AN ANALYSIS OF THE IN-SERVICE TRAINING NEEDS AND PARTICIPATION IN IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS BY TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS OF THE PHILIPPINES Thesis for tho Dogma of Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Bruno M. Santos 1961 JIHIIIIIMIIIIT”WWII"WW L ‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN ANALYSIS OF THE IN-SERVICE TRAINING NEEDS AND PARTICIPATI ON IN IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS BY TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS OF THE PHILIPPINES presented bl) Bruno M. Santos has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed‘#degree in. Agricultural Edlcation {\Q “A“, I’\ '\ \ \ Alliajor professor Dam May 9, 1961 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University ‘nao._ {77“ ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF THE IN-SERVICE TRAINING NEEDS AND PARTICIPATION IN IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS BY TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS OF THE PHILIPPINES by Bruno M. Santos Purpose. To determine the in-service training needs, and the scope and participation by teachers of agricultural schools of the Philippines in in-service training programs. Method. Data were obtained by means of question- naires sent to teachers of 25 and administrators of 32 agricultural schools, and 7 teacher-training institutions. Findings and interpretations. Out of 27 items of need listed in the questionnaires the teachers rated 20 as critical with scale points of 3.0 or higher on a five-point scale. The range of needs was 15 to 24. Language teachers expressed the most and social science teachers the least number of needs. Grouped into areas and priority the needs were Il) research and experiments, (2) subject matter content, (3) methods, (4) co—curricular activities, (5) general education, and (6) administration and supervision. All areas were given scale points higher than 3.0, the midpoint on the scale. Administrators and teachers were agreed as to the latter's need for in-service training. However, they Bruno M. Santos disagreed on the priority of these needs. The administrators expressed the need for in-service training in all the items listed in the questionnaires. The areas of needs were: administration, supervision, curriculum, guidance, and public relations. Workshops, conferences, and demonstrations were the techniques commonly used in in-service programs. Less than 3 teachers per school participated in one or more in-service training programs each year. Among the respondent teachers only two attended per year per school. The participation by teachers and administrators in in-service programs was directly related to years of tenure up to 15 and 20 years, respectively, and inversely related thereafter. The number of in-service programs conducted by administrators was directly related to their participation in regional and national in—service training activities. Limited opportunity, lack of funds, subject not in interest field, and family responsibilities were the important reasons why teachers had limited participation in in—service training activities. "Too busy with administrative duties" was the most important reason which limited the number of local in-service programs conducted by administrators. In-service programs held in the past were judged as generally effective but inadequate and limited in scope. Teacher-training institutions expressed willingness to cooperate with and assist the Bureau of Public Schools in providing in-service training activities for teachers. Time, finance, and certain regulations appear to be the major sources of impediments limiting the number and frequency of in-service training activities provided and the participation by teachers in these programs. AN ANALYSIS OF THE IN-SERVICE TRAINING NEEDS AND PARTICIPATION IN IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS BY TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS OF THE PHILIPPINES BY Bruno M. Santos A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1961 This work is dedicated to my loving wife and children who courageously and patiently endured two years of separation and gave me inspiration while I pursued my graduate studies. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere gratitude and appreciation to all the persons who have given him assistance in the conduct of this study. Sincere thanks are due particularly to his adviser. Dr. Guy E. Timmons, of the Agricultural Education Service, and to the other members of his guidance committee: Dr. Harold M. Byram, of the Agricultural Education Service, Dr. James W. Costar, of the Administrative and Educational Services, and Dr. John Useem, head of the Department of Sociology and Anthro- pology, all of Michigan State University, for the suggestions and encouragement each gave to the writer in the conduct of the study and preparation of the manuscript. Special thanks are due to Dr. James E. Woodhull, Agri- cultural Education Advisor of the International Cooperation Administration, United States Operations Mission in the Philip- pines, Mr. Jose F. Crisanto, Chief of the Agricultural Educa- tion Division, Mr. Sabas P. Tangco, Assistant Chief, Agricul- tural Education Division, and Mr. Virginio C. Juan, Supervisor of Teacher Education, Agricultural Education Division, all of the Bureau of Public Schools, who gave the writer official and moral support in the conduct of the study and took charge of the distribution of the questionnaires to the different schools. iii The writer also wishes to thank Mr. Charles W. McIntosh, his program officer in the Office of Education, U. S. Depart— ment of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D. C., who arranged the trips of the writer to seven land grant colleges and universities in connection with this study. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem Purposes of the Study Assumptions The Need and Importance of the Study Scope of the Problem and Delimitations of the Study Definition of Terms REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . Status of In-Service Training for Teachers in the Philippines Studies on the Educational Qualification and Subject-Matter Needs of Teachers In-Service Training Practices in Seven’ Land Grant Colleges and Universities Visited Principles and Practices for Planning In-Service Educational Programs METHOD OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . Sources of Data Universe and Population of the Study Sampling of the Universe and Population Percent Return Method of Analysis Data-Gathering Instruments ‘iv Page ii vii l6 l6 18 31 35 43 43 43 44 46 47 48 Chapter Page IV. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . 51 Teacher-Population of Reporting Agricultural Schools 51 Classification and Years of Tenure of Respondent Teachers 53 Educational Attainment of Respondent Teachers 55 In-Service Training Needs of Teachers and Administrators 59 In-Service Training Needs of Teachers as Perceived by Administrators 62 In-Service Training Needs of School Administrators 66 Type, Scope and Participation of Teachers in In-Service Training Programs 68 Relationship of Years of Service and Participation in In-Service Training Programs 74 Relation of Teaching Major to Major Assignment 77 Participation by Administrators in In-Service Training Programs 84 Why Teachers Had Limited Participation in In—Service Training Programs 88 Evaluation of In—Service Training Programs 96 Improvement of In-Service Training Programs 102 Summer Classes 102 Workshops and Conventions 106 Other In-Service Training Devices 107 Other Steps Recommended 107 Scope of In-Service Programs 108 V. BASIS AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Implications of the Findings 111 Implications of Practices in Pre-service Preparation and Trends in Education 120 Guidelines for Action 127 Specific Proposals 138 Proposal 1 138 Proposal 2 140 Proposal 3 143 Proposal 4 152 Chapter VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY OF STUDY . . . . . . Purposes and Problem of this Study Sources and Procedures of the Study Summary of Results and Findings CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 155 155 155 156 157 165 179 184 211 Table II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. vii LIST OF TABLES Page Classification and Proportion of Teachers of 32 Agricultural Schools of the Philippines as Reported by 32 Principals and Superin- tendents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Classification by Subjects Taught and Years of Teaching Experience of 248 Teachers of Agricultural Schools of the Philippines . . . 54 Educational Attainment of 248 Respondent Agricultural High Schobl Teachers of the Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Number of Teachers Who Earned Advanced Credits Within the Last Five Years (1956-1960) Among 248 Respondent Teachers of Agricultural Schools of the Philippines . . . . . . . . . 58 In-Service Training Needs Indicated by Respon- dent Teachers of Agricultural Schools of the Philippines Arranged According to Scale Rank of Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 In—Service Training Needs of Teachers of Agri- cultural Schools of the Philippines as Perceived by Administrators . . . . . . . . . 63 Comparison of Teachers' In-Service Training Needs as Indicated by Administrators and by Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 In-Service Training Needs of Administrators of Agricultural Schools of the Philippines as Perceived by Them . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Proportion of Teachers of Agricultural Schools Attending One or More In-Service Training Activities from 1956 to 1960 as Reported by the Principals and Superintendents . . . . 70 Types of Regional and National In-Service Training Activities Attended by Teachers of 32 Agricultural Schools from 1956-1960 as Reported by their Principals and/or Superintendents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Table XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XVIII. XIX. XXI. Number of Teachers and Scope or Level of In- Service Training Activity Attended from 1956 to 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Years of Tenure and Attendance at In— Service Training Programs of 248 Teachers of Agricultural Schools of the Philippines from 1956 to 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . Teaching Major and Assignment of 248 Res- pondent Teachers from 1956 to 1960 Participation of Teachers in Regional and National In-Service Training Programs Grouped According to Classification and Teaching Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of the Participation of Teachers of Agricultural Schools in Regional and National In-Service Training Programs From 1956 to 1960 as Reported by Adminis— trators and by Teachers . . . . . . . . . . Length of Tenure, Types of In-Service Acti- vity, and Participation of 32 Respondent School Administrators of Agricultural Schools at One or More In-Service Training Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . Length of Tenure and Type of In—Service Training Activities Organized and Conducted by 32 Respondent School Administrators of Agricultural Schools of the Philippines on a Local Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationships of the Years of Tenure of viii Page 75 8O Administrators, Average Number Participating, and Average Number Conducting In-Service Training Programs for their Teachers . . . Reasons Given by Respondent Teachers for their Limited Participation or Non-Partici- pation in Regional and National Non-Credit In-Service Training Activities Conducted from 1956 to 1960 . . . . . . . . . 89 90 Table XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. ix Page Reasons Given by Respondent Teachers for their Limited Attendance or Non-Attendance at Regular Summer School Classes for Refresher Training or for Advanced Credits from 1956 to 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Reasons Given by Administrators for the Limited Participation by Teachers of Agri- cultural Schools of the Philippines at Regional or National In-Service Training Programs Held from 1956 to 1960 . . . . . . . 94 Comparison of the Ranked Importance of Reasons Given by Teachers and By Adminis- trators for the Limited Participation in Regional and National In-Service Training Programs of Teachers from 1956 to 1960 . . . 95 Reasons Given by Administrators for the Limited Number of In-Service Activities Which they Organized and Conducted Locally Ranked According to Importance on a Five-point Scale (1 - 5) . . . . . . . . . . 97 Cumulative Evaluation of In-Service Train- ing Activities Attended by Teachers of Agricultural Schools of the Philippines (1956-1960) by Principals and Superin- tendents of these Schools . . . . . . . . . . 99 Evaluation of the In-Service Training Activities for Teachers in Agricultural Schools from 1956 to 1960 by Teachers in Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Steps Suggested by School Administrators and Teachers to Improve the Quality of In- Service Training Programs and Increase the Opportunities of Teachers of Agricultural Schools to Attend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Geographic Scope of In-Service Training Programs Which Should be Given Increased EmphaseS‘ According to the Opinion<3f Administrators and Teachers in Agricultural Schools . . . . . . . 109 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Map of the Philippine Islands Showing the Geographic Regions and the Location of the Schools from Which Teachers were Sampled for this Study . . . . 9 2. Profiles of the Percent Attendance of 248 Teachers ClasSified by Years of Service Showing the Inverse Relation- ship Between Years of Service and Participation in In-Service Training Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3. Schematic Drawing Showing the Relation- ships of Local, Regional, and National Programs of In-Service Education for Teachers of Agricultural Schools . . . . . . 154 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING Statement of the Problem The problem of this study was to determine the urgent in—service training needs of teachers of agricultural schools, what types of in-service training programs should be provided to meet these needs, and how the participation by teachers in these programs could be maximized. Purposggiof the Study This study was undertaken to determine: (1) The in-service training needs of teachers of agri- cultural schools of the Philippines. (2) The type and scope of in—service training programs provided by the Central Office of the Bureau of Public Schools to meet these needs. (3) The extent of participation by teachers in in— service training programs conducted at the local, regional. or national level. (4) The in-service training needs of agricultural school administrators. (5) The extent of participation by agricultural school administrators in regional and national in-service training programs. (6) The factors which prevent or tend to limit the opportunities of and participation by teachers and adminis— trators in in—service training activities. (7) Ways of improving the quality and quantity of the in-service training programs provided at the various levels. (8) Ways of maximizing the opportunities of teachers to participate in in-service training activities. (9) Possible areas in which some teacher-training institutions could and are willing to render assistance to the Bureau of Public Schools in providing more compre- hensive programs of in—service education for teachers of agricultural schools, and (10) Which level of in-service training program should be given increased emphasis. Assumptions This study was based on the following assumptions: (1) That an adequate and effective in—service training program for teachers is an essential part of the supervisory program of agricultural schools. (2) That teachers as well as administrators will benefit by taking part more frequently in well-planned in-service training programs. (3) That teachers, by and large, are eager to grow educationally and professionally while in the service if opportunities through in-service training programs are provided them. (4) That the results of this study will provide a basis for improving the vocational agriculture program of the Philippines. TheiNggd and Importance of the Study Paraphrasing Rizal, the Filipino national hero, in a speech he delivered just before his untimely death, the late Dr. Gregorio Hernandez, then Secretary of Education of the Philippines, said: ". . . the teacher is the architect of the nation's destiny. It is the teacher to whom is entrusted the tender and pliable minds of the young and the privilege and the responsibility of moulding and firing them with the loves and the loyalties for which they shall live and die." Later in the same speech he said, ". . . if the teacher is important because he works for tomorrow, then, with more reason can we say that those who train the teachers are important because they work for today . . . If the teacher . . . is the architect of a nation's destiny, he who trains the teacher controls that destiny."l 1 . . . Gregorio Hernandez, Quoted in: The 6th Milestone: ICA and Education in the Philippines. Annual Report of the United States Operations Mission, International Cooperation Administra- tion in the Philippines, 1958, p. 166. 4 Probably this is not the first time that these senti- ments have been expressed, but their constant repetitions do not in any way lessen their meaning and significance to education. In stressing the role of teachers in nation- building one is not likely to overlook the pivotal function which teacher-training institutions perform. It is from these institutions that teachers acquire the fundamental "tools" which their profession requires. Hence, their strategic role in nation-building is crucial. But the pre-service training of teachers is only one part of the teachers' education. As Crisanto2 said, "pre- service training only brings a teacher into being; it does not make him the full-fledged teacher." Professional educa- tionists are agreed that the quality of educational services which may be expected of teachers depends to a large extent upon the kind and quality of the pre-service preparation which they received. Unfortunately, as Hass3 has pointed out, many teachers and other members of the professional staff do not have adequate pre-service training. Even assuming that 2Jose Crisanto, Vocational Education in the Philippines, Ch. V (Manila: Bureau of Public Schools, 1955), p. 117. 3C. Glen Hass, I'In-service Education Today," The Fifty- Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Ch. II (Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 14. teachers have received the highest quality of pre-service preparation possible there still would remain a multitude of things which they need and ought to have learned but have not for lack of time or other reasons. To be up—to-date teachers need a program of continuing education while in the service. Knowledge and practices, just like tools and machines, become outmoded, some of them so fast that before we have time to apply them and see how they work they are already obsolete. The quality of the pre-service preparation of teachers has been vastly improved as a result of better techniques and superior facilities now available to teacher-training insti— tutions. This fact, however, does not lessen the teachers' ’ need for in-service education. On the contrary, the need is even now greater because the gap between the pre-service training in skills and abilities of the teacher and the new facts and knowledges which science and technology are daily bringing to light is tremendously wider and widening at a rapid rate. Hence, the necessity " . . . for all members of the profesSional school staff to keep abreast of the rapid accumu- lation of new knowledge and new professional subject matter."4 "Teachers can only teach what they know," is true, but this is not all. They must know how to teach what they know. 4 Glen C. Hass, 22. cit., p. 14. They must strive constantly to increase and update their knowledge of subject matter and search continuously for better and more effective methods and procedures of teaching. These. along with the movement to let teachers participate in school administration, underscore the importance and indispensability of good in-service education programs for teachers. Because of the vital function of teachers in the moulding of the youth society has the right to demand from them excellence and the highest quality of service. By the same token teachers have the right to expect, if not demand, from society the necessary conditions and opportunities by which they may equip and constantly prepare and improve themselves professionally to render the type and quality of service expected of them. Professional educators and school administrators can- not afford to be indifferent and leave the matter of in—* service education to chance. They must see to it that teachers are given maximum opportunity to improve themselves in every possible way. - The work of making good teachers must be carried for- ward steadily because of the immaturity of teachers on entering the profession, the unevenness of their preparation, the singular lack of external stimulus connected with the practice of the profession, the complex nature of the work that must be entrusted to even the poorest teacher, the profound injury that results when the work is badly done, the constant change in methods and curriculum. ‘— 5See next page. This means that the education of teachers must go on. It is the responsibility of professional educators and school administrators to provide the essential conditions for this continuing education to take place effectively. In turn teachers should take full advantage of the opportunities afforded them. Educators should seek constantly to improve the work— ing conditions and the opportunities of teachers for in- service growth. In-service training should be recognized and accepted as an integral part of the total school program. Several types of in-service activities have been in use in the Philippines but the effectiveness of these devices could not be specified for lack of information. At least four studies are known to have been conducted to determine the in-service training needs of vocational agriculture teachers, but the writer is not aware of any study made to identify the needs of academic teachers. Nor is he aware of any study conducted to determine the types and effective- ness of the in-service training devices used. In the absence of these vital information it is doubtful that a comprehensive program of in-service education can be designed to meet 5Charles D. Lowry, Quoted by Nelson B. Henry in "Preface," Fifty-Sixth Yearbook of The National Society for the Study of Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. ix. satisfactorily and effectively the needs of all teachers. It was in the hope of filling this gap that the present study was set up. The study was directed primarily to the identification of (1) the in-service training needs of teachers, (2) the types of in-service training programs pro- vided for them. (3) the extent of their participation in these . programs, (4) the reasons for their limited or non—participation. . and (5) their recommendations for the improvement of the in- _service training programs currently in use. It was hoped, however, that ways of evading, minimizing, or correcting the difficulties mentioned previously would be yielded partly by the results. Scope of the Problem and Delimitations of the Study . Respondent schools, teachers and administrators: 1. Teachers were sampled from 25 schools five years old or older. The schools were selected on a regional basis and according to type. 2. The administrators of the above schools plus the administrators of 15 others were also included in the study. 3. The distribution of the schools selected follows: Luzon — l3, Visayas - 7, and Mindanao - 5. Figure 1 shows the location of these schools. Figure 1. Map of the Philippine Islands Showing the Geographic Regions and the Location ' of the Schools from which Teachers were Sampled for this Study. 