-4 o - v- w 13:52"... 1 '1 ' I 3' .- a A. _. «A. ————“ 4’ 9—." 1» - .. _ . ~r-‘L -. —'T.—_~—’__ ' .-M~ - 4 l ¢:%.—3_=' .. ‘ .‘W , an" .. Tb ““i‘x'nv- p—a...‘ d- < . . . - V I ‘4‘ . . . - , H‘ .., W. -«u‘h: .2: w '29-" "'72 *5.- ’29". 4ggg- 4 - ' ' vI pr . ~1-__,._._. . 0-- . I. : w v- v- '. I ,‘ I . I . ' I A‘J...‘ 7n-IL... -._~.L.‘.~ I1 I 3;: 1 13%}: 1 ‘33:' 11. .11 3""«3 "3' .1 ‘ 1| 3‘ 3»! "l " M3 :j'I'J 5S331‘33t33JJ'3.3I.35, . x1 33...! 2U 1": 1.115 331' 1111;111:1111, i ,l i '. .1111311313111311111 13'1" '3'331'3131'1131 .- - I 1 31M: 111 111111;» ~ 13.11! 1.3133333 N12923:" - 131113113133333313111131115.31.. - flflwngi ~* Imrf 1;. . 133:} 1 , 3111 1 ,. V” . :v‘ .5; I .2 J' ‘51 1 ‘43:! 1* I I I_ .~ '3 ‘1 v .3 ~ 3‘ I: 1 51m "113 1" :75; "' I" in h I 1..” 131111}: '11,?! $111131! -.| '1; '3'.3.' . z ; . “311131" 11 III II '1II'3I'12 Hg“: '35"? 531131113 '3 3'31; 331113 131.111] 331: ' I .7 A 333313 113 31:1“ 3131, «1111;131:3111 1101:11111'”1191'1‘1111’1“! H‘ . 1 1 ’11 .‘I.n I ‘3' . ‘1.’ 311113',111”3 ,3I.I 111111, :133 311133 31- 3I«I';'3«' 33131 311311, I: 1 111131 311' 311111131111111113111 .3I 13 “Elihu“ I J! 11 WW 0 '~.~ ~.. “A. m _~_ A-—_ 1:31;}: :1 .A J 1“" ‘11; I” t] 31"1'1333'411491 h1- "' “'3. . . ' 3333' 3 """"'z3’1"3‘.3.11"' " ' ‘II"I. summfifi3I»..1IIIIIIHI“W"1, 33"” 1 ' "31"31'9. .3 3 31.3.3I"-.‘:’!E* ; 3 3'333'3'36"”§3:':'§3 'F'i'.1133'.‘l 11‘ .' . 1.]. ' ' 1333'” 1". 3.. , 11m 1:1,I 115'. 13114111111111 1: If“ 11’3'111' '{3-7 l‘ 'I 13.1711? '1 {"le 1,} 1 111113311 11331, «3113133 1 .. ~- 13! 1'31“?) 31111" "3 '1 113;; 3'13 3 3 2' 11:3 1' I 13133333: 13111131 311, 33:31 I. «I I '3 I 11131 1111‘ "1111’ 3131113 332m 11.1 111 I‘ 31'; '1“ I 1.11133311131113313 1' 3 .1111 1 11 "~ 14' 131'311' W )1} 111'1'3 3.1 {{43"1'1:{:1}L) “31113311'11133'II1 J 111 -. ... n. .m‘-‘ fl 2.21.13» ‘5." 0“ '1 133313.13111131-3“ [1.1 1::I .. I ”11%|. 3'11 31"“1" 3131: II 3‘1 '1 “111 113w‘,I§I .11‘1-‘131 ' f . I... I. m, « «I .I 33.1'3' 3 J33} I q. I I ;."'i’:};33:f" 1 1m N'Iw I1i:_1137"1i1.f5111431331131 «u I 11N11111 “.13'313 Ith34'éi;'.“'3'.“;3,3113,1 11', J I l 11 ’ 11111 'I"' 11'2""! 3". 133' «h 33W11 M1 .3111HI333331~H1 1'1 | 3:3 3,1131 I I'.’ "' ' ' 1,1 1;, [.1 “1113 3411 ‘ ”1111111113." .3 31113;; :111'1'111111'111II111111I313111 11113 11.1133!“ 33333333333"w31111 H31 '3 M3133 M “B' IJIJI'LUQ - o o --... m7...- ’ .'. ‘ V #0 31:: _:. *1 lo .1, . «1“»? u . . 'L’,_ ‘30.»: me p - 14‘ MV- cu..- q .33' . .3 . .. ‘12” ”3.1-... ..'§:."T.’ "'3331'33'33'3'11'3'33 5314:1115“ 1'I3333 "zILIfiK l 1 3-3-11 f - 4 ”.51“. * . u' - .z‘;'«_ 1 M I"'3 ,II 11 31" 1:7: . 3". 11 £13113” 1111133” I 33:33-31:11) 11‘1311I 1': 11'1'11': "11111 1”.1. '11:.1 W5 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII 3 1293 10574 23283 fun—kg! ‘ :‘4'3 5'! a - ' I 11‘5“. agun ‘ , . . ‘7 v “W? L This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE PROCESS OF FIELD-BASED INSERVICE EDUCATION: A NATURALISTIC STUDY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT presented by Mary Susan Engberg Weimer has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree“, Teacher Education QMMM Major professor Date 7,/,5y& MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution THE PROCESS OF FIELD-BASED INSERVICE EDUCATION: A NATURALISTIC STUDY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT By Mary Susan Engberg Weimer A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1982 ABSTRACT THE PROCESS OF FIELD-BASED INSERVICE EDUCATION: A NATURALISTIC STUDY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT By Mary Susan Engberg Neimer The purpose of this study was to address the need for process descriptions of inservice teacher education by describing the content, process, and products of a field-based, individualized social emo- tional education curriculum development inservice during the final six months (January-June, 1977) of a two-year Teacher Corps project. The subjects of this study included two teacher educators, one- intern, one reading consultant, and three classroom teachers. These individuals interacted with an inservice program structure that in- cluded (a) a seminar, (b) classroom observations with feedback, and (c) teacher educator/teacher consultation. The investigator ob- served and recorded the many combinations of interactions that occurred within and across the three program components. The data collection tools included audiotaping of seminars and consultations, classroom observations, interviews, and the collection of teacher- developed curriculum products. The results of the study are presented in five case studies of the teacher participants. The case studies are preceded by a thorough description of the content and process of the social emo- tional education inservice. Each case study explores the teachers' 'D O h " fl. :3... rczr‘;. ‘~i. h‘. (.‘:~‘; 4 v...‘ all a‘ r” :- :r ‘ 5|. Agr- Mary Susan Engberg Neimer interactions with both the program components and the teacher educa- tors. The individualized nature of the inservice is described through an exposition of each teacher's goals, needs, curriculum development choices, and ultimate product outcomes. The findings of the study include a discussion of the personal, structural, and curriculum development dynamics of one individualized inservice program. Among these are the relationship of project out- comes to participant congruence with the program process, teacher reactions to positive and negative feedback, the unique nature of social emotional education as a curriculum development area, the relevance of timing and pace to project outcomes, the importance of a conceptual framework to curriculum development, and the process of readying products for dissemination. '50 he DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my maternal grandfather F. u. Engberg who loved me as I am, asked only that I be myself, and taught me a love of learning; my maternal grandmother Elizabeth Moses Engberg for having the patience to teach a little girl domestic skills, for giving me an appreciation of the "old country," and for teaching me the value of hard work; my great aunt Elin Engberg; my brother Mark David Neimer; two teachers who influenced my life, Mr. Richard Hubacek and Dr. Emerson w. Shideler; and to my parents Jesse Donald Neimer and Mary Elizabeth Leone Engberg Neimer who have always given me as much as they possibly could. ii v 3"‘I‘rf inf-vi u'l 5" YE?” 0r- EUC after, h! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Anyone engaged in a project of this dimension has many people to thank, and I am no exception. I appreciate the help I received from my doctoral committee members: Drs. Judith Lanier, Christopher M. Clark, Philip Cusick, and Keith Anderson. I would like to thank Dr. Lanier for her early recognition of my potential as a teacher educator and for helping me make the transition from an elementary school classroom to the university. I especially want to recognize the counsel I received from Dr. Clark in his role as my dissertation steering chairperson and adviser. Chris understands the role of adviser, a role he does not take lightly. Chris is particularly skilled with a sense of timing and sensitivity to his advisee that gives him the flexibility to choose whatever role will be most helpful based on the advisee's most pressing need. At times Chris served as a problem solver or trouble shooter, sometimes conceptualizer and technical helper, and often as a cheerleader and support person. Chris provided in his own writings an excellent model as a writer and brought considerable ex- pertise to my work as an editor. Most importantly, while every chapter of this dissertation has been improved by Chris' input, I nevertheless feel full ownership for the work. As an adviser, Chris knows how to share his expertise without ever diminishing the integrity of his advisee. Two individuals have supported me throughout my entire doctoral program and both are distinguished by their demonstration of total Ann-02'! - ECLty it! '5 a :‘. .CS-CIYE , unie'sta'; Shy-4;", , 'U U I». ‘ llzra '- a J ‘- ‘° -3r I-E‘ n acceptance of me. First is my friend Dr. Norma Gilmore. I want to thank Norma for being a model for me of what one can do with her life regardless of obstacles that spring up and for her unlimited energy and positive spirit. Norma has never deviated from her encouragement of and belief in me. Second is Dr. Douglas E. Miller. His research expertise and acute psychological insights into people helped me to gain a better understanding of the subjects of this study as well as a better under- standing of myself. Dr. Miller helped me to appreciate the lessons that I could learn from the process of this project and, once finished, he helped me to put the product into its proper perspective. Above all he has modeled for me the behaviors of a truly caring human being who tries his best to be aware of himself and congruent. A special thank you goes to my mentor in the early stages of my university career, Dr. Henrietta Barnes. Henri gave freely of her time and expertise in the conduct of this study. For me she presented an example of an assertive woman who brought intelligence, sensitivity, warmth, and a thorough attention to detail to all her work and relation- ships. I feel especially privileged to have had Henrietta Barnes as my model of an effective teacher educator. I would also like to thank the following people: Dr. Perry Lanier for his invaluable advice to me on consolidating the various demands of the doctoral program so as to make it more efficient and easier on me; 0'2. Joyce Putnam for her input on the special needs of teacher educators In 'the field as well as for her kindness and encouragement; Dr. Donna ”aruaus for her assistance with the quantitative data collected for eval- llat'ion of the Teacher Corps Project; and Ms. Barbara Reeves, my friend iv and typist, for her grammatical help, typing expertise, and especially for her positive feedback in the final stages of the dissertation. And I could never thank enough the five teachers who allowed me to observe them for six months and gave so freely of their time, often when it was inconvenient or they were tired. ‘n. I\ 5 do I“ . 5‘s- P tun: M'.’ A. .“ TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ......................... List of Figures ........................ CHAPTER I: THE NEED FOR PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS OF INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION ............ Introduction ....................... Background and Problem Statements ............. The Tenth Cycle Teacher Corps Program ........... The Social Emotional Education Inservice Program . . . Potential Significance of the Study ............ CHAPTER II: INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................. Introduction ....................... History of Inservice Education in the United States--the Past l3D Years .......... A Chronological Overview of Inservice Education . . . Principles That Shape Inservice Today ........ Recommendations of the Inservice Critics ......... What the Inservice Research Literature Says about Inservice Effectiveness ............ A Model for Planned Change ................ Assumptions about Teachers ................ Assumptions about Working with Teachers .......... Assumptions about What Teachers Need ........... Characteristics of a Helpful Teacher Educator ....... Supportive Teacher Educator Roles ............. Seed Planter and Extender .............. Technical Helper ................... Personal Support Person ............... Expediter ...................... Informant and Communication Stimulator ........ vi p. IQQPH CHAPTER III: Introduction ....................... Initial Questions ..................... Types of Data Collected .................. More Specific Questions .................. Investigator Assumptions and Limitation of the Study Other Assumptions/Limitations ............... Data Collection ...................... The Data Collection Site ................. Gaining Participant Cooperation in the Study ....... Establishing and Maintaining Rapport with the Participants ............... January-March: Concentrated Data Collection ....... The Data ......................... Classroom Observation of Social Emotional Education Audiotaping ..................... Interviews ...................... Questionnaire .................... Collection of Teacher-Developed Social Emotional Education Curricular Products ......... Data Collection: A Typical Week ............. Data Reduction ...................... CHAPTER IV: CONTENT, PROCESS, AND STRUCTURE OF THE SOCIAL EMOTIONAL EDUCATION INSERVICE PROGRAM The Content of the Social Emotional Education Inservice . . Choosing a Definition of Social Emotional Education .............. A Review of the Literature .............. The Conceptual Framework ............... Subject Matter of the Inservice Program ....... The Process of the Social Emotional Education Inservice . . Advance Organizers .................. Experiential Learning ................ Modeling ....................... Practice Trials for New Behavior with Feedback . . . . Teacher Inclusion in the Development of Instruction Time Provided for Teacher Reading and Reflection . . I Group Cohesiveness and Support ............ The Structure of the Social Emotional Education Inservice Program ............... Component 1: Instructional Seminar .......... Component 11: Classroom Observation ......... Component III: Individual Consultation ....... Typical Weekly Schedule ............... vii DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY ............. CHAPTER V: RESULTS: FIVE CASE STUDIES ............ 101 Introduction ....................... 101 MRS. ELIOT ........................ 103 Getting Started ...................... 104 Commentary ...................... 106 Conceptualizing the Unit ................. 107 Commentary ...................... 108 February Through Mid-March: Resistance Low/ Production High ................ 109 Commentary ...................... 115 Ending the School Year .................. 116 Commentary ...................... 119 Epilogue ......................... 120 Summary .......................... 123 MRS. DICKINSON ...................... 124 Introduction ....................... 125 Assessment and Setting Goals ............... 126 Commentary ...................... 128 Refining the Self Concept/Praise Unit and Beginning the Slidetape ............ 