v 0| .N‘. .o.{ \l!

 

 

u I :lulLE-nxn'

.U
,)

 

 

"“ “-0-". ac-"—‘.
- p ,

““ U-‘uuvt o“...

(I
t)
D

Y‘IR9-..—.~

.
a
. Ac ‘
L”: V‘ ‘
'v
u. 0-,...
:91 e.
u
';..‘-,
‘- ‘ 'v V-
.-“‘ "‘Zr‘
0 ‘~‘_“
::I.
...:.;.,e i-fl,\
.‘bb.:‘
. .
v "A
c “-C C31“ ‘
0 I"
.\ ‘..
.-
:i_u.‘q,

’1

‘( u
"-..‘L.~ v

-q Cy tL‘;

t. H
.L;
Q kg“ I
u‘ h
c.
. LS g:-
'a

. Q
u ‘1 g
“ n‘

"35:";

I«Ce tra
E“; in
u‘ “

‘:‘L

, a b\
;.'\ w
W
; \ ABSTRACT
\J,
THE DEVELOPMENT AND FORMATIVE EVALUATION OF A COMPETENCY
BASED TEACHER'S GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE I CAN

INDIVIDUALIZED PHYSICAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM
FOR THE TRAINABLE MENTALLY RETARDED

by

Mary Drake Green

One of the major goals in the development of the I
CAN physical education Instructional System for trainable
mentally retarded students was the implementation of
effective inservice training programs. The potential users
of the I CAN Instructional System, physical education
specialists and classroom teachers, have a wide variety
of backgrounds and skills. An effective inservice training
program must insure that all teachers have the teaching
skills to implement the I CAN Instructional System as
intended by the curriculum developers.

The purpose of this study was the development and
formative evaluation of a Teacher's Guide for implementing
the I CAN Instructional System. Formative evaluation
focused on identifying deficiencies in the Teacher's Guide.
The Guide was comprised of a series of competency based
inservice training modules: planning, assessment, pre-

scription, teaching and evaluation. The field test of the

 

I
I
«w: -.nu .95 ..CL ‘
I .‘ an.~..
o-oy~~.--' \' ~
..
~~onuuy¢bn-h. y. u‘
a ‘-Qve .'-..
0‘ .‘I ‘~.
IDO.A.."‘ m-_ N..- '
F H4 ..
”"""'b .yd‘...»
.‘
" n A fl )- Q
.-' '0 ~ 5
I l ‘
"V'. "I ‘J ‘04“
C‘
o _ .
run A. ‘F ?- ‘ ‘h'
' 4
..... _. we otuL..1

.
:u.4_~' ‘ ‘

- ‘s I‘ O tpv.
M-¢:~¢ ..‘~ 2"

-
w.
u.

. .~A-‘ : -
"'.'"-:-.. O. ‘F

A

"30.4
N. ‘d“V"Cu :3
;~.'.,_ I
..1..,:: 5 P1,. 4.3
QH“¥.

.::F‘.._‘
L‘ - ‘3 rs . ‘
"“ taxi;
. ‘A.‘ ‘
k " 'At
~.u»L\“ le .
a. r
. h!
".5.

v.‘
:u"
-
““5‘ar" ’
V‘.»‘
\.5 1'1
I
T"\ V
N hp.
A»Q~..Er e

)

U
-‘~.a:io'
0.5 of 1
" 32$
C~ ‘ ‘
.Wubdule o.
'61:;
Q. {‘3‘
~kerg‘w
I‘ncd b.
“15453. .
O
WSt
“fiventi
On Sgt.
" 4
‘:.:s .
-‘\&'\n
‘ re ..
.‘ SHOT‘SE
1:1‘

Mary Drake Green

Teacher's Guide was conducted within the formative evalua-
tion plan for the primary skills materials of the I CAN
Instructional System.

A five step procedural model was used to develop the
prototype Teacher's Guide: 1) description of teacher
behavior; 2) goal identification; 3) selection and orienta-
tion of the Teacher's Guide develOpment staff; 4) goal
analysis into terminal and enabling objectives; and 5) de-
velopment of the prototype. Systems design principles
were followed to produce the substance form and order of the
Teacher's Guide.

A Direct Service Model was used to implement the
inservice training program. The field test was conducted
in central lower Michigan in both rural and urban communi-
ties. Physical education specialists, classroom teachers
(N = 19) and consultants (N = 4) were used to identify
deficiencies in the Teacher's Guide.

Teacher entry status was established by an entry
skills survey, supplemented by consultant pre-treatment
observations of teacher classroom performance. The effect
of each module of the Teacher's Guide upon the teachers
was determined by teacher analysis of three dependent
variables: post test achievement, consultant rating and
intervention estimate, and teacher attitude survey. When
negative responses were recorded on any item of the depen-

dent measure by 20 percent or more teachers, a deficiency

 

. -
‘-.Q-u.‘.-
-|

..‘
.—

.—
'0. .u.....oo_u

”"":‘II-n
c p ‘

«.55....a.
.

‘ F
I:""" 9‘

.-
---~........ 3
a

II-
It

H
(D

O 0‘
.n

fi—O

 

Mary Drake Green

was idenitified. To determine the nature of the problem

and tr>¢generate feasible revision recommendations consultant

debriefings were held, using the listed deficiencies as the

debriefing agenda. It was concluded that:

1.

The systems approach was an effective method for
developing the prototype Teacher's Guide.

The teaching skills identified were the compe—
tencies essential to the implementation of the

I CAN Instructional System.

The Direct Service Model was an effective method
for the implementation and formative evaluation
of the prototype Teacher's Guide.

The teachers did acquire the skills necessary to
implement the I CAN Instructional System.

There was no significant difference between the
intended and observed behavior of physical edué
cation specialists and classroom teachers as

they implemented the I CAN Instructional System.

 

"I—vOVOfi‘ip‘.- “_'
-. ‘. ‘ r' ' u
"" 'b‘huvl.

‘mo‘. ...‘.,

-I A-“

F"‘ Q'vv-v‘.
l"‘»'1 .‘u up
how. .Hn_.;~.‘

 

o‘onoog--'.‘ . "‘ '

i M .-
¢.|JA'..,|.‘.~A--.

rt,
DJ
’1
r?
H.
h.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND FORMATIVE EVALUATION OF A COMPETENCY
BASED TEACHER'S GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE I CAN
INDIVIDUALIZED PHYSICAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM

FOR THE TRAINABLE MENTALLY RETARDED

by

Mary Drake Green

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education

1975

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my mother and father

George and Mary Drake.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer wishes to express her appreciation to
the many persons who have contributed to all phases of
this thesis.

Particular thanks are expressed to Dr. Janet Wessel,
chairperson of the guidance committee, whose friendship
and council has made my doctoral study a worthwhile and
stimulating experience. Sincere appreciation is also
extended to Dr. Donald Burke for his Special help in pro-
viding the model of inservice training adapted for use in
this study, and for extending my knowledge concerning the
education of the mentally impaired. Thanks are also
expressed to Dr. Lawrence Alexander, Dr. Henrietta Barnes
and Dr. Phillip Reuschlein for their guidance and insight-
ful suggestions.

In addition, gratitude is extended to the members
of the I CAN Project Staff, Dr. Larry Carmichael, Sandra
Klein, Dr. Claudia Knowles, Karen Petersen, Dr. Paul Vogel,
Joanne Warner; and to the I CAN field test teachers, and
their students for their unique contributions to this
study.

'Deepest appreciation goes to my husband Lew for his
patience, support, kindness and gentle insistance that I

complete my graduate study.

 

.. ”u .2 Pk o; o. .. .
3“ .«u ... :u l ”h «3 LL tc r v. a-» ..1 st ..J t . ... «c at :- r. pk .r. r. . A ( ,
D. C .t .31 t r” r; r E S a. 3 C. S Q» S .C S t S Q G. n. a 3 It t by xi 3 a
r; .5 Ft. ~I {a .A 73;” a... .va...ru w“. Tu ad. .1 ~.. sin h an 1a sq ru‘ Mn Q.» Q» by
.L t .a C II. n. 3 ~41: C I e1 I Pu r T. Tim D11 a ~¢ V ECU
C“ an >L a» .. a. T.» r AU Ln av e Lnu K: e
p I T; s Q» fa PU D. P C T P R C Ill. D
TI. .
v s I
Ii
‘1;

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
CHAPTER

I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . 4

Scope of the Investigation . . . . . . . . 5

Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . 6

Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . 12

Programmatic Research Project - - - - - - - 13
The I CAN Instructional System. . . . a . 13
Instructional Program Model . - - . . - - 13

Competency Based Inservice Education . . . 16
Characteristics of Competency Based ~

Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Instructional Modules - - - . . - . - - . 18
The Systematic Development of Instruction . 22

Instructional Development System

by Twelker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Instructional Development System

by Thiagarajan . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Discussion of Systems Approaches. . . . . 28
Formative Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . 29
The Tutorial Approach . . . . . . . . . . 31
The Large Group Approach. . . . . . . . 32

An Approach Combining Individual
and Group Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Discussion of Three Approaches. . . . . . 40
Related Methodological Issues . . - - - . - 40
Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES. . . . . . . . . . . 49

Development of the Prototype- . - - . - - - 49
Description of Teacher Behavior - . - . . 50
Goal Identification - - - - - - - - . - - 53

ii

 

 

 

 

.v. . . o o o. . 0L .i O. ‘c t.. .. .I 1 \ x I

at .p.. r. p. .‘q. 1‘ 3a a» A» P a v». an r; ”a my .u CV Ya .xu n1 ‘1‘ .u ~. 1 \\ .1 ~54 1. v1 . . .\ 1|. . . ‘l . u 4 1. I.
.. .. 3 l _.. E J .. C .t C 3.. 3 .l S .1 at T. .l .J C 3 .J C r .J C .l U C .c U C D J
n. r . - L . . r I ~
3.. I S :u S f r. .-. 1.. E .3 Z. S 3 C S R u. t . u T S 3 S S S C S S .T. S S C S S L. a 1 Tu

\ . .3 a. Y. .c L“ n E 9 .X r” m. T. ... .d l C E C. ....o T. 0.. .l E E I. S E .l C E .l ‘l E .1 UL T. C O.
2.3: e3: .55712153 WCR 6 3o aDDD 3RD ER: 5RD 5RD .L W T C
q” :A a» \hu u l s r; 9 Th h.n u i

a E“ a . . 7 O e

: n\ r P )n D. T. E S S C R

m” v.

 

CHAPTER

IV.

Selection and Orientation of
Development Staff . . . . .
Goal Analysis into Inservice
Objectives. . . . . . . . .
Module Design Specifications.

Description of the DeveIOpment Process. .

Implementation of the Prototype
Rationale for the Selection

Description of the Implementation

Field Test. . . . . . . . . . .
Design . . . . . . . . . . .
Threats to Internal Validity.
Threats to External Validity.
Selection of Teachers . . . .
Selection of Consultants. . .
The Treatment . . . . . . .
Independent Variable. . . .
Dependent Variable. . . . .
Instrumentation . . . . . . .
Evaluative Questions. . . . .

Process

Data Analysis and Decision Criteria

Revision Recommendations . . .
Consultant Debriefing . . . .
Revision Procedures . . . . .

Chapter Summary . . . . . . . .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . .

Planning . . . . . . . . . . .
Results . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion. . . . . . . . .

Assessment. . . . . . . . . . .
Results . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . .

Prescription . . . . . . . . .
Results . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . .

Teaching. . . . . . . . . . . .
Results . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . .

Evaluation . . . . . . . . . .
Results . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion. . . . . . . . . .

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . .

iii

Page

54

55
58
60
63
64
66
69
71
72
73
73
75
77
81
82
82
85
86
89
89
89
90

93

94

94

97
100
100
102
105
105
107
109
109
112
116
116
118

121
121

125
130

A.....A,‘.
a.

"up
..a...-.... M

(I,

r.,

C4

7?

o—‘

'-

 

A.-'\v-..'
.‘n
‘9"..-

.\-"O~\.~
". I ‘—
b~.‘. d‘.'

‘

-"‘ ‘-..
.

a ..
.~-.\,..‘

v ~..._.,_
1 - .
H“. A ‘.

R'.

“II-y‘a—

'fi‘
K N ‘
I- n... N‘
A"""-v q,
‘ ‘5
I‘h'ivo d .4.
”\‘Ivv.
.0
n...‘ . ...
”P" a,
.
Uuh r...

:.H'H ,..

. ‘

‘.~HLJ ‘
‘Vn
r...” C
Fm...“
A“; ‘

" a

I “'3 '-
AL.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. O O O O O 0 o O O O O O 0 o 0 o O
APPENDIXES
A. OVERVIEW OF I CAN. . . . . . . . . .
B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE
TEACHER'S GUIDE AUTHORS. . . . . .
C. LETTER TO FIELD TEST TEACHERS:
STATEMENT OF RATIONALE . . . . .
D. QUESTIONNAIRE ON PREVIOUS BACKGROUND:
ENTRY SKILLS SURVEY. . . . . . . .
E. ONE PROTOTYPE MODULE I CAN
TEACHER'S GUIDE . . . . . . . . .
F. FIELD TEST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
AND GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS OF FIELD
TEST SITES . . . . . . . . . .
G. FIELD TEST SITE INFORMATION FORM . .
H. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR CONSULTANT
.VISITATIONS ORIENTATION VISIT
PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . .
I. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION REPORT:
CONSULTANT VISITATIONS REPORT. . .
J. MODULE POST TESTS: I CAN TEACHER'S
GUIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
K. CONSULTANT RATING_AND INTERVENTION
ESTIMATE O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O
L. TEACHER REACTIONNAIRE. . . . . . . .
M. MODULE 1: E0 1 and 2 RAW DATA . . .
N. -MODULE 2: E0 1 RAW DATA . . . . . .
O. MODULE 3: E0 1 RAW DATA . . . . . .
P. MODULE 4: E0 1 and 2 RAW DATA . . .
Q. MODULE 5: E0 1 and 2 RAW DATA . . .

Page

132

136

141

142

144

148

159

162

163

167

169

182
185
187
193
197
201

209

r.
V‘
“‘7-
Ls»&o
‘F'
Aunt:

....{ a
_ .
HuGLV:
my- '
5“th L‘
‘-
O‘hve L

l
1:

a...“ l mu ‘11 5.
+.» a 1 A CC 0
h H ...£ .1 .1
9» r1 .2... e 2.... S
h. . at CU uflu CM .14
um I C U S
r £1 VJ LL "V; y
t I r. w¢ I ‘ i
s C .VL 6L #5 a
a u r .. I C a .. a ..
o. 1. «Pu \hu r.» 1.5.
AIM! Q t 2 «Ivlv

L

Table

1.

Analysis of Post Test Module 1 E0 2 . .

LIST OF TABLES

Implied and Related Desirable Charac-
teristics of Competency Based Teacher
Education. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data Type and Specific Measures for

Formative Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . .

Specific Measures Appropriate to the Eval-
uation of CBTE Material for.Training
Teachers of Exceptional Children . . . . .

Chart Listing Tasks, Responsibilities and
Time Lines of the Development Schedule . .

Demographic Data on Field Test Teachers .

Background Information on the Inservice
consu1tants O I O O O O O O O O O

Instrumentation--Scoring and Decision
criteria 0 o o o o o o o o 0

Entry Skills Module 1 E0 1 . . . . . . . .
Attitude Survey Module 1 E0 1. . . . .

Entry Skills Module 1 E0 2 . . . . .

Attitude Survey Module 1 E0 2. . . . . .

Analysis Consultant Rating and Intervention
Estimate Module 1 E0 2 . . . . . . . .

Entry Skills Module 2 E0 1 . . . . . . .
Analysis of Post Test Module 2 E0 1 . . . .
Attitude Survey Module 2 E0 1. . . . . . . .

Analysis Consultant Rating and Intervention
Estimate Module 2 E0 1 . . . . . . . .

\r ’ vii

v1!

Page

18

41

42

57

76
78
‘88
187
188
189

190

191

192
193
194

195

196

IAI‘

fl‘ ‘ ‘
.F.'I' ~'-
b.’ an. n
.1- ‘
‘ ‘ -‘. ‘;
F. «v '
.‘...3.-J.b g.
C
’ a
‘o.~...-..; \_
n~bcsddt 5“,
. u
‘-':' .zv-Q
Vbuyd. .“llL .
—
n"‘-‘o— I
\ o ..
unseenur,‘
:“rwv C' ‘ ‘.
any." v"‘*._
‘ o
“'3 "“‘ r0
nutfi‘vb. ~‘
0
u
‘1‘... Iqa C- ‘
5..L‘_‘. L}...
Ahq.‘ ‘ '
3"?
~V”"“‘\.u.sb :
D“§u-“_ ‘
A. .¢. .4 c .l
"“r- “.‘\.
~“5s \U. \-
d U‘\“*‘

 

.1.“"“‘q H
.55.5‘u: :4.
4;
~'~ 1
.‘ ‘H.
\v . ._ 9‘
Vl‘bJ‘bdllt r
t .
R“~
Ԥ
~b"£|.d~‘l “

n
“$“*tart I
v- .
..v~4‘le S 1
EM

Table
10.0
10.1
10.2

10.3

11.0
11.1
11.2

11.3

11.4
11.5
11.6

11.7

.12.0
12.1

12.2

12.3
12.4

12.5

Entry Skills Module 3 E0 1

Analysis of Post Test Module 3 E0 1.

Attitude Survey Module 3 E0 1

Consultant Rating and Intervention

Estimate Module 3 E0 1 .

Entry Skills Survey Module 4 E0 1
Analysis of Post Test Module 4 E0 1.
Attitude Survey Module 4 E0 1.

Consultant Rating and Intervention

Estimate Module 4 E0 1

Entry Skills Module 4 E0 2

Analysis of Post Test Module 4 E0 2.

Attitude Survey Module 4 E0 2

Consultant Rating and Intervention

Estimate Module 4 E0 2

Entry Skills Module 5 E0 1

Attitude Survey Module 5 E0 1.

Consultant Rating and Intervention Estimate

Module 5 E0 1 . .

Entry Skills Module 5 E0 2

Attitude Survey Module 5 E0 2

Consultant Rating and Intervention

Estimate Module 5 E0 2

viii

Page

197
198

199

200
201
202

203

204
205
206

207

208
209

210

211
212

213

214

.q H ‘
-A'O '
0.3.UIA

Vuhol

 

.
. .

.JHL‘
-'-‘ a;

.55 .‘V 5‘
F‘,
6.1:
nacta

9 fi\\‘
‘ ‘55J .
‘F"r‘- - Q
an
ituko
.0
9
a. -
P‘. r
an.
a
.l'
a"

r; r.

Figure

1.

8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4

10.

11.

LIST OF FIGURES

I CAN Model for Instructional Programming

Schematic Representation of a Systems
Approach to the DevelOpment of
Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . .

Major Stages in an Instructional
Development System . . . . . . . .

Flowchart of the Recommended Testing-
Revision Procedure. , , , , , , , ,

Procedural Model Used in Developing
the Prototype Teacher's Guide . . .

Teacher Behavior Model for I CAN
Implementation . , , . , , , , , ,

Flowchart Describing the DevelOpment
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Step One - Direct Service Model . . .
Step Two - Direct Service Model . . .
Step Three - Direct Service Model . .
Step Four - Direct Service Model . .

Step Five - Direct Service Model .

Procedural Model for the Field Test of

the Prototype Teacher's Guide . . .

Flow Diagram of Teacher's Guide Revision

Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geographic Area Involved in I CAN
Field Test. 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0

ix

Page

15

23

25

34

50

51

61
66
67
68
a 69

69

70

91

161

vh“-b.

aa‘..':v“‘

‘P
no

-
er

0C...

'\
r

.
-. h!
n“

~§O
hba‘v:

13:: f

5

Ca

~D
a:

3.:
3 a

Ca .. x.
.“ \‘u
p .. Nu
T: I
Ll.
.t
u 4.
a \HH
3,.
RuM r us
a 0 flu
- .. 1.;
on» «u»
.7 . .. .
I‘\I. II."

T. a;
r C
a
h d
pH
9 AM
hi.
AU e
«Ru
.4»
.nn
‘L

P a. r he
at 4.,
v E
E X
r e
p
f
0 0
t
n
V s n23
AH» .V|\
~A ‘ 0 \
5.x 6...!

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

In recent years, major programmatic efforts in cur-
ricular activities for the mentally retarded have been
sponsored by the United States Office of Education, Bureau
of Education for the Handicapped. Proqrams designed for
use with mentally handicapped students have been developed
in the areas of mathematics, reading, social learning,
science and physical education. The instructional materials
developed through these projects are important for two
reasons. First, these materials were developed specifically
for a target population (the mentally retarded). Second,
these materials have undergone extensive developmental
testing and evaluation of their effectiveness with the
target population.