0 ' C) Legend: x - Indicates the location of the 25 agricultural schools from which teachers were sampled. - Indicates the location of 15 additional schools to whose adminis- trators were sent questionnaires (plus the 25 marked by X) a * - Indicates the 7 institutions which responded to questionnaire //8 Q %\/ sent them. Q r- "’ & / Q“ / VISAYAS MINDANAO L U Z O N 10 The questions forming the basis of this study were: What are the in-service training needs of teachers of agricultural schools of the Philippines? What types and how extensive were the in—service training programs provided to meet the in-service training needs of teachers? To what extent was the participation by teachers in these in-service training programs? What are the in—service training needs of agricul- tural school administrators? To what extent are administrators participating in in-service training programs? What types of in-service training activities were locally organized and conducted by school adminis- trators? What are the factors or reasons tending to limit or prevent the participation of teachers at in-service training programs, including attendance in summer schools? What factors tend to limit or prevent administrators from organizing and conducting local in-service training programs often? How may and in what ways could the in-service training programs be improved? ll 10. How may the opportunities of teachers to partici- pate in in-service training programs be maximized? 11. What incentives are necessary? 12. Which level of in-service training program should be given increased emphasis? This study was limited to the data obtained from the questionnaires returned by the teachers and administrators of the schools selected for the study. However, additional data were also secured from the reports of the Director of Public Schools and the ICA Mission in Manila. The population of the study consisted of the teachers and administrators of agricultural schools only, of which there are now 75. In order to double check the data on the type and number of in-service training programs, and gather additional information that might be pertinent to the study, a summary of the reports of the Agricultural Education Division of the Bureau of Public Schools regarding the types and parti- cipation by teachers of agricultural schools in in-service training programs held during the five years covered by the study was secured. For the purpose mainly of incorporating ideas and practices in the recommendations to be made as a result of this study, information on the in-service training practices finn...- used in tl“3 United States was obtained through actual observation and inteIViews with the head teacher-trainers of seven land grant inStitutions, and through printed information furnished the author. The list and date of visit to these institutions is appended to this report as Appendix F. Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study the following terms were defined and used as follows: Agricultural school(s) or agricultural highgsghool(s) — refer to secondary vocational agricultural schools whether classi- fied as rural, agricultural or national. These are used in- terchangeably. Teacher or teachers of agricultural schools - is applied to any member of the teaching staff of agricultural schools re- gardless of the degree possessed or subject taught. Agriculture teagher(s) - applies to any or all members of the teaching staff whose major assignment or teaching load consists of agriculture subjects or field particum. Farm managers who have charge of the school farm are included in this category. Farm mechanics teacher 5) - applies to either or both the farm machinery and/or farm shop teacher(s). Farm machinery teacher - applies to the teacher whose sole or major teaching assignment is farm machinery and is also in charge of the farm machineries of the school. Farm shop teacher — applies to the teacher teaching farm shop courses as a major teaching load, and/or is in charge of construction projects of the school. Language teacher(s) - applies to any or all teachers whose major teaching load is either English, Pilipino Language, or both. 13 SQQIEL»§S¥L§DC€ teacher(s) - applies to any or all teachers whose major teaching load consistsof three or more courses in social studies. history or economics. figmemaking or home economics teacher(s) - applies to any or all teachers whose major teaching assignment consists of home economics courses. Science teacher(s)_9£ applied science teacher(s) - applies to any or all teachers whose major teaching assignment con- sists of general science and/or applied science courses such as physics, agricultural chemistry, biology, or any combina- tion of these. Mathematics teacher(s) - applies to any or all teachers whose major teaching assignments consists of any or combinations of arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and general mathematics. Major assignment or major teaching load - means that more than 50 percent of the daily teaching periods of a teacher is devoted to one particular subject area of instruction. Minor teaching assignment - means that less than 50 percent of the teaching time of the teacher is devoted daily to teach— ing the particular course or subject area in addition to a major teaching load. Administratorgs) — means either or both the principa1(s) and superintendent(s) of agricultural schools. In-service education and in-service training - used inter- changeably to refer to the program of in-service training activities provided for teachers of agricultural schools at any or all levels (local, regional, or national), including summer school attendance and supervisory visits. Ig-service training activity(ies) - means and includes any formally organized activity for the purpose of improving teachers' professional skills and abilities in performing their duties. It may refer to any or all devices or tech- niques used such as conferences, conventions, meetings, work— shops, seminars, demonstrations, educational trips, etc. Conference - refers only to professional meetings or con- ferences regularly held at the local school level, or occasion- ally at the regional or national levels for the purpose of discussing professional subjects and/or administrative and supervisor}? problems, including community and public relations. It does not include faculty meetings or conferences devoted to routine business or operational matters. Convention — refers to conferences held on a regional or national basis and lasting for two or more days for the purpose of discussing educational issues, and administrative, super- visory, and instructional problems, including the formulation of policies, recommendations and legislative proposals. Workshop - refers to any in-service activity dealing on special areas and problems of instruction which involve both group discussions and project activities either on an indi- vidual or group basis. This includes the construction of course outlines, syllabuses, and other aspects of curriculum improvement and program planning, under the guidance of leaders, resource persons and consultants. Seminar - refers to any in—service activity held at any level for relatively short duration for the purpose of discussing on a professional level trends and issues in education, in- cluding the reading and reporting by individual teachers or groups of recently published researches or books, and cri— tically appraising or evaluating these materials for possible application. This also includes the reporting by teachers of significant information concerning their teaching experiences or results of action research which they may be conducting. Symposium - a discussion meeting led by a panel or group of educators (or teachers and administrators), lasting from one to a few hours, on problems, trends and crucial issues af- fecting education. The primary purpose is for the enlighten- ment and greater understanding of teachers of these issues. Demonstration teaching - an in-service training activity in which one or more teacher demonstrate in actual classroom, shop or laboratory situations a new technique, method or procedure of instruction. It is followed by a discussion of the various aspects of the technique demonstrated and an evaluation of its weaknesses (or that of the teacher using it) as well as its strong points for the purpose of improving the technique further. Educational trips — organized trips by teachers to places of educational interest for purposes of obtaining additional information or new insights in solving school or instructional problems. This may include visits to farms, business enterprises, 15 factories' historical places, higher institutions of learning, and qoverTnnent offices. Inter_school visits - visistsmade by individual or groups of teachers from one school to another for purposes of ob- serving practices, facilities, and other professional and social aspects of the school program of the host school. Professional class(es) - used in this paper to mean classes organized in the different state-teacher-training institutions by request of the Bureau of Public Schools in which courses suggested or decided upon by the bureau are offered for credits, and in which designated teachers attend on official time, sometimes with expenses paid partially or entirely by the bureau or local school. This includes refresher courses. Local - used to identify the scope or level of in-service training activity or program and means that the program or 4 activity is participated in only by members of the staff II of the local school. Resource persons and consultants from outside may, however, be used. Regional - used to identify in-service programs planned and organized to serve the teachers of a geographic or super- visory region. Teachers participating may come from 3-8 schools. National - used to identify in-service programs held and participated in by teachers coming from the three geographic areas of the country (Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao). gm was Pas. r1 .3 .1.) . , (D r") (\l h. 16 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Status of In-Service Training for Tegchers in the Philippines In 1955 the Chief of the Agricultural Education Division of the Bureua of Public Schools wrote:6 Education is constant growth, therefore, pre— service training only brings a teacher into being; it does not make the full—fledged teacher. The teacher receiving his diploma is not yet fully developed: his vitality and his growth depend ontiueproper attention given to his in-service training. Hence, the positive need for in-service training. The above statement summarizes the philosophy and the need for in-service training for teachers. It, too, expresses the recognition by the Central Office of its leadership role in providing the in-service training programs needed. No clue is given, however, as to the success or effectiveness of the in-service programs which have been provided. The prime objectives of in-service training programs then as now are: to promote efficient teaching and professional growth; to complete the education of teachers whose training was insufficient; and to train personnel for the higher positions in education. 6Jose Crisanto, ”Agricultural Education," Ch. V of Vocational Education in the Philippingp (Manila: Published by the Bureau of Public Schools, 1955), pp. 117-119 (Mimeographed). c)ver the years since the present educational system of the country was established these objectives have provided the basic guidelines for the in-service education of teachers. Two general types of in-service training activities have prevailed: (l) informal training without credit, and (2) formal training for which credit is given.7 Included in the first are supervisory visits and con- ferences with teachers, regular faculty professional meetings, demonstration teaching and group discussions, interschool visitation, conventions, membership in educational or professional organizations, subscription to professional and technical magazines, issuance by the Central Office or division offices of bulletins, circulars and memorandums, and parent—teacher association meetings. Under the second are included Saturday classes, summer school classes, and, occasionally, refresher courses at the different state colleges and universities. The workshop, seminar, and symposium have been intro- duced only recently as in-service training devices. The workshop is now widely used throughout the country by both general and vocational schools, but the number held and the subject areas taken up have been largely restricted to critical areas of needs as perceived by administrators and Central 7Ibid., p. 119. Qfifiige éupervisors. It is. however. "a promising form of in—serviCe training." It is not possible, however, to indicate accurately the degree of success of the total in-service education pro- gram, nor the effectiveness of any one of the devices used because of the absence of research evidence or evaluation data upon which to base judgment. One can only hazard a guess, and in this the writer hesitates to make one. Thus, the present study has sought as a secondary aim to identify some of the weaknesses, if any exist, of the current in- service training programs and find ways of correcting them. Studies on the Educationa1_gualifications and Subject Matter Needs of Teachers Research studies on the pre-service and in-service training needs of teachers in the Philippines are scanty. The few that had been made deal mostly on the pre-service and in-service professional needs of teachers. Only one attempted to make a partial evaluation of the in-service training programs and devices used. In a study conducted in 1955 to determine the 18 (1) educational and professional qualifications of agriculture 8Ibid., p. 119. 19 teadhefg 3J1 general and agricultural high schools, (2) factors affecting their efficiency, (3) their deficiencies in teacher preparation, (4) their in-service training since entrance into the teaching service, and (5) the means of improving the qualifications of prospective teachers and those already in the service, Cedillo9 found that one percent of the 260 teachers responding to the questionnaire held post—graduate degrees, 57 percent were college graduates, 8 percent were college under-graduates and 21 percent were graduates of agricultural or rural high schools. Only five percent possessed adequate professional training for teaching vocational agriculture. Forty-six percent had none. The study also revealed that 44 percent of the teachers wished to take profes- sional courses in Agricultural Education, and 34 percent wished to take other courses. Only 25 percent had earned credits at college by attending summer school or Saturday classes since employment. The above findings seem to lend credence to the stress placed by the Bureau of Public Schools on professional classes with credits and attendance on official time for a certain 9Valentin G. Cedillo, "Qualifications of Agricultural Teachers in General, Agricultural and Rural High Schools," The PhilippingyAgriculturist, V. 39 (4) (Laguna: The University of the Philippines, College of Agriculture, 1955), pp. 226—232. 20 number OE Iaeachers every year as a means of encouraging teachers to upgrade themselves. In another study made in 1959 by Cushman, Cagni, and Jarminlo to discover the phases of each farm enterprise in which teachers of agriculture need agriculture subject matter which will assist them in keeping up-to-date with research findings and technological developments, they found that farm jobs involved in the production of rice, corn, poultry, citurs, mango, dairy cattle, carabao, sweet potato, sugar cane, cassava, coffee and cocoa, vegetables, coconut, ducks and geese, and swine raising were ranked by the 252 teachers and principals of 30 schools as their areas of greatest need. One hundred thirty—seven other farm enterprise jobs were also ranked according to priority of need. A plan was developed for the Bureau of Public Schools and the College of Agriculture to provide agricultural subject-matter service for teachers of agriculture. No information is, however, available at this time as to whether the plan has already been put in operation. loHarold R. Cushman, Arsenio O. Cagni, and Martin V. Jarmin, The Agricultural Subject-Matter Needs of Teachers of Agriculture in the Philippines. Research Report, Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education in the Philippines (University of the Philippines, College of Agriculture, 1959), U.P., p. 14. 21 (“lanll studied the educational attainment. service status, and in—service training needs of agriculture teachers in 1955, and found that only 60 percent of the 250 teachers studied were qualified to teach vocational agriculture. The majority was not professionally trained to teach. Barely half had earned at least six credits in education courses. Forty— six percent had attended in—service classes within the past six years and 30 percent had attended two-week workshops. The needs indicated by teachers correlated high (+ .87 - + .97) with the ranked importance of the subjects taught in high school classes and the major and minor crop and animal enter- prises important in each locality. These seem to indicate that the respondent teachers recognized their insufficient preparation to teach basic information and production skills required for the crops and animals considred important in the community. The teachers listed poultry, swine, rice and corn as the areas in which they had the greatest need. 11 . . . . . . Virginio C. Juan, The Educational Attainment, SerVice Status, and In-Service Training Needs of Agriculture Teachers in the Philippines (Master's thesis, Pennsylvaina State Univer- sity, 1955), p. 68. Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education in the Philippines, An annotated bibliography of Studies, (Laguna: University of the Philippines, College of Agriculture, 1959), pp. 26-27. 22 The study by Juliano,12 which preceded that by Juan. on “The Technical Training of Teachers of Vocational Agri- culture in the Philippines," revealed essentially the same deficiency in the technical agriculture preparation of teachers as their professional education deficiency found by the latter. Juliano's findings were: 65 percent of the 94 teachers studied had Bachelor degrees in agriculture, 34 percent had less than a Bachelor degree or had degrees in fields other than agriculture; only 67 percent had adequate technical training based on college units completed. More than 40 per- cent felt a need for more training, more experience and more knowledge in farm mechanics, livestock diseases and parasites, fertility management, conservation and farm shop. The findings indicate the deficiencies in the college preparation of the teachers and the urgent need for good programs of in-service education. Juliano recommended higher compensation for teachers in order to give them incentives to upgrade themselves and do better work through well-planned in-service training programs. Jorge P. Juliano, The Technical Training of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in the Philippines (Master's thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1954), p. 69. Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education in the Philippines. An annotated bibliography of studies, College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines, College, Laguna, 1959, pp. 27-28. 23 Irl 1958, Habitol3 made the following recommendations whidh are relevant to the present study in connection with the development of an adult farmer program for the Philippines: (1) Reorientation of the philosophy, objectives and guiding principles of the agricultural education program to give emphasis to the vocational agriculture education of adult farmers; (2) Continuous in-service training of agriculture teachers; and (3) Use of advisory councils in organizing, conducting and evaluation of agriculture instruction in the community. Elsewhere studies similar to those cited above were also being conducted. In 1958 Sudershanaml4 found that teachers and administrators in Andra Pradesh State, India, recognized the need for in-service education for continuous growth. Among the in-service education activities which teachers wanted to be held more often were: individual and group conferences with administrators, reading of professional literature, participation in group activities, study groups. refresher courses, evaluation programs, educational research, l3Celestino P. Habito, Developmpnt of An Adult Farmgp Education Program for the Philippines. (Ph.D Thesis, University of Minnesota, 1958), p. 380. Summaries of Studies in Agri- cultural Education in the Philippines. College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines, College, Laguna, pp. 22-23. l4Ratna Sudershanam, A Study of In-Service Teacher Education of Sgcondary School Teachers in Andra Pradesh State, India (Ed.D. Thesis, Indiana University, 1958). Dissertation Abstracts, V. 19, No. 12 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, June, 1959). pp. 3240—3241. 24 ' educational trips, study leave, panel discussions, seminars, visiting Classes and schools, and meeting educators from foreign countries. He found that participation by teachers depended more on internal rather than external stimulation, i.e., by encouragements and incentives provided by the local school administration. Some of the important problems were inadequate or no professional libraries in the individual schools, inadequate buildings and instructional materials, and lack of coordination among the various leaders of local programs and the Director of Public Instruction on one hand, and teacher- training colleges on the other. He recommended that the needs of teachers be identified, analyzed and evaluated, and appro- priate programs formulated and conducted to meet them. In a study she conducted in 1957, to find what secondary public school teachers in Manila were doing for professional improvement, Santiago15 found that teachers in Manila felt that they were not offered enough external incentives to encourage them to grow professionally; that the relatively extensive participation of teachers in faculty meetings and group conferences with supervisors was to a great degree 15Alicia A. Santiago, A Study of the In-Service Education of Publichpcondary School Teachers in Manila, Philippines (Ed.D. Thesis, Indiana University, 1957), p. 379. Dissertation Abstracts, V. 18, No. 2 (Ann Arbor: of Michigan, Feb., 1958), p. 515. University 25 reguirqg rather than voluntary; that several in-service training techniques were utilized, but techniques involving cooperative action were rarely used; that the extent of teacher-participation in in-service training activities de— pended largely on the extent of offering of in-service acti- vities by the school. Various in-service techniques generally recognized by authorities as effective were used but only on a limited basis. The importance of providing professional library facilities to the teachers was evidenced by the re— sults of the study. Workshops and conventions or conferences, when offered, were fairly well participated in by the teachers. Great importance was attached to the leadership provided by the Central Office of the Bureau of Public Schools in pro- viding in-service training activities to the teachers outside of their schools. The teachers rated the in-service training programs which they attended fairly high. The most highly rated technique was the use of teaching aids (audio-visual) such as educational films. However, this technique was the least used. The problems rated most important were: lack of instructional materials and second-language difficulty of students. The status of in-service teacher education in public 26 high Sohcxals in Indiana was studied by Taylor16 in 1957. He found that (1) teachers took an active part in faculty meet— ings but they did not plan them, (2) teachers were active in curriculum improvements but worked individually rather than cooperatively, (3) the most widely used techniques of in- service education were related to teacher welfare, (4) schools in wealthier areas used the greatest number of different se- lected techniques, (5) both principals and teachers showed great interest in in-service education, (6) teachers and principals agreed closely as to the status of in-service teacher-education programs in Indiana, and (7) the emphasis was on the well-being rather than on the professional competency of teachers. In a study to determine what in-service education was being provided to Negro teachers of vocational agriculture in the state of Virginia, Diggsl7 found the following exten- sively used: (1) full-time residence in college, (2) full—time 1 . . 6Bob Leslie Taylor, The Status of In—SerVice Teacher- Education in the Public Sgpior High Schools of the State of Indiana (Ed.D. Thesis, University of Indiana, 1957). Disserta- tion Abstracts, V. 18, No. 2, Feb., 1958 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1958). pp. 515—516. 7 Kermit Hunter Diggs, In-Service Education of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in Virginia (Ed.D. Thesis, Cornell University, 1957). Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education, Supplement No. 12, Voc. Div. Bull. No. 275, Agriculture Series No. 72 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1959), pp. 17-18. 