MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beIow. all]... 4 . ‘_“nma A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF PERCEIVED PROFESSIONAL BENEFITS DERIVED FROM TEACHER INVOLVEMENT IN THE KENT PROFESSIONAL STAFF DEVELOPMENT CENTER, WITH A VIEW TOWARD DEVELOPING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IN-SERVICE EDUCATION IN SAUDI ARABIA By Abduihakeem Mousa Mubarak A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfiIIment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1982 flu £5: name 0/04“ t5: most maxi/Jane! tgz moat gmficiznt ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF PERCEIVED PROFESSIONAL BENEFITS DERIVED FROM TEACHER INVOLVEMENT IN THE KENT PROFESSIONAL STAFF DEVELOPMENT CENTER, WITH A VIEW TOWARD DEVELOPING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IN-SERVICE EDUCATION IN SAUDI ARABIA By Abdulhakeem Mousa Mubarak The present study had two major purposes: (l) to examine the extent to which teachers are involved in the four governance processes of the Kent Professional Staff Development Center (KPSDC), namely, (a) needs assessment, (b) planning, (c) implementation, and (d) the policy board; and (2) to examine the teachers' perceptions of ways in which the in-service education provided by the teachers' center affects the teachers' classroom instruction. Furthermore, the researcher expected to be able to generate some recommendations regarding teachers' centers and in-service education in Saudi Arabia. A survey of members of the KPSDC in Grand Rapids, Michigan, was conducted to gather information about the teachers' involvement in the activities and offerings of their center, as well as their percep- tions of the benefits derived from this participation. It was concluded that (l) the involvement in the various gov- ernance committees is relatively low and appears to be related prin- cipally to the level of the respondent's education, such that the more education members have, the more involved they tended to be in the Abdulhakeem Mousa Mubarak governance processes. (2) Additionally, the higher the education, the more benefits are perceived as deriving from participation in the center's activities, and (3) with increased involvement in the govern— ance processes, the activities offered by the center are perceived as more beneficial. (4) Of the programs offered, workshops and lectures are most frequented by the respondents, are considered most helpful, and see most application in the classroom. (5) Activities having topics dealing with personal growth and the improvement of instruc- tional skills are the ones most frequented, and (6) specific benefits of the participation in the center's activities are related to "learn- ing from others," personal growth, and learning new teaching styles. Copyright by ABDULHAKEEM MOUSA MUBARAK 1982 To the memory of my parents, as well as to Al-Sheik Yaquab Y. Shaker. To my wife, Laila, and to my children, Wael, Alaa, and Manar, for their love and support. To my father-in-law and his brothers, who encouraged me with their love and prayers. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The design and execution of this study depended on and received the help and cooperation of many individuals. Although all deserve my appreciation and thanks, it will be difficult to remember them all. Special gratitude and appreciation are extended to Dr. Charles A. Blackman, the chairman of the doctoral committee, for his continuous assistance, encouragement, understanding, and limitless patience. The writer is grateful to the other members of the disserta- tion committee: Dr. Ben A. Bohnhorst, Dr. Patrick DeMarte, and Dr. Howard Hickey, for their cooperation, time, and contributions to the study. Without the help and cooperation of the Kent Professional Staff Development Center, this work would not have been possible: Barbara Bird, the director; Dr. George McMahon, consultant; Arlene Lanford, secretary; and the many KPSDC linkers between the center and the school districts. Important assistance was received from the participants of Dr. Blackman's informal group for professional development, as well as from Dr. Robert C. Hatfield, through their thoughtful comments while thinking through my thesis. Special thanks go to Danford Austin and Ronald Crowell for their helpful suggestions. Likewise, I want to thank Dr. Hartmut GUnther for his assistance with the statistical analysis of the data. iv Last but not least, I want to acknowledge the moral and mate- rial support of many friends who knew me before I even thought of undertaking graduate work, and thank them for their confidence, encouragement, and support along this long path. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................... ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ..................... l Background of the Study ............... l The Concept of the Teachers' Center ......... 3 Statement of Purpose ................ 4 Research Questions ................. 5 Importance of the Study ............... 6 Assumptions Underlying the Study .......... ll Limitations ..................... 12 Definition of Terms ................. l2 Overview ...................... l3 11. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............. l4 Introduction .................... 14 Definition of In-service Education ......... 15 The Importance of In-service Education ....... l6 The Purposes of In-service Education ........ l7 Types of In-service Education ............ l8 Characteristics of Successful In-service Education . 20 The Teachers' Center as an Important Aspect of Professional Development (In-service Education) . . 22 What Is a Teachers' Center? ............ 22 Why Teachers' Centers? .............. 23 Teachers' Involvement and Adult Learning Concepts . 25 Importance of Teachers' Involvement in Needs Assessment ................... 28 Importance of Teachers' Involvement in Planning and Designing Activities of the Center ..... 3O Importance of Teachers' Involvement in Implemen- tation of the Activities ............ 3l The Kent Professional Staff Development Center . . . 32 Purposes of the Center .............. 32 Goals of the Center ................ 32 Staff of the Center ................ 33 The Policy Board ................. 33 Local District Linkers .............. 34 Summary ....................... 34 III. IV. FINDINGS RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE .............. Introduction ..................... Research Questions .................. Population and Sample of the Study .......... The Survey Instrument ................. Demographic Data .................. Procedure and Data Collection ............. Data-Analysis Method ................. Introduction ..................... Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents Professional Background ............... Educational Background ............... Teachers' Involvement in the Needs-Assessment Process . Simple Frequency Distributions ........... Membership on the Needs-Assessment Committee Reasons for Noninvolvement in Needs Assessment Intention to Continue Involvement in the Needs- Assessment Process ................ Teachers' Involvement in the Planning Process ..... Simple Frequency Distributions ........... Membership on the Planning Committee ........ Degree of Involvement in the Planning Process . . . . Reasons for Noninvolvement in the Planning Process Intention to Continue Involvement in the Planning Process ...................... Teachers' Involvement in Implementation of Programs . . Simple Frequency Distributions ........... Membership on Implementation Committee ....... Degree of Involvement in Implementation ....... Teachers' Involvement in Governance Processes ..... Membership on Governance Committees ......... Number of Past or Present Committee Memberships . . . Participation in KPSDC Activities ........... Simple Frequencies ................. Benefits Received From KPSDC ............. Simple Frequencies ................. Number of Benefits Derived ............. Number of Benefits Derived and Involvement in Governance .................... Suggestions for More Meaningful and Useful Programs . . vii Page 36 Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ 123 Summary ........................ 123 Summary of the Findings ............... 124 Conclusions ...................... 130 Recommendations .................... 130 Recommendations for Further Research ........ 130 Recommendations for KPSDC .............. 131 Recommendations for In-Service Education in Saudi Arabia ................... 132 APPENDICES ........................... 136 A. QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTERS ............. 137 B. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF RESPONDENTS ............. 147 C. SCHOOL OF RESPONDENTS .................. 149 D. NUMBER OF YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE ......... 152 E. UNDERGRADUATE FIELD OF STUDY .............. 154 F. UNDERGRADUATE INSTITUTION ................ 156 G. GRADUATE FIELD OF STUDY ................. 158 H. YEAR OF BIRTH ...................... 160 I. RESPONSES TO OPEN—ENDED QUESTION: SUGGESTIONS FOR MORE MEANINGFUL AND USEFUL PROGRAMS ............ 163 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... 178 viii Table tooowcnmbwm —‘ d —J o O . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. LIST OF TABLES School Level Taught ................... Subject Matter Taught .................. Highest Degree Held ................... Type of Teaching Certificate .............. Sex of Respondent .................... Membership on Needs-Assessment Committee ........ Types of Needs—Assessment Processes Known ........ Involvement in Needs-Assessment Processes ........ Reasons for Not Being Involved in Needs Assessment Intention to Continue in the Needs-Assessment Process . . . Membership on the Needs-Assessment Committee and School Level Taught ..................... Membership on Needs-Assessment Committee and Subject Area Taught ...................... Membership on Needs-Assessment Committee and Highest Degree Held ...................... Membership on Needs-Assessment Committee and Type of Teaching Certificate ................. Membership on Needs-Assessment Committee and Sex of Respondent ...................... Membership on Needs-Assessment Committee and Years of Experience ..................... Reasons for Noninvolvement and School Level Taught Reasons for Noninvolvement and Subject Area Taught ix Page 45 46 47 48 48 49 50 51 51 52 53 54 55 55 56 57 '58 59 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Reasons for Noninvolvement and Highest Degree Held ..... Reasons for Noninvolvement and Teaching Certificate Reasons for Noninvolvement and Sex of Respondent ...... Reasons for Noninvolvement and Years of Teaching Experience ........................ Intention to Continue Involvement and School Level Taught Intention to Continue Involvement and Subject Area Taught Intention to Continue Involvement and Highest Degree Held Intention to Continue Involvement and Teaching Certificate . Intention to Continue Involvement and Sex of Respondent Intention to Continue Involvement and Years of Teaching Experience ........................ Membership on Planning Committee .............. Participation in Particular Planning Activities ...... Total Number of Planning Activities in Which Respondents Participated ....................... Reasons for Noninvolvement With Planning .......... Intention to Continue Involvement in the Planning Process Membership on Planning Committee and School Level Taught . . Membership on Planning Committee and Subject Area Taught . . Membership on Planning Committee and Highest Degree Held . . Membership on Planning Committee and Type of Teaching Certificate ....................... Membership on Planning Committee and Sex of Respondent . . . Membership on Planning Committee and Years of Teaching Experience ........................ Degree of Involvement With Planning and School Level Taught .......................... X Page 60 6O 61 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 68 68 69 7O 7O 71 72 72 73 74 75 76 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. Degree of Involvement With Planning and Subject Area Taught .......................... Degree of Involvement With Planning and Highest Degree Held ........................... Degree of Involvement With Planning and Type of Teaching Certificate Held ..................... Degree of Involvement With Planning and Sex of Respondent Reasons for Noninvolvement in Planning and School Level Taught .......................... Reasons for Noninvolvement in Planning and Subject Area Taught .......................... Reasons for Noninvolvement in Planning and Highest Degree Held ....................... Reasons for Noninvolvement in Planning and Type of Teaching Certificate ....................... Reasons for Noninvolvement in Planning and Sex of Respondent ........................ Reasons for Noninvolvement in Planning and Years of Teaching Experience ................... Intention to Continue Involvement in Planning and School Level Taught ....................... Intention to Continue Involvement in Planning and Subject Area Taught ................... Intention to Continue Involvement in Planning and Highest Degree Held ....................... Intention to Continue Involvement in Planning and Type of Teaching Certificate ................. Intention to Continue Involvement in Planning and Sex of Respondent ...................... Intention to Continue Involvement in Planning and Years of Experience Teaching .................. Membership on Implementation Committee ........... xi Page 76 77 78 79 80 80 81 82 83 83 84 85 86 86 87 88 89 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. Degree of Involvement in Implementation .......... Membership on Implementation Committee and School Level Taught .......................... Membership on Implementation Committee and Subject Area Taught .......................... Membership on Implementation Committee and Highest Degree Held ........................... Membership on Implementation Committee and Type of Teaching Certificate ....................... Membership on Implementation Committee and Sex of Respondent ........................ Membership on Implementation Committee and Years of Teaching Experience ................... Degree of Involvement in Implementation and School Level Taught ....................... Degree of Involvement in Implementation and Subject Area Taught .......................... Degree of Involvement in Implementation and Highest Degree Held ....................... Degree of Involvement in Implementation and Type of Teaching Certificate ................... Degree of Involvement in Implementation and Sex of Respondent ........................ Membership on Governance Committees ............ Number of Current Committee Memberships .......... Number of Past or Present Committee Memberships ...... Number of Committee Memberships and School Level Taught Number of Committee Memberships and Subject Area Taught Number of Committee Memberships and Highest Degree Held Number of Committee Memberships and Type of Teaching Certificate ....................... Page 90 91 92 92 93 94 94 95 96 97 98 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. Number of Committee Memberships and Sex of Respondent Participation in KPSDC Activities ............. Topics of Activities .................... Comparison of the Relative Participation in Activities With Various Topics ................... Ever Requested Help? .................... Benefits Derived From KPSDC ................ Number of Benefits Mentioned ................ Number of Benefits Derived by School Level Taught ..... Number of Benefits Derived by Subject Area Taught ..... Number of Benefits Derived by Highest Degree Held ..... Number of Benefits Derived by Type of Teaching Certificate . Mean Number of Benefits Derived by Sex of Respondent . . . . Number of Benefits Derived by Involvement in Needs- Assessment Processes ................... Number of Benefits Derived by Participation in the Planning Process ..................... Number of Benefits Derived by Participation in Implemen- tation .......................... Number of Benefits Derived by Participation on Policy Board .......................... Committee Membership and Number of Benefits Derived Suggestions for the Improvement of Kent PSDC Programs xiii Page 105 107 108 109 110 111 112 112 113 114 114 115 116 117 118 119 119 121 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Study The inadequacies of in-service education have been well documented in many professional journals and speeches. Edelfelt and Lawrence described the present status of in-service education as follows: In-service teacher education today bears a close resemblance to the concepts that have shaped it historically. It is usually required of teachers. Content and approach are prescribed by universities and school districts. Course credits are mandated by state department regulations and school district policies. Although intentions have usually been good, too often programs are low level, piecemeal, and patchwork. Teachers achieve advanced degrees, credits for salary increments, and higher levels of certification, but the effort yields too little in the improve- ment of teaching or school program. In fact, in-service education does not often deal directly with helping teachers improve their skills in instruction or become more adept at planning and organiz- ing curriculum. In school district programs, the focus is on introducing new curriculums, beefing up existing programs, or following new’fads and trends, typically at the supervisor's dis- cretion. In formal graduate work, study is largely divorced from the specifics of the teacher's job. In-service education takes place on the teacher's own time and frequently at her or his expense. It is seldom based on teacher need and is often con- ducted in a manner‘that negates the pr1nciples of good teaching and learning. Howey and Willie indicated educators' dissatisfaction with current in-service education practice. They wrote, "Public school ___,,,,, ‘# 1Roy Edelfelt and Gordon Lawrence, "In-service Education: The State of the Art, " in Rethinkin In-service Education, ed. Roy Edelfelt and Margo Johnson (Washington, .C.: ., National Education Association, 1975),p "~ in-service training has more than a century of history, yet there is ll.I considerable dissatisfaction over current practice. Perhaps the dissatisfaction with current practice has evolved because there is a gap between in-service education programs and the critical problems of the schools. According to Goodlad, Our study of sixty-seven elementary schools in the United States revealed a formidable gap between the inservice educa- tional pursuits of teachers and the critical problems of the schools as identified in interviews with principals and teachers. Edelfelt and Lawrence also noted some of the deficiencies of in-service education. They concluded their article by saying, In summary, in-service education has been the weakest and most haphazard component of teacher education, Even the most charitable would have to admit that it has not been nearly as effective as it might have been, considering the expenditure of time, effort, and resources. However, to say that in-service education has been inadequate is not to say that teachers can or want to do without itf During the 1974-75 schodl year, the NEA conducted assessments of teacher needs in instruction and profes- sional development in 18 local school districts that were repre- sentative of the country in terms of size, geographical location, types of clients served, and urban/suburban/rural setting. Inade- quacy of or interest in in-service education was one of three categories of concern to surface in ev single district. The positive conclusion to be drawn from his ' formation is that teachers want quality in-service eduéation; they also recognize a significagt discrepancy between\what exists and what they would like. 1Kenneth Howey and Reynold Willie, "A Missing Link in School Renewal: The Program and Staff Development Specialist," Journal of Teacher Education 28 (March-April 1977): 20. 2John Goodlad, "The Reconstruction of Teacher Education," Teachers College Record 72 (September 1970): 65. 3Edelfelt and Lawrence, "In-service Education," p. 16. ————— The Concept of the Teachers' Center In the 1970s, the concept of teachers' centers emerged as a new hope for the professional development (in-service education) of teachers. Waskin stated, "The nature of Teachers' Centers now in existence seems to indicate that much of the renewal or in-service education of teachers might well become the responsibility of the teacher center."1 The uniqueness of the teachers' center concept for professional development has attracted the attention of educators in Europe as well as in the United States. The idea spread to the United States from England in 1971. Reports began coming to the United States from England telling about the establishing of "Teachers' Centers" for in- service education. One significant article by Stephen K. Bailey in the Phi Delta Kappan in November of 1971, entitled, "Teachers' Centers: A British First," was widely read in this country and is credited with igniting the spark that set many educators scurrying to establish their own teacher centers. It was esti- mated that within several months after the appearance of Bailey's article, almost 100 centers were already in operation in the United States.2 Schmieder and Yarger described the rapid development of teachers' centers: The teacher or teaching center is one of the hottest educa- tional concepts on the scene today . . . and that is no mean compliment, given the rapid ascendancy of career education, competency-based education, the open classroom, schools and universities without walls, and a myriad of other outstanding new education alternatives. It has been generally estimated 1Yvonne Waskin, "The Teachers' Center Movement in the United States and Its Implications for Teacher Education" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1976), p. 1. 21bid. that it takes over twenty years for a new innovation to work its way into the mainstream of American education. It has taken less than half a decade for the teaching center to become a well known locus for new approaches to educational personnel development. The teachers' center is a powerful aspect of in-service edu- cation because its fundamental purpose is to involve teachers more directly in their own professional development. In addition, the teachers' center facilitates the sharing of classroom experiences and links teachers with new research findings and other important educa- tional developments that may have implications for what they do in the classroom.2 Teachers come to the teachers' center to share new ideas and to seek new ways to teach their students; hence all participants in teachers' centers should be both learners and teachers. "The center should focus on needs as perceived by teachers, and the teachers should have the major voice in identifying persons and resources for meeting these needs."3 Statement of Purpose The researcher had two major purposes in conducting this study: (1) to examine the extent to which teachers are involved in needs assessment, planning, and implementation of the teachers' center activi- ties and (2) to examine teachers' perceptions of the ways in which the 1Allen Schmieder and Sam Yarger, "Teacher/Teacher Centering in America," Journal of Teacher Education 25 (Spring 1974): 5. 2Allen Schmeider and Charles Lovett, "Teacher Centering for Ongoing In-service Education," Action in Teacher Education 2 (Spring 1980 : 1-7. 3 Ibid., p. 3. in-service education provided by teachers' centers affects teachers' classroom instruction. The investigator also intended to generate recommendations for in-service teacher education in Saudi Arabia. The locale for the study was the Kent Professional Staff Development Center, located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This Center was chosen because it serves a variety of sizes of school districts and a socioeconomic cross-section of community types. Access to the Center was readily available to the researcher. Research Questions This was a descriptive study. The investigator posed the following research questions in an attempt to generate the informa- tion needed to fulfill the purposes of the study: 1. To what extent are teachers involved in the needs- assessment process? 2. To what extent are teachers involved in the planning process? 3. To what extent are teachers involved in the developing and implementing processes? 4. To what extent are teachers involved in committees deal- ing with the governance of the teachers' center? 5. In what types of activities of the Kent Professional Staff Development Center (KPSDC) do the teachers participate? 6. What benefits did the teachers perceive in the activities/ programs offered by the teachers' center? 7. Is there any relationship between active involvement in the committees and perceived benefit from the activities offered by the Center? 8. What recommendations can be generated from this study for in-service teacher education in Saudi Arabia? Importance of the Study Edelfelt and Johnson defined in-service education of teachers as "any professional development activity that a teacher undertakes singly or with other teachers after receiving her or his initial teaching certificate and after beginning professional practice."1 In-service education is important because it is designed to serve the needs of teachers and to improve their teaching. Mangieri and McWilliams described the scope of in-service education as follows: "By in-service education we mean all activi- ties engaged in by professional personnel during their service and designed to contribute to improvement on the job.“2 Dissatisfaction with current in-service education has grown in recent years. In a 1974 study conducted by Brimm and Tollett, .-‘ 73 percent of the teachers surveyed said that in-service activities often <11 d not seem,.,_re1e_vant.-..to”teashezé{Jessie-3 1Roy Edelfelt and Margo Johnson, "Introduction," in Rethink- ing In-Service Education, ed. Roy Edelfelt and Margo Johnson (Washing- ton, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975), p. 5. 2John Mangieri and David McWilliams, "Designing an Effective In—Service Program," Journal of Teacher Education 27 (Summer 1976). 3Jack L. Brimm and Daniel J. Tollett, "How 00 Teachers Feel About In—service Education?" Educational Leadership Research Supple- ment (March 1974): 523. o/ Van Fleet noted that although needs-assessment teachers' center programs supposedly are directed toward teachers' expressed needs, these needs must be assessed. He found that most centers started programs without understanding the problems involved in 1 needs assessment. In addition, Traditionally, in-service education has been prescribed for teachers by others. Psychology supports the notion that learn- ing is optimum when what is learned satisfies the needs of the learner. There is also research evidence that teacher involve- ment is crucial in change projects if success is to be expected.2 The preceding paragraphs indicate the lack of involvement of teachers in needs assessment and in planning in-service education activities. They also point out that to have successful in—service education, teachers must be involved in these processes. Much litera- ture and some research have indicated that teachers' centers do, in fact, offer a valuable alternative to in-service education for public- school teachers because they actively involve the participants in their activities. As Schmieder and Lovett said, "The fundamental pur- pose of the teachers' center is to involve teachers more directly in their own professional development and to support their efforts to provide the best possible education for their students."3 Most of the persons on policy boards in teachers' centers are teachers because this "may give teachers the dominant influence 1Alanson A. Van Fleet, "Teacher Centers in Florida: A Case Study," School Review 85 (May 1977): 420. 2Farwest Teacher Corps Network, In—service Education: Criteria for Local Programs (Bellingham: ‘Western Washington State CollegeIPress, 1976), p. 11. 3Schmieder and Lovett, "Teacher Centering for Ongoing In-service Education," p. 3. in developing the program of a teachers' center. That is, it mgy_be that teacher needs are assessed accurately and that the program grows from these assessed needs."1 The present study was undertaken as a means of confirming this claim and of seeing to what extent teachers are involved in need assessment and in planning, designing, and implementing in- service education activities. A study of whether teachers' centers are a good alternative to having in-service education is important because "few research efforts have been undertaken to determine the types of in-service programs which would be most beneficial to teachers."2 The inadequacies of in-service education in Saudi Arabia have recently been expressed by several Saudi researchers, although Saudi educational authorities have often stressed the importance of in-service education because they believe such education is a con- tinuous process in providing quality education to public-school students. Al-Ghamdi cited two articles from the educational policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (published in 1970) that deal with the professional development of Saudi teachers:3 1Roy Edelfelt, "Federally Funded Teacher Centers: What Will They Become?" Action in Teacher Education 2 (Spring 1980): 19. 