129 Commentary ...................... 132 The Seminar: Presenting Her Unit ............. 134 Commentary ...................... 136 Classroom Observations .................. 136 Commentary ...................... 137 A Final Consultation ................... 138 Commentary ...................... 139 The Interviews: Mrs. Dickinson's Perceptions of the Inservice and Her Involvement in It ...... 139 Interview: April 20, 1977 .............. 140 Interview: June 14, 1977 .............. 143 Summary .......................... 147 MRS. CUMMINGS ....................... 148 Introduction ....................... 149 The Early Work ...................... 149 Commentary ...................... 152 Helping Mrs. Cummings Change Direction .......... 153 Commentary ...................... 155 Too Much Help Spoils a Good Thing? ............ 155 Commentary ...................... 158 March and April ...................... 159 Commentary ...................... 160 The Interview: What Motivated Mrs. Cummings ....... 160 April 20 ....................... 16O Commentary ...................... 165 June 14 ....................... 166 Summary .......................... 169 viii MRS. ROETHKE ....................... 171 Introduction ....................... 172 A Lengthy Consultation--the First Half .......... 172 Commentary ...................... 175 The January 12 Consultation: The Second Half ....... 176 Commentary ...................... 178 The Second Consultation .................. 180 Commentary ...................... 182 Consultation, February 2 ................. 183 Commentary ...................... 185 Consultation, February 16 ................. 187 Commentary ...................... 189 February 23: Mrs. Roethke Becomes Tired ......... 191 Commentary ...................... 192 A March 1 Recap: Curricula Implemented by Mrs{ Roethke . . 192 Commentary ...................... 193 The Balance of the School Year .............. 193 Commentary ...................... 195 The First Interview: April 20 .............. 195 Commentary ...................... 200 The Final Interview: June 9, 1977 ............ 202 Commentary ...................... 204 Summary .......................... 205 MRS. CRANE ........................ 207 Introduction ....................... 208 Mrs. Crane's Classroom .................. 209 An Overview of Mrs. Crane's Instructional Style ...... 210 Commentary ...................... 211 January and February: Observation/Consultation ...... 211 Commentary ...................... 217 The Classroom Meetings .................. 219 3/14/77, 8:35 am ................... 220 8:45 am ....................... 221 3/15/77, 12:45 pm .................. 222 3:30 pm ....................... 223 Commentary ...................... 224 The Remainder of the School Year ............. 225 Commentary ...................... 227 The Interviews: April 21 and June 9 ........... 228 June 9 ........................ 231 Commentary ...................... 235 Summary .......................... 237 CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ........... 239 Introduction ....................... 239 'The Personal and Structural Dynamics of an Indivi- dualized Curriculum Development Process . . . . 242 The Personal Dynamics of Individualized Inservice . . 242 The Structural Dynamics of Individualized Inservice . 252 Findings about the Curriculum Development Process . . 256 ix Preparing Curriculum Development Ideas for Dissemination ................. Research for Teacher Education .............. APPENDICES A. Teacher Corps Social Emotional Education Teacher Observation .............. B. Social Emotional Education Observation Form ...... C. Questionnaire ..................... 0. Calendar of Data Collection Points .......... REFERENCES ........................... 258 259 261 265 267 276 281 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 6.1 Respect: Respect: Respect: Respect: LIST OF TABLES Self Acceptance ................. Acceptance of Others .............. Self-Support .................. Support of Others ................ The Personal, Structural, and Curriculum Dynamics of the Social Emotional Education Inservice ..... xi 78 80 81 82 LIST OF FIGURES 3.1 Data collection sites in Rogers Elementary School ..... 60 4.1 Social emotional education conceptual framework ...... 76 4.2 Social emotional education conceptual framework: respect behaviors--acceptance of affective comfort and discomfort ................ 79 .4,3 Anger is okay--a sequence for teaching about others . . . . 87 4.4 Structure of the inservice program ............ 98 4. 5 A typical weekly schedule ................. 100 xii CHAPTER I THE NEED FOR PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS OF INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION Introduction Past studies of inservice education show that inservice education has been a weak component in teacher education, that more research is needed on inservice effectiveness, and that there is a need to re- search both the process and the content of inservice programs that are attempting to provide a more active role for the teacher in inservice training. This study is a response to those research needs. The overall purpose of this naturalistic study is to describe the content and process of one curriculum development inservice program and to describe the outcomes of the program by studying the interventions made by teacher educators and the responses of the teachers to these interventions. More specifically, the study was undertaken to: 1. describe the structural complexity of an inservice pro- gram with multiple component parts; 2. document the interactions of the individuals involved in the inservice program; 3. describe the process of curriculum development in a non-traditional subject matter area (social emotional education); 4. describe the products of a process designed to change to meet individual needs, different teaching styles, and personalities; and 5. examine the differences that existed across teachers in products/outcomes. The study was conducted in Rogers Elementary School, the site of the Tenth Cycle Teacher Corps Project (MSU and Walden Public Schools, 1975-77).* The group under investigation was the Social Emotional Edu- cation Curriculum Development Team, a group of seven individuals who had been a part of the project for 18 months prior to the beginning of this study. During the six months of the study (January-June, 1977), the investigator observed and recorded teacher educator/teacher plan- ning and teaching related to the development of a social emotional education curriculum. The participants included two teacher educa— tors from Michigan State University (this investigator was one), one Teacher Corps graduate intern, one reading consultant, and three classroom teachers. The inservice program structure within which they worked included three components: (a) a seminar, (b) classroom observations with feedback, and (c) teacher educator/teacher consul- tation. The diversity of activities within the three program components and the many combinations of interactions that occurred within and across each indicated that a variety of data collection tools be used. Among these were extensive audiotaping of seminars and consultations, classroom observations, interviewing, questionnaires, and the collec- tion of teacher-developed products. This study is designed to develop information on inservice edu- cation effectiveness or noneffectiveness that will be helpful to in- service decision makers of the future. It is hoped the study will 13roduce useful information on inservice program process, on teacher ¥ *Names of teachers, teacher educator, school, and district are Pseudonyms . needs, on teacher growth and development, on teacher educator roles and characteristics, and on understanding the perspectives of indivi- duals engaged in developing a curriculum. Background and Problem Statement Policy makers across the nation will shortly be mak— ing decisions about new forms of governance in teacher edu- cation, new methods, the increasing involvement of teachers as trainers and organizers, and, above, all, the development of more effective structures for insuring that the needs of schools, communities, teachers, and children can be met adequately. As policy makers approach these decisions, they will need adequate concepts for analyzing the problems of the area, sufficient data about present practices, and Opinions regarding alternative future practices to guide their thinking (Eldridge & Smith, 1976, p. iv). Although policy makers will soon be making decisions, those who consult inservice literature written in the 1970s will find that (a) inservice training has been a weak component in teacher education; (b) inservice activities have placed teachers in a passive, information-gathering role; (c) research on inservice effectiveness is scarce; and (d) there is a need to research the process as well as the content of programs that are attempting to provide an active role for teachers in inservice training. Edelfelt and Lawrence (1975) assert ”in-service education has been the weakest and most haphazard component of teacher education” (p. 16). Yarger (1976) agrees and sees the problem being that "inservice program development appears to be the bastard child of public and higher educa- tion. No institutional structure will either claim or accept primary responsibility for this endeavor." He goes on to say: The unwanted child called inservice education has suf- fered in the meantime. It has been fairly well documented that financial support for the continuing development of professional educators is practically nil, save the re- sources that educators themselves invest in their own edu- cation (pp. 6-7). The personal investment by teachers is cited by other writers in the field. Bhaerman (1976) says: In-service education all too often has meant indivi- dual effort at professional advancement (according to standards set by outside agencies) or the provision of a few scattered days throughout the year when a consultant (often uninformed as to the staff's priority needs within the peculiar characteristics of a school's curriculum) makes a one-shot effort soon lost in the maze of daily routine (p. 139). Edelfelt and Lawrence (1975) found that ”most school systems give rela- tively low priority to in-service programs. The largest number of programs did not take place during the regular school day and were not a part of a teaching assignment" (p. 16). Further, In-service education takes place on the teacher's own time and frequently at her or his expense. It is seldom based on teacher need and is often conducted in a manner that negates the principles of good teaching and learning p. 14 . Cogan (1975), writing in the NSSE yearbook on teacher education, agrees “most in-service education requires the teacher to put in a great deal of nonreimbursed time after school. The in-service program comes out of the teacher's hide" (p. 217). Writers in the field of inservice education are in agreement about the outcomes of such haphazard inservice. Joyce, Howey, and Yarger (1976), in a five-part report on inservice, found "a frequent complaint in the literature, interviews and position papers was that training was irrelevant to teachers' needs and jobs" (p. 18). Rubin (1976) likens inservice education to a kind of massive spectator sport and says the outcomes of retraining are poor. Cogan (1975) says, . . . the dollar inputs, the expertise, and the time deployed in these efforts are almost universally insuffi- cient to spark genuine professional gains among teachers. In-service programs therefore often have more form than content and too often represent a poor use of scarce re- sources and a waste of teachers' time and efforts (p. 220). Joyce, Howeygand Yarger (1976) said "we are led to the unnerving con- clusion that one of the largest training enterprises in the United States is an incredible failure" (p. 2). In that same study Joyce et a1. discussed the content of past in- service and concluded that typical inservice activities have placed the teacher in a passive role. They labeled these activities "information gathering." These activities include taking college classes, sitting on curriculum committees, attending conventions or reading journals. Programs that deviate from the information gathering stance and stress the active utilization of information and the practice of techniques with feedback are rare. This is unfortunate because,as Bhaerman (1976) points out, traditional inservice courses "have a negligible effect on " (p. 139). He goes on to say more optimis— teachers' classroom lives tically that "the educational community as a whole is coming gradually to realize that teachers must be involved in planning and implementing their own growth programs" (p. 139). Edelfelt, in a 1977 look at cri- teria for local inservice programs, agrees: The teaching force itself is a significant new vari- able. Turnover has been reduced, more teachers view their occupation as a career rather than as a stepping-stone, and average age and levels of experience are increasing. Teachers therefore have a significant vested interest in the quality of program and in their involvement in design and implementation of program (p. 5). Br0phy and Good (1974), in the preface to Teacher-Student Rela- Igjgnships: Causes and Consequences, state that in most instances of what they labeled "poor teaching" and inapprOpriate behavior which might seem to be malicious, the teachers did not do them deliberately or even consciously. They seem to stem from inadequate training, con- ditioned bad habits or a lack of systems for giving teachers feedback and helping them change inappropriate behavior. Knoblock and Goldstein (1971), in The Lonely Teacher, state that, while they did not always agree with certain teachers' philosophies or feel kindly toward their teaching styles, they nevertheless found relatively few teachers who were not genuinely concerned with the children in their classrooms. If it can be assumed that most teachers do care about their interactions with children and would be Open to changing their behavior, then it is important to find out what inservice programs can do to facilitate this professional growth. Nicholson and Joyce (1976) conducted an analytical review of the research literature on inservice and found that very little solid research is available, and what exists is not very useful (p. 16). McDonald (1976) agrees that there is not a substantial body of data about the effects of inservice programs (p. 1). Edelfelt and Lawrence (1975) believe that this deplorable situation exists not by choice but rather by neglect as their research shows school systems have given research on inservice a low priority. While research data on inservice are scarce, a comprehensive review conducted by Lawrence and others (1974) does provide direc— tion for designing more effective inservice programs. After developing a working definition for inservice programs and includ- ing only those studies that had an evaluation component, they found 97 studies that fit this criterion. An analysis of these studies yielded seven attributes associated with effective inservice programs. Briefly stated, these attributes are (a) the program is school based, (b) teachers are involved in planning, (c) training experiences are in- dividualized, (d) teachers are placed in an active role generating ma- terials, (e) demonstrations with supervised trials and feedback are emphasized, (f) teachers are encouraged to share and help each other, and (9) opportunities are provided for teachers to choose goals and ac- tivities for themselves. Studies of inservice programs that have these attributes of effec- tiveness are needed. McDonald (1976) says it is wasteful to research poorly designed inservices just to demonstrate that they were poorly designed (p. 4). The design of these studies needs to be expanded to include descriptions of process as well as content. Nicholson and Joyce (1976) drew this conclusion about the nature of inservice educa- tion research: . the literature has been concerned almost entirely with asking the question of what is there in new programs to the virtual exclusion of askififi’hhy_or h9w_programs succeed or fail. In other words, the process of inservice education has been neglected in the research literature in favor of the content of inservice education (p. 20). Further, Fuller and Bown (1975) in "Becoming a Teacher," a chapter in the NSSE Yearbook Teacher Education, state that "almost nothing is known about teacher education as an intervention" (p. 52). They sug- gest that the appr0priate research question is not "Does teacher educa- tion do any good?" but, rather, "Which interventions by which inter- veners in what contexts elicit what responses from which subjects?" (p. 26). Past inservice training has not met teacher needs, has been a low priority in school systems, and has not been adequately researched. The vast amount of data regarding the ineffectiveness of past inservice education makes research into inservice effectiveness especially impor- tant. The primary focus of this study is to describe and discover what the curriculum development team did. It is assumed that what exists in the data is a complex set of interrelationships which must be behavior- ally described and then sorted. Brandt (1972), in Studying Behavior in Natural Settings, says it is the field investigator's purpose to "dis- cover the precise status of existing phenomena and determine which variables are associated with each other” (p. 5). It is his/her task to "unravel this real world and identify the behavioral patterns occur- ring within it" (p. 9). Another focus of the study is to look at the responses teachers make to teacher educator interventions. It would seem reasonable that from the bulk of behavioral data, it would be pos- sible to make inferences about which practices are effective and which are not. These would provide the basis for generating hypotheses about effective inservice. A concern of this investigator was to conduct a study whose data and conclusions would be of use to teacher educators and teachers working in the field. Teachers, according to Fuller and Bown (1975), do not consider research to be their friend. Findings are often difficult to interpret and are not viewed as applicable to the classroom experience. Also, the research reports tend to be unflattering to the teacher and are not "consistent with the teacher's convictions" (p. 34). Hence, research has little or no impact on many practicing teachers. In addition, teachers are victims of continually changing theories in education. Research tells them what they are doing wrong and every- thing they should be doing to make their behavior "right" but offers no information on "how" to make it right. The result is a teacher atti- tude of cynicism and hostility toward the so-called experts and a general skepticism about reforms and innovations. If Fuller and Bown are correct, it seems important to look at what the consequences of this attitude might be (a) to teacher educa- tors and teachers engaged in inservice work and (b) to anyone conduct- ing field research. It would seem that an attitude and set of expecta- tions are already present that set up an immediate dichotomy between teacher educators and teachers. Teacher educators, university affili- ated and with the goals of effecting changes in teacher behavior, could be viewed by teachers as "you experts from the ivory tower who are here to tell us what is wrong with us." It seems that in this situation, the potential for defensiveness and resistance with some misunderstand- ing would be quite high. When not successful, it would seem an easy trap for the teacher educator also to turn cynical and negative in their view of teachers-~a trap which would only feed a negative cycle of blaming and hostility. It is because of this historical problem that this investigator wanted to conduct a study that would explore some of this reality, for both teachers and teacher educators. A main emphasis of the study was 'to find out what the teacher educators and teachers were experiencing 10 and perceiving by collecting behavioral data that would reflect and be consistent with the participants' reality and yield a description of their perspectives. Br0phy and Good (1974) advocate studying teachers in their natural setting even though "this research is difficult to conduct and does not allow for the kind of precise controls that are possible in the labora- tory" and even though this means "frequently using unorthodox design and sacrificing experimental control" (p. ix). Further, Brandt (1972) asserts that "naturalistic observation in the field situation can con- tinue to make a lasting impact especially by serving to help generate hypotheses" (p. 2). Fuller and Bown (1975) cite Geraldine Clifford who observes that the past research perspective has been that of the "great statesmen of education" and better information might be gained from direct reports from teachers and students. Knoblock and Goldstein (1971) support this view. It is their belief that "teachers' perceptions and relationships with others should be the units of study" (p. 1) even though precision, objectivity, and quantifiable data are reduced. The benefit of this approach is to be able to describe the extent of teacher concern and affect. Knoblock and Goldstein (1971) note that data exist on teacher behaviors such as lecturing, questioning, criticizing, etc., but they suggest that it would be a serious mistake not to pose the question, "Is that how teachers really want to behave?" (pp. 1—2). Furthen they point out that currently much has been written criticizing schools, education in general, and teachers, pointing out with anger the de- structiveness in school climates and the impact this has on children. They say that when there is a decided focus on the external school 11 environment and its impact on children and teachers, it is easy to ignore what is going on inside the teachers. To remedy what has been lacking in past research, Fuller and Bown (1975) suggest that researchers concentrate on exploring the "life space" of the teacher in order to better understand what motivates them. They further state that if this life space were understood, it could be changed for the pupils' benefit. Exploring the life space of the participants in one inservice program is what this study attempts to do. This investigator believes that an investigation of the life space of educators involved in an inservice program will yield valuable in- formation on the process of professional growth and development. Since the inservice program that is the subject of this study had as its fo- cus curriculum development, some might conclude that the presence of a curricular product would indicate a successful program. This investi- gator, however, believes that evidence of a curricular product is not enough. In order to meet the need of providing relevant and meaningful inservice for teachers in the future, teacher educators and teachers need to understand the process that led to that product. Describing that process is the goal of this study. The inservice program chosen for this study is the Social Emotional Education Curriculum Development team of the Tenth Cycle Teacher Corps Project (Michigan State Univer- sity and Walden Public Schools). The Tenth Cycle Teacher Corps Project The Tenth Cycle Teacher Corps Project (1975-1977) was a collabora- tive effort of the Walden School District and Michigan State University 12 The project participants included the entire staff of one elementary school and a team of teacher educators from MSU and four graduate Teacher Corps interns. The focus of the project was the sys- tematic adaptation of research findings on teacher education to the four curricular areas of reading, math, multicultural education, and social emotional education. The project had a major teacher inservice component as well as an aide training component, an exceptional child component, and a community component that brought in the active parti- cipation of many parents. The project was carefully evaluated, and a member of the evaluation team participated in each of the program components. The first year of the project was primarily a developmental ef- fort. An initial developmental team of MSU teacher educators investigated the question, "What are the needs of society as they re- late to the curricular areas of reading, math, multicultural, and so- cial emotional education?" The work of this team was the basis for a Fall, 1975, seminar entitled "Foundations" that all the project parti- cipants attended. Selections from psychology, sociology, and economics were read and discussed by the participants. The purposes were to form a comnon basis for making curricular decisions in the elementary school and for the developmental teams to formulate consistent goals. Beginning hiWinten 1976,the teachers from the participating school chose the curricular areas in which they wanted to specialize. This instruction was spread across four Michigan State terms, concluding in March of 1977. A11 instruction was conducted by Michigan State per- sonneL For those teachers who desired it, MSU graduate credit was available. Through cooperation with an undergraduate teacher training 13 program, EEE (Towards Excellence in Elementary Education), teachers were able to leave their classrooms to attend these curriculum develop- ment seminars. EEE interns taught the teachers' classes while the teachers were in seminar. Teachers attended the seminar twice a week for two hours each session during the 1975-76 school year and for most of the 1976-77 school year. The seminars were held in the teachers' school building. The second year of the project was essentially the same as the first, with the addition of a demonstration component. Toward the end of the school year, educators from other parts of the school district, from MSU.and elsewhere were invited to visit the school to learn about the outcomes of the Tenth Cycle project. These visitors saw audio- visual presentations on the background of the project as well as speci- fics of the curricular area development, received copies of curricula that were developed in these teams,and saw teachers demonstrate class- room lessons illustrating newly acquired skills or curricular adapta- tion. This has been a brief description of the total Teacher Corps Pro- ject. This dissertation is a study of the inservice program that came from one of the curriculum development teams described above--Socia1 Emotional Education. The Social Emotional Education Inservice Program Structurally, the inservice program had three components: (a) a seminar, (b) classroom demonstrations by teachers with observations and feedback, and (c) a consultation support system. The participants in this inservice program were two teacher educators from MSU (this 14 investigator was one), three classroom teachers (kindergarten and two fourth grades), a reading consultant, and one Teacher Corps graduate intern (first and second grade combination). All the activ- ities of this inservice program took place in the elementary school building that was the site of the Tenth Cycle Teacher Corps Project. Potential Significance of the Study This is a study of one inservice program that had as its focus the development of curriculum in social emotional education. The study stems from the apparent need for more information on inservice effec- tiveness. Some factors regarding inservice effectiveness are known. The inservice program that is the focus of this study was designed with these effectiveness factors in mind. Thus, many of the variables being addressed in the research literature to date are present in one inser- vice development program. By describing the process of this inser- vice program, this study will add to our understanding of how complex and individualized, long-term inservice teacher education operates and what kinds of effects this type of intervention produces. The data from this study should provide needed information on the process of teacher training. Information on teacher educators and teacher interactions as well as on what teachers need in order to engage in a change and develOpment process is needed. More needs to be known about the process of helping teachers grow, such as what support systems are needed so that the growth remains after the inser- vice is concluded. The data should point to training procedures, teacher educator roles, and characteristics that would be helpful to teacher educators who want to make a difference with teachers. 