27 summer session, (3) three-week short courses, and (4) extension and week-end courses with credits. Nineteen workshops were conducted and participated in by 97 percent of the teachers for an average of 6.5 times. Ninety-eight percent consulted with 1-11 other agricultural agencies for an average of 6.2 per teacher. Fifty-six percent pursued credit courses in agricultural education, general education and technical agriculture. Ninety—four percent were visited by the teacher-trainer and/or supervisor for an average of 4.1 visits. ? Teaching experience had no apparent effect on the attendance by teachers at workshops, but a relationship existed between experience and assistance received from supervisors or teacher— trainers. The number of problems discussed varied inversely to the increase in experience. Lack of time limited the frequency of participation by teachers in in—service training programs. Finance and distance were also important factors limiting the pursuit of credit courses. Essman18 studied the summer activities of Nebraska teachers of agriculture in 1956, and found that the greatest l8Rolland L. Essman, A Study of the Summer Activities of Nebraska Teachers of Voqational Agriculture (M.S. Thesis, University of Nebraska, 1956), p. 94. Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education, Suppl. No. 11, Voc. Div. Bull. No. 272, Agric. Series No. 71, p. 24. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1958. 28 proportiorx of the teachers' time was devoted to self—improve- ment. Summer school attendance and the development of the next year's teaching program occupied the major share of the teachers' time. Other activities were supervising farming programs, FFA activities, professional reading and many routine matters in the operation of the vocational agriculture depart- ment. He recommended that the summer program be considered an integral part of the total program, and that teachers evaluate the summer activities and eliminate the less important ones. Administrators and supervisors should aid teachers in identifying the important activities. Horner, 1959, conducted an evaluation of the in- service education program provided for teachers of vocational agriculture by North Carolina State College and found that the most important item of need checked by teachers was, "Having in-service education opportunities conveniently avail- able." Three—fourths of the teachers needed assistance in keeping up-to-date on information and techniques for effective teaching. Teachers expressed highest subject matter needs 9James T. Horner, Angvaluation of the In—Service Education Program Providac for Teachers of Vocational Agriculture by North Carolina State Collega (Ed.D. Dissertation, Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri, 1959), 209 p. Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education, Suppl. No. 13, Voc. Div. Bull. No. 282, Agric. Series No. 75, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1960, pp. 48-49. 29 for (a) Pliint diseases, (b) livestock and poultry diseases, (c) farm management, (d) agricultural economics and marketing, and (e) motor and machinery operation. The in-service program was found to be weak in: policy and planning, budget provisions. supply of new information, and technical off-campus courses. It was found to be strong in facilities, visits to first year teachers, and workshops. Teachers differed in their evaluation of in—service education programs from the evaluation by teacher- educators. The most effective in-service media were: work— shops, small group meetings, subject-matter specialist, short courses, and extension courses. Deems,20 1956, evaluated the in-service education program provided for Nebraska teachers of vocational agriculture by the University of Nebraska and found that teachers ranked workshops, informational services, consultative services, and graduate courses, in that order, as the important devices used. The needs of teachers were ranked in the following order: (1) new developments in agriculture, (2) development of skills in farm mechanics, (3) training in organizing and using advisory councils, (4) training in organizing and 20Howard W. Deems, An Evaluation of the In—Service Program Provided by tha University of Nebraska for Taachers of Vocational Agriculture (Ed.D. Thesis, University of Missouri, 1956), 260 p. Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education, Suppl. No. 10, Voc. Div. Bull. No. 265, Agric. Series No. 69. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1957. p. 28. a 30 conducting Young and adult farmer classes, (5) instruction in guidance and educational psychology, and (6) training in the use of PrOper techniques of publicity. Deems noted that teacher-training institutions do not necessarily provide in—service training in the areas of greatest need for teachers. Among his recommendations were: (1) Teacher-training institutions should make in-service education a definite part of the total education program; (2) Definite plans and policies should be formulated; (3) Adequate finances and facilities should be provided; (4) A complete in—service program should include professional and technical graduate courses both on and off—campus at times convenient to teachers, work- shops both on and off—campus, informational services of proper scope and variety, and consultative services for all teachers. A research program should be instituted and teaching aids provided to teachers. In 1955, Deyoe21 studied the in-service education pro- gram provided for teachers of vocational agriculture by the 13 departments of agricultural education in the north central region of the United States. Among the findings he reported 1George P. Deyoe, A Study of In-Service Education Provided for Teachers of Vocational Agriculture by Departments of Agricultural Education in the Captral Region (Nonthesis, University of Illinois, Div. of Agric. Educ., 1955), 30 p. Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education, Suppl. No. 10, Vbc. Div. Bull. No. 265, Agric. Series No. 69, U.S. Dept. Health, Education and Welfare, 1957, p. 29. IH IF.) 31 were: )1) All 13 departments provided in—service education for beginning teachers; (2) Visits to beginning teachers were made by persons from 12 departments; (3) Statewide meetings were sponsored for new teachers by five States; and (4) Special courses for credit were provided in each of five States. Twelve departments offered summer courses for graduate credits both on campus and off-campus. Eleven institutions reported 152 non-credit workshops held during a 12-month period, most of which were held off-campus. Over half of all courses were jointly taught by persons in the field of technical agriculture and teacher-educators. Teaching aids of one form or another were provided teachers by all departments. Forty-two teacher- educators in 10 states spent part of their time preparing these aids, but only 5 persons in 3 states spent more than 50 percent or more of their time doing this work. Seven depart- ments reported some form of cooperative action research conducted with teachers in the field. Nine departments reported having made changes in their programs while the rest planned changes for later. In—Service Training Practices in Sevap Land Grant Colleges and Universities Visitad In order to obtain first hand information on current in-service training practices seven land grant colleges and universities were visited in the summer of 1960 (August 3 to A 32 September 3) - The institutions visited were: (1) University of conneCtiCut, (2) Pennsylvania State University, (3) Virginia Polytechnic Institute, (4) University of Georgia, (5) Auburn University, (6) Mississippi State University, and (7) University of Kentucky. Head teacher-trainers and other members of the agricultural education department staffs of these institutions were interviewed. Two vocational agriculture departments were also visited, and the vocational agriculture teachers of these were interviewed. In addition, printed information on the in—service programs then in use at these institutions was secured. A review of the notes taken of the interviews and the printed information secured revealed the following: (1) The seven institutions used substantially the same in- service training devices or techniques but differed somewhat in the frequency or number of times the different types of programs were used and the areas of emphases. (2) Six institutions offered both on and off-campus courses with credits during the regular school year and summer for teachers of vocational agriculture. The seventh institution had only an on-campus program. Most of the courses offered were cre- dited toward a Master's degree program both in the fields of agricultural education and technical agriculture. (3) Of the seven institutions visited the Pennsylvania State University had the most comprehensive and extensive off-campus program. 33 .4) The types of non-credit in-service activities most widely used were Workshops, visits and conferences with vocational agriculture teachers by the teacher-trainers or area supervisors from the State Department of Education, conventions or State teachers' conferences, seminars, group meetings, and demonstrations. (5) All institutions prepared and made available to vocational agriculture teachers various types of essential information. Teachers were also encouraged by all seven institutions to invite or visit and have conferences with the personnel of other agricultural and educational agencies, private companies, and industrial enterprises con- cerning problems of vocational agriculture instruction in which the respective business enterprises or agencies could be of help. This phase of the in-service program was considered important in order to make use of all the available resources in enhancing the in-service training of teachers. As Diggs22 found in his study, Virginia teachers of vocational agriculture used these external agencies and enterprises at an average of 6.2 agencies per teacher. Some teachers consulted with as many as 11 agencies in one year. Five institutions had off-campus extension education centers located at strategic places throughout the state. 22Kermit Hunter Diggs, pp, cit., p. 18. 34 B05“ Credidl and non—credit courses were offered at these centers during the regular school year and in summer. Teachers enrolled in off-campus credit courses paid the same amount of tuition fees per credit hour of load as those enrolled on- campus, except: (1) Vocational agriculture teachers in Pennsylvania paid one-half less than those enrolled on campus, although non—vocational agriculture teachers paid the same amount. (2) In Mississippi, off-campus students, whether vocational agriculture teachers or not paid $2.00 more than those enrolled on campus. The number of agricultural education staff members assigned to off—campus teaching varied from 1 to 5, some on full time, others on part time basis. These were reinforced or assisted in some instances by experienced vocational agriculture teachers, and worked cooperatively with area supervisors from the state departments of education. The seven institutions followed essentially the same practices in carrying out their respective in-service educa- tion programs, although practices varied in intensity and areas of emphases. These corresponded to and paralleled the findings of Deyoe as regards in-service training practices used by agricultural education departments in the north central region consisting of the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota' South Dakota, and Kentucky. Itliis noted from the foregoing citations that the types of in—service training activities which teachers reported they participated in agreed with the types which teacher-training institutions said they employed. It is also significant for Philippine educators to note that according to the opinion of teacher-trainers of the institutions visited there exist cordial and very satisfactory cooperative working relation- ships among the personnel of teacher-training institutions, county agents and supervisors, and supervisors from the different state departments of education. Likewise, the cooperation of private enterprises and other government agencies was rated very satisfactory. Principles and Practices for Planning In-Service Educational Programs It seems fitting to conclude this chapter by quoting the principles of in-service education evolved by educators from the 13 states comprising the central region of the United States, which now constitute the basic guidelines for action by each state in the region in carrying out their respective in-service education programs: George W. Sledge, George P. Deyoe, and Harold M. Byram, Principles and Practices for Planning In-Service Educational Programs for Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in the Central Region (Madison: University of Wisconsin, Dept. of Agric. & Ext. Education, College of Agriculture, 1959), 16 pp. (Mimeographed) . 36 §5£i223§2151_l: Personnel of teacher-education institu- tionS. Estate departments of education and/or state 'poards (bf vocational education, local administrators, and teaChers, should share the responsibility for developing programs of in-service education. This is the principle of involvement. It stresses the sharing of responsibility among the various educational agencies or personnel of these agencies, and prescribes the working relationships which should prevail. It forms the basic frame of reference for all actions to be taken in plan- ning and carrying out the in-service training program. It is fundamental, for under the democratic system, no project can be ccmpletely successful unless all the persons affected are involved in the formulation of policies and plans, and the implementation of the program. The degree to Which this principle is adhered to will determine the degree of success of the in-service training program. Principle 2: In-service educational programs should be designed to enable teachers to identify and solve their own problems. This principle embodies the basic aim of in—service education--the development of competencies among teachers in order to enable them to solve effectively their own pro- fessional and educational problems with minimum external as- sistance. A sample evidence as to how this principle operates is illustrated by the findings of Diggs. The number of problems discussed by vocational agriculture teachers with 37 visiting teaCher-trainers, state department supervisors, or personnel from other government agencies and private enter- prises varied inversely with experience, that is, the longer the teacher has been in the service the fewer are the problems which he could not himself alone solve. 'Practices to be followed in planning and implementing the in-service education program should, therefore, be designed such that teachers acquire and achieve the desired competencies Which will make them more effective in their jobs and in solving their own problems. Teachers should become less and less dependent upon in-service education personnel for help in solving their problems. Principle 3: Local, State and Federal policies and regulations should be developed which encourage in- service educational programs. Developing and implementing a comprehensive and adequate in-service training program involves personnel and money. For the Philippines the implications are more than crucial. Filipino educators are well aware of the financial straits the government is in. Funds allocated to finance in-service training programs have always been less than adequate. This accounts for the limited number of workshops, professional classes and other in-service devices, including supervisory visits, held in the past. This fund lack should not, however, lead educators into helpless abnegation of their responsibility for providing adequate in-service education programs for teaCh 38 ers. Amore effective allocation and expenditures of funds should be sought. ‘Principle 4: In-service educational programs should be continually evaluated and improved. The importance of this principle is obvious since the effectiveness of any program cannot be determined and, there-‘ fore, no plan can be wisely formulated for its improvement, unless its effects and outcomes, and its strengths and weak- nesses, are evaluated continuously. Lack of a systematic program of evaluation is one of the weaknesses of the in- service training program in the Philippines. Principle 5: In-service educational programs should stimulate needed changes in the program of agricultural education in public schools. The ultimate objective of in-service education is the improvement of the total vocational agriculture program. This pre-supposes the introduction of innovations and the adoption by teachers of new and modern practices. These in-service education should help bring about. Principle 6: A program of in-service education should aid in the development of local, long-range programs. The participation of teachers in planning long-range programs is essential to ensure that all will cooperaua in carrying out these programs. Any kind of participation will not suffice. Teachers must have an intelligent grasp of the problems so that they can make intelligent contributions in the delikxerations. These competencies could be acquired by teachers through in-service training. principle 7: The program of in-service education should be concerned with the planning, organization, and maintenance of physical facilities for programs of vocational agriculture. The implication of this principle is crucial parti- cularly for schools with inadequate facilities. In such schools the use of the limited facilities available should be well-planned. The equipment should be maintained with great care to lengthen their usefulness, and enable the school to derive maximum benefits from their use. A program for replacing worn and unusable equipment, and for acquiring additional ones, should be evolved. The in-service education program should help the school administration and the teachers do all these. Principle 8: The program of in-service education should prepare teachers to develop adequate systems of depart— mental records and use them for the improvement of in- struction. Next to research or experimental data records are important sources of information from which to base plans or programs for improving instruction and other operational activities of the school. Good records tell accurate stories and if properly analyzed and interpreted should serve an important purpose in the improvement of the total school program. "GEE. l ,L I LJ’ 4O PEEIEEiple : The program of in—service education should promote understanding of and appreciation for the local program of vocational agriculture. This applies not only with vocational agriculture teachers but all other teachers and members of the staff also. Instruction in all the non—agricultural areas should promote or enhance learning by students in the vocational areas. This is not possible to do if the so—called academic or related subject teachers do not appreciate and understand the program and its objectives. Principle 10: An in—service program should enable teachers to work with others in developing suitable policies for a department and in carrying out these policies. The fostering of cooperativeness and good working relationship should be one of the intrinsic values to be strived for and derived from in-service education. Principle 11: An in-service educational program should be planned to provide for the instruction and improve— ment of a maximum number of teachers. The rate of growth of a school, the rate at which the total program is improved, and the rate at which new innovations are adopted, all depend on the number of the teachers who are progress-oriented and are not foiled in their desires for in— service growth. As the saying goes - the chain is only as strong as its weakest link; so is the total school program only as strong as the teachers are educationally and profes— sionally strong. The in—service program should, therefore, 41 strive to torovide all teachers maximum opportunity for in- service growth. Principle 12: Summer school sessions designed to meet the needs of teachers . . . should be provided. The need for summer school programs is particularly urgent for agricultural schools in View of their distance from training institutions, the poor transportation facilities available, and the fact that teachers are required to render 12 months' service and seldom granted vacation or study leaves. Principle l3: In-service education programs should assist teachers . . . in discharging responsibilities toward the educational programs of the entire school. In-service training programs should not train only for narrow segments of the school services but for all other essential areas where teachers could contribute significantly to the improvement of services without lessening their effectiveness in their specialized fields of assignments. Principle 14: In-service educational programs should provide opportunities for teachers to improve them- selves through graduate instruction. In the Philippines as in the United States vocational agriculture teachers render 12 months' of service throughout the year. But the expediency for planned summer graduate programs is more urgent in the former because the opportunities for teachers to attend credit courses during the regular school year are limited. 42 Prfii‘ACiple 15: Teacher education departments of teacher- trallring institutions should provide consultative services for teachers, school administrators, and others on an individual and group basis. This is a neglected part of the teacher-training pro- gram in the Philippines. Undoubtedly, financial and transpor- tation problems are limiting factors in the initiation of this type of in-service activity, but these should not be a PK‘. cause for abandoning it altogether. Wherever feasible and practical consultative services should be organized and set 1 , ['50 I‘m-l" ‘ .. I in motion. There are several schools located near teacher- training institutions and a program such as described here could very well start with these schools. 43 CHAPTER III METHOD OF THE STUDY Sourcesof Data The basic data used in this study were derived from the responses of 248 teachers and 32 principals and superin- tendents of agricultural schools in the Philippines who responded and returned the two separate sets of survey questionnaires and checklists sent to them. Additional information was obtained from the Director of Public Schools, the International Cooperation Administration (USOM) in Manila, and from seven teacher training institutions of the Philippines who responded to a checklist—type questionnaire sent to them. Data regarding current in-service training practices in the United States were also obtained from seven land grant colleges and universities (in addition to Michigan State University) through the personal interview technique. The seven land grant institutions have previously been identified in the preceding. chapter. Universegand Population of the Study The universe of the study consisted of the 75 agricul— tural schools located throughout the Philippine Archipelago. The population consisted of all the teachers, principals and superintendents of these schools. W the Universe and Population The schools chosen as sources of the population samples were selected on a regional basis and according to types of schools. A list of the agricultural schools indicating the year of establishment was secured from the Bureau of Public Schools. All the schools established after 1956 were deleted. The remaining 49 schools were then grouped according to geographical location and classified according to type, such as national regional, national provincial and national rural. The 25 schools used were then picked out from the respective geographical regions such that at least 50 percent of the schools belonging to each type were selected. On this basis the final sample schools were distributed as follows: Luzon - 13, Visayas - 7, and Mindanao - 5. Broken down according to type of schools the sample consisted of 9 national regional schools, 10 national provincial schools, and 6 national rural schools. Figure 1 shows the location of these schools. Fifteen other schools were added to the first 25 to enlarge the sample number of schools for purposes of reaching a greater number of the school administrators. These were selected on the basis of the length of service of the incumbent administrators (5 years or more). These additional 15 schools are indicated in Figure l with a large solid dot. Tflua population was sampled as follows: An estimate of the runflber of teachers was made for each school. Using the average of these estimates as a basis the number of classes was also hypothetically determined. From this was derived the sampling ratio used in the study: 3 agriculture teachers, 2 farm mechanics teachers, 2 homemaking teachers, 2 English Em teachers, 1 Pilipino language teacher, 1 mathematics teacher, L 2 science teachers, and 2 history or social science teachers, or an average of 15 teachers per school. Three sets of questionnaires were prepared: (1) Set I was for teachers, (2) Set II for administrators, and (3) Set 'III for teacher-training institutions. From 10 to 15, or a total of 300 copies of Set I were sent to each of the 25 schools sampled for teachers. One copy each of Set II were sent to 40 schools (including the 25 schools sampled for teachers). Twelve copies of Set‘III were sent to 12 teacher- training institutions selected on a geographical basis: Manila and suburbs — 4, Central Luzon - 1, Southern Luzon - l, Visayas - 3, and Mindanao — 3. The locations of the institutions which returned the questionnaires are indicated by asterisks in Figure 1. Teachers were sampled as follows: Administrators were instructed to list the teachers' names alphabetically. Those having less than five years of service in the bureau or school were ellJuli—hated. The remaining names were regrouped in alphabetical order according to major subjects taught. The first names appearing in each group list were picked out following the ratio previously described. No difficulty was involved in sampling the principals or superintendents since only one set of the questionnaire was sent to each school for Fa either the principal or superintendent to accomplish. Set III questionnaire was sent to and accomplished by the heads of the institutions selected, or by the deans of lit. a h the colleges of education of the same. Percent Return Based on the 25 schools selected and from which was sampled the teacher-population there was a 100 percent return on the questionnaire for teachers. Based on the number of 'questionnaires sent out the return was 82.7 percent. The latter percentage is misleading, however, since the sampling design discriminated against teachers with less than five years of service. The balance of questionnaires not returned possibly had not been_distributed at all for lack of qualified teachers. (Administrators were instructed to discard the extra or unused questionnaires.) Thirty-two of the 40 school administrators returned the questionnaires sent to them. This represents a return of 80 percent. 