2Brimm and Tollett, "How Do Teachers Feel About In—service Education?" p. 521. 3Abdulrahim M. Al-Ghamdi, "The Professional Development of In-service Teachers in Saudi Arabia" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1982), p. 17. Article 170: Teacher training is a continuous operation. A plan is set up to train and rehabilitate professionally dis- qualified ones, and another plan is set up to re-orient and improve the standards of qualified ones. Article 171: Teachers are given every opportunity to pursue academic training that qualifies them for higher posts in their fields of specialty. In response to these articles, a one-year development program was established at Umm-al-Qura University and King Saud University to provide public-school principals with an opportunity for professional development that is supposed to increase their skills, knowledge, and personal growth. These programs started in 1972. Hariri wrote, "These programs have retrained 731 elementary and 388 intermediate and secondary school principals."1 To indicate that the present training programs are less than adequate, Hariri cited Al-Zaid's findings: "Al-Zaid's study sup- ported the fact that the present training programs were less than adequate."2 Al-Ghamdi expressed very clearly the dissatisfaction with current in-service education practices in Saudi Arabia: It should be mentioned here that the Ministry of Education, in cooperation with the two major universities, has on-going programs to upgrade school administrators' skills and knowl- edge. These programs may not have been planned carefully and may not have been based on the needs of the participants. According to MOE (1980, p. 293), in-service training of teach- ers and headmasters was conducted with moderate success. In fact, many of those who have participated in in-service activi- ties have expressed to this researcher their dissatisfaction 1Hashim Hariri, "School Climate, Competency and Training of Principals in Intermediate.Sehools in\Saudi Arabia"’(Ed.D. disserta- tion, University of Northern Colorado, 1982), p. 14. ‘ ’ *"""“ ;§ée 21bid., p. 15. 10 with the programs, but said it was a good source of income, since they are paid to attend. The preceding paragraphs indicate the following facts: 1. There is a sincere intention among the educational authorities in the Ministry of Education and educators in major uni- versities to provide the teachers and school personnel in Saudi Arabia with professional-development activities that lead them to gain instructional skills, knowledge, and personal growth. 2. The Ministry of Education provides the teachers and school principals with released time and allowances to attend in-service activities. 3. Despite the aforementioned efforts, the current practice of in-service education is ineffective, as the studies of Hariri and Al-Ghamdi indicated. Al-Ghamdi tried to explain why in-service activities in Saudi Arabia are ineffective or inadequate. He said: Despite recognition of the importance of in-service training by the Saudi educational authorities, in-service activities afforded educational personne1—-and specifically teachers--seem to lack direction, organization, and careful planning. In-service pro- gram activities appeared to be planned and conducted without forethought, as revealed in the interviews obtained by this researcher with some Saudi educational authorities. The same interviews also exposed that the participants' needs for whom in-service training activities are planned were not systematically assessed.2 Such needs, therefore, may have not been adequately realized. 1Al—Ghamdi, "Professional Development of In-service Teachers," p. 18. 21bid., pp. 145-46. 11 In 1971, the concept of teachers' centers for in-service edu- cation came from England to the United States. In the last decade, this concept has spread very fast because it has been thought to be successful. The teachers' center concept may be used to alleviate the in-service education problem in Saudi Arabia. Although Saudi Arabia has a different social structure, culture, religion, and edu- cation from the United States, it does not mean that Saudi Arabia cannot adapt and adopt the methods and concepts that have been used to tackle a problem common to both countries. Assumptions Underlying the Study The assumptions underlying this study were as follows: 1. "Learning to teach and maintaining competence to teach is a continuous, never-ending process,"1 and the continued growth in knowledge and skills of all teachers is a legitimate concern of school districts. This concern may be satisfied by providing in-service education for school personnel, which improves their job-related com- petencies and prepares them for new professional roles. 2. Teachers' centers are a very important aspect of in-service education and have been very successful in this process. 3. The role of teachers in the teachers' center activities is a major one because the teachers themselves are involved in plan- ning and executing these activities. "If a central purpose of 0 0 O O O O 2 1n-serv1ce educat1on 15 school 1mprovement, teachers must be 1nvolved." 1Farwest Teacher Corps Network, In-service Education, p. 16. 21m. 12 One of the inadequacies of in-service education is the lack of teacher involvement in planning and executing the activities, but in teachers' centers, teachers play positive and active roles. Limitations The study outcomes may be limited by the following: 1. The nature of the sampling process, including the proce- dures used to identify respondents. 2. The degree of understanding of the respondents concerning what "being involved" means. Definition of Terms To avoid semantic confusion or ambiguity in interpreting this study, the following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this dissertation. Coordinator or director: As used in this study, the coordi- nator or director is "the person who is in charge of the organization and operation of the teacher center."1 In-service education: In-service education comprises the training programs or activities that help teachers maintain or improve their status within the profession. Teachers engage in these activities after they receive their teaching certificates and begin their professional practice. Professional development: According to the Michigan Depart- ment of Education, professional development is "a planned and organized 1Waskin, "The Teachers' Center Movement in the United States," p. 20. 13 effort to provide teachers and other educational workers with knowledge and skills necessary to facilitate improved student learning and per- formance."1 Teacher center: The teachers' center is a place where teach- ers meet and exchange ideas and experiences. In this center the teachers assess their professional and personal needs, and they plan activities to satisfy these needs with the help of resource personnel. 91m Chapter I contained the background (if the study; an explana- tion of the teachers' center concept; the purposes, importance, and assumptions of the study; and definitions of terms used in the dissertation. Included in Chapter II is a review of related litera- ture on in-service education, the teachers' center as an important aspect of in-service education, and the Kent Professional Staff Development Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The study design and methodology are discussed in Chapter III. Chapter IV contains the analysis of data gathered in the study. Findings, conclusions, and recommendations may be found in Chapter V. 1Michigan Department of Education, Office of Professional Development, "Professional Development for School Staffs: The Michigan Approach" (Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, n.d.). CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction Every nation wants to provide a high quality of education for its young people because the country's future depends on them. To provide high-quality education, educators must prepare qualified teachers who will help achieve the nation's educational objectives and goals. Educators in preservice institutions have done their best to prepare teachers, but certain forces require the continuity of the preparation process throughout a teacher's lifetime. Johnson said, "Three types of forces are making inservice education essential: social and economic, scientific and technological, and educa- tional."1 Although there are some differences in the meanings given to in-service teacher education, staff development, and professional development, they have been used synonymously through- out this dissertation. In this chapter, pertinent literature in the following areas is reviewed: (1) definition of in-service education; (2) the impor- tance of in-service_educatign; (3) the purposes, types, and character- \ istics of in-service education; (4) the teachers' center as an important 1Margo Johnson, Inservice Education: Priority for the '805 (Syracuse, N.Y.: National CounCil of States on Inservice Educat1on, 1980), p. 2. 14 15 aspect of in-service education, and (5) the Kent Professional Staff Development Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Definition of In-service Education A number of educators have described the characteristics and purposes of in-service education. Some of these definitions are the following: Harris, Bessent, and McIntyre described in-service education as the "planned activities for the instructional improvement of pro- fessional staff members."1 According to Cane, in-service training includes "all those courses and activities in which a serving teacher may participate for the purpose of extending his professional knowledge, interest or skill. Preparation for a degree, diploma or other qualifi- cation subsequent to initial training is included within this defini- tion."2 Johnston stated that in-service education may consist of carefully planned, sustained work over a lengthy period leading to a further qualification in the form of an advanced certificate, diploma, or higher degree; it may equally well be casual study, pursued irregularly in the evenings or during vacations, and in no sense leading to mgasurable recog- nition for purposes of salary or of promotion. _,,,~ 1Ben M. Harris, Wailand Bessent, and Kenneth E. McIntyre, In-service Education: A Guide to Better Practice (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969), p. 2. 2Brian Cane, In-service Training: A Study of Teachers' Views »/”"and Preferences, Occasional Publication Series No. 22 (London: National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, 1969 , p. x. ' 3D. J. Johnston, Teachers' In—service Education (New York: Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1971), p. 9. 16 Dillon-Peterson defined staff development as "a process designed to foster personal and professional growth for individuals within a respectful, supportive, positive organizational climate having as its ultimate aim better learning for students and continuous, responsible self-renewal for educators and schools."1 The Importance of In-service Education No one would deny the importance of in-service education for school personnel. Burrello and Orbaugh stated, "We believe inservice education is an absolute necessity if schools are to develop their most important resource, their people."2 Research has indicated that there is a correlation between staff development and organization development; this means that whenever in-service education is provided for school personnel, the schools can provide better learning for students because in-service training programs can be tied into the day-to-day development of instructional materials and programs, can serve the peribdic and special needs of educators, can be employed for purposes of exposure to new equipment and materials and can be used to bring teachers and administrators/teachers and teachers/ administrators and administrators together for purposes of social interaction/group training or the exchange of ideas and experi— ences. 1Betty Dillon-Peterson, "Staff Development/Organization Develop- ment--Perspective 1981," in Staff Development/Organization Development, ed. Betty Dillon-Peterson (Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981), p. 3. 2Leonard Burrello and Tim Orbaugh, "Reducing the Discrepancy Between the Known and the Unknown in In-service Education," Phi Delta Kappan 63 (February 1982): 385. 3Richard O. Peters, "Affecting Teacher Awareness and Attitudes: An Inservice Program Strategy for Rural Schools" (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 114 225, 1975), p. 4. in-servi 1. tion is 17 Harris, Bessent, and McIntyre identified four reasons why ce education is important. These are: Pre-service preparation of professional staff members is rarely ideal and may be primarily an introduction to pro- fessional preparation rather than professional preparation as such. Social and educational change makes current professional practices obsolete or relatively ineffective in a very short period of time. This applies to methods and techniques, tools, and substantive knowledge itself. Coordination and articulation of instructional practices require changes in people. Even when each instructional staff member is functioning at a highly professional level, employing an optimum number of the most effective practices, such an instructional program might still be relatively uncoordinated from subject to subject and poorly articulated from year to year. Other factors argue for in-service education activities of rather diverse kinds. Morale can be stimulated and main- tained through in-service education and is a contribution to instruction in itself, even if instructional improvement of any dynamic kind does not occur. The Purposes of In-service Education According to Peters, one of the purposes of in-service educa- to provide practicing classroom teachers and building admin- istrators with quality training that N—l mmbw develops their awareness of new practices and techniques. exposes practitioners to the "how-to-do-its" of their profession. provides social interaction situations. allows for the exchange of ideas and experiences. provides the opportunity for skill development/application. provides for exposure to and interaction with new instruc- tional equipment and materials. pp. 3-4. 1Harris, Bessent, and McIntyre, In-service Education, 18 7. directly involves educators in the process of instructional program development. 8. provides the opportunity to use teachers/staff personnel/ administrators as resource people to other educators; using the resource person's expertise and skills in instructional situations. Continuing the education of beginning teachers is another pur- pose of in-service education. Moffitt asserted, Regardless of the quantity and quality of academic education received in a college or university, a teacher new to any given school system needs in-service education. . . . The beginning teacher enters into a strange and completely new situation. For many, it is the first real job the teacher has had, with the responsibilities attached thereto. Everything is strange. Commonly, he is unacquainted with the other teach- ers, the principal, or the administrative or supervisory person- nel. The students are strange, and often the community is one about which he has little knowledge. Types of In-service Education Yarger identified the following five types of in-service education: 1. Job-embedded in-service education is programming that occurs within the context of a teacher‘s fulfilling his/her assigned responsibilities. It is directly related to the provision of skills that can be translated into working with children, developing classroom materials, and/or planning curriculum. 2. Job-related in-service education is programming that is either directly or indirectly related to the provision of skills for the performance of a teacher's primary responsibility of instructing children. It may result in the acquisition of directly applicable skills, or it may provide content that, while not directly applicable, is clearly related. Job- related in-service training does not occur within the context of the instruction of children. 1Peters, "Affecting Teacher Awareness and Attitudes," p. 4. 2John C. Moffitt, In-service Education for Teachers (Washing- ton, D.C.: The Center for AppliedIResearchTin Education, Inc., 1963), p. 6. ,.~ 13 effort to provide teachers and other educational workers with knowledge and skills necessary to facilitate improved student learning and per- formance."1 Teacher center: The teachers' center is a place where teach- ers meet and exchange ideas and experiences. In this center the teachers assess their professional and personal needs, and they plan activities to satisfy these needs with the help of resource personnel. m Chapter I contained the background lrf the study; an explana- tion of the teachers' center concept; the purposes, importance, and assumptions of the study; and definitions of terms used in the dissertation. Included in Chapter II is a review of related litera- ture on in-service education, the teachers' center as an important aspect of in-service education, and the Kent Professional Staff Development Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The study design and methodology are discussed in Chapter III. Chapter IV contains the analysis of data gathered in the study. Findings, conclusions, and recommendations may be found in Chapter V. 1Michigan Department of Education, Office of Professional Development, "Professional Development for School Staffs: The Michigan Approach" (Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, n.d.). CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction Every nation wants to provide a high quality of education for its young people because the country's future depends on them. To provide high—quality education, educators must prepare qualified teachers who will help achieve the nation's educational objectives and goals. Educators in preservice institutions have done their best to prepare teachers, but certain forces require the continuity of the preparation process throughout a teacher's lifetime. Johnson said, "Three types of forces are making inservice education essential: social and economic, scientific and technological, and educa- 1 Although there are some differences in the meanings tional." given to in-service teacher education, staff development, and professional development, they have been used synonymously through- out this dissertation. In this chapter, pertinent literature in the following areas is reviewed: (1) definition of in-service education; (2) the impor- tance of in-service education; (3) the purposes, types, and character- ‘__g,,._._. istics of in-service education; (4) the teachers' center as an important 1Margo Johnson, Inservice Education: Priority for the '805 (Syracuse, N.Y.: National Council of States on Inservice Education, 1980), p. 2. 14 15 aspect of in-service education, and (5) the Kent Professional Staff Development Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Definition of In-service Education A number of educators have described the characteristics and purposes of in-service education. Some of these definitions are the following: Harris, Bessent, and McIntyre described in-service education as the "planned activities for the instructional improvement of pro- 1 fessional staff members." According to Cane, in-service training includes "all those courses and activities in which a serving teacher may participate for the purpose of extending his professional knowledge, interest or skill. Preparation for a degree, diploma or other qualifi- cation subsequent to initial training is included within this defini- tion."2 Johnston stated that in-service education may consist of carefully planned, sustained work over a lengthy period leading to a further qualification in the form of an advanced certificate, diploma, or higher degree; it may equally well be casual study, pursued irregularly in the evenings or during vacations, and in no sense leading to measurable recog- nition for purposes of salary or of promotion. _//,, 1Ben M. Harris, Wailand Bessent, and Kenneth E. McIntyre, In-service Education: A Guide to Better Practice (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969), p. 2. 2Brian Cane, In-service Training: A Study of Teachers' Views X””'and Preferences, OccasionaTTPublication Series No. 22 (London: Natienal Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, 1969 , p. x. ' 3D. J. Johnston, Teachers' In-service Education (New York: Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1971), p. 9. 16 Dillon-Peterson defined staff development as "a process designed to foster personal and professional growth for individuals within a respectful, supportive, positive organizational climate having as its ultimate aim better learning for students and continuous, responsible self-renewal for educators and schools."1 The Importance of In-service Education No one would deny the importance of in-service education for school personnel. Burrello and Orbaugh stated, "We believe inservice education is an absolute necessity if schools are to develop their most important resource, their people."2 Research has indicated that there is a correlation between staff development and organization development; this means that whenever in-service education is provided for school personnel, the schools can provide better learning for students because in-service training programs can be tied into the day-to-day development of instructional materials and programs, can serve the peribdic and special needs of educators, can be employed for purposes of exposure to new equipment and materials and can be used to bring teachers and administrators/teachers and teachers/ administrators and administrators together for purposes of social interaction/group training or the exchange of ideas and experi- ences. 1Betty Dillon-Peterson, "Staff Development/Organization Develop- ment--Perspective 1981," in Staff Development/Organization Development, ed. Betty Dillon-Peterson (Alexandria, va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981), p. 3. 2Leonard Burrello and Tim Orbaugh, "Reducing the Discrepancy Between the Known and the Unknown in In-service Education," Phi Delta 0/ Kappan 63 (February 1982): 385. 3Richard O. Peters, "Affecting Teacher Awareness and Attitudes: An Inservice Program Strategy for Rural Schools" (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 114 225, 1975), p. 4. in-servi 1. tion is 17 Harris, Bessent, and McIntyre identified four reasons why ce education is important. These are: Pre-service preparation of professional staff members is rarely ideal and may be primarily an introduction to pro- fessional preparation rather than professional preparation as such. Social and educational change makes current professional practices obsolete or relatively ineffective in a very short period of time. This applies to methods and techniques, tools, and substantive knowledge itself. Coordination and articulation of instructional practices require changes in people. Even when each instructional staff member is functioning at a highly professional level, employing an optimum number of the most effective practices, such an instructional program might still be relatively uncoordinated from subject to subject and poorly articulated from year to year. Other factors argue for in-service education activities of rather diverse kinds. Morale can be stimulated and main- tained through in-service education and is a contribution to instruction in itself, even if iestructional improvement of any dynamic kind does not occur. The Purposes of In-service Education According to Peters, one of the purposes of in-service educa- to provide practicing classroom teachers and building admin- istrators with quality training that N—l 0101-500 develops their awareness of new practices and techniques. exposes practitioners to the "how-to-do-its" of their profession. provides social interaction situations. allows for the exchange of ideas and experiences. provides the opportunity for skill development/application. provides for exposure to and interaction with new instruc- tional equipment and materials. pp. 3-4. 1Harris, Bessent, and McIntyre, In-service Education, 18 7. directly involves educators in the process of instructional program development. 8. provides the opportunity to use teachers/staff personnel/ administrators as resource people to other educators; using the resource person's expertise and skills in instructional situations. Continuing theeducationcfl beginning teachers is another pur- pose of in-service education. Moffitt asserted, Regardless of the quantity and quality of academic education received in a college or university, a teacher new to any given school system needs in-service education. . . . The beginning teacher enters into a strange and completely new situation. For many, it is the first real job the teacher has had, with the responsibilities attached thereto. Everything is strange. Commonly, he is unacquainted with the other teach- ers, the principal, or the administrative or supervisory person- nel. The students are strange, and often the community is one about which he has little knowledge. Types of In-service Education Yarger identified the following five types of in-service education: 1. Job-embedded in-service education is programming that occurs within the context of’a teaCher‘s fulfilling his/her assigned responsibilities. It is directly related to the provision of skills that can be translated into working with children, developing classroom materials, and/or planning curriculum. 2. Job-related in-service education is programming that is either directly or indirectly related to the provision of skills for the performance of a teacher's primary responsibility of instructing children. It may result in the acquisition of directly applicable skills, or it may provide content that, while not directly applicable, is clearly related. Job- related in-service training does not occur within the context of the instruction of children. 1Peters, "Affecting Teacher Awareness and Attitudes," p. 4. 2John C. Moffitt, In-service Education for Teachers (Washing- ton, D.C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963), p. 6. ,.~ cation. Noam-puma 19 Professionally-related in-service education focuses on those aspects of a teacher's role which are clearly required, but are not directly related to the instruction of children. In every sense, however, they relate to "professional" attributes which generally differentiate teachers from others who work in schools. Such training might focus on parent conferences, community—based education programs, legally mandated record keeping, and a long list of professionally related responsi- bilities. Mobility-related in-service education is primarily designed to prepare the teacher to assume a new position and/or obtain a new credential. Although usually related to "upward" mobility, it need not be. Programs that facilitate the transi- tion from provisional to permanent certification and from teacher to administrator, and from teacher to Specialist, are common examples of this kind of in-service education. Personally-related in-service education is characterized by its emphasis on helping the participant become a more effec- tive person rather than a more effective professional. Implicit in this type of in-service is that the more secure and well-adjusted a person is, the better teacher that person will be. Typically, this type of in-service programming will be self-selected and on occasion even self-directed. Howey also identified several basic types of in-service edu- They are as follows: transitional (from pre- to in-) comprehensive school renewal/role reorientation content or skill-specific development personal growth continuing graduate level education general professional development career progression2 1Sam J. Yarger, "In-service Education and Teacher Centers," in Teacher Centers, Commissioner's Report on the Education Profes- sions, 1975-76. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977), pp. 21-22. 2Kenneth R. Howey, "Putting Inservice Teacher Education Into Perspective," Journal of Teacher Education 27 (Summer 1976): 102. 20 Hatfield and Ralston indicated that the growth of the professional educator involves three aspects: (1) human growth, (2) growth in competence to carry out the educator's role, and (3) growth as training to implement reform decided on by the persons responsible for the shape of the school in which the educator works.1 Characteristics of Successful In-service Education Burrello and Orbaugh listed five major characteristics of effective in-service programs: 1. Inservice education should be designed so that programs are integrated into and supported by the organization within which they function. - Inservice education should be an integral part of the total school program. - Programs of inservice education should be explicitly sup- ported at the outset by district and building administrators. 