15 Another potential outcome of this study would be an understand- ing of the perspective of teachers and teacher educators engaged in the curriculum development process. An understanding of these per- spectives might bring some clarity on what is needed in terms of time and energy invested in order to yield desired outcomes in develop- mental work. This inservice program was a collaborative effort between univer- sity personnel and teachers in the field. This study should add in- formation to understand what interactions make up a cooperative pro- cess and what is required to make it truly collaborative. Finally, the data should yield information on a non-traditional curricular area--social emotional education. Describing the history of inservice education in the United States, examining the legacy of that history, exploring what is cur- rently known about inservice effectiveness, and discussing a growth and change model and what is required of teacher educators to facili- tate change are the t0pics of Chapter II, a review of the literature on inservice education. CHAPTER II INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This review of the literature looks at inservice as a medium for teacher behavior change. This study was designed to examine the struc- ture of one inservice program that had as its goal the development of curriculum. The intent of the program developers was to depart from ineffective inservice practices of the past while incorporating what is currently known about inservice effectiveness. This review will de- scribe inservice education of the past and present. The first part of the chapter examines what is known about past inservice and its histor- ical legacy. The second part of the chapter describes what is cur- rently known about inservice effectiveness and what inservice critics recommend for improving it. Conditions needed for teacher growth and development are discussed and a model for planned change is presented. The chapter concludes with a discussion of assumptions about teachers and teacher educator characteristics and roles that the literature sug- gests would be helpful in promoting teacher growth as well as in im- proving inservice education. 16 17 History of Inservice Education in the United States--the Past 130 Years A Chronological Overview of Inservice Education The history of inservice education can be viewed two ways: (a) chronologically and (b) conceptually. This review begins with a chronological look at inservice over the past 130 years. The key word that describes past inservice in the United States is "remedial." Throughout its history inservice education's purpose has been to help teachers "catch up" or "fill in gaps." There are some logical reasons for this. First, 130 years ago most teachers had not had any training in how to teach. Many did not have a high school education. The main qualification for being a teacher was that "the person be able to read, write and compute somewhat better than the students" (Edelfelt & Lawrence, 1975, p. 10). During the period between the establishment of state systems of public education and the recovery from the effects of the Civil War, the public schools, on the whole, were staffed by probably the most indifferent, incompetent, and poorly educated teachers in the history of American educa- tion (Richey, 1957, p. 37). Second, the school curriculum as well as teaching were considered stable and fixed. Because the curriculum was so stable, the teacher's task was to become a master of what already existed much as an artisan of the times would work to perfect his/her craft. The result was that inservice did not attempt to teach anything new. Inservice, usually in the form of a two- or three-day summer institute, tried to help teachers "bridge the gap between what they were expected to know and do and what were in fact their level of knowledge and their teaching competencies" (Tyler, 1971, p. 6). 18 The period 1850-1880 saw heavy immigration to the United States, followed by social change, industrial expansion, and a growing middle class. This meant education needed to change to meet the needs of a changing society. Education became open to many new people, not just a select few. The U.S. commitment to universal literacy placed a finan- cial and intellectual burden on the educational system as education was made available to more children. This "left teachers embarrassingly in- adequate to instruct the youth of a social order that was maturing" (Richey, 1951, p. 64). Again, inservice focused on helping teachers catch up. From 1880 until World War I, inservice education was forward look- ing and designed to help teachers broaden their thinking. Inservice took place in the normal schools that were later to become teachers colleges. Old assumptions about education were questioned. Educators began to examine individual differences among students and put forth ideas on individualizing instruction. "This was a period of question- ing, promotion of new ideas, recognition of new educational problems and introduction of new subjects into the curriculum" (Tyler, 1971, p. 10). Inservice helped teachers cope with the educational changes brought about in response to a changing society. After the First World War and through the Depression years, this growth was cut off, and there was a return to inservice as remediation. This occurred because, in order to improve the quality of teaching, a Bachelor's degree was now required for certification. Over half the U. S. teachers could show only two years of college. Thus, inservice turned to providing courses to fill the missing college requirements. The effect was to move inservice from putting forth new ideas to 19 patching up teachers' academic backgrounds. And, even though the status of teachers and of inservice had improved, "the needs of the poorer teachers tended to set the pattern of inservice education for all" (Richey, 1957, pp. 43-44). Following World War II, inservice was again remedial because there was an acute teacher shortage. Schools were busy trying to find enough people who could be certified to be teachers. Then during the 19505, the first legislation intended to improve the quality of teaching was passed-—legislation for increased credentials. This was followed by the Sputnik era and a belief that the United States was behind in a race with the Soviet Union. All of these factors con- tributed to inservice designed to remediate or catch up. The past 10-20 years have seen inservice designed to deal with national educational efforts such as implementation of curriculum pro- jects, dealing with desegregation, educating the disadvantaged, and mainstreaming. Currently, inservice must address the needs of an edu- cational staff that is more stable due to the dwindling pupil enroll- ment and the resultant difficulty of finding another teaching position. During the past 150 years, the United States' educational system has undergone major changes as the country has expanded. Education has had to change to accommodate an economy that switched from an agrarian base to an industrial base and a population that grew through heavy im- migration by pe0p1e from many lands. Education of a select few became education for anyone. A teacherlvith barely a high school education was expected to have a Bachelor's degree for certification. Many of these changes were unforeseen by educators, and the result was inser- vice programs designed to help teachers "catch up" or fill in 20 deficiencies. These historical factors left a legacy of principles about teaching, learning, and schooling that continue to influence inservice education today. Principles That Shape Inservice Today Edelfelt and Lawrence (1975), in an historical analysis of in- service, identify 12 principles that have historically shaped in- service education. They are: 1. 10. The primary role of the school is the giving and re- ceiving of information. Learning is the receiving of information to be stored and used later. Curriculum and teaching are relatively fixed elements in the school. The main business of teacher education is the quest for mastery of some relatively stable subject mat- ters and methods of teaching. Inservice education is training that is designed, planned, and conducted for the teacher by persons in authority. The central purpose of inservice education is the remediation of teachers' deficiencies in subject matter. Leadership is "direction from above,” and motiva- tion is "direction from outside." Supervision is diagnosis, prescription, modeling, inspection, and rating. Teacher education in teacher preparation institu- tions and teacher education in schools are separate and discontinuous processes. Intellectual leadership in goal setting and planning for inservice education appropriately comes from outside the school. 21 11. The teacher is a solo practitioner (rather than a group member involved in cooperative planning of common goals and related actions). 12. Prescriptive legislation is an appropriate vehicle for improving the quality of teaching standards (p. 9). If one reflects on the history of inservice, it is easy to see how these concepts arose: teachers were ill prepared to teach subject matter; impetus for improvement consistently came from persons above the teachers or outside teaching, e.g., legislators; the curriculum was relatively stable for much of the nineteenth century; teaching was viewed as a craft like those of other artisans; and the school prin- cipal was considered the supervisor in charge. However, the legacy contained in these HZprinciples remains today Teacher passivity as information receiver via lecture during inservice (Joyce et al., 1976, p. 20) is part of this legacygas are these beliefs: (a) teachers are dependent on outside experts, (b) inservice is an obligation, and (c) school people are too busy to plan their own inservice. Edelfelt and Lawrence (1975) say: Inservice education today bears a close resemblance to the concepts that have shaped it historically. It is usually required of teachers. Content and approach are prescribed by universities and school districts. Course credits are mandated by state department regulations and school district policies. Although intentions have us— ually been good, too often programs are low level, piece- meal, and patchwork (p.14). Today's inservice is still required, still prescribed by outsiders and, in some cases, still prompted by a desire to obtain legislated creden- tials. Other writers in the field of inservice education agree. In the literature on inservice education, there is almost unani- mous agreement that inservice education is in desperate need of 22 improvement. In 1967 Don Davies made what is probably the strongest indictment of inservice education. He said, "In-service teacher train- ing is the slum of American education-~disadvantaged, poverty-stricken, neglected, psychologically isolated, whittled with exploitation, and broken promises, and conflict" (in Rubin, 1971, p. 38). Joyce et a1. (1976), in a five-part comprehensive study of inservice education, con- cluded that "our largest training enterprise is a failure” (p. 2). Other writers use descriptors such as haphazard, sporadic, and irrele- vant. Allen (1971), in reflecting on the shaping of inservice his- torically, called inservice training a disgrace. Jackson (1971) sees the inadequacy of inservice education rooted in what he calls the "defect" approach to inservice. The defect ap- proach to inservice makes four assumptions: (a) "something is wrong with the way practicing teachers now operate and the purpose of inser- vice training is to set them straight" (p. 21), (b) an outsider knows what is best for the teacher and knows what constitutes appropriate teaching behavior, (c) an outsider has a prescription for the teacher's weakness, and (d) the teacher should be a passive receiver of this pre- scription. In many ways the defect position partakes of one of the most enduring of all conceptions of the educational process. It is the one in which the student is seen as essentially helpless and the teacher is omniscient; only in this case the teacher himself is in the role of student and his all- knowing guide is the designer of the in-service program (Jackson, 1971, p. 25). Bush (1971) seems to agree in his discussion of a misconception that he believes must be routed from inservice education, namely that "in- service education is something that an 'expert' does to a 'non-expert'" (p. 60). Reflecting on experts, a writer for the National Education 23 Association (1976) says, "American teachers are the only general prac- titioners in any profession who are constantly being directly impinged upon by 'experts' without their prior consent. Imposition of programs upon teachers thwarts intrinsic motivation and inhibits education (p. 148). Finally, an outside expert teaching to teacher weakness runs the risk of being perceived as patronizing and of making a self-fulfilling prophecy. Another problem that Jackson sees with inservice education is that the inservice planners' view of teaching has been too limited. He says there has been a tendency to define teaching as what happens when the teacher and students are in the same room interacting with one another. This conception of teaching ignores teacher planning, decision making, and looking at projected consequences of behavior as legitimate con- cerns for inservice. Jackson believes that this "molecular” defini- tion of teaching leads to too many "how to do it” inservices that ig- nore a broader definition of teaching, specify correction of teacher weakness, and perpetuate the "defect" approach. Perhaps the largest problem of inservice education has been its failure to provide educational experiences that teachers perceive as relevant to their needs. Allen (1971) says, A persistent source of difficulties in much in-service work has been the extent to which the training is removed, both physically and intellectually, from the classroom en- vironment. Further, the source and setting of in-service edgpation evoke significant aversion in most teachers (p. Bussis, Chittenden, and Amarel (1976), in their presentation of data gathered from extensive teacher interviews, support Allen and an obser- vation originally made by Sarason that teachers do not see the 24 relevance of inservice coursework to their daily work in the classroom. "With a few notable exceptions (most academic courses) are not con- sidered very relevant or nourishing to life in the classroom" (p. 27). Edelfelt (1975) says that inservice has been given a low priority by school systems, both in design and evaluation, and has