47 Seven of the 12 teacher—training institutions returned the queStionnaires sent to them. This represents a percentage return of approximately 70 percent. Method of Analysis The results of the data collected were grouped into six categories, namely (1) Educational and Job Information, (2) In-service Training Needs, (3) In—service Training Programs held and Participated in by Teachers, (4) Reasons for the Limited Participation of Teachers in In-service Programs, (5) Evaluation by Teachers and Administrators of In-service Programs, and (6) Recommendations of Teachers and Administrators. The data are presented in tabular form in the group order given above. Data for category 1 are mostly totals, averages and percentages. Data for category 2 are presented as weighted values, rank orders, and percentages. Where com- parisons of data for different groups of respondents were con- sidered useful in interpreting the information rank correlations were calculated. In some, the standard deviations were computed.‘ In calculating the correlation coefficients the Pearson product-moment method was used. Data for categories 3 and 4 are presented as totals, averages, and percentages. Categories 5 and 6 are given as totals, percentages and priority ranks based on percentages or weighted values. .48 225a;§§£§§2;¥ng Instruments Three sets of questionnaires and checklists were used in gathering the data for this study. Set I, Survey Questionnaire and Checklist for Teachers, contained seven major groups of items to be checked by the responding teachers: (1) Educational and Personal Information, (2) Job Information, (3) Participation in In-service Training Programs, (4) Reasons for Limited or Non-participation in/In-service Training Pro— grams, (5) In-service Training Needs, (6) Evaluation Of In- service Training Programs, and (7) Recommendations of Teachers on how to Improve In-Service Training Programs. This set of questionnaire and checklist was pretested using three Filipino students in Michigan State University who were formerly teachers in the public schools of the Philippines, and two American vocational agriculture teachers from two of the land grant universities visited in August, 1960. Appropriate changes were made after the pretest was taken. The questionnaire and checklist for principals and . superintendents (Set II) contained five main groups of items of information: (1) Job Information, (2) Participation in In-service Training Programs, (3) In-service Education Needs, (4) Evaluation of Regional and National In-service Training Programs, and (5) Recommendations on How to Improve In-service Training Programs. Like Set I questionnaire this was also i I I! i 49 preteStEG ‘by administering it to one public school administrator currently studying in Michigan State University, and one agricultural school teacher-in-charge who was an ICA partici- pant returning home, and whom the author met in Washington, D. C. in August, 1960. Minor revisions were made on this questionnaire after the pretest. Both sets of questionnaires were presented to the Guidance Committee advising the writer for review and further suggestions before being printed in final form for mailing. The questionnaires were sent to the schools chosen ‘" for the study through Dr. James Woodhull of the Agricultural Education Division of the ICA Mission in Manila, who, with the cooperation of Mr. Jose Crisanto, Chief of the Agricultural Education Division of the Bureau of Public Schools and the assistance of other personnel of his Office, mailed)them to the respective schools. Returns were also routed through Dr. Woodhull to the author. The set of questions or checklist sent to 12 teacher—’ training institutions of the Philippines was not presented to the Guidance Committee for review, since it was not a part of the original research design. Its use was decided upon by the author on his own initiative purely on the assumption V that.the information thus obtained would aid him in formulating ' l r l I I his recommendations regarding the involvement and active partiCi-Pation of teacher-training institutions in providing in—service training programs for teachers. The questionnaire was a one-page_checklist designed to find out what the respondent institutions could and are willing to do to help the Bureau of Public Schools improve and intensify the in- service training programs now provided by the bureau for teachers of agricultural schools. The data or information obtained from the interviews with the head teacher-trainers of the seven land grant institutions visited were recorded in an‘Interview.Form prepared for this purpose. The items included in the form were pri- marily designed to elicit information on the types and scope of in-service training practices followed and, to some degree, the extent of participation or attendance by teachers at these in-service training activities. 51 CHAPTER IV ’ FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS In this chapter are presented the summarized data and pertinent findings relative to the objectives of the study. These are organized according to the major areas emphasized and outlined in Chapter III. Teacher-Population of Reporting Agricultural Schools Table I shows the total number of teachers on the staffs of the 32 agricultural schools whose principals and superin- tendents responded to the questionnaires. The number of teachers ranged from 12 to 49, or an average of 27 teachers per school. The total was 858 teachers broken down as follows: agriculture - 225, farm mechanics - 94, homemaking - 95, language - 137, social science and history — 65, applied science — 92, mathematics - 62, health and physical education - 52, and 36 unclassified. The typical agricultural school had 7 voca- tional agriculture teachers, 3 farm mechanics teachers, 3 home- making teachers, 4 language teachers, 2 social science teachers, 3 applied science teachers, 2 mathematics teaChers, 2 health and physical education teachers and l unclassified teacher. The distribution of teachers into the major assignment areas was not proportionally uniform in all schools. This indicates that there is considerable overlapping in the subject TABLE I. CLASSIFICATION AND PROPORTION OF TEACHERS OF 32 AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS OF THE PHILIPPINES AS REPORTED BY 32 PRINCIPALS AND SUPERINTENDENTS. Classification of Number on Percent Average per Sampling. Teachers Staffs School Ratios Agriculture 225 26 7 3 Farm Mechanics 94 ll 3 2 Homemaking 95 ll 3 2 Language 137 16 4 3 Social Science 65 8 2 2 Applied Science 92 11 3 2 Mathematics 62 7 2 1 Health and P. E. 52 6 2 _ Others (unclassified) 36 4 1 - T o t a 1 858 100 27 15 :1 I i I § II ‘1 i .l "I i assignmeru: of teachers which may be due to the absence of educationally qualified teachers with the appropriate major or minor field of specialization. This supposition seems to be supported by the data in Table XIII which show that only 47.2 percent of the teachers responding were teaching subjects exclusively in their major areas of specialization; 31.9 FE percent were teaching subjects in both their major and minor areas of specialization; 6.9 percent were teaching subjects only in their minor fields of specialization; and 14 percent were teaching subjects which were neither in their major nor . . . . . . . 24 minor fields of speCialization. The studies of Cedillo and Juan 5 further support these findings. Classification and Years of Tenure of Respondent Teachers The classification by major teaching assignment and years of service in the Bureau of Public Schools of the 248 teachers studied are given in Table II. Seventy-six, or 30.7 percent of the respondents were agriculture teachers; 37, or 14.9 percent were farm mechanics teachers; 26, or 10.5 percent were homemaking teachers; 57, or 23 percent were language teachers; 26, or 10.5 percent were social science teachers; 14, or 5.7 percent were applied science teachers and 12, or 24Valentin G. Cedillo, pp. cit., p. 200. 5Virginio C. Juan, 22; cit., p. 27. TABLE 11 - CLASSIFICATION BY SUBJECTS TAUGHT AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCES OF 248 TEACHERS OF AGRICUL- TURAL SCHOOLS OF THE PHILIPPINES. I . . . . * Classification Frequency Distribution by Median of Teachers Years of Tenure Total Mean 5 -10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-up S. D. Agricul- N 63 6 4 1 1 l 76 M 8.0 ture % 82.9 7.9 5.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 100 A 9.2 SD 4.7 Farm N 25 6 2 2 2 - 37 M 8.7 Mechanics % 67.6 16.2 5.4 5.4 5.4 - 100 A 10.7 SD 6.4 Homemaking N 15 2 2 5 1 l 26 M 9.0 % 57.7 7.7 7.7 19.2 3.9 3.9 100 A 13.3 SD 9.2 Language N 33 7 4 5 1 7 57 M 9.3 % 57.9 12.3 7.0 8.8 1.8 12.3 100 A 13.6 SD 10.6 Social N 10 8 2 3 2 l 26 M 11.9 Science % 38.5 30.8 7.7 11.5 7.7 3.9 100 A 14.0 SD 9.4 Applied N 11 l l - - l 14 M 8.2 Science % 78.6 7.1 7.1 - - 7.1 100 A 10.4 SD 6.7 Mathema- N 10 - .1 - l - 12 M 8.0 tics % 83.3 — 8.3 - 8.3 - 100 A 10.2 SD 6.0 T o t a 1 N 167 30 16 16 8 11 248 M 8.7 % 67.3 12.1 6.5 6.5 3.2 4.4 100 A 11.5 SD 7.8 *M — Median years of service. A - Mean years of service. SD - Standard deviation. or 4.9 Percent were mathematics teachers. 0f the 248 teachers, 167, or 67.3 percent had 5-10 years of service; 30, or 1.1 percent had 10-15 years; 16, or 6.5 percent had 15-20 years; 16, or 6.5 percent had 20-25 years; 8, or 3.2 percent had 25-30 years; and 11, or 4.4 per- cent had 30 or more years. A majority of the teachers had 5—10 years of service. The proportion by group ranged from 38.5 percent to 83.3 percent. It was lowest among the social science teachers and highest among the mathematics teachers. The median years of service for all teachers was 8.7 years, and the mean was 11.5 years. Social science teachers had the longest service with an average of 14 years. The youngest group, in point of service, was the agriculture teachers. This group had an average service of 9.2 years. The standard deviation in the years of service of the different groups of teachers was greatest among language teachers which was plus or minus 10.6. It was least among agriculture teachers which was plus or minus 4.7. The standard deviation in the years of service for all the teachers was plus or minus 7.8 years. Educational Attainment of Respondent Teachers The educational attainment of the 248 teachers who responded to the questionnaires may be seen from Table III. One hundred and fifty-five teachers, or 62.5 percent, had J TABLE 111. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF 248 RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS OF THE 56 PHILIPPINES. Classification Teachers With Total of Teachers by Less than Bachelor More than Master's Major Subject Bachelor Degree Bachelor Degree Taught Degree Degree Agriculture 2 2.6 49 64.5 25 32.9 - - 76 30.7 Farm Mechanics 25 67.6 9 24.3 3 8.1 — - 37 14.9 Homemaking - — 17 65.4 9 34.6 - - 26 10.5 Language — - 43 75.4 12 21.1 2 3.5 57 23.0 Social Science — - 17 65.4 8 30.8 1 3.9 26 10.5 Applied Science - - 11 78.6 2 14.3 1 7.1 14 5.7 Mathematics - - 9 75.0 3 25.0 - - 12 4.8 T o t a 1 27 10.9 155 62.5 62 25.0 4 1.6 248 100.0 57 Bachelor degrees; 62, or 25 percent, had earned credits beyond the Bachelor degree; and 4, or 1.6 percent, had Master's degrees. Farm mechanics teachers had the lowest educational attainment. Twenty-five, or 67.6 percent, had no Bachelor degrees. This is because for this group of teachers, the Bureau of Public Schools prescribes as a minimum educational requirement the completion of a non-degree two or three-year teachers' curriculum in the trade, shop, or automechanics fields. Percentage-wise more homemaking teachers (34.6 per- cent) had earned credits beyond the Bachelor's degree than any group. Only 4 of the 248 teachers possessed Master's degree all of whom were academic teachers. None of the vocational 3. teachers had a Master's degree. This may be attributed to the fact that until recently seldom have vocational teachers been allowed to go to school during summer because their presence in the school to supervise students working in their agricul- tural projects was thought essential and indispensable. Table IV, however, suggests a trend. It shows that 19 agriculture teachers had earned an average of 12.8 credits toward the master's degree during the five years covered by the study. Eight homemaking teachers earned an average of 9 credits; while one farm mechanics teacher earned 12 credits, and 9 others earned an average of 21 credits toward a Bachelor's .1 degree. These figures compare favorably with the 18 language 58 TABLE IV. NUMBER OF TEACHERS WHO EARNED ADVANCED CREDITS WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS (1956-1960) AMONG 248 RESPONDENT TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS OF THE PHILIPPINES. No. Degree Program Total Earn- Average No. of Bache- Mas- Doc- ing Credits of Credits cases lor ter torate Earned B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Classification of Teachers N N N N % Agriculture 76 4 l9 — 23 30.3 23.0 12.8 - Farm Mechanics 37 9 l - 10 27.0 21.0 12.0 - Homemaking 26 - 8 - 8 30.8 - 9.1 — Language 57 l 18 - 19 33.3 18.0 15.7 - Social Science 26 1 6 l 8 30.8 18.0 10.0 12.0 Applied Science 14 - l - 1 7.1 - 3.0 - Mathematics 12 l 1 — 2 16.7 - 4.5 - T o t a 1 248 15 54 1 71 28.6 21.1 10.8 12.0 Average/yr 3 10.8 0.2 14.2 4.2 2.2 2.4 Summary Average credits earned in 5 years (all degree level) - 15.3 Average credits earned yearly (all degree level) - - - 3.1 Median credits earned in 5 years (all degree level) - 14.3 Percent earning credits in five years -------- 28.6 S. D. of the means __________________ 8.0 59 teachers earning an average of 15.7 credits toward the Master's degree, and the 6 social science teachers who earned an average of 10 credits toward the Master's degree. A total of 15 teachers earned credits toward a Bachelor's degree, and 54 teachers toward a Master's degree. One teacher earned credits toward a doctorate degree. The median credits earned in five years for all degree programs was 14.3. The mean was 15.3. The average yearly credits earned for all degree programs was 3.1. Only 71, or 28.6 percent of the 248 teachers earned three or more credits. The range was 3-36 credits during the five—year period. In-Service Training Needs of Teachers and Administrators The in—service training needs of the 248 teachers who responded to the questionnaires are presented in Table V, and Table VA in the Appendix. Two hundred and one, or 81 percent of the teachers indicated that their greatest need was in their respective fields of specialization. The mean scale rank being 4.3, with the highest rank on the scale being 5 on a five-point scale. Mathematics teachers gave it 4.8 scale points. With the exception of social science teachers, who ranked it with a scale point of 2.2, all the teachers gave this area a scale rank from 4.1 to 4.8. The area of need given the lowest mean scale rank of 2.3 scale points by 31 percent of the teachers was "Subject fields other TABLE V. IN-SERVICE TRAINING NEEDS INDICATED BY RESPONDENT TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS OF THE PHILIPPINES ARRANGED ACCORDING TO SCALE RANK OF IMPORTANCE. Scale Number Area of Need Rank Rank- Percent of ing Need Need Field of specialization 4.32 201 81.1 Agricultural research 4.25 146 58.9 Methods of educational research 4.03 155 63.5 Audio-Visual methods of instruction 3.95 203 81.9 Program planning 3.90 156 62.9 Philosophy of education 3.87 151 60.9 Youth organizations 3.84 160 64.5 Supervision of instruction 3.72 139 56.1 Educational psychology 3.66 137 55.2 Curriculum improvement 3.61 132 53.2 Extension education 3.53 153 61.7 Remedial teaching 3.44 164 66.1 Sociology 3.39 120 48.4 Evaluation of instruction 3.27 156 62.9 Resource and occupational survey 3.27 124 50.0 School philosophy and objectives 3.26 105 42.3 Cognate field of study 3.19 112 45.2 School and student publications 3.17 128 51.6 Community and public relations 3.08 137 55.2 Test construction and testing 3.00 138 55.7 Policy and decision-making 2.98 89 35.7 Leadership training 2.87 111 44.8 Report writing 2.82 80 32.3 Professional ethics 2.80 117 47.2 School laws 2.68 102 41.1 Political science 2.48 113 45.6 Subject fields other than major and minor 2.25 77 31.1 61 major or minor." Considering 3.0, the mid-point on the scale as the critical point of need, more than two-thirds of the 27 areas of needs listed in the questionnaire would be critical areas. Twenty of these areas of needs were given scale rank of 3.0 or higher. Table VA in the Appendix reveals that language teachers expressed the greatest number of items of critical need. This group rated 24 of the 27 items in the checklist as im- portant to most important (scale rank of 3.1 to 4.3). Only 3 items were given scale points below 3.0, the midpoint on the scale, by this group. Homemaking teachers followed the language teachers in the number of items of needs given scale point ranks above 3.0. This group considered 23 items important to most important with scale-point ranks ranging from 3.1 to 4.3 The other groups of teachers have indicated critical areas of needs as follows: applied science teachers, 21 items; agriculture teachers, 20 items; farm mechanics and mathematics teachers, 18 items each; and social science teachers, 15 items. Taken as a whole the teachers ranked the areas of need as follows: research and experiment areas, 3.9; subject- matter areas, 3.5; methods areas, 3.5; co-curricular areas, 3.5; general education areas, 3.4; and administration and supervision areas, 3.3. 62 By inspection it may be concluded from Table VA that the differences in the specified needs of the different groups of teachers were not significant, except for the single item "field of specialization” where the social science teachers were widely atypical of the rest. Why this was so need further investigation. It is probable that these teachers, and PI ”t the administrators who agreed with them that social science and history teachers had little need for in-service training in this special field, do not realize the necessity for up- . dating subject matter with the dynamic nature of society and the advances made in the social sciences. In-Service Traininngeeds of Teachers as Perceived by Administrators Administrators were asked to indicate what they considered were the in-service training needs of their teachers. Table VI shows the scale point ranking of these needs by the 32 administrators who responded. None of the items of needs was given a scale point rank of below 3.0, the midpoint on the scale, except for social science and history under the area of subject matter content. This was given only 2.8 scale points. This seems to indicate that the administrators agreed with the social science and history teachers, who gave this item 2.2 scale points, that this group of teachers has little need for in—service training 63 IN-SERVICE TRAINING NEEDS OF TEACHERS OF AGRICUL- TURAL SCHOOLS OF THE PHILIPPINES AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS. TABLE VI. Average Average Priority Area of Need Rank of Rank of Rank of Need* Need by Need by Area Area Subject Matter Content: 3.54 4th English and Philipino Language 3.64 Social sciences and history 2.84 Mathematics 3.38 General and applied sciences 4.31 Agriculture 3.72 Farm mechanics 3.72 Homemaking 3.09 Methods of Teaching: 4.35 lst Audio-visual methods of instruction 4.38 Test construction and testing 4.34 Evaluation of instruction 4.47 Remedial teaching 4.19 Administration and Supervision: 3.95 Curriculum development & improvement 4.16 School laws and regulations 3.84 Community and public relations 4.09 Policy and decision-making 3.56 Professional ethics 3.91 Supervision and student activities 4.16 Research and Experiments: 3.97 2nd Educational research 4.06 Agricultural research 4.03 Resource and occupational survey 3.84 Student Services: 3.98 Educational & vocational information 3.86 Guidance and counseling 4.06 Placement and follow-up 4.03 Co-curricular Activities: 3.69 Youth organizations 3.84 School and student publications 3.69 Extension education 4.09 Athletic coaching, etc. 3.13 *Ranking was based on a 5—point scale: 5 - Most important 2 - Less important 4 - More important 1 - Least important 3 - Important 64 in the field of their specialization. It may be noted that while teachers as a whole gave the highest mean scale point rank of 4.3 to subject matter content, (see Table VII), administrators gave it the lowest mean area rating of 3.54 among the six major areas of needs. These were ranked as follows: methods of teaching, 4.35; student services, 3.98; research and experiments, 3.97; administration and supervision, 3.95; co—curricular activities, 3.69; and subject matter content, 3.54. A comparison of the teachers' own perception of their needs with that perceived by the administrators (Table VII), reveals that there was nearly complete agreement as to the scale point rating of the major areas of need, both groups giving all areas scale point ratings above 3.0. There was, however, a disparity in the priority ranking of the major areas of needs by the two groups. It was only in the area of research and experiments that teachers agreed with administra- tors. This disagreement in the priority ranking of the teachers' needs is probably due to differences in opinion as to which aspect of the vocational agriculture program should be given greater attention and emphasis. It is assumed that the administrators based their judgment on the weaknesses of the school program seen as a whole, while the teachers based their decision on their individual needs. TABLE VII. COMPARISON OF TEACHERS 65 ' IN-SERVICE TRAINING NEEDS AS INDICATED BY ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS. Teachers' own Administrators' Area of Need Ranking of Ranking of their Needs Teachers' Needs X Y (Mean) (Mean) Subject ggtter Contepp: 4.32 3.54 Agriculture 4.44 3.72 Farm mechanics 4.09 3.72 Homemaking 4.28 3.09 Language 4.28 3.64 Social science and history 2.80 2.84 Applied science 4.18 4.31 Mathematics 4.75 3.38 Methods: 3.46 4.35 Audio—visual instruction 3.95 4.38 Test construction and testing 3.00 4.34 Evaluation of instruction 3.27 4.47 Remedial teaching 3.44 4.19 Administration & Supervision: 3.25 3.95 Curriculum development 3.61 4.16 Supervision of instruction 3.72 4.16 Professional ethics 2.80 3.91 School laws and regulations 2.68 3.56 Policy and decision-making 2.98 3.56 Community & public relations 3.08 4.09 Research and experiments: 3.88 3.97 Methods of educational research 4.03 4.06 Agricultural research 4.25 4.03 Resource and occupational survey 3.28 4.09 Co-curricular activities: 3.54 3.69 Youth organizations 3.84 3.84 School and student publications 3.17 3.69 Extension education 3.53 4.09 Average of the means 3.68 3.89 S. D. of X and Y (plus or minus) 0.58 0.40 Coefficient of correlation between X and Y + 0.27 66 The ranking of the teachers' needs by the teachers and by