2. Inservice education programs should be designed to result in collaborative programs. 3. Inservice education programs should be grounded in the needs of the participants. - Inservice programs should respond to assessed needs, includ- ing the interests and strengths of participants. - The development of problem-solving skills should be made a part of inservice training. 4. Inservice education programs should be responsive to changing needs. - The design of inservice programs should be complex and ambitious. - Each person is often his or her own most competent trainer. - Inservice education should model good teaching. - Trainees should make use of peer-teaching strategies. - The content should be directed toward changing teaching, not changing student behavior. 1Robert C. Hatfield and Sherry Ralston, "Professional Assess- ment and Development" (paper presented at the Annual ATE Convention, 1978), p. 14. 21 - The implementation strategy should include continual pro- fessional growth activities and the local development of collaboratively prepared materials. - Outside agencies or consultants may be helpful in supportive roles, especially as catalysts during start-up or as process helpers during times of crisis or stalemates. 5. Inservice education activities should be evaluated over time and be compatible with the underlying philosophy and approach of the district. - The evaluation of inservice education should be a col- laborative venture whose primary purpose is to assist with the planning and implementing of programs. - Decisions concerning the in-service education program should be based on the findings from continuing program evaluation by program participants and others affected by the program. - The evaluation design should address planning, implementa- tion, and dissemination.1 1’ Lawrence et a1. identified seven major characteristics of successful in-service education: 1. Individualized inservice education tends to be better than single offerings for large groups. 2. Active involvement in inservice programs tends to be better than passive-receptive involvement. 3. Demonstration of skills with supervised feedback tends to be better than the provision of skills to be stored for future use. 4. Teacher-help-teacher inservice tends to be better than teacher-work-alone inservice. 5. Inservice that is integrated into a large program tends to /::;)be more effective than one-shot affairs. 6 Inservice that has an emerging design with teacher input tends to be better than totally preplanned inservice. 7. Self-initiated inservice tends to be more effective than self- prescribed inservice. 1Burrello and Orbaugh, "Reducing the Discrepancy," pp. 385-86. 2Gordon Lawrence et al., Pattern of Effective Inservice Eduta- tion (Tallahassee: Florida Department of Education, 1974); cited in Yarger, "Inservice Education and Teacher Centers," p. 24. 22 The Teachers' Center as an Important Aspect of Professional Development (In-service Education) The inadequacies of in-service education activities have forced educators in the United States to look for new delivery sys- tems, methods, and approaches to make in-service education activi- ties more meaningful for public-school personnel. As a result of that research, a British innovation, the teachers' center, was adopted. An American educator, Arline Julius, wrote about this search: Along with college colleagues, I have struggled to develop a teaching center in an impoverished area of the South Bronx in New York City. Last spring I visited Britain, studying for six weeks what has been widely publicized as a successful teacher center movement. I gathered some insights that may be helpful1 in attempts to establish teacher centers in the United States. This clearly indicates that the concept of teachers' centers evolved in Great Britain and was later espoused by educators in the United States. Writing about the evolution of these centers, Bailey said, Perhaps the most significant potential British contribution to American education . . . is only now being identified and discussed: the development of teachers' centers. British experi- ence with these centers, at least in their present form, is a mat- ter of three or four years only.‘ But the idea is so simple, so obvious, so psychologically sound, as to make one wonder why teachers' centers have not dotted the educational landscape for decades. What Is a Teachers' Center? Bailey defined the teachers' center as follows: 1Arline Julius, "British Teacher Centers: Practical Applica- tions for America," Phi Delta Kappan (November 1976): 250. ZStephen Bailey, "Teachers' Centers: A British First," Phi Delta Kappan (November 1971): 146. 23 Teachers' centers are just what the term implies: local physical facilities and self-improvement programs organized and run by the teachers themselves for purposes of upgrading educational performance. Their primary function is to make possible a review of existing curricula and other educational practices by groups of teachers and encourage teacher attempts to bring about changes. Schmeider and Yarger defined the teachers' center somewhat more broadly than Bailey did: A teacher center is a place, in situ or a changing location, which develops programs directed at the improvement of classroom instruction in which the participating personnel have an oppor- tunity to share successes, to utilize a wide range of educational resources, and to receive training specifically related to the most pressing instructional problems. Programs are primarily for inservice teachers--but may involve other kinds of educa- tional personnel as they relate to the improvement of classroom instrugtion--and usually serve both individual and system-wide needs. Why Teachers' Centers? Schmieder and Yarger identified the following reasons for establishing and/or maintaining teachers' centers: 1. Search for ways to link more effectively the preservice and in-service training of educational personnel. 2. Search for more systematic and effective in-service training of educational personnel. 3. Search for ways to integrate more effectively curriculum development and staff development. 4. Search for more effective systems of introducing preservice teachers into the schools. 5. New emphasis on continuous teacher training—-from the time of career choice until retirement. lIbid. 2Yarger, "In-service Education and Teacher Centers," p. 29; a first version of this definition appeared in Allen A. Schmieder and Sam J. Yarger, "Teacher/Teaching Centering in America," Journal of Teacher Education 25 (Spring 1974). 24 6. Search for new and more effective ways to share experiences and resources better among generally noncommunicating educa- tional constituencies (students, teachers, administrators, supervisors, college and university staff, interested com- munity). 7. Strongly advocated by a number of important educational writers, e.g., Silberman, Bailey, James. 8. Support of pilot programs (especially of British Model) by Ford, Carnegie, and other foundations. 9. Recommendation by Task Force '72 of U.S. Office of Education (USOE) that the concept is one of the five most promising new ones in teacher education. 10. Positions of National Education Association, American Federa— tion of Teachers, and United Federation of Teachers, who have strongly supported the concept, developed a number of position papers on the subject, and started a number of demonstration centers. 11. Recommendation (in one form or another) by both the Teachers' and Higher Education National Field Task Forces on the Improve- ment and Reform of American Education that the teaching center is the best route to better staff training. 12. Increasing commitment of the education profession to find better ways continually to upgrade and review the qualifica- tions of all educational personnel. Mertens further endorsed the concept of teachers' centers. She wrote: Teacher Centers are propelled by a sincere commitment to meet the needs of teachers as they are perceived by teachers. Most importantly, however, Teacher Centers appear to have the poten- tial of delivering on this commitment through flexible structures and without institutional constraints. Teacher Centers have the potential to give teachers what teachers believe they need, when and where they believe it to be appropriate.2 1Allen A. Schmieder and Sam J. Yarger, Teaching Centers: Toward the State of the Scene, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1975), pp. 4-5. 2Sally Mertens, "On the Way to Describin the Federal Teacher Centers Program," Action in Teacher Education 2 (Spring 1980): 42. 25 Teachers' Involvement and Adult Learning Concepts Successful in-service programs can be developed if the involve- ment of the teachers who participate in such programs is increased. Baden wrote, Because many teachers have had unsatisfactory experiences with professional or inservice activities in the past, it is critical that teachers be involved in the identification and articulation of their own training needs. When teachers are involved in enunciation and organization of training activi- ties, conditions are enhanced for peer support, shared effort, and eventual utilization of new insights and skills. Teachers are adult learners in any in-service education activ- ity; they can learn from each other as well as from the educators who are involved in these activities as resource personnel and as facilitators. Because teachers are adult learners, adult-learning concepts should be used in their in-service activities, which will make these activities more effective. One of the concepts involved in adult education is andragogy, "the art and science of helping adults learn."2 Knowles explained the assumptions on which andragogy is based: Andragogy is premised on at least four crucial assumptions about the characteristics of adult learners that are different from the assumptions about child learners on which traditional pedagogy is premised. These assumptions are that, as a person matures, (1) his self-concept moves from one of being a dependent personality toward one of being a self-directing human being; (2) he accumulates a growing reservoir of experience that becomes 1Donald J. Baden, "Developing and ImplementingaTeacher Directed 7L Professional Development Model" (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Repro- duction Service, ED 121 730, February 1976), p. 2. 2Malcolm S. Knowles, The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy Versus Pedagogy; 8th ed. (New York: Association Press, 1977), p. 39) 26 an increasing resource for learning; (3) his readiness to learn becomes oriented increasingly to the developmental tasks of his social roles; and (4) his time perspective changes from one of postponed application of knowledge to immediacy of application, and accordingly his orientation toward learning shifts from one of subject-centeredness to one of problem-centeredness. Knowles indicated why learning activities for adults should be self-directed: [The adult] sees himself as being able to make his own deci- sions and face their consequences, to manage his own life. In fact, the point at which a person becomes an adult, psychologic- ally, is that point at which he perceives himself to be wholly self-directing. And at that point he also experiences a deep need to be perceived by others as being self-directing. For this reason, adults have a need to be treated with respect, to make their own decisions, to be seen as unique human beings. They tend to avoid, resist, and resent situations in which they feel they are treated like children--being told what to do and what not to do, being talked down to, embarrassed, punished, judged. Adults tend to resist learning under condi- tions that are incongruent with their self-concept as autonomous individuals.2 According to Knowles, certain principles are very important in adults' learning activities. These are: 1. Adults are motivated to learn as they experience needs and interests that learning will satisfy; therefore, these needs and interests are appropriate starting points for organiz- ing adult learning activities. 2. Adult orientation to learning is life-centered; therefore, the appropriate units for organizing adult learning are life situations, not subjects. 3. Experience is the richest resource for adult learning; therefore, the core methodology of adult education is the analysis of experience. 4. Adults have a deep need to be self-directing. Therefore, the role of the teacher is to engage in a process of mutual inquiry rather than to transmit knowledge to them and then evaluate their conformity to it. 2 Ibid. Ibid., p. 40. 27 5. Individual differences among people increase with age; therefore, adult education must make optimal provision for differences in style, time, place, and pace of learning. Because the preceding principles are important in adult— learning activities, they should be used in in-service education. Some educators who have been involved in professional-development activities for a long time have asserted that teachers must have an active role in such activities. They also have recommended the use of adult-education concepts in some preservice activities. Edelfelt supported this viewpoint by stating, Schools of education need to give attention to adult learning. If schools of education personnel are to help teachers and other professionals in schools, they have got to develop new ways to treat and associate with school personnel. College professors cannot continue to treat school personnel like children, or like students in the traditional sense. I make this argument not only because professors can no longer defend the status of such a rela- tionship, but, more important, because that relationship is unsound psychology. Mature school personnel will not respond to--nor will they learn much from--professors who expect or demand conformity, subservience, and deference.2 Edelfelt and Lawrence identified some patterns of effective in-service education, which contain some of the concepts of adult education. These are as follows: 1. In-service education programs that place the teacher in an active role (constructing and generating materials, ideas, and behavior) are more likely to accomplish their objectives than are programs that place the teacher in a receptive role. 1Malcolm S. Knowles, The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species (Houston: Gulf, 1978); cited in Richard H. Bents and Kenneth R. Howey, "Staff Development-~Change in the Individual," in Staff Development/ Organization Development, ed. Betty Dillon-Peterson (Alexandria, Va.: ASsociation ior Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981), p. 33. 2Roy A. Edelfelt, "The School of Education and Inservice Education," Journal of Teacher Education 28 (March-April 1977): 12. 28 2. Teachers are more likely to benefit from in-service programs in which they can choose goals and activities for themselves, as contrasted with programs in which the goals and activities are preplanned. 3. Inservice education programs in which teachers share and provide mutual assistance to each other are more likely to accomplish their objectives than are programs in which each teacher does separate work. 4. In-service education programs that have differentiated train— ing experiences for different teachers (that is, "individual- ized") are more likely to accomplish their objectives than are programs that have common activities for all participants. 5. School-based programs in which teachers participate as helpers to each other and planners of in-service activities tend to have greater success in accomplishing their objectives than do programs which are conducted by college or other outside per- sonnel without the assistance of teachers. Importance of Teachers' Involvement in NeedsiAssessment Needs assessment is the first step in developing a teachers' center program, and as such it is very important. "Planning is based on an assessment of teacher training needs conducted by each center."2 A sound needs assessment can be carried out by using several approaches; some of these are the following: 1. Survey questionnaires: "Each teacher is asked to report 'which of several teaching skills and subject matter competencies they feel most knowledgeable about and those in which they feel most in need of training. The survey results are then used to determine what kinds of training should be offered."3 1Roy Edelfelt and Gordon Lawrence, "In-service Education: The State of the Art," in Rethinkin In-service Education, ed. Roy Edelfelt and Margo Johnson (Washington, .C.: National Education Association, 1975), pp. 18-19. 2Alanson A. Van Fleet, "Teacher Centers in Florida: A Case Study," School Review 85 (May 1977): 417. 31bid. 29 2. Individual requests: The director and/or the personnel of the center may receive special requests from a teacher or groups of teachers.1 3. Interviews with individual teachers or groups of teachers by teachers' center personnel: "Interviews with individual teachers or groups of teachers can provide insight and information for needs assessment."2 4. Observation: "Observation takes many forms: teacher or student self-observation, observation of students by teachers or others, and observation of teachers by supervisors, or advisors. To be useful, observation should focus on both students and teachers."3 5. Small-group discussions: A group of teachers can conduct discussions that help clarify some of their needs for in-service education. Using these approaches, data are generated concerning teachers' needs for in-service education. Teachers must be involved in collect- ing and analyzing the data; they must also be included in setting priorities of needs. As Luke stated, "An intrinsic part of the needs assessment process is gathering data on the delivery system teachers 11bid., p. 418. 2National Education Association, Teacher Centers and Needs Assessment (Washington, D.C.: National Foundatibn for the Improve- ment of Education, Teacher Center Project, and National Education Association, Division of Instruction and Professional Development, 1980), p. 4. 3 Ibid., p. 3. 30 perceive to be most effective in making available to them the skills and information they require."1 Importance of Teachers' Involvement in Planning and’Designing Activities of the Center The second important step in developing a teachers' center program is the planning process. Each teachers' center should have a planning committee composed of teachers, administrators, and center personnel. Luke indicated that it is important for this committee to (1) clarify participants' responsibilities, (2) be clear about the task, (3) review how adults learn, and (4) think about motivation. He also stated that the second component of the planning function would involve the following tasks: (1) reviewing needs-assessment data, (2) writing a problem statement, and (3) previewing training materials.2 Luke indicated that four tasks, therefore, confront the planning committee in the beginning stages of program design: 1. Identifying learning strategies appropriate to the need to be met and the time available for in-service. 2. Searching available program materials to uncover a useful range and variety of in-service education strateg1es. 3. Inventing new strategies when the materials at hand fail to supply what is required. 4. Adapting, revising, and arranging learning strategies into a workable sequence. 1Robert A. Luke, Teacher Centered In-service Education: Plan- ning and Products (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1980). 21pm. 31pm. 31 Gmelch, Rose, and Erickson indicated that involving teachers in planning will result in successful in-service education activities. They wrote, "The development of a successful inservice program many times is contingent upon the involvement of participants in the plan- ning. A close relationship exists between involvement in an enterprise and the commitment to its goal."1 Teachers can be involved in the following activities: 1. identifying the content of teacher professional-development programs (in-service education). 2. suggesting programs for professional development. 3. suggesting speakers or presenters for professional- development programs. 4. writing mini grant proposals for projects of teachers' design. Importance of Teachers' Involvement ih Implementation of the ActiVities Teachers should play an active role in implementing teachers' center activities because teachers come to a good Teacher Center to give as well as to take; they come bringing energy and expertise as well as ques- tions and problems. . . . The center is a place to share suc- cesses, to practice teaching adults--other teachers--as well as children.2 1Walter H. Gmelch, Robert L. Rose, and Kenneth A. Erickson, "Rx for Professional Growth: Inservice Education," OSSC Bulletin (Oregon: Oregon School Study Council, n.d.), p. 10. 2Kathleen Devaney, "Ingredients of Teacher Centers' Unique- ness," Action in Teacher Education 2 (Spring 1980): 46. 32 The Kent Professional Staff Development Center The Kent Professional Staff Development Center was created in 1977 by the Kent Intermediate School District in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This center serves 35 school districts and provides professional growth opportunities for more than six thousand professional personnel within Kent and Ionia Intermediate School Districts. The center brings together representatives from teachers' groups, administrators, school boards, colleges, and universities to identify needs, establish priorities, and plan and implement programs to improve staff competencies and skills that will result in improved learning experiences for students.1 Purposes of the Center The Kent Center has three major purposes: To provide teachers and other educational workers with knowl- edge and skills to facilitate improved student learning and performance commensurate with individual student incentive and potential. To provide teachers and other educational workers with knowl- edge and skills to meet additional development needs of stu- dents. To meet the specific needs of professional staff that may or may not be related to cognitive outcomes in students. Goals of the Center The Kent Center has five major goals. These are: To establish a two-way dissemination/communication linkage from building, through system, to Center. To establish a bank of resource personnel to be used in implementing programs. To design, implement, and evaluate programs based on priority needs. October mediate 1Kent Professional Staff Development Center, “Final Report, 1, 1980-September 30, 1981" (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kent Inter- School District, 1981), p. 4. 211311., p. 3. 4. 5. 33 To establish a coordination between services available in existing projects and agencies and identified needs. To establish an on-going needs-assessment process.1 Staff of the Center The staff of the Kent Professional Staff Development Center comprises a director, a consultant, and a secretary. They have eight major responsibilities: 1. 0301-5100 To assist local districts in planning effective staff- development programs. To assist local districts in identifying material and human resources. To design and coordinate an on-going needs-assessment process. To coordinate the evaluation of staff-development activities. To maintain records of staff-development activities. To coordinate the Committee of Twenty-Eight [local school- district linkers]. To make recommendations for staff-development programs to the Policy Board. To deliver staff-development programming which meets the generic needs of the service area. The Policy Board The Kent Center is governed by an lB-member Policy Board. Three individuals are ex-officio members and cannot vote. Of the 15 voting members, eight are classroom teachers. The responsibilities of the Policy Board are as follows: 1. To identify the broad goals and objectives for staff- development efforts. . To coordinate professional-development activities. To approve programing of interest to the entire service area. 1Ibid. 21bid., p. 6. 34 4. To endorse Kent Professional Staff Development Center staffing. 5. To evaluate the effectiveness of programs:I Local District Linkers Each school district has a communication linker selected by the school. “These people [have] important responsibilities in keeping the center aware of needs in that school district as well as assisting in acquainting personnel in their district with professional-development opportunities."2 Summary In-service education is a continuous process in the prepara- tion of classroom teachers; as such, it is a very important factor in providing better education for students. The inadequacies of in-service education have forced educators in colleges and public schools to look for new delivery systems, methods, and approaches. The concept of the teachers' center has emerged as a new delivery system, as well as engendering new methods and approaches to in-service education. The review of related literature has indicated that in order to pro- vide successful in-service activities, the teachers should be actively involved in the governance processes, namely, needs assessment, plan- ning, implementation, and policy board activities, because it involves the teachers more directly in their own professional-development activi- ties. The unique quality of the teachers' center is that it involves Ibid., p. 7. Ibid. 35 the teachers in planning, it applies some learning and teaching theories, and it employs some concepts of adult education. In this review of related literature, the writer attempted to build a conceptual framework toward developing recommendations for in-service education in Saudi Arabia. The recommendations generated by the writer are set forth in Chapter V. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE Introduction The investigator employed a survey to describe teachers' involvement in the Kent Professional Staff Development Center (KPSDC) and to describe the ways in which the in-service education provided by the KPSDC affects teachers' classroom instruction. According to Borg and Gall, "descriptive studies typically employ either survey or observational research methods. Their pur- pose is to collect information that permits us to describe the char- acteristics of persons or an educational process or an institution."1 In this chapter, the major research questions are presented. A description of the population and sample of the study, a descrip- tion of the instrument and how it was distributed, and the methods used in analyzing the data are also included. Research Questions This was a descriptive study. The investigator posed the following research questions in an attempt to generate the informa- tion needed to fulfill the purposes of the study: 1Walter R. Borg and Meredith Damien Gall, Educational Research: An Introduction (New York: Longmans, Inc., 1979), p. 38. 36 37 1. To what extent are teachers involved in the needs- assessment process? 2. To what extent are teachers involved in the planning process? 3. To what extent are teachers involved in the developing and implementing processes? 4. To what extent are teachers involved in committees deal- ing with the governance of the teachers' center? 5. In what types of activities of the Kent Professional Staff Development Center (KPSDC) do the teachers participate? 6. What benefits did the teachers perceive in the activities/ programs offered by the teachers' center? 7. Is there any relationship between active involvement in the committees and perceived benefit from the activities offered by the Center? 8. What recommendations can be generated from this study for in-service teacher education in Saudi Arabia? Population and Sample of the Study The Kent Professional Staff Development Center serves 6,000 publ ic- school personnel representing 35 school districts in the Kent and Ionia Intermediate School Districts. Since the entire population comprised 6,000 individuals, the investigator, after consultation with and direction from his chairperson, decided to take 300 members of the population as a sample for this study. Therefore, he decided to administer the questionnaire to a random sample of 300 elementary, middle school, and high school teachers in Kent and Ionia Intermediate 38 School Districts. A total of 161 questionnaires (53 percent) was returned. The Survey Instrument To fulfill the purposes of this study, the investigator developed a questionnaire because existing questionnaires were not designed to gather the information needed in this study. The instru- ment was developed to gather the following data: 1. Demographic data. 2. Committees existing in the Kent PSDC and teachers' involvement in such committees. 3. Needs-assessment process in Kent PSDC and teachers' involvement in such process. 4. Teachers' involvement in planning and implementing the activities of the Kent PSDC. 5. Activities teachers participate in, their quality as per- ceived by teachers, and their effect on classroom instruction. 