been the weakest component in education. It is important to note, however, that while he believes the situation is deplorable, it exists not by design but by neglect. This history of inservice education and its legacy for the present day seems harsh and bleak. At the very least it makes present inser- vice practices more understandable. Rather than stop with an indict- ment of inservice, this review will proceed with the goal of looking at what can be learned from this legacy and what is known about inser- vice effectiveness. Recommendations of the Inservice Critics The educators who have been outspoken about the inadequacies of inservice have a wide range of recommendations on how to improve it. These suggestions include changes in roles, format, structure, and management style. The role changes include asking the teacher educa- tor to change from the posture of an expert to that of a collaborator and for the teacher to change from passive recipient to active partici- pant. Further, they suggest that teacher educators become more flex- ible, individualize instruction, and especially involve teachers in planning the inservice. In terms of format and structure, the critics suggest more inservice be conducted at the teachers' schools instead of at the university and that instruction consist of less lecturing and 25 more supervised practice. Feedback on supervised practice should come from peers and the teachers themselves as well as from teacher educa— tors. Clark (1976) calls for teachers to become researchers of their own teaching effectiveness. Bush (1971) has what appears to be a simple prescription for re- forming inservice education: "treat the teacher as a professionally competent person" (p. 37). This prescription would seem to be the opposite of the "defect” approach. Jackson (1971) advocates the "growth" approach to inservice: assume that the teacher is fine, that no one person can know everything about teaching, and that inservice is for the facilitation of normal growth. Beyond viewing the teacher as a competent professional, the cri- tics are uniform in their desire to see inservice education become more relevant to teachers by basing inservice on teacher-expressed needs. In 1971, Tyler was speculating on inservice of the future, and he said it would have to be designed to help teachers assess their problems, set goals, make plans, and evaluate their progress. Further, he said that "shaping" of teacher behavior by outsiders would have to end and be substituted with ”aiding, supporting, and encouraging each teacher's development of teaching capabilities that he values and seeks to en- hance" (p. 15). Bush (1971) concurs that "the teacher should have a fundamental voice in determining his in-service training program" (p. 59). Further, he says teachers should take an active role in teaching one another and that, instead of inservice's being something an expert does to a nonexpert, it should be "teachers working together to ad- vance their own 'expertness'" (p. 60). Finally, Jackson (1971), con- sistent with the "growth" approach, said that inservice should help the 26 teacher be sensitive to what is happening in his/her classroom and be directed toward helping him/her improve whatever s/he chooses. He said successful teaching would stem from an individual's desire for mastery rather than from some collection of techniques. Writers in the field of inservice education seem unanimous in their belief that improved inservice means programs designed to meet teachers' needs. ,Most programs by definition imply they are designed to promote some change in the teachers. The writers are again clear that the programs are going to have to model the types of changes they wish to see. Joyce et a1. (1976) said, Inservice should model the kind of educational situation teachers and others receiving training will be expected to create in their own classrooms and the types of relation- ships they will be expected to maintain with the children they teach. The reason for this is not simply consistency. It reflects also the belief that the best way to teach pro- cess is to model it (p. 23). Joyce is suggesting that a program must model not just content as in the past but also process and relationships. Fuller and Bown (1975) believe that teacher satisfaction with their education would be greater as would their learnings if the content related to their needs. But, say Fuller and Bown, "Even more important may be the modeling involved. Teachers may be more likely to consider the motivations of pupils if it is apparent to them that, in their own training, their own needs were considered" (pp. 39-40). Another point on which the writers seem in agreement is the time during which inservice programs ought to be held. In Chapter I it was pointed out that most inservice was held after school hours when teach- ers are tired and often at the teachers' own expense. Mai (1977), Devaney (1977), and Cogan (1975) are all in agreement that inservice 27 should be on the job, but for different reasons. Mai believes that if a teacher's needs to grow are met on the job, the teacher will be more likely to try new behaviors (p. 123). Devaney believes that inservice held during the school day with released time for teachers would be an incentive stronger than salary advancement and would lift the morale of teachers. Cogan supports inservice on the job for a a slightly dif- ferent reason. He believes that inservice programs must blend theory, research and practice; and inservice on the job would mean more con- tinuity because inservice would be encountered in coordinated incre- ments rather than as isolated episodes. Inservice critics seem to be advocating changes in inservice edu- cation that would (a) move inservice closer to the teachers' home base, (b) would give the teachers a more collaborative and active role in inservice program planning and implementation, (c) be based on teacher needs, and (d) would model what is being taught. What the Inservice Research Literature Says about Inservice Effectiveness This literature review has thus far summarized the history of inservice in the United States, described some inservice inadequacies that are an apparent legacy of this past, and presented some of the critics' suggestions for improving inservice in the future. While research data on inservice are scarce, a comprehensive review was conducted by Lawrence and his associates in 1974, and this review does provide direction for designing more effective inservice programs. After developing a working definition for inservice programs and including only those studies that had an evaluation com- ponent, Lawrence et al. found 97 studies that fit this criterion. An 28 analysis of the findings of these 97 studies yielded several attri- butes associated with inservice effectiveness. Among these were: 1. School based inservice programs concerned with complex teacher behaviors tend to have greater success in ac- complishing their objectives than do college-based pro- grams dealing with complex behaviors (p. 8). Teacher attitudes are more likely to be influenced in school-based than in college-based inservice programs (p. 9). School-based programs in which teachers participate as helpers to each other and planners of inservice activi- ties tend to have greater success in accomplishing their objectives than do programs which are conducted by college or other outside personnel without the as- sistance of teachers (p. 11). School-based inservice programs that emphasize self- instruction by teachers have a strong record of effec- tiveness (p. 12). Inservice education programs that have differentiated training experiences for different teachers (that is "individualized") are more likely to accomplish their objectives than are programs that have common activi- ties for all participants (p. 14). Inservice education programs that place the teacher in (an) active role (constructing and generating ma- terials, ideas and behavior) are more likely to ac- complish their objectives than are programs that place the teacher in a receptive role (accepting ideas and behavior prescriptions not of his or her own making) (p. 14). Inservice education programs that emphasize demon- strations, supervised trials and feedback are more likely to accomplish their goals than are programs in which the teachers are expected to store up ideas and behavior prescriptions for a future time (p. 14). Inservice education programs in which teachers share and provide mutual assistance to each other are more likely to accomplish their objectives than are pro- grams in which each teacher does separate work (p. 15 . Teachers are more likely to benefit from inservice education activities that are linked to a general effort of the school than they are from "single 29 shot" programs that are not part of a general staff de- velopment plan (p. 15). 10. Teachers are more likely to benefit from inservice pro- grams in which they can choose goals and activities for themselves, as contrasted with programs in which the goals and activities are preplanned (p. 15). 11. Self-initiated and self-directed training activities are seldom used in inservice education programs, but this pattern is associated with successful accomplish- ment of program goals (p. 15). Several themes emerge in these eleven atrributes of effective inservice that contrast with the concepts that have formed inservice histor- ically: inservice is school-based versus university based, teachers are in an active role versus passive receivers, and an emphasis is on collegiality versus isolation. Lawrence (1974) summed it as follows: The message in the findings seems clear: the inservice programs that have the best chance of being effective are those that involve teachers in planning and managing their own professional development activities, pursuing personal and collective objectives,sharing, applying new learnings and receiving feedback (p. 17). Finally, Lawrence notes that items 5-11 are seven desirable program features. "Programs that were classified as incorporating four or more of the seven features have a strong record of accomplishing their ob- jectives" (p. 17). The inservice program that is the subject of this study was designed to incorporate all seven. It seems clear then that effective inservice programs will take place in the schools and will emphasize an active role on the part of the teacher. This is a radical departure from past inservice practices and will necessitate some major changes on the part of the inservice participants. Since this is a study of a collaborative inservice ef- fort between university and school-based personnel, this literature review will look at the behavior change process and some of the roles 3D and behavioral characteristics of the participants that might contri- bute to the success of this new form of inservice. A Model for Planned Change Schein (1972) in Professional Education: Some New Directions pre- sents a three-step model for planned change that is an extension of a model developed by Lewin in the 19405. The model consistscrfthree stages: (a) unfreezing, (b) changing, and (c) refreezing, as follows: Stage 1: Stage 2: Stage 3: Unfreezing: Mechanisms: Changing: Mechanisms: Refreezing: Mechanisms: Creation of the motivation to change (1) lack of confirmation or disconfirmation of present beliefs, attitudes, values or behavior patterns (2) induction of "guilt anxiety" by comparison of actual with ideal states (3) creation of psychological safety by the re- duction of threats or removal of barriers to change Developing new beliefs, attitudes, values and behavior patterns on the basis of new informa- tion obtained and cognitive redefinition (1) identification with a particular source of information and redefinition through perceiving things as the source perceives them (2) scanning multiple sources of information and redefinition through new integration of information Stablizing and integrating new beliefs, atti- tudes, values and behavior patterns into the rest of the system (1) integrating new responses into the total personality or culture (2) integrating new responses into ongoing sig- nificant relationships and into total social system through reconfirmation by significant others 31 For Stage 1 to occur, there must be a balance between the forces bring- ing dissonance and the forces creating safety. Schein says it is ab- solutely crucial to remember that . no matter how much pressure is put on a person or social system to change through disconformation and the induction of guilt- -anxiety, no change will occur unless the members of the system feel it is safe to give up the old responses and learn something new (p. 77). Once the unfreezing process has begun, the individual seeking to change is motivated to take in new information. Schein describes two ways in which the individual will seek to change: (a) s/he will seek a model with which to identify, or (b) s/he will scan all the information and select only those ideas that bestfjtzhim/herselfi The second process will take longer but Hsmore likely to be refrozen. If the change agent (inservice giver) has any doubts about how well the innovations s/he is encouraging will fit into the culture s/he is working in, it would be wise to encourage the second process. That waytfimateacher would have chosen to change in ways that are congruent with herself and would thus be prone to hold onto those changes even in a non-supportive environment. Refreezing involves two basically different but equally important components. Whatever new response is attempted, it must fit into the total personality of the individual attempting it, and it must fit sufficiently into the culture of which that person is a member to be confirmed and reinforced by others (p. 81). In summary, for change to occur, there must first be a stage of un- freezing in which an individual is motivated to change by a balance of pressure/dissonance with psychological safety. In the changing stage the individual may choose to adopt innovations/models developed else- where or may choose to invent his/her own solutions. Finally, for the change to be permanent and refreeze the change must be 32 congruent with the personality of the individual changing as well as with the system in which the person works. Schein points out that per- manent change within teachers is difficult to achieve because the teaching profession has norms of autonomy and