the administrators correlated only + 0.27. Administrators were more agreed in their ranking of the needs item for item than were the teachers. The standard deviation in the means of item by item ranking of needs indicated by teachers was plus or minus 0.6, while that of the administrators was plus or minus 0.4. In-Service Training Needs of School Addinistrators To determine whether agricultural school administrators have any felt in-service training needs, they were asked to check and rank 13 items or areas of need listed in the question— naire form as first, second, and third. The reSponses of the 32 administrators returning the questionnaires are presented in Table VIII. Administration and supervision of instruction was ranked first by 19 administrators; curriculum planning and improve- ment by 12; and research and evaluation by 12. The priority rankings were assigned points of one (1) for the first, two (2) for the second, and three (3) for the third. Combining all the rankings in priority groupings according to average weighted ranks of the different areas resulted in the following: administration and supervision of instruction, 1.3; research and evaluation, 1.78; curriculum planning and improvement, 1.65; test construction and testing, 1.91; and school development 67 TABLE VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING NEEDS OF ADMINISTRATORS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS OF THE PHILIPPINES AS PERCEIVED BY THEM. Number of Adminis- Ave. Prior- trators Indicating weigh- ity Area Of Need Need According to Total ted Group— Priority Rank ings First Second Third of (l) (2) (3) Needs N % Administration and supervision of instruction l9 4 2 25 78.1 1.32 Curriculum Planning and improvement 12 ll 3 26 81.3 1.65 Research and evalua- tion 12 9 6 27 84.4 1.78 First Test construction and testing 8 9 6 23 71.9 1.91 School development programs 8 12 6 26 81.3 1.92 Staff organization and management 7 9 6 22 68.8 1.95 School finance and budgeting 8 7 7 22 68.8 1.95 Public relations 8 5 7 20 62.5 1.95 Second Mgt. and supervision of agric. projects 8 8 7 23 71.9 1.96 Supervised farming and FFP work 5 12 6 23 71.9 2.04 Guidance and counseling 4 12 8 24 75.0 2.17 Third Audio-visual methods of instruction 7 6 11 24 75.0 2.17 Leadership training 4 8 8 20 62.5 2.20 68 programs, 1.92, for the first priority group. Staff organi— zation and management, 1.95; school finance, 1.95; public relations, 1.95; and management and supervision of agricultural projects, 1.96 for the second priority group. Supervised farming and FFP work, 2.04; guidance and counseling, 2.17; audio-visual methods of instruction, 2.17; and leadership training, 2.2 for the third priority group. Most of the areas of need (or related needs) appearing in the first and second priority groups of needs of adminis- trators as indicated by them also appear in the first, second and third priority grouping of needs of teachers as indicated by the administrators. These areas are administration and supervision of instruction, curriculum planning and improve- ment, research and evaluation, test construction and testing, staff organization and management, and public relations. This would seem to suggest that administrators tended to "think" that teachers had great need for in-service training in areas in which they themselves were in need. The association or relationship is more than casual. This deduction, however, needs to be investigated further. Type, Scope, and Participation of Teachers in In- §ervice Training Programs Out of 858 teachers from 32 schools from 1 to 33 teachers, or a total of 444, participated in in—service training programs 69 during the five years covered by the study. This represents a five-year mean of 13.9 teachers per school, or 2.8 teachers per year per school. At this rate it would take 10 years before all teachers would be able to attend or participate in regional or national in-service training programs, assuming of course that different teachers attend each year. (See Table IX). The types of regional and national in-service training programs participated in and the extent of participation by teachers from the 32 agricultural schools as reported by the administrators are given in Table X. The number of teachers participating in each type during the five-year period covered by the study are: workshop, 242 or 28.2 percent; conferences and conventions, 149 or 17.4 percent; summer school classes, 117 or 13.6 percent; and professional or refresher classes. 59 or 6.9 percent. The five-year percentages of attendance by groups of teachers at any or all programs held during the five-year period ranged from 16.9 to 68.1 percent. It was highest among farm mechanics teachers, and lowest among social science teachers. The percent attendance by the different groups follows: agriculture 65.3 percent; homemaking teachers, 50.4 percent; applied science teachers, 43.5 percent; mathe- matics teachers, 21 percent; health and physical education teachers, 57.7 percent; and others, 58.3 percent. The average per year per school attendance by type of TABLE IX. PROPORTION OF TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS ATTENDING ONE OR MORE IN-SERVICE TRAINING ACTIVITIES FROM 1956 to 1960 AS REPORTED BY THE PRINCIPALS AND SUPERINTENDENTS OF 32 SCHOOLS 70 Respondent Number of Teachers Attending Mean Number Percent Schools Teachers In—Service Train- Attending Attending ing Programs Per Year Per Year School No. Number Percent l 30 22 73.3 4.4 14.7 2 44 26 59.1 5.2 11.8 3 36 21 58.3 4.2 11.7 4 36 21 58.3 4.2 11.7 5 30 19 63.3 3.8 12.7 6 26 12 46.2 2.4 9.2 7 35 24 68.6 4.8 13.7 8 24 12 50.0 2.4 10.0 9 18 3 16.7 0.6 3.3 10 29 13 44.8 2.6 9.0 11 23 9 39.1 1.8 7.8 12 19 7 36.8 1.4 7.4 13 14 2 14.3 0.4 2.9 14 49 33 67.4 6.6 13.5 15 22 9 40.9 1.8 8.2 16 21 8 38.1 1.6 7.6 17 20 6 30.0 1.2 6.0 18 29 13 44.8 2.6 9.0 19 36 25 69.5 5.0 13.9 20 30 18 60.0 3.6 12.0 21 18 6 33.3 1.2 6.7 22 26 12 46.2 2.4 9.2 23 17 3 17.7 0.6 3.5 24 12 1 8.3 0.2 1.7 25 47 30 63.8 6.0 12.8 26 22 14 63.6 2.8 12.7 27 22 12 54.6 2.4 10.9 28 30 14 46.7 2.8 9.3 29 23 10 43.5 2.0 8.7 30 18 6 33.3 1.2 6.7 31 29 20 69.0 4.0 13.8 32 23 13 56.5 2.6 11.3 T o t a l 858 444 51.8 88.8 10.4 Average per school year 2.8 Average per school per five years 13.9 Median per school per year 2.5 S.D. of the means + 1.7 7l TABLE X. TYPES OF REGIONAL AND NATIONAL IN-SERVICE TRAINING ACTIVITIES ATTENDED BY TEACHERS OF 32 AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS FROM 1956 TO 1960 AS REPORTED BY THEIR PRINCIPALS AND/OR SUPERINTENDENTS. Classi— Total Teachers attending Ave. Ave. . Number fica- on Work- Prof. Summer Confer- No. No. . Attend- tion of Staffs shop Class Class ence or in an per per Teachers Conven- g yyear year . or all tion per sch. sch. Agric. N 225 75 17 34 62 147 29.4 0.92 % 26.2 33.3 7.6 15.1 27.6 65.4 F. M. N 94 41 5 l2 7 64 12.8 0.40 % 10.9 43.6 5.3 12.8 7.5 68.1 H E. N 95 38 10 13 13 49 9.8 0.31 % 11.1 40.0 10.5 13.7 13.7 51.6 Lang. N 137 26 15 31 30 69 13.8 0.43 % 15.9 18.9 10.9 22.6 21.9 50.4 Soc. N 65 6 l 2 5 11 2.2 0.07 Science % 7.6 9.2 1.5 3.1‘ 7.7 16.9 Applied N 92 29 4 10 7 40 8.0 0.25 Science % 10.7 31.5 4.4 10.9 7.6 43.5 Mathe- N 62 3 4 7 6 13 2.6 0.08 matics % 7.2 4.8 6.5 11.3 9.7 21.0 Health N 52 ll 3 6 13 30 6.0 0.19 & P. E. % 6.1 21.2 5.8 11.5 25.0 57.7 Others N 36 13 - 2 6 21 4.2 0.13 % 4.2 36.1 - 5.6 16.7 58.3 Total N 858 242 59 117 149 444 88.8 2.78 % 100 28.2 6.9 13.6 17.4 51.8 Ave./ N 27 7.6 1.8 3.7 4.7 13.9 school Average per yr. 1.5 0.4 0.7 0.9 2.8 72 programs were: workshops, 1.5; professional classes, 0.4; summer school classes, 0.7; and conferences and conventions, 0.9; or a cumulative average of 2.8 teachers per year per school. As a group, more vocational teachers participated in more in-service training programs at the regional and national level than did academic or related subjects teachers, both in terms of number and percent. This was because most of the regional and national workshops and conferences held were in the vocational areas. The scope and types of in-service training programs participated in by the 248 respondent teachers within the five-year period covered by the study are shown in Table XI. Thirty or 12.1 percent of the teachers participated only in local in-service training programs; 14 or 5.7 percent parti- cipated in regional programs only; 14 or 5.7 percent parti- cipated in national programs only; 50 or 20.2 percent participated in local and regional programs; 21 or 8.4 percent participated in local and national programs; 12 or 4.8 per- cent participated in national and regional programs; and 65 or 26.2 percent in local, regional and national programs. Forty-two or 16.9 percent did not participate in any in- service training activity at all during the five-year period covered by the study. The sample had a higher five-year per- centage attendance at any or all in-service training programs TABLE XI. NUMBER OF TEACHERS AND SCOPE 0R LEVEL OF IN-SERVICE TRAINING ACTIVITY ATTENDED FROM 1956 - 1960. Type of Program Number Percent Local programs only 30 12.1 Regional programs only 14 5.7 National programs only 14 5.7 Local and regional programs 50 20.2 Local and national programs 21 8.4 National and regional programs 12 4.8 Local, regional and national 65 26.2 None 42 16.9 T o t a l 248 100.0 74 held at the regional and national levels (approximately 71 percent) than the percentage attendance of the population which was 52 percent as shown in Table X. This may be ex- plained by the fact that teachers with less than five years of experience in the Bureau of Public Schools, among whom possibly was found a greater proportion of the non-partici— pating teachers, were discriminated by the sampling design. This explanation seems to be supported by the data in Table XII which shows that more than two-thirds of the teachers sampled fall within the group with 5-10 years service. gelationehip of Years of Service and Participation in In-Service Training Programs Table XII reveals that the group 10-15 years had con- sistently the highest percentage of participation in all types of in-service program or activity, except summer classes. The percent participation by succeeding older groups gradually went down in inverse relationship with length of service, with the exception of conventions or conferences where the per- centage attendance rose slightly with the 25—30 and 30-35 groups. Figure 2 shows the profiles of the percentage parti- cipation by the respective teacher groups. The total per- centage attendance for each year-of—service-group was highest with the 5-10 group and gradually diminished: 5-10, 87 per- cent; 10-15, 83 percent; 15—20, 75 percent; 20-25, 63 percent; TABLE XII. YEARS OF TENURE AND ATTENDANCE AT IN—SERVICE 75 TRAINING PROGRAMS OF 248 TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURE SCHOOLS OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM 1956 - 1960. Years of Tenure Type of in-service Total ACtIVlty 5 -10 10-15 15-20 20—25 25-30 30-up (167) (3o) (16) (16) (8) (11) (248) Number attending: * N 97 22 10 7 3 5 144 Workshop % 58.1 73.3 62.5 43.8 37.5 45.5 58.1 A 19.4 4.4 2.0 1.6 0.6 1.0 18.8 Conventions) N 51 18 7 6 4 6 92 Conferences) % 30.5 60.0 43.8 37.5 50.0 54.6 37.1 10.2 3.6 1.4 1.2 0.8 1.2 18.4 Educ. trips) N 70 18 8 7 2 4 109 School visits) % 41.9 60.0 50.0 43.8 25.0 36.4 43.9 A 14.0 3.6 1.6 1.4 0.4 0.8 21.8 Demonstration N 84 16 5 5 3 5 118 Teaching. etc. % 50.3 53.3 31.3 31.3 37.5 45.5 45.6 A 16.8 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 23.6 Professional N 22 8 3 l l 3 38 Classes % 13.2 26.7 18.8 6.3 12.5 27.3 15.3 4.4 1.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 7.6 Summer Classes N 32 7 4 4 l 3 51 % 12.2 23.3 25.0 25.0 12.5 27.3 20.6 A 6.4 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.6 10.2 N 148 25 12 10 5 6 206 T o t a l % 88.6 83.3 75.0 62.5 62.5 54.5 83.1 A 29.6 5.0 2.4 2.0 1.0 1.2 41.2 Percent/year 17.7 16.7 15.0 12.5 12.5 10.9 16.6 * N — number % - percent A - average 76 (1) Percent of totals (2) Workshops (3) Demonstrations (4) Educational trips and inter- school visits (5) Conventions & Conferences (6) Regular summer classes (7) Professional classes 0 H I Ln Years of Service Groups Figure 2. Profiles of percent attendance of 248 teachers classified by years of service showing the inverse relationship between years of service and participation in in—service training programs. f c 25-30. 63 percent; and 30-35, 55 percent. The mean number of teachers participating per year from each group behaved in practically the same fashion as the percentages of total attendance (Table XIIA): 5-10, 29.6; 10-15, 5; 15-20, 2.4; 20-25, 2; 25—30, 1; and 30-35, 1.2 teachers. The relationships noted above seem to justify the inference that "the older the teacher is in the service the less frequent is his participation in in-service training programs," or the hypothesis that "The participation of teachers in in-service training programs tends to be inversely related to the length of years of service." Whether this indicates increasing competency in solving their own problems is a matter for further investigation. Relation of Teachinngajor to Major Assignment Table XIII shows the relationship between the teaching major (field of specialization) and the assignment of the 248 teachers studied. Thirty-five teachers, or 14.1 percent were teaching courses for Which they were not qualified; 17, or 6.9 percent were teaching subjects only in their minor fields of study. The greatest number of teachers assigned to teach subjects for which they were not qualified was found among agriculture teachers, which was 12, and least with language and mathematics teachers with 1 each. In the case of mathematics TABLE XIII. TEACHERS FROM 1956 - 1960. 78 TEACHING MAJOR AND ASSIGNMENT OF 248 RESPONDENT Teaching Teaching Assignment Major ma or 0n1 Major and o t a 1 J y Minor Minor Only Others N % N % N % N % N % Agriculture 32 42.1 32 42.1 - - 12 15.8 76 30.7 Farm Mechanics 25 67.6 5 13.5 - - 7 18.9 37 14.9 Homemaking 15 57.9 3 11.5 4 15.4 4 15.4 26 10.5 Language 28 49.1 24 42.1 4 7.0 l 1.8 57 23.0 Social Science 8 30.8 9 34.6 5 19.2 4 15.4 26 10.5 Applied Sci 5 35.7 3 21.4 - - 6 42.9 14 5.7 Mathematics 4 33.3 3 25.0 4 33.3 1 8.3 12 4.8 T o t a l 117 47.2 79 31.9 17 6.9 35 14.1 248 100.0 79 teachers, however, the figure is misleading. The table shows that there were only 12 teachers from the 25 schools who were teaching mathematics as a major assignment. This means that several other teachers were teaching the subject as a minor assignment. Table XIV shows that assignment had little or no relationship with participation in in-service training programs. The average attendance at local, regional and national in—service training programs by the 248 teachers from 1956 to 1960 is shown in Table XV in the Appendix. Workshops at any or all levels were participated in by 144 teachers (58 percent) for an average of 3 times in five years, or an average of 1.7 times in five years for all respondent teachers. Ninety—two teachers (37 percent) attended conventions and conferences for an average of 3.4 times in five years, or 1.3 times in five years for all teachers. One hundred nine teachers (44 per- cent) participated in educational trips and inter-school visits for an average of 3 times in five years, or 1.3 times each for 248 teachers. One hundred and eighteen teachers participated in demonstration teaching 3.3 times in five years, or 1.5 times for all respondents. Thirty-eight teachers attended professional classes 1.8 times each in five years, or an over-all average of 0.3 times for all teachers. Only 51 teachers attended summer 80 TABLE XIV. PARTICIPATION OF TEACHERS IN REGIONAL AND NATIONAL IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS GROUPED ACCORDING TO CLASSIFICATION AND TEACHING ASSIGNMENT. Number attending one or more programs Classification Ma'or and T o t a 1 Major Only J. Minor Only Others Minor N % N % N % N % N % Agriculture 26 81.3 23 71.9 - - 6 50.0 55 72.4 Farm Mechanics 23 92.0 3 60.0 - - 7 100 33 89.2 Homemaking 13 86.7 3 100.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 19 73.1 Language 14 50.0 15 62.5 4 100.0 - - 33 57.9 Social Science 3 37.5 5 55.6 - - 3 75.0 11 42.3 Applied Sci. 5 100.0 3 100.0 — - 6 100 14 100.0 Mathematics 4 100.0 3 100.0 3 75.0 1 100 11 91.7 T o t a l 88 75.2 55 69.6 9 52.9 24 68.6 176 71.0 81 school for an average of 1.8 times during the five years covered by the study. The 206 teachers who participated in any or all types of in-service training programs held during the five years covered by the study attended for an average of 2.9 times, or 1.1 times for each of the 248 teachers. This means that each teacher was able to attend or participate only once in just one in-service training activity in five years. Based on the number of participants, workshops were the most attended or more frequently conducted. Professional classes were the least attended or least frequently conducted. Table XVI in the Appendix gives the number and per— cent attendance by teachers according to teaching assignment. Participation in workshops was highest among farm mechanics teachers with 32, or 86.5 percent attending; and lowest among mathematics teachers with only 3, or 25 percent attending. This is explained by the fact that there were no workshops held for mathematics teachers. Combining all the participants at all levels and for all types of in-service training programs shows that social science teachers participated the least (58 percent). Science teachers had 100 percent participation. This may be attributed to the fact that the Director of Public Schools required them to attend refresher courses and workshops on science teaching starting in 1957. The high percentage of 82 partiCipation by agriculture, farm mechanics and homemaking teachers is explained primarily by the fact that most of the in-service training programs sponsored by the Central Office at the regional and national levels stressed these curricular areas of instruction. The comparative percentages of partici- pation by groups are: agriculture, 72 percent; farm mechanics, 89 percent; homemaking, 74 percent; language, 58 percent; social science, 42 percent; applied science, 100 percent; and mathematics, 92 percent; or a combined percentage attendance of 83 percent. The average number of teachers attending any or all regional and national in-service training programs was 35.2 teachers per year. By groups the averages were: agriculture, 11; farm mechanics, 6.6; homemaking, 3.8; langugae, 6.6; social science, 2.2; applied science, 2.8; and mathematics, 2.2 teachers per year. A comparison of the percentages of participation or attendance by teachers of agricultural schools at regional and national in-service training programs as reported by adminis- trators from 32 schools and by 248 teachers from 25 schools is shown in Table XVII. The proportion of the actual number of teachers under each subject classification group to the total on the staff of all schools did not vary widely from the proportion of the groups of teachers in the sample to the total 83 TABLE XVII. A COMPARISON OF THE PARTICIPATION OF TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS IN REGIONAL AND NATIONAL IN—SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS FROM 1956 TO 1960 AS REPORTED BY ADMINISTRATORS AND BY TEACHERS. Number Attend- Total No. Attendance Classification of Total on ing as Reported of Res- of Respon— Teachers Staff by Administra- pondents dents tors N % N % N % N % Agriculture 225 26.2 147 65.3 76 30.7 55 72.4 Farm Mechanics 94 10.9 64 68.1 37 14.9 33 89.2 Homemaking 95 11.1 49 51.6 26 10.5 19 73.1 Language 137 16.0 69 50.4 57 23.0 33 57.9 Social Science 65 7.6 11 16.9 26 10.5 11 42.3 Applied Science 92 10.7 40 43.5 14 5.7 14 100.0 Mathematics 62 7.2 13 21.0 12 4.8 11 91.7 Health and P.E. 52 6.1 30 57.7 - - - - Others 1 .36 4.2 21 58.3 — — _ _ T o t a l 858 100.0 444 51.8 248 100.0 176 71.0 Correlation + 0.22 84 of the sample. With the exception of science and mathematics teachers the ratios of the different group samples to the total sample were nearly equal to, or slightly higher than the corresponding ratios of the actual population groups to the total of the population. In the case of language and mathematics teachers the ratios of these groups to the total sample were slightly lower than the corresponding ratios found in the population. The percentages of participation by the respondent teachers in regional and national in-service training programs correlated positively but only slightly (+ 0.22) with the per— centages of attendance of all the teachers in the 32 schools. The higher percentage of attendance found in the actual popu- lation was due primarily to the fact that teachers with less than five years experience were not included in the sample, but were included in the reports of the administrators. Participation by Administrators in In-Service Training Programs The types of in-service education programs and the extent of participation by administrators of agricultural schools are shown in Table XVIII. Of the 32 respondent administrators, 27 participated in administrators' conventions; 28 in work- anops; 22 in educational trips; 21 in seminars; 19 in teachers' 85 TABLE XVIII. LENGTH OF TENURE, TYPES OF IN—SERVICE ACTIVITY, AND PARTICIPATION OF 32 RESPONDENT SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS AT ONE OR MORE IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS. . N Pa ' ' a ' Type of In-SerVice umber rt1c1p ting by Tenure Activity Attended 1-5 6—10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-up T o t a l (1) (4) (6) (7) (7) (7) (32) N % Adm. convention - 3 5 6 6 7 27 84.4 Workshop 1 3 5 7 6 6 28 87.5 Educational trips 1 3 5 5 4 4 22 68.8 Seminar - 4 3 5 5 4 21 65.6 Teachers' convention— 1 5 5 4 4 19 59.4 Inter—school visit 1 3 6. 5 5 4 24 75.0 Symposium - - 2 l 2 3 8 25.0 Farmers' convention l 3 5 5 4 4 22 68.6 Professional class 1 2 2 4 1 4 14 43.6 Average number Attending all .5 2.4 4.2 4.8 4.1 4.3 20.5 64.1 Types of Programs 86 conventions; 24 in inter-school visits; 8 in symposiums; 22 in farmers' conventions; and 14 in professional classes. Grouped according to years of service the average number of administrators attending each of the 9 types of in—service activity listed follows: 1 - 5, 0.5; 6 - 10, 2.4; 11 - 15, 4.2; 16 - 20, 4.8; 21 - 25, 4.1; 26 - up, 4.3. The average attendance or number participating rose steadily with the increase in years of service, reaching a maximum at the l6-20-year group; then it declined. The average number participating from the "26 - up" group appeared higher because the administrators placed in this group had an interval of 10 years rather than 5 as in the other groups. The most senior administrator in point of service had 36 years experience, followed by two others with 33 and 32 years, respectively. Were these three taken as a separate group the average attendance for the 26 - 30 group would have been 2.3 and the 31 - 36 group, 2.0. The relationship of length of tenure to the number of local in-service training activities organized and conducted by administrators is shown in Table XIX. Fourteen, or 44 percent of the administrators conducted workshops; 12, or 38 percent conducted seminars; 26, or 81 percent used demonstra- tixan teaching as an in-service training device; 22, or 69 per- <=e11t conducted professional meetings; and 14, or 44 percent organized symposiums . OF THE P TABLE XIX. LENGTH OF TENURE AND TYPE OF HILIPPINES ON A LOCAL BASIS. 