6. The types of benefits that can be derived from the activi- ties or programs offered by the Kent PSDC. 7. Comments about and recommendations for improvement of the Kent PSDC programs. Demographic Data To gather demographic information, the following ten questions were included in the questionnaire: 1. Please indicate the name of your school and of your school district. School: District: 10. 39 Please indicate the number of years (including this one) that you have taught. years What is your major teaching assignment? 1. Elementary 2. Junior high/middle school 3. Senior high What subject fields do you teach? Please check appropriate fie1d(s) and indicate grade level taught (e.g., Math: 5,7). 1. Math 6. Home economics 2. Science 7. Music 3. Social studies 8. Art 4. Language arts 9. Physical education 5. Industrial arts 10. Other (specify) Highest degree held: College major: Year graduated from college: 19 Institution: In case of graduate study, please indicate field of study and year completed: Type of teaching certificate 1. Provisional 3. Continuing 2. Permanent 4. Other (specify) Year of birth: 19 Sex: Male Female Questions 2 (teaching experience), 3 (major teaching assign- ment), 4 (teaching subject fields), 5 (highest degree held), 8 (type of teaching certificate), and 10 (sex) were used to elicit information about the characteristics of the population and to make comparisons within these groups, which were the independent variables of the study. Current literature relating to in-service education (profes- sional development) claims that the teachers should be involved in committees such as needs assessment, planning, implementation, and 4O policy board in teachers' centers. Question 11 was developed to indicate to what extent the participants of this study were involved in such committees. (See Appendix A-) Research in professional development has also indicated the importance of teachers' involvement in (1) the needs-assessment pro- cess, (2) planning and designing in-service programs and activities offered by the centers, and (3) implementation of in-service activi- ties offered by the centers. To determine to what extent the teachers were involved in such processes, Question 12 was designed to indicate which methods the Kent PSDC was using to assess teachers' needs. Questions 13-19 were developed to indicate to what extent teachers are involved in needs assessment, the planning process, and the imple- menting process, and to indicate existing barriers that have kept some teachers from being involved. Some of the above-mentioned questions also attempted to determine the teachers' intention to become involved in such processes in the future. Question 20 was developed to explore what types of activi- ties are offered by the Kent PSDC and how often the teachers were involved in such activities. This question also asked to what extent such activities were helpful to the teachers and what effect such activities have had on classroom instruction. Question 21 was developed to indicate to what extent the Kent PSDC activities related to: (1) general personal growth, (2) improving instructional skills related to teachers' teaching assignments, (3) keeping current about educational matters, (4) facili- tating change and improvement in the school and in school programs, 41 (5) helping to move up the career ladder, and (6) organizing and managing the classroom. Question 22 was designed to indicate whether teachers who had a special problem and who needed help in solving it could obtain such help from the Kent PSDC. Question 23 was developed to indicate some of the benefits teachers had derived from the activities or programs offered by the Kent PSDC. This question consisted of nine items, the last of which was open ended. The last two questions were open ended. Teachers were asked to comment about and make recommendations for improving the exist- ing services in the Kent PSDC. Teachers were also asked to suggest some ways and methods by which to make the Kent PSDC programs and activities more meaningful for them. Procedure and Data Collection After the preparation of the survey, the Kent Professional Staff Development Center was contacted. An exploratory meeting with the director of the Center was set. At that meeting the investi- gator discussed in detail with the director and a consultant of the Center the purposes of the study. Their general reaction was very positive, and they offered to cooperate in distributing the question- naires to the participants. Since the investigator could not obtain a mailing list of the subjects, the director and consultant of the Center suggested that they could distribute the questionnaires through the local district 42 linkers. After consulting with his research chairperson, the inves- tigator decided to accept that suggestion. As a result of that decision, two letters were written to the linkers, one by the chair- person and the director and the other by the director of the Kent PSCD. (See Appendix A.) The investigator also wrote a cover letter to the questionnaire to explain the purposes and intentions of the study. The questionnaires were submitted to Kent PSDC personnel on April 26, 1982. On April 27, the Kent PSDC linkers had their annual meeting with Kent PSDC personnel. At that meeting, every linker was instructed to select randomly from his/her school system the elemen- tary, middle school, and secondary school teachers who would be willing to complete the enclosed survey. The linkers were also instructed to have the teachers complete their surveys the week of May 3-7, 1982, and to return them to the director of the Kent PSDC no later than May 14, 1982. Data-Analysis Method The results of the study are presented in terms of demo- graphic information regarding the personal and professional back- ground of the respondents. Furthermore, responses to the various sections of the questionnaire are presented in simple frequency distribution, as well as in terms of personal and professional back- ground variables. Where appropriate, analysis of variance is used to compare groups with regard to attitude-scale items. Chi-square is 43 used where frequency cross-tabulations are presented. Computations were executed with the help of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (spss).1 1Norman Nie, H. Hull, C. Hadulai, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner, and Dale Bent, Statistical Package for the Soc1a1 Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975). CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Introduction In this chapter, the data collected and the findings derived from them are reported and are presented in nine sections. The first section deals with the demographic description of the population studied. Subsequent sections concern seven of the research questions formulated in Chapter I: 1. To what extent are teachers involved in the needs- assessment process? 2. To what extent are teachers involved in the planning process? 3. To what extent are teachers involved in the developing and implementing processes? 4. To what extent are teachers involved in committees deal- ing with the governance of the teachers' center? 5. In what types of activities of the Kent Professional Staff Development Center (KPSDC) do the teachers participate? 6. What benefits did the teachers perceive in the activities/ programs offered by the teachers' center? 7. Is there any relationship between active involvement in the committees and perceived benefit from the activities offered by the Center? 44 45 In the last section, responses to the open-ended questions posed in the questionnaire are summarized. Demogrpphic Characteristics of the Respondents In this section, demographic information about the study sample is presented. Professional Background Information about the professional background of the respond- ents is included in several appendices, as well as in the following discussion and tables. The school districts and schools in which the respondents taught are listed in Appendices B and C, respectively. The mean number of years of teaching experience was 14.15; a detailed breakdown is presented in Appendix 0. School level taught.--Table 1 indicates that about 42% of the respondents were elementary-school teachers, 21% of them were junior- high-school teachers, and 37% were teaching in a senior high school. Table l.--School level taught. Relative Adjusted School Level Abgolute Freq. Freq. "eq' (%) (74) Elementary 67 41.6 41.9 Junior H.S. 34 21.1 21.2 Senior H.S. 59 36.6 36.9 No response 1 6 .. Total 161 100.0 100.0 46 Subject matter taught.--Respondents reported grade level and subjects taught. Their responses are summarized in Table 2, which indicates the number of individuals teaching a given subject as the first or second option. For future use in cross-tabulation, these responses were reduced by collapsing Mathematics and Science into one category--Science, and Social Studies and Language Arts into a second category--Humanities (see, for example, Table 12). The remaining subject areas taught, as listed in Table 2, were included, where appropriate, in a third category--Other. Table 2.--Subject matter taught. Subject Mattera Yes N % 1 - Mathematics 71 44.1 2 - Mathematics 24 14.9 1 - Science 59 36.6 2 - Science 19 11.8 1 - Social Studies 63 39.1 2 — Social Studies 22 13.7 1 - Language Arts 75 46.6 2 - Language Arts 30 18.6 1 - Industrial Arts 2 1.2 2 - Industrial Arts 1 0.6 l - Home Economics 2 1.2 2 - Home Economics 2 1.2 l - Music 9 5.6 2 - Music 2 1.2 l - Art 24 14.9 2 - Art 6 3.7 l - Physical Education 14 8.7 2 - Physical Education 6 3.7 a1 = first option 2 = second option 47 Educational Background Information about the educational background of the respond- ents is presented in the appendices, as well as in the following discussion. The undergraduate field of study is listed in Appendix E, the undergraduate institution in Appendix F, and the graduate field of study in Appendix G. Highest degree held.--Tab1e 3 presents the highest degree held by the respondents. The majority of the teachers held an M.A. degree, and about one-fourth held a B.A. Again, for use in later cross- tabulations, codes 1 and 2, as well as codes 4 and 7, were collapsed, as may be seen in Table 13. Table 3.--Highest degree held. Relative Adjusted Highest Degree Code Abéolgte Freq. Freq. . ' (%) (%) B.A., 8.5. l 37 23.0 23.3 B.A., 8.5. + TC 2 8 5.0 5.0 M.A., M.S. 3 92 57.1 57.9 M.A., M.S. Plus 4 16 9.9 10.1 Ed. Specialist 7 6 3.7 3.8 No response -1 __j; 1.2 .. Total 161 100.0 100.0 Type of teaching certificate.--As may be noted in Table 4, some 6% of the reSpondents had only a provisional teaching certifi- cate, more than half held a permanent certificate, and about one-third had a continuing certificate. 48 Table 4.--Type of teaching certificate. Relative Adjusted Type of Certificate Abgolgte Freq. Freq. ' (%) (%) Provisional 10 6.2 6.2 Permanent 102 63.4 63.4 Continuing _1§1 30.4 30.4 Total 161 100 0 100 O Personal characteristics.--The mean age of the respondents was 40 years. A detailed listing of years of birth is presented in Appendix H. The sex of the respondents is reported in Table 5. Sixty percent of the respondents were female, and 40% were male. Table 5.--Sex of respondent. Relative Adjusted Sex Abgolute Freq. Freq. q- (74) on Female 96 59.6 60.4 Male 63 39.1 39.6 No response __g; 1.2 . Total 161 100.0 100.0 Teachers' Involvement in the Needs-AsseSsment Process Five questions in the questionnaire addressed the teachers' involvement in the needs-assessment process: 11. In case there are such, or similar, committees, are you a member of any of the following: needs assess- ment (Partial item) 49 12. Considering the needs-assessment process, which of the following is being used: 13. In which of the following aspects of the needs-assessment process in Kent PSDC have you ever been involved: 14. If you indicated in Question 13 that you have not been involved, what has kept you from being involved? 15. If you indicated any involvement above, do you hope to continue to be involved? Simple Frequency Distributions Initially, simple frequency distributions of the responses to each of these five questions are presented. Membership on needs-assessment committee.--As may be noted in Table 6, nearly 15% of the participants did not respond to this ques- tion; another 23% stated that no committee dealing with needs assess- ment existed. Furthermore, almost 33% of the respondents, in addition to the 38% already mentioned, indicated that they had never been a member of such a committee. Only 29% of the respondents either had been a member of a needs-assessment committee in the past or were currently a member. Table 6.--Membership on needs-assessment committee. Relative Adjusted Membership Abgolgte Freq. Freq. ' (%) W No committee 37 23.0 27.0 Never a member 53 32.9 38.7 Former member 24 14.9 17.5 Current member 23 14.3 16.8 No response _24. 14.9 .. Total 161 100.0 100.0 50 Types of needs-assessment processes known. Whereas 23% of the respondents indicated that there was no such thing as a needs- assessment conmittee (Table 6), even more, 27%, did not answer the question about the types of needs-assessment processes known (see Table 7). The greatest percentage of respondents, 44%, knew about surveys; the rest mentioned interviews, observations, or a combination of these methods. Table 7.--Types of needs-assessment processes known. Relative Adjusted Process Ab::;Ute Freq. Freq. q‘ (76) (76) (1) Survey 70 43.5 59.3 (2) Observation 4 2.5 3.4 (l) + (2) 6 3.7 5.1 (4) Interview 9 5.6 7.6 (l) + (4) 16 9.9 13.6 (2)+ (4 ) l .6 .8 (l) + (2) + (4) 7 4.3 5.9 Other 5 3.1 4.2 No response _f§1 26.7 .. Total 161 100.0 100.0 Involvement in needs-assessment processes.--Even fewer respondents indicated any involvement in the needs-assessment pro- cess, as may be noted from Table 8. 0f the one-third of the respond- ents who did indicate such involvement, nearly half indicated involvement in data collection and another third in data collection and analysis. 51 Table 8.--Involvement in needs-assessment processes. Relative Ad'usted Process Abgolute Freq. Freq. ‘4' m (x) (1; Design instrument 1 .6 2.0 (2 Collect data 23 14.3 45.1 (1; + (2) 2 1.2 3.9 4 Analyze data 0 O 0 (l)+ 1 .6 2.0 (2)+ (4 4) 17 10.6 33.3 (1) + (2) + (4) 7 4.3 13.7 No response 119_ 68.3 .. Total 161 100.0 100.0 Reasons for noninvolvement.--More than half of the respondents did not answer the question about reasons for noninvolvement in the needs-assessment process, as shown in Table 9. Of those who did answer, nearly half mentioned lack of time, about one—fourth indicated that they had not been invited, and another 15% did not know about this activity. Table 9.--Reasons for not being involved in needs assessment. Relative Adjusted Reason Abgolute Freq. Freq. q“ DO (76) Not invited 21 13.0 27.3 No time 32 19.9 41.6 Didn't know 12 7.5 15.6 Other 6 3.7 7.8 No interest 6 3.7 7.8 No response _§4. 52.2 . Total 161 100.0 100.0 52 Intention to continue involvement.--Near1y two-thirds of the participants did not respond to the question regarding an intention to continue their involvement in the needs-assessment process (see Table 10). Of those who did answer, 71% indicated their intention to continue their involvement. Table lO.--Intention to continue in the needs-assessment process. Relative Adjusted Intention Abiglgte FVEQ- FTEQ- ' (76) (74) Yes 41 25.5 70.7 Maybe 7 4.3 12.1 No time 10 6.2 17 2 No response 193. 64.0 .. Total 161 100 O 100 O Next, responses to Questions ll, 14, and 15 are presented in more detail, with responses being broken down by various character- istics of the respondents. Membership on the Needs- Assessment Committee Table 6 presented the simple frequency distribution of the respondents in terms of their membership on a needs-assessment com- mittee. In the following tables, the same data are presented in such a way as to detect whether there was a relationship between membership on this committee and various professional and personal characteris- tics of the respondents. 53 School level taught.--Table 11 presents a tabulation of membership on the needs-assessment committee in terms of the schools in which the respondents taught. to exist. Table 11.--Membership on the needs-assessment committee and school level taught. No systematic relationship appeared No Never a Former Current Row SChOO] Level Committee Member Member Member Total Count 19 19 10 9 57 Elementary Row % 33.3 33.3 17.5 15.8 41.9 Col.% 51.4 35.8 41.7 40.9 9 10 3 5 27 Junior H.S. 33.3 37.0 11.1 18.5 19.9 24.3 18.9 12.5 22.7 9 24 ll 8 52 Senior H.S. 17.3 46.2 21.2 15.4 38.2 24.3 45.3 45.8 36.4 Column total N 37 53 24 22 136 % 27.2 39.0 17.6 16.2 100.0 Raw chi-square = 5.34439 with 6 df Sig. = .5005 Missing observations = 25 Subject area taught.--Tab1e 12 presents a tabulation of mem- bership on the needs-assessment committee in terms of the two major subject areas taught; again, no systematic relationship appeared to exist. 54 Table 12.--Membership on needs-assessment committee and subject area taught. . No Never a Former Current Row SUbJECt Area Committee Member Member Member Total Count 7 10 4 2 23 Science Row % 30.4 43.5 17.4 8.7 24.0 Col.% 21.2 39.4 25.0 15.4 26 24 12 ll 73 Humanities 35.6 32.9 16.4 15.1 76.0 78.8 70.6 75.0 84.6 N 33 34 16 13 96 C°'”m" t°ta' % 34.4 35.4 16.7 13.5 100.0 Raw chi-square = 1.22569 with 3 df Sig. = .7468 Missing observations = 65 Highest degree held.--Table 13 presents a tabulation of member- ship on the needs-assessment committee in terms of the highest degree held by the respondents. The results of a chi-square analysis sug- gested a highly significant relationship between these two variables: Subjects who had only a B.A. degree tended not to know of the commit- tee's existence or had never been a member, whereas those respondents who had an M.A. degree plus credit hours tended either to be current or past members of such a committee. Type of teaching certificate held.--Tab1e 14 presents a tabula- tion of membership on the needs-assessment committee in terms of the type of teaching certificate held; again, no systematic relationship appeared to exist. 55 Table 13.--Membership on needs-assessment committee and highest degree held. No Never a Former Current Row Degree Held Committee Member Member Member Total Count 15 13 4 6 38 B.A., B.S. Row 2 39.5 34.2 10.5 15.8 28.1 Col.% 40.5 25.5 16.7 26.1 20 34 17 9 8O M.A., M.S. 25.0 42.5 21.2 11.2 59.3 54.1 66.7 70.8 39.1 2 4 3 8 17 M.A., M.S. + 11.8 23.5 17.6 47.1 12.6 5.4 7.8 12.5 34.8 N 37 51 24 23 135 C°'“m“ t°ta' % 27.4 37.8 17.8 17.0 100 0 Raw chi-square = 17.48682 with 6 df Sig. = .0077 Missing observations = 26 Table 14.--Membership on needs-assessment committee and type of teaching certificate. Type of No Never a Former Current Row Certificate Committee Member Member Member Total Count 5 4 l 0 10 Provisional Row % 50.0 40.0 10.0 0 7.3 Col.% 13.5 7.5 4.2 0 19 35 15 15 84 Permanent 22.6 41.7 17.9 17.9 61.3 51.4 66.0 62.5 65.2 13 14 8 8 43 Continuing 30.2 32.6 18.6 18.6 31.4 35.1 26.4 33.3 34.8 N 37 53 24 23 137 c°'”m" t°ta' % 27.0 38.7 17.5 16.8 100.0 Raw chi-square = 5.51442 with 6 df Sig. = .4797 Missing observations = 24 56 Sex of respondent.--Table 15 presents the tabulation of membership on the needs-assessment committee in terms of sex of the respondents. Although the data suggested a higher degree of involve- ment of the female than the male respondents, no statistically sig- nificant relationship existed. Table 15.--Membership on needs-assessment committee and sex of respondent. Sex No Never a Former Current Row Committee Member Member Member Total Count 21 29 18 15 83 Female Row % 25.3 34.9 21.7 18.1 61.5 Col.% 58.3 54.7 75.0 68.2 15 24 6 7 52 Male 28.8 46.2 11.5 13.5 38.5 41.7 45.3 25.0 31.8 N 36 53 24 22 135 C°'um" t0ta' % 26.7 39.3 17.8 16.3 100.0 Raw chi-square = 3.44386 with 3 df Sig. = .3281 Missing observations = 26 Years of teachipg experience.--Table 16 presents a tabulation of mean number of years of teaching experience by membership on the needs-assessment committee. Although, overall, the respondents averaged 14 years of teaching experience, those who did not answer the question regarding membership averaged 17 years of experience, and those who thought there was no such committee averaged 13 years. Those who had never been a member had; on the average, 14 years of teaching experi- ence, and those with current or past membership, 13 to 14 years. 57 However, there was no statistically significant difference between these groups. Table 16.--Membership on needs-assessment committee and years of teaching experience. Yggflg Std. Dev. N Value Label 14.145 6.887 159 Total population 16.667 7.069 24 No answer 12.750 6.322 36 No committee 14.453 7.412 53 Never a member 13.333 6.690 24 Former member 13.818 6.223 22 Current member Total cases = 16 1 Missing cases 2 or 1.2% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source .0: S uares S uare F-Rat1o F-Prob. Between groups 4 245.85 61.46 1.306 .270 Within groups 154_ 7247.82 47.06 Total 158 7493.67 Reasons for Noninvolvement in Needs Assessment Table 9 presented the simply frequency distribution of the respondents in terms of the reasons they gave for not being involved in the needs-assessment process. In the following tables, the same data are presented in such a way as to determine whether there was a relationship between membership on this committee and various profes- sional and personal characteristics of the respondents. 58 School level taught.--Table 17 presents a tabulation of respondents' reasons for noninvolvement in the needs-assessment pro- cess in terms of the school level taught. No systematic relationship between the two variables was found. Table 17.--Reasons for noninvolvement and school level taught. Not No Didn't Invited Time Know No Row Other Interest Total School Level Count 6 12 4 3 1 26 Elementary Row % 23.1 46.2 15.4 11.5 3.8 33.8 Col.% 28.6 37.5 33.3 50.0 16 7 7 9 6 2 1 25 Junior H.S. 28.0 36.0 24.0 8.0 4.0 32.5 33.3 28.1 50.0 33.3 16.7 8 ll 2 l 4 26 Senior H.S. 30.8 42.3 7.7 3.8 15.4 33.8 38.1 34.4 16.7 16.7 66.7 N 21 32 12 6 6 77 C°'”m" t0ta' % 27 3 41.6 15.6 7.8 7.8 100.0 Raw chi-square = 6.68021 with 8 df Sig. = .5715 Missing observations = 84 Subject area taught.--Tab1e 8 presents the tabulation of respondents' reasons for noninvolvement in the needs-assessment process in terms of the subject area taught, i.e., science or humanities. Among those teaching humanities, some respondents indicated such reasons as "No Interest" and "Illness" for their noninvolvement, in addition to those also offered by the science teachers. 59 Table l8.--Reasons for noninvolvement and subject area taught. . Not No Didn't No Row SUbJECt Area Invited Time Know Other Interest Total Count 7 5 4 0 0 16 Science Row % 43.8 31.3 25.0 0 O 28.6 Col.% 53.8 21.7 40.0 0 O 6 18 6 6 4 40 Humanities 15.0 45.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 71.4 46.2 78.3 60.0 100.0 100.0 N 3 23 10 6 4 56 C°'”m" t°ta' % 23.2 41.1 17.9 10.7 7.1 100 0 Raw chi-square = 9.23532 with 4 df Sig. = .0555 Missing observations = 105 Highest degree held.--Tab1e 19 presents the tabulation of respondents' reasons for noninvolvement in the needs-assessment process in terms of the highest degree held. No systematic relationship was observed. Type of teaching certificate.--Table 20 presents the tabula- tion of respondents' reasons for noninvolvement in the needs-assessment process in terms of the type of teaching certificate held. A syste- matic relationship was found: Among the respondents holding a pro- visional teaching certificate, "No Time" was the most frequently given reason; among those with a permanent certificate, the reason was "No Time" and "Not Invited," whereas among those with a continuing cer- tificate, it was “No Time" and "Don't Know." 60 Table 19.--Reasons for noninvolvement and highest degree held. Not No Didn't No Row Degree Held Invited Time Know Other Interest Total Count 4 13 5 0 0 22 B.A., B.S. Row % 18.2 59.1 22.7 0 0 29.3 Col.% 20.0 41.9 41.7 0 0 12 13 7 5 5 42 M.A., M.S. 28.6 31.0 16.7 11.9 11.9 56.0 60.0 41.9 58.3 83.3 83.3 4 5 O l 1 11 M.A., M.S. + 36.4 45.5 0 9.1 9.1 14.7 20.0 16.1 0 16.7 16.7 N 20 31 12 6 6 75 C°'um" t°ta' % 26.7 41.3 16.0 8.0 8.0 100.0 Raw chi-square = 11.40518 with 8 df Sig. = .1798 Missing observations = 86 Table 20.--Reasons for noninvolvement and teaching certificate. Type of Not No Didn't Other No Row Certificate Invited Time Know Interest Total Count 0 5 O 0 2 7 Provisional Row % O 71.4 0 O 28.6 9.1 Col.% 15.6 0 O 33.3 16 19 3 3 3 44 Permanent 36.4 43.2 6.8 6.8 6.8 57.1 76.2 59.4 25.0 50.0 50.0 5 8 9 3 1 26 Continuing 19.2 30.8 34.6 11.5 3.8 33.8 23.8 25.0 75.0 50.0 16.7 N 21 32 12 6 6 77 c°'“m" t°ta' % 27.3 41.6 15.6 7.8 7.8 100.0 Raw chi-square = 20.94010 with 8 df Sig. = .0073 Missing observations 84 Sex of respondent.--Tab1e 21 presents the tabulation of 61 respondents' reasons for noninvolvement in the needs-assessment pro- cess in terms of the sex of the respondents. ship was observed: A systematic relation- "No Time" dominated as a reason among the female respondents, whereas "Not Invited" dominated among the male respond- ents. Table 21.--Reasons for noninvolvement and sex of respondent. Not No Didn't No Row Sex Invited Time Know Other Interest Total Count 9 25 9 1 2 46 Female Row % 19.6 54.3 19.6 2.2 4.3 60.5 Col.% 45.0 78.1 75.0 16.7 33.3 11 7 3 5 4 30 Male 36.7 23.3 10.0 16.7 13.3 39.5 55.0 21.9 25.0 83.3 66.7 N 20 32 12 6 6 76 C°'”m" t°ta' % 26.3 42.1 15.8 7.9 7.9 100.0 Raw chi-square = 13.90626 with 4 df Sig. = .0076 Missing observations = 85 Years of teaching experience.--Table 22 presents the tabulation of the number of years of teaching experience in terms of reasons given for noninvolvement in the needs-assessment process. relationship was observed. No systematic Yet it is notable that those who gave no reason for noninvolvement corresponded to the overall mean in terms of number of years of experience, whereas those who said they were "Not Invited" had the highest number of years of experience, and those who 62 "Didn't Know" about the process had the lowest mean number of years of experience. Table 22.-~Reasons for noninvolvement and years of teaching experience. Mean Years Std. Dev. N Value Label 14.145 6.887 159 Total population 14.361 6.740 83 No answer 16.810 8.412 21 Not invited 13.129 6.732 31 No time 11.167 4.509 12 Didn't know 14.000 6.633 6 Other 13.167 7.111 6 No interest Total cases = 16 1 Missing cases 2 or 1.2% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:' S uares S uare F-Rat1o F-Prob. Between groups 5 297.29 59.46 1.264 .282 Within groups 153 7196.38 47.04 Total T58" 7493.67 Intention to Continue Involvement in the NeedséAssessment Process Table 10 presented the simple frequency distribution of the respondents in terms of their intention to continue in the needs- assessment process. In the following tables, the same data are pre- sented in such a way as to determine whether there was a relationship between membership on this committee and various professional and personal characteristics of the respondents. 63 School level taught.--Table 23 presents the tabulation of the respondents' intention to continue their involvement in the needs- assessment process by school level taught. As may be noted, no syste- matic relationship was observed. Table 23.--Intention to continue involvement and school level taught. School Level Yes Maybe No Time Row Total Count 16 3 5 24 Elementary Row % 66.7 12.5 20.8 42.1 Col.% 39.0 42.9 55.6 9 0 1 10 Junior H.S. 90.0 0 10.0 17.5 22.0 0 11.1 16 4 3 23 Senior H.S. 69.6 17.4 13.0 40.4 39.0 57.1 33.3 N 41 7 9 57 C°'“m" t°ta' % 71.9 12.3 15.8 100.0 Raw chi-square = 2.99125 with 4 df Sig. = .5593 Missing observations = 104 Subject area taught.--Table 24 presents the tabulation of the respondents' intention to continue their involvement in the needs- assessment process by major subject area taught. As may be noted, no systematic relationship existed. Highest degree held.--Tab1e 25 presents the tabulation of the respondents' intention to continue their involvement in the needs- assessment process by highest degree held. As the data in the table suggest, no systematic relationship existed. 64 Table 24.-—Intention to continue involvement and subject area taught. Subject Area Yes Maybe No Time Row Total Count 5 l l 7 Science Row % 71.4 14.3 14.3 20.0 Col.% 18.5 25.0 25.0 22 3 3 28 Humanities 78.6 10.7 10.7 80.0 81.5 75.0 75.0 N 27 4 4 35 C°'“m" t0ta' % 77.1 11.4 11.4 100.0 Raw chi-square = .16204 with 2 df Sig. = .9222 Missing observations = 126 Table 25.--Intention to continue involvement and highest degree held. Degree Held Yes Maybe No Time Row Total Count 8 0 3 ll B.A., 8.5. Row % 72.7 0 27.3 19.0 Col.% 19.5 0 30.0 24 5 6 35 M.A., M.S. 68.6 14.3 17.1 60.3 58.5 71.4 60.0 9 2 l 12 M.A., M.S. + 75.0 16.7 8.3 20.7 22.0 28.6 10.0 N 41 7 10 58 C°'“m" t°ta' % 70.7 12.1 17.2 100.0 Raw chi-square = 2.93499 with 4 df Sig. = .5688 Missing observations = 103 65 Type of teaching certificate.--Table 26 presents the tabula- tion of the respondents' intention to continue their involvement in the needs-assessment process by teaching certificate. Although no systematic relationship was observed, it is noteworthy that among the respondents with provisional teaching certificates, no one even responded to the question about continuation of involvement. Table 26.