individuals are not likely to be supportive of others' changes, especially when the changes are not congruent with one's personal style. Schein in discussing this process uses the word "change." Some writers in the field of inservice prefer to use the words teacher growth and development. Katz (1977) says that the inservice giver's responsibility is . . helping the learner to develop rather than just change. Change is easy, and can be achieved quickly: point a gun at someone and you can make his behavior change! But leave the room, and after 30 minutes, what endures? The focus on development implies attention to questions of t1m1ng over the longer course; of modify- ing, refining, and differentiating understandings of phenomena which are important to the learner (P. 33). Feiman (1977) agrees and says that for teachers to make continued growth they need . time, motivation, and the tools to conceptualize their experiences and translate them into personal meaning which change their beliefs and their teaching behavior. Both humanists and developmentalists agree that teachers must be allowed to begin at their own beginnings, draw on thpir personal strengths, and learn at their own pace (p. 94 . This, then, is a change process of growth and development that is slow and clearly individualized. The process begins at whatever stage the teacher currently is and seeks to help him/her move toward the goals s/he chooses at a pace that is comfortable for him/her. This litera- ture review will later take a look at what forms of support and teacher 33 educator behavior andneeded to support this lengthy growth and develop- ment process. This growth and development process may be slow and evolutionary and require understanding and patience on the part of the inservice providers, the teacher educators. To understand what will aid this process, the literature review will now turn to describing some assump- tions about teachers, teachers' needs, and teacher educator roles that would seem to enhance the teacher growth process. Assumptions about Teachers Earlier in this review, it was pointed out that teachereducators taking an expert role and diagnosing teacher weakness might be per- ceived as patronizing by the teachers and might actuallyperpetuate teacher weakness. The assumptions about teachers that facilitate growth begin with a view of teachers that is the opposite of this "de- fect" approach. The first assumption is one stated by Theodore Manolakes (1977) which is, "Teachers are very much concerned about im- proving their teaching and they will do so provided proper support con- ditions exist" (p. 103). This is a beginning then to approaching the teacher as someone who is not defective and, moreover, is willing to learn and grow. A second assumption made by Manolakes is that the teacher is in control of his/her learning and will take from a support system whatever s/he believes is helpful at any given time. This as- sumption places the teacher in a position of being responsible for his/her own growth. This then is in contrast to what Bush described as inservice as something an expert does to a nonexpert. Here, the teacher is placed in the controlling position and becomes his/her own 34 expert. A third assumption is that the teacher is the "core and heart of the instructional program" (Manolakes, 1977, p. 103). This assump- tion leads to an inservice program that is not based on the presenta- tion to teachers of an outside and prepackaged program, but rather begins with the teacher and assumes the teacher will be able to develop sound programs that are consistent with the needs of the system and individuals with whom s/he works. This assumption leads to a belief that teachers are ready to learn to take "increased responsibility for curriculum decisions" (Devaney, 1977, p. 162) as opposed to merely re- ceived skills training. Rubin (1976) supports this in his belief that teachers must ultimately be "self-sufficient in solving their own in- structional problems. The teacher must know both EDEE to do and ppy_to do it" (p. 126). In summary, assumptions about teachers that would seem to facilitate teacher growth are the assumptions that (a) teachers want to improve their teaching and will do so if supported, (b) teach- ers are in control of their own growth, and (c) teachers are the core of an instructional program. Assumptions about Working with Teachers These assumptions relate to the growth process mentioned before and bear repeating. The first assumption about teaching teachers was stated earlier in a quote from Joyce about modeling the process that teacher educators want teachers to learn. Katz (1977) supports Joyce: "The way we teach teachers should be congruent in many basic aspects to the way we want them to teach children" (p. 29). Katz goes on to make another assumption, "We cannot teach anything important to someone we do not know" (p. 30). She says that in working with teachers it is 35 important to get to know the teacher, to encourage the teacher to be clear about any problems or confusions the teacher might be having, i.e., to say "I don't understand." A third assumption relates to teacher growth and change and is stated by Manolakes (1977), "Real growth on the part of people is a generally slow evolution" (p. 104). This means that the teacher educator;in understanding the growth pro- cess, needs to be understanding and patient. Manolakes says that "direct efforts to bring about dramatic changes often result in a cos- metic effect" (p. 104). Further, "The process is continuous, but not even-paced, in terms of when steps are taken. There are periods of high activity, and also periods of assimilation in which little ap- parent movement takes place" (p. 104). This assumption is consistent with the change model developed by Schein. A final assumption is an expansion of what Devaney (1977) said about allowing teachers to begin at their own beginning and proceed at their own pace. She said teach- ers need to draw on their strengths. Here the teacher educator can again be helpful if the teacher educator adopts an attitude of looking for teacher strengths. Devaney says the teacher educator needs to be always alert for seeing what the teacher can do so that this competence can be the foundation for further growth. In summary, assumptions about teaching teachers that would seem to facilitate teacher growth are (a) teacher educators need to model the process they wish teachers to adapt, (b) teacher educators must strive to know their teachers, (c) real growth is slow and a "crash program" will produce only cosmetic effects, (d) growth is not evenly paced, and (e) teachers need to work at their own pace using their strengths as a foundation. 36 Assumptions about What Teachers Need The critics of inservice education were unanimous in their belief that improved inservice must be based on teacher needs. The writers in the field tend to have a great deal to say about what teachers need, and many of these needs would seem to be process needs rather than con- tent needs. What teachers need is to be treated in ways very different from the historical legacy of the past. Briefly, the need to be treated as competent professionals and collaborators; they need warmth and trust; they need to feel that they belong; and they need positive, successful experiences. This review will look at some of these needs more specifically. Fibkins (1977) says teachers need meaningful work. Teachers are no different from other workers. Once they reach a level of economic security, they have a need for more meaningful work, for responsibility, for creativ- ity, for being fair and just, for doing what is worth- while, and doing it well (pp. 49-50). If teachers need meaningfulness in their work, then inservice programs must be designed to provide it. In discussing improving inservice, Joyce et a1. (1976) said: An effective inservice delivery system must match the variety of training with teachers' needs and appropriate staffing. It provides continuousness,or meaninq,in terms of the roles a teacher plays: interfaces that mesh teach- ers' needs with training, incentives to motivate teachers to participate enthusiastically in training, relevant staff, and followup in the classroom. The best delivery systems will be those in which a collegial atmosphere is developed within the school so that teachers continuously study their teaching in ways which meet their needs, con- tinuously reflect on the products of their study, and con- tinuously are providing followup to the study in their own classrooms (pp. 22-23). Joyce is saying a great deal about inservice effectiveness. He is making a case for meaningfulness in programs as well as a collegial 37 atmosphere. Collegiality was a trait the Rand Corporation cited in a study of inservice. Devaney (1977) reports that the Rand Corporation discovered that . . the successful change project incorporated a stance of support for teachers that lowered their defen— siveness against change. The successful projects empha- sized local invention rather than implementation of "validated products" or "planned interventions." From "day one,” these projects were planned with teachers as collaborators rather than targets (p. 21). In other words, teachers need to be in partnership with teacher educa- tors in order to facilitate their own growth. In addition to needing meaningful work and being treated as collaborators,teachers need a supportive environment. Both Knoblock and Goldstein (1971) and Fibkins (1977) discuss at length the isola— tion, alienation, and loneliness that teachers feel. Fibkins notes that human interaction in schools is limited and what interaction does occur "takes place in faculty rooms and staff meetings--usually places not conducive to human contact, and certainly no atmosphere in which to consider renewing one’s self" (p. 50). Knoblock and Goldstein agree that the interactions in staff rooms are "far too often a self perpe- tuation of the angriness and aloneness felt by so many teachers" (p. 12). Further, according to Fibkins, staff room conversations do not allow teachers to get to know one another. In his observations, . . faculty members in schools do not really know "the other"--his interests, hobbies, the lessons he teaches well, the fears he has about losing control with rebellious kids, etc. We sign in in the morning, teach "our kids" and go home. The result of this isolation is boredom and ali- enation (p. 50). Devaney (1977) says teachers need to get away from this isolation and frustration--"they crave warmth" (p. 18). Fibkins (1977) believes that 38 teachers need to feel "part of a group or community they can depend on and contribute to" (pp. 50-51). "People need a community in which free conversation can take place. Community is the group in which I can depend on my fellows to support me" (p. 54) even when there is dis- agreement and conflict. Devaney, in "A New Resource: The Advisor" (1974), says teachers need . . an atmosphere where teachers learn to trust and depend on each other, and unlearn habits of isolation, so that they can give each other courage, praise, rescue, and refreshment, and so they can pool planning, resources, and experience (p. 80). If teachers can belong to a community in which there is giving of "courage and praise," then some teachers would be in a position to be ”getting" something. In the chapter cited above, Devaney quotes Sara- son that the average American teacher has a . nearly constant feeling of being "drained." She is in the position of having to give, give, give all day to children, yet she herself does not gg§_from anyone. To sustain the giving at a high level requires that the teacher experience getting (p. 73). Bettelheim described this process in a talk at Michigan State Univer- sity in 1977 in which he said the teacher had to replenish her "nar- cissistic supplies." Briggs (1975) says one can nurture children best when one is not psychologically starved him/herself. She says, "You nourish from overflow, not from emptiness" (p. 55). Inservice programs need to provide programs that foster an atmosphere of sharing, support, and trust in which teachers can feel safe enough to admit mistakes and in which teachers can be mutually nourishing to one another. Teachers need specific, concrete help in implementing new cur- ricula from the beginning to the end of the change process. A teacher interviewed by Devaney (1977) spoke to this issue: 39 If I am, in fact, going to select appropriate pieces of curriculum to fit my own students, my basic need is to have a variety of resource people whose practical experi- ence I can respect, and the ability to use one of those pepple not in a one-shot workshop, but over time, in as much depth as I am ready for. It takes more than two days or a weekend or a month to put together a curricu- lum. You have to use resources, reflect upon what hap— pens then with kids, and go back and revamp what you're doing (pp. 20-21). This teacher makes several important points. In order to engage in curriculum development, the teacher needs a credible inservice resource who is available over time, and the teacher needs time to think and re- flect. What teachers need is supportive, constructively criti- cal help in importing new ideas to their own classrooms. "Innovation" and "individualization" take time to rethink the students' needs, the subject-matter content, and the teachers' capability (Devaney, 1977, p. 20). Devaney further points out that engaging in curriculum development with teachers and the making of classroom materials is a context in which critical discussion can take place. To have teachers make their own classroom materials is beneficial because they are more likely to possess the capability of being individualized for the teacher as well as for students. In choosing a curriculum item which ad- dresses a specific classroom problem, and then in making the item, there is opportunity for the teacher to learn the content implicit in the material and to formulate her own instructional goals for using the material with chil- dren (p. 154). In summary, teachers need curriculum consultants who can be available over a period of time to assist in critical thinking, curriculum de- velopment, implementation, and rethinking. Revamping and individualiz- ing curriculum to meet specific needs takes thought and time. In addition to the out-of—class support, teachers need in-class support. Cogan (1975) says that teachers require the 4O . continuing support of highly trained clinical supervisors, working with them in class and competent to provide the support the teachers need when they essay new classroom behavior. It is the nature of complex new learning that teachers will neither master nor assimilate them quickly without regressions to more familiar and "safe" procedures. It therefore follows that teachers embarked upon programs of improvement need continuing in-class support and supervisory help to reverse the familiar boom-bust pattern in favor of slow and careful study, testing and selection of promising innovations. Such supervision is bound to be expensive, but could anything be more expensive in human and dollar costs than present practices? (p. 225). Joyce (1976) supports this view. "Teachers need assistance in the form of feedback and collegiality in incorporating new elements received from training into their teaching repertoire” (p. 21). In order for teachers to risk changing teaching behavior, teachers need to find meaning in their work and in their inservice programs. Teachers crave warmth, and they need a supportive environment in which they are treated as professional collaborators. Support tends to lower resistance to change. Support may take the form of personal and inter- personal support and caring. Support may also be in the form of an in-the-classroom teacher educator assisting in the teaching of a new curriculum or in observing and giving feedback. The characteristics of the teacher educator and the roles the teacher educator is able to take will have a strong bearing on whether these teacher needs are met. This review will now examine teacher educator characteristics that would seem to lead to inservice effectiveness. Characteristics of a Helpful Teacher Educator Several characteristics of an effective teacher educator emerge from the literature on inservice education. The attributes of a successij needs. I t'Efi a 53 069:8 8?; Fr:~ 15 Ehh;r~ OP Stile. 