87 IN-SERVICE TRAINING ACTIVITIES ORGANIZED AND CONDUCTED BY 32 RESPONDENT SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS Type of In-service Administrators conducting In-serv- ice Activity Grouped According to Years of Tenure T o t a 1 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-up (l) (4) (6) (7) (7) (7) (32) N % Workshop - l 2 4 4 3 14 43.8 Seminar - 3 l 3 3 2 12 37.5 Demonstrations 1 4 2 7 6 6 26 81.3 Professional meeting - 1 5 7 4 5 22 68.8 Symposium - 2 2 4 3 3 14 43.8 Average number of Administrators .2 2.2 2.4 5.0 4.0 3.8 17.6 55.0 conducting all types of In-service Activities 88 The average number of administrators organizing or conducting all of the five in-service training devices listed according to years of service are: 1—5, 0.2; 6-10, 2.2; 11-15, 2.4; 16-20, 5.0; 21-25, 4.0; 26-up, 3.8, or a total of 17.6 administrators. Like the participation in in-service training, the average number of administrators from each year-of—service group which organized or conducted local in-service programs rose steadily and reached its peak with the 16-20 group, and fell steadily from thence. Table XX shows the relationship of average number participating and average number organizing or conducting in— service training programs. There was a high positive corre- lation (+ 0.81) between these two factors. Had the 26-up group been broken still further into five-year interval groups the correlation coefficient would have been much higher. How- ever, this was not done in view of the negligible number involved. Why Teachers Had Limited Participation in In- Service Training Programs It has been shown that the 248 teachers studied parti- cipated only 1.1 times in five years in in-service training Llrograms (Table XV). Table XXI shows the reasons why. The nu>st important reason was "limited or no opportunity," given 89 TABLE XX. RELATIONSHIPS OF THE YEARS OF TENURE OF ADMINIS- TRATORS, AVERAGE NUMBER PARTICIPATING IN IN- SERVICE TRAINING, AND AVERAGE NUMBER CONDUCTING IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR THEIR TEACHERS. Average Number Average Number Years of Number of Part1c1pating Conducting All 5' T ure Cases In All Types Types of In—serVice en Activities Activities Listed Listed N % N % l - 5 l .5 50.0 .2 20.0 6 - 10 4 2.4 60.0 2.2 55.0 11 - 15 6 , 4.2 70.0 2.4 40.0 16 — 20 7 4.8 68.6 5.0 71.4 21 - 25 7 4.1 58.6 4.0 57.1 26 - up 7 4.3 61.4 3.8 54.3 T o t a 1 32 20.5 64.0 17.6 55.0 Coefficient of Correlation + 0.81 l” 90 TABLE XXI. REASONS GIVEN BY RESPONDENT TEACHERS FOR THEIR LIMITED PARTICIPATION OR NON-PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL AND NATIONAL NON—CREDIT IN-SERVICE TRAINING ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED FROM 1956 - 1960. Classification of Teachers by Subject Taught Total Rank Reasons Agri. F. M. H. E. Lang. Soc. Appl. Math. Sci. Sci. (76) (37) (26) (57) (26) (14) (12) (248) Do not feel N 1 -- - 2 l - - 4 5th need % 1.3 -- - 3.5 3.8 - - 1.6 Subject not N 9 4 1 l3 4 3 3 37 3rd in interest % 11.8 10.8 3.8 22.8 15.3 21.4 25.0 14.9 field Lack of pri-N 20 9 7 ll 6 3 - 56 2nd vate funds % 26.3 24.3 26.9 19.3 23.1 21.4 - 22.6 Family res- N 7 4 3 ll 2 l 3 31 4th ponsibility % 9.2 10.8 11.5 19.3 7.7 7.1 25.0 12.5 Limited or N 58 21 20 41 8 13 8 153 lst no opportu- %» 76.3 56.8 76.9 71.9 30.8 92.9 66.7 61.7 nities 91 by 153 or 62 percent of the teachers; followed by "lack of private funds" which was checked by 56 or 23 percent of the teachers. The other reasons were: "subject not in interest field," checked by 37 teachers; "family responsibility,", checked by 31 teachers; and "do not feel the need," checked by 4 teachers. The reasons given by teachers for their limited attendance at professional classes and regular summer school paralleled those which they gave for their limited participation in non- credit in-service training activities. "Year—round service" was ranked first in importance by 179 or 72 percent of the teachers. This partly explains the reason why the teachers had limited or no opportunity to attend or participate in non—credit in-service training programs held at the regional and national levels. Another important reason was the limited number of in-service programs held. The Central Office also limited the number of teachers allowed to participate in the regional and national programs held for financial reasons and in order not to disrupt the essential services of the schools. Ninety-one, or 37 percent, of the teachers said they could not afford to go on study leave during summer without Pay. Forty-five, or 18 percent, gave "not allowed to use sick leave for study" as a reason for their limited attendance ir1 summer classes, while 41, or 17 percent, were limited by t —_=-—-; 'I'Ill -, 92 TABLE XXII. REASONS GIVEN BY RESPONDENT TEACHERS FOR THEIR LIMITED ATTENDANCE OR NON-ATTENDANCE AT REGULAR SUMMER SCHOOL CLASSES FOR REFRESHER TRAINING OR FOR ADVANCED CREDITS FROM 1956-1960. Classification of Teachers by Subject Taught Reasons Agri. F. M. H. E. Lang. Soc. Appl. Math. Total Rank Sci. Sci. (76) (37) (26) (57) (26) (14) (12) (248) Year-round N 56 25 23 42 9 12 12 179 lst Service % 73.7 67.6 88.5 73.7 34.6 34.7 100 72.2 Can't afford N 36 13 9 21 5 3 4 91 2nd study leave % 47.4 35.1 34.9 36.8 19.2 21.4 25.0 36.7 w/o pay Not allowed N 18 7 5 7 4 3 l 45 3rd to use sick % 23.7 18.9 19.2 12.3 15.3 21.4 8.3 18.2 leave for study Lack pri— N 12 7 6 10 2 2 2 41 4th vate funds % 15.8 18.9 23.1 17.5 7.7 14.3 16.7 ~16.5 Ladk of N 2 - - 4 - - l 7 5th incentives % 2.6 - - 7.0 - - 8.3 2.8 Do not feel N l - - - - - l 2 6th need % 1.3 - - - - - 8.3 0.8 "lack of private funds." Seven teachers gave "lack of in- centives" as a reason; 2 said they did not feel the need. Administrators were asked to rank eight items listed in the questionnaire as probable reasons for the limited participation by teachers at regional and national in-service training programs held within the five years embraced by the EA study. The responses of the administrators are given in Table XXIII in the order of importance based on the weighted scale ranks. "Service required throughout year" was ranked by the 32 administrators as the most important reason with scale rank of 4.43, followed by "service of most teachers throughout year indiSpensable," with 4.21; "limited school funds for travel," with 3.77; "General Office limits number of teachers," with 3.66; "limited subject fields offered," with 3.52; "teachers lack funds," with 3.42; "limited paid vacation leave," with 3.14; and "few workshops held," with 3.CT7 scale points as the least important. It is significant to liote that all the reasons from most important to least imgxortant were given mean scale points of higher than 3.0 Which was the midpoint on the scale. A comparison of the reasons checked by teachers and bY administrators for the limited or non-participation by the former in regional and national in-service training programs is Shown in Table XXIV. The teachers and administrators agreed TABLE XXIII. REASONS GIVEN BY ADMINISTRATORS FOR THE LIMITED PARTICIPATION BY TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS OF THE PHILIPPINES AT REGIONAL OR NATIONAL IN- SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS HELD FROM 1956 - 1960. —V— v Number of Administrators Average Ranked Giving Reason According Scale Import- R e a S o n s to Scale of Importance * Total Rank ance l 2 3 4 5 (32) FA Service required throughout year 1 4 1 4 23 32 4.43 lst Service of most teachers indis- 5 pensable l - 5 9 14 29 4.21 2nd [1 Limited school funds for travel 1 3 7 6 10 27 3.77 3rd G.O. limits number of teachers 4 3 4 6 11 27 3.66 4th Limited subject field offered 1 3 9 6 6 25 3.52 5th Teachers lack funds 3 2 7 4 7 23 3.42 6th Limi ted paid va- catixan leave 4 3 3 8 3 21 3.14 7th Few vworkshops held 4 6 4 8 4 26 3 .07 8th —..__ Most important More important Important - Less important Least important * Scale point values: l—‘NUJbLfl I TABLE XXIV. LIMITED PARTICIPATION COMPARISON OF THE RANKED GIVEN BY TEACHERS AND BY ADMINISTRATORS FOR THE IMPORTANCE OF REASONS IN REGIONAL AND NATIONAL IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS OF TEACHERS FROM 1956 - 1960. R e a s o n 5 According to Teachers ,__. According to Number Percent Rank** Do not feel the need Family responsibilities Subject limited or not in interest field Lack of private funds Limited opportunity (Service required throughout year) Limited paid vacation leave (Not allowed to use sick leave for study) IdJnited school funds for travel G. O. limits number attending —; 31 37 56 153 91 12.4 14.9 28.6 61.7 36.7 6th 5th 4th 3rd lst 2nd Administrators Scale Priority h Rank* Rank ‘- 3.52 3rd 3.42 4th 4.21 lst 3.14 5th 3.77 2nd 3.07 6th fir ** Itanking based on percentage of teachers giving reason. * Scale point values: l—‘waU‘l - Most important - More important - Important - Less important — Least important u '3.’ t I ' f . I . if! '. I‘lfl- l ‘3 , “ 4 ' m- A as to the most important reason - "limited opportunity or service required throughout year," but differed in the others. The reason considered by teachers as second in importance was ranked by administrators fifth; what was ranked second by administrators was not ranked by teachers. The reasons ranked third and fourth in importance by teachers were ranked fourth IA and third, respectively by the administrators. ‘ Table XXV shows the reasons given by administrators as to why the local in-service training programs which they organized and conducted for their teachers were limited. The *“ most important reason was "too busy with administrative duties." Twenty-nine administrators out of 32 gave this reason an average scale rating of 4.13. "Teachers have little time" was rated second in importance with a scale rating of 3.66. "Teachers do not feel the need" received a scale rating of 2.42; "teacher-leadership lacking," 2.4; and "lack of incentives,‘ 2.12. Evaluation of In-Service Training_Programs To obtain a picture as to how the in—service training programs conducted for teachers from 1956 to 1960 benefited teachers of agricultural schools, administrators were asked to check from a list which of two, three, four or five values listed in the questionnaire fitted most closely their estimates 97 TABLE XXV. REASONS GIVEN BY ADMINISTRATORS FOR THE LIMITED NUMBER OF IN-SERVICE ACTIVITIES WHICH THEY ORGANIZED AND CONDUCTED LOCALLY RANKED ACCORDING TO IMPORTANCE ON A FIVE-POINT SCALE (1 - 5). Number of administra- . . Average Ranked tors giv1ng reason ac- R e a s o n s cording to scale of im- import- 1mp0:t- ance in ance portance scale 1 2 3 4 5 Total points (32) Too busy with ad- ministrative duties 2 3 1 6 17 29 4.13 lst Teachers have little time 4 - 4 l2 7 27 3.66 2nd Teachers do not feel the need 9 7 4 2 4 27 2.42 3rd Teacher-leader- ship lacking 7 5 11 - 2 25 2.40 4th Lack of incentives 9 6 8 2 - 25 2.12 5th 7" ,F f ; v .g of the benefits derived from these programs. The responses of the administrators are shown in Table XXVI. Eleven administrators said participating teachers benefited and improved their efficiency and effectiveness Eggy much; 18 said much; and 3 said very little. To the question, "Have teachers who did not attend or participate been P3 1 benefited?," 6 administrators said all were; 16 said more than half were; 3 said less than half were; 6 said very few were; and 1 said none were. To the question whether the in-service programs held v“ were sufficient or not, 2 administrators said the number was sufficient; 28 said the number was insufficient; 5 said the scope of the programs were broad enough; 11 said the programs were limited in scope. Twenty-three administrators said they or some of their teachers participated in planning the in-service training programs; 9 said they did not. Only two administrators said that all the things which teachers learned from in-service training programs were immediately implemented; 24 said most were; and 6 said few were. Five administrators said that all the subjects discussed at in—service programs were important and practical; 26 said most were; and 1 said few were. More than half, or 17 administrators said workshops, - TABLE XXVI. CUMULATIVE EVALUATION OF IN-SERVICE TRAINING ACTIVITIES ATTENDED BY TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS OF THE PHILIPPINES BY PRINCIPALS AND SUPERINTENDENTS OF THESE SCHOOLS Descriptive measure Number of of benefits derived Administra- from in-service tors voting activities N % M Item or Criteria 1. Participating teachers Very much 11 34.4 benefited and improved Much 18 56.3 their efficiency and Very little 3 9.4 effectiveness. 2. Have teachers who did All were 6 18.8 not attend or partici- More than half were 16 50.0 :1 pate been benefited? Less than half were 3 9.4 Very few were 6 18.3 None were 1 3.1 3. Were there enough in— Number sufficient ’ 2 6.3 service programs of Number insufficient 28 87.5 sufficiently broad Scope broad enough 5 15.6 scope held? Scope too limited 11 34.4 4. How long would you like Less than one week 2 6.3 workshops or conven- One webk 8 25.0 tions and conferences Two weeks 17 53.1 to be? Three weeks or more 5 15.6 5. Did you or your teachers Yes 23 71.9 participate in planning the activities? No 9 28.1 6. Were the knowledges All were 2 6.3 learned, information Most were 24 75.0 gained, or decisions Few were 6 18.3 made immediately imple- None were -- mented in your school? 7. Were the subjects or All were 5 15.6 problems discussed at Most were 26 81.3 in-service programs im- Few were 1 3.1 portant and practical? None were — z _ jP—* 100 conventions and conferences should be held for at least two weeks; 8 said one week; 5 said three weeks or more; and 2 said less than one week. Teachers who participated in one or more in-service training programs (206) at any level were asked to evaluate the program or pnagrams which they attended by checking ygry' TA true, partially_true, or not ture opposite each of 18 positive 1 statements regarding the in-service training programs Which ; they attended, or the benefits they derived. A summary of J.‘ .10 L.-_-' . the teachers' evaluation is given in Table XXVII. The three categories of responses were assigned scale points: very true - 1; partially true - 2; and not true - 3. On the basis of these scale points the average weighted rank of each item in the checklist were computed. All but two items received an average weighted scale rank of less than 2.0. The exceptions were Items 2 and 6. The first concerns the involvement of teachers in the planning of in-service training programs in which 50 teachers said they did not participate; 41 said they participated in some; and 22 said they participated in all or most. The scale rank of 2.2 given to Item 6 is more favorable than not since the statement is positive on the negative side: "Many topics or problems of which I have great need were not discussed." In other words, the 35 teachers who checked this item as not true were really 101 TABLE XXVII. EVALUATION OF THE IN-SERVICE TRAINING ACTIVI- TIES FOR TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS FROM 1956 - 1960 BY TEACHERS IN ATTENDANCE. Statements about the in-service V.T. P.T. N.T. Weigh— training activities attended ted and the benefits derived. Scale (l)* (2)* (3)* Rank Planningfofgprograms: 1. Activities were well planned. 96 33 0 1.3 2. Helped plan activities. 22 41 50 2.3 3. Principal/Superintendent helped plan activities 37 36 44 1.6 4. Activities well organized and carried out satisfactorily. 72 58 2 1.5 Importance of subjects: 5. Had felt need for all or most topics discussed. 65 44 9 1.5 6. Many topics or problems I had great need for not discussed. 16 70 35 2.2 Benefits derived: 7. Learned much new insight & skills.89 37 0 1.3 8. Have improved very much. 63 58 0 1.5 9. Satisfied with opportunities for in-service training. 15 47 5 1.8 10. Total school program improved. 55 61 9 1.6 thhod of programs: 11. Leaders skilled in communicating ideas and guiding discussions. 69 55 3 1.5 12. Leaders encouraged participation and accepted ideas of teachers. 86 40 4 1.4 13. Resource persons helpful and fully utilized. 88 38 2 1.3 14. All topics thoroughly discussed. 48 72 11 1.9 Application of learnings: 15. Immediately applied. 72 53 l 1.4 16. Led in local in-service programs. 46 62 11 1.9 Opportunities for participation: 17. Teachers' opportunities nil. 33 55 26 1.9 18. Too few in-service programs held. 74 51 3 1.4 *Scale points: V.T. (very true) - l P.T. (partially true - 2 N.T. (not true) - 3 102 saying that all the problems and topics for which they had a pressing need were taken up. Attention is invited, however, to Items 17 and 18. The relatively low scale points (1.9 and 1.4, respectively) assigned to these items are more unfavorable than favorable. A "very true” response to these items indicates weaknesses in the in-service training programs provided. In general teachers agreed with administrators as to the benefits derived from and the effectiveness of the in- t service training programs attended or participated in by teachers. They also agreed, generally, on the weaknesses of the programs. Improvement of In-Service Training Programs The steps recommended by 50 percent or more of both the administrators and teachers (32 plus 248) are presented in Table XXVIII. These are listed in the order of importance based on the total number or percent of the administrators and teachers making the recommendations. 1. Summer Classes. One hundred and sixty-seven, or 59.6 percent of the administrators and teachers (24 + 143) recommended that more teachers be given opportunity to attend Summer classes on official time but personal expense; 152, or 56.4 percent (21 + 137) recommended that qualified adminis— trators be authorized to organize and conduct credit courses on J TABLE XXVIII. 103 STEPS SUGGESTED BY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF IN—SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS AND INCREASE THE OPPORTUNITIES OF TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS TO ATTEND. Recommended steps to be taken Number of Number of Administra— Teachers tors Recom- Recommend- mending ing Total Group Ranks (280) N % N % N % Summer classes: More teachers be given opportunity to attend on of— ficial time but personal expense. 24 Qualified adminis- trators be author- ized to organize and conduct credit courses on graduate level during summer or school year on school campus by arrangement with teacher-training colleges. 21 Teachers be given opportunity to attend summer school once every two years partly on official time and partly on vacation and sick leave time. 16 State colleges and universities en- couraged to organize off-campus credit courses. 22 75.0 143 57.7 167 59.6 lst 65.6 137 55.2 158 56.4 2nd 50.0 130 52.4 146 52.1 3rd 68.8 121 48.8 143 51.1 4th TABLE XXVIII (Continued) 104 Number of Recommended steps to be taken Administra- tors Recom- mending Number of Teachers Recommend- ing Total (280) Group Ranks N Workshops and Conventions: More workshops be held 24 Should deal with subjects teachers' feel need for. 22 Teachers and administrators be involved in planning activi- ties. 26 Schools earmark adequate sums out of allotments for traveling expenses of teach- ers attending in— service training programs. 18 Specific funds be allocated yearly by G. O. for workshops. 28 Teachers attend- ing workshops be selected based on indivi- dual needs 19 Outstanding teachers and administrators be utilized as resource persons.21 % 75.0 68.8 81.3 56.3 87.5 59.4 65.6 N 172 171 144 157 146 148 128 % 69.4 68.9 58.1 63.3 58.9 59.7 51.6 N 196 193 170 175 174 167 149 % 70.0 68.9 60.7 62.5 62.1 59.6 53.2 2nd 5th 3rd 4th 6th 7th .(Cf.l\ TABLE XXVIII (Continued 105 Recommended steps to be taken Number of Administra- tors Recom- mending Number of Teachers Recommend- ing Total Group (280) Other in-service training devices Inter-school visits by teachers and administrators. More local in- service pro- grams be held Other steps recommended: Use of school vehicles for educational trips be al- lowed. Each school earmark at least 500 pesos from pro- duction income for purchase of professional and technical books, journals, etc . Convention or workshop sche— dules provide time for re- laxation and informal dis- cussions Relaxation of restrictions on travel of teachers outside province for purposes of in-service growth.22 N % 27 84.4 21 65.6 21 65.6 20 62.5 23 71.9 68.8 N % 168 67.7 159 64.1 165 66.5 147 59.3 135 54.4 N % 195 69.6 lst 180 64.3 2nd 186 66.4 lst 176 62.9 2nd 171 61.1 3rd 157 56.1 4th 106 the graduate level during summer or regular school year on the campuses of agricultural schools by arrangement with any of the state teacher-training institutions. One hundred and forty-six, or 52.1 percent recommended that teachers be given opportunity to attend summer school once every two years partly on official time and partly on vacation and sick—leave time; and 143, or 51.1 percent recommended that state colleges and universities be encouraged to organize and conduct off- campus classes for graduate credits at centers accessible to teachers. 2. Workshops and Convgptions. One hundred and ninety— six, or 70 percent of the administrators and teachers recom- mended that more workshops dealing on various aspects of the school program be held regularly each year; 193, or 68.9 per- cent recommended that workshops deal with subjects of which the school and the teachers have felt needs. One hundred and seventy-five, or 62.5 percent recommended that each agricul- tural school earmarks adequate amounts out of its yearly allot- ment for the traveling expenses of teachers participating in regional and national workshops; 174, or 62.1 percent re- commended that the General Office allocates specific funds each year to finance workshops and conventions; 170, or 60.7 percent recommended that teachers and administrators be in- volved in planning workshop and convention activities. One 107 hundred sixty-seven, or 59.6 percent recommended that teachers attending regional and national workshops be selected on the basis of individual needs; and 149, or 53.2 percent recommended that outstanding teachers and administrators be utilized as resource persons at regional and national workshops. 3. Other In-Service Training Devices. More than fifty percent of the administrators and teachers also recommended P1 the following: (1) Inter-school visitation be developed as an 9 important in-service training device; (2) More local in—service q programs be conducted; (3) Follow-up visits by teacher- training institutionscflftheir graduates; and (4) Refresher courses be conducted on the campuses of some agricultural schools. 4. Other Steps Recommended. Four other steps were recom- mended by more than 50 percent of the administrators and teachers, namely: (1) Use of school vehicles for educational trips of teachers; (2) Schools earmark at least 500 pesos from their production incomes yearly for the purchase of professional and technical books, and subscription to professional and technical magazines and journals; (3) Convention or work- shop schedules should provide time for relaxation and in- formal group discussions by teacher-participants; and (4) Re- laxation of restrictions imposed by the General Office on the travel of teachers outside of their stations for purposes of 108 in—service growth. 5. Scope of In-Service Programs. On the level or scope of in-service programs 50 percent of the administrators recommended that regional programs should be given the greatest emphasis (Table XXIX). On the other hand, 83 teachers (33.5 percent) recommended that in-service training programs held at all levels (local, regional and national) be given increased emphasis. Combining the recommendations by both administrators and teachers gave "all" 91 votes for first rank; "regional,' second; "national," third; and "local," fourth. The vote difference given to national and local pro- grams was very insignificant. In sum, administrators and teachers, together, recom- mended that all levels of in-service training programs be given increased emphases. 109 TABLE XXIX. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS WHICH SHOULD BE GIVEN INCREASED EMPHASES ACCORD- ING TO THE OPINION OF ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS IN AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS. Locale of in—service Administrators Teachers Total Vote Training Program Voting Voting Rank (32) (248) (280) N % N % N % Local 7 21.9 46 18.6 53 18.9 4th Regional ' 16 50.0 66 26.6 82 29.3 2nd National 1 3.1 53 21.4 54 19.3 3rd All (local, regional and national) 8 25.0 83 33.5 91 32.5 lst T o t a l 32 100.0 248 100 280 100 (lat/5 110 CHAPTER V BASIS AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING IN—SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS Up to this point it has been shown that (1) teachers of agricultural schools of the Philippines have many felt in-service training needs, and (2) the in—service training programs provided at the local, regional, and national levels are inadequate to meet these needs. In this chapter an attempt shall be made (1) to interpret the implications of the findings on the program of in-service education and pre—service teacher training in general, (2) to formulate principles and guidelines from the results of the study in light of trends and existing practices to form the basis for planning and improving the in—service education of teachers in the Philippines, and (3) to make specific proposals as to how the current in-service training programs provided for teachers of agricultural schools of the Philippines may be improved and expanded in scope and number so as to meet the needs and maximize the opportunities of teachers for in-service professional and educational growth. If successful in this attempt objectives Nos. 7 to 10 would have been accomplished. lll Implications of the Findings The data on the educational qualifications and the teaching assignment of teachers (Tables III and XIII) indicate that there still exists a relatively high disparity between major and minor fields of specialization in the college pre—service preparation of teachers and the subjects teachers are assigned to teach. The fact that 14 percent of the teachers were teaching subjects which they were not qualified to teach emphasizes this point. This has important implications for the employment practices or screening of teacher-applicants and on the in-service training programs. The presence on the school staff of many unqualified teachers poses a serious problem to school administrators. To upgrade these teachers, it would seem that the holding of appropriate and adequate in-service training programs is the best remaining alternative (available to administrators. However, this is not a permanent solution. It will not stop the further employment of poorly qualified teachers. The possibility of evolving a certification policy which would minimize or completely eliminate the problem of having too many unqualified teachers on the faculty should be also explored. It was suggested in Table II that a sizable proportion of the teachers are 1-10 years in the service. If true now, no doubt the rapid increase in the number of agricultural 112 schools by conversion of existing general high schools and creation of new ones which necessitates the employment of new teachers beyond the normal requirements due to annual increments in enrollments will swell the number of young teachers more and more. Consequently, an intensified program of in—service education will be needed to meet even the most urgent needs of beginning teachers. The trend suggested in Table IV that more and more teachers (28.6 percent as against 25 percent reported by Cedillo in 1955) are earning college credits after employment is encouraging, but as the relatively small percentage able to earn credits indicate not enough is being done. Local school administrators and the Central Office should try to provide opportunities to many more teachers and promote this trend by providing well-planned in-service education programs, including the offering of more graduate courses. The in-service training needs expressed by teachers and administrators in several broad fields and specialized areas suggest: (1) that the pre-service education received by teachers left much to be desired. This could be attributed to several causes such as the rapid accumulation of new knowledge and change in subject matter, the low standards of instruction in some colleges, and, importantly, the lack of coordination between teacher-training institutions on one hand and the 113 Bureau of Public Schools on the other. The lack of coordination has been recognized not too long ago and some action has already been taken by high officials of the Department of Education and Bureau of Public Schools. Much has been accomplished since then but one serious limitation still exists: the co— ordination now in operation is among state teacher-training institutions and the Bureau of Public Schools only. No direct cooperation exists between the public schools and private teacher—training institutions which supply the greater bulk of academic or related subject teachers. Since academic teachers have as much need for in—service education as voca— tional teachers it seems appropriate to suggest that private teacher—training institutions be also involved in the cooperative program. (2) It seems imperative that in—service training programs to be planned for the future be as comprehensive as possible so as to be responsive to the needs of all teachers. A similar prescription for in-service education programs intended for principals and superintendents also seems appropriate. Such programs will necessarily draw heavily upon the professional, technical, and financial resources of the Bureau of Public Schools and the individual schools. However, no effort and no resource should be spared for the sake of economy in pushing these programs forward. 114 The low percentage of teachers able to attend or participate in in-service training programs each year (less than 3 from each school) suggests that more programs should be held, or that more teachers should.be given the opportunity to attend whatever programs will be held. Both steps will of course pose administrative difficulties, financially and in terms of disruption of services. These difficulties, however, could be minimized by good programming and scheduling of activities. The data in Table XI also indicate that teachers have not been given equal opportunities to participate in the various types and levels of in-service training programs. For instance, to cite only the extremes, 42 teachers never participated in any program at all in five years, whereas 65 participated in at least one or more at each level (local, regional, and national). If a balanced growth is to be achieved a more equitable allocation of opportunities to participate in in—service training programs is necessary. The picture depicted in Table XIIA presenusyet another problem which planners of in-service training programs must face. The data here show that beyond 15 years of service the percentage participation by teachers in in-service training pro— grams declines continuously as the teachers get older and older in the service. While the evidence is inconclusive because 115 of the Scantiness of the sample, whatever the real reasons are the decline should be investigated. It seems the down- trend occurs much too early in the professional career of the teacher. A possible explanation is suggested by Table XXIV: limited opportunities, and the inability of teachers to take advantage of the few offered them, for lack of funds as a result of low salaries and increasing family responsibilities. Although not considered by the teachers as an important reason, lack of incentives could be an important factor in the decline of participation. Regardless of the true causes the trend should be a matter of concern, and how to avoid it, or prolong the period of increasing participation to 20 or more years of service, should be investigated. If the decline in partici- pation goes unchecked a situation in which too many teachers are not growing or have not grown professionally could result. Another interesting, if not potentially significant, information may be-gleaned by comparing the trend exhibited in Table XII—A to that portrayed in Table XX. By inspection the trends are not exactly congruent. The down—trend in the teachers' participation in in—service training programs be- gins after 15 years of service, while the down-trends in the participation and the number of in-service training programs conducted by administrators begin their dips after 20 years of service. It is apparent, however, that a positive relationship 116 exists between these trends. This would seem to suggest that the loss in attendance at in-service training programs by administrators, and the corresponding drop in the number of in—service training activities conducted by them, could be important factors, perhaps direct causes,of the decline in the teachers' participation in in-service training programs after 15 years of service. The evidence, however, is insufficient to make the assumption conclusive, but its implication to the over-all in—service training program deserves more than passing attention. Most of the reasons given by teachers and administra- tors for their limited or non—participation in in-service training programs are actual. These are concomitant conditions accompanying the agricultural schools'programs and the regulations governing their operation. Unless radical changes are intro— duced in the school program itself, these problems will continue to persist. As suggested earlier, however, more effective programming and scheduling of school activities would minimize the negating influences of these factors upon the participation of teachers in in-service training programs. That 29 out of 32 administrators said they were too busy with their administrative duties to provide adequate in-service training activities for teachers would seem to reflect the administrators perception of their roles as 117 profeSSional leaders of their respective schools. It appears that they attach more importance to the aspects of administra- tion than to supervision and the improvement of instruction. Since improvement of instruction depends to a great extent upon the professional leadership of the administrator in his \ role as supervisor, it is desirable that much more of this official's time be devoted to helping his teachers. The fact that both the administrators and the teachers considered the in—service training programs which they attended or participated in as generally effective and helpful to them should not cause administrators and Central Office supervisors to lapse into satisfied complacency. Rather this should prod them into intensifying their efforts to provide more incentives and opportunities for all teachers to upgrade themselves and grow professionally and educationally in the service. The recommendations by teachers that in-service training programs at the local, regional and national levels all be given increased emphases merits thoughtful considerations. This step, if taken and carried out effectively and success- fully, would ensure the widest possible participation by teachers in in—service training programs. However, one is cautioned from taking a hasty decision in this regard for it cannot be denied that an in-service training program carried on with equal and increasing intensity at all levels would 118 require the services of several highly qualified professional and technical personnel, more and better facilities, and more funds. Unless these are available in increasing proportions annually there is danger that such programs would miscarry. This does not mean, however, that it is not feasible. It can be practical subject to the availability of adequate personnel, facilities and funds. As long as these are not assured at the onset, it would seem better to plan for the improvement of in-service programs at all levels as a long range objective rather than as an immediate goal. However, administrators should do all they can to provide optimum conditions to enable teachers to achieve the fulfillment of their in-service training desires at all levels. This calls for a national program that is coordinated with regional and local programs. The recommendation of administrators that regional in-service training programs, in preference but not to de- emphasize local and national programs, be given increased emphaSis appears to be a more realistic first step approach. One regional workshop is estimated to cost about a third as much as one national program but yet able to serve the same number or more teachers. For the same amount of money regional programs would serve three times more people than national programs could. Further examination of the problems involved, however, may reveal the same weaknesses as are in- herent with national programs. For instance, while funds will 119 enable more teachers to attend regional workshops during the school year their absence from their schools one week or more at a time would multiply the problem of service disruption. This was one of the limiting factors why relatively few teachers had been permitted to attend and participate in regional or national workshops in the past. Again these facts should not be the only bases for decision. The advantages of assembling more teachers from several provinces or from all over the country in one place in order to deliberate on common problems should not be over- looked. The sharing of experiences and ideas, the discussion of common problems and issues in education, the decisions and agreements arrived at, and the fellowship that being together for a common purpose engenders are sure to result in the broad- ening of the professional outlook of teachers. The problem of how to provide adequate number of in— service training programs of any or all types is compounded by the fact that teachers of agricultural schools, if one may generalize from the data in Table XV, have had only one chance to attend or participate in in-service training programs in five years. This means that if all teachers were to be given just one chance every year the in—service training programs would have to be multiplied five times. Thought of the mag— nitude of the task in terms of resource requirements is enough 120 hypnotize One into inaction. This should not deter adminis- trators from doing something constructive, however. Passive indifference is not the answer to the problem. The prescription is for administrators not to plan the "big jump" in one giant step, but in short and easy but effective strides designed to achieve lasting benefits, irrespective of whether the plan begins at the local, regional or national level. In planning programs of in-service education the differences in perceptions of teachers' needs by administrators and by teachers should be reconciled. The question as to what subjects or problems should be taken up in in-service programs is not an either-or proposition. It is not a question of whose judgment or decision should prevail. It is a matter for cooperative decision between teachers and adminis- trators. A consensus is essential to assure the effectiveness and success of the in-service training program. jImplications of Practices in Pre-Service Preparation iand In-Service Training and Trends in Education It is now generally recognized by educators that the Eyre—service preparation doesrxnzcomplete the education of the txeacher. It takes a continuing program of in-service educa- txion to make him the kind of teacher he needs to be every day ir1 a rapidly changing society. It is not over-exaggerating to say that the teacher needs to be "different" and better .‘ I: Vim-"M... ' . . _’ - educated every day if he is to keep up with progress and expect to accomplish his task creditably. Admitting these propositions as indisputable, Whose responsibility is it to continue educating the teacher? The answer is: In-service education should be regarded as the collective responsibility of teacher—training institutions, rm the Bureau of Public Schools and local school administrators. Practices in the United States show that the responsi- bility for providing in-service training for teachers has been jointly assumed by the State Department of Education and teacher-training institutions, with other government agencies and private enterprises contributing significantly to the success and effectiveness of the program. Teacher-training institutions, particularly the land grant colleges and universities carry a major share of the job. The great variety of devices and techniques used and the extent and scope of in-service programs sponsored by land grant institutions for teaChers attest to this fact. Some of the more common practices are: (1) Visits by staff members of teacher-education depart- ments with beginning as well as old teachers. (2) Workshops, conferences, and seminars. (3) Supplying printed information, bulletins, teaching guides, technical and professional publications, etc. (4) Demonstrations and exhibits. (5) Educational travel or trips. (6) Agricultural and educational fairs. (7) Consultant services, including services from other agencies and private industry, etc. (8) Professional guidance. 122 (91 REsearch and experimentation. (10) Adequate library facilities for the professional readings of teachers. (11) Graduate programs (a) on-campus, (b) off-campus, (C) correspondence. More important than the mere mention of these programs, however, is the fact that in Michigan, as in the other States, an excellent working relationship exists between the State Board of Education, local school administration, and the teacher-training institutions. Planning in—service training programs is done on a cooperative basis by staffmen of the universities and supervisors from the State Department of Education or Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Recognition of their joint responsibilities is back of this cooperative relationship. One of the basic tenets why teacher—training insti- tutions should assume a positive and active role in the in— service education of teachers was expressed by Byram in 194126 in this wise: "The follow-up of teachers is essential to ade- PEND1x D (Continued) 189 {pe of In-Service Scope Major Subject Taught** fa lnmg ACthlty prgf AG FM HE LG 55 AS MA Total Pct. gram* 76 36 26 57 26 14 12 248 Dtal all types all level 71 35 23 37 15 14 11 206 Percent 93 95 88 65 58 100 92 83 otal regional & national 55 33 19 33 ll 14 11 176 Percent 72 89 74 58 42 100 92 71 verage per year (R & N) 11 6.6 3.8 6.6 2.2 2.8 2.2 35.2 * AG - Agriculture, FM—Farm Mechanics, HIE-Homemaking, LG—Language, SS-Social Science, AS-Applied Science, * L — Local, R - Regional, N - National. MA-Mathematics . APPENDIX E - 1 LIST OF AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS OF THE PHILLIPPINES TO WHICH QUESTIONNAIRES WERE SENT Name and Location of School Cagayan Valley Regional Agri. School Lallo, Cagayan Mountain National Agricultural School La Trinidad, Benguet, Mountain Province Tarlac National Agricultural School Camiling, Tarlac Pampanga National Agricultural School Magalang, Pampanga Bulacan National Agricultural School San Ildefonso, Bulacan Camarines Sur Regional Nat. Agri. Sch. Pili, Camarines Sur Roxas Memorial Agricultural School Guinobatan, Albay Mindoro National Agricultural School Agricultural School, Oriental Mindoro Masbate National Agricultural SchoOl .Mandaon, Masbate Romblon National Agricultural School Odiongan, Romblon Iloilo National Agricultural School Lambanao, Iloilo Capiz Agricultural & Fishery School Pontevedra, Capiz Negros Occidental Nat. Agric. School Kabankalan, Neg. Occidental Baybay National Agricultural School Baybay, Leyte Batac Rural High School Batac, Ilocos Norte Qnestionnaires for Teachers Administrators X X APPENDIX E - 2 Name and Location of School Lagangilang National Agricultural School Lagangilang, Abra Echague Rural High School Slipperyville, Echague, Isabela Nueva Vizcaya National Agric. School Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya San Carlos Rural High School San Carlos, Pangasinan Zambales Rural High School San Marcelino, Zambales Sta. Maria Agricultural High School Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur Indang Rural High School Indang, Cavite Aborlan Agricultural High School Aborlan, Palawan Cantanduanes Agric. & Industrial School Panganiban, Catanduanes Samar National Agricultural School Gandara, Samar Bilar Rural High School Bilar, Bohol Sudlon Agricultural High School Cebu City Negros Oriental Rural High School Bayawan, Negros Oriental Antique National Agricultural School San Remegio, Antique Banga Rural High School Banga, Aklan Surigao National Agricultural School Tago, Surigao Agusan Agricultural High School Ampayon, Butuan City, Agusan ‘Questionnaires for Teachers Administrators 192 APPENDIX E - 3 Name and Location of School Questionnaires for Teachers Administrators Bunawan National Agricultural H. School x Bunawan, Agusan Lanao National Agricultural School x x Caromatan, Lanao Zamboanga Sur Nat. Agric. School x x Dapiwak, Molave. Zamboanga Sur Upi Agricultural High School x x Upi, Cotabato Davao National Agricultural School x Moncayo, Davao Mampising National Agricultural School x x Mampising, Davao Lapak Agricultural High School x Siasi, Sulu Cagayan National Agricultural School x Piat, Cagayan 25 4O LIST OF LAND GRANT INSTITUTIONS VISITED. APPENDIX F NAMES OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED AND DATES OF VISITS Institution University of Connec— ticut. Storrs, Conn. Pennsylvania State University, Univ. Park, Penna, Virginia Polytechnic Institute Blacksburg, Virginia University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Auburn University Auburn, Alabama Mississippi State University University of. Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky ‘Dr. Persons Interviewpg Date Dr. W. Howard Martin Head Teacher Trainer Aug. 4-5, Mr. Philip Edgecomb Instructor, Ag. Ed. Aug. 10-12 Dr. D. R McClay Head, Agric. Educ. Dr. G. Prof., Z. Stevens Agric. Educ. Dr. N. K. Hoover Asst. Professor, Ag. Ed. Dr. Paul Bixby, Asst. Dean, College of Educ. Dr. T. J. Horne, Head 15-16 Agric. Education Aug. Dr. B. C. Bass, Assoc. Professor. Agric. Edu. Dr. R. H. Tolbert. Head Agricultural Education Aug. 18-19. Dr. R. W. Montgomery 22—23. Head, Agric. Educ. Aug. Dr. T_ W. Gandy Assoc. Professor Agricultural Education Head Dr. 0. L. Snowden, 29—30 Teacher Trainer Aug. Mr. L. P. Jacks Asst. Professor Agric. Education Carsie Hammonds, Head Sept. 1-2 Agricultural Education Mr. L. Bingham Asst. Professor Agricultural Education of Visit 1960 n APPENDIX G-l MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan U. S. A. September 12, 1960 The Superintendent/Principal Dear Fellow School Administrator: Please help me with the inclosed questionnaires. I am conducting a study of the inservice programs which EA have and are being provided for teachers of agricultural schools 1*; during the last five years to determine how adequate these have ' been and how much opportunity teachers have for participating in these programs for inservice growth. The object is to find ways of improving these programs and maximizing the teachers' oppor- tunities for educational and professional advancement. F1196 J .b' i Ybu will agree, I am sure, that the continuous upgrading of our teaching staffs through inservice training is essential to the improvement of our total school program. But while we recognize this fact we somehow have not yet found a satisfactory arrangement whereby we could provide adequate inservice training programs and maximize the opportunities of teachers to grow educationally and professionally in the service. The above problem is vital to the future of our agricul- tural schools, and a satisfactory solution to it is what I am hoping to be able to evolve in this research study. I cannot hope to accomplish this, however, without your help. I am, therefore, addressing this appeal to you knowing that you are interested and concerned about the problem as much as I. Please give me a generous share of your time and help me in this study by accomplishing the attached "SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND CHECK LIST FOR PRINCIPALS AND SUPERINTENDENTS." and by re- questing 15 of your teachers to accomplish the rest, titled: "SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND CHECK LIST FOR TEACHERS." Instructions on how to select the teachers who will respond are given on the following sheet. You will find inclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelop for your convenience in returning the completed questionnaires to me. Thanks a lot. I shall highly appreciate your cooperation and remain eternally grateful for whatever help you will give me in this matter. Very sincerely yours, BRUNO M. SANTOS APPENDIX G-2 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO SAMPLE TEACHERS List the teachers alphabetically by groups: a) Agriculture teachers b) Farm mechanics teachers c) Homemaking teachers d) English teachers e) Filipino Language teachers f) Mathematics teachers 9) Science teachers h) History and Social science teachers Delete the names of those who have less than five years of total service in the BPS. From the names remaining under each group pick out in alphabetical order the first: agriculture teachers .farm mechanics teachers homemaking teachers English teachers Filipino language teacher Mathematics teacher science teachers (Gen., Physics, or Chemistry) history and/or social science teachers. NMl—‘l—‘NNNUJ Distribute the questionnaire for teachers to the selected teachers. If there are less teachers than indicated in No. 3 disregard the extra questionnaires. Please return the questionnaires as soon as they are completed. to me through Dr. James Woodhull, using the return envelop inclosed. Thank you. 195 196 APPENDIX G-3 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND CHECK LIST FOR TEACHERS INSTRUCTION: Answer only the questions or check only the items of information which apply to you. Do not write your name on any sheet. l, Educational and Personal Information Sex: male; female. Education: Degree held. 'Major subject in college. Minor subject in college. Credits earned beyond B. S. degree. .2. Job Information Years Of experience as teacher: total in BPS. total in present school. Subjects taught during the last school year (1959-1960): ”in major area;' periods daily. in minor area; periods daily. Other assignments: (indicate): ;, Participation in Inservice Training Programs If you have taken courses at the graduate level in any of the colleges or universities in the Philippines indicate the following: field of study. number of credits earned to date. degree you expect to finish. If you have been granted any of the following indicate by a check (V3 mark which one: Travel and/or study grant in P. I. Travel and/or study grant to U. S. Travel and/or study grant to Europe and other countries.' If you have attended or participated in inservice training programs held within the last five years circle the number under columns (1), (2), or (3) which tells the number of times you participated. For example, suppose you attended one national, two regional and three local workshops. You will circle i_under under local: (1). Local (2) Regional 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l l 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 l 1 2 3 4 5 1 l 2 3 4 5 1 l 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 4 2 NNNN 2 wwwww bbbb U1U'IU'IU'IU'I 4 H H H H H H l . Reasons for limited _ —_.