--Intention to continue involvement and teaching certificate. Type of Certificate Yes Maybe No Time Row Total . Count 29 4 6 39 Permanent Row % 74.4 10.3 15.4 67.2 Col.% 70.7 57.1 60.0 12 3 4 19 Continuing 63.2 15.8 21.1 32.8 29.3 42.9 40.0 N 41 7 10 58 C°'“m" t°ta' % 70.7 12.1 17.2 100.0 Raw chi-square = .78889 with 2 df Sig. = .6741 Missing observations = 103 Sex of respondent.--Table 27 presents the tabulation of the respondents' intention to continue their involvement in the needs- assessment process by sex of respondents. No systematic relation- ship was observed. Years of teaching experience.--Table 28 presents a breakdown of the number of years of teaching experience in terms of the respond- ents' intention to continue their involvement in the needs-assessment process. Although the respondents who indicated "No Time" had the 66 Table 27.--Intention to continue involvement and sex of respondent. Sex Yes Maybe No Time Row Total Count 21 5 6 32 Female Row % 65.6 15.6 18.8 56.1 Col.% 51.2 71.4 66.7 20 2 3 25 Male 80.0 8.0 12.0 43.9 48.8 28.6 33.3 N 41 7 9 57 C01“m" t0ta' % 71.9 12.3 15.8 100.0 Raw chi-square = 1.47267 with 2 df Sig. = .4789 Missing observations = 104 Table 28.--Intention to continue involvement and years of teaching experience. Mean Years Std. Dev. N Value Label 14.145 6.887 159 Total population 13.971 7.007 102 No answer 14.683 6.362 41 Yes 11.571 5.682 7 Maybe 15.667 8.944 9 No time Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 2 or 1.2% Analysis of Variance: Sum of A Mean . Source 3:. S uares S uare F-Rat1o F-Prob. Between groups 3 82.17 27.39 .573 .634 Within groups 13%; 7411.50 47.82 Total 15 7493.67 67 highest average number of years of experience and those indicating "Maybe" the lowest, the overall difference between the various groups was not statistically significant. Teachers' Involvement in the Planning:Process Four questions in the questionnaire addressed the teachers' involvement in the planning process: 11. In case there are such, or similar committees, are you a member of the following: planning (partial item) 16. In which of the following planning processes have you ever been involved? 1. Identifying the content of teacher professional development. 2. Suggesting programs for professional development. 3. Suggesting speakers or presenters for professional development. 4. Writing mini grant proposals for projects of your own design. Defining desired outcomes of in—service programs. Developing evaluation procedures for programs sponsored by Kent County PSDC. 17. If you indicated in the above list that you have not been involved, what has kept you from being involved? 18. If you indicated any involvement above, do you hope to continue to be involved? Simple Frequency Distributions Initially, simply frequency distributions of the responses to each of these four questions are presented. Membership on planning committee.--As may be noted from Table 29, one-fourth of those who responded to the question about membership on a planning committee stated that no such committee 68 existed. One-third of the respondents indicated that they had never been a member, and 13% did not respond. Of all the respondents, 36% either had been or currently were members of the planning committee. Table 29.--Membership on planning committee. Relative Adjusted Membership Abgglute Freq. Freq. 9' (‘4) (74) No committee 34 21.1 24.3 Never a member 47 29.2 33.6 Former member 20 12.4 14.3 Current member 39 24 2 27.9 No response _21_ 13.0 .. Total 161 100 O 100 O Participation in_planning.--Table 30 presents the kinds of planning activities in which respondents participated. Interestingly enough, although only 59 respondents indicated in Table 29 a past or present membership, 66 respondents mentioned “Suggest Programs" as a form of participation on the planning committee. Table 30.--Participation in particular planning activities. T0pic Yes N % Identify content 46 28.6 Suggest programs 66 41.0 Suggest speakers 56 34.8 Write mini-grants 15 9.3 Define objectives 23 14.3 Evaluate programs 10 6.2 69 Number of planning activities.--Table 31 presents the total number of different planning activities mentioned by the respondents. Nearly half of the respondents, some 44.7%, indicated they had not been involved in any activity. An approximately equal number mentioned one, two, or three activities; considerably fewer mentioned four or five activities, and only one respondent indicated six activities. Table 31.--Total number of planning activities in which respondents participated. NumPeF 9f Absolute Reéeggve Adg::§Ed Act1v1t1es Freq. (%) (%) 0 72 44.7 44.7 1 23 14.3 14.3 2 28 17.4 17.4 3 25 15.5 15.5 4 4 2.5 2.5 5 8 5 0 5.0 5 __l_ .6 .6 Total 161 100.0 100.0 Reasons for noninvolvement with planning.--Asked about their reasons for noninvolvement in the planning process, some 70% of the participants did not respond, as may be noted in Table 32. Of those who did answer, nearly half indicated "No Time," one-fourth were "Not Invited," and the rest either did not know or had no interest. Intention to continue involvement in planning,--Tab1e 33 presents the answers to the question about intention to continue involvement in the planning process. Slightly more than half of the study participants did not respond at all. Of those who did answer, 7O 82% said "Yes," they intended to continue their involvement in the planning process. Table 32.--Reasons for noninvolvement with planning. Relative Adjusted Reason Ab::;Ute Freq. Freq. q' (z) 00 Not invited 13 8.1 26.5 No time 23 14.3 46.9 Didn't know 6 3.7 12.2 No interest 7 4.3 14.3 No response .112. 69.6 .. Total 161 100 0 100 O Table 33.--Intention to continue involvement in the planning process. Relative Adjusted Intention Ab23;Ute Freq. Freq. q“ (76) (74) Yes 64 39.8 82.1 Maybe 7 4.3 9.0 No time 7 4.3 9 O No response _§§_ 51.6 .. Total 161 100.0 100.0 Membership on the Planning:§ommittee Whereas Table 29 presented the simply frequency distribution of the respondents in terms of membership on the planning committee, the following tables present the same information in terms of the educational and personal characteristics of the respondents. 71 School level taught.--Table 34 presents the tabulation of membership on the planning committee in terms of the school level taught. No systematic relationship was observed. Table 34.--Membership on planning committee and school level taught No Never a Former Current Row School Level Committee Member Member Member Total Count 17 17 9 13 56 Elementary Row % 30.4 30.4 16.1 23.2 40.3 Col.% 50.0 36.2 45.0 34.2 9 10 3 7 29 Junior H.S. 31.0 34.5 10.3 24.1 20.9 26.5 21.3 15.0 18.4 8 20 8 18 54 Senior H.S. 14.8 37.0 14.8 33.3 38.8 23.5 42.6 40.0 47.4 N 34 47 20 38 139 C°'”m" t°t31 % 24.5 33.8 14.4 27.3 100.0 Raw chi-square = 5.34360 with 6 df Sig. = .5006 Missing observations 22 Subject area taught.--Table 35 presents the tabulation of membership on the planning committee in terms of the subject area taught. As the data suggest, no systematic relationship existed. Highest degree held.--Tab1e 36 presents the tabulation of membership on the planning committee in terms of the highest degree held. Again, no systematic relationship was observed. 72 Table 35.--Membership on planning committee and subject area taught. . No Never a Former Current Row SUbJECt Area Committee Member Member Member Total Count 7 8 4 5 24 Science Row % 29.2 33.3 16.7 20.8 24.2 Col.% 23.3 26.7 30.8 19.2 23 22 9 21 75 Humanities 30.7 29.3 12.0 28.0 75.8 76.7 73.3 69.2 80.8 N 30 30 13 26 99 C°'“m" 1013' % 30.3 30.3 13.1 26.3 100 0 Raw chi-square = .76662 with 3 df Sig. = .8574 Missing observations = 62 Table 36.--Membership on planning committee and highest degree held. No Never a Former Current Row Degree Held Committee Member Member Member Total Count 13 12 3 10 38 B.A., B.S. Row % 34.2 31.6 7.9 26.3 27.5 061.% 38.2 26.7 15.0 25.6 18 29 13 20 80 M.A., M.S. 22.5 36.2 16.2 25.0 58.0 52.9 64.4 65.0 51.3 3 4 4 9 20 M.A., M.S. + 15.0 20.0 20.0 45.0 14.5 8.8 8.9 20.0 23.1 N 34 45 20 39 138 C°‘"m" t°ta' % 24.6 32.6 14.5 28.3 100.0 Raw chi-square = 7.69379 with 6 df Sig. = .2614 Missing observations = 23 73 Type of teaching certificate.--Table 37 presents the tabula- tion of membership on the planning committee in terms of the type of teaching certificate held by the respondents. The data suggested no systematic relationship. Table 37.--Membership on planning committee and type of teaching certificate. Type of No Never a Former Current Row Certificate Committee Member Member Member Total Count 4 3 0 3 10 Provisional Row % 40.0 30.0 0 30.0 7.1 Col.% 11.8 6.4 O 7.7 18 31 15 24 88 Permanent 20.5 35.2 17.0 27.3 62.9 52.9 66.0 75.0 61.5 12 13 5 12 42 Continuing 38.6 31.0 11.9 28.6 30.0 35.3 27.7 25.0 30.8 N 34 47 20 39 140 C°'”m" t°ta' % 24.3 33.6 14.3 27.9 100.0 Raw chi-square = 4.16135 with 6 df Sig. = .6549 Missing observations = 21 Sex of respondents.--Table 38 presents the tabulation of mem- bership on the planning committee in terms of the sex of the respond- ents. No systematic relationship was found. 74 Table 38.--Membership on planning committee and sex of respondent. Sex No Never a Former Current Row Committee Member Member Member Total Count 19 29 10 23 81 Female Row % 23.5 35.8 12.3 28.4 58.7 Col.% 57.6 61.7 50.0 60.5 14 18 10 15 57 .Male 24.6 31.6 17.5 26.3 41.3 42.4 38.3 50.0 39.5 N 33 47 20 38 138 C°'“m" t°ta' % 23.9 34.1 14.5 27.5 100.0 Raw chi-square = .86861 with 3 df Sig. = .8330 Missing observations = 23 Years of teaching erperience.-—Table 39 presents a breakdown of the number of years of teaching experience by membership on the plan- ning committee. Respondents who were former members of the committee had the highest average number of years of teaching experience, whereas those who said there was no such committee had the lowest number of years of experience, closely followed by those who were current members. However, no statistically significant difference was observed. Degree of Involvement in the Planning Progress In Table 31, the number of different planning-committee activi- ties in which the respondents had participated was presented. This number was considered an index of the degree of involvement in plan- ning and was broken down by various educational and personal char- acteristics of the respondents. 75 Table 39.--Membership on planning committee and years of teaching experience. “ea" Std Dev N v 1 L b 1 Years . . a ue a e 14.145 6.887 159 Total population 15.810 6.562 21 No answer 12.333 6.293 33 No committee 14.191 7.383 47 Never a member 16.050 7.783 20 Former member 13.737 6.285 38 Current member Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 2 or 1.2% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:_ S uares S uare F-Rat1o F-Prob. Between groups 4 245.51 61.38 1.304 .271 Within groups 154 7248.17 47.07 Total 163' 7493.67 School level taught.--Table 40 shows a breakdown of the respondents' degree of involvement in planning in terms of the school level taught. The lowest degree of involvement was shown by the elementary-school teachers; however, no statistically significant dif- ference was found. Subject area taught.--Tab1e 41 presents a breakdown of the respondents' degree of involvement with planning in terms of the subject area taught. No significant difference was found. Table 40.--Degree of 76 involvement with planning and school level taught. Mean Degree Std. Dev N Value Label 1.350 1.522 160 Total population 1.060 1.324 67 Elementary 1.529 1.522 34 Junior, Middle 1.576 1.694 59 Senior Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 1 or .6% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source E:_ S uares S uare F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 2 9.76 4.88 2.137 .121 Within groups 151_ 358.64 2.28 Total 159 36 . O Table 41.-—Degree of involvement with planning and subject area taught. Mean Degree Std. Dev. N Value Label 1.237 1.471 114 Total population 1.385 1.627 26 Science 1.193 1.429 88 Humanities Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 47 or 29.2% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source .E:. S uares S uare F-Rat1o F-Prob. Between groups 1 .74 .74 .338 .562 Within groups 112 243.87 2.18 Total TT3' 244.61 77 Highest degree held.--Table 42 shows a breakdown of the respondents' degree of involvement with planning in terms of the highest degree held. A highly significant difference was found: Respondents with but a B.A. or a B.S. degree were only half as involved as those with a master's degree or more. Table 42.--Degree of involvement with planning and highest degree held. Mean Degree Std. Dev. N Value Label 1.340 1.530 159 Total population .756 1.171 45 B.A., B.S. 1.554 1.557 92 M.A., M.S. 1.636 1.787 22 M.A., M.S. + Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 2 or 1.2% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:' S uares S uare F-Rat1o F-Prob. Between groups 2 21.53 10.77 4.824 .009 Within groups T§§_ 348.13 2.23 Total 158 369.66 Type of teaching certificate.--Table 43 presents a breakdown of the respondents' degree of involvement with planning in terms of the teaching certificate held. Although no statistically significant dif- ference was observed, respondents with only a provisional teaching certificate indicated considerably less involvement than those with a permanent certificate. 78 Table 43.--Degree of involvement with planning and type of teaching certificate held. Mean Degree Std. Dev. N Value Label 1.342 1.521 161 Total population .700 .949 10 Provisional 1.431 1.638 102 Permanent 1.286 1.339 49 Continuing Total cases = 16 1 Missing cases 0 Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:_ S uareS S uare F-Rat1o F-Prob. Between groups 2 5.09 2.55 1.102 .335 Within groups 158 365.12 2.31 Total 1431 370.21 Sex of respondentS.--Table 44 presents a breakdown of the respondents' degree of involvement with planning in terms of the sex of the respondents. No significant differences were found. Years of teaching experience.--Finally, a correlation between the number of years of teaching experience and the degree of involve- ment in planning activities indicated no relationship: Years of Teaching Experience Involvement -.O4l8 in Planning ( .159) Activities' P = .301 79 Table 44.--Degree of involvement with planning and sex of respondent. ngfige Std. Dev. N Value Label 1.358 1.523 . 159 Total population 1.458 1.555 96 Female 1.206 1.472 63 Male Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 2 or 1.2% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:_ S uares S uare F-Rat1o F-Prob. Between groups 1 2.42 2.42 1.041 .309 Within groups 157 364.15 2.32 Total 163' 366.57 Reasons for Noninvolvement in the Planninngrocess Table 32 presented the simple frequencies of respondents' reasons for noninvolvement in the planning process. In the following tables, this information is broken down in terms of various personal and professional characteristics of the respondents. School level taught.--Tab1e 45 presents a tabulation of the respondents' reasons for noninvolvement in the planning process in terms of the school level taught. No systematic relationship was observed. Subject area taught.--Table 46 presents the tabulation of the respondents' reasons for noninvolvement in the planning process in terms of the subject area taught. No systematic relationship appeared to exist. 80 Table 45.-~Reasons for noninvolvement in planning and school level taught. Not No Didn't No Row SCPPO] Level Invited Time Know Interest Total Count 3 10 2 1 16 Elementary Row % 18.8 62.5 12.5 6.3 32.7 Col.% 23.1 43.5 33.3 14.3 1 3 2 3 9 Junior H.S. 11.1 33.3 22.2 33.3 18.4 7.7 13.0 33.3 42.9 9 10 2 3 24 Senior H.S. 37.5 41.7 8.3 12.5 49.0 69.2 43.5 33.3 42.9 N 13 23 6 7 49 C°'”m" t0ta' % 26.5 46.9 12.2 14.3 100.0 Raw chi-square = 7.67752 with 6 df Sig. = .2627 Missing observations = 112 Table 46.--Reasons for noninvolvement in planning and subject area taught. Not No Didn't No Row SUbjECt Area Invited Time Know Interest Total Count 1 5 2 2 10 Science Row % 10.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 30.3 Col.% 33.3 27.8 40.0 28.6 2 13 3 5 23 Humanities 8.7 56.5 13.0 21.7 69.7 66.7 72.2 60.0 71.4 N 3 18 5 7 33 C°'"m" t°ta' % 9.1 54.5 15.2 21.2 100.0 Raw chi-square = .29994 with 3 df Sig. = .9600 Missing observations = 128 81 Highest degree held.--Table 47 presents the tabulation of the respondents' reasons for noninvolvement in the planning process in terms of the highest degree held. A statistically significant rela- tionship appeared to exist in that lack of time was indicated most frequently among respondents with but a bachelor's degree, whereas no interest was most often cited among those with more advanced degrees. Table 47.--Reasons for noninvolvement in planning and highest degree held. Not No Didn't No Row Degree Held Invited Time Know Interest Total Count 4 l3 2 0 l9 B.A., B.S. Row % 21.1 68.4 10.5 0 39.6 Col.% 33.3 56.5 33.3 0 7 8 4 4 23 M.A., M.S. 30.4 34.8 17.4 17.4 47.9 58.3 34.8 66.7 57.1 1 2 0 3 6 M.A., M.S. + 16.7 33.3 0 50.0 12.5 8.3 8.7 0 42.9 N 12 23 6 7 48 C°‘“m" t0ta' % 25.0 47.9 12.5 14.6 100.0 Raw chi-square = 12.62357 with 6 df Sig. = .0494 Missing observations = 113 Type of teaching certificate.--Table 48 presents the tabulation of the respondents' reasons for noninvolvement in the planning process in terms of the type of teaching certificate held. No statistically significant relationship was observed. 82 Table 48.--Reasons for noninvolvement in planning and type of teaching certificate. Type of Not No Didn't No Row Certificate Invited Time Know Interest Total Count 0 2 0 O Provisional Row % 0 100.0 0 O 4.1 Col.% 0 8.7 O O 8 16 1 5 30 Permanent 26.7 53.3 3.3 16.7 61.2 61.5 69.6 16.7 71.4 5 5 5 2 17 Continuing 29.4 29.4 29.4 11.8 34.7 38.5 21.7 83.3 28.6 N 13 23 6 7 49 C°'“m” t°ta' % 26.5 46.9 12.2 14.3 100.0 Raw chi-square = 9.92000 with 6 df Sig. = .1281 Missing observations = 112 Sex of respondents.--Tab1e 49 presents the tabulation of the respondents' reasons for noninvolvement in the planning process in terms of the sex of the respondents. Although not significant, a tendency toward a systematic relationship was suggested by the data, in that lack of time was a somewhat more prominent reason among female respondents, and no interest was more common among male respondents. Years of teaching experience.--Tab1e 50 presents a breakdown of the number of years of teaching experience in terms of the respondents' reasons for noninvolvement in the planning process. No significant differences were observed. 83 Table 49.--Reasons for noninvolvement in planning and sex of respondent. Sex Not No Didn't No Row Invited Time Know Interest Total Count 6 l3 5 1 25 Female Row % 24.0 52.0 20.0 4.0 52.1 Col.% 50.0 56.5 83.3 14.3 6 10 l 6 23 Male 26.1 43.5 4.3 26.1 47.9 50.0 43.5 16.7 85.7 N 12 23 6 7 48 C°'”m" t0ta' % 25.0 47.9 12.5 14.6 100.0 Raw chi-square = 6.55745 with 3 df Sig. .0874 Missing observations = 113 Table 50.--Reasons for noninvolvement in planning and years of teaching experience. Mean Years Std. Dev. N Value Label 14.145 6.887 159 Total population 13.468 6.211 111 No answer 16.231 9.765 13 Not invited 16.000 8.089 22 No time 12.333 5.164 6 Didn't know 16.714 7.631 7 No interest Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 2 or 1.2% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean Source df Between groups 4 Within groups 154 Total 1433 Sguares Sguare F—Ratio F-Prob. 248.96 62.24 1.323 .264 7244.71 47.04 7493.67 84 Intention to Continue Involvement in the Planning Process Table 33 presented the simple frequencies of the responses to the question concerning respondents' future involvement in the planning process. In the following tables, these answers are broken down in terms of various personal and professional characteristics of the respondents. School level taught.--Table 51 presents the tabulation of the respondents' intention to continue their involvement in the planning process in terms of the school level taught. No significant relation- ship was observed. Table 51.--Intention to continue involvement in planning and school level taught. School Level Yes Maybe No Time Row Total Count 23 2 3 28 Elementary Row % 82.1 7.1 10.7 35.9 Col.% 35.9 28.6 42.9 17 3 2 22 Junior H.S. 77.3 13.6 9.1 28.2 26.6 42.9 28.6 24 2 2 28 Senior H.S. 85.7 7.1 7.1 35.9 37.5 28.6 28.6 N 64 7 7 78 C°'“m" t°ta1 % 82.1 9.0 9.0 100.0 Raw chi-square = 1.04860 with 4 df Sig. = .9023 Missing observations = 83 85 Subject area taught.--Table 52 presents the tabulation of the respondents' intention to continue their involvement in the planning process in terms of the subject area taught. No statistically sig- nificant relationship appeared to exist. Table 52.-—Intention to continue involvement in planning and subject area taught. Subject Area Yes Maybe No Time Row Total Count 12 2 2 16 Science Row % 75.0 12.5 12.5 29.1 Col.% 26.1 33.3 66.7 34 4 1 39 Humanities 87.2 10.3 2.6 70.9 73.9 66.7 33.3 N 46 6 3 55 c°'”m" t°ta' % 83.6 10.9 5.5 100.0 Raw chi-square = 2.30700 with 2 df Sig. = .3155 Missing observations = 106 Highest degree held.--Table 53 presents the tabulation of the respondents' intention to continue their involvement in the planning process in terms of the highest degree held. Although it is not Significant, a tendency toward a systematic relationship may be noted from this table. Type of teaching certificate.-—Table 54 presents the tabula- tion of the respondents' intention to continue their involvement in the planning process in terms of the type of teaching certificate held. No systematic relationship was observed. 86 Table 53.--Intention to continue involvement in planning and highest degree held. Degree Held Yes Maybe No Time Row Total Count 11 2 2 15 B.A., B.S. Row % 73.3 13.3 13.3 19.5 Col.% 17.2 33.3 28.6 45 1 4 50 M.A., M.S. 90.0 2.0 8.0 64.9 70.3 16.7 57.1 8 3 l 12 M.A., M.S. + 66.7 25.0 8.3 15.6 12.5 50.0 14.3 N 64 6 7 77 C°'“m" t0ta' % 83.1 7.8 9.1 100.0 Raw chi-square = 8.52233 with 4 df Sig. = .0742 Missing observations = 84 Table 54.--Intention to continue involvement in planning and type of teaching certificate. Celiiiigzte Yes Maybe No Time Row Total Count 4 O 0 4 Provisional Row % 100.0 0 O 5.1 Col.% 6.3 0 O 41 6 4 51 Permanent 80.4 11.8 7.8 65.4 64.1 85.7 57.1 19 l 3 23 Continuing 82.6 4.3 13.0 29.5 29.7 14.3 42.9 N 64 7 7 78 C°'”m“ t°ta' % 82.1 9.0 9.0 100.0 Raw chi-square = 2.38110 with 4 df Sig. = .6660 Missing observations = 83 87 Sex of respondentS.--Tab1e 55 presents the tabulation of the respondents' intention to continue their involvement in the planning process in terms of the sex of the respondents. No systematic rela- tionship was observed. Table 55.-~Intention to continue involvement in planning and sex of respondent. Sex Yes Maybe No Time Row Total Count 39 4 4 47 Female Row % 83.0 8.5 8.5 60.3 Col.% 60.9 57.1 57.1 25 3 3 31 Male 80.6 9.7 9.7 39.7 39.1 42.9 42.9 N 64 7 7 78 C°'“m" t°ta' % 82.1 9.0 9.0 100.0 Raw chi-square = .06907 with 2 df Sig. = .9661 Missing observations = 83 Years of teaching experience.—-Table 56 presents the breakdown of number of years of teaching experience in terms of the respondents' intention to continue their involvement in the planning process. No significant difference was found between respondents who said they would and those who said they would not continue their involvement in planning. 88 Table 56.--Intention to continue involvement in planning and years of experience teaching. v2??? Std. Dev. N Value Label 14.145 6.887 159 Total population 13.852 6.876 81 No answer 14.641 7.284 64 Yes 14.000 4.397 7 Maybe 13.143 6.094 7 No time Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 2 or 1.2% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source 3:. S uares S uare F-Rat1o F-Prob. Between groups 3 29.86 9.45 .207 .892 Within groups 155 7463.81 48.15 Total 163? 74 3. 7 Teachers' Involvement in Implementation of Programs Two questions in the questionnaire addressed the teachers' involvement in the implementation of programs: 11. In the case there are such, or similar, committees, are you a member of any of the following: implementation (partial item) 19. Considering the scale below, would you characterize your involvement in the implementation of the activi- ties of Kent PSDC more as actively involved (1) or as not involved at all (5)? Simple Frequenoijistributions Initially, simple frequency distributions of the responses to each of these two questions are presented. 89 Membership on the implementation committee.--Table 57 presents the responses to the question concerning membership on the implemen- tation committee. Nearly 20% of the respondents did not answer this question at all; of the remainder, 30% indicated that there was no such committee, and another 40% said that they had never been a mem- ber. Only about one-fourth of the total number of respondents either had been or currently were members of the implementation committee. Table 57.--Membership on implementation committee. Relative Adjusted Membership Abgglute Freq. Freq. q' (8) (74) No committee 38 23.6 29.5 Never a member 52 32.3 40.3 Former member 14 8.7 10.9 Current member 25 15.5 19.4 No response _T§T 19.9 .. Total 161 100.0 100.0 Degree of involvement in implementation.--Table 58 presents the responses to an attitude scale concerning involvement in implemen- tation. Some 85% of the total sample responded to this question, half of whom indicated “no involvement." The mean degree of involve- ment in implementation was 4.02, between "more or less" (value 3) and "not involved“ (value 5). 90 Table 58.-—Degree of involvement in implementation. Relative Adjusted Involvement Abgglute Freq. Freq. '1' (74) (z) Actively involved (1) 7 4.3 5.1 13 8.1 9.5 More or less (3) 20 12.4 14.6 28 17.4 20.4 Not involved (5) 69 42.9 50.4 No response _321 14.9 . Total 161 100.0 100.0 Mean 4.015 Std. Err. .105 Median 4.507 Mode 5.000 Std. Dev. 1.225 Variance 1.500 Membership on Implementation Committee Table 57 presented the simple frequency distribution of mem- bership on the implementation committee. In the following tables, these responses are broken down in terms of personal and professional characteristics of the respondents. School level taught.--Table 59 presents the tabulation of membership on the implementation committee in terms of the school level taught. A Significant relationship may be observed: Among the junior-high-school teachers were the fewest former or present members, followed by the elementary-school teachers, whereas among the senior-high-school teachers there was the largest proportion of former and present members. 91 Table 59.--Membership on implementation committee and school level taught. School Level No Never a Former Current Row Committee Member Member Member Total Count 20 16 10 7 Elementary Row % 37.7 30.2 18.9 13.2 Col.% 52.6 30.8 71.4 29.2 10 12 0 4 Junior H.S. 38.5 46.2 0 15.4 26.3 23.1 0 16.7 8 24 4 13 Senior H.S. 16.3 49.0 8.2 26.5 21.1 46.2 28.6 54.2 N 38 52 14 24 C°'“m" 1°19] % 29.7 40.6 10.9 18.8 1 Raw chi-square = 16.07907 with 6 df Sig. = .0133 Missing observations = 33 53 41.4 26 20.3 49 38.3 128 00.0 Subject area taught.--Tab1e 60 presents the tabulation of membership on the implementation committee in terms of the subject area taught. No systematic relationship appeared to exist. Highest degree held.--Tab1e 61 presents the tabulation of membership on the implementation committee in terms of the highest degree held. Although it is not significant, a tendency toward a systematic relationship may be observed in the sense that with a higher degree or more education, a higher proportion of the respond- ents were current or former members of the committee. 92 Table 60.--Membership on implementation committee and subject area taught. No Never a Former Current Row- SUPJECF Area Committee Member Member Member Total Count 7 10 2 4 23 Science Row % 30.4 43.5 8.7 17.4 25.3 Col.% 20.6 30.3 22.2 26.7 27 23 7 11 68 Humanities 39.7 33.8 10.3 16.2 74.7 79.4 69.7 77.8 73.3 N 34 33 9 15 91 C°'“m" t°ta' % 37.4 36.3 9.9 16.5 100.0 Raw chi-square = .89695 with 3 df Sig. = .8262 Missing observations = 70 Table 61.--Membership on implementation committee and highest degree held. No Never a Former Current Row Degree Held Committee Member Member Member Total Count 16 12 3 3 34 B.A., B.S. Row % 47.1 35.3 8.8 8.8 26.8 Col.% 42.1 24.0 21.4 12.0 19 33 9 15 76 M.A., M.S. 25.0 43.4 11.8 19.7 59.8 50.0 66.0 64.3 60.0 3 5 2 7 17 M.A., M.S. + 17.6 29.4 11.8 41.2 13.4 7.9 10.0 14.3 28.0 N 38 50 14 25 127 C°'“m" t°ta' % 29.9 39.4 11.0 19.7 100.0 Raw chi-square = 11.92738 with 6 df Sig. = .0636 Missing observations = 34 93 Type of teaching certificate.--Table 62 presents the tabulation of membership on the implementation committee in terms of the type of teaching certificate held. No systematic relationship was observed. Table 62.--Membership on implementation committee and type of teaching certificate. Type of No Never a Former Current Row Certificate Committee Member Member Member Total Count 5 3 1 1 10 Provisional Row % 50.0 30.0 10.0 10.0 7.8 Col.% 13.2 5.8 7.1 4.0 20 34 8 15 77 Permanent 26.0 44.2 10.4 19.5 59.7 52.6 65.4 57.1 60.0 13 15 5 9 42 Continuing 31.0 35.7 11.9 21.4 32.6 34.2 28.8 35.7 36.0 N 38 52 14 25 129 C°'”m" t°ta' % 29.5 40.3 10.9 19.4 100.0 Raw chi-square = 3.15800 with 6 df Sig. = .7888 Missing observations = 32 Sex of respondent.