One barrier to the dissemination and implementation
of these and other recently develOped programs and materials.
has been the lack of inservice training for teachers in the
skills required to implement these exemplary programs. In
order to prevent failure in the dissemination and implemen-
tation of exemplary programs, curriculum research projects

have three major teacher training responsibilities. First,

...:-‘ A: .’..-6!P"
‘ .. - D
I_-u‘\-é U. ... ..

 

 

Q "I I
‘...‘..-F Or-
.—

9 " .
..:“...‘. 51. kt ..

I... 0"“: '
. .-

9‘
.‘..- lute“ :-

:e:;a.s 2.5: be a

ov:~...q -.’

“lb-Acot‘: sercfierlal-L
:‘;: aflwv-Do ' ‘
Hui .0.._:.-.euctes

.;

I ‘ .

.ue I C~\ ‘
a

‘CO‘

 

a model of instruction must be developed which clearly
identifies the teaching competencies necessary to imple-
ment their program as intended. Second, training ma-
terials must be developed to teach the competencies neces-
sary to implement the program as intended. Third, the
training materials used by teachers to achieve the speci-
fied competencies must be evaluated.

‘The I CAN Individualized Physical Education Curri—
culum Project was funded by the Division of Research,
Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, U. S. Office of
Education in June 1971 at Michigan State University. This
Project was charged with writing, field-testing, evaluating
and disseminating curriculum materials for trainable men-
tally,retarded (TMR) students, ages 5-14 years. The I CAN
Series represents the first set of replicable physical
education curriculum materials specifically designed for
TMR students.

One of the major needs for field testing the I CAN
Instructional System was the implementation of an effective
inservice training procedure. A vast amount of information
has been amassed and synthesized into the I CAN Instruc-
tional System. ,Without diagnostic, prescriptive teacher '
implementation skills, this information would be of little
value to TMR students.

The potential implementers of the I CAN Program
come from a variety of backgrounds. The teacher in the

large center for TMR students is usually a physical education

n

.. x." 1h
‘ I .
:Dt'.“‘:.

"0-1..“

A
an. Aoub.e or F

.r
DOV

”Jug. A“
. .

“5‘ f"
.uovooodnl 1‘05 hr

I . ‘
outfit I :66: leGL e:
.rzzca group cf
91
“A role cf
0.. ~‘
“"1 VAESSIOOKA re:
12:51? "'1" ' M
‘p :4. Iglyd
"in " "' r4 ‘
" NI~5$SEG Cf
I‘6
41“"- ‘
4:193' or ”red
A. u
I: ‘
... ~E_Cher w‘h ..
:k-‘x ~
"“155: i d.
n iagnc
‘u‘ if . .
«- dwaultvrlr|g
0
46
\._
q.“ '
' t was ‘ v
4‘

“I '50 imleTl‘; t
5:5. FM”

JJS' to If
iii-3‘ ,. ,

7n

4ne COnCG'
.\ "s;
1:: Elm-.5

‘\«‘ C. .

; Ld 111 t]
6 it has 1

 

 

speCialist with little or no formal special education
training related to the TMR. The teacher in the small
individual classroom units for the TMR common in many school
districts is usually a special education classroom teacher
with little or no formal training or background in physical
education instruction. In some cases, the delivery of
physical education services to the TMR is accomplished by
the special education classroom teacher with assistance

from a physical education specialist who acts as a consul-
tant to a group of classroom teachers in a district.

The role of the teacher in an I CAN physical educa-
tion classroom requires specified teaching skills. Tradi-
tionally, physical education programs for TMR students have
been comprised of group-based instruction in a collection of
”adapted" or "modified" games, exercises or other activities.
The teacher who uses the I CAN materials however, must be
skilled in diagnostic teaching and experienced in creating
and monitoring an individualized teaching-learning environ-
ment. It was unreasonable to assume that the potential
users of the I CAN materials would possess the skills neces-
sary to implement the materials as intended by the develop-
ers. Thus, to insure prOper implementation a competency-
based inservice training procedure was imperative.

The concept of competency-based teacher education
has emerged in the educational literature during the past
decade. It has become a special designation for an educa-

tional innovation with essential generic elements. (Elam,

n_. ~',.;qe rc‘..

on"

. ‘
;.......‘ ...-- ’5‘“ '
0:..c:a ogufin 5"“b-
...i av*’;" bar
'6... 56....‘ ‘v.

~. ‘ ' ~
...-;P. H“ ‘h: \
Iv~>.'.. ... b..- ‘-

..~A.A'|s ”F rP‘
,. .-
..o-.-v.

' n
an 'QA 5‘ "‘ ‘

\ h! .—
lvihvb U5 e"u'

 

..c!:
in current

isx;x:attes:s

:esignifi: :tLLy 1

8..
N.- “Rn—\A‘
5v. ‘4 ‘F ‘
~54 L4 AC.
‘ng¢g\, ""r =C
‘ Mug
.
\

1‘"
":6. "0-
“1“‘eIiL.
TL
HE “hr,
8"; P"
:46
‘4.
#‘t. -
“~=tlon
.
aria ch)-
ka
..

.“‘>~.
“I“:yt R
103,11 Q.“
I. ; I a
£5:

c4156 .
W111
tiln‘. p:
qsg‘ers
80 t 1 -v

'~., we]
\.T«E.‘A~Q

“‘51 tL

1972) These required characteristics include competencies
derived from teacher roles and stated in behavioral terms,
with criteria for assessing competencies which are in
concert with the stated objectives. The assessment of the
teacher's competency must use performance as the prime
source of evidence.

The current literature on competency based teacher
education attests to the belief that teacher training can
be significantly improved by designing programs to focus
on the principles and practices designated by competency_
based curriculum design. Unfortunately, the implementation
of these principles and practices often terminate with the
receipt of a diploma. However, if the long range goals of
the competency-based model are to be attained, the program
must be extended to include continued training experiences
which take place throughout the period of professional

employment.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study is the development, imple-
mentation and formative evaluation of a prototype compe-
tency based Teacher's Guide for implementing the I CAN
Instructional System. The Guide will be comprised of a
series of competency based inservice training modules.
The Guide will provide learning experiences for field test
teachers so they may gain the competencies necessary to

implement the curriculum as intended by the developers.

Specifically, this study is designed to answer the follow-

ing questions:

1.

Is the systems approach feasible for the
development of the prototype Teacher's Guide?
Are the teaching skills identified the compe-

tencies essential for the implementation of the

'I CAN Instructional System?

Is the Direct Service Model an effective method
for the implementation and formative evaluation
of the prototype Teacher's Guide?

Did the teachers acquire the skills necessary
to implement the I CAN Instructional System?
Are there differences between the intended and
observed behavior of both physical education
specialists and classroom teachers as they

implement the I CAN Instructional System?

Sc0pe of the Investigation

 

The I CAN Instructional System includes the following

content areas: Aquatics, BOdy Management, Fundamental

Skills and Health Fitness. Each content area is comprised

of several terminal performance objectives (TPO's) and their

sequentially arranged enabling objectives (EO's)l. The

I CAN Instructional System recognizes that exemplary

 

1

An outline of the content included in the Funda-

mental Skills Module and an example of a TPO and its EO's
are included in Appendix A. '

.
. .
.“‘§----.A' toga-a“:
I Q
:’...~_-‘. '8‘ mau6u
.

~.;ACI§1

' ..... " ’
‘ .
""H¥~.u..31 S I S \
O

P‘ .
uh ~ ‘5 '
“f “a of ’
" a
:.:n
“it
1 0‘ H
is U .

fl ‘
data 1'
TeaChGr
tions
7'.

6 ~16 ‘ .
:‘IIEtEEI It.
“Essa

 

 

 

physical education should include the teaching of skills
in the cognitive and affective areas as well as the
psychomotor domain. However, the time required to develop
the materials delimited their content to the primary psycho-
motor skills. Therefore, this investigation focused on the
teaching competencies necessary to implement the I CAN
instructional system in the psychomotor domain.
The major procedural steps to accomplish this study
are:
l. DevelOp the competency based Teacher's Guide.
2. Select a procedure for implementing the Teacher's
Guide.
3. Implement the inservice training materials.
4. Collect and analyze the formative evaluation
data in order to identify deficiencies in the

Teacher's Guide and make revision recommenda-

tions.
Limitations of the Study

This study was conducted within the larger context
.of the formative evaluation of the I CAN Instructional
System (Wessel, 1975). A number of limitations were
imposed because of the nature of the field test of the I
CAN Instructional System.

The delivery of physical education services to the
elementary age TMR students in Michigan is predominantly

of three types. In the first type, the responsibility for

 

|.§"‘R".’ ‘9 F“-
4

I
uv~o0~bbvoc .oo r...
v |
O-IHII' ’ .“e c
.
~:Ov..:. O ‘00 .00 .—

5......A. ‘.

'-
--..--.doa .3 t.

' . v
. "C ."V“ ‘00 -
" "O. DOA..‘ ‘

. .-:J A :::?“P~ 5‘
a sun ""U~‘¢vu, L
‘ U
P IIIII
., A ‘3 ea n1...
. ."“‘O u--_“_

...._, V'- “ _
.‘..‘|' ‘.‘ 5‘...
7"“. ‘
~ i h‘" fin
_ Q
m... I“: C.a;3‘
.N a .
6.... ::V' l ‘ .‘q‘.
‘ us “ Ln
\-
. .'-‘ _
‘n C ‘I06- ‘
u... L‘\~Q 1“.
' \ru 4
L 2”“
-I
n .
H
“~69 15 :
.l _
..
. .
‘- u

 

the mat
‘ e“ia‘
is
~ n addition

 

instruction in physical education is placed on the classroom
teacher. In the second type, the responsibility for in—
struction is placed on a specialist in physical education.
In the third type, responsibility for instruction is shared
by the classroom teacher and a consultant who is trained as
a physical educator. Since only three of the teachers par-
ticipating in the main field test of the I CAN instructional
system were classified as Type 3, sharing joint responsi4
bility for instruction, this teacher type was not included
in this investigation.

There is nearly universal agreement that the ulti-
nmte criterion for determining the competency of a teacher
is the effect of his teaching behavior on the performance
of his students (Rosenshine, 1970, 1971, 1972; Houston,

1972) However, the TMR students gain of specified objec-
tives was not, at this time used to determine the compe-
tence of the teachers involved in this study. The I CAN
instructional system being used by the teachers was itself
a prototype undergoing formative evaluation. Since proto-
type materials are expected to be approximately 60 percent
effective (Sorenson, 1971), the inability of the students
of these teachers to achieve the stated objectives could
be attributed to deficiencies in the I CAN instructional
materials and not to the inability of the teachers to imple-
ment the materials.

In addition, a number ofkfactors prevented the field

test teachers from selecting similar content from the I CAN

Instructional System. These factors are listed as follows:

1. The I CAN system is a set of resource ma-
terials that allow teachers to select content
(terminal performance objectives) to operation-
alize educational goals based on local need.

2. Students in each teacher's class represented
a wide range of age (3-25) and had multiple
handicapping conditions.

3. There was a wide variability across the school
districts relative to equipment and facilities
for physical education.

The evaluative design used in this investigation was

a pre-experimental design. (Cambell-Stanley, 1966) Al-
though this design is usually characterized by serious con-
cerns for internal and external validity, the context in
which it is used in this evaluation effort make it a justi-
fiable choice. Specific internal and external sources of
invalidity are discussed as they apply to the use of this

design in Chapter III.

Definition of Terms

 

1. Classroom Teacher is a certified special educa-

 

tor with less than an undergraduate minor in physical edu-
cation, who is responsible for the physical education
instruction for an assigned class.

2. Competency-Based Education is a concept of teacher

 

education which requires the public specification of learner

 

u-
. 1
. v
0

(1
m
('9
2.-
(Y
(7
{1'

E

O

1

Y

r’.
L A-
(I!
’ O
U)
(1:
' 1

:‘V .3ru fi“ .'
‘V. I..¢»N L

.4..- V
_-b 0

.14 ' ‘j i
' tun. gs firltcr-aut'

I I

:EI3:~ ... 6 4 -—
"33.! t0 1 1‘.

'—
6.: P'
r 1‘ 5

 

 

5 “A .
' bebrlef
\\o~~

"plement
ivti‘il‘é m
‘uSQr
“VI
3 Ce tralr
H.§;¢

 

objectives that can be observed and assessed. Mastery
learning models are used to establish minimal performance
levels for which the learner is held accountable.

3. Competency-Based Modules are a series of
learning packages that comprise the Teacher's Guide for
implementation of the I CAN Instructional System. The
content is intended to teach the professional competencies
necessary to implement the I CAN physical education curri-
culum materials as intended by the developers. Included in
each unit is a statement of specific knowledge and perform—
ance objectives to be mastered, strategies for attaining
the Specified objectives and evaluation tools and procedures.

4. Consultant is the I CAN Project Staff Member who
monitors the implementation of the competency based inser-
vice modules through direct interaction with the teacher
in the local school.

5. Debriefing refers to a formalized procedure
where, through face to face interaction, the developer
of the inservice module obtains information from consul-
tants on module deficiencies and suggestions for remedi-
ating these deficiencies.

6. Direct Service Model is the planned procedure
used to implement the competency-based instructional
modules. The procedure involves direct interaction between
an inservice trainer/consultant with the teachers and

students in the classroom.

7. Enabling Objective is a specific statement of an

 

 

 

--
..'--- :5; ".P
. "’ 5*. no
,.:...--g.v~- b
’
‘ - .
”.4 o~rw‘ ; '...r
..: .Z.-~...¢A >«...A .
' ' ‘ -
: :~ - ~
5-4 l
U. .---.‘ o
‘
.0: "P“\‘QI’_.: V’;.‘ .“
. -~4‘_,A

... -.u-v.\ 9--
' a.

Cu.
_

.._
V 5.. A

":-s‘\,‘ P .4 \"~‘ -

.V“"‘ 5113.!

~

\ A. a; -
.. ‘
ou.Joa IVA Anstr .-
“M
u.
-- ' ~o.:‘. ‘
-.s ‘uu.‘\" :r‘f‘lr
. " ‘4;

u. \ '
* "~u
‘7' ‘:».:"‘ ”-0
~&un .~ ”r
6..-..t‘
‘I. ‘ ‘ X
5-: 5." A
'5'5‘Vzc: O; t}
‘
1n ,
4 'p
U. “‘Ser"‘ .‘
~‘_‘~;;‘_
3....-

glables fOr ,3" -

.. ‘
' Q
-._ .‘A

"'V.S.

I:;‘~, .'
and: 'x c
\‘0 0!.“
bcr

‘t: “In
' "o 7‘ . .

. Vulathn (i
31“::“P

‘ ‘Unn
“l ser'v'lc.

1;“;

 

 

 

 

10

intermediate learning task necessary for the acquisition
of a terminal performance objective.

8. Field Test refers to the systematic tryout of

 

the prototype Teacher's Guide for the purpose of determining
what aspects of the Guide need to be revised. The field
test of the prototype Teacher's Guide was conducted within
the larger context of the formative evaluation of the I CAN
Instructional System.

9. Formative Evaluation involves the tryout and
revision of instructional materials in an effort to improve
their quality prior to use with a large number of students.
The decision maker of interest in formative evaluation is
the developer of the materials.

10. Inservice Education is a series of planned
activities for the instructional improvement of professional
educators.

11. Intermediate School District is an educational
agency which covers a county or multi-county area, depend-
ing on population density. Its function is to provide
educational services of a special nature which are too
expensive for individual school districts to maintain.
Examples of intermediate school district services are:
vocational education centers, special education programs and
curriculum resource consultants.

12. Physical Education Specialist is a certified

special educator, trained as a major or minor in the field

-- ~;o-~v- i—Q‘VURO

:cc-‘bfivtl .16- D. U»; a

wzn' ...
.nygvu v. .C|~~‘u‘
..' a u o .
n- a.. .. - -

_ “5 F O 9’... v,
-‘-....u Hub .g-
i. __. IF“ A‘
“ ”H F‘ ‘ r
an

”'5 85.... U~~ ...

.._ .
a
"'v-.-
i- ‘\ "_."F
n. ‘
c.v.— bod...‘.._‘
4

.._
...
- Run

H". - F‘s F’n- ..
Wm “6-6-3.
“a. .

':.':_ 3: 2F.-,._;_ _

uu “'5:..\‘"J
~

a: .

‘JO 37"“. V‘
“.‘-811
\h—

.-
._:'~";n‘ :
-,.... O ’3ng
L Eu;‘i
-
.
V.
‘:. : .k ‘ Q
~ .465.“ aes~r‘ IF
H“UA

 

 

 

ll

of physical education, Who is responsible for the physical
education instruction of assigned classes.

13. Prototype refers to a complete but untried
version of instructional materials. The material has been
completed but feedback on the efficiency of the material
has not been obtained.

14. Teacher's Guide is a series of competency based
inservice training modules designed to provide learning
experiences for field test teachers so they may gain the
competencies necessary to implement the I CAN instructional
system as intended by the developers.

15. 'Terminal Performance Objective is a specific
statement of learning outcome expressed in behavioral
terms that describe what the learner will be able to do at
the end of instruction.

l6. Trainable Mentally_Retarded (TMR) are students
with a measured IQ between 30 and 50 on a standardized

intelligence test.

u. 9

a “-'-‘“V v..—
~= c65tb:;u‘e ‘

;' . .‘Wf- IF"
.ooiabtvnlg ..\'

l\‘

.:O~§~ A ’3‘ m '
buugva Uf MC...~‘ Lt
§

I". ,_ . .
\ r ““fi‘. ”A“
tuyy‘J‘fi‘Ultal “Bx/u

“ ”Want to 1

739' a review
.r.35~...es t0 the
15‘s

 

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter is organized into five major sections.
The first section presents the literature relevant to the
I CAN Instructional System. The second section presents
the literature relevant to competency based inservice
education.i Included in this section are the character-
istics of competency based programs and competency based
instructional modules. The third section presents litera-
ture relevant to the systematic deve10pment of instruction.
This section includes the review of two models of instruc-
tional development that provide the basis for the develop-
ment of the prototype Teacher's Guide. The fourth section
includes a review of the literature relevant to different
approaches to the formative evaluation of instructional
materials. The fifth section addresses methodological
issues related to this study. Included in this section are
types of specific measures appropriate for the formature
evaluation of competency based teacher training materials
and the selection of an inservice training procedure to

implement the Teacher's Guide developed in this study.

12

 

 

-—
Q"_ :'A~'=—
.H: .....-a-..a.

d
9 ‘ _

.‘a n-A:' '5‘“ ' .0
‘

“MN-05‘. co 6- ~

..,. n- 5....4-4 .

“ D
an... .n .‘..d\,-‘ \

:~:.- ",.-.-'~. ‘., F
....: .....c.: (J ‘
‘

I c
" ll
."‘4 Ia 9" .
'..-'- .“ 50" UAAA \

’ V
..' flfinl ..~~ .
9A
u..y 1 §
."‘“ .45 LU
'."v; ‘ ‘
~--:. 1 S ‘2? ”’10-.
.m. su‘ ”fly.“

.
u“ .
.u “by.
'I
' 'uv
.

 

‘I in? g \
.w‘ ". . .
Cu-thl, h _‘ ,
v..~- .
L
P.": ‘
v. :;.I\’
AV‘ N C ‘ ‘
“1 Cr
A
5“". n
“ W-‘el 16
' "'C“
l
. . -

‘31,“
slid“. k’afl
a t'r .
- -(l
“53 v.
“e (“A
‘Vst
. 6ft
J~IZEr‘S }‘
‘ w .
. ‘0 diffc.
5-1:“: ‘-

13

The PrOgrammatic Research Project

The Programmatic Research and Demonstration Project
in Physical Education for Mentally Retarded Children and
Youth was funded under a grant (1971-74) awarded to Michigan
State University by the Bureau of Education for the Handi-
capped in the United States Office of Education. The spe-
cific goal was to develop, produce, and disseminate
materials for mentally retarded children and youth in
school programs. (Wessel, 1975)

The instructional program model with the individual-
ized physical education curriculum materials is called I
CAN. The I CAN Instructional System was purposely designed
to be usable by the classroom teacher, the physical educa-
tion teacher, the teacher consultant and/or a combination

of the two.

The I CAN Instructional System

I CAN is a set of individualized physical education
curriculum/instructional materials designed to produce
higher educational achievements by providing for differ-
ences among children in rate of learning, learning style,
entry level, level of motivation, and other learning char-
acteristics. (Wessel, 1975)

The basic assumption used in designing the I CAN
curriculum was that diagnostic-prescriptive teaching pro-
vides the most effective instructional strategies for.
students who differ on characteristics believed to be

related to specific learning tasks. Diagnostic-prescriptive

 

'\

 

 

 

 

14

teaching focuses on skill development, skill assessment,
and prescription based upon the student's standing in the
hierarchical sequence of skill learning deve10pment.

