuable to state school systems, the State Department of Edu- cation, and Michigan legislators. It is the conclusion of the writer, from the data gathered, that these projectsvmme perceived as valuable, for the most part, and that teachers have changed or grown because of them. Much like the first national study of Title III, this study raised more questions than it answered. A second national study resulted. It is hoped that others will make an attempt to find answers to questions raised here. BIBLIOGRAPHY 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, G. W. Becoming. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Uni- versity Press, 1955. Archer, N. Sidney. "The Rational Model for Change and Title III." Theory Into Practice. Edited by Blaine R. Worthern. VI, No. 3 (June, 1967), 126. Barton, Roger L., and Tiller, Martha Russell. "The Need to Relate Title III Programs to Other Federal Programs." Theory Into Practice. Edited by Blaine R. Worthern. VI, No. 3 (June, 1967), 141. Bills, Robert E. "About People and Teaching." Bulletin, XXVIII, No. 2 (December, 1955). Bowers, N. D., and Soar, R. 8. Studies of Human Relations in the Teaching-Learning Process. Nashville, Tennesee: Cooperative Research Program, 1960. Brandt, Willard J., ed. "Current Practices in Inservice Teacher Education." Washington, D. 0.: National Education Association, 1965. Quoted in Review of Educational Research, XXXVIII (June, 1967), 231. Chamberlain, Charles. Representative from Michigan's Sixth Congressional District. Correspondence dated July 9, 1968, Lansing, Michigan. Combs, Arthur W. Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming. Washington, D. C.: American Association for Curricu- lum Development, Yearbook, 1962. ____m“__, The Professional Education of Teachers. Boston: llyn and Bacon, Inc., 19651 Combs, Arthur, and Snygg, Donald. Individual Behavior. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1959. Conant, James B. The Education of American Teachers. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1963. Corey, Stephen M. "Introduction." Inservice Education: Fifty—Sixth Yearbook, National Society for the Study of Education. Edited by Nelson Henry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. 119 120 Culbertson, Jack. "State Planning for Education." Designing Education for the Future, No. 3. Edited by Edgar L. Morphet and Charles 0. Ryan. New York: Citation Press, 1967. Davies, Don. "Inservice Teacher Education." Evalu- ation and PACE: A Study of Procedures and Effectiveness of Evaluation Sections in Approved PACE Projects with Recommendations for Improve- ments. Edited by Richard I. Miller. Washington, D. C.: United States Office of Education, 1968. . "Teacher Education." Catalyst for Change: A National Study of ESEA Title III (PACE). Edited by Richard I. Miller. Washington, D. C.: United States Office of Education, 1967. Davis, C. Clark. "Planning for Change in Education." Designing Education for the Future, No. 3. Edited by Edgar L. Morphet and Charles 0. Ryan. New York: Citation Press, 1967. Denemark, George W., and MacDonald, James B. "Preser- vice and Inservice Education of Teachers." Review of Educational Research, XXXVIII, No. 3 (June, 1967). anlor, Robert. "Factors Influencing Inservice Education Programs." Journal of Educational Research, LII, No. 9 (May, 1957). Estes, Nolan. "The Intent and Nature of Title III." Theory Into Practice. Edited by Blaine P. Worthern. VI, No. 3 (June, 1967). Flanders, Ned A. "Teacher Behavior and Inservice Pro- grams." Educational Leadership, XXI, No. 1 (October, 19635, 27. Goodman, Nathan C. "Incentive for Growth Must Come from Within: A Comment on Inservice Education." School and Society, LXIII (1996). Hearn, Norman E. Acting Assistant Director, Division of Plans and Supplementary Centers, Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education, United States Office of Education, Washington, D. C. Corres- pondence dated July 17, 1968. Henry, Nelson, ed. Inservice Education: Fifty-Sixth Yearbook, National Society for the Study of Education. Part 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. 121 Hodenfield, G. K., and Stinnett, T. M. The Education of Teachers. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice- HaII, Inc., 1961. HOpkins, John E. "Internal Training of Title III Specialists: An Imperative for Changing Edu- cational Practice." Theory Into Practice. Edited by Elaine P. Worthern. VI, No. 3 (June, 1967), 134. Huefner, Robert. "Strategies and Procedures in State and Local Planning. Designing Education for the Future, No. 3. Edited by Edgar L. Morphet and A Charles 0. Ryan. New York: Citation Press, 1967. Jacobs, James N. "Constraints and Operating Problems in Title III." Theory Into Practice. Edited by Blaine P. Worthern. VI, No. 3 (June, 1967), 146. Jersild, Arthur. When Teachers Face Themselves. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1955. Kelly, Earl C. Education for What is Real. New York: Harper and Row, 1937. . The Workshop Way of Learning. New York: Harper and Row, 1951. Kinnick, B. J. "The Teachers and Inservice Education." Inservice Education: Fifty-Sixth Yearbook, National Society for the Study of Education. Edited by Henry Nelson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Kraft, Larry John. "The Influence of Human Relations Laboratory Training Upon the Perceived Behaviorial Changes in Secondary School Seminar Instructors." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Kruger, Ann G. State Program Management Officer, Inno- vative Centers Branch, Area V, Division of Plans and Supplementary Centers, Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education, United States Office of Education. Correspondence dated July 22, 1968. Kurland, Norman D. "Better Local Use of Title III." Theory Into Practice.‘ Edited by Blaine P. Worthern. VI. No. 3 (June, 1967). 122 Manual for Project Applications and Grantees, Title III; ESEA. Washington, D. C.: Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1967. Revised Edition. Maslow, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1954. . Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962. Miles, Matthew B., and Passow, A. Harry. "Training in the Skills Needed for Inservice Education Pro- grams." Inservice Education: Fifty-Sixth Year- book, National Society for the Study of Education. Edited by Henry Nelson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Miller, Richard 1., ed. Catalyst for Chnnge: A National Study of ESEA Title III (PACE). Washington, D. C.: United States Office of Education, 1967. . Evaluation and PACE: A Study of Procedures and Effectiveness of Evaluation Sections in An- proved PACE Projects with Recommendations for Improvements. Washington, D. C.: United States Office of Education, 1968. Moffitt, John Clifton. Inservice Education for Teachers. Washington, D. C.: Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963. MOREL Annual Report. Vol. II. Detroit, Michigan: Michigan-Ohio Regional Education Laboratory, 1967. Morphet, Edgar L., and Ryan, Charles 0., eds. Designing Education for the Future, No. 3. New York: Citation Press, 1967. National Education Association. Special Report of the Division of Federal Relations, November 3, 1968. PACE-—As It Operates Among the School Districts in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: State Board of Education. (Pamphlet.) Pacesetters in Innovation. Washington, D. C.: Edu- cational Resources Information Center, United States Government Printing Office, 1966. (Pamphlet.) 123 Parker, H. V., Jr. "Effects of Climate and Curriculum in Group Learning." Journal of Educational Re- search, XLIV (1950). Parker, J. Cecil. "Guidelines for Inservice Education." Inservice Education: Fifty-Sixth Yearboon, National Society for the Study of Education. Edited by Henry Nelson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Porter, Richard A., and McLuckie, Benjamin F. "A Study of One Title III Project." Theory Into Practice. Edited by Blaine P. Worthern. VI, No. 3 (June, 1967). Repnrt on United States Office of Education Conference on Research in Teacher Education. Research Pro- ject No. F-015. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1964. Rhynard, Harold E. "Preservice and Inservice Education of Teachers." Review of Educational Research, XXXIII, No. 4 (October, 1963). Rodgers, Paul Ray. "A Study of Inservice Practices in Terms of Changes in Curriculum and Teaching Pro- cedures in Selected Elementary Schools in Suburban Chicago." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1964. Rogers, Carl. On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton- Mifflin, 1961. Savage, John Guyot. "A Comparison of Administrator- Teacher Perceptions of Inservice Education." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1967. Silverberg, Edwin. "A Study of Texas Programs of Curriculum Improvement Through Inservice Edu— cation in Senior High Schools." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Houston, 1966. Spears, Harold. Curriculum Planning Through Inservice Programs. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957. . The Teacher and Curriculum Planning. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951. StOOps, Emery. "Professional Growth of Teachers in Service." Educational Administration Supplement, XXVII (1941). 124 Stufflebeam, Daniel R. "The Use and Abuse of Evaluation in Title III." Theory Into Practice. Edited by Blaine P. Worthern. VI, No. 3 (June, 1967), 126. Title III PACE. A Report of the Summer Conference, August 23-25, 1966. Lansing, Michigan: State Board of Education. Title III. Project Proposals from the Twelve Submitting Agencies. (Unpublished.) Verduin, John R., Jr. COOperative Curriculum Improvement. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. Weber, C. A. "Reactions of Teachers to Inservice Edu- _cation in Their Schools." School Review, LIII (1943). Worthern, Blaine P., ed. "Title III." Theory Into Practice, VI, No. 3 (June, 1967). York, Henry Edward. "A Study of Teacher Inservice Edu- cation Programs in the Fairfax County, Virginia School System for the School Year 1964-65." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington University, 1967. APPENDICES 125 APPENDIX A ACCOMPLISHMENTS, PROBLEMS, DILEMMAS OF TITLE III DURING ITS FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION 126 127 Major Accomplishments Over 700 proposals had been submitted before the first deadline in November 1965, requesting $75 million; and by the end of the first year (July 1966) local school districts had submitted over 2,700 proposals requesting $250 million, three times the amount of apprOpriated funds. By the end of the 1966 fiscal year, PACE had approved 839 projects totaling more than $53 million. In the school districts affected by these projects, it has been esti- mated by the research section for the Title III division that some 10 million school children have been touched in some way or another by PACE programs--which include such approaches as team teaching, computer-assisted instruction, flexible scheduling, quick retrieval of educational materials, programed learning for individual instruction, and special projects designed to add new dimensions to education. The approved projects, based upon research done by Title III Washington bureau, could be placed in these general categories: 40 per cent for multipurpose pro- grams, 33 per cent for special services, 9 per cent for programs in single subject areas, and 9 per cent for programs involving administration and personnel, and 9 per cent in miscellaneous. Among the many outstanding Title III programs are an underwater classroom to study marine biology, in Sarasota, Fla.; a life simulator 128 laboratory in Medford, Mass.; a computerized instruction in Boulder, 0010.; a team teaching in Ogden, Utah; an electronic classroom (on Block Island), New Shoreham, R. 1.; and a nongraded organization in Guthrie, Okla. What are major qualitative accomplishments for the first year? Five are outlined here: an extended educational conversation, a rallying point for the dynamic and ambitious, community-school cooperation, grounds for educational improvement, and local enthusiasm. Major Problems 1. Evaluation. 2. The process of change. 3. Relationships among‘PACE and other programs. 4. Personnel. 5. Timing of money. See Figure 10. Dilemmas . Passive recipient versus active solicitor. . Detailed versus general guidelines. . Local needs versus innovativeness. 1 2 3 4. Local needs versus national strategy. 5. Creativity versus continuation. 6. Federal versus State Department control. 7 Supplementary centers versus individual projects. 129 Recommendations Educators need to accept ferment as normal and desirable, seeking only to keep it within manageable bounds. Educators need to develop procedures (strategies) for bringing about effective change. Projects which foster educational metropolitanism should be encouraged-—recruited in some cases. Title III should assist selected major curricular studies in dissemination, demonstration, and implementation of their results and findings. Title III should continue its keen interest in educational technology but in terms of the systems approach to improving education rather than as a separate aspect. All proposals should be carefully read in terms of their relationships to minority groups. Where reasonable question exists as to the applicant's true motives and intentions, additional evidence should be obtained, probably including a site visit. Provisions for individualization should be in- cluded in proposals focusing upon instructional improvement; and where individualization is the main task of the proposal, provisions for its achievement should be spelled out in detail. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 130 Title III should give prime support to well- designed proposals focusing upon ways of achieving organization flexibility. Title III proposals should give more attention to the training (retooling) component that needs to accompany the introduction of many instruc- tional and organization innovations. Community participation should be planned care- fully, with long-term implications clearly in mind. The most effective roles for various community groups need to be carefully considered as does the timing for bringing these forces into play. Educational innovation is a new or different concept, methodology, organization, or program that is systematically introduced into the class- room, school system, and/or the State as a whole. New models for evaluating Title III need to be developed, personifying the "PACE" spirit of innovation and creativity. Every promising proposal of $150,000 per year or over should receive a 1-day field visit by two educators from outside the Federal Govern- ment. An expanded and intensified focus on carefully planned and conducted dissemination activities 15. 