--Table 63 presents the tabulation of mem- bership on the implementation committee in terms of the sex of the respondents. No systematic relationship appeared to exist. Years of teaching experience.--Table 64 presents the breakdown of years of teaching experience in terms of membership on the imple- mentation committee. No statistically significant differences between the various membership groups were found. However, it may be observed that those who did not answer this question had notably more years of 94 Table 63.--Membership on implementation committee and sex of respondent. Sex No Never a Former Current Row Committee Member Member Member Total Count 22 29 9 14 74 Female Row % 29.7 39.2 12.2 18.9 58.3 Col.% 59.5 55.8 64.3 58.3 15 23 5 10 53 Male 28.3 43.4 9.4 18.9 41.7 40.5 44.2 35.7 41.7 N 37 52 14 24 127 C°'“m" t0ta' % 29.1 40.9 11.0 18.9 100 0 Raw chi-square = .36366 with 3 df Sig. = .9476 Missing observations = 34 Table 6.--Membership on implementation committee and years of teaching experience. Mean Years Std. Dev. N Value Label 14.145 6.887 159 Total population 16.469 6.686 32 No answer 12.027 6.103 37 No committee 14.635 7.499 52 Never a member 13.929 8.213 14 Former member 13.375 5.339 24 Current member Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 2 or 1.2% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:. S uares S uare F-Rat1o F-Prob. Between groups 4 366.12 91.53 1.978 .101 Within groups 154 7127.55 46.28 7493.67 5 Total 95 teaching experience that the mean, with present or former members of the committee having fewer years of experience than the group mean. Degree of Involvement in Implementation Table 58 presented a simple breakdown of the respondents' degree of involvement in the implementation process. The following tables present these data in terms of personal and professional char- acteristics of the respondents. School level taught.--Table 65 presents a breakdown of the participants'degree of involvement in the implementation process in terms of the school level taught. No significant difference between the groups was observed. Table 65.--Degree of involvement in implementation and school level taught. Mean Degree Std. Dev. N Value Label 4.029 1.217 136 Total population 4.019 1.157 54 Elementary 4.281 1.198 32 Junior H.S. 3.880 1.288 50 Senior H.S. Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 25 or 15.5% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source 3:. S uares S uare F-Rat1o F Prob. Between groups 2 3.15 1.58 1.066 .347 Within groups 133 196.73 1.48 199788 '81 Total 96 Subject area taught.--Table 66 presents a breakdown of the participants' degree of involvement in the implementation process in terms of the subject area taught. No systematic difference appeared to exist. Table 66.--Degree of involvement in implementation and subject area taught. Mean Degree Std. Dev. N Value Label 4.158 1.123 95 Total population 4.227 1.232 22 Science 4.137 1.097 73 Humanities Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 66 or 41.0% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source E:_ S uares S uare F-Rat1o F-Prob. Between groups 1 .14 .14 .108 .743 Within groups 93 118.49 1.27 Total 94' 113.63 Highest degree held.--Tab1e 67 presents a breakdown of the participants' degree of involvement in the implementation process in terms of the highest degree held. A significant difference was found between the three groups in that subjects with more education had increasingly more involvement in the implementation process. 97 Table 67.--Degree of involvement in implementation and highest degree held. 023329 Std. Dev. N Value Label 4.007 1.226 136 Total population 4.378 1.037 37 B.A., 8.5. 3.950 1.200 80 M.A., M.S. 3.526 1.504 19 M.A., M.S. + Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 25 or 15.5% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source df. S uares S uare F-Rat1o .F—Prob. Between groups 2 9.75 4.88 3.356 .038 Within groups 133 193.24 1.45 Total 136' 202.99 Type of teaching certificate.--Tab1e 68 presents a breakdown of the participants' degree of involvement in the implementation pro- cess in terms of the type of teaching certificate held. A significant difference was observed: Respondents with a permanent certificate were notably more involved in the implementation process than those with either a continuing or, especially, a provisional certificate. Sex of respondent.--Table 69 presents a breakdown of the participants' degree of involvement in the implementation process in terms of the sex of the respondents. No significant difference was observed. 98 Table 68.--Degree of involvement in implementation and type of teaching certificate. Mean Degree Std. Dev. N Value Label 4.015 1.225 137 Total population 4.778 .441 9 Provisional 3.849 1.260 86 Permanent 4.190 1.194 42 Continuing Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 24 or 14.9% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:_ S uares S uare F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 2 8.90 4.45 3.058 .050 Within groups 134 195.07 1.46 Total 1??? 203. 7 Table 69.--Degree of involvement in implementation and sex of respondent. Mean Degree Std. Dev. N Value Label 4.022 1.218 135 Total population 4.025 1.219 79 Female 4.019 1.228 56 Male Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 26 or 16.1% Sum of Mean . Source d:. S uares S uare F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 1 .00 .00 .001 .972 Within groups 133 93 1.50 134' 198 93 Total 99 Years of teaching experience.--Finally, the correlation between the respondents' degree of involvement in implementation and the number of years of teaching experience was not significant: Degree of Involvement Teaching (-°O%g§) Experience Pi= 413 Teachers' Involvement in Governance Processes In the three previous sections, results pertaining to the respondents' involvement in the needs-assessment process, planning process, and implementation process were presented. In this section, the respondents' overall involvement in these three areas and a fourth, policy board, are presented. Only one question in the ques- tionnaire dealt specifically with this topic: 11. In the case there are such, or similar, committees, are you a member of the following: Needs assessment Planning Implementation Policy board Membership on Governance Committees In previous sections, membership on three governance commit- tees was discussed. Table 70 presents a summary of the information presented in Tables 6, 29, and 57, as well as data concerning member- ship on the policy board of the Kent Professional Staff Development Center. As may be noted from this table, even more respondents were not aware of the existence of a policy board, nor had they ever been 100 members of such a committee. Only about 15% of the respondents either had been or currently were members of the policy board. Table 70.--Membership on governance committees. . No Never a Former Current No Row Membership Committee Member Member Member Response Total Needs Total 37 53 24 23 24 161 Assessment Row % 23.0 32.9 14.9 14.3 14.9 . 34 47 20 39 21 161 P‘a""‘”9 21.1 29.2 12.4 24.2 13.0 Implemen- 38 52 14 25 32 161 tation 23.6 32.3 8.7 15.5 19.9 Policy 42 62 5 18 34 161 Board 26.1 38.5 3.1 11.2 21.1 Current membership in governance_process.--Table 71 presents the number of different committees (needs assessment, planning, imple— mentation, and/or policy board) of which respondents currently were members. Nearly three-fourths of the respondents were not involved on a single committee, whereas approximately equal numbers were involved in one, two, three, or even all four governance committees. Past or current membership in governance process.--In contrast with Table 71, Table 72 presents the number of different committees of which respondents had ever been members, either currently or in the past. Even with the inclusion of past membership, more than half of the respondents still appeared never to have been involved in any of the four committees in question. 101 Table 71.--Number of current committee memberships. Number of Absolute Relative Adgusted Cumulative Memberships Freq. Egg' 2;?“ 1:7. 0 117 72.7 72.7 72.7 1 12 7.5 7.5 80.1 2 13 8.1 8.1 88.2 3 9 5.6 5.6 93.8 4 10 6.2 6.2 100.0 Total 161 100.0 100.0 Mean .652 Std. Err. .096 Median .188 Mode 0 Std. Dev. 1.216 Variance 1.478 Table 72.--Number of past or present committee memberships. Number of Absolute Religive Adgusted Cumulative Memberships Freq. (%3' 1:1. E;?' 0 95 59.0 59.0 59.0 1 17 10.6 10.6 69.6 2 13 8.1 8.1 77.6 3 19 11 8 11.8 89.4 4 _11, 10.6 10.6 100.0 Total 161 100.0 100.0 Mean 1.043 Std. Err. .114 Median .347 Mode 0 Std. Dev. 1.451 Variance 2.104 Number of Past or Present Committee Memberships In the following tables, the number of past and present commit- tee memberships are presented in such a way as to determine whether there was any relationship between this variable and personal and professional characteristics of the respondents. 102 School level taught.--Table 73 presents a breakdown of the mean number of past and present committee memberships in terms of school level taught. No significant difference was found. Table 73.--Number of committee memberships and school level taught. Mean Std Number . Dev. N Value Label 1.025 1.436 160 Total population 1.000 1.414 67 Elementary .765 1.281 34 Junior H.S. 1.203 1.540 59 Senior H.S. Total cases = 161 Missing cases = l or .6% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:- S uares S uare F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 2 4.22 2.11 1.024 .361 Within groups 151_ 323.68 2.06 Total 159 327.90 Subject area taught.--Tab1e 74 presents a breakdown of the mean number of past and present committee memberships in terms of subject area taught. No statistically significant difference was found. Highest degree held.--Table 75 presents a breakdown of the mean number of past and present committee memberships in terms of highest degree held. The following significant difference was found: With increasing education, there was more participation in the various gov- ernance committees. 103 Table 74.--Number of committee memberships and subject area taught. Mean Number Std. Dev. N Value Label 1.043 1.451 161 Total population 1.298 1.573 47 Other .923 1.440 26 Science .943 1.384 88 Humanities Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 0 Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:- S uares S uare F-Ratio F—Prob. Between groups 2 4.30 2.15 1.023 .362 Within groups 1§§_ 332.39 2.10 Total 160 336.70 Table 75.-—Number of committee memberships and highest degree held. Mean Number Std. Dev. N Value Label 1.057 1.455 159 Total population .756 1.300 45 B.A., B.S. 1.054 1.455 92 M.A., M.S. 1.682 1.615 22 M.A., M.S. + Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 2 or 1.2% Analysis of variance: Sum of Mean . _ Source d:_ S uares S uare F-Ratio F Prob. Between groups 2 12.68 6.34 3.073 .049 Within groups 156 321.81 2.06 Total 158' 334.49 104 Type of teaching certificate.--Table 76 presents a breakdown of the mean number of past and present committee memberships in terms of the type of teaching certificate held. No statistically signifi- cant difference was observed. Table 76.--Number of committee memberships and type of teaching certificate. Nggggr Std. Dev. N Value Label 1.043 1.451 161 Total population .600 1.075 10 Provisional 1.039 1.428 102 Permanent 1.143 1.568 49 Continuing Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 0 Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source S:. S uares S uare F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 2 2.45 1.23 .580 .561 Within groups 158 334.24 2.12 Total 1137 336.70 Sex of respondent.--Table 77 presents a breakdown of the mean number of past and present committee memberships in terms of the sex of the respondents. No significant difference was observed. Years of teachingiexperience.--As the following correlation index indicates, there was no systematic relationship between the 105 Table 77.--Number of committee memberships and sex of respondent. Mean Number Std. Dev. N Value Label 1.031 1.438 159 Total population 1.094 1.515 96 Female .937 1.318 63 Male Total cases = 16 1 Missing Cases 2 or 1.2% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:_ S uares S uare F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 1 .94 .94 .453 .502 Within groups 157 325.90 2.08 Total 158' 326.84 number of years of teaching experience and the number of past and present committee memberships. Years of Teaching Experience -.0330 Past and Present ( 159) Membership P = .340 Participation in KPSDC Activities The four previous sections dealt with the teachers' involve- ment in the governance processes of the Kent Professional Staff Development Center (KPSDC), i.e., needs assessment, planning, imple- mentation, and policy board. The following sections deal with the teachers' participation in the activities offered by the Center, as 106 well as their evaluation of the benefits obtained from such partici- pation. Two questions in the questionnaire, each with several sub- parts, asked about participation in and usefulness of the activities of the Center: 20. During the 1980-81 school year, which of the following activities have you participated in at Kent PSDC: Workshops Courses Study groups Lectures For each alternative, respondents were asked (a) how often, (b) helpfulness, and (c) use of what was learned in the classroom. 21. During your participation in the Kent Professional Staff Development Center's activities, have you found the activities you have participated in are related to: General personal growth Improving instructional skills Keeping current about educational matters Facilitating change and improvement Helping with one's career Organizing the classroom Simple Frequencies In the following pages, descriptive data for the two questions are presented. Participation in Kent PSDC activities.--Tab1e 78 presents an overview of the responses to Questionnaire Item 20. Considering participation, it may be noted that the highest degree of participa- tion was in workshops, of which slightly over half of the respondents availed themselves. This was followed by lectures, which about one- third of the respondents attended. Courses and study groups appeared 107 to have very little appeal to the respondents, with less than 10% indicating participation in either of these two activities. Table 78.--Participation in KPSDC activities. . . Participation Helpfulnessa Use of Material Act1v1ty Yes No Mean N Yes No NA Workshops 82 79 1.85 92 7O 11 80 Courses 10 151 2.33 12 5 2 154 Study groups 5 156 2.67 6 2 2 157 Lectures 52 109 1.99 67 39 14 108 aScale: 1 = very helpful, 5 = not helpful. Parallel to the degree of participation, the degree of help- fulness attributed to these four activities was highest for workshops, followed by lectures, courses, and study groups, in that order. It is noteworthy that more people judged the helpfulness of the activi- ties than actually participated in them. Considering the use of the material presented in the various activities, it may be noted that the proportion of respondents who indicated a use was highest among workshop participants, followed by those who had taken part in lectures, courses, and study groups. Topics of activities in which teachers participated.--Table 79 presents a tabulation of the topics presented in the various activities offered by the Center. The topics are presented in the order of their importance to the respondents. Topics related to personal growth appeared to be the most relevant, followed by improvement of 108 instructional skills. Information about career advancement was mentioned by the fewest respondents. Table 79.--Topics of activities. - Often Sometimes Little Never No a Topic (1) (2) (3) (4) Mean Response Mean Personal growth 30 65 7 4 1.86 55 1.88 Improve instructional 32 51 12 2 1.84 64 1.93 skills Keep current about education management 22 40 21 3 2.06 75 2.14 of classroom Facilitation of improvement 22 39 18 6 2.09 76 2.16 career 2 14 22 32 3.20 91 3.22 advancement aMean for the 58 subjects who checked all six topics. ANOVA of topics.--Since only 58 subjects checked all six activity topics, Table 80 presents the results of an analysis of vari- ance of repeated measures, comparing the degree of participation in activities with the various topics indicated in Table 79. As may be noted from the results presented in Table 80, a highly significant difference was found in the degree of participation. 109 Table 80.--Comparison of the relative participation in activities with various t0pics. . . Mean - Source of Variation SS df Square F Sig. Between people 92.566 57 1.624 Within people 210.500 290 .726 Between measures 72.670 5 14.534 30.053 .0001 Residual 137.830 285 .484 Total 303.066 347 .873 Grand mean = 2.22701 Note: The means compared in this analysis appear in Table 79. Benefits Received From KPSDC Two questions sought information regarding the benefits respondents had received from the Kent Professional Staff Development Center. 22. During your participation in the Kent PSDC activities, have you ever requested help or aid with a classroom problem? If yes, please state the problem and the help received. 23. What are some of the benefits that you have derived from the activities or programs offered by Kent PSDC? Please check all appropriate categories. An opportunity a. for personal growth to learn from others' experiences and ideas to open myself for feedback to be updated in my teaching field(s) to continue to develop a greater perspective on my profession to learn new teaching styles to know more about some societal problems for better understanding of human growth (DO-GU I‘D-b 110 Simple Frequencies In the following discussion and tables, simple frequencies of responses to questions regarding the benefits received from participa- tion in the Kent Professional Staff Development Center are presented. Ever requested help?--Table 81 presents the number of indi- viduals who had ever requested help from the Center. Some 77% of the respondents explicitly stated "No"; only seven respondents indicated "Yes," giving the topic of their need. Of these seven, five had requested help with classroom discipline. Table 81.--Ever requested help? Relative \‘ Adjusted Category Absolgte Freq. r' Freq. ' (M (74) No 124 77.0 94.7 Curriculum problem 1 .6 .8 New didactic approach 1 .6 .8 Classroom control 5 3.1 3.8 No response _331 18.6 .. Total 161 100.0 100.0 Specific benefits derived.--Tab1e 82 presents the number of affirmative responses to Questionnaire Item 23, which asked respond- ents to check whether particular benefits applied to them. Again, the topics are presented in the order of their importance to respond- ents (rather than the order in which they appeared in the question- naire). "Learning from others" was mentioned most often, followed closely by "personal growth" and "new teaching styles," i.e., 111 improvement of instructional skills. "Understanding human growth" and "learning about social problems" were mentioned least often. Table 82.--Benefits derived from KPSDC. B f’t Yes ene 1 N % Learn from others 105 65.2 Personal growth 93 57.8 New teaching styles 81 50.3 Updated information 70 43.5 Greater perspective 69 42.9 Open self to feedback 66 41.0 Understand human growth 59 36.6 Learn about social problems 47 29.2 Number of benefits mentioned.--On the basis of the responses presented in Table 82, an index of benefits derived was computed on the basis of the number of benefits mentioned. Table 83 presents a tabulation of the number of benefits checked, as well as the mean number of benefits, namely, 3.7. Number of Benefits Derived In the following pages, the data presented in Table 83 are broken down by various personal and professional characteristics. School level taught.--Table 84 presents a breakdown of the mean number of benefits received in terms of the school level taught. Although junior-high-school teachers appeared to derive more benefits than did elementary-school or high-school teachers, no statistically significant difference was found. 112 Table 83.--Number of benefits mentioned. Number of Absolute Relative Adgusted Benefits Freq. 121. Egg. 0 36 22.4 22.4 1 9 5.6 5.6 2 13 8.1 8.1 3 16 9.9 9.9 4 21 13.0 13.0 5 19 11.8 11.8 6 19 11.8 11.8 7 10 6.2 6.2 8 _1_8 41.-2 _i_i._2 Total 161 100.0 100.0 Mean 3.665 Std. Err .214 Median 3.810 Mode 0 Std. Dev 2.716 Variance 7.374 Table 84.--Number of benefits derived by school level taught. Mean Number Std. Dev. N Value Label 3.656 2.722 160 Total population 3.567 2.840 67 Elementary 4.500 2.339 34 Junior H.S. 3.271 2.728 59 Senior H.S. Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 1 or .6% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source 3:. Sguares Square F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 2 33.48 16.74 2.296 .104 Within groups 1§Z_ 1144.61 7.29 Total 159 1178.09 113 Subject area taught.--Tab1e 85 presents a breakdown of the mean number of benefits received in terms of the subject area taught. No significant difference was observed. Table 85.--Number of benefits derived by subject area taught. Mean Number Std. Dev. N Value Label 3.665 2.716 161 Total population 4.000 2.458 47 Other 4.192 3.175 26 Science 3.330 2.686 88 Humanities Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 0 Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:_ S uares S uare F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 2 22.41 11.20 1.529 .220 Within groups 158 1157.48 7.33 Total 1131 1179.89 Highest degree held.--Tab1e 86 presents a breakdown of the mean number of benefits received in terms of the highest degree held. A significant difference was found: Respondents with a bachelor's degree indicated fewer benefits than respondents with a more advanced education. Type of teaching certificate.--Table 87 presents a breakdown of the mean number of benefits received in terms of the type of teaching certificate held. No significant difference was found. Table 86.--Number of 114 benefits derived by highest degree held. Mean Number Std. Dev. N Value Label 3.667 2.727 159 Total population 2.778 2.439 45 B.A., B.S. 4.011 2.748 92 M.A., M.S. 4.045 2.903 22 M.A., M.S. + Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 2 or 1.2% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source if. S uares S uare F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 2 49.61 24.81 3.438 .035 Within groups l§§_ 1125.72 7.22 Total 158 1175.33 Table 87.--Number of benefits derived by type of teaching certificate. Mean Number Std. Dev. N Value Label 3.665 2.716 161 Total population 3.600 2.951 10 Provisional 3.755 2.802 102 Permanent 3.490 2.526 49 Continuing Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 0 Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:_ S uares S uare F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 2 2.37 1.19 .159 .853 Within groups 158 1177.52 7.45 Total 160' 1179.89 115 Sex of respondents.--Table 88 presents a breakdown of the mean number of benefits received in terms of the sex of the respondents. No significant difference was observed. Table 88.--Mean number of benefits derived by sex of respondent. Nflgggr Std. Dev. N Value Label 3.648 2.729 159 Total population 3.583 2.650 96 Female 3.746 2.862 63 Male Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 2 or 1.2% Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:_ S uares S uare F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 1 1.01 1.01 .135 .714 Within groups 157 1175.27 7.49 Total 158' 1176.28 Number of years of teaching experience.--Fina11y, the corre- lation between the mean number of benefits received and the number of years of teaching experience was not significant. Years of Teaching Experience Mean Number ° of Benefits P(_ .132) 116 Number of Benefits Derived and Involvement in Governance A final question that needs to be answered is whether the degree of participation in the various governance committees, as reported above, bore any relationship to the number of benefits that respondents indicated they had derived from the teachers' center. Needs-assessment process.--Tab1e 89 presents a breakdown of the mean number of benefits received in terms of the participation in the needs-assessment committee (see Table 6). As may be noted, with increased involvement in the needs-assessment process, respondents reported receiving a significantly higher number of benefits from the teachers' center. Table 89.-~Number of benefits derived by involvement in needs- assessment processes. Nflgggr Std. Dev. N Value Label 3.665 2.716 161 Total population 2.125 2.365 24 No answer 2.757 2.618 37 No committee 3.642 2.690 53 Never a member 5.417 2.283 24 Former member 4.957 2.225 23 Current member Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 0 Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:- S uares S uare F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 4 199.47 49.87 7.935 .000 Within groups 156 980.41 6.28 Total 188' 1179.89 117 Planning committee.--Tab1e 90 presents a breakdown of the mean number of benefits received in terms of involvement in the activities of the planning committee. As may be noted, with increased participation, respondents perceived significantly more benefits emanat- ing from the teachers' center. Table 90.--Number of benefits derived by participation in the planning process. Nfl$ggr Std. Dev. N Value Label 3.665 2.716 161 Total population 2.238 2.791 21 No answer 2.912 2.690 34 No committee 3.468 2.701 47 Never a member 5.350 2.059 20 Former member 4.462 2.426 39 Current member Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 0 Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source gf_ Sguares Square F'Rat10 F-Prob. Between groups 4 145.40 36.35 5.482 .000 Within groups 156 1034.49 6.63 Total 168' 1179.89 Implementation committee.--Tab1e 91 presents a breakdown of the mean number of benefits received in terms of participation in the activities of the implementation committee. As may be noted, with increased participation, a significantly higher number of benefits was reported. 118 Table 91.-~Number of benefits derived by partiCipationiriimplementation. Mean Number Std. Dev. N Value Label 3.665 2.716 161 Total population 2.656 2.719 32 No answer 2.947 2.760 38 No committee 3.558 2.608 52 Never a member 5.714 1.939 14 Former member 5.120 2.128 25 Current member Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 0 Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source d:- S uares S uare F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 4 164.45 41.11 6.316 .000 Within groups 156 1015.44 6.51 Total 168' 1179.89 Policy board.--Table 92 presents a breakdown of the mean number of benefits received in terms of membership on the policy board of the teachers' center. Once more, it may be observed that increased involve- ment in the governance committee was related to a significant increase in the number of perceived benefits. Membership and benefits.--Tab1e 93 presents correlation coef- ficients between the mean number of benefits (BENEFT), the number of current memberships on the governance committees (CURMEM), and the number of past and present memberships on governance committees (MEMBER). There was a highly significant correlation between the number of memberships and the number of benefits derived from the 119 teachers' center activities, although a causal relationship has yet to be established. Table 92.--Number of benefits derived by participation on policy board. Nflgggr Std. Dev. N Value Label 3.665 2.716 161 Total population 2.853 2.732 34 No answer 3.024 2.664 42 No committee 4.000 2.698 62 Never a member 7.200 1.304 5 Former member 4.556 2.007 18 Current member Total cases = 161 Missing cases = 0 Analysis of Variance: Sum of Mean . Source pf. S uares S uare F-Ratio F-Prob. Between groups 4 123.40 30.85 4.555 .002 Within groups 156_ 1056.49 6.77 Total 160 1179.89 Table 93.--Committee membership and number of benefits derived. BENEFT CURMEM MEMBER BENEFT 1.0000 .2143 .3734 0) ( 161) ( 161) P = ****** P = .003 P = .001 CURMEM .2143 1.0000 .7811 ( 161) 0) ( 161) P = 003 P = **** P = 001 MEMBER .3734 .7811 1.0000 ( 161) ( 161) ( O) 120 Suggestions for More Meaningful and Useful Programs The questionnaire concluded with two open-ended questions: 24. Please list any specific comments or recommendations you have regarding ways the Kent PSDC involves teachers in (1) needs assessment, (2) planning programs, and 3) implementing programs. 25. Please identify at least three ways Kent PSDC could provide for more meaningful and useful programs and activities for teachers. The responses to Question 25 were considerably more numerous than those to Question 24 and are presented on the following pages. Verbatim responses are transcribed in Appendix I. Table 94 presents a tabulation of the frequency of suggestions, grouped in various cate- gories. Approximately 25% of the suggestions, offered by nearly half of the respondents, dealt with the programming process. A few of the respondents implied that administrators in the schools as well as school districts needed to value the program activities of the Kent Center more. A series of suggestions dealt with the manner in which the local teachers are heard when programs are developed. Parallel to this group of suggestions, comments were made about better needs- assessment procedures and follow-up and evaluation of programs. The majority of the comments and suggestions in this category, however, specifically addressed the need for better publicity, including a series of suggestions about how to reach the teachers better. 