The unique features of the I CAN Instructional
System that facilitate diagnostic/prescriptive teaching
for individualization within groups include:

a. Criterion-reference measures for assessment of
students' strengths and needs, for evaluation of continu—
ous pupil progress, and for grouping and regrouping.

b. Prescriptive teaching-learning activities
coded to each student's need assessment for a specific
learning task.

c. Continuous progress reporting and record keeping

of component behaviors necessary for successful completion

of learning tasks.

Instructional Program Model

To facilitate the identification of the teaching
competencies necessary to implement a diagnostic-prescrip-
tive program in physical education, the I CAN model for
instructional programming (Figure l) was developed (Wessel,
1975). The teaching skills identified by the I CAN Project
Staff (Knowles, Vogel, Wessel, 1974) as esSential to the
implementation of the I CAN Instructional System were
derived from this flowchart model. The teaching competen-

cies identified were:~ planning, assessment, prescription,

teaching and evaluation.

ho.\\/Av

—.¢-.

a

on»

 

a...u—.q. an.

(an. .uI-

n
, a

nhuv-vo.

.hn.‘

~.».~.

At.

-..:.,.‘ u.:.~ .r..:~
‘

..-..I-..~.N
\
.b I; h

\fad
.- u.

p

nunu. . Q
.chA uh.
a», ~.~.-.~.
nq~s .-.
i ‘p‘. .\

a

 

15

mcHEEmumoum HmcofluonuumcH Mom Hobo: 2&0 H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H madman
/,
. 4/ \
moon xomnowmm
7 msoflumuowmwm pampsuml
Emumoum CH \ :ofluoshumcfl Mo OGDOEMI mV.
m>auomnno uxms ucmeHmEH cofluosuumCH mo huflamsva
now was >53 mcflfihoumo
+ +
Umcflmuum mw>fluowhno V, .A pmchgum umw mw>wuommno
+ +
mmcmso pcmEEoomu can mumsam>m
+
mmmumoum mooscflucoo unommm
A:
Eooummmao woo» ca Hm>ma mocmauownmm ucwpsum on pmpoo cofluosuumCH onwuommum
. +
Hw>ma mocmEMOMHmm ucmosum whoomm AF
.7
EooummmHo H50» :H Hm>mH mocmEHOMHmm ucmpsum mmmmmm pcm Looms
m>HHUmomo 2&0 H z¢ mm: 09.30m
.9.
mafia mo
poflumm unonm m um>o :Hmuum ou ucopsum zoom MOM wm>HuooflQo Hmcofluusuumcfl owmaommm now A
+
mucmpsum
unom xn pocwmuum on o» mw>fluownno mUCMEHOMHmm on» msfluomamm an Emumoum haummm on» swam ATIIIL

A.
mmwuauoflum wpflznaoonum ou ucm>wdmh coflumosvm HMOfimhcm Mom mamom nmflanmumm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16

Competency Based Inservice Education

 

The increased demands and pressures for account-
ability in education has forced the professional community
to re-examine teacher education programs. As a result,
reform in the traditional system of teacher education has
prOposed that competency based teacher education (CBTE)
can be a more effective means of preparing teachers. A
committee formed by the American Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education has stated that the term "student"
used in their description of CBTE curriculum design means
the person completing the preparation program. Inservice
teachers are not meant to be excluded, "but the emphasis is
on preservice or prospective teachers." (Elam, 1971, p. 6)
The relative advantages offered to both teacher trainees
and prospective employers in a preservice CBTE program
would appear to transfer to inservice education. Yet the
current literature in education indicates that efforts to
generate competency based inservice programs have been
sporadic at best. (Burdin and Mathieson, 1972)

Characteristics of Competency
Based Programs

 

In an effort to clarify this emerging educational
concept, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education has formulated a list of elements considered to
be essential and generic to CBTE programs (Elam, 1972).

This list is paraphrased as follows:

 

 

”I.

-‘
h--'-| A

”v.- DR
.

...-... .v

0". ....
.-

a
.
6|
“Ia. .. -
. _‘
v"“"U u.-
5.-

’;v- A,

““"o-..

.‘T. ---
I _\
""I ......~
‘ :‘n‘:D-\
.- .‘I‘.o.
q
4
:30
I
.1
\. “I. R
H' u \
c~ b
‘

.
‘ “ ‘§§
I

"an“:

 

~u ‘”
‘1‘3'.
0
I
i.
u..~ '
. ‘

 

I A
{D

.-
\‘~I

17

l. The competencies, including knowledge, skills
and behaviors, should be derived by examination of teacher
roles. These competencies are to be stated in behavioral
terms to facilitate the assessment of behavior and must be
made public in advance.

2. The criteria to be used in assessing the compe-
tencies must be in concert with the objectives and their
criterion (mastery) levels. The specific conditions under
which mastery will be judged must be stated and published
in advance.

3. The assessment of the students competency must
use his performance as the prime source of evidence. The
students knowledge, skills and behaviors must be taken into
consideration and the assessment should strive for objec-
tivity.

4. The students rate of progress through the teacher
training program should be determined by demonstrated compe-
tency. Time or course completion should not be the measure
of progress.

5. The instructional program should be designed
to meet the objectives. Learning activities should facili-
tate the achievement of the student in relation to the
published competencies and criteria.

There are other characteristics thought to be im-
portant to CBTE programs. These additional elements have

been called implied and related and desirable

\.. .\\
.- .s.

 

- ..~ . s. - . -\~ .u-
, — ‘ ‘ . K h . . \ . \ . .,.,, .. ..
u . o . - . y n 6.. . . ._. 6 . -

 

 

 

18

characteristics (Elam, 1972). These implied and related

characteristics are listed in Table 1.

TABLE I

IMPLIED AND RELATED DESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS
OF COMPETENCY BASED TEACHER EDUCATION

 

 

 

 

Implied Related, Desirable
Characteristics Characteristics
1. Individualization H 1. Field Setting
2. Feedback 2. Broad Base for Decision
Making
3. Systematic Program 3. Protocol and Training
Materials
4. Exit Requirement 4. Student Participation in
Emphasis Decision Making
5. Modularization 5. Research-Oriented
and Regenerative
6. Career-Continuous

 

 

 

Instructional Modules

Most competency-based teacher education programs
employ an instructional delivery system called a module.
(Houston, et. a1., 1972) According to one definition of
instructional module is "a set of learning activities
designed to facilitate the learner's acquisition and
demonstration of a particular competency or particular
competencies." (Cooper and Weber, 1973, p. 17).

Lanier and Henderson (1973) believe that most

definitions of modules fail to distinguish a module from

 

- av ..- Q. .w ..- .e- .6. .6 I. ..~
. .
. a

 

 

19

a course and they prefer to define a module as follows:

A module is a plan for a subordinate unit

of instruction; it is a subset of the super-

ordinate unit of instruction referred to as

a competency. Its basic parameter is a dis-

crete segment of content that integrates the

basic knowledge, application methodology and

skill elements to be learned for that unit.

.The module includes procedures and instru-

ments for assessing prerequisite knowledge

and skills, a statement of specific know-

ledge, performance and product objectives to

be mastered, strategies for attaining the

specified objectives and evaluation tools

and instruments. [p. 34]

Southwest Minnesota State College has organized
their preservice program for elementary and secondary
teachers on the basis of competency packages (ComPacs)
(Steig,.l975). A student's graduation and certification
are dependent upon competencies demonstrated as a result of
completing ComPacs, microteaching, and teaching in the
schools. A plan has been formulated to follow-up the first
class of teachers on the job and to evaluate each ComPac.
These results are not presently available.

The performance-based teacher education program at
Weber State College has been in Operation since 1970 using
Weber Individualized Learning Kits (WILKITS) as their modu-
lar system (Burke, 1972). Since WILKITS were the primary
instructional delivery system, an evaluation specialist was
annoyed to evaluate the effectiveness of the modules as
demonstrated in the student teaching situation and during

the first year Of teaching. A complete evaluation of the

total system is not yet available. Burke reports that

K . ml ' M. M“
‘5 ' “1’: ..J . fir .. ‘fl: ‘ ’1 fr,

 

 

 

n
“vb-r-"
. -

-...... 3..

....._' I
O

o
I‘--...

“:" --J'

 

..-
,
o

"n ,-

t u.

n.._. “I“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
b;
\.P *
~_ .
~b‘fi10
q
u
l
I- I
I“. b*..
V >
V.,
N
t

20

!

tentative observations by students indicate their positive
feelings about the clearly stated objectives and expected
performance levels of each module. He reports that the
faculty View the modules as superior to traditional
methods.

Merwin (1974) indicates that the reasons for the lag
between inservice and preservice teacher training are pro—
bably numerous but that the lack of especially designed
materials or modules for inservice training may be the
major reason for the lack of CBTE inservice education pro-
grams.

Although the form and format of a module may vary,
most modules include five major parts: 1) the rationale,
2) objectives, 3) preassessment, 4) enabling activities and
5) post assessment (Shearron, 1969; Houston, 1972; Kling-
stedt, 1972; Cooper and Weber, 1973). The design speci-
fications for these module sections have been explicated
by these authors and are summarized in the following
Paragraphs.

1. The rationale is a clear statement of the value

 

0f the learning module. It should explain the importance
and relevance of the objectives to be achieved.

2. The objectives of the module are stated in

 

criterion referenced terms. They should clearly specify
in behavioral terms what the learner will be able to do
upon completion of the module.

3. The pre-assessment tests the learner's competence

 

 

 

 

- ~‘v
.. "_’-—

-
p..o--‘
n

 

 

"D; n-
. 'h‘
."".v~'

   

 

5

 

 

 

\;:. ~ ‘LN
"" u x
u
‘ v
H‘-
n
. '~| \
2. .
I:
u“. ~“ I-
‘u
v
‘ b
'\
a.
‘v..‘~s

 

 

p
‘ \I‘
‘n
. .~
L. \; A
‘.~ V
:.
. k ‘
"61“",
“ IL
‘\
‘1
'k
4“
.i
~ ‘1‘
u"; "t‘
' d
r. .
I *-
Q
“‘~‘ ‘
v u
.I
.‘u
.'- ho‘
:»‘~' ,.
“.\
.A
”x"
'-
\ (Q
s
O “ c
N
‘c
32(- .
u A?
t
"s
. \‘
W Li,
'5
PM. "

21

in prerequisites and evaluates his present competence in
meeting the module objectives. Pre-test questions should
be derived from the module objectives.

4. Enabling activities specify procedures for
attaining the competencies specified by the module objec-
tives. Modules may provide learning alternatives, such as
lectures, movies, slide-tapes, work with children, or out-
side readings. Modules may often include material written
by an instructor.

5. The post-assessment, like the pre-assessment,
measures competency in meeting the module objectives. Post
test questions should be derived from the module objec-
tives. Successful completion on a post test should indicate.
completion of a module.

The literature related to CB inservice education
provides little insight into tryout and revision of instruc-
tional modules. However, some empirical evidence to support
the use of inservice modules to improve the instructional
effectiveness of teachers was provided by Merwin (1974).

Merwin developed and field tested two CBTE modules

(SIMS) with an inservice group (N-32) of secondary social
studies teachers. The SIMS were designed to develOp teacher
cxmmetencies in employing questioning strategies that
reQuire students to use higher cognitive processes. A t-
test for correlated means was calculated between scores on

criterion referenced pre and post tests to assess teacher

 

 

1’

 

 

 

 

,, ...

----O
, .- —
" r‘-.-.

.
a
I
‘.. .,
‘5 ..

 

u A l R
~. .__. ~-:

 

.
.-

w.

- 1“ -0

“'v... _.

‘HV.

- n. '_
v... t- V'-
.'w L.

. u

 

‘. '* m r
‘ot
”.v-
. i _
. -
~- .~ A
. ""u ‘
I...
.
\_ -' ‘|_
"‘sg ._.
. 6.»

\
.,_‘-.
‘.,‘ 9-4
u‘ h‘ «H
b
‘i
‘.
4 A
v..:
| .
-'r
.I -

 

..-..
‘_ -
6 ~
- s“ ,
V“.
A
V .:
a o
.5. .
6" "
s
H
-
‘
F
‘I‘ V

 

 

22

achievement and on the SIM objectives. Significant dif-
ferences (P .00001) between pre and post test scores were
reported. A Cognitive Quality Rating System, was divised
to evaluate pre and post 15 minute teacher directed dis-
cussions. Significant differences (P .0001) between the
sme and post audio tapes were recorded. In addition a
Thacher-Trainee Evaluation Questionnaire indicated 75
{mrcent of the subjects favored the SIMs over other in-
service programs.

Unfortunately Merwin failed to provide information on
fluadevelopment of the SIMs other than to indicate that
Umw had first been found effective with a preservice group.
Ruther, Merwin gave no indication that feedback from the
field test teachers was used to further revise the instruc-
tional modules .

One implication of Merwin's work for the present
Study*was that instructional modules can be used to provide
effective inservice training. A second implication was
thatwhen appropriate training materials are available,
the principles and practices of CBTE can be successfully

employed for inservice education.
The Systematic DevelOpment of Instruction

In recent years, a number of systems approach models
lave been used for instructional development. These models
lave employed the common steps of analysis, design and eval-

tation. A simple illustration for this approach, taken

 

 

 

-.,.
"—3....

 

L.’ R ‘
u"- U y‘

I-
. 1“
. h. :7“
N.» a “‘1
a

u 7“
‘b‘L‘alE
..“

23

from The Systematic Development of Instruction: An Over-
view and Basic Guide to the Literature, by Twelker, (1972)

is presented in Figure 2.

 

 

 

 

DEFINE ,___> DEVELOP —_). EVALUATE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

fix A. I
I l I at»..-
l<-——-—- REVISE <-—--——J E
Is
I:
Figure 2 5

Schematic Representation of a Systems
Approach to the Development of
Instruction
(Twelker, 1972, p. 5)
Instructional Development System by Twelker

Of interest to this investigation is the descrip-
tion of these four stages by Twelker (1972). He describes a
nine step instructional development system that provides
a linear flow and indicates critical check points in the
process of developing instructional materials. These nine
functions are outlined in Figure Zland described in greater
detail in the following paragraphs.

FUNCTION 1: IDENTIFY PROBLEM. Problems may be
identified in many ways; but no matter what techniques are
utilized, it is essential to compare what exists with what
is desired. When problems are identified, tentative solu-
tions are prOposed to provide prospective for other stages.

FUNCTION 2: ANALYZE SETTING. Identifying problems

and proposing tentative solutions help the developer to

 

 

 

 

 

 

“-7 - Q».

l
01,-.-.
- a

‘ -- v~
In.
D
.\

H “—~. ,

-

D~

"ui..‘,'“

 

.-

h'iu

.. “.x‘_.‘

“vb_ ‘
.r- ‘9.-.
a“ m
‘ ~~"~.
F:
I.
‘ _ n
".s
0 u
b .

V. .

u- a...
'.‘_ 3“
. ‘ 5‘
.

I'.

 

 

D. > I
'~.}.A;‘Y
J‘yL“
.
.
b‘ «A
L ~
' J .x:.
v“:
...
' a
‘1‘] na‘,
. I‘:
.
‘A
' V
«5‘6

H: A“?
UU‘
y.

24

define the kinds of information to be collected. The
setting is analyzed to determine the characteristics of
the learners and the environment. This report on existing
conditions and resources assists the developer to test the
adequacy of problem identification and to organize the
management required for the deve10pment effort.

FUNCTION 3: ORGANIZE MANAGEMENT. Crucial areas to
be considered here are: 1) define tasks and responsi-
bilities required in the effort; 2) establishing lines of
communication to organize the information needed by the
development team; and 3) establishing the formal planning
and control procedures.

FUNCTION 4: IDENTIFY OBJECTIVES. The most crucial
step in the process is to specify objectives that detail
precisely terminal student performance. Once objectives
are specified, the development team can determine Objec-
tives that bridge the gap between the behaviors of a learner
entering the system and those exhibited upon leaving the
system.

FUNCTION 5: SPECIFY METHODS. Specifying effective
instructional strategies and media is essential to maxi-
mize the probability that learners will attain the desired
Objectives. The development team can employ systematic
processes--trials and revisions--to perfect the methods
and materials used.

‘ FUNCTION 6:_ CONSTRUCT PROTOTYPE. This stage of

development includes: construction of a first draft of

 

Function 1

 

IDENTIFY PROBLEM
Assess needs
Establish priorities
State problem

Function 4

 

IDENTIFY OBJECTIVES
Terminal
Enabling

Function 7

TEST PROTOTYPE
Conduct tryouts
Collect evaluation

data

25

STAGE I: DEFINE

 

 

Function 2

 

ANALYZE SETTING
Audience
Conditions
Relevant resources

STAGE II: DEVELOP

 

 

Function 5

 

SPECIFY METHODS
Learning
Instruction
Media

STAGE III: EVALUATE

 

Function 8

 

ANALYZE RESULTS
Objectives
Methods
Evaluation

techniques

Figure 3

Function 3

 

ORGANIZE MANAGEMENT
Tasks
Responsibilities
Time lines

Function 6

 

CONSTRUCT PROTOTYPE
Instructional ma—
terials
Evaluation materials

Function 9

 

IMPLEMENT/RECYCLE
Review
Decide
Act

Instructional Development System

(Twelker, 1972, p. 16)

 

 

.-
.yaur
n,

I
d>
III.

." .

 

. ~~
u-«pu
,

I .vvnn.\-

.- -\.A.. .,
—u..v.., 5A..

,;: .,
12.... by

.6. Q

~\ ‘

'no-I. 5" J
.0

" ‘V~-

6:.6- .-

- g-I."v. .

A

‘ i
’l . ‘J
:‘«_u

6 r...“.‘\

.. .
~\
'I I... ""'
IA
3: ”:H I
....6. Vi“

 

. ~ g" ‘ 6:
\I.‘ ~“c-
' D D.

s. K2? 6.
\~.‘L ..‘.I
a”,
:6 \ “.
‘~6l\_
.._ .. ‘
6‘“
“H.135“ a

 

VI

6 _ V

.‘s‘, ‘6‘“-.-
A‘skdl

IA \
nut ‘V “A
H {H
-

.._
K“ '6“.
.‘ .
M.‘~l:‘_
"x.
' h
“AL:
“3'.
‘IN
"L.
Muy“;
'l
3:21
1".) '4

26

the program, developing evaluation procedures, initiation
of a technical review of the proposed system by experts
to.detect any flaws, and construction of performance
measures to assess post-instructional behaviors.

FUNCTION 7: TEST PROTOTYPE. Testing instructional
prototypes generally occurs at one of three general levels:
1) development tryout--major flaws--revision‘run throughs;
2) validation tryouts--to see how well students achieve
objectives; and 3) field tryouts--to determine whether
cthers can use the materials. Instructional prototypes
usually progress through many tryout and revision cycles.
Field trials use materials which the develOper hopes are
in near final form.

FUNCTION 8: ANALYZE RESULTS. Evaluation data are
tabulated and processed. Relationships are analyzed between
the methods used, results obtained, and the Objectives and
goals desired. The quality and comprehensiveness of data
interpretation determine the quality of revisions.

FUNCTION 9: IMPLEMENT/RECYCLE. From the data
interpretation, revisions may be indicated. Toward the end
of the development effort, a decision to stOp recycling
and initiate implementation is made.

This general approach has been advocated by numerous
other authors: Corregan, (1972), Barson (1967), Banathy,

(1968) and Hamreus,(l969).

 

. a
’,..p ya.
6

.6.¢‘v.o~

r..-

‘6‘.
... .A .6.
6- a

-vv iv a.

..-.6.. '

"" A.» ~.
\

In..."‘.‘

”l: -‘a;
>.. ““‘v
u
a
.6... ‘N‘

I...
\
‘Ie.
‘6 _‘V
‘ I)
u-
..-‘ A 5—:
I‘m.b

 

 

‘-
1- 2"-
.' 3“:
'-.-~
' I.
.H‘ _
‘mq'
-
6“.
6 4‘
~‘~‘ a
‘n
6
.'; . ~.“'
I» y-

 

\ u
‘1
. s‘ .
‘ I! \
Q"‘ .6
v
s" ‘
.5 .,
6 I ‘
6
V“ Q a
u” k
‘»
‘n
'llh
u). [1
I
.I
. ,‘
' N
.
6
4‘ .‘\
y. _
V‘
"r-
51

 

I‘.
6 6 ‘
uni"
Cu
‘0
.I
.
.. ‘
1
s‘J‘ ‘
'64

27

Instructional DevelOpment System bnyhiagarajan

These earlier systems approach models have been
used to design a model for the development of teacher
training materials in special education (Thiagarajan, 1974).
This model is called the FOUR-D Model and divides the
instructional deve10pment process into four stages: define,
design, develop and disseminate. The first three stages of
this model are Of particular interest to this investiga-
tion and are described in the following paragraphs.