———— APPENDIX G-4 197 national, g_under regional and g (3) National 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 Type of inservice activity Workshop Teachers' convention or conference FFP or other students' convention Organized educational trips Demonstration teaching Inter-school visitation Professional summer class Regular summer school training programs during the last five years 4.1 Check the reason or reasons for your non-participation or limited attendance at regional or national workshops and professional classes: Do not feel the need. llHl Subjects discussed not in my field of interest. Lack of private funds. Family responsibilities. Was given limited or no opportunity. Others: 4.2 If you had not enrolled in regular summer school for graduate work during the last five years, (or attended only once) indicate the reasons why by checking the appropriate item below: lack of funds. lack of incentives. service required throughout year. can't afford a study leave without pay. not allowed to use accumulated sick leave for study. do not feel the need. 'l _....-u--" 198 APPENDIX G-5 '\ é, Inservice Trainipg Needs Listed below are curricular and other aspects of the school program. Check and rank those in which you feel a need using a five-point scale (1, 2, 3, 4, 5): i.e., Areas in which you have a great need are marked g; those in which you have the least need are marked if those in between by g, 3, or.4 according to your need for them: Check Rank Curricular or ProblempArea 5.1 Subject matter content in: FA 3. field of specialization 3 b. cognate or minor field c. other fields ' 5.2 General education: a. -philosophy of education b. psychology c. sociology d. political science and government 5.3 Methods of teaching: a. preparation and use of audio-visual materials b.- test construction and testing c. evaluation of instruction d. remedial teaching e. Others: 5.4 Administration and supervision: a. program planning b. supervision of instruction c. curriculum improvement d. professional ethics e. School laws and regulations f. formulation of school philosophy and objectives g. policy-and decision-making process h. leadership and group dynamics i. report writing j. community and public relations 5.5 Research and experiments: a. Methods of educational research b. Agricultural research and experiments c. Resource and occupational surveys 5.6 Co-curricular activities: ‘ a. youth organizations and activities b. school and student publications c. extension service (education) d. others: 199 APPENDIX G-6 6. Evaluation of Inservice Training Programs Held in the Past Five Years (1956 to 1960) If you have participated in any inservice training program conducted by the General Office during the last five years respond to the following statements by putting two check (VA/I) marks on those which are entirely or generally true; one check (\/) mark on those that are half or less than half true; and an (x) on those that are not true. (If you have not participated in any inservice training program OMIT this section of the questionnaire.): The inservice training programs I attended were well-planned. I helped in planning and scheduling activities. My principal or superintendent helped in planning the activities. I had a felt need for all or most of the items discussed. I learned much new insight, information and Skill. I immediately applied what I learned. I I have improved very much in my teaching as a result. passed on to other teachers what I learned by leading in local inservice programs and informal group discussions. Many topics or problems of which I have great need were not included or taken up. All topics in the agenda were thoroughly discussed. Activities were well organized and carried out satisfactorily. Leaders encouraged participation and accepted ideas from teachers. Resource persons used were helpful and fully utilized. I am satisfied with the opportunity I have had for inservice growth. , As a general rule the opportunity which teachers of agricultural schools for inservice growth is nil. There were too few inservice training programs held to give a majority of us teachers the opportunity to participate. The total school program has been significantly improved as a result of inservice training programs held in the past. IIH HI I lllll Ill 1, How to Improve Inservice Traininngrograms 7.1 Which level of inservice training should be emphasized? local regional national all. 200 APPENDIX G-6 Which of the following do you think are feasible and should be done to improve the training programs now in use? a. Summer classes: More teachers should be given opportunity to attend on official time but personal expense. Use of accumulated vacation and sick leave for study be allowed. Teachers with 25 or more days of accumulated vacation leave should be allowed to go to summer school on official time for the period not covered by the accumulated vacation leave. Half of the teaching staff could be dispensed with during the summer and should be encouraged to go to summer school. Qualified school administrators should be authorized to organize and conduct credit courses on the graduate level during summer or regular school year on the campuses of agricultural schools. Teachers should be given the opportunity to attend summer school once every two years partly on official time and partly on vacation and sick leave time. b. Workshops_apd conypptions: More workshops dealing on various aspects of the school program should be held regularly each year to enable most if not all teachers the chance to participate. should be held for longer periods. should be held for shorter periods. should deal with subjects of which school and teachers have a felt need. Teachers and school administrators should be involved in planning activities. should utilize outstanding teachers and administrators as leaders or resource presons. Specific funds from national appropriations should be allocated each year by G. O. to finance workshops, etc. Each agricultural school should earmark adequate amounts out of its yearly allotment for traveling expenses of teachers attending regional or national inservice training programs. Teachers attending regional or national workshops should be selected on the basis of individual needs. _— —_ __ —_ —— ———— APPENDIX G-7 .er Other inservice training devices which dould and should be developed: Inter-school visitation by teachers and administrators. Exchange of teachers between neighboring schools for periods of one to four weeks or more. Weekend educational trips. Refresher courses on campus. Local workshops, seminars, community assemblies, demonstrations, surveys, etc., should be held ymore often. Follow-up visits by teacher-training schools of their graduates. d. Other steps which may be taken: * Relaxation of restrictions imposed by G. O. on travel of teachers outside of province for purposes of in- service growth. Use of school vehicles for educational trips by teachers. Each school should earmark at least P 500 from production income yearly for purchase of professional and technical books and subscription to professional and technical journals and magazines. Fewer guest speakers should be used at conventions and conferences. Convention or workshop schedules should provide enough time for relaxation and informal group discussion. e. Your recommendations, if any: m. s. )‘LKIX. l 202 APPENDIX H—l SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND CHECK LIST FOR PRINCIPALS AND SUPERINTENDENTS INSTRUCTION: Answer only the questions or check only the items of information which apply to you. Do not write your name on any sheet. i. Job Information 1.1 Experiences in BPS: Present position. Years in present position. Total years in BPS. 2. Participation in Inservice Training Programs 2.1 Check the type of inservice training program on the regional or national level in which you participated during the last five years: workshop seminar .___ symposium administrators' teachers' con- ___ farmers' convention vention convention organized educa- inter-school ___ professional tional trips visitation classes 2.2 Check which of the following you organized and/or con- ducted for the inservice training of your teachers within the last five years: workshop seminar ___ professional educational trips demonstration meetings teaching (not ad- ministrative) 2.3 If you have taken any courses at the graduate level in any Philippine college or university supply the information desired: Field of study Calendar year or years you attended. No. credits earned to date. .Degree you expect to finish. 203 APPENDIX H-2 If you have been granted any of the following indicate the duration and purpose of field of study: No. months Field of study Grant Travel and/or study in P.I. Travel and/or study in U.S. Travel and/or study in other countries. Below are some possible reasons or difficulties which may have limited or prevented you from providing and organizing inservice training programs for your teachers. Indicate the degree of importance or seriousness of those which you actually met by writing 9, l, g, g, or‘g before each item. (genot important or least important and 4 for the most important): Too busy with routine and administrative matters. Teachers do not feel the need. Teachers have little or no time. Teacher-leadership lacking. Lack of incentives. Others at regional or national inservice training programs or summer school classes. Indicate the importance of each factor by writing 2, i, g, g, or 4 before each. (gyfor the least important and g for the most important): Service required throughout year. Limited paid vacation leave. Service of most teachers could not be dispensed with. Limited school funds for travel. G. O. limits number of teachers. Few workshops held. Workshops held for specified areas only. Teachers lack funds for travel and school fees. Other factors: 204 APPENDIX H—3 é, Inservice Education Needs .If you feel the need for refresher or additional training in any of the areas listed below indicate the priority of your needs by checking the item under the appropriate column: Priority of needs Subject area lst 2nd l (‘5; Administration and supervision of instruction. Curriculum, program, and course planning. Supervised farming & FFP activities. *‘ Guidance and counseling. i Management & supervision of agric. ‘ projects. 5 School finance and budgeting. Staff organization and office management. School development programs. Leadership training. Audio-visual methods of instruction. Research and evaluation. Test construction and testing. Public relations. Others: Indicate the teachers' need for the following by checking the number on the scale opposite the curricular or problem area: Few need to All need Curricular or problem areas 3 4' 5 Subject matter content: English Pilipino m History and social science Mathematics Natural and applied science Agriculture and farm mechanics Homemaking |||||||~ |l|||||~ Methods of teaching: Audio-visual instruction Test construction and testing Evaluation of instruction Remedial teaching 205 APPENDIX H-4 3'2 (Continued): Few need to All need Curricular or problem areas 2 3 4 5 Student services: ___ ___ ___ ___ Educ., voc. and occupational information Guidance and counseling Placement and follow-up Research and experiments: Educational research Agricultural research and experiments Resource surveys Administration and supervision: Curriculum development School laws and regulations Community and public relations Policy formulation and decision-making Professional ethics Supervision of student activities Cocurricular activities: Youth organizations Publications (school) Extension activities Coaching (athletics, dramatics, etc.) 3. Evaluation of Regional or National Inservice Training Programs 4.1 Number of teachers who attended regional or national workshops, professional vacation classes, regular summer school, and conventions or conferences. from 1959 to 1960: Classification No. on Number attending . Total No. of teachers staff Work- Prof. Regular Conventions att di (by subjects) shops class summer or conferences. en .ng inseerce school programs Languages Soc. sci. & hist. Nat. & applied sci. Mathematics Agriculture Farm Mechanics Homemaking Health & P.E. Others: Total 4.2 206 APPENDIX H-5 Have teachers who participated in insurvice programs benefited and improved their teaching efficiency and effectiveness? (Check): very much quite significantly very little no Have those who did not participate been influenced to improve? All were. More than half were. Less than half were. Very few were. None were. Were the inservice training programs held during the last five years of sufficient number and scope to provide opportunity for a majority of the teachers to attend? number sufficient scope sufficiently broad number insufficient scope too limited How long would you like workshops, conventions, or seminars to be? ____ Less than one week. ____ One week. Two weeks. ___ Three weeks or more. Did you or your teachers who participated have a share in planning the inservice activities? Yes. No. Were the knowledges learned, information gained, or decisions made immediately implemented in your school? All were. Few were. Most were. None were. Were the subjects or problems discussed in inservice pro- grams important and practical? All were. Few were. Most were. None were. 207 APPENDIX H—6 2. How to Improve Inservice Training Programs Which level of inservice training should be emphasized? local regional national all. Which of the following do you think are feasible and should be done to improve the training programs now in use? a. Summer classes: More teachers should be given opportunity to attend on official time but personal expense. Use of accumulated vacation and sick leave for study be allowed. Teachers with 25 or more days of accumulated vacation leave should be allowed to go to summer school on official time for the period not covered by the accumulated vacation leave. Half of the teaching staff could be dispensed with during the summer and should be encouraged to go to summer school. Qualified school administrators should be authorized to organize and conduct credit courses on the graduate level during summer by special arrangements with teacher-training institutions. State colleges and universities should be encouraged to organize and conduct regular off-campus courses during summer, or regular school year, on the campuses of agricultural schools. Teachers should be given the opportunity to attend summer school once every two years partly on official time and partly on vacation and sick leave time. b. Workshops and conventions: More workshops dealing on various aspects of the school program should be held regularly each year to enable most if not all teachers the chance to participate. should be held for longer periods. should be held for shorter periods. should deal with subjects of which school and teachers have a felt need. Teachers and school administrators should be involved in planning activities. should utilize outstanding teachers and administrators as leaders or resource persons. Specific funds from national appropriations should be allocated each year by G. o. to finance workshops. etc. 208 APPENDIX H—7 b. Workshops and convgptions (Continued): Each agricultural school should earmark adequate amounts out of its yearly allotment for traveling expenses of teachers attending regional or national inservice training programs. Teachers attending regional or national workshops should be selected on the basis of individual needs. c. Other inservice training devices which could and should be developed: Inter-school visitation by teachers and administrators. Exchange of teachers between neighboring schools for periods of one to four weeks or more. Weekend educational trips. Refresher courses on-campus. Local workshops, seminars, community assemblies, demonstrations, surveys, etc. Follow-up visits by teacher-training schools cf their graduates. d. Other steps which may be taken: Relaxation of restrictions imposed by G. O. on travel of teachers outside of province for purposes of in- service growth. Use of school vehicles for educational trips by teachers. Each school should earmark at least 7 500 from production income yearly for purchase of professional and technical books and subscription to professional and technical journals and magazines. Fewer guest speakers should be used at conventions. Convention or workshop schedules should provide enough time for relaxation and informal group discussions. e. Ybur recommendations, if any: 209 APPENDIX I-l QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HEADS OF TEACHER-TRAINING INSTITUTIONS Instruction: Please respond to the question below by writing YES or N9 on the spaces provided before each item: QUESTION: Would your college or university be in a position and willing to: l. Cooperate with the Bureau of Public Schools in providing and conducting inservice training programs for teachers? 2. Provide funds for the traveling expenses of members of your education faculty who may be invited by the Bureau of Public Schools and authorized by your college to serve in workshops, seminars, or conferences of public school teachers? 3. Offer refresher or advance courses specially for teachers who express the need for these courses? 4. Initiate a follow-up program consisting of on- job visits and conferences of teacher-graduates of your college in order to help them adjust to and become effective in their teaching jobs? 5. Organize off-campus classes on specific courses on the campuses of some agricultural schools during summer, if requested? 6. Arrange for off-campus classes to be handled and taught by qualified agricultural school administrators on their respective school campuses either on Saturdays or in Summer? 7. Arrange and make possible for teachers visiting your college to confer with members of your faculty, listen to lectures, or observe the latest techniques and procedures used by your college in its teacher training program? 8. Make available to teachers publications of that college pertaining to teaching and other aspects of education for their professional information? 9. Cooperate with the Bureau of Public Schools in organizing an employment service to help new graduates obtain jobs and enable the Bureau of Public Schools to recruit to its service the best trained graduates? 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 210 APPENDIX I-2 Provide the Director of Public Schools and superintendents of schools with a ranked list of graduates of your college every year? Seek the suggestions or recommendations of Bureau of Public Schools officials and school administrators regarding teacher education curriculums? Participate in conferences, conventions or work- shops on the various problems of education in the country? Offer summer school scholarship consisting of free tuition to a limited number of outstanding teachers? Sponsor workshops, seminars, and conferences for teachers? Be host to participant teachers at workshops, etc. for the duration of these workshops? v.4 "HG“ 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS General Education Policies: A report of the Board of National Education for 1955-1957, Manila. Phoenix Press, Inc., Quezon City, Philippines. 1958, 514 p. Guiang, Pedro G. (ed.) Vocational Education in the Philippines. Bureau of Public Schools, Manila, 1955. 329 p. Henry, Nelson B., (ed.) In—Service Education. The Fifty- Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois, 1957, 376 p. Trout, David M.,(ed.) The Education of Teachers. The Michigan Cooperative Teacher Education Study, Lansing, Michigan, 1943, 200 p. BULLETINS AND PAMPHLETS Sledge, George W., George P. Deyoe, and Harold M. Byram. Principles and Practices for Planning In-Service Educational Programs for Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in the Central Region. Department of Agricultural and Extension Education. College of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1959, 16 p.(Mimeographed). Summaries of Studiep in Agricultural Education in the Philippines. Prepared by the College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines, College, Laguna, P. I., 1959, 60 p. ngmaries of Studies in Agricultural Education. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Washington 25, D. C. 1956—1960. 212 REPORTS Annual Report of the Director of Public Schools, Manila Philippines, 1955-1959. Bureau of Public Schools. Byram, Harold M. "Do We Have Standards for In-Service Education of Teachers in Vocational Agriculture?“ Presentation: Teachers Breakfast Meetings, 1934-1956. American Vocational Association, 1956, p. 25. Cushman, Harold, e; 3;; The Agricultural Subject—Matter Needs of Teagpprs of Agriculture in the Philippines. Research Report. 1959. University of the Philippines, College, Laguna, 110 p. Deyoe, George P. A Study of In-ServicegEducation Provided for Teachers of Vocational Agriculture by Depart- men; of Agricultural Education in the Central Region. Division of Agricultural Education, University of Illinois, 1955, 30 p. (Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education, Supplement No. 10, Vocational Division Bull. No. 265, Agriculture Series No. 69. U. S. D. HEW, 1957, p. 29. Horne, T. J. (ed.) Presentations: Teagppr Trainers Breakfast Meetings, 1934-1956. Teacher-Trainers Section, Agricultural Education Division, American Vocational Association, 1956, 119 p. Myers, Noel T. (Education Division Chief). The 6th Mile- stone - ICA and Education in the Philippinpg. Annual Report, USOM, ICA, Manila, Philippines, 1958, 344 p. Reports of the Agricultural Education Division, Bureau of Public Schools, Manila, Philippines, from 1955 to 1960, concerning in—service education for Teachers of Agricultural Schools. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Deems, Howard W. An Evaluation of the In-Service Program Provided by the University of Nebraska for Teachers of Vocational Agriculture. Ed. D. thesis, 1956. University of Missouri, 260 p. University of Missouri, Columbia. 213 Diggs, Kermit Hunter. In—Service Education of Teachers of Essman, Habito I Horner, Vocational Agriculture in Virginia. Ed.D. Thesis, 1957, 290 p. Cornell University, Ithaca. Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education. Voc. Div. Bull. No. 275, Supplement No. 12, Agriculture Series No. 72. U. S. D. HEW, 1959. pp. 17-18. Rolland L. A Study of the Summer Activities of Nebraska Teachers of Vocational Agriculture. ‘M.S. Thesis, 1956. The University of Nebraska, 94 p. Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education, Voc. Div. Bull. No. 272, Supplement No. 11, Agriculture Series No. 71, p. 24, U S. D. HEW, 1958. Celestino P. Development of an Adult Farmer Educa- tion Program for the Philippines. Ph.D. Thesis, 1958. University of Minnesota, 380 p. Library, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. James T. An Evaluation of the In-Service Education Program Provided for Teachers of Vocational Agricul- ture by North Carolina State College. Ed.D. Dissertation, 1959. University of Missouri, 209 p. University of Missouri, Columbia. Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education. Voc. Div. Bull. No. 282, Supplement No. 13, Agriculture Series No. 75. pp. 48-49. U. S. D. HEW, 1960. Juan, Virginio C. The Educational Attainment, Service Status, Juliano, and In-Service Traininngeeds of Agriculture Teachers in the Philippines. M. S. Thesis, 1955. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. Jorge P. The Technical Training of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in the Philippines. M.S. Thesis, 1954, 69 p. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. Santiago, Alicia A. A Study of the In-Service Education of Public Secondary School Teachers in Manila, Philippines. Ed.D. Thesis, 1957, 379 p. Indiana University. Dissertation Abstracts, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1958. V. 18, No. 2, Feb., 1958. 214 Sudershanam, Ratna. A Study of In—Service Teacher Education of Secondary School Teachers in Andra Pradesh State, India. Ed.D. Thesis, 1958. Indiana University. Dissertation Abstracts, V. 19, No. 12, June, 1959, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. ARTICLES Cedillo, Valentin G. Qualification of Agricultural Teachers in General, Agricultural and Rural High Schools. The Philippine Agriculturist, V. 39 (4), 1955. Habito, Celestino P. An Adult Farmer Education Program. The Agricultural Education Magazine, V. 31, No. 4, October, 1958. MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS Guidebook of Procedures and Suggestions for Apprentice and First-Year Teachers of Vocational Agriculture. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 1953. ROOM USE 0le