121 Table 94.--Suggestions for the improvement of Kent PSDC programs. . Number of Number of Type Of SUQQESt‘O" Responses Respondents Programming Value programs 3 3 Input to programming 7 6 Needs assessment 6 5 Evaluation 5 4 Publicity 18 1_6_ Total 39 24.5% 34 45.9% Topics Specific 12 8 General 21 18 Resources 1_4 1_2 Total 47 29.6% 38 51.1% Location & Audience Specific audience 16 15 Cooperative program _;g _§_ Total 25 15.7% 23 31.1% Scheduling Advanced planning 3 3 After school 11 11 Released time 8 8 Academic credit _Jg _;§ Total 26 16.4% 25 33.8% Finances 10 6.3% 10 15.5% Other _;M2 6.3% _£1 12.2% Total 159 74 Nearly 30% of the suggestions, presented by more than half of those responding, concerned topics of Center activities. The majority of these suggestions were of a general nature, such as pointing to the need for more applied rather than theoretical workshops. However, 122 About one-third of those responding commented about the location and audience for Center activities. Of these, about a third called for more cooperative activities that might join faculty members in the same subject area across school-district lines. The majority, though, called for more specific presentations, directed at the "building" level within a given school district and covering problems of that particular school. An equal number of individuals made suggestions regarding the scheduling of Center activities. These suggestions ranged from basics like "start on time" to such concerns as released time versus after-school activities and the possibility of receiving college or career credit. A number of respondents mentioned the problem of decreasing funds, while suggesting that the Center do more of what it even now has difficulty doing because of lack of money. A few respondents simply praised the Center for the work it was doing or criticized the survey as superfluous. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A summary of the findings is presented in the first section of this chapter. The two subsequent sections contain the conclusions of the study and recommendations for the Kent Professional Staff Development Center (KPSDC) and for in-service education in Saudi Arabia. Summar This study had two major purposes: (1) to examine the extent to which teachers are involved in the four governance processes of the KPSDC, namely (a) needs assessment, (b) planning, (c) implemen- tation, and (d) the policy board; and (2) to examine the teachers' perceptions of ways in which the in-service education provided by the teachers' center affects teachers' classroom instruction. Furthermore, the researcher expected to be able to generate some recommendations regarding teachers' centers and in-service education in Saudi Arabia. Initially, a review of the literature dealing with in-service education, teachers' centers, and their role in in-service education was conducted. In addition, a survey of members of the Kent Profes- sional Staff Development Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan, was con- ducted to gather information about the teachers' involvement in the 123 124 activities and offerings of the Center, as well as their perceptions of the benefits derived from such participation. Summary of the Finding§_ In this section, the findings of the study are summarized, beginning with the demographic information about the respondents, followed by their involvement in the various governance activities, and concluding with their responses regarding benefits derived from participation in the activities of the Kent PSDC. Demographic information.--Concerning their professional background, some 42% of the respondents indicated that they taught at an elementary school, 21% at a middle school, and 37% at a senior high school. Most of the respondents taught mathematics, science, social studies, or language arts; fewer taught industrial arts, home economics, music, art, or physical education. The mean number of years of teaching experience was slightly more than 14 years. In regard to their educational background, some 68% of the reSpondents held at least an M.A. degree, whereas about 28% held a B.A. or B.S. degree; the remainder held an educational specialist degree. Asked about their teaching certificate, the majority of respondents (63%) indicated that they had a permanent certificate, about 30% had a continuing certificate, and 6% had a provisional cer- tificate. Concerning the personal characteristics of the respondents, 60% were female, and the mean age was 40 years. 125 Involvement in the needs-assessmentpprocess.--When asked about their membership on the needs-assessment committee, only 29% of the respondents either had been or currently were members of this commit- tee. Some 23% even indicated that there was no such committee. Regarding the types of needs-assessment processes known to the respond- ents, about 44% knew about surveys, and 29% mentioned interviews,, ~’T\\ observation, or a combination of these methods. Only one-third of the respondents indicated they were actually involved in the needs- assessment process. Asked about the reasons for noninvolvement, less than half of the respondents indicated a reason at all, mostly saying that there was a lack of time, that they did not know about the com- mittee, or that they had not been invited. Regarding their intentions to continue involvement in the needs-assessment process, about two- thirds of the respondents did not answer at all; of the rest, some 71% indicated an intention for future involvement. When participation in the needs-assessment process in terms of the background variables was analyzed, a few statistically sig- nificant relationships were found, most notably: (l) respondents with more advanced education were more likely to be members of the needs-assessment committee; (2) among respondents teaching in the humanities, there was a tendency to indicate "no time" as a reason for noninvolvement on the needs-assessment committee; (3) among respondents with permanent teaching certificates, there was a ten- dency to indicate "no time" as a reason for noninvolvement on the needs-assessment comittee; and (4) more females indicated "no time,“ 126 whereas more male teachers indicated "not invited" as a reason for noninvolvement in the needs-assessment process. Involvement in the planning process.--Asked about membership on the planning committee, only 36% of the respondents either had been or currently were members. Some 21% even indicated that there was no such committee. Regarding the kinds of planning activities respondents participated in, 41% indicated "suggestion of programs," 34% indicated "suggestion of speakers," and 29% indicated "suggestion of content." Asked why they did not participate in the planning pro- cess, only 30% responded to this question. Of those who did respond, nearly half indicated "no time." When asked about their intention to continue involvement in the planning process, more than half did not answer; of those who did, 82% planned to continue their involvement. Participation in the planning process was analyzed in terms of the background variables, and a few statistically significant rela- tionships were found, most notably: (l) the higher the educational degree obtained, the more involvement in planning activities; (2) those with only a B.A./B.S. degree tended to give "no time" as a reason for noninvolvement in planning, whereas those with an M.A.+ degree tended to give "no interest" as a reason; (3) female respond- ents tended to give "no time" as a reason for noninvolvement in planning, whereas "no interest" was rather important for male respond- ents as well; and (4) among those with more education, there was a greater tendency to want to continue their involvement in the planning process. 127 Involvement in the implementation of programs.--When they were asked about membership on the implementation committee, only 30% of the respondents indicated that they either had been or currently were members of this committee. Some 23% even stated that there was no such committee. Asked to rate their degree of involvement on a 5-point scale (1 = high), the mean was 4.02; 50% stated they were not involved. Participation in the implementation process was analyzed in terms of the background variables; the following statistically sig- nificant relationships were found: (1) hardly any junior-high-school teachers were present or former members of this committee; (2) the higher the education obtained, the more likely a membership on this committee; (3) the higher the education obtained, the stronger the involvement in the committee; and (4) respondents holding a permanent teaching certificate showed the greatest degree of involvement in this committee. Membership in the gpvernance process.--Asked about membership on the policy board, the general coordinating committee of the teachers' center, only 15% of the respondents indicated past or present member- ship, and 26% stated that there was no such committee. When respond- ents were asked about the number of different governance committees of which they were then or had been members, 60% indicated no member- ship and 10% indicated four committee memberships. When participation in the governance process was analyzed in terms of the background variables, one statistically significant 128 relationship was found: The higher the education obtained, the higher the number of committee memberships. Participation in activities offered by KPSDC.—-Besides being asked about their participation in various governance processes, the teachers were also asked for their perceptions of the usefulness and applicability of the programs offered by the Kent Professional Staff Development Center. Concerning the types of activities that respondents partici- pated in and used, workshops were cited most often (50% participation; 1.9 helpfulness on a 5-point scale with l = very helpful). Lectures were cited by about one-third of the respondents (2.00 helpfulness), whereas courses and study groups were mentioned by less than 10% of the respondents. The actual use of what was learned in these activi- ties in the classroom followed the above pattern. In terms of topics of activities, those dealing with personal growth and improving instructional skills were cited most often; the facilitation of improvement and career advancement were mentioned least often. Finally, respondents were asked about the benefits received from participation in the activities of the KPSDC. A noteworthy result was that 77% of the respondents indicated they never had asked for help from the Center; less than 5% stated they had done so explicitly. Of a series of potential benefits listed, "learn from others," "personal growth," and "new teaching style" were checked most often. Concerning the number of different benefits derived, a clear correlation was found with degree of education; that is, with more 129 education, more benefits were perceived as emanating from the teachers' center. Concerning membership on the individual governance committees as well as the degree of involvement in the governance process as a whole, significant correlations were found between these measures and the number of benefits derived from the activities offered by the teachers' center. Consistently, those who were active on any one committee, or on more than one, rated the activities as more bene- ficial than those who were not active on a committee. Spggestions for more meaningful and useful programs.--The open-ended suggestions for improvement of the programs offered by the KPSDC were grouped into six categories. About 25% of the sugges- tions dealt with programming--more specifically, the need for admin- istrators to value in-service programs, to have more teacher input, better needs assessment and evaluation, and more publicity. About 29% of the suggestions dealt with programming topics, either making specific topic suggestions or more general statements. Some 16% of the suggestions were made with regard to location and audience, primarily asking for programs directed at more specific audiences and/or locations. Some 17% of the suggestions dealt with scheduling of the activities, addressing such problems as advanced planning, after-school activities, released time, and academic credit. Finally, some 13% of the suggestions referred to problems of finances and other general topics. 130 Conclusions Based on the summary of the results presented above, the following conclusions are offered: 1. Involvement in the various governance committees was relatively low and appeared to be related principally to the respondents' educational level; that is, the more education members had, the more involved in needs assessment, planning, implementation, and the policy board they tended to be. 2. In addition, the higher the education, the more benefits respondents perceived as being derived from the teachers' center. 3. With increased involvement in the governance process, the activities offered by the teachers' center were perceived as more beneficial. 4. Of the programs offered, workshops and lectures were most frequented by the respondents, were considered most helpful, and were seen as most applicable in the classroom. 5. Activities having topics dealing with personal growth and the improvement of instructional skills were the ones frequented most. 6. Specific benefits of participation in teachers' center activities were related to learning from others, personal growth, and learning new teaching styles. Recommendations Recommendations for Further Research Given the findings of the present research, the following are some topics that might be followed up in future research on the effec- tiveness of teachers' centers: 131 1. Is there a relationship between age and/or number of years of teaching experience, highest degree obtained, and the motivation to get involved in the activities of teachers‘ centers? In other words, could it be that beyond a certain age, and given a relatively low level of education, this interest diminishes? 2. Would the findings of this study be repeated at other teachers' centers? 3. How do teachers' centers in the United States compare with those in Great Britain, where they were first developed? How do they compare with teachers' centers in other countries? 4. There should be careful monitoring of the development of teachers' centers in Saudi Arabia, in case they are established. What is the reaction to, participation in, and use of such centers by Saudi teachers? Recommendations for KPSDC Given the findings of this study, the following recommenda- tions for the KPSDC are offered: 1. All teachers should be given more opportunities to take part in the various governance processes, be they needs assessment, planning, implementation, or the policy board. 2. More diverse methods should be employed in the needs- assessment process to obtain input from a wider portion of the audi- ence, and more follow-up evaluations should be conducted. 3. A stronger communication bridge between the KPSDC and the administrators in the schools and school districts should be developed, 132 to increase their support and cooperation with the center's activi- ties. 4. Programs offered by the KPSDC should be directed at the concerns of a particular school district as well as a school within a district and should include specific topics/subject areas that might invite cooperation across school districts or buildings. 5. More attention should be given to scheduling the activi- ties in terms of released time, after-school activities, and college credit. 6. More awareness of Center organization and activities should be developed among the teachers served by the Kent Professional Staff Development Center. Recommendations for In-Service Education in Saudi Arabia As noted before, the final objective of the present study was to provide some recommendations for the nascent in-service educa— tion in Saudi Arabia. Without elaborating on the many social and cultural differences between education in Saudi Arabia and in the United States, it is clear that any adaptation of American educational innovations to conditions in Saudi Arabia must proceed with great care. However, one recent finding by Zafar shed light on one char- 1 acteristic of Saudi public education. He found that there appears to be a lack of coordination between college teaching in the field 1A. A. Zafar, "An Evaluation of the Mathematics Curriculum Given at the College of Education, Makkah, From the Perspective of the Teachers Who Graduated From the College in the Years 1976-1980.‘I Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1981. 133 of education and the actual tasks of teachers after graduation. In this context, teachers' centers in Saudi Arabia could serve as an important bridge between the theoretical knowledge taught in the uni- versities and the practical problems encountered in the field. Given the observations made at the teachers' center studied in this research, the following recommendations are offered: 1. Since the success of teachers' centers for in-service education has been proven in England, the United States, and some developing countries, the establishment of such centers at every major university in Saudi Arabia may prove important in providing public-school personnel with professional development opportunities and in increasing their instructional skills, knowledge, and personal growth. 2. Because a teachers' center is a concept, in situ or in a changing location, the in-service activities can be offered in local school buildings as well as at a central location. This means that the center can operate in rural areas as well as major cities in Saudi Arabia. 3. To provide teachers with effective in-service programs in the centers, a well-organized needs-assessment process must be carried out. Such a process would include gathering information from the teachers themselves about their needs for in-service activities through surveys, interviews, supervisors' observations, and follow-up evaluations. 4. Successful professional-development programs can be developed in teachers' centers if the involvement of the teachers 134 who participate in such programs is increased. As the results of the present study demonstrated, and in the words of Baden, "When teachers are involved in enunciation and organization of training activities, conditions are enhanced for peer support, shared effort and eventual utilization of new insights and skills."1 5. To facilitate such involvement, committees dealing with needs assessment, planning, and implementation of programs should be created in each teachers' center to give teachers an opportunity to participate actively in a well-organized manner. 6. The scheduling of activities of the teachers' centers in Saudi Arabia should not conflict with other school activities. 7. The cooperation of the Ministry of Education is essential because teachers could be given released time from their jobs to par- ticipate in professional-development activities, or they could be given some economic incentive to attend. 8. Each teachers' center in Saudi Arabia should offer some activities for college credit to motivate the teachers to attend. 9. Each teachers' center should make a sincere effort to increase the awareness of the administrators in the schools as well as school districts regarding the importance of in-service activities for public-school teachers. 10. Each teachers' center should offer workshops and lectures related to the improvement of instructional skills, updating knowl— edge in different teaching fields, and personal growth. 1D. J. Baden, Developing and Implementin a Teacher-Directed Professional Development—Model (Bethesda, Md.: RIC Document Repro- duction Service, ED 121 730, 1976), p. 2. 135 11. The activities of the teachers' centers must be given ample publicity to let all teachers know about the programs offered. APPENDICES 136 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTERS 137 138 ~\ent intermediate school district TO: Kent Professional Staff Develgpgent Center Linkers FROM: Barbara Bird, Director - Kent Professional Staff Development Center DATE: April 27, 1982 RE: Professional Staff Development Center/In Cooperation with Michigan State University Survey Please randomly select‘ elementary, middle school, and secondary school teachers from your school system who would be willing to complete the enclosed survey. Please have the teachers complete the survey the week of May 3-7, 1982 and you return them to me at the Kent Professional Staff Development Center in the enclosed envelope no later than May 14, 1982. BB/al Encl; p1 D KENT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER C 2650 East Beltiine SE Grand Rapids. Michigan 49506 I Phone (616) 949-7270 139 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND CURRICULUM ERICKSON HALL April 26, 1982 TO: KPSDC Linker ‘ , (3 Mu FROM: Barbara Bird and Charles Blackman SUBJECT: A Study of Professional Staff Development Activities The professional staff development activities carried on through the Kent Center are recognized as being particularly effective and helpful. One of the ways we can seek to make them even more effective is to get reactions to them by the people who use them - the teachers. In addition, we are able to share more fully what we're doing with other Centers by describing our activities in some detail. Abdulhakeem Mubarak has designed a study which will be helpful, both to us and to others, in gathering information about KPSDC activities. We're asking your help, as linkers, in distributing a questionnaire to some 300 teachers of the over 6000 who participate in our activities. Results will be available to the Policy Board and Linkers to aid all of us to look more closely at what we're doing. In addition, our participation will aid us to share the concept of professional development with teachers in another country, Saudi\ Arabia. We support this effort and we know we can count on your good help! Thanks to each of you! dz MS U is an Affirmative Adm-I /£qual Opportunity Institution 140 Dear Participant: The enclosed questionnaire has been developed in order to conduct a descriptive study of perceived professional benefits derived from teacher involvement in the Kent Professional Staff Development Center. The results will be used in developing recom- mendations for in-service education in Saudi Arabia because the emergence of the teachers' center concept is a new hope for pro- fessional development (in-service education) of teachers as its fundamental purpose is to involve teachers more directly in their own professional development. This study will be completed with your valued cooperation and assistance. At the same time, please be assured that confi- dentiality will be strictly maintained throughout the study. Names of all participants will be kept anonymous on any of the materials. I shall be very glad to share the summary of the find- ings with you if you so desire. Thank you for your valuable time and cooperation. Sincerely, Abdulhakeem M. Mubarak 141 The following questions relate to your current professional activities: 1. At which school do you work? Please indicate the name of your school and of your school district. School: District: 2. Please indicate the number of years (including this one) that you have taught. Years 3. What is your major teaching assignment? .____ 1. Elementary _____ 2. Junior High/Middle School _____3. Senior High 4. What subject fields do you teach? Please check appropriate field(s) and indicate grade level taught (e.g., Math: 5,7). 1. Math 6. Home Economics 2. Science 7. Music 3. Social Studies 8. Art 4. Language Arts 9. Physical Education 5. Industrial Arts 10. Other (specify) 5. Highest degree held: College major: 6. Year graduated from college: 19____ Institution: 7. In case of graduate study, please indicate field of study and year completed: 8. Type of teaching certificate: 1. Provisional 3. Continuing 2. Permanent 4. Other (specify) Please answer the following questions about yourself. 9. Year of birth: 19____ 10. Sex: Male Female 11. 142 In case there are such, or similar, committees, are you a member of any of the following? (Please check at least one box for each category.) There is such a committee, and I am not now There is I am I have Committee no such currently a mle'ubair’igl‘t not been committee a member the past a member Needs Assessment Planning Implementation Policy Board In the following questions, we would like to explore a little more about the needs-assessment process of Kent PSDC. 12. 13. Considering the needs-assessment process, which of the following is ' being used? (Check all appropriate categories.) 1. Survey by means of a questionnaire. 2. A form of observation. 3. Interviews with individual teachers or groups of teachers by Teachers' Center personnel. 4. Other (specify) In which of the following aspects of the needs-assessment process in Kent PSDC have you ever been involved? (Check all appropriate categories.) 1. Involved in designing one of the instruments and/or techniques that have been used in the needs-assessment process. 2. Involved in collecting data in the needs-assessment process. 3. Involved in analyzing data that have been gathered in the needs—assessment process. 4. Other (specify) 143 14. If you indicated in Question 13 that you have not been involved, what has kept you from being involved? 15. If you indicated any involvement above, do you hope to continue to be involved? Next, we would like to explore your involvement in the process of plan- ning programs and designing activities conducted or sponsored by the Kent County PSDC. (Check all appropriate categories.) 16. In which of the following planning processes have you ever been involved? 1. Identifying the content of teacher professional development (in-service education). 2. Suggestin programs for professional development (in-service education?. 3. Suggesting speakers or presenters for professional develop- ment (in-service programs). 4. Writing mini grant proposals for projects of your own design. 5. Defining desired outcomes of in-service programs. 6. Developing evaluation procedures for programs sponsored by Kent County PSDC. 7. Involved in other aspects of planning (please specify). 17. If you indicated in the above list that you have not been involved, what has kept you from being involved? 18. If you indicated any involvement above, do you hope to continue to be involved? 144 Azwwomam ammmFav Ameevspe>wee< condo mmcauumb masocw auzam momesou maogmxcoz m e m N F 02 mm> Fawn—b; mmmp Lo Fatwa Pm: Ho: mcoE Lm> wcwwmo xuw>wuu< Naoocmmmpu Lao» cw Nae» on I coccmmp so» was: memm: so» mg< Pawapm: has» mgmz ucmpxm awn: 0H A.mmwcommpmu wumwcaogaao —Fm xomguv ~uoma “cox um cw umpmgwuwucma so» m>ms mmwuw>wpum mcmzoppoe asp mo cows: .cmm» Foogum Pmiommp mgp mcwcao Ppm pa um>Fo>cm be: m a m N P um>Fo>cw xpm>wuuo mm mama ucmx mo mmwuw>wuum may we cowpmucmsmpnsw on» em “cosm>Po>cm Lao» mchmpumcasu so» cpzoz .3opmn mpmum on» mcwgmuwmcou .om .m_ 21. 22. 145 During your participation in the Kent Professional Staff Develop- ment Center's activities, have you found the activities you have participated in are related to: (Check all appropriate categories.) Some- . Often times Little Never 1 2 3 4 1. General personal growth. 1 2 3 4 2. Improving instructional skills related to your 1 2 3 4 teaching assignment. 3. Keeping current about educational matters not 1 necessarily related to your assignment. 4. Facilitating change and improvement in the school 1 2 3 4 and school programs. 5. Helping to move up the 1 career ladder. 6. Organizing and managing 1 the classroom. 7. Other (please specify) During your participation in the Kent PSDC activities, have you ever requested help or aid with a classroom problem? 1. Yes 2. No If yes, please state the problem and the help received. 23. 24. 25. 146 What are some of the benefits that you have derived from the activities or programs offered by Kent PSDC? (Please check all appropriate categories.) a. An opportunity for personal growth. b. An opportunity to learn from others' experiences and ideas. c. An opportunity to open myself for feedback from and interaction with people who are in the same profession. d. An opportunity to be updated in my teaching field(s). e. An opportunity to continue to develop a greater perspective on my profession. f. An opportunity to learn new teaching styles, which helps me to meet the individual needs of the students. 