STAGE 1: DEFINE. The purpose of this stage is to
stipulate and define instructional requirements.' Through
goal analysis, the objectives and constraints for the in-
structional materials are formulated. The steps in this
stage are: l) "front-end analysis" or a study of the basic
problem, 2) learner analysis or a study of target students,
3) task analysis or identification of the main skills to
be acquired by teacher trainees, 4) concept analysis or
identification of the main skills to be taught and 5) spe-
Cification of instructional objectives or converting the
results of goal analysis into behaviorally stated Objec-
tives. These objectives provide the basis for test con-
StIUOtion and instructional design.

\ESSTAGE 2: DESIGN. The purpose of this stage is to
design prototype instructional materials. This phase

begins after the behavioral objectives have been estab-
lished. Selection of media and formats for the material and

the production of an initial version constitute the major

 

 

.' ....
12'” _.

A...-—6.- ~ ‘

«Id: ..6.\ .

 

I’,
ch

0
“9“. A.

6
~5""‘l .,

 

Q-‘
‘
~ 6.6
b ‘ . 6
"'m.
. -
‘I I hD-t
" 5666..
C
”"b. A
6: - ‘.:
In" in .6.-
m...
\. " - *|

"V..!.

 

. .‘
-.r. . ..
§~ ‘I-o
\
-
46-
.
‘Iv
b
“-t -“:.
H
y
....‘.
.
6
1‘"~6‘, ‘1’
"s

 

 

“.
VI
‘\
..
I‘M. ;|“‘
U h‘

..

t
-: M

'§

 

 

 

 

 

28

aspects of the design stage. The construction of criterion
referenced tests is the step that connects stage one and
stage two in the design process. The steps in this stage
are: 1) selection of appropriate media and medium, 2) se-
lection of an appropriate format and 3) initial design or
placing the media and medium in a Suitable sequence.

STAGE 3: DEVELOP. The purpose of this stage is to
undify the instructional material. The results of the
define stage must be considered a tentative version of the
nuterial that must be modified before it can become an
effective final version. In the development stage, feed—
back.is received through formative evaluation and the ma-
terials are subsequently revised. There are two steps in
this stage. The first is expert appraisal-~a number of
experts are asked to evaluate the materials from both
instructional and technical points of view. 0n the basis
of their feedback the material is modified to make it more
appropriate, effective, useable and of high technical
quality. The second step, developmental testing, involves
trYing out the materials with actual trainees to identify
deficiencies. On the basis of responses, performance and

reaetions of the trainees, the material is modified.

\

QEEEBSSion of Systems Approaches
The system approach in education is a management
tool that allows for the systematic development of instruc-

tibnal materials. The models reviewed include actions that

 

 

.... Q. -
6 a
6 -4-
. 6.

[It

>ao-‘.

L." .. .

 

 

zit...
"“~-.<l
.

.. ~.
”4“"!

'6

1‘ 6..
I. s...
.' '.6
‘4. P
-~: ..,
~‘U .3.
I

‘
n6
‘6

‘ 6

u ‘

‘I
N §

 

 

 

1"

 

I 6
'~"’~ .
'. r~
‘qh...
65‘
\
6
~,

 

 

29

face into the categories of problem definition, develOp-
ment, and evaluation. The systems approaches described
by Twelker and Thiagarajan address the development task
in similar ways with slightly different descriptions and
language. Both approaches, in general, indicate that the
major steps in the development of the instructional
materials for this study are: 1) problem definition and
planning, 2) deve10pment of a preliminary form of the
product, 3) preliminary tryout and revision and 4) a main
field test to identify major deficiencies and provide the

basis for suitable revisions.
Formative Evaluation

A review of recent publications in educational
evaluation clearly indicates that formative evaluation is
considered to be an essential step in the development of
any instructional program (Briggs, 1970; Cronbach, 1963;
Hamreus, 1969; Scriven, 1967; Stake, 196?).

Formative evaluation is the process used by develop-
ers of prototype instructional materials to collect and
analyze information for the purpose of correcting defi-
ciencies in the system. Although the term "formative eval-
uation" was first used by Scriven (1967), the cOncept has
emerged from the movement toward improving instruction.
Tyler (1951) referred to "evaluation of learning exper-
iences", while Cronbach (1963) described "evaluation for

course improvement". Susan Markle (1967) cited the

. fnm‘

TI

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Q'v.‘ a

p
‘ :6“...
“1 6.6"

 

6
‘s

“I
u;

E

0:

 

‘A
\‘x‘
y‘—
\

 

30

principle of "deve10pmental testing" and Alkin (1970)
proposed "Implementation and progress evaluation". The
meaning of this concept has been fully described by Soren-

son (1970) as follows:

This concept holds that part of the effort

and resources ordinarily expended in develOp-

ing and using any instructional program,

whether lecture series, syllabus, textbook,

workshop or training film, should be devoted

to testing out and improving that program,

particularly during the course of its

development, to insure that the program will

work with a particular group of students.

(p. 13)

The primary concern during prototype evaluation
is the systematic determination of deficiencies in the
program. Since this process is formative, implying re-
vision, the deveIOper must be concerned not only with what
is deficient but also why (Hastings 1966). To answer the
question of why, concerns related to relevancy of content,
characteristics of learners, useability of the product as

well as effect are but a few important areas of investiga-
tion.

In general, the literature pertaining to the forma-
tive evaluation of instructional materials presents three
evaluation design strategies (Paulson, 1969). The first of
these strategies, the "tutorial" approach, utilizes a sin-
gle student to obtain feedback on instructional materials.
The second approach uSes a "large group" of students to
obtain feedback, while the third approach uses feedback

obtained from both individual students and large groups.

V‘

6:64:64.

.Lw'

vi..-

 

 

 

2... cv-
.
,6. c-v

 

‘U‘l .,

.-
-~-v- su

 

.
‘u
'opq .
.. ~ \‘
"V 6-.
-6.
. . 6...y
6._

 

. 0.6,.
'a

'6. :- ‘
‘-

" 6

.."‘ '56

'.o.

I‘m

‘6

 

31

There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these

approaches.

The Tutorial Approach

The tutorial approach to formative evaluation re-
quires that the program developer or a trained assistant
observe the student as he uses the prototype materials.
If the student has difficulty, he describes the problem to
the tutor who verbally gives correct information and makes
an immediate revision to the section of the instructional
material that was deficient (Horn, 1966). Several emperi-
cal studies (Robeck, 1965; Silberman and Coulson, 1965)
have indicated that the tutorial method can produce an
improved self-instructional programmed text. However
S. Markle (1967) describes some Of the difficulties en-
countered in obtaining necessary information:

Procedures for eliciting these data vary.

Some testers prefer to talk the student

through the process, a procedure which, of

course, renders the students final perfor-

mance suspect- if not invalid. Others pre-

fer to query the student who hesitates or

errs, leaving him to his own devices when

no danger signals are apparent. The data

which may be missed under this condition
are exemplified by statements which some of

us have heard often: 'I know what you want
here, but. . .' and 'I see your point, but
it seems to me. . . .' There are at pre-

sent no firm rules. Each programmer has
his own. (p. 122-123)

The theoretic rationale for tutorial procedures
appear to be based on the assumption that observation of
a single student is the best way to identify and revise

instructional deficiencies.

 

6'

V:

6.6—

I'O‘O"
.6

*‘i‘...

:r--.6 .

~66-..' l

 

‘ s...

““o‘..

o." h
’
Q
.0.
6 I."
:6 z r- 2
6-6..
._ ‘
_. 'VuF
‘.-.‘
q.
o

 

'6, 6
‘ Q
I‘. -'~
‘u‘ ‘
c
6
Q‘ .
6

V «‘-

 

 

 

F
a
a
6
*r
‘e. ‘
.U 6‘
R‘.‘ f
\
. -. g
."6 N I
~ I
\
:.
6.,
2~._
‘._:b‘
.
‘uve
.
.v
‘i
6
la 6
.
|‘ Phn‘
6
J6
s
:I‘
6 ~ .
. 6_
6 ‘._
‘4

32

Markle (1967) and Paulson (1969) did cite several
limitations to the tutorial method: 1) it is time con-
suming and expensive, 2) the variety of techniques used
are difficult to describe and replicate, 3) there is
extreme vulnerability to atypical students and 4) spuri-
ous inflation of learning and/or motivation. This last
limitation means that the presence of a tutor is a rein-
forcing stimulus that may inflate the student's motiva-
tional state. Tutoring may therefore, confound the measure-
ment of criterion performance.

The literature on the tutorial approach to forma-
tive evaluation has provided some assistance in the choice
of tryout and revision methodology for this study.

The next section of this chapter reviews the litera-
ture relevant to a second tryout and revision procedure:

the large group approach.

The Large Group Approach

Paulson (1969) defined a large group approach as a
tryout of a prototype instructional system using groups of
twenty or more students with provisions for recording and
analyzing specific types of data. Paulson's summary of the
advantages of this approach include two points of particu-
lar interest to the present study. They are paraphrased
as follows:

1. Data obtained through large group procedures

are far less vulnerable to unique or idiosyncratic personal

vi. 4 __

..-.-v

_
man--

.4-ab-

.flv... '

v'. 666- f,

«.0 U...

<6.--‘

“‘-o..:-

n. ._
.
"“--66.

 

 

A
\
s

h n :
.. t y" 1
.. my.

‘-
— HA’

v'_.

(I)
t.)
I 'I

.“ ‘
..
‘t.'4

a.‘
n“ ‘
‘~-. 3. I
u .
a
.; .
‘-
u ; ‘
5..»

 

 

5
.
\
6
N 6
0' ‘
‘6‘1
“5

 

'I
--: ,6
‘-6.. ‘0.
‘l
.

 

33

characteristics since the data are normally summed across
students.

2. The larger data base increases the probability
that correct decisions will be made relative to which
deficiencies warrant revision.

The logic providing the basis for the large group
approach is that this method produces a greater amount of
data and therefore presents stronger evidence on which to
base revisions.

Since the instructional material of interest in the
present study is a Teacher's Guide comprised of a series of
CBTE Modules, it would be difficult to justify costly and
time consuming revision on feedback from a single student
_as is often done in programmed text development. Since the
purpose of the formative evaluation is the systematic iden—
tification and revision of deficiencies, it would appear
that a large data base is necessary to determine what parts
of the Guide are deficient enough to need revision.

The large group approach contains the advantages of
generating large amounts of data to identify problems, but
lacks the direct, specific input from students needed to
formulate apprOpriate revisions. The tutorial and large

group approach each have advantages to contribute to the

present study.

AnjApproach Combining Individual
and Group Data

The most widely accepted approach to formative

 

 

 

   

pn- -ya
-

.66'- 'O—

‘ -
6...... -

“'co _-
6
6.-
Q.
I
‘4
‘P
on
f“.— fl
"‘»«.::
6 ‘0.
" o
, §..
I
. l
I l
I. Q,
'. a
5
6.
on

 

 

 

 

34

evaluation reported in the literature is one that combines,
in iterative fashion, data from individual students and
large groups. The flowchart model for this approach as

illustrated by Brethower (1966) is presented in Figure 4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L> major
INITIAL ‘x INDIVIDUAL REVISION ' GROUP no problems>_ PRINT
WRITE /’ TRYOUT . TRYOUT _] problems

Figure 4

Flowchart of the Recommended Testing-Revision

- (Brethower, 1966, p. 169)

This approach has also been supported by other
authors: Paulson (1969, p. IV-46-47) S. Markel (1967,

p. 111); Briggs (1970, 1972-173) and Thiagarajan et. 31.,
(1974).

Emperical studies, using this combined approach for
tryout and revision of instructional materials have been
reported by D. Markle (1967); Anderson (1967); Short
(1968) and Abedor (1971). Each of these studies reported
statistically significant differences favoring revised over
prototype versions of programs. Markle (1967) used student
feedback to support as many instructional decisions as pos—
sible. Formative evaluation data were used to revise film
materials, specify course objectives, sequence learning
activities and to develop evaluation instruments.

The purpose of Markle's study was to develop a basic

first aid course which, in seven and one-half hours, would

 

 

35

exceed the performance of an existing ten-hour course.
The course objectives were derived from a set of test ques-
tions based on the analysis of thousands of accidents.
These objectives were pre-tested on trained and untrained
members of a student population. After removing the items
known to all the typical trainees, the remaining items be-
came a first draft course. First, Markle used individual '
tutoring with a group of students to develop instructional
material. Gradually, material was added until the students
were achieving at the criterion levels. The major basis
for revision was error rate, response time, and prompting by
the tutor. Markle used a similar procedure to develOp a
film series beginning with black and white still frames as
a first draft film. Additional pictures, camera angles,
'motion, and color were added as indicated by student feed-
back. After three to five students achieved criterion per-
formance with little or no tutorial assistance, the instruc-
tional materials were tried out with large groups (N-22 to
30) and revisions continued until students were achieving
90 percent on the criterion test.

The results of this study are summarized by Markle

as follows:

These instructional engineering methods
have resulted in the attainment of the pro-
per objectives. In addition to the desired
increase in efficiency as a function of
decreased time, the new 7 1/2 hour course is
far more effective than the ten-hour standard
courses with which it has been compared. On
one wide-range test used for comparisons,
untrained subjects achieved a mean score of

aw

 

36

85, subjects trained in standard first aid

course achieved a mean score of 145, while

subjects trained in the new course achieved

a mean score of 270, out of a possible maxi-

mum of 326 points. Similar results were

obtained with other tests and other sub-

jects (p. 1).

Three inferences relevant to the present study
may be made based on Markle's work. First, instructional
systems other than programmed text may be improved based on
tutorial and large group tryouts. Second, this combined
approach appears to work well with adult students. Third,
in agreement with the writings of Mager (1961), Scott and
Yelon (1969) and Meyen (1970) students can significantly
improvetthe design of an instructional system.

Abedor (1971) developed and validated a flowchart
model prescribing specific formative evaluation proce-
dures for tryout and revision of prototype multi-media self-
instructional learning systems. An initial model (MKI) was
developed that addressed three main methodological issues:
1) how to identify major discrepancies in prototype multi—
media lessons by data collection, 2) how to analyze these
data and develOp revision hypothesis; and 3) how to design,
integrate and evaluate revisions. The MRI model developed
by Abedor contained an elaborate three stage process, in-
cluding technical review, tutorial tryouts and large group
tryouts.

Data from interviews with seven faculty members

held to validate this model indicated that the procedures

were too complex and time consuming for practitioners to

V4.

 

-.
.. I‘V
.- -

 

.. rv‘,~'
.—

1
..-¢ cow»-
u

 

4, .p-u—

V .-
-....-.- H

--p,...-..~

<
“-uuob...‘

. “fill

 

_‘ .
o" ‘u-.,

.. -
'oqo.‘b‘

"~‘p:
0...“. '

tn

 

‘.

\K N
“M; 1
,

‘ A Q

‘-I \Ifl .

‘d-i

\
h.
‘l
.: Y
N “,3.“
b. \
‘u
.‘
‘n A ‘
D I
"HI: ‘
‘-
‘-
-._: D
‘x 2'
~ a

 

‘5 ,L.‘
~A

37

use. Therefore, an MKII Model was developed which simpli-
fied procedures and used a small group (N-12) tryout and
debriefing procedure as the main method of identifying in-
structional problems and necessary revisions.

The validation of the MKII procedures were conducted
in five experimental comparisons to determine the overall
validity, feasibility, and effectiveness of the model in
facilitating tryout and revision of prototype multi-media
lessons.

'Each field experiment consisted of the lesson author
applying the MKII procedures to the tryout and revision
of his prototype lesson. In each field trial, Abedor per-
formed a technical assessment of the prototype instructional
stimuli prior to material tryout with an initial student
group. Following the initial tryout and debriefing, re-
visions suggested by students were incorporated into the
revised versions.

A second iteration of student tryouts was initiated
as revised lessons were completed. The purposes of the
second tryout were to: 1) compare revised versions with
their prototype'counterparts in order to determine the
effect of revisions on measures of student attitude and
achievement and 2) to gather additional feedback for further
revision.

Experimental comparisons were conducted in three
trials to compare four dependent measures: 1) student

achievement on the post test, 2) gain score, 3) percentage

 

 

a
.p ‘ . o
‘ \
.,.¢.- D

'..-
... —~

---...

....,.._

 

"' ~.. 1-

"".~

N -‘v-

1‘.
I .
~A_
n..
a“;
‘ .
.‘.

 

. \‘:~
.h'v.\
VI
\
.

 

l).

38

of students achieving criterion and 4) student attitude.
Significant differences (P<.01) were obtained in two field
trials favoring the revised version on all dependent
measures. In the third field trial, a significant dif-
ference (P<.05) favoring the revised version was obtained on
the post test only.

Abedor concluded that the MKII model was valid
because authors were able to identify and remediate in-
structional problems through the use of MKII procedures.

He also concluded that MKII was feasible in that two out
of three developers were able to use the procedures. The
MKII model was determined to be effective as statistically
significant differences favoring the revised lessons were
obtained on nine of twelve dependent measures in three
separate field trials.

The MKII model provides an operational framework for
the formative evaluation of mediated self-instructional
systems. Whether the model can be generalized to other
types of instructional systems cannot be determined at this
time.

Of interest to the present study in Abedor's develop-
ment of a group debriefing/problem solving process based on
a noted functional similarity between formative evaluation
and military debriefings. Military debriefing it; the
interview of the Operations and support personnel involved
in an exercise or training program immediately following a

mission to determine specific successes and problem areas.

 

 

 

 

”-v—t'o '
-

 

‘v‘."-.
a

'oA..-.

"<b-.v|4

 

H“!

.-
'- -..

 

.

,
t‘hn a
h

 

 

._,
.

‘. ‘s
y .
u

-
.-
b
.‘ 1
V4
.. .
‘.. q.
‘-
.~
\
V b
“
\

39

Information is collected from participants, summarized and
formally reviewed by mission/training directors to deter—
mine how to improve mission effectiveness. This provides
first hand information from Operational level staff back
to planning and design personnel. Abedor points out the
functional similarity between this process and formative
evaluation; information on success and problems of students
is fed back to the materials developer for purposes of
lesson improvement. His group debriefing technique involves
the following components: 1) selection of nine volunteer
students of varying ability, 2) use of the prototype
SLATE materials by these students, 3) administration and
assessment of learning and attitudinal measures to provide
a basis for conducting an organized debriefing, and 4) par-
ticipation in a group debriefing following the use of the
materials, involving problem posting and problem solving.
In addition, the general principles of Abedor's
model appear to provide guidelines for tryout and revision
of CBTE materials. These principles are paraphrased as
follows: ‘1) use a carefully developed prototype to pro-
vide a common instructional experience for students of
varying abilities; 2) collect data relevant to learning
and attitudinal measures; 3) identify, discuss, and propose
solutions to major deficiencies in the prototype by means
of a group debriefing process; 4) consult with "experts"
on data interpretation; and 5) revise the instructional

unit and recycle as necessary.

.. rill;
“';r. . ’

cram“,g
' .

 

 

 

 

~13 o d¢

   

-
v-
“‘o ..
‘
.., -.

in-

nu‘

 

 

40

Discussion of the Three Approaches

Three varieties of formative evaluation procedures
have been identified. The review indicates that signifi-
cant differences between original and revised versions occur
most often when achievement data is combined with feedback
from students. One approach that combines achievement data
and direct feedback focuses upon the individual student.

In these tryouts instruction is modified on the basis of a
single student's reactions. Although this tutorial approach
is the most sensitive to individual learning problems, it

is highly vulnerable to atypical students and can initiate
costly and possible unnecessary revisions.

The large group approach provides a larger data base
and reduces the possibility of idiosyncratic revisions that
may result from atypical students. The large group approach
provides more accurate measures of student learning as a
result of the instructional materials but inhibits direct
interaction with students. Serious deficiencies may not
be detected. Although a large amount of data can be gener-
ated, it requires careful organization and display before
it can be used.

The third approach, which combines tutorial and

group data, appears to provide the best of both techniques.
Related Methodological Issues

Although the general approach to formative evaluation

has been determined, a number of related methodological

 

 

...

l/

41

issues remain. First, is the determination of the types of
data that will be sufficient for the present study.