16. l7. 18. 19. 20. 21. 131 should be developed for PACE. To facilitate this, a national center on diseemination and implementation should be established; it should be closely related to OE Title III division but with independent status. OE Title III office should commission the preparation of a paper on the process of edu- cational change. Title III and Title IV should be closely related both at the local and federal levels. Title I and Title 111 should systematically ex— plore ways of working together at the local- state-federal levels to achieve greater impact. A national study should be made of how and where various Federal educational programs could profit from closer cooperation. Every effort should be made to creatively utilize the skills of title III project directors. The uniqueness and ultimate strength of Title III rests upOn the extent to which it keeps innovativeness and creativity central in its operations. State departments of education should receive a 4 per cent allocation of the overall Title III appropriations for (1) development, stimu- lation, and dissemination, and for (2) adminis- tration of the title. 132 22. Responsibility for direction and administration of Title III should remain in the OE. 23. Classroom teachers should be able to receive indiVidual grants under $10,000 for inno- vative and creative projects. 24. Centers for educational improvement should focus upon "process" dimensions of education. 25. Title III and other OE officials should tell the story of change and innovation in American education through PACE.l lRichard I. Miller, Catalynt for Change,nA National Study of ESEA Title III (PACE) (Washington, D. C.: United States Office of Education, 1967), pp. 25-95. 133 5 :1: i i Ln 35 cu lN) -‘ — f—wl, - - -— eMEETs NEEO Ne— A 1.. IOENTIFIES NEED w i——- ~ ---—-- - -~ QUALITY OF PILOT PROJECT } I 3’ a ?— --. _ - —I DOCUMENTS NEED 2: m F—“f -— — --——I' EXTENT INNOVATIVE , 3 P : j: e. 8e -- EXTENT EXEMPLARY 5'1 t 3 1) -4 (3 - g: ' 25 A a :0 u F5” - ~3~ SUPPLEMENTS REGULAR PROGRAM ; :3 7 z :2 ; m on F3? 5:" COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 1° ‘ > 1 a; z > EDI—3g- ‘ - g" INFORMED OF SIMILAR PROGRAMS 9 ' o I 2 E 3 [—5. , g. ADEQUACY OF STAFF I I I . 3 L— - , ADEQUACY OF FACILITIES l I :3 I———I ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY ; »—-——1 I INVOLVEMENT OF CLIENTELE 3- ‘ PROVISION FOR EVALUATION 5:1 PROVISION FOR DISSEMINATION Figure lO.--Pace-Average Ratings on Evaluation Criteria Source: Richard I. Miller (ed.). Catalyst for Change: A National Study of ESEA TItle III (PACE) (Washington, D.C.: United States Office of Education, 1967), p. 35. APPENDIX B MAJOR FORCES, INADEQUACIES, AND PROBLEMS FACING TITLE III IN ITS EVALUATION IN 1967 134 135 Major Forces Increasing costs of education. Increasing complexity of education. Greater number of alternatives. Accelerating rate of obsolescence. Massive federal support. Greater concern about individualized learning. Greater use of academic findings from outside professional education. Greater assistance from outside professional education. Increased importance of education. Present Inadequacies Difficulty of judging education. Fear of evaluation. Confusing action with accomplishment. Inadequate evaluative techniques. Inadequate teacher preparation. Shortage of qualified specialists. Major Problems Lack of understanding of behaviorial objectives. Evaluation not related to objectives. Best evaluation procedures are not chosen. Evaluative procedures are not closely related to activities. 136 5. Consultants are not used to develop evaluation procedures. 6. Schools do not request money for evaluation as part of their proposals.2 2Richard 1. Miller, Evaluation and Pace. Washington, D. C.: United States Office of Education, 1968. APPENDIX C TITLE III TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 137 TITLE III TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Name of program/project How many meetings did you attend which were related to the program/project? Did you participate in planning the program/project? Yes D No D How many meetings, if any, did vou attend which were related to planning the program/project? On what was the main emphasis placed during the program/project? Please check one. l. Mainly on subject matter. 2. Mostly on subject matter but partly on teacher growth. 