1.4 O . tr ‘1. - 4349 3‘ 1' . 'n; he» . I “ 'crfic r. ‘ LI ~‘Ch‘h 41 successful teacher educator emanate from the previously stated teacher needs. For example, if teachers need to be treated in a collegial way, then a successful teacher educator is someone who is able to let go of the role of "expert" and develop a collaborative relationship. The following is a discussion of some of the behavioral characteristics of a teacher educator that would seem associated with meeting teacher needs and effective inservice instruction. From the review so far, it is clear that inservice effectiveness is enhanced when the inservice providers develop programs collabora- tively with teachers, when the teacher educators are knowledgable about the growth and development process and when the program providers model what they purport to teach. The first characteristic of a successful teacher educator is that s/he is able to model consistently what s/he is teaching and that s/he model this in all contexts. Being a model of whatever s/he is teaching is a first step toward establishing trust and credibility with the teachers. A second priority is teacher educator style. Mai (1977) in discussing classroom advisors said that an unob- trusive style was crucial along with "a kind of professional humility with a capacity to put people at ease, while at the same time challeng- ing them to accept real responsibility for their own growth" (p. 129). A large part of helping teachers to become responsible for their own growth is an understanding of the growth and develOpment process. As indicated previously in this review, behavioral change is a slow, evo- lutionary process. Thus, an effective teacher educator must have pa- tience and . an appreciation for the necessity of dormancy in the self— development of professionals. Not everything the advisor works for will happen overnight, and in fact, such , l 42 dramatic "breakthrough" changes are often more noteworthy for their suddenness than their lasting value (pp. 129-30). Three important characteristics of a helping teacher educator that s/he model what s/he teaches, s/he possess the ability to put teachers at ease, and that s/he is patient with and understanding of the slowness of real growth. An important step toward developing a partnership with the teacher and in obtaining credibility is that the teacher educator spend time with the teacher in the classroom "assisting in the classroom routine and chores and joining the teachers' planning sessions so that he gets an authentic feel for the teachers' situations and so that he is not regarded as an expert with a bag of tricks" (Devaney, 1974, p. 83). Further, Devaney quotes Hawkins who says, "You earn the right to tell teachers things when you're there with their kids. Also you're not just talking about what might be nice. When they see you working with their kids they have the living proof" (p. 84). Working with the stu- dents may consist of working with an individual child, working with small groups, or demonstrating a lesson with the whole class (Mai, 1972 p. 126). In other words, the teacher educator does not sit apart from the learning situation, but becomes an integral part of it, becoming intimately knowledgable about the children while willing to work with them in the learning context. Then, when the teacher wants to talk with the teacher educator about "problems," the teacher educator will be able to listen with a keener understanding of what the teacher is saying. The teacher educator as a non-judgmental listener is another im- portant personal characteristic. When the teacher educator is spending 43 time in the classroom, s/he must not be seen as someone who is there to judge or evaluate. Mai (1977) found that the teacher educator must be able to be "a listener who can convey respect; and to do this time is essential" (p. 130) Further, he found that the relationship must be non-threatening, intimate, and sustained. A part of this ability to listen is the teacher educator's willingness to listen to the teacher talk about the small events of the day This gives the teacher educa- tor and teacher a basis for subsequent problem solving because there has been a detailed sharing of classroom events. The ability to listen and encourage sharing is a characteristic that is closely bound with another quality which is the ability to individualize instruction. As Katz indicated earlier in this review, it is important to know one's learner; and when one knows one's learn- er, it is more realistic to individualize. Edelfelt (1975), in a re- view of teacher inservice practices, found that "individualization was frequently a focus of the programs, but it meant adjustments in the pace and sequence of training, not accommodation to the teacher's learning style, personality traits, or teaching style" (p. 16). Truly individualized instruction begins with an intimate knowledge of the learner and with a knowledge of the teacher's beginning point. Devaney (1977) suggests that individualization begins not with just a "needs analysis" and resultant activities because this just leads to activi- ties which do little more than create awareness. What is important is that there be "context for that activity, the connection of that teaching-learning act to the teachers' real world" (p. 20). Then, with a beginning, the teacher educator must have the ability to "look for growing points" from which to build professional skill (Devaney, 1974, 44 p. 71). Sproul (1977), in discussing teacher behavior change and indi- vidualization, said: The changes come from the teachers' own experience, not from a set of imposed guidelines. No matter what happens, these teachers, and many more that I know like them, will never be the same. Someone has cared enough about them as people to join them where they are, and light a small fire from their own humanity and warmth. This is what good teachers always try to do for chil- dren, and it is what almost never happens for teachers. This is what advisory work is all about. It is meant to give teachers the same care and understanding we want for children, non-judgmental support for what is often a lonely task (pp. 120-1). Sproul has indicated that real change will come from within the teach- ers. This change will be facilitated by a teacher educator who is able to join the teacher wherever s/he is and support his/her growth through caring that is nonjudgmental and based on the teachers' willingness to grow and learn. Some of the characteristics of a helpful teacher educator have been discussed. In summary, they are: (a) ability to model what one is teaching, (b) possessing an unobtrusive style, (c) understanding the slowness of an evolutionary growth process, (d) being patient, (e) establishing a partnership with the teacher, (f) working directly in the classroom with the students, (9) being able to listen, (h) truly individualizing instruction based on an intimate knowledge of the learner, and (i) offering sustained, nonjudgmental support. Truly individualized inservice demands that the supportive teacher educator be able to function effectively in a variety of roles. These roles are the topic of the next section of this review. Supportive Teacher Educator Roles The different roles a teacher educator might take actually repre- sent the varying types of support a teacher might need. Devaney (1974) in a discussion of this point, describes the work of Spodek. Spodek has found that teachers want different types of support; and over a period of time, the same teacher may change in the type of help and support she requires. Spodek says: Teachers may be viewed as being made up of various levels. The external levels might include accepted room arrangements, specified texts, classroom materials, etc. Closer to the core come specific instructional strategies . . . Within the core of the teacher are a set of pro- fessional beliefs and values, beliefs about the nature of childhood, the nature of education or schooling, the role of the teachers, and so on. Characteristics in the external layers of the teacher are more responsive to external stimuli or pressures, hence they are easier to change. (For instance, teachers seldom resist reorganiz- ing the physical strucutre of the classroom or creating activity centers.) As we move to deeper layers, greater resistance to change is felt. (It is harder to affect the reading program than the science program.) And characteristics closest to the internal layers of beliefs are even more resistant to change. (It is difficult for many teachers to share real decision-making power with their children.) Understanding the depth of layering of a particular practice might help the advisor to develop more effective strategies for change as well as help him accept resistance and difficulties related to certain kinds of change (Devaney, 1974, p. 94). Spodek called this an onion construct. Helping teachers peel away the layers requires flexibility of roles on the part of the teacher edu- cator. In 1972, Bussis, Amarel, and Chittenden interviewed 64 teachers working on special projects and identified different ways in which these teachers felt supported. They describe these forms of support as follows: 46 Service/Administrative Agent (teacher educator brings or makes materials, acts as a buffer with administration) Extension of Teacher (teacher educator works with children in the classroom, helps teacher make materials) Emotional Stabilizer and Stimulator (teacher educator pro- vides reinforcement for the teacher, boosts morale, listens, and inspires sense of group belonging and purpose) Respecter of Individuality (teacher educator understands teacher's perspective, knows teacher's room and what teacher is trying to accomplish and respects individual ways of doing things) Stage Director and Demonstrator (shows teacher how to work with children, gives very specific direction on what and what not to do and gives helpful hints) Diagnostician and Problem-solver (identifies problem areas and gives advice on specific children) Provider of Alternatives (teacher receives new ideas for instructional activity, but retains responsibility for selecting a particular idea and deciding upon an appropri- ate time, place, and manner for trying it out) E§plainer and Theorist (explains educational principles and provides literature) Modeling Agent (teacher infers general principles or pat- terns of new behavior by observing the advisor interact with children over materials or with other teachers over classroom or school issues) Appreciative Critic and Discussant (teacher gains insights from thoughtful analysis of the classroom and discussion with the teacher educator who is also observer) Provocative and Reflective Agent (teacher educator asks stimulating questions, helps teacher become aware of own needs and priorities and helps teacher clarify ideas) Leader and Challenger (stimulates new efforts and ways of doing things and provides model of a person who can ra- tionally challenge arbitrary decisions) (pp. 144-7) These 12 categories of support indicate a variety of roles for a teach- ear‘ educator that range fronlpresentation of theory to practical problem solving to interpersonal listening. Bussis, Chittenden, and Amarel 47 (1976) found during the conduct of the interviews that comprised their study that the teachers "welcomed the opportunity to talk about teach- ing in all of its facets--from their aspirations and successes to their failures, anxieties, and problems." Further, "Approximately one-fourth to one-third of all perception of support responses at each site fell with the two emotional support categories: Emotional Stabilizer and Stimulator and Respecter of Individuality" (p. 151). It would seem, from this study at least, that teachers value teacher educators in a role that provides the teacher with someone who will listen to both professional and personal issues and who is able to respond in a way that the teacher feels heard. Manolakes (1977), in a discussion of the roles of an advisor to teachers delineates five roles: (a) Seed Planter and Extender, (b) Technical Helper, (c) Personal Support Person, (d) Expediter, and (e) Informant and Communication Stimulator. The following is a descrip- tion of each of these teacher educator role. Seed Planter and Extender In this role the teacher educator plants the seeds of ideas with the teacher and then works to be supportive as the teacher