Of direct relevance to this issue is Paulson's
(1969) summary of specific measures appropriate for pro-
viding formative evaluation data. Paulson's summary is

outlined on Table 2.
TABLE 2

DATA TYPE AND SPECIFIC MEASURES FOR
FORMATIVE EVALUATION

 

 

 

DATA TYPE SPECIFIC MEASURES
l. Antecedent Data Pre-tests
(student entry status) General Ability Measures

(standardized tests)

 

 

2. Technical Data student comments
(technical quality) Technical expert comment

3. Process Data Monitor comments based on
(student behavior Direct observation

during tryout)

 

4. Learning Data Responses and feedback during
(student progress in lessons
achieving objectives

 

 

5. Criterion Achievement Post tests
Data
6. Attitudinal Data Rating Scales
Questionnaires
Comments

 

Also of importance to this issue is the classifi-
cation of specific measures appropriate to the evaluation

of CBTE materials for training teachers of exceptional

 

 

 

 

42

children- (Thiagarajan, 1974). These are summarized in

Table 3.

TABLE 3

SPECIFIC MEASURES APPROPRIATE TO THE EVALUATION
OF CBTE MATERIALS FOR TRAINING TEACHERS
OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

 

 

MEASURES INSTRUMENTS

 

1. Input Measures Aptitude Tests
(entry behaviors Entry Questionnaires
and teacher char- Entry Tests

 

 

acteristics) Pretests

2. Process Measures Observation
(student behavior Monitor reports
during tryout)

3. Output Measures Posttest .
(trainee's Observation of
achievement after classroom behavior
instruction) Attitudinal measures

 

The types of data indicated in Table 2 and 3 seem
to represent the important spects of formative evaluation
of the Teacher's Guide. Therefore, these types of data
were included, as necessary, in the formative evaluation
of the prototype Teacher's Guide.

Another related question which must be resolved
relates to the measurement of teacher achievement of the
objectives of CBTE programs. The question is whether
teacher achievement should be measured by their class-
room performance or by the performance of the students

they have taught? The fundamental issue for this study is:

 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

43

what type of information regarding teacher learning, will

be justifiable, at this time, for the systematic identifica-
tion and remediation of deficiencies in the Teacher's

Guide?

There is nearly universal agreement thatothe ulti-
mate criterion for evaluation of a competent teacher is the
effect of his teaching behavior on the performance of his
students (Rosenshine, 1970, 1971, 1972; Houston, 1972).
However, the use of this criterion for the formative
evaluation of the Teacher's Guide is not feasible for a
variety of reasons. First, the I CAN Instructional System
being used by the teachers was also a prorotype undergoing
formative evaluation. Since prototype materials are ex-
pected to be approximately 60 percent effective (Sorensen,
1971) the inability of the students of these teachers to
achieve the stated objectives could be attributed to de-
ficiencies in the I CAN instructional materials. In addi-
tion the I CAN Instructional System allows local programs
to select terminal performance objectives for their stu-
dents based on local need. The wide range of age and
existence of multiple, handicapping conditions in each
teacher's class plus time wide variability evidenced
w:ross the school districts represented relative to equip-
ment and resources available for physical education will
result in an inability of teachers to: 1) select similar
content and 2) utilize similar instructional resources to

attain the objectives. Thus, to be maximally useful, the

44

formative evaluation of the Teacher's Guide, measures of
teacher learning must be defined in terms of observeable
teacher performance. Therefore, the selection of an in-
service training procedure to be used to implement the
Teacher's Guide must provide for the observation of the
teacher's classroom behavior. The procedure selected must
also fulfill the following additional requirements. First,
since the Teacher's Guide is being formatively evaluated
within the larger context of the 1973-74 field test of the

I CAN Instructional System, the procedure must provide an
alternative instructional strategy when the Teacher's Guide
is deficient. Second, the procedure must, in general, meet
the criteria for CBTE programs. Third, the implementation
must provide for data collection and direct feedback from
individual teachers. Traditional workshops or campus-based
inservice approaches did not meet these requirements, there-
fore, a more unique inservice procedure was needed to imple-
ment the Teacher's Guide.

Two models of inservice training have been reported
that provided guidance in the formulation of an inservice
procedure to implement the Teacher's Guide. Meyen (1969)
describes an inservice procedure implemented by the Univer-
sity of Iowa. The primary purpose of this inservice model
is to provide statewide, direct assistance to teachers in
the form of materials and information on exemplary pro-
grams and the teaching skills necessary to implement them.

The State was divided into 16 geographic areas with one

 

 

.9.

 

 

 

 

.\

45

"master teacher" selected from each area to serve as a
consultant. Field sessions are held monthly in 23 sites in
the 16 geographic areas. A typical session involves between
25 and 35 teachers and lasts approximately two hours. Al-
though attendance is voluntary, Meyen reports approximately
90 percent of the special class teachers attend monthly.
Quarterly training sessions are held at the University of
Iowa campus for the consulting teachers concerning pre-
sentations they will make in their local sessions. Actual
lessons are often recorded in the campus laboratory school
and used in field training sessions to demonstrate speci-
fic materials and teaching techniques.

Unfortunately, the report was not clear relative to
the selection of the "master teacher" consultants or the
procedures used to evaluate the model. Meyer reported, how-
ever, that feedback obtained through evaluation reports-
from teachers and administrators was positive.

The implication Cd? Meyen's report for the present
study was that consultants could be used in various geo-
graphical sites to facilitate the use of exemplary programs
and teaching techniques.

A more direct inservice training model was described
by Burke and Rowland (1971). Their Active Response Inser-
vice Training Model was designed to reduce the didactic
nature of traditional inservice methods. The model was

based on the following learning principles:

 

 

.~‘

 

 

 

46

1. Active involvement by the learner facilitates
learning.
2. Knowledge of results and reinforcement of
success facilitates learning; and
3. Opportunities for distributed practice and
feedback in the same and different situations
facilitates original learning and its gener—
alization.
Using a language development scale, Burke and Rowland
worked with instructional personnel and retarded residents,
on the ward where the teacher was expected to function.
Using direct testing procedures and informal assessments of
staff skill during the feeding, bathing and dressing times,
they assessed the language deve10pment of the residents.
Depending on the type of care being given at the time of
assessment, and the residents language level, the consultant
demonstrated a number of specific instructional procedures
designed to further language development in the resident.
The instructor immediately imitated the instructional
strategy while the consultant observed and provided verbal
reinforcement to shape the perfOrmance of the teacher.
Additional practice of the same and other training proce-
dures was given to the instructor with other residents who
functioned at the same or different language deve10pment
levels.
The implication of Burke and Rowland's work for

this present study was that inservice instruction can be

47

presented with students present, in the local agency where
teachers are expected to function.
The procedure selected for the implementation of

the Teacher's Guide was an adaptation of this model.

Chapter Summary

 

The I CAN Instructional System is a set of individ-
ualized physicaleducation curriculum materials designed for
the trainable mentally retarded student. The basic assump-
tion used in designing the materials is that diagnostic-
prescriptive teaching provides effective instruction who
differ on characteristics believed to be related to spe—
cific learning tasks.

A flowchart model was developed by the I CAN Project
Staff to facilitiate the identification of the teaching.
competencies necessary to implement a diagnostic prescrip-
tive program in physical education. The teaching skills
identified were: planning, assessment, prescription,
teaching and evaluation. The literature related to compe-
tency based inservice training indicates that when appro-
prate instructional materials are available, the principles
Of CBTE can be successfully employed for inservice training.
The review also indicates that the application of system
design principles employing steps of analysis, design and
evaluation can provide the basis fOr the systematic develOp-
ment of CBTE materials. Once a preliminary form of the

materials have been constructed a formative evaluation of

 

 

.w rv'O

u,‘ .
o

 

a
....,--
' o

.r a..‘

van. a.

-\
. I... «-

ug. "‘
. n-

n-.. '0!

 

-
\
a

a...
u

48

the prototype should be conducted to identify major de-
ficiencies and provide a basis for suitable revisions.
Formative evaluation of CBTE materials requires several
types of data. It has been recommended that data on stu-
dent entry status, learning, classroom performance and
attitudinal data should be collected in tutorial and large

group situations.

 

 

‘n:
.

.,_

. .

~-

 

 

CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The methods and procedures used in the development
and formativeevaluation of the Teacher's Guide are pre-
sented in this chapter. Evaluation was an integral part
of the total development process. The evaluative methods
and procedures used will be presented under four major
headings: Development of the Prototype, Implementation

Of the Prototype, Field Test and Revision Recommen-

dations.

Development of the Prototype

A systematic five-step model was used in developing
the prototype Teacher's Guide. The five steps are out-

lined in Figure 5, and each step is described in detail

in this section.

49

50

 

Description of
Teacher Behavior

 

 

 

 

 

Goal Identification

 

 

 

 

 

Selection and Orientation of
Module Development Staff

1

Goal Analysis Into
TPO's and EO's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/

Development of Modules for
the Prototype Teacher's
Guide

 

 

 

 

Figure 5

Procedural Model Used in Developing the
‘ Prototype Teacher's Guide

l§§cription of Teacher Behavior

The first step in the deve10pment of the Teacher's
mnde was a description of the teaching behaviors necessary
fix the implementation of the I CAN Instructional System.
The teacher behavior model upon which the I CAN Instruc-
tional System is based (Figure 6) identified the teaching

skills essential for implementation. (Knowles, Vogel,

weSsel, 1974).

 

 

 

51

Plan
Assess
Evaluate Prescribe
fi'\\\\\\\\\\\Teachéjr’///’////’ .
Figure 6

Teacher Behavior Model for I CAN Implementation

Nmzdescription of the teaching behaviors explicated in

umemodel are summarized as follows:

Teaching Behavior Description

 

1. Plan The teacher selects goals and
objectives from the I CAN Instruc-
tional System which are sequential
and which allow for continuous
progress. These should be based on
the specific needs of each student
with regard to skill level, rate of
progress, and long-range goals.

2- Assess As skills are chosen from a
long-term plan, the abilities of
each student are assessed at the
initial instructional periods. This
stage is a very important one, in
that it provides the teacher with

the basic information needed to

3.

4.

Prescribe

Teach

52

individualize instruction. Assess-
ment should provide the teacher with
knowledge concerning skill level

and learning style of each student.
It should be continuous throughout
the learning period so that the
teacher is constantly aware of
student progress and can adjust in-
struction accordingly.

With the help of assessment
data, the teacher prescribes instruc-
tion according to need. For in-
stance: What skill components are
missing from the student performance?
How can instruction (a lesson) best
be planned so that these components
are acquired?

What is the student's learning
style? Does he respond appropri-
ately to verbal commands/questions
or does he need to be manipulated
through the activity? The teacher
selects and implements a teaching
strategy matched to the students
learning style to produce intended

changes in learner behavior.

TI

 

5. Evaluate

Goal Identification

53

Evaluation of continuous student
progress provides the teacher with
information relative to instruc-
tional decision-making. The teacher
must record pupil progress on a daily
basis and keep these records to pro-
vide continuous pupil progress.

With this data available, decisions
as to whether to sequence to the
next Objective, terminate, review,

or recycle instruction can be made.

This description formed the basis for identifying

fluzlong range goals of the inservice training materials.

Emagoals were identified by the I CAN project staff as

follows:

1. To plan an individualized program using the

I CAN Instructional System.

2. To assess individual student status.

3. To prescribe instruction according to indi-

vidual student need.

4. To teach in response to each student's learning

style.

5- To evaluate student progress toward prescribed

goals.

54

Selection and Orientation of DevelOpment Staff

 

The purpose of the development effort was to pro-
duce a Teacher's Guide for using the I CAN Instructional
System. Since the Guide was to be an instructional system
comprised of a series of competency based performance ob-
jectives, developers were selected using the following
criteria:

1. Availability and willingness to participate

for the 12 weeks of the development phase.

2. Some previous experience in designing instruc-
tional materials using systems design princi-
ples and methods.

3. General knowledge of the CBTE movement.

4. Professional experience that was representative
of the potential implementers of the I CAN In-
structional System. For example, a classroom
teacher or physical education specialist with
varying degrees of experience in special educa-
tion and/or physical education.

Three material developers were selected including
the investigator of this study. Complete background
information on the module authors is found in Appendix B.

The orientation of the development staff to the pro-
-blfim tasks, responsibilities and time lines was conducted
bYthis investigator who acted as director of the develop-

me D C I O
rltteam. The orientation procedure was accomplished in

tw - . . . .
osesslOns. In the initial seSSIOn the problem was

55

presented. For reference purposes each developer received
an overview of the I CAN Instructional System and COpies

of the primary skills curriculum material the field test

teachers were to use.

Goal Analysis Into Inservice Objectives

In a second meeting the staff analyzed the goals
identified by the Project Staff. It was decided that each
long range goal presented a teacher competency. The com-
petencies that were derived from these goals are as
follows:

TPO l: The teacher will be able to correctly use the
organization, structure and logic of the I CAN
Instructional System to develop a long-term plan.
E0 1: To understand the structure of the I CAN

materials.
E0 2: To design a long-term plan.

TPO 2: The teacher will be able to assess student status
with 90% accuracy as defined by the objectives of
the I CAN Instructional System.

E0 1: To assess student status.

TPO 3: The teacher will be able to prescribe daily lessons,
based on need assessment, using the teaching learn-
ing activities and activity participation materials
of the I CAN Instructional System.

E0 1: To design daily lessons.

 

N'.

56

TPO 4: The teacher will be able to use alternate teaching
strategies and organization procedures to individ-
ualize instruction in teaching the I CAN Instruc-
tional System.

E0 1: To organize and move activity groups.

E0 2: To use alternate teaching strategies based
on student learning style to individualize
instruction at least 90% of the time.

TPO 5: The teacher will be able to evaluate and record
pupil progress and determine whether to recycle or
terminate instruction.

E0 1: To evaluate and record pupil progress.

E0 2: To decide to terminate or recycle in-
struction.

Each enabling objective was accompanied by focal
points for instruction. Observation of teacher behavior
in terms of these more finite descriptions provided for
precise evaluation of teacher performance. These focal
points also provide a definitive basis for planning in—
service instruction. An example of a TPO, EO and the
focal points for instruction is presented in Appendix E.

During this second orientation session tasks,
responsibilities and time lines were presented. Each
staff member was assigned to write a prototype inservice
training module for one or more enabling objective. A

chart illustrating the development schedule is presented

in Table 4.

57

TABLE 4

CHART LISTING TASKS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND TIME LINES OF THE
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Responsibilities Time Development Staff I CAN Project
Line I B C Staff
Orient and organize
staff for develop-
ment task 6/6 M I I
Instructional design 6/4-
specifications 6/11 M I I
Outline module
formats 6/18
Competency 1 E01 M
E02 M
Competency 2 E01 M
Competency 3 E01 M
Competency 4 E01 M S
Competency 5 E01 M
E02 M
Internal Review
First Draft
Technical Review 6/18 S S S M
Design prototype
modules
Competency 1 E01 M
y 1302 M
Competency 2 801 M
Competency 3 E01 M
Competency 4 301 M
E02 M S
Competency 5 E01 ' M
.E02 M
Internal module 7/16-
review 7/23 S S S
Single student 7/16- _
tryout 7/23 M M M
Implement single 7/22-
student tryout 7/26 S S S
External Review 7/30-
8/10 8 M

 

Key: Major responsibility
Shared responsibility

Involved

H m z
n

 

58

Module Design Specifications

Most CBTE programs employ a unit of learning called
a module (Houston, 1972; Weber and Cooper, 1973). Al-
though the format of a module may vary, it typically in-

cludes five parts: '1) the rationale or statement ex-

 

planing the importance and relevance of the objectives to
be achieved, 2) the objectives, stated in criterion
referenced terms, specifying the criteria for successful
‘completion, 3) a pre-assessment that tests the learner's
competence in selected prerequisites and evaluates present
competence in meeting the stated objectives, 4) the EEEPlF
ing activities or procedures for attaining the competence,
5) the post-assessment which measures competence in
meeting the module objectives.

It was determined by this investigator that a letter
to the field test teachers would preface the Teacher's Guide
and serve as the rationale explaining the relevance of
each module in the Guide. This letter, or statement of
rationale is included in Appendix C.

A questionnaire on previous background and basic
familiarity with the competencies to be achieved was
included as an informal assessment. This questionnaire
preceeded all the instructional modules in the Teacher's
Guide and is included in Appendix D.

Since a comprehensive hierarchial structure had
been used in the design of the I CAN Instructional System

it was decided by the project staff that the teacher's

59

skill in using the materials would be facilitated if the

inservice training materials were designed in a nearly

parallel format. For each competency the sign specifi-

cations therefore included:

1.

Terminal Performance Objective (TPO). The

broad goal of the module that stipulates what

'the teacher will be able to do upon completion

of the module.

Enabling Objectives (EO's). Subdivisions which

describe the sequential learning experiences

required for the teacher to reach functional.

performance of a TPO. The enabling objectives

represent skill levels which range from simple

(recall, visual or verbal discrimination) to

complex (principle application or problem solv-

ing in the classroom). Each E0 incorporates a

description of the behavior expected of the

teacher after completing the Module. Each E0

contains the following components:

A. the "givens" or conditions under which the
behavior will be demonstrated.

B. the observable performance by the teacher.

C. the standard or minimal level of acceptable
performance.

D. a stability ratio (where appropriate) indi-

cating the number of successes required.

60

3. Focal Points for Activity. Each E0 is accom—
panied by focus points for instruction. Ob-
servation of teacher behavior in terms of these
more finite descriptions should allow for pre-
cise evaluation of performance and provide a
definitive base for planning instruction.

4. Teaching Learning Activity (TLA). A written
presentation containing the experiences which
enable the teacher to achieve the objectives.
Each teaching learning activity must contain
the following components: prerequisite learn-
ings, materials necessary, the focal points for
the learning experience, and the written text
or directions and practice activities specific
to the module focal points. The TLA is to be
written in narrative style. The text should
present the material in a readable format,
apprOpriate for both physical education spe-

cialists and classroom teachers.

Igmcription of the Development Process

The prototype modules were produced by following
the module design specifications. The procedure followed
by each developer is presented in the flowchart, Figure 7.
The major steps and decision points in the development

Procedure are described in the following paragraphs.

61

Box 1, Preliminary Outline. The first step in the
development process was a preliminary outline of each in-
service module. Included in the outline was the TPO, EO's
and a tOpical sketch of the content. The final section of

the outline was a post assessment instrument related to each E0.

nter with assigne-
TPO

i

1. Preliminary outline
or draft of module (3....
content

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m
2. Internal review by .fi .
other developers 5 Xlt W1 '
W a: Prototype

 

outline NO
0K?

 

\L Yes
I}, Write moduleL< 8. Print field-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\l, test copy
m /P Yes
4. Internal review by ,fl
other developers 5 ‘"***————-No—-
m
¢’ 4‘
0K? I_MNOI Revise 7. External
' Module 5 Review
Yes N7
J’ \/ No /\
5.8ingle-subject . 6. Assess l
tryout ‘ Trial 3 . ‘es. ‘

 

Figure 7

Flowchart Describing the
Development Procedure

62

Box 2, Internal Review. Each develOper presented the
Outlines for their assigned material to the other two mem-
bers of module development staff in written form one week
in advance of review. Approximately one hour was devoted
to discussion and possible revision of objectives and out-
lines by the three developers. If two of the three module
develOpers agreed that objectives and outlines needed re-
vision the revision was initiated. Revisions were then
submitted again for internal review.

Box 3, Write Module. The develOper wrote a complete
draft of the module. At this stage of development the I
CAN Project Staff was available to each developer on a
consultation basis to answer questions relating to content.
The instructional media center at Michigan State University
was also available to produce any graphic materials that the
developer wished to include.

Box 4, Internal Review. The completed module was
presented to the development staff for review. Approxi-
mately one hour was spent by the developers discussing
possible revisions. If two of the three developers agreed
that revision was necessary the develOper made the suggested
revisions and submitted the module again for internal review.

Box 5, Single-Subject Tryout. Following approval of
the module by the three developers, each developer was
responsible to conduct an informal tryout with one student.

The criteria for subject selection was: 1) a classroom

63

teacher or physical educational specialist who was 2)
totally unfamiliar with the I CAN Instructional System.

Box 6, Assess Trial. Following the prototype
trials the module developers met and discussed the possible
revisions suggested by the trials. If revisions were made
the single subject trial was repeated.

Box 7, External Review. When the necessary re-
visions were completed the modules were submitted for review
to three teachers who had been pilot testing the I CAN
Instructional System during various stages of their develop-
ment. Modules were also reviewed by technical experts
selected from the I CAN Project Staff and Advisory Committee.
Recommendations for revision suggested as a result of this
review were incorporated into the modules. When revisions
were made another external review was conducted.

Box 8, Produce Field Test COpy. When the final
revisions had been incorporated, the first draft was pro-
duced.2 This copy was disseminated to the field test
teachers to assist them in using the I CAN Instructional

System with their students.