3. About half on subject matter and half on teacher growth. 4. Mostly on teacher growth but partly on subject matter. DUE] CH3 5. Mainly on teacher growth. Were you paid to participate in the program/project? YESD NOD If yes, to what extent did the fact that you were to be paid influence you to participate? (check one) To no extent To a small extent To some extent To a large extent To a very large extent DECIDE] Choose the appropriate response and put the number Of that reSponse in the right hand column. Please respond to all items. (The terms program and project, as used below are synonynmous.) Resgonse ngy: l To no extent 2. To a small extent 3. To some extent 4 To a large extent 5 To a very large extent l. To what extent is the program accepted by teachers, both those involved in it and those who are not? 2. To what extent will the effects of the program have lasting value? 3. To what extent do you value the entire program? 4. To what extent have old ideas been replaced by new ideas in the school or community setting because of the program? 5. How much would you change the program if it were to continue or if there were another like it? 6. To what extent is the program worth the amount Of money being spent on it? 7. To what extent do you believe this program meets the educational needs of the students? 8. To what extent do you believe this program meets the educational and professional needs of the teachers? 9. To what extent was time spent planning the program? l0. To what extent was the planning valuable which went into the program? ll. To what extent is planning being done during the operation of the program? l2. How much did the way the program was planned promote general support of the program? l3. How much did the way the program was planned improve school staff morale? l4. To what extent was the planning process efficiently organized? l5. To what extent did strategies (tactics to gain support) result from the planning process? 2 Response Me = l6. l7. IS. 19. 20. Zl. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. To no extent To a small extent TO some extent To a large extent To a very large extent MahQJN-d TO what extent did you consider other kinds of programs/projects instead of the present program/project? To what extent were long-range plans a consideration of the planning process? To what extent would you have done similar planning if it had been your responsibility? TO what extent were the people qualified who did the planning of the program? To what extent did the program help you to better understand yourself? To what extent was the program valuable to you as an individual? To what extent did the program help you to better understand students and work with them? How much did the program help you to feel more a part of the school? To what extent did the program cause you to improve your communication with others? How much did the program help you to become more involved and more dedicated to the teaching profession? How much did the program help you in terms of your own problems or interest? How much did the program help you build self- confidence? How much are you doing things differently because of the program?‘ How much do you plan to do things differently because of the program? How much did the program contribute to your knowledge and skills as a teacher? Response Key: TO no extent 3l. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 4l. 42. 43. 44. To a small extent TO some extent To a large extent To a very large extent U'I-bCAJN—l How much did you participate in the planning of the program? ‘ To what extent was the decision-making related to the program done by someone, other than yourself? TO what extent did you attend the planning meetings? How much did you help in selecting the personnel who were to lead or instruct the program? TO what extent did you contribute to the school decision to take part in the program? To what extent were you informed of the progress of plans for the program? To what extent did you get written information requesting your reaction or help in the planning process? To what extent was it a voluntary decision as to whether you would participate in the program? To what extent did members of the administration encourage you to participate? TO what extent were personnel from outside the school system used in planning the program? To what extent were personnel from outside the school system used as speakers or consultants for the program? To what extent were personnel from outside the school system acting as leaders in the program? TO what extent did the idea(s) for the program originate with teachers? To what extent did the program agree with the thinking of teachers? nrcHIan STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES Ill1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 31293101902884