9. An opportunity to know more about some societal problems that will affect education. h. An Opportunity for better understanding of human growth and development, with some focus on learning-teaching theories and applications. i. Other (please specify) Please list any specific comments or recommendations you have re arding ways Kent PSDC involves teachers in (1) needs assessment, (21 planning programs, and (3) implementing programs. Please identify at least three ways Kent PSDC could provide for more meaningful and useful programs and activities for teachers. Thank you for your valuable cooperation in answering this questionnaire. APPENDIX 8 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF RESPONDENTS 147 Appendix 8 School District of ReSpondents RELAT I VB ADJ USTBD ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) K-BYRON 1 s 3.1 3.1 K-CALEDONIA 2 10 6.2 6.3 K-CEDAR SPRINGS 3 12 7.5 7.5 K-COMSTOCK 4 4 2.5 2.5 K-FORBST HILLS 6 12 7.5 7.5 x-GODFREY-LEE 7 2 1.2 1.2 K-GODWIN 8 4 2.5 2.5 K-GRAND RAPIDS 9 25 15.5 15.6 K-GRANDVILLE 10 8 5.0 5.0 K-KELLOGGSVILLE 11 6 3.7 3.7 K-KENT CITY 13 7 4.3 4.4 K-KENTWOOD 14 6 3.7 3.7 K-NORTHVIEW 16 12 7.5 7.5 K-ROCKFORD 17 8 5.0 5.0 K-SPARTA AREA 18 8 5.0 5.0 K-WYOMING 20 14 8.7 8.8 I-IONIA 31 6 3.7 3.7 I-LAKEWOOD 33 7 4.3 4.4 I-SARANAC 35 4 2.5 2.5 —1 1 .6 MISSING TOTAL 161 100.0 100.0 148 APPENDIX C SCHOOL OF RESPONDENTS 149 Appendix C School of Respondents RELATI VB ADJUSTED ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) CRESTON HS 1 10 6.2 6.3 CENTRAL HS 2 8 5.0 5.0 BURTON MS 3 2 1.2 1.3 RIVERSIDE MS 4 2 1.2 1.3 WESTWOOD Ms 5 2 1.2 1.3 IROQUOIS Ms 6 1 .6 .6 SOUTHWOOD KENTWOOD 7 6 3.7 3.8 SOUTH GODWIN 8 1 .6 .6 WEST GODWIN 9 3 1.9 1.9 CALEDONIA Es 10 3 1.9 1.9 CALEDONIA HS 11 4 2.5 2.5 MS KENT CITY 12 4 2.5 2.5 MAIN Es KENT CITY 13 1 .6 .6 CENTRAL Es GRANDV l4 4 2.5 2.5 EAST Es G 15 4 2.5 2.5 KETTLE LAKE CALEDONI l6 1 .6 .6 DUTTON CALEDONIA 17 1 .6 .6 CEDAR 18 6 3.7 3.8 MS CEDAR SPRING 19 2 1.2 1.3 ROGER'S HS 20 10 6.2 6.3 BELMONT ROCKFORD 21 4 2.5 2.5 LAKES ROCKFORD 22 3 1.9 1.9 RIVER VALLEY Es NYC 23 1 .6 .6 WEST Es WY 24 3 1.9 1.9 NEWHALL JH WYO 25 1 .6 .6 BROWN 85 WYO 26 1 .6 .6 RIDER BYRON CTR 27 1 .6 .6 BLAIN BYRON CTR 28 1 .6 .6 MS BYRON CENTER 29 1 .6 .6 BYRON CTR HS 30 1 .6 .6 SECONDARY s COMSTOCK 31 4 2.5 2.5 BOYCE Es IONIA 32 1 .6 .6 IONIA HS 33 3 1.9 1.9 JEFFERSON IONIA 34 1 .6 .6 150 IONIA PUBLIC JH CENTRAL ES SP SPARTA MS WHITE ES SPARTA MYERS ES SPARTA JH SHS KELLOGGSVILLE SPARTA HS MS SARANAC SARANAC HS SOUTHEAST ES WEST KELLOGG V ES NORTHWEST ES KELLOGGSVILLE JH NORTHVIEW HS EAST OAKVIEW HILL & DALES JH HIGHLANDS ES WOODLAND ES LAKEWOOD MS WOODLAND JH CENTRAL HS NORTH OAKVIEW CALEDONIA JH BEACH ES HILL TOP ES TWIN RIVERS ES CENTRAL MS FOREST H NORTHERN HS CENTRAL HS FOREST H ORCHARD VIEW THORNAPPLE ES LEE HS LEE MS 151 01 i..i N i-‘i-‘NNUONwHNNHNHi-‘waibl—‘NHHNHNNNHI—‘Hul—‘N id H H Pfldh‘ Hfldh) id HHHHH HH H mmwwmmmmwwmwmmmmwmmNmmwmwmmmmmmmw ha id p4 FHHBJ id id PHHPJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O mmwwmwmmwwmwmmmmmmmwmmwmwwwmmmmmw HFJFHdFJ FJPJ MISSING APPENDIX 0 NUMBER OF YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE 152 Appendix D NUmber of Years of Teaching Experience RELATI VE ADJUSTED ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) 3 1 .6 .6 4 5 3.1 3.1 5 4 2.5 2.5 6 8 5.0 5.0 7 6 3.7 3.8 8 12 7.5 7.5 9 9 5.6 5.7 10 12 7.5 7.5 11 10 6.2 6.3 12 9 5.6 5.7 13 7 4.3 4.4 14 14 8.7 8.8 15 5 3.1 3.1 16 4 2.5 2.5 17 9 5.6 5.7 18 6 3.7 3.8 19 2 1.2 1.3 20 8 5.0 5.0 21 5 3.1 3.1 22 6 3.7 3.8 23 1 .6 .6 24 2 1.2 1.3 25 1 .6 .6 26 4 2.5 2.5 28 1 .6 .6 29 1 .6 .6 31 3 1.9 1.9 32 3 1.9 1.9 33 1 .6 .6 -1 2 1.2 MISSING TOTAL 161 100.0 100.0 MEAN 14.145 STD ERR .546 MEDIAN 13.000 MODE 14.000 STD DEV 6.887 VARIANCE 47.428 153 APPENDIX E UNDERGRADUATE FIELD OF STUDY 154 Appendix E Undergraduate Field of Study RELATI VE ADJUSTED ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) MATHEMATICS 10 9 5.6 6.0 SCIENCE 20 5 3.1 3.4 BIOLOGY 23 4 2.5 2.7 PHYSICAL SCI 24 1 .6 .7 SOCIAL SCIENCE 30 20 12.4 13.4 HISTORY 31 16 9.9 10.7 GEOGRAPHY 32 1 .6 .7 BUSINESS 34 6 3.7 4.0 ECONOMICS 35 1 .6 .7 COMMUNICATION 36 1 .6 .7 PSYCHOLOGY 37 6 3.7 4.0 LANGUAGE ARTS 40 3 1.9 2.0 ENGLISH 41 22 13.7 14.8 FRENCH 42 2 1.2 1.3 HOME ECONOMICS 60 3 1.9 2.0 EDUCATION 70 4 2.5 2.7 ELEMENTARY ED 71 23 14.3 15.4 SPECIAL ED 72 2 1.2 1.3 COUNSELIGN 74 3 1.9 2.0 AGRICULT ED 77 1 .6 .7 ADMINISTRATION 79 6 3.7 4.0 ART 80 2 1.2 1.3 MUSIC 85 6 3.7 4.0 PHYSICAL ED 90 2 1.2 1.3 -1 12 7.5 MISSING TOTAL 161 100.0 100.0 155 APPENDIX F UNDERGRADUATE INSTITUTION 156 Appendix F Undergraduate Inst itut ion RELATI VE ADJUSTED ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) EASTERN 101 2 1.2 1.3 WESTERN 102 43 26.7 27.0 CENTRAL 103 25 15.5 15.7 MSU 104 23 14.3 14.5 UM 105 4 2.5 2.5 FERRIS 106 4 2.5 2.5 WAYNE 107 2 1.2 1.3 DETROIT 108 3 1.9 1.9 CALVIN 114 9 5.6 5.7 GRAND VALLEY SC 117 19 11.8 11.9 AQUINAS 118 2 1.2 1.3 HOPE 119 5 3.1 3.1 SAINT JOSEPH 120 1 .6 .6 INDIANA STATE 201 1 .6 .6 MILW STATE TEACH COL 202 1 .6 .6 WASHINGTON & LEE 205 1 .6 .6 MISS VALLEY SC 206 1 .6 .6 WHEATON 208 2 1.2 1.3 ,NEW MEx HIGHLAND U 209 1 .6 .6 FURMAN U 210 1 .6 .6 U TOLEDO 211 1 .6 .6 OSU 212 1 .6 .6 HAMLINE U 213 1 .6 .6 U WISCONSIN 214 1 .6 .6 DOMINICA COLL 215 1 .6 .6 HOUGHTON 217 1 .6 .6 CAL STATE 218 1 .6 .6 TAYLOR U 219 1 .6 .6 BOWLING GREEN U 220 1 .6 .6 -1 2 1.2 MISSING TOTAL 161 100.0 100.0 157 APPENDIX G GRADUATE FIELD OF STUDY 158 Appendix G Graduate Field of Study RELATIVE ADJUSTED ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) EDUCATION 6 19 11.8 15.6 MATHEMATICS 10 3 1.9 2.5 SCIENCE 20 1 .6 .8 SOCIAL SCIENCE 30 2 1.2 1.6 HISTORY 31 2 1.2 1.6 BUSINESS 34 5 3.1 4.1 PSYCHOLOGY 37 1 .6 .8 LANGUAGE ARTS 40 13 8.1 10.7 ENGLISH 41 4 2.5 3.3 LIBRARY 45 2 1.2 1.6 ELEMENTARY ED 71 28 17.4 23.0 SPECIAL ED 72 5 3.1 4.1 SECUNDARY ED 73 6 3.7 4.9 COUNSELIGN 74 13 8.1 10.7 ED SPECIALIST 75 1 .6 .8 VOCATIONAL ED 76 l .6 .8 ADMINISTRATION 79 13 8.1 10.7 ART 80 1 .6 .8 PHYSICAL ED 90 2 1.2 1.6 -1 39 24.2 MISSING TOTAL 161 100.0 100.0 159 APPENDIX H YEAR OF BIRTH 160 Appendix 8 Year of Birth RELATIVE ADJUSTED ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ YEAR FREQ (PCT) (PCT) 1918 1920 1921 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 H H oahaw 5.: H (”0100\3001\lmmmmbmwmmNmeHHNNmi-‘HHNI—‘H o e o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e o o o O o o NNCDCTIUIU‘kDU‘kOONNO‘WmNNWNCAOO‘O‘NWNO‘O‘O‘WO‘O‘ mewwwqwflan-lowqmwwwowmmmwwwo‘mmwmm mummbmwbwmwmwwwwmeHI-a wwmmbmwhwmwmwwwwwwmww 161 162 1953 5 1954 1 1956 3 1957 1 1982 1 7 NO ANSWER TOTAL 161 100.0 100.0 MEAN 1942.266 STD DEV 8.948 APPENDIX I RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: SUGGESTION FOR MORE MEANINGFUL AND USEFUL PROGRAMS 163 Programming Suggestions Appendix 1 Responses to Open-Ended Question: Suggestion for'Mbre MGaningful and Useful Programs regarding the Programming Process have been subdivided in five categories, as follows: 1. Administrators should value the activities Offered by the Kent Professional Staff Develepment Center 045 060 113 Input Emphasize importance Of center through administration as as well as faculty Administrators who see this as valuable for the dev. Of their staff tO keep up with times. If administrators in central Office do nOt view this as important -- then much Of the information is not disseminated tO staff I have not sensed much enthusiasm for these activities among the adminstration. 164 011 014 053 083 116 156 165 Work harder to get input from more teachers -- rather than administration Involve more teachers in planning programs Continue tO encourage (instruct) linkers to do their job and give inservice to the "how to” Of teacher involvement Provide educational personnel in participating districts an Opportunity tO suggest speakers, their topics, and other programs. More involvement of local district personnel in the planning. Keep in constant touch with teachers in the field before arranging programs More input from teachers. Need Assessment 007 014 079 104 122 Insure value Of presentation before giving Inservice More frequent survey Of teacher needs -- needs change in education PSDC planners could come tO the local school and speak with individual teachers on their needs. This is different than just sending an impersonal survey. Better needs assessment. when KPSDC has Offered programs of appeal. to people in the Education profession regardless Of their particular assignment, there has usually been a $20 fee associated with attendance. With plenty Of free programs tO choose from, I'm not ready to pay $20 for another program of equal value. If KPSDC Offered programs/activities not already available within my own district, I might use them. T66 Follow-up and evaluation 008 058 078 106 Indicate how these programs can be of value to the classroom teacher. Small-group follow-ups for specific programs. Professional assessment of individual building atmospheres -- academic and social. Bring back speakers for follow-up workshops, activities, lectures, etc. For example, I would like some follow-up activities or to know more about holistic teaching. Since I can't afford to go to one Of Gayleann's workshops, could she come back with mini-workshops different from the first one. If published material is not read, find out why. Publicity 012 026 040 047 060 064 079 Use Ed. TV in the evenings to give a brief idea of what the inservice lecture/workshop will cover. Sometimes information about such programs arrives just before or right after the planned event. The only way I find out what is being offered in by flyers in our teachers lounge. I don't know how their advisory groups are set up -- perhaps if people were aware, they'd volunteer to be on one of the committees. More communication! Be certain that the ”grass roots" teachers get the necessary information on the planned activities. Liaison person between county and district. Stay alive. Advertising for the individual speakers should be more interesting. You have a product to sell, yet often the very title of the program creates 083 094 097 104 106 129 140 167 disinterest. Increase communication to local districts about programs. There is communication presently, but. many people are unaware of what is occurring. We need to spend more time alerting teachers to the possibilities of these opportunities. More publicity so that teachers are aware of what is available to them through this committee. Better advertising. Make teachers more aware Of what is being done. Make their programs and activities better publicized in the larger school districts. I believe more publicity is needed to present these programs to teachers as I have been unaware of their existence. Keep teachers informed of new developments through newsletter. Send a representative to verbalize about upcoming workshops. The flyers don't always reach people. (This could be done at a staff meeting, rotating from school to school). Top i cs and Resources Suggestions regarding topics and resources are presented in two major categories, as follows, the first, topics, being further subdivided into general and specific topical suggestions. 1. Topics - Specific Suggestions: 016 061 064 072 084 090 102 119 168 Undertake a study on effect of TV watching by students. Explore possibility of 15/45 school year schedule. Undertake a study on how parents can be responsible for homework and study time at home. Many teachers are interested in alternative career information either because of the possibility of lay-offs or as an inducement to early retirement. Workshops involving teachers in self examination. Subject area workshops involving teachers from all KISD schools. Mathematics, home economics, media, industrial arts, etc. People would benefit from a one-day hands on meeting if the right leaders were obtained. Programs on teacher motivation would be more helpful than student motivation. Inservice on stress -- so all teachers could attend. More involvement in programs dealing with gifted and/or talented students. More involvement in Career Education. Inservice which could stimulated educators to become more involved with future trends. Schools, to be effective, must keep up with the rapid changes found within society. How do we combat current trends in private and/or parochial schools. Let's examine what is going on. 2. Topics - General Suggestions 007 008 Arrange or plan for new ideas and concepts learned can be utilized in classroom and not cut due to funds or lack of materials. Be more classroom and/or subject-area oriented. 010 016 018 038 046 049 064 077 O78 079 096 108 169 Become more classroom-teacher oriented. Keep in touch with student needs and wants. Study teacher credibility in academic approach in classroom as opposed to activity approach. One month of inservice on each subject matter. Set up regular repeated ”hands on" experiences for the services offered by KISD. Display samples, teaching devices (teacher made) instead of so much commercial, publishing co. materials. The economy is forcing educators back to the days of creative teaching methods and materials instead of to the school-supply catalogue -- and it's about time! The most effective teaching aids are teacher made. Be practical! Most of us have had as much theory as we want, and need useful "right now” materials. Make workshops for all teachers in Kent County divided by subject or department area. Perhaps more "how to" workshops in specific content areas. I attend two workshops a year put on by MITESOL -- they plan a variety of mini-lectures on a variety of subjects -- we choose the ones we are interested in -- and they are helpful -- they are all in one area -- a college campus or big school. This is one way I enjoy a workshop. I know teachers need maintaining and upgrading. The same speech can't service or reach everyone. Handouts should be more specific. PSDC planners try to cover too diversified a group -- elementary to senior high and science to English. Therefore, they are Often so general in content that a teacher leaves with nothing specific. The computer lecture this year showed this weakness. ' Have hands-on activities and handouts. More practical and less theory. 170 Have more variety at one time. 122 Remember that my assignment is not like the - typical classroom teacher's. I might participate in programs designed for my particular assignment (media center). 138 By conducting programs and/or activities that are of great interest tO teachers. 141 Continue offering speakers on timely topics. 149 Have more activities. Resources 004 Taping. Of especially pertinent lectures could be done, and offered to all interested parties for viewing at convenient times. 019 Bring in noted speaker in the field for a panel discussion, with .teacher groups as questioning audience. 027 The excellent speakers and presenters. The opportunity to attend workshops with such gifted presenters. 028 Provide experts to lecture on specific techniques of instruction. Provide people from other states to lecture. 031 By continuing the excellent service they are already presenting (a) top speakers from across the country, (b) inservice training, (c) special planning committees to help provide assessed needs. 047 Have college department heads give workshops on bringing teachers up to date. 057 Provide more county-wide inservices such as this year's. Top speakers can be brought in that an individual district can't afford. 058 Experts in areas of teachers' specialty or 072 078 090 093 171 teachers at your level —- share techniques and strategy. In-service meetings with another school district bringing in top-notch educational speakers from any area other than local people. Bring back speakers who have proven to be popular; and/or who are in the process Of developing new theories, instruments, etc. For example, I would like to have Gregorac's workshop after I heard him -speak. From reading the handouts, I only had a vague idea Of what he had to offer. After hearing him, I'd like to have more knowledge of his theories. ° Getting someone to give ideas on classroom management -- i.e., Chick Moorman (KVISD) '- excellent! Speakers from outside the educational field. Location and Audience Suggestions regarding the location and the audiences for Center Activities have been subdivided in two categories, as follows: 1. Specific Audiences: 004 011 014 If a specialist could be sent to a particular school to work with certain departments whenever there is something of particular importance during the school year, it would be very helpful. In other words, a more active program by Kent PSDC instead of the passive-type program now in use. Have programs in more areas of the community. Provide on-site workshops involving most staff of an entire school. If I go to a great workshop and come back with lots of neat ideas, but none of the people I work with have been exposed to these 019 029 035 O41 O42 079 115 116 139 150 172 ideas, then it's difficult to implement change. Inservice in teachers' home building on related topics to that building. (They would need cooperation of Building Council and Principal.) Inservice in our buildings would help. Caledonia has not participated, lately, in the programs Offered by PSDC. If we could get founding, I'm sure that we would. Bring programs to schools. District inservice programs. More programs located in the individual school district. I would prefer an inservice that directly reflected the needs of my individual school to the all-district meetings. It would be nice if some of the better inservice could be done in the outlying areas Of Kent County. Bring the programs to the individual school settings whenever possible (I would realize this would be difficult, but it would also be a way of familiarizing the participating schools with Kent PSDC. PSDC could take more programs and workshops to the local level. Many activities are overlooked because of the distance and time involved going to the main center. The program offerings have been excellent but not enough people participate. There's a need for a large number of people per building (district?) to get excited by an activity so it can continue to generate back in the school. OtherWise, it Often ”dies on the vine" when only one or two people try to carry the ball. Perhaps speakers ' could be housed in buildings where whole staff is in attendance plus open to others in the county. If a whole staff could hear one good speaker per year there'd be more benefit than the "hit and miss" now used. 151 157 173 Provision of speakers and possible topics for building-level inservices. More accessible consultive services at building level. Inservice opportunities -- share district time -- 2-3 times per year. Cooperative Programs 019 027 049 081 102 139 151 153 Small group of teachers in respective teaching assignments to brainstorm ideas in their field. County-wide inservice days. Arrange a rotation system where teachers visit other schools in the same department. County-wide inservice (options). More county-wide inservice programs. Encourage more communication between teachers of the same grade level/subject from different districts. Improve communication to general staff! Continue county-wide inservice -- excellent! Have teachers give input (in advance) about what they'd like to see presented. There are often many qualified presentors within the ranks. SCheduling 174 Suggestings regarding the scheduling of program activities are presented in four categories, as follows: 1. Need for Advanced Planning 012 046 106 After 004 006 038 041 047 096 104 Perhaps a general calendar for the year/semester showing scheduled activities planned would be of value! Have a listing of possible areas of concern that workshops could be arranged for and list distributed quite far in advance. Spring for fall, etc. Then publish schedule 6-8 weeks in advance. Update information at a general meeting when staff are together. School Activities Workshops -- lectures could be held at a time more convenient to teachers who cannot get released time for a day, and at various locations. Most of the above are held during the day, and only offered once. Scheduling Saturday workshops, seminars and the like. Plan more workshops during the summer. Workshops (at each system local), during after-school time --- not evenings or weekends. Schedule workshops, inservice, etc. after school hours. Difficult in getting released time is a problem. Start on time. Fewer programs during schoOl hours -- our district F“ 175 does not encourage leaving our classrooms. 107 Find the time for greater participation: difficult to be released for inservice; no money; try different time periods. 108 Check with all schools to make certain the meetings do not conflict with required school times. There have been two that I know of this year where we could not attend. 113 Perhaps Saturday offerings might have some appeal. I recently attended a conference on Saturday at M.S.U. and it was well attended. 138 Offer some of your programs after school hours. Release Time 006 Scheduling in cooperation with local school districts in order to provide inservice activities on school time without increasing the length of the 180-day school year. 007 Develop inservice during school hours during preps or on days students are not in school. 028 Provide released time to attend inservices. 035 Provide more release time for teachers to attend. 047 Provide county-wide inservice meetings with released time for teachers. 060 Specific contract day or days negotiated for county-wide inservice -+ perhaps one per semester. 079 Workshops and meetings are often night activities and as a working mother I find this impossible. it involves too much inconvenience and hassle for what I receive from the programs. 093 More inservice/released time programs. Credit 045 046 104 F inances 176 Be sure such programs do not directly overlap current college course offerings in area. Consider offering credit for sessions attended. Offer these workshops for college credit as many of us are working toward advance degrees. More college credit. Suggestions regarding financing of the center activities are presented in the following: 1. Financing 005 070 081 085 096 113 119 As PSDC is operating now I find it most beneficial in providing programs and activities for teachers. Sometimes the fee charged for lectures and workshops dissuades teachers form participating. Closer cooperation with business community. Provide funding for continued programs. Making changes in school environment or curriculum involves new money. Most schools are just hanging on or cutting deeply. It is one thing to present on idea, it is another to implement it. Generate more funds so more people could take advantage of workshops. I believe many excellent programs are offered. But it is difficult to attend. There are no funds to pay registration fees. I must pay it if I want to attend. Programs dealing with innovative sources of funding education. No 5 means no school. 177 129 Provide programs and services that are not easily duplicated by other systems. 139 Because nearly all federal/state grants on introducing new programs have been cut, perhaps PSDC could support .and introduce these programs into interested communities. 157 Continue funding to bring similar programs of the past. Other comments 001 003 026 053 088 099 101 Program is satisfactory. The programs are not necessary -- discontinue! The same is true of these so-called doctoral program questionnaires! I liked the semi-county-wide inservice day in March. You're doing it. Seem to be doing a good job. I think they are doing an excellent job. I am sorry, I think they are doing an excellent job. They only suggestion I have is that they might have a way to followsup on the activities they sponsor. It might encourage the school to implement quicker. BIBLIOGRAPHY 178 BIBLIOGRAPHY Al-Ghamdi, A. M. "The Professional Development of In-Service Teachers in Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1982. Baden, D. J. Developing_and Implementing a Teacher-Directed Profes- sional Development Model. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Repro- duction Service, ED 121 730, 1976. Bailey, S. "Teachers' Centers: A British First." Phi Delta Kappan 53 (1971): 146-49. Borg, w. R., and Gall, M. 0. Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: Longmans, 1979. Brimm, J. L., and Tollett, D. J. "How 00 Teachers Feel About In- Service Education?" Educational Leadership Research Supplement l (1974): 521-25. Burrello, L., and Orbaugh, T. "Reducing the Discrepancy Between the Known and the Unknown in In-Service Education." Phi Delta Kappan 63 (1982): 385-88. Cane, B. In-Service Training: A Study of Teachers' Views and Pref- erence. Occasional Publication Series No. 22. London: National Foundation for Educational Research in England, 1969. Devaney, K. "Ingredients of Teachers' Centers' Uniqueness." Action in Teacher Education 2 (1980): 45-48. Dillon-Peterson, B. Staff Development--0rganization Development. Alexandria, Va.: 'Association fOr’Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981. Edelfelt, R. A. "Federally Funded Teacher Centers: What Will They Become?" Action in Teacher Education 2 (1980): 19-23. . "The School of Education and In-Service Education." Journal of Teacher Education 28 (1977): 10-14. Edelfelt, R. A., and Johnson, M. Rethinking In-Service Education. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975. 179 180 Edelfelt, R. A., and Lawrence, G. "In-Service Education: The State Of the Art." In Rethinking In-Service Education. Edited by R. Edelfelt and M. JOhnson. W85hington,7D.C.: ’National Educa- tion Association, 1975. Farwest Teacher Corps Network. In-Service Education: Criteria for Local Programs. Bellingham, WaSh.: Western WaShington State College Press, 1976. Fleet, A. A. V. "Teacher Centers in Florida: A Case Study." School Review 85 (1977): 412-24. Gmelch, W. H.; Rose, R. L.; and Erickson, K. A. Rx for Professional Growth: In-Service Education. DSCC Bulletin. Oregon: Oregon School Study Council, n.d. Goodlad, J. "The Reconstruction of Teacher Education." Teachers College Record 72 (1970): 6l-72. Hariri, H. "School Climate, Competency and Training of Principals in Intermediate Schools in Saudi Arabia." Ed.D. dissertation. University of Northern Colorado, 1982. Harris, B. M.; Bessent, W.; and McIntyre, K. E. In-Service Education: A Guide to Better Practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.Jl: Prentice- Hall:71969. Hatfield, R. C., and Ralston, S. "Professional Assessment and Development." Paper presented at the annual ATE convention, 1978. Howey, K. R. "Putting In-Service Teacher Education Into Perspective." Journal of Teacher Education 27 (1976): 10l-105. Howey, K., and Willie, R. "A Missing Link in School Renewal: The Program and Staff Development Specialist." Journal of Teacher Education 28 (1977): 20-30. Johnson, M. In-Service Education: Priorities for the '805. Syracuse, N.Y.: National Council of States on In-Service Education, 1980. Johnston, 0. J. Teachers' In-Service Education. New York: Pergamon, 1971. Julius, A. "British Teacher Centers: Practical Applications for America." Phi Delta Kappan 48 (1976): 250-53. Kent Professional Staff Development Center. Final Report, October 1, 1980-September 30, 1971. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kent Intermediate School District, 1981. 181 Knowles, M. S. The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston: Guld, 1978. . The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy Versus Pedagogy. NEW Ybrk: Association Press, 1977. Lawrence, 6., et 81. Pattern of Effective In-Service Education. Tallahassee: FloridaDepartment of Education, 1974. Luke, R. A. Teacher Centered In-Service Education: Planning and Products. iWBShifigton, D.C.: National Education Association, 9 . Mangieri, J., and McWilliams, 0. "Designing an Effective In-Service Program." Journal of Teacher Education 27 (1976): ll0-12. Mertens, S. "0n the Way to Describing the Federal Teacher Centers Program." Action in Teacher Education 2 (1980): 37-43. Michigan Department of Education, Office of Professional Development. Professional Development for School Staffs: The Michigan Approach. Lansing: MiChigan’Department of Education, n.d. Moffitt, J. C. In-Service Education for Teachers. Washington, D.C.: Center for AppliediResearch*ihieducation, 1963. National Education Association. Teacher Centers and Needs Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1980. Nie, N. H.; Hull, C. H.; Jenkins, J. G.; Steinbrenner, K.; and Bent, D. H. SPSS--Statistica1 Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGrawéHill, 1975. Peters, R. 0. Affecting Teacher Awareness and Attitudes: An In-Service Pro ram Strate fibr‘RUral SChOOls. Beihesda, Mdl: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED III 225, 1975. Schmieder, A., and Lovett, C. "Teacher Centering for On oing In- Service Education." Action in Teacher Education 2 Il980): 1-7. Schmieder, A., and Yarger, S. "Teacher/Teacher Centering in America." Journal of Teacher Education 25 (1974): 5-12. Teaching Centers: Toward the State of the Scene. Washington, D.C.: *AmeriEan‘ASsociation ofCOlleges for TeacheriEducation, 1975. Waskin, Y. "The Teachers' Center Movement in the United States and Its Implications for Teacher Education." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1976. 182 Yarger, S. J. "In-Service Education and Teacher Centers." In Teacher Centers. Commissioner's Report on the Education Profes- sions, 1975-I976. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977. Zafar, A. A. "An Evaluation of the Mathematics Curriculum Given at the College of Education, Makkah, From the Perspective of the Teachers Who Graduated From the College in the Years l976-1980." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1981.