Implementation of the Prototype
The procedure selected for the implementation of

the Teacher's Guide was an adaptation of the Active

 

2See Appendix E for a sample of one prototype
module of the Teacher's Guide.

64

Response Inservice Training Method described by Burke and
Rowland (1971). The major adaptation to this model of
inservice training was the inclusion of the series of
inservice modules that comprised the Teacher's Guide, and
direct attention to the TPO's and EO's specified by the
instructional system. The unique characteristic of the
Direct Service Model is that inservice instruction is
presented to the teacher by a consultant in the school and

classroom where the teacher is expected to function.

Rationale for Selection
The selection of the direct service model over a

more traditional inservice procedure was based on three

considerations. First, the Teacher's Guide was being forma-

tively evaluated within the larger context of the 1973-74
field test of the I CAN primary skills modules. The
congruence between what the developers of I CAN intended
to occur and what actually did occur was prerequisite to
the determination of valid recommendations for program
improvement. It was essential to the evaluation of the
curriculum that the field test teachers use the materials
as intended by the developers. The presence of a consul-
tant, in the classroom, would provide consultant inter-
vention as an immediate alternative strategy when the
Teacher's Guide was deficient thereby assuring that the
field test teacher was implementing the materials as

intended. In addition, the presence of a consultant in

- .' fif'fg
: 9 .51"le

r-jw

Err? ~ '

 

65

the school with the field test teacher would provide for
the observation needed to obtain information relevant to
teacher classroom performance as a measure of the effec-
tiveness of the competency based inservice materials.'

A second reason for the choice of the Direct Ser-
vice Model was that this design meets the criteria for
both the generic and implied characteristics of compe-
tency based teacher education programs. (AACTE Committee,
1974). The method makes provision for both content and
process training. The Teacher's Guide provides published
behavioral objectives, extensive content materials and

evaluative tools. As the teacher achieves portions of

content knowledge, the consultant monitors the teachers use

of the materials and provides direct feedback to the teacher

on how correctly the curriculum materials are being used.

Third, the Direct Service Model was chOsen because

it presented the following practical advantages:

1. it accommodated conflicts that might arise if
the field test teachers were away from their
classes for on—campus workshops or inservice
sessions frequently or for extended periods of
time, thereby maintaining staff services to
children at customary levels.

2. it accommodated the integration of the I CAN
Instructional System into the environmental
factors, such as equipment, facilities, proce-

dures, current staffing, scheduling, and

7.1? l V A ’55!

. P 1

iii-31¢"
5'

i rfi'. IVfi-i ~.

g3 1 . ~ .. u
‘~;;i'g;'4;'

 

 

 

 

 

 

u.-
-.,.
n

 

 

 

 

66

curricular goals of the local

school.

Description of the Implementation Process

 

The process for implementation of the inservice
effort, the I CAN Direct Service Model, utilized five
steps. These steps are diagrammed and described as
follows.

Step 1: The first step in the identification of
the teacher competencies essential to the proper imple-
mentation of the I CAN Instructional System. This is
accomplished as a cooperative effort by the I CAN Consul—
tant and the teacher. All of the teachers are assigned to
complete the modules as the first step in their implemen-

tation training.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conzuétant Identify Teacher Necessary to
Teacher > CompetenCies > Implement I CAN

 

 

 

Figure 8

Step One - Direct Service Model

Step 2: The second step is the assessment of the.
teacher's status relative to the competencies. Assess-
ments are made to further define or to identify the status
of the teacher concerned. These assessments may be the
formal measures derived from class observations or assess-

ments from the post tests at the end of each inservice

‘ ,
..-..*...:._3:<~ :'

*0
mm -

"'

 

 

 

cup

.,‘
4--

 

-.
v
‘

 

.‘

67

module. (Appendix J) They may also be informally deter-
mined by the I CAN consultant through the teacher atti-
tude survey (Appendix L), on the spot observations or
through informal conversations with the teachers. The I

CAN consultant may assess the teacher or the teachers may

assess themselves.

 

 

 

 

assesses
V r '.
competenCIes necessary to
. .
Iconsultantl teac er implement I CAN

 

 

 

 

 

'A I. competencies necessary to
bonsultantlfieacherl 8539583543 implement I CAN

 

 

 

Figure 8.1

Step Two - Direct Service Model

Step 3: The third step may involve consultant
intervention. When the instructional materials and orthe
use Of these materials appear deficient, the consultant
demonstrates the correct use of the I CAN Instructional
System to the staff in the classroom with the students. A
verbal explanation may accompany the demonstration to
clarify the consultant's procedures. Verbal explanatiOns
without physical demonstrations are used only when the
implementation problem is one that does not directly in-
volve the students, such as long term planning or the con-
StructiOn of a lesson plan. Verbal demonstrations may also
be uSed when it is certain that the implementation procedure

Will‘work because it is appropriate to the students in that

68

situation and does not need to be tested by the consultant.
At this point in the inservice training the demonstration
step servies two purposes; 1) it allows the staff to become
familiar with the implementation procedures through modeling
their correct use; 2) it is possible, during the demon-
stration, for the consultant to adjust the procedures to
better fit the students, the learning goals, and the actual
situation. If the demonstration reveals that adjustments
must be made then the consultant makes these adjustments

and may repeat the demonstrations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

demonstrates
I \V
LgonsuItanEF] [teacher ] {implemen'ation ]
x I /\ FT
observes
Figure 8.2

Step Three - Direct Service Model

Step 4: In the fourth step the teacher is given the
Opportunity for active apprOpriate practice with his own
students. During this time the consultant observes and pro—
vides the staff with cues and prompts as needed while simul-
taneously reinforcing them verbally for their approximate
and correct usage of the implementation procedures. This
practice should occur immediately following the completion
Of the inservice modules or the demonstration by the in-
service trainer. The time needed for practice will depend

upon the complexity of the competency. Written guides

 

69

describing the consultation or intervention procedures in
an outline form should always be left with the teacher to
reinforce their skills in the absence of the consultant.
The consultant should retain a carbon copy of the procedure

for follow up reference.

practices

\1/

[consultant 1 [teacherp] [implementationA

 

 

 

observes and gives feedback If

Figure 8.3

Step Four - Direct Service Model

Step 5: In the fifth step the consultant monitors
the prOgress of the teacher. The consultant may also pro-
vide needed adjustments in procedures and continue to
intervene to provide additional instruction to the teacher

when the Teacher's Guide has been deficient.

 

monitors

 

 

 

 

 

 

[consultant] [ teacher ] {implementation 1

 

Figure 8.4

Step Five - Direct Service Model
Field Test

The major steps in the main field test of the
Teacher's Guide are outlined in Figure 9. The process

began with an assessment of teacher status relative to a

V um“

; »r . .- r 3;!
’17“.

70

 

 

mCOHump
Icmeeoomm
COHmH>Om
zyflz ufixm

 

mpflsw m.HmnommB mmmuououm on»

no umme gamut 6:» not H6602 amusemooum

 

T

 

 

mcflmmfiunmo
ucmuasmcou

m musmflm

 

All

 

 

 

mama
Hmcwpsufluud pom
mocmEHOmnmm
mcflcnqu

nomHHoO

 

 

 

/\

 

 

 

mocmumfimmfl
ucmuasncou
nufiz
mumnomme
umme pawwm
an own
depoz

 

 

 

 

mnumum
xhucm
Honomme
mmwmmm

 

 

’A

 

 

 

Opfism
m.umoomma
Oahuououm

nufl3

Hmucm

 

 

71

basic familiarity with the competencies to be covered.
This entry skills assessment was supplemented by an informal
consultant observation of each teacher's classroom behavior
prior to the teacher's use of the I CAN Instructional System.
The field test teachers were then assigned to complete the
modules of the Teacher's Guide. The consultant, implement-
ing the Direct Service Model, was available on a once every
two week basis.

Evaluative data collected used two major sources:
the field-test teachers and the consultants. Deficiencies
were identified through post-test items, teacher attitude
survey, consultant ratings of teacher competence and con-
sultant estimates of the amount of intervention (tutorial
assistance) needed to develop an adequate classroom per-

formance by each teacher on each module.

Design
The design selected for this study was the One-Shot
Case Study. Cambell and Stanley (1966) described this

design with the following notation:

X = 0

where X = treatment, and 0 posttest. This design is.

considered a pre-experimental design because the scheduling
of data collection lacks the full control necessary for
true experimentation. This design has been criticized by
Cambell and Stanley (1966, p. 6) because of the limited

control over factors relating to internal and external

validity.

72

0f the eight classes of variables listed as threats
to internal validity Cambell and Stanley identified this
design as having no strengths and some weaknesses in four
of the classes, namely: history, maturation, selection
and mortality. 0f the four classes of variables listed
as threats to external validity, the interaction of selec-
tion and treatment is listed as a weakness of this design.
Each class of variables, as they relate to this investi-

gation with be discussed in the following paragraphs.

Threats to Internal Validity

History refers to the possible effect of specific
events, other than the treatment, that would be a plausi-
ble explanation of change. Such an event should have
occurred to most of the subjects involved. Since the data
were collected from teachers in different communities and
at different times, it is unlikely that any specific
events, other than the treatment would have affected most
of the subjects..

Maturation is the term used to classify all of the
biological or psychological processes which vary with the
passage of time, relatively independent of external events.
Since teaching skills may continue to grow as a function
of passing time and daily experiences, maturation was con-
ceded to be a weakness of the design used in this investi-
gation. Its effect, however, was greatly reduced due to

the unique content of the modules and the short term nature

of the treatment.

73

Selection refers to possible biases resulting from
the choice of subjects for the investigation. Since the
process of teacher selection for this study was designed
to provide a cross section of teachers currently teaching
physical education to trainable mentally retarded students
selection was not considered to be a concern.

Mortality has been defined as loss of subjects from
the sample. Because there was no teacher attrition from

this study, mortality was not a concern.

Threats to External Validity

Threats to external validity represent a specificity
of the effects of the treatment to a limited set of condi—
tions and are therefore threats to generalizeability. The
main concern is: are there characteristics of subjects
which are highly unique to the experimental situation?
Since the teachers who provided data for this study were
widely divergent in age, geographical location, educational
background, teaching experience and instructional responsi-
bilities, this type of interaction was of little concern.
The interaction of selection and treatment does, however,
reduce the generalizeability of this investigation to the

restricted population used in this study.

Selection of Teachers
Popplation. The pOpulation from which the teachers
were selected was defined as the target population for which

the prototype modules were intended, teachers who are

. '... Y FT! {EC‘ZEI'

 

1"

. .-

 

74

responsible for the physical education instruction of
elementary aged (5-14 years) trainable mentally retarded
(TMR) students. In Michigan, some school districts hire
teachers trained as physical education specialists to im-
plement the physical education program. Other districts
require the classroom teacher to provide physical education

instruction. Both teacher types were represented in this

study.

Sample

Educational services for TMR students living in
Michigan are provided by the intermediate school districts.
Therefore, invitations to participate in a field test of
the I CAN materials were mailed to the special education
directors of each intermediate school district. A majority
of the trainable centers, which requested to participate in
this study, employed physical education specialists.
Therefore, this sample was inadequate for the purpose of
tryout and revision of a Teacher's Guide designed to serve
classroom teachers as well as physical education specialists.

It was determined, through the assistance of Fred
Chappel, consultant for trainable programs, Michigan Depart-
ment of Education, that in Livingston and Clinton County
Intermediate School Districts, classroom teachers were
responsible for the physical education instruction of their
students. Follow-up calls to the directors of these pro-
grams, explaining the purpose and nature of the field test,

resulted in their agreement to participate. This added

75

four additional classroom teachers to the field test sam—
ple, providing a more reasonable balance between special-
ists (11) and classroom teachers (8).

The specific criteria used in the selection of
teachers for the field test can be identified more speci-
fically by reviewing the I CAN field test "agreement to
participate" form signed by each field test site. (Appen-
dix F). This agreement form explicates the mutual respon-
sibilities and contractual arrangements between the field
test sites and the Project. Additional background informa-

tion on the field-test teachers is presented in Table 5.

Selection of Consultants

Four consultants, including this investigator, were
selected from the existing I CAN Project Staff to implement
the inservice program. The criteria for selection was as
follows:

1. They must have a minimum of four months exper—
ience in the curriculum development effort.

2. They must have teaching experiences with TMR
students and a willingness to work directly
with teachers and students in local schools.

3. They must have an interest in teacher training
and be willing to engage in the debriefing,
monitoring, record keeping and travel necessary

to the conduct of the field test effort.

76

TABLE 5

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON FIELD TEST TEACHERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category, P.E. CLRM Category .E. CLRM
ng Graduate Major
Male 7 2 Phys. Ed. 2
Female _4_ _6 Phys.Ed./ 3
TOTAL 11 8 Handicapped
Spec. Ed. MR 3 1
Ag; Spec. Ed. ED ‘_ _1
20-30 8 7 TOTAL 8 2
30-40 1 0
40+ _3 .1 No. Courses in
TOTAL 11 8 Special Ed.
1-3 4
Years College 6—8 3
Education 12-14 3 5
4+ 7 5 16-18 1
5+ 3 2 20+ ___ .2
6 _1_ .1. TOTAL 10 8
TOTAL 11 8
Date Last Class NO Courses in P.E.
Taken for Handicapped
1972 '2 2 O 5 8
1973 _2_ §_ 1-2 2
TOTAL 11 8 3-4 2
5 _i _
Highest Deggee TOTAL 10 8
Obtained
BA/BS 7 7 Years Teaching
MA _A l P.E. to TMI
TOTAL 11 8 . 0-1 6 6
2-3 4 l
Undergraduate 4-5 1
Major 6+ .__ .1
Phys. Ed. 9 AVERAGE 1 6 1.9
Spec. Ed. MR 8
Other _1 ‘_ Years Teaching
TOTAL 10 8 Experience
0-1 4 4
2-4 3 3
6-8 2 1
10+ 2 ___
AVERAGE 4.73 2 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

77

Assignments of consultants to specific field test
teachers was made by this examiner. In making assignments,
an attempt was made to equalize the driving distances and
to give each consultant contact with both classroom
teachers and physical education specialists. Additional

background information on the inservice consultants can be

found in Table 6.

The Treatment

The Teacher's Guide was used by field-test teachers
during the formative evaluation of the Primary Skill Modules
of the I CAN Instructional System. This field test occurred
during the 1973—74 school year. The initial step in field
testing involved the teacher's use of the inservice modules,
with consultant assistance, to develop competencies
necessary to proper use of I CAN. When a teacher demon—
strated competence, as judged by consultant rating of class-
room action, the focus on teacher training ceased. The
teacher training aspect began in September 1973 and was
completed in February 1974. The following procedures were
used to implement the modules.

Pre-Visitation Procedures.--All of the consultants
cOntacted the field test teachers assigned to them by phone.
Using the Site Information Form (Appendix G), the consul-
tant Obtained necessary information, e.g., address and
directions to the center, facility description; program
and staff hours. An appointment was made for an orientation

visit. The appointment was requested at a time when the

 

 

78

 

 

mnucoe v

 

 

 

 

mchHmHB
monomma uouumuwo powwowm 240 H
mnucoe v OGHSOOOB sz
whom» v ummOHm>mo mummx vH acmumHmmm
coHpmostm HMOHmwnm mHMHHOumz .<.z coummmmm uoHcmm o ucmuHschO
mnucoa 0
m2& How uumfloum z¢U H
mEmuooum OOH>ummcH mnucos a am:
u:OUH5mCOO MOQOHO>OQ ummm H unnumHmmm .
unmeuummmo mumum mHMHumumz .m.m soummmmm HOHcsb U ucmuHsmcou
pomnoum zmo H
mnucoe m mummx N GCHnommu sz
ucmumflmmfi mmmum uuommsm mummm m unnumHmmm
umme uOHHm z¢u H coHumsHm>m .¢.z noumwmmm HoHcmm m ucmuHsucou
. msucoe m
poms mcflnommu HOmmmmowm
mute» N IQOHO>OQ mHmHHmumz mummx m unnumHmmd
qunOOOB EooummmHO Houomuflo .o.cm am: m HGMUHsmGOO
H29 mcHoomme 240 H saws COHu mocmwummxm
wocwwummxm ImHHHmmd mo nuwcwq mcHAOmmB Hmuoa
mDOH>mum new cOHuHmOm can mmummo

 

 

mBZ<BADmZOU mUH>mmmZH

MDOh WEB ZO ZOHBdZmOmZH DZDomuxodm

0 mqmdfi

79

teacher would be able to talk with the consultant for about
one hour, without children present. Following this one
hour session the consultant also requested an opportunity
to visit the teacher's classes.

Orientation Procedures.--This examiner developed an
"agenda" for the conduct of the orientation visit. This
agenda was discussed extensively with the consultants'
several days prior to their first scheduled visit.
(Appendix H.) Since the complete orientation agenda is
included in the appendix, only a narrative summary of the
orientation procedures is presented here.

When the consultant arrived at a school they met with
the building administrator to express appreciatiOn for their
participation.

The consultants then met with each field test
teacher for an orientation session designed to do the
following:

1. Express appreciation for the teacher's parti-
cipation and orient the teacher to the purpose
of the field test.

2. Reduce any anxiety felt by the teacher and
facilitate open and frank interaction.

3. Describe the planned sequence of events which
were:

a. Complete questionnaire on previous back-

ground.

80

b. Complete survey on familiarity_with skills
necessary to implement I CAN curriculum.

c. Use modules in Teacher's Guide, completing
module post tests and reactionnaires as
assigned.

d. Give post tests and reactionnaires to the
consultant following a discussion of pro-
blems encountered.

During the orientation session the consultants
assisted the teachers, who were responsible for the physi-
cal education instruction of more than one class, in the
selection of one field test class.. The consultants and the
teachers selected a mutually agreeable meeting time
(without children present) of approximately thirty minutes
and identified the time the field test class met for physi-
cal education instruction. The consultant then made arrange-
ments to meet with the teacher at these scheduled times, on
a once every two weeks basis.

The teacher was given the consultant's home phone
as well as the "hot line" number at the project office.
They were encouraged to seek consultation whenever the
modules of the Teacher's Guide were not clear.

At the orientation session, the consultants also
requested that the teachers complete the first two inservice
modules before their return in two weeks. They also asked
that the teachers complete the post tests and reaction—

naires.

 

runnmm-_~_efi.

_ _-_____.-.I'l

81

Inservice Training Procedures.--During the in-
service training phase, the consultant visitations con-
tinued once every two weeks. Each training session began
with the consultant and the teacher going over the post-
tests and reactionnaires for the previously assigned in-
service modules. In cases where difficulties were en-
countered by the teacher, the consultant assisted the
teacher in identifying the reasons why the difficulty
occurred. Following this procedure the consultant and
the teacher went into the classroom primarily to implement
the module objectives in the classroom.

During these sessions, each consultant kept a "log"
which included a summary of the visitation. The Program
Implementation Report and the Consultant Visitation Re-
port Forms used for this purpose are included in Appendix I.

The training continued in this manner with the
teacher progressing through the modules as assigned by the
consultant. Following each visit the post tests and reac-
tionnaires were returned to the project office for data

recording and discussion at the consultant debriefing.

Independent Variable
The independent variables were the total set of
instructional procedures contained in the Teacher's Guide

to the use of the I CAN Instructional System.

82

Dependent Variable

Three dependent variables were used as the criteria
for assessing the effect of the independent variable.

1. Module Post Tests.—-A post measure of teacher
achievement of enabling objectives.

2. Consultant Rating and Intervention Estimate.--
A post measure of teacher classroom performance and an
estimate of the amount of tutorial assistance necessary to
bring about teacher achievement of each objective.

3. Teacher Attitudes.--Intended as a post measure
of inservice teacher perceptions of the deficiencies and

strengths of each training module.

Instrumentation

Four types of instruments were used to conduct this
investigation. First, a teacher entry status survey was
developed by this investigator. Second post-test measures
of teacher achievement specific to the objectives of each
module were developed by each module author. Third, a
Likert-type instrument was developed by this author to
assess teacher perceptions of the strengths and weak-
nesses of each module. Fourth, a consultant rating on the
teacher achievement of each competency was developed.
Included with this rating was an estimate of the amount of
consultant intervention necessary to assist a teacher in
acquiring an enabling objective. The instruments are

described in more detail in the following paragraphs._

83

Entry Status. A pre-instructional survey was
develOped by this investigator specifically to gather back-
ground information on each teacher and to identify the
teacher's general familiarity with the teaching competen—
cies addressed in the inservice modules. The portion of
the survey dealing with entry status ia a 9 item scale
rating teacher familiarity with five general abilities:
Planning, Assessment, Prescription, Teaching and Evalua-
tion. This survey appears in Appendix D. Added to the
results of this survey were the consultant's observations
of what was occurring in the Teacher's classroom during
their first two site visitations. This survey was com-
pleted by each teacher following the consultants orienta-
tion visit. A numerical value from one to five points
was assigned to each response. A rating of five repre-
sented the teacher's extreme familiarity with the skill
and a rating of one represented a total lack of familiarity
with the skill.