carries out the idea. "There is no guarantee that the teacher will accept these ideas initially or ever, but the possibility is increased as the rela- tionship continues (p. 105). In further describing this role, Mano- lakes says the teacher educator provides ideas and suggestions . . which the teacher may initially accept or reject. In its best form, the helping relationship which the advi- sor (teacher educator) carries on also involves a dialogue between two professionals. They discuss intentions, iden- tify problems, and weigh alternatives as part of an ongoing discussion. Advisors might not see their ideas initially 48 accepted or implemented, but this work is nontheless part of the seeding process. Time, interaction, and an evolv- ing situation often lead to eventual acceptance and im- plementation (p. 105). This role requires that the teacher educator have the expertise to be able to initiate the ideas but also that s/he have the patience re- quired to see them carried out. It also demands that s/he be prepared to accept that the ideas may not be carried out. Devaney (1977) quotes James on the difficulty of this relationship for both teacher educator and teacher. One may, of course, bring in ideas of one's own, but they are useful only if similar values are springing up among the people one works with. Ideas have to be lived in the hearts, minds and viscera of people who are going to put them into practice; otherwise the process will be obedient, not creative. It is much harder to carry out an idea than to suggest it, so pepple in the field need time with someone like-minded, time to voice their hopes and anxieties and to begin to think in some detail around practical possibilities (p. 160). Thus, in this role, the teacher educator helps the teacher identify goals, provides suggestions and ideas for meeting those goals and provides support over time as the teacher works to implement the ideas. Technical Helper The teacher educator serves as technical helper in a variety of ways. First, s/he may answer questions posed by the teacher; second, s/he mayassist in the preparation of units and lessons; third, s/he may demonstrate lessons; or, fourth,s/he may make classroom observations and offer feedback. "The emphasis is not to do for the teacher, but to be a resource and aid. Always the intent of the advisor (teacher edu- cator) is to work toward strengthening and growth of independence on the part of the teacher" (Manolakes, 1977, p. 106). 49 Personal Sgpport Person The role of personal support person is crucial because any sig- nificant change in one's teaching involves personal risk and at least temporary feelings of insecurity and even inadequacy. In Mano- lakes' words: In some classrooms, providing personal support may be the most important function advisors carry on with teachers. There may be limited need for advisory help in the seed planting and technical areas, but real need for a friendly ally with whom to talk, share problems, and receive posi- tive encouragement. For many teachers, growth and develop- ment in professional practices carries with it risk. There is no assurance that efforts will succeed. The availability of an interested and concerned person, who is at least psychologically willing to share the risks with the teacher, is an important ingredient in the growth process (Manolakes, 1977, p. 106). Expediter This role consists of helping the teacher obtain needed materials, helping push through bureaucratic red tape and, perhaps, interceding occasionally with supervisors to bend a policy. Basically, this role is one of an ombudsman, helping to make the system in which teachers work a little more flexible. Informant and Communication Stimulator Teachers tend to be isolated and lonely. In this role, the teach- er educator works to extend the teacher's contacts, resources, and knowledge of what other teachers are doing. "They can spread good ideas and practices by informing teachers with whom they work about unique activities in other rooms they visit. They can sometimes assist teachers in obtaining released time to visit other classrooms" (Mano- lakes, 1977, p. 107). They may also arrange times for teachers to get 50 together on an informal basis to share mutual concerns as well as ideas. Inservice programs are designed to help teachers extend their pro- fessional growth. Real behavioral change takes time. Teacher educators, in order to help teachers engaged in a growth process, need to be flexible and have expertise in a variety of roles. The teacher educator needs to be able to develOp a collegial relationship in which s/he can plant ideas and s/he needs to have the technical expertise to provide assistance when needed. A strong need on the part of teachers, apparently, is for someone who is a skilled listener and who can pro- vide personal support throughout the change process. The teacher edu- cator needs to be able to help the teacher extend her resource and communication network and, finally, needs to help cut through red tape of the system. All of these roles are important to the teacher who is involved in changing behavior. This review of the literature on inservice education has examined the history of inservice in the United States and its historical legacy; has looked at the inservice critics' recommendations for improving inservice; has examined what the research literature says about inser- vice effectiveness; presented a model for planned change; and, finally, has delineated some of the assumptions about teachers and teacher needs as well as teacher educator characteristics and roles that would seem to contribute to more effective inservice education programs. This study was designed to describe one inservice program that was attempting to incorporate what is known about inservice effectiveness. Chapter III is a description of the study. CHAPTER III DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY Introduction From January to June, 1977, a naturalistic study of an inservice curriculum development team was undertaken by the researcher. The study was conducted for these purposes: 1. To describe the structural complexity of an inservice program with different component parts; 2. To document the interactions of the individuals in- volved in the social emotional education inservice; 3. To describe the process of curriculum development in a non-trad1t1ona subject matter (soc1al emot1onal); 4. To describe the products of a process designed to meet individual needs, different teaching styles and personalities; and 5. To examine the differences that existed across teach- ers in products/outcomes. This study is an investigation of an inservice program whose purpose was to engage teacher educators and teachers in collaboratively devel- oping a curriculum in Social emotional education. The focus of the study was to describe the structural aspects of the inservice program and the program's attempts to incorporate what is known about effec- tiveness in inservice by describing the process as well as the content of the inservice. The investigation was conducted in one elementary school that was the site of the Tenth Cycle Teacher Corps--a two-year project. The group under investigation had been part of the project 51 52 for 18 months prior to the beginning of this study. During the six months of the study, the researcher observed and recorded teacher edu- cator/teacher planning and teaching related to the development of a social emotional education curriculum. The subjects included two teacher educators from Michigan State University, one Teacher Corps graduate intern, one reading consultant, and three classroom teachers. The inservice program structure within which they worked included three components: (a) a seminar, (b) classroom observation with feedback, and (c) teacher educator/teacher consultation. The diversity of activities within the three program components and the many combinations of interactions that occurred within and across each indicated that a variety of data collection tools be used. Among these were extensive audiotaping of seminars and consultations, classroom observations, interviewing, questionnaires, and the collec- tion of teacher-developed products. Chapter III is a description of the study. This chapter includes (a) initial questions, (b) types of data collected, (c) more specific questions, (d) investigator assumptions and limitations of the study, (e) data collection, (f) instrumentation, and (9) data reduction and analysis. Initial Questions During the six months of the study, the researcher put emphasis on collecting as broad a range of data as possible. The world the re- searcher wanted to describe was very complex. The initial questions 53 posed were broad in nature aimed at capturing the gestalt of the in- service program under study. These questions were: 1. 2. What, in fact, are the components of the inservice? How do they manifest themselves over time, i.e., with what frequency do they occur? What interactions take place among the inservice participants? These broad questions were intended, when answered, to provide a frame- work to support and structure the data on more substantive issues. At the outset of the study, it was not clear what these issues would be-- they would have to be discovered. Types of Data Collected In order to narrow down these general questions, documenting the events of the inservice was an initial priority. As noted by Clark and Florio (1982): Upon entering the field, the researcher is confronted not with answers, but with a flood of particular behaviors. Some behaviors are observed and not commented or reflected upon directly by teachers and children as they enact every- day life in school. Other behaviors are the descriptions and explanations that participants offer for classroom ac- tivity that can be elicited directly from them by means of interview or can be heard in their talk to one another about school life (p. 30). The data collected for this study focus on these two classes of behavior and include: 1. Field 10 noting inservice events and data collection mode, Classroom observations with behaviors recorded on a Social Emotional Education form, Audiotapes of seminars and consultations, 54 4. Interviews with the teachers and the senior teacher educator, 5. Questionnaires, and 6. Collections of teacher-developed social emotional edu- cation lessons. More Specific Questions As the study proceeded and data were collected, a new set of ques- tions took shape. Among these were: 1. What is the nature of the interactions between the inservice program participants? 2. What roles are taken by the inservice program parti- cipants? 3. What are the apparent needs of the inservice program participants and how were they met? 4. What is the process of curriculum development as it evolved in the inservice program under study? 5. What are the curricular product outcomes of the curriculum development process? These are questions that ask what was going on within the parti- cipants as they took in the new experiences and reflected on them. They also look at how individual beliefs as well as needs were influ- encing choices that were made regarding social emotional education that 1~ere reflected in teacher choice of content, planning, and execution. lls the study continued and as the inservice itself became more indi- 1/idualized, the questions evolved and became more specific both to pro- gram component and to individuals. Investigator Assumptions and Limitations of the Study A description of a social emotional education inservice program engaged in the development of classroom curricula is the focus of this 55 study. This program purported to contain many of the attributes of inservice program effectiveness drawn from the research. The descrip- tion is intended to draw a picture for the reader and to tell a story of this inservice. This picture and this story are derived from an ob- servation of portions of the daily lives of the teachers, those por- tions specifically identified as social emotional, and by asking the participants to share their feelings about and perceptions of their lives, both personal and professional. How, then, to choose the events that would constitute this pic- ture? Observing and working with seven people over a period of six months yielded volumes of data. What criteria did the researcher use for choosing events and what frame of reference was used for interpre- tation? All observation is inherently biased. By discussing some of the assumptions of the researcher, it is h0ped the reader can then place the description and analysis into perspective. It is important to know that this investigator was a member of the social emotional education development team from its inception in 1975. As the junior teacher educator, her role within the team included con- ducting a review of the social emotional literature, assessing the needs of the teacher participants, planning social emotional content to be taught, assisting with the seminar teaching, observing teacher- taught lessons and giving feedback, consultation, developing social emotional evaluation instruments, and conducting social emotional classroom observations for evaluation purposes. In other words, she was involved in some way with all phases of the inservice. Of equal importance is the fact that the educational beliefs of the researcher were consistent with those of social emotional education. 56 The researcher believes that social emotional education should be an integral part of any school curriculum as well as incorporated into preservice teacher education programs. The author was in the dual role of a researcher studying an inservice intervention as well as that of a teacher educator invested in making that intervention work. The re- searcher made every effort to be objective by trying to stand back from the program and ask critical questions and by inviting others not di— rectly associated with the program under study to give feedback and stimulate her thinking. Nevertheless, the researcher's orientation was clearly supportive of social emotional education, and with that in mind the reader should view and interpret the results conservatively. Studying an inservice program on social emotional education is different from researching an inservice on a more traditional subject. Social emotional education is complex because the content exists in layers and spills over into the personal lives