Module Post Tests. One measure of teacher learning
on each author was a post test designed by the module
author. Test items were constructed to reflect the focus
points of each enabling objective so that errors could
be traced to the place in the module where instruction was
presented. These objectives were cognitive; e.g., recall,
visual discrimination or problem solving. Item forms were

varied to include true-false, multiple choice, completion

‘I . V}
1')!
“1‘31”

 

«you,

{gagi- “fl,”

84

and matching. Appendix J, includes the post tests for
each module.
Consultant Rating and Intervention Estimate. A
second measure of teacher learning on each module was a
consultant rating and intervention estimate (Appendix K).
The rating scale was designed by this investigator to rate
teachers, on a yes or no basis, on each direct question.
This rating was completed by the consultant after all
modules had been completed by the teacher and after the
consultant had observed the teacher using the I CAN ma-
terials with students. Since consultant ratings followed
both the teacher's completion of each module of the Teacher's
Guide, and tutorial assistance prior to applying the ma-
terial in the classroom, a separate estimate of the amount
Of consultant intervention was recorded. Each consultant
estimated the time spent assisting a teacher to achieve a
stated behavior according to the following scale:
1 = never. No intervention necessary.
2 = seldom. Tutorial assistance offered only for
refinement. No actual demonstration necessary.
3 = occasionally. Offered tutorial assistance two
or three times via a demonstration.
4 = often. Offered tutorial assistance more than
three times via a demonstration.
5 = always. Initiated tutorial assistance nearly

every visit.

 

85

Attitudinal Measure. Each module contained a
teacher reactionnaire developed by this examiner (Appen-
dix L). The reactionnaire was constructed of fifteen
Likert-type items indicating the teacher's perception of the
quality of the module. The items were designed to reflect
the teacher's opinion of three major areas: the general
content of the module, the amount of learning they felt
had occurred as a result of the module, and their attitude
toward the material in each module. An Open ended question
was also included to allow teachers to express opinions
and perceptions not previously accounted for in the Likert-
items. The reactionnaire was scored on a five point scale
with five representing the most "ideal" response and one
representing the most negative reaction.

No data were collected to determine the validity

of reliability of these measure.

Evaluation Questions

The objectives of the field test were twofold:
l) to generate data on deficiencies in the Teacher's Guide,
and 2) to make recommendations for revision. In order to
formatively evaluate the effectiveness of the Teacher's
Guide, the following direct questions were asked relative
to each enabling objective:
Module One. Planning

1. .Are the teachers able to correctly identify

the organization, structure and logic of the I

CAN Instructional System?

 

86

2. Do the teachers use the organization, structure
and logic of I CAN to develop at least two
long-term (6-8 week) instructional plans?

Module Two. Assessment

1. Do the teachers assess student status with 90%
accuracy as defined by the objectives of the I
CAN Instructional System?

Module Three. Prescription

 

1. Do the teachers prescribe daily lessons based

on need assessment using the teacher—learning

 

activities and activity participation materials
of the I CAN Instructional System.
Module Four. Teaching
1. Do the teachers organize activity groups in a
manner that provides for individualized instruc-
tion and maximum participation.
2. Do the teachers use alternate teaching strate-
gies to individualize instruction at least 90%
of the time.
Module Five. Evaluation
1. Do the teachers evaluate and record pupil pro-
gress on all students in their field test class.
2. Do the teachers decide whether to terminate,

recycle or continue instruction.

Data Analysis and Decision Criteria
"The best measure of instructional effectiveness

is the number of students achieveing the course Objectives."

87

(Davis, et al., p. 38). For this reason the data were
analyzed to determine the proportion of teachers who
achieved the enabling objectives for each module of the
Teacher's Guide.

I The data were displayed on an item by teacher
matrix for each dependent measure. When negative respon-
ses were recorded on any item by 20 percent or more of the
teachers, the item was traced back to the place in the
Teacher's Guide where instruction was presented. This
marked a section for possible design or content revision.
Teacher entry status, module post tests, consultant rating-
and intervention estimates and teacher reactionnaires were
scored as indicated in Table 7.

The use of the Direct Service Model of inservice
training with a "large" (N = 19) number of teachers re-
tained the limitations of the tutorial approach (Markle,
1967; Paulson, 1969). The limitation of interest in the
application of a decision criteria is the extreme vulner-
ability of the approach to atypical students. The 20
percent or more criterion was selected to reduce the pos-
sibility of the influence of atypical teachers requiring
costly, time consuming, and possibly unnecessary revisions.
If 20 percent or more (three or more teachers) gave evi-
dence of difficulty, (a negative response) revision pro-

cedures were initiated.

 

88

\p1‘..’! D . I

:

 

 

 

.mcHMOHHowp m.ucmu

IHsmcoo mop um EmuH :mpsmmm:
cm TEOOOQ mamuuxm O>HuHmom mop
Eoum mDCHOQ 03u omumu mumsommu
OHOE HO unmoumm om £OH£3 mEmuH

.OOHHHMH mp3 uH .mEmuuxO O>H9Hmom on» scum mucHOm

osu cmnu once pouMH>mp uncommon m.uw:ommu m HH .>O>
swam mpsuHuum some :0 EmpH comm How pmouoomu mp3 HHHmu
T>HumHsEdoom ad .coHuommH m>Hummwc umos mop mCHucmm
Imummu moo mo muoom m can mmcommmu =Hmth: mg» mcHucmm
IOHQOH O>Hm mo mnoum m zuH3 uncommon noon on pmcmHmmm
mm3 mucHOm O>Hm on mac Eon“ 05Hm> HMOHHOEDC « .uogommu
sumo an mHspoE n no GOHumeEOO umumm >HmuMHmeEH pmnoom

mOHHmccOHuommm
Honomma

 

.mmchmHHnmo

ucmuHomCOO How mfimufi =mpcmmm=
beacon m HO v .m mo mmumEHu
1mm coHucm>HmucH suH3 mOCHumu
MMN no mumcommu on» HO muoE
Ho unmoumm om Mom mmcHumu mm

.mzm3Hm u m .cmvmo u v

.HHHchHmmOOO u m .EOpHmm I m .um>m: u H .pmtuoomu
OmHm mms mm>HuomnoO topmum may m>mHnom Op Hmsommu
m.umHmmm Op Hummmmomc Acoflucm>nmucwv mocmumwmmm
HmHuousu mo ucsoem mop mo mumeflumm ca .:OHumO:U
uomqu comm so Aoclmmmv Honommu numb pmumu mucmuHsmcoo

.mumsfiumm
GOHucm>umucH
new mcwumm
ucmuHsmcou

 

.mcflmmfiunmn

ucmuHsmcoo map on Snow :mocmmm:
cm Tacoma mumnommu man no OHOE
HO unmoumm om an pmmmHE mEOuH

.nmnommu comm Ho pmmmHE EmuH ummu umom some
now pmpnoomn mm3 AHHmu w>HDMHDESOOm ca .Hmoommu comm
an magpoe m mo COHuOHQEOO uwumm HHOHMHOOEEH omuoom

mummu umom

 

OOHDO Tau

cH ucmucoo OOHMHOH OHOHQEOO on

omcmHmmm on you UH503 EOOHmmMHo

map cw mHHme mchs wommu

IHm on on pmuhommn mumsomwa
MHmmuHHO conHomo

.muHmH> coaumucmHuo OQHHDO mHHme on» HO mm: m.nmnomwu

can no :OHum>ummoO acmuHsmcou an pmumuonouou was whom

Imu mHsa .owuw>ou on on mHHme may £MH3 muHHMHHHEmm HO

mocmwuwmxm pmuuommu nonomma .ucmEummuu Op HOHHQ tmuoom
A mGHHoom

>m>uam
msumum Hanan
acmsshumCH

 

«HmmHHmo onmHomo ozm oszoomuuonemezmzamemzH

h mqmdfi

89

Revision Recommendations

Consultant Debriefing

As the teachers completed each module, consultant
debriefings were conducted to assist in determining possible
explanations for deficiencies. The debriefing sessions
were held for approximately one hour each week until all
modules had been completed by the teachers. Deficiencies
identified by the 20 percent or more criterion were uSed
as the agenda for the debriefing sessions. The deficient
sections of the modules were discussed to determine the na-
ture of the problem and possible reasons why it had
occurred. A total list of possible instructional alterna-
tives was developed with a rationale for the suggested
revisions. The list, by module, was then submitted to four
members of the I CAN project staff; two evaluators, one
project designer, and one member of the Teacher's Guide
development team. Each instructional alternative accepted
by three members of this group was incorporated into the

content of a revised Teacher's Guide.

Revision Procedures

Two of the original writers were used to revise the
Teacher's Guide. Each writer was given a list of the
approved revisions. After making the revisions, each
module was given to two of the consultants for final review
and approval. The approved modules were then assembled

into the revised Teacher's Guide. A flow chart specifying

 

90

the chronological sequence of the revision procedures is

presented in Figure 10.
Chapter Summary

The methods and procedures used in the deve10pment
and implementation, main field test and revision of the
Teacher's Guide have been described in this chapter.

The first step in the development process was a
description of the teaching behaviors necessary for the
proper implementation of the I CAN instructional system.
This description formed the basis for the identification of
the long range goals of the Teacher's Guide. Three material
developers were then selected who analyzed the long range
goals into the enabling and terminal objectives (compe-
tencies) for eaCh module of the Guide. Module design spe-
cifications and the developmental process for the proto-
type Teacher's Guide were described in detail.

A model for implementation of the inservice material
developed and a rationale for the model was presented. A
complete description of the implementation process was
also presented.

The methodology used in the main field test involved
the use of field test teachers (N = 19) and consultants
(N = 4) to identify deficiencies in the Teacher's Guide.
The effects of each module of the Guide were determined by
an item by teacher analysis of three dependent variables;

post test achievement, consultant ratings and intervention

91

mmuspmooum cOHmH>Om
OGHDO m.HonummH Ho Emnmmwo onm

oH ousoflm

mmmum pomnoum z¢o wm>HumcnmuH¢
uwmuo rmsom umwuo< H an ow3mH>mm HmGOHuosuumcH uqu

mw>HUMGHwHH€

 

 

 

 

             

 

WHQUHHB

3TH >wm '

mucmuHSmcou

 

 

mmnmmH O>H0mom
mucmuHschU

mCOHumpcwEEoomm
Oxmz mucmuHsmcoo

mfimoflooo
ucmqumcou ”55950

\/

é . pHmHh Scum
mono ONHHMEEsm

   
  

 

 

d

 

uwmuo Hmcflm
muoanz

muoosoz uumum

ATIIIIIII Hmcoflufloom N no

H BUAz o>Hommm

 

 

 

 

  

3OH>Om
mcflm mucmanmcou

 

 

 

 

mpfluo m.nonomoe pme>mm
on» cospoummm can onus

 

92

estimates, and teacher attitude scores. When negative
responses were recorded on any item of the dependent mea—
sures by 20 percent or more teachers a deficiency was
identified.

Consultant debriefings were held, using the listed
deficiencies as the debriefing agenda, to determine the
nature of the problem and to generate feasible revision
recommendations. The revision procedures are also

described in this chapter.

 

u‘.
KIT-HZ...

_
T" f. 7' .\.I.M’Hri.m
. r.)

_ _._..:._’;.}

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

It was the purpose of this investigation to develop,
implement and formatively evaluate a Teacher's Guide to
the use of the I CAN Instructional System within the main
field test of I CAN Instructional System. The objectives
of the field test were twofold: l) to generate data on
module deficiencies, and 2) to make recommendations for
module revisions. In order to evaluate the effectiveness
of the Guide in teaching the competencies determined neces-
sary to implement the I CAN Instructional System as inten-
ded by the developers: planning, assessment, prescrip-
tion, teaching and evaluation, the main field test was
designed to answer direct questions relative to the enabl-
ing objectives of each module contained in the Teacher's
Guide.

The results of the field test will be presented for

each section of the Teacher's Guide: Planning, Assessment,,

Prescription, Teaching and Evaluation. Each presentation
will begin with a summary of teacher entry status relative
to each direct question. The results for each dependent

measure then will be presented in the following order:

93

144:: ._4'__ ' ' ‘ fl
1 2 E

 

94

post test, attitude survey, consultant rating, and inter—
vention estimate. Deficiencies identified using the 20
percent or more criterion on these dependent measures were
used as the agenda for consultant debriefing. A discussion
of the consultant debriefing will follow the presentation
of the results for each section of the Teacher's Guide and
will conclude with a list of the recommended revisions

generated as a result of the debriefing session.
Planning

Results

Module 1: E0 1: Question 1: Are the teachers
able to correctly identify the organization, structure and
logic of the I CAN Instructional System?

Entry Status: Teacher self—reported entry status
indicated that 79 percent had some familiarity with an
individualized curriculum for TMR students. Only 26 per-
cent anticipated difficulty in implementing such a program.
Consultants reported no teachers implementing any type
(published, teacher or district designed) individualized
curriculum in their physical education classes prior to
this field test.

Post test: All teachers answered all items correctly.

 

Attitude Survey: Twenty percent or more of the
teachers responded negatively to items 2, 9, and 11.
2. 26 percent were unsure of what they were supposed

to be learning.

95

9. 21 percent felt the vocabulary was unfamiliar
and they often didn't know what was going on.

11. 63 percent felt they needed consultant assis-
tance in addition to the material presentation.

Consultant Rating: Consultants reported all teachers

 

demonstrated the ability to correctly identify the
organization structure and logic of I CAN.

Intervention Estimate: Consultants reported no

 

intervention in any cases.
The raw data on which these summaries are based
appears in Appendix M.

Module 1: E0 2: Do the teachers use the organiza-

 

tion, structure and logic of I CAN to develop at least two
long term (6-8 week) instructional plans?

Entry Status: Teacher's self-reported entry status

 

indicated that 42 percent had some experience in developing
a long term (6-8 week) instructional plan based on perfor-
mance objectives. 53 percent anticipated difficulty in
developing such a plan. Consultants reported that no such
plans were evident in any of the classrooms they observed.
Any plans were based on facilities, seasons or day to day
decisions. None of the teachers were basing their physical
education programs on performance objectives.

Post test: Questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 were answered

 

incorrectly by twenty percent or more Of the teachers.

 

 

96

3. 63 percent could not state the process for
deciding how much time should be spent on each
module.

4. 21 percent could not define "double pay off"
planning.

5. 79 percent could not generate a long term plan
without consultant assistance.

6. 100 percent could not generate an alternate
plan using alternative approaches to long term
planning.

Attitude Survey: Twenty percent or more of the

 

teachers responded negatively to item eleven.

ll.‘ 68 percent felt they needed consultant assis-
tance in addition to the Teacher's Guide
presentation.

Consultant Ratings: 32 percent of the teachers did

 

not develOp an acceptable long term plan even with
consultant assistance. In addition, consultants
reported 32 percent of the teachers could not utilize
the concept of "double pay off" planning in design-
ing their plans.

Intervention Estimate: .95 percent of the teachers

 

needed frequent intervention in order to design a
long term plan. Mean intervention estimate was 3.83.

The raw data on which the preceeding summaries are

based appears in Appendix M.

in“: "

H" I" I 12m?”
- it!
111251317.

 

{.E.-LEG;

 

97

Discussion

Examination of the data obtained on the planning
competency indicated that a high percentage (100%) of
teachers had achieved the first enabling objective while a
low percentage (20%) of teachers achieved the second en-
abling objective. The teachers needed a great deal of
tutorial assistance in developing long term plans.

During the debriefing consultants indicated that
the Guide provided minimal guidance for teachers in pro-
ducing such a plan. Consultants suggested that the material
on long term planning had been placed too early in the
learning sequence. They indicated that a more total under-
standing of the I CAN Instructional System was necessary
before a long term plan could be generated. It was also
recommended that the competency of long term planning
based on performance objectives was sufficiently difficult
enough to warrant a separate instructional presentation in
the Guide. A revised text also should include examples of
step by step procedures for the generation of a number of
long term plans apprOpriate for TMR students of varying age
levels. Examples of plans for situations representing
different instructional resources were also suggested. The
need for clarification of the amount of time that should be
spent on instruction of a specific skill and the concept of
"double pay off" planning was clearly indicated.

The consultants also determined that teacher failure

to generate suitable long term plans was based on

98

deficiencies in the material presentation that preceeded
planning. Specifically, they noted that the material on
the organization, structure and logic of I CAN contained
information on organization and structure only. The logic
of I CAN, the developmental sequence within each primary
skill, had been omitted.

Consultants also agreed that teacher uncertainty
relative to the precise learning task using the materials
for organization, structure and logic was due to the poor
presentation of a rationale for each section of the
Teacher's Guide. This rationale, including an explanation
of the teacher behavior model upon which the Guide was
based, had been presented in a cursory fashion in the letter
to field test teachers that prefaced the content. Consul-
tants indicated that most teachers did not read this ma-
terial because it was not highlighted nor did it appear
important enough to appear in the body of the presentation.

The greatest number of open-ended comments on the
teacher reactionnaires for these two sections of the Guide
were negative responses to an instructional game. The game
had been included as an alternate learning strategy for
the content relative to organization, structure and logic
Of I CAN. Comments such as, "games are childish. . .,"
or "I'm too busy to play games. . ." or "I play games all
day. . ." were discussed. Consultants also reported that
those teachers who commented positively on the game--"

"game was fun. . .", "game was clever. . ." in fact had not

 

99

removed the game from the Guide and Obviously had not ac-

tually used it.

Module 1: E0 1: Revision Recommendations

1.

Eliminate game activity due to negative reac-
tions and non-use.

Expand section on rationale for the content of
the Teacher's Guide to specifically include and
highlight the teacher behavior model to further
clarify the teaching skills required for the
proper implementation of the I CAN Instructional
System.

Include content relative to the logic (develop-
mental sequence) of the I CAN Instructional

System. Address the question--what comes first?

Module 1: E0 2: Revision Recommendations

1.

Separate the material on long term planning from
the material on structure and logic. Write a
separate content area on long term planning.
Expand information, giving a step—by-step pro-
cedure for the generation of two or three long
term plans apprOpriate for TMR students of
varying age levels--using situations represen-
tative of different instructional resources (for
example--equipment, facilities, time).

Clarify the amount of instructional time that

should be spent on instruction in an area i.e.,

100

locomotion, object control, water adjustment,
rhythms, etc.

4. Clarify concept of "double pay off planning"--
give examples.

5. Place the new content area last in the Teacher's
Guide so teachers have a total understanding of

I CAN before attempting a long term plan.

Assessment

 

Results

Module 2: E0 1: Question 1: Do the teachers

 

assess student status with 90 percent accuracy as defined
by the objectives of the I CAN Instructional System?

Entry Status: Teacher's self-reported entry status

 

indicated that 63 percent were familiar with the use of
observational techniques to assess student status in physi-
cal skills based on behaviorally stated objectives. 47 per-
cent indicated that they would anticipate difficulty in doing
this. Since there was no evidence that any of the teachers
were basing their programs on performance Objectives, con-
sultants reported no teachers operationalizing this compe-
tency in their classes.

Post test: Questions 1 and 4 were answered incor-

 

rectly by twenty percent or more of the teachers.
1. 32 percent could not define an "assessment

activity."

 

101

4. 32 percent could not state the procedure for

judging multiple foci.

Attitude Survey: Twenty percent or more of the

teachers responded negatively to items eleven,

twelve and fifteen.

11. 53 percent felt they needed consultant
assistance in addition to the material in the
Teacher's Guide.

12. 21 percent were uncertain of what they had
learned. 3

15. 21 percent were less favorably impressed with
I CAN after completing this section of the
Guide than they had been previously.

Consultant Ratings: Consultants rated 58 percent

of the teachers as unable to assess with 90 per—

cent accuracy. In addition consultants rated 74-per-

cent of the teachers on the focal point using the
student performance score sheet to assess and re?
assess student progress on a daily basis.

Intervention Estimate: 58 percent of the teachers

received tutorial assistance frequently. The mean

intervention estimate was 3.17. Consultants also
reported high intervention on the focal point of
using report forms to assess and reassess on a daily
basis. The mean intervention estimate on this

sub-competency was 4.0.

. I u .-
~L--

x-z-A‘
'. 7 -] I7Jflm. . I
o 5'
_lEH7

T‘
”33:11:.“ _

 

102

The raw data on which the preceeding summaries are

based are presented in Appendix N.

Discussion

 

Examination of the data obtained on the assessment
competency indicated that approximately one half of the
teachers had achieved this enabling objective. In addi-
tion, approximately one half of the teachers needed frequent
tutorial assistance in assessing student status. A high
percentage (74%) of teachers did not use the student per-
formance score sheets to assess on a daily basis although
the consultant reported a great deal of tutorial assistance
was proVided on this aspect of assessment.

During the debriefing the consultants determined
that the Guide had provided some assistance to teachers for
assessing student status. The consultants suggested that
the 90 percent criterion level stated in the objective was
too high. They recOmmended that a revised version should,
at this time, state no criterion level unless media could
be provided to assist teachers in reaching a stated cri-
terion level. They also felt that although a daily assess-
ment-reassessment procedure was most efficient it often
was not possible to assess every child each day. Consul-
tants agreed that the Guide contained many statements
intimating that assessment was a very difficult skill.

They perceived that this inference, in addition to the 90
percent criterion and daily assessment requirement, had

convinced some of the teachers that the skill was impossible

103

to accomplish and that negative reactions to the I CAN
materials had resulted.

The consultants strongly recommended that the material
in this module should be supplemented by media. Specifi-
cally, their recommendation was that loop films should be
provided giving examples of correct and incorrect student
performances. This would provide active apprOpriate prac-_
tice with single students via film prior to assessing groups
of students in their classes.

The consultants also agreed that the Guide did not
present enough examples of how to use the student per-
formance score sheet or the assessment activities. They
suggested that a presentation of a step by step procedure
for the use of the student performance score sheet and
assessment activities, with additional examples, was
necessary.

They agreed that this revision would further clarify
the procedure for judging skills with multiple focus points.

Consultants also agreed that teacher unCertainty
relative to the precise learning task involved in the
material on assessment was due to the poor presentation of
a rationale for this section of the Guide and the teacher
behavior model on which the Guide was based. They also
suggested that the introductory paragraphs of the module
should be revised to clearly define and clarify the concept

of assessment.

The greatest number of open-ended comments on the

104

teacher reactionnaires for this section of the Guide were

requests for additions to the material presentation.

Specifically, comments such as, "more examples please. . .,"
"more opportunity to practice-perhaps films?. . . ." were
recorded.

At this point in the inservice training procedure
the consultants noted a strong resistance on the part of
the field test teachers to keeping written records. Some
specific teacher comments to the consultants relative to
this issue were, "I keep them in my head. . .," "I'm too
busy to keep track of all that paper work.", "I do my
record keeping at marking time," and "This is getting to be
a big load on my shoulders. . . ."

Module 2: E0 1: Revision Recommendations

1. Rewrite introductory paragraphs and clearly
define the broad concept of assessment used by
I CAN.

2. Present a step-by-step procedure for the use of
the student performance score sheet and assess-
ment activities. Use many examples, including
some from all content areas--aquatics, funda—
mental skills, rhythms, etc.

3.' Eliminate all references to how difficult assess-
ment is; concentrate on the positive.

4. For the time being eliminate a criterion level

from the objective.

105

5. Indicate the efficiency of daily record keeping
but also state clearly that an assessment of
each child may not be possible each day. Try
to motivate teachers to want to keep records by
indicating in the narrative presentation the
ultimate efficiency of this process.

6. Supplement Guide presentation with media--
specifically loop films that give examples of
students performing in a correct and incorrect
manner. Media should be accompanied by direc-
tions for its use.

7. Expand the rationale for the content of the
Teacher's Guide, specifically, include and high-
light the teacher behavior model to clarify the
teaching skills necessary for the proper imple-

mentation of the I CAN System.

Prescription

 

Results

Module 3: E0 1: Question 1: Do the teachers
prescribe daily lessons based on need assessment using the
teaching learning activities and activity participation“
materials of the I CAN Instructional System?

Entry Status: Teacher self-reported entry status
indicated that 53 percent were familiar with planning
daily lessons with a skill development focus based on

individual need assessment. Thirty-two (32) percent

106

anticipated difficulty in doing this. Consultants reported
that all teachers were teaching lessons of a "traditional"
nature, that is, lessons comprised of group—based instruc-
tion on "adapted" or "modified" games, exercises and other
activities.
Post test: Question 6 was answered incorrectly by
over twenty percent of the teachers.
6. 58 percent could not state where assessment
activities should be placed in a lesson.
Attitude Survey: Twenty percent or more of the

teachers responded negatively to items 2 and 11.

 

2. 21 percent were unsure of what they were
supposed to be learning.

11. 53 percent felt they needed consultant assis-
tance in addition to the material in the
Teacher's Guide.

Consultant Rating: Consultants rated 36 percent

of the teachers unable to prescribe daily lessons

based on assessment using the I CAN Instructional

System. In addition, consultants indicated that 21

percent did not select game activities that were

related to specific lesson focal points and 63

percent did not conduct a lesson summary.

Intervention Estimate: 57 percent of the teachers

received tutorial assistance frequently. Mean inter-

vention estimate was 3.0.

107

The raw data on which the preceeding summaries are

based are found in Appendix 0.

Discussion

 

The data indicated that over one half of the teachers
had achieved this enabling objective. However, frequent
tutorial assistance was given to over one half of the
teachers. In addition, over 20 percent of the teachers did
not select game activities for a lesson that were related
to specific lesson focal points or conduct a lesson summary.

The consultants indicated that the Guide had provided
assistance but that some revisions were necessary. They
reported that often teachers assessed students and then
proceeded with instructional procedures that were not based
on the assessment results. The consultants suggested that
the introductory paragraphs should be written to clearly
point out that individual assessment results are the basis
for the construction of-a lesson.

The consultants also suggested that a step by step
procedure for organizing a lesson, based on assessment
results, should be presented. This presentation should be
accompanied by many examples. They suggested that the
placing of assessment in a lesson also might be clarified
by this procedure.

The consultants reported that at this point some
teachers were so engrossed in specific skill instruction
that they were omitting the portion of a lesson that allowed

students to utilize skills in activities (games, relays,

108

etc.). They suggested that a revised text clarify the
placement of traditional games and activities in lessons,
particularly as this relates to motivation and the rein-
Iforcement of learned physical skills.

Consultants also indicated that most teachers did
not perceive the lesson summary as important. Many did not
believe the TMR students were sufficiently "intelligent" to
profit from a summary. Other teachers had use of an in-
structional facility for physical education for such a
short time that they preferred the students usethe facility
for movement Opportunities rather than discussions. The
consultants again suggested that the concept of rein-
forcement be addressed in lesson planning. They recommended
a revised text suggest that lesson summaries could be con-
ducted back in the classroom or on the bus as students
returned to their classroom locations.

The addition of media to this module of the Guide
also was suggested by the consultants. Specifically, they
recommended the use of video-tapes demonstrating a number
0f exemplary lessons being taught under varying conditions.

Consultants also agreed that teachers were unsure
Of what they were supposed to be learning because the
Statement of rationale for this section of the Guide, and
theteacher behavior model on which the Guide was based had
been Presented so poorly.

The open ended comments on the teacher reactionnaires

for Ulis module of the Teacher's Guide consisted Primarily

109

of requests for specificity and more examples. Comments
such as, "This section is too general. . .," "too vague. ..,"
"Had to read and re-read. . . ." were recorded.

Module 3: E0 1: Revision Recommendations

 

1. Rewriting the introductory paragraphs with a
strong emphasis on assessment as the basis for
prescriptive lesson planning.

2. Include a step-by-step procedure for organizing
a lesson based on assessment results. Include
more than one example at each step in the pro-
cedure.

3. Include in the revised text some indication of
the importance of traditional games and activi-
ties in motivating students to learn specific
skills and in reinforcing skill learning. Indi-
cate places in prescriptive lessons where
reinforcement may take place.

4. Add video tapes of exemplary lessons being
taught under varying conditions.

5. Expand the section on rationale and the teacher

behavior model.

Teaching

 

Results-
Module 4:- E0 1: Question 1: Do the teachers
Organize activity groups in a manner that provides individ-

ualized instruction and maximum participation?

110

Entry Status: Teacher self-reported entry status
indicated that 42 percent of the teachers were familiar with
organizing and moving activity groups so that instruction
could be individualized according to stated performance
Objectives. 47 percent also indicated that they expected
difficulty with this competency in the classroom. Consul-
tants reported that all teachers were basing classroom
organization on the patterns necessary for group-based
instruction. Since there was no evidence of instruction
being individualized on the basis of performance objectives,
consultants indicated no teachers operationalizing this
competency in their classes.

Post test: Questions 1, 5 and 6 were answered

incorrectly by twenty percent or more of the teachers.

1. 47 percent could not define "on task time".

5. 63 percent could not state two organizational

strategies for individualizing instruction.

6. 79 percent could not estimate the amount of

time they spent organizing students for instruc-
tion.

Attitude Survey: Twenty percent or more of the

teachers responsed negatively to items 7 and 11.

7. 21 percent of the teachers felt the material in
the Guide presented unnecessary information.

11. 42 percent felt they needed consultant assis-

tance in addition to the material presented in

the Teacher's Guide.

 

“{LALL'LJ;I

 

111

Consultant Ratings: Consultants reported that 21
percent of the teachers unable to demonstrate this
. competency.

Intervention Estimate: Consultants reported 79

percent of the teachers received tutorial assistance

frequently. Mean intervention estimate was 3.16.

Module 4: E0 2: Question :2: Do the teachers
use alternate teaching strategies to individualize in-
struction at least 90 percent of the time?

Entry Status: Teacher self—reported entry.status
indicated that 68 percent of the teachers had some famili-
arity with training TMR students to achieve a performance
objective in gross motor skills. Thirty-two (32) percent
anticipated that they would have difficulty with this com-
petency. Consultants reported that no teachers operation—
alized this competency in their classes because no per-
formance objectives were evident.

Teachers also self-reported that 63 percent were
familiar with cues that determine a students learning style
(manipulation, modeling, inquiry, etc.). 42 percent of the
teachers indicated they felt this would be difficult. Con-
sultants judged four teachers (21%) as actually being
responsive to these cues in the clasSroom, and using them
to vary instructional methods for individuals. The group
based methods of explanation-demonstration were being used
by 74 percent of the teachers. At this stage it was de-

cided to ask those four teachers to complete this section

.1 I’ H" ‘.'.

r f“. 1.

 

‘6 " .
Emmi...
r.

$431193:- ..
_ .

 

112

Of the Guide so that we might profit from their in-

sight.

Post test: All items were answered correctly by

the teachers with the exception Of:

6. 47 percent could not order a set of

questions by their cognitive difficulty.

Reactionnaire: Teachers reacted positively to all

items, with the following exceptions:

5.. 26 percent felt there was too much infor-
‘ mation.

ll. 36 percent felt they needed consultant assis-
tance in addition to the material in the
Teacher's Guide.

12. 26 percent were uncertain of what they had
learned.

Consultant Ratipg: Less than 20 percent Of the

teachers were reported as unable to demonstrate this

ability in the classroom.

Intervention Estimate: Less than 20 percent of the

teachers received frequent tutorial assistance.

The mean intervention estimate was 1.84.

The raw data on which these summaries are based are

presented in Appendix P.

Discussion

Examination of the data obtained on the teaching

competency indicated that a high percentage (80% and 90%

respectively) of teachers had achieved both the first and

113

second enabling objective. Teachers received frequent
tutorial assistance in organizing and moving activity groups
so that instruction could be individualized. Consultants
reported a small amount of tutorial assistance relative to
using alternate teaching methods to individualize instruc-
tion.

The revision recommendations generated at the con-
sultant debriefing were minor. The consultants indicated
that a number of teachers did not feel they were indi-
vidualizing instruction unless they were working with one
student. This resulted in classes characterized by one
student being taught while the remainder were asked to sit
and wait until the teacher "got to" them. When the stu-
dents began to misbehave under these conditions teacher
would immediately reorganize so that all students were
receiving instruction on the same focal point of a skill--
whether they needed it or not. The consultants recommended
a clarification of "on task time" and more examples of
organizational strategies.

All of the Open ended comments on the teacher reac-
tionnaires for this section of the Teacher's Guide were
related to the format. This format had been constructed
around an analogy between driver training and organizing
TMR students for instruction. Half of the comments were
positive; "driver analogy fun. . .," "this was interesting
and well organized. . .," "a very humorous, creative

approach. . .," the other half were quite negative;

114

“driver training analogy unnecessary and distracting. . .,"
"obtuse. . .," and "the comparison of class organization

to the learning to drive analogy was not necessary. .

I dislike gimmicks. . . we are all teachers and the last
thing I want to do is get involved in activities that
detract from the seriousness of teaching. . " Since the

analogy had been offensive to some of the teachers it was
recommended that it be deleted.

The consultants were in agreement with the teachers
that the material relative to using alternate teaching
strategies to individualize instruction contained a great
deal of unnecessary information. All the open ended com-
ments on the teacher reactionnaire supported their posi-
tion. They recommended that an entire section which ex-
plained a backward chaining technique be deleted. They
reported that TMR students functioned at a sufficiently
high level that teachers did not need to utilize this method.
They also reported that teachers did not utilize the pro-
blem solving or inquiry strategies frequently. The con-
sultants agreed that this is a difficult strategy to use
with the TMR student and that only one or two students in
each teacher's class responded to this technique in a
nanner that motivated the teacher to practice using it. They
recommended a clarification of the use of this technique
hithe revised text supplemented with examples of its use.

The consultants again attributed teacher uncertainty

axnm.what they had learned to the poor quality of the

 

(a

 

115

statement of rationale for each section of the Guide and
the insufficient presentation of the teacher behavior
model on which the Guide was based.

At this point in the inservice training the consul-
tants expressed a great deal of concern about the Direct
Service Model.‘ They sensed that the teacher's morale was
low and that they were "uneasy" about whatever was being FE:
"done" to them. The consultants reported that approximately
one half of the teachers had not been consulted by their

administrative superiors before the "field test agreement

 

to participate contract" had been signed. This resulted

in a number of teachers who did not have a high commit-
ment to the project. Plans were immediately made to invite
the field test teachers to the campus. The purpose of this
meeting was to attempt to build morale, review the progress
of the inservice training, and give an overview of just
exactly what we were attempting to accomplish. All the
teachers but one attended this meeting and the teacher
feedback was very positive. The consultants strongly
recommended that were we to attempt this procedure a second
time this type of meeting should precede any consultant
Visitations to individual teachers. It was also recom—
mended that any agreement to participate should be signed
by both the teacher and authorized administrator.

Module 4: E0 1: Revision Recommendations

 

1. Give a more thorough presentation on what

individualizing instruction means. Revise the

116

explanation of "on task time"--give it more
"importance."

2. Give more examples of organizational strategies.

Module 4: E0 2: Revision Recommendations

1. Delete material. Eliminate backward chaining
as a suggested teaching strategy.

2. Clarify discussion of inquiry techniques by
giving more specific examples of how it can be

used in physical education instruction with

TMR students.

Evaluation

 

Results

Module 5: E0 1: Question 1: Do the teachers
evaluate and record pupil progress on all students in their
field test class?

Entry Status: Teacher self-reported entry status
indicated 47 teachers were familiar with the use of
report forms to record student progress as they achieved
performance objectives. 47 percent also indicated they
would have difficulty in doing this. Consultants indicated
no teachers were currently using report forms to record
Student progress toward the achievement of performance
Objectives.

Post test: All teachers answered all items correctly.

Attitude Survey: Teachers responded positively to

all items with the exception of:

117

2. 26 percent were unsure of what they were
supposed to be learning.
9. 21 percent found the vocabulary difficult.

ll. 42 percent felt they needed consultant

assistance in addition to the material in
the Teacher's Guide.

12. 21 percent were uncertain about what they

had learned.

14. 26 percent recommended extensive modifica-

tion of the material in the Teacher's Guide.

Consultant Rating: Consultants rated 74 percent

of the teachers as not demonstrating this competency.

Intervention Estimate: Consultants reported 11

percent of the teachers received tutorial assis-

tance frequently. The mean intervention estimate

was 3.37.

Module 5: E0 2: Question 2. Do the teachers
decide whether to terminate, recycle or review instruc-
tion?

Entry Status: Teacher self—reported entry status
indicated 47 teachers were familiar with determining
when to recycle or terminate instruction when evaluating
student progress toward behaviorally stated objectives.

42 Percent indicated they would have difficulty doing this.
Since there were no behaviorally stated objectives being used
h>Y’the teachers consultants reported no teachers operation-

alizing this competency in their classrooms.

1 mn.

"-‘_ fl. ‘J’J’a‘il'

 

Jeni-:41

. .A'
44'...- , _
«'Pifli '
A f

118

Post test: All teachers answered all items correctly.

 

Reactionnaire: Teachers responded positively to

 

all items with the exception of:

11. 32 percent felt they needed consultant assis-
tance in addition to the material in the
Teacher's Guide.

Consultant Rating: Consultants rated only 16 per—

 

cent of the teachers as unable to demonstrate this
competency. In addition 16 percent were unable to
modify their long term plans based on evaluative
decisions.

Intervention Estimates: Consultants reported

 

frequent tutorial assistance given to 47 percent
of the teachers. The mean intervention estimate

was 2.16.

The raw data on which the preceeding summaries are

based are presented in Appendix Q.

Discussion

The data obtained on the evaluation competency

clearly indicated that a low percentage (26%) of teachers

achieved the first enabling objective while a high propor-

tion (84%) had achieved the second enabling objective.

Consultants reported frequent tutorial assistance had been

given to the teachers relative to the first enabling

objective.

The revision recommendations generated at the

119

consultant debriefing were minor. In the consultant's
(nunion the Teacher's Guide had provided adequate instruc-
tion relative to the evaluation and recording of student
progress. They were in agreement that all of the teachers
vmre knowledgeable relative to this competency but that few
teachers actually demonstrated this teaching behavior.
Consultants reported a continued strong resistance from
teachers to.any kind of regular record keeping procedure.
The consultants recommended that a revised text attempt to
motivate teachers to keep records on student progress. They
also suggested a few minor revisions that would clarify the
"mechanics" of the use of report forms.

The consultants also agreed that when forced into
recording student progress through tutorial intervention,
the teachers were able to make correct decisions relative
to the review, terminate or recycle issue. They suggested
that the presentation of a decision aid in a revised text
would improve the quality of instruction.

Module 5: E0 1: Revision Recommendations

 

l. Attempt in a revised text to motivate teachers
to keep records so that efficient instructional
decisions may be based on a record of student
progress toward objectives.

2. Clarify the procedures for the proper use of
evaluation forms.

Module 5: E0 2: Revision Recommendations

1. Expand this section--specifically include

120

more examples. Also include a decision aid to
assist teachers in determining when to termi-

nate, review or recycle instruction.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This concluding chapter has three sections: 1) a
summary of the development, implementation and formative
evaluation of the Teacher's Guide, 2) major conclusions
of the study relative to the five formative evaluation
questions, and 3) recommendations for further study.

Summary of the DevelOpment,Implementation
and Formative Evaluation of the
Teacher's Guide

The purpose of this investigation was the develop-
ment, implementation and formative evaluation of a Teacher's
Guide to the use of the I CAN Instructional System. The
Teacher's Guide, comprised of a series of competency based
inservice mOdules, was designed to provide learning ex-
periences for field test teachers so they would gain the
competencies necessary to implement the I CAN Instructional
System as intended by the develOpers. The teaching compe-
tencies identified as necessary to the correct implementa-
tion of I CAN were: planning, assessment, prescription,
teaching and evaluation. The field test of the Teacher's
Guide was conducted within the larger context of the

formative evaluation of the primary skills modules of

121

1.

 

122

the I CAN Instructional System in an effort to obtain infor-
mation relative to implementation and further evaluation
of this curriculum.

The review of literature related to this investi-
gation indicated that when appropriate instructional
materials are available, the principles of competency based
teacher education can be successfully employed for inser-
vice training. The review also indicated that the applica-
tion of systems design principles employing steps of analy-
sis, design and evaluation can provide the basis for the
systematic deve10pment of CBTE materials. Once a preliminary
form of the materials has been constructed, a formative
evaluation of the prototype should be conducted to identify
major deficiencies and provide a basis for suitable re-
visions. The formative evaluation of CBTE materials re-~
quires several types of data. It was recommended that data
on student entry status, learning, classroom performance
and attitudinal data should be collected in tutorial and
large group situations.

I The first step in the development process was a
description of the teaching behaviors necessary for the
correct implementation of the I CAN Instructional System.
This description formed the basis for the identification of
the long range goals of the Teacher's Guide. Three material
authors were selected and they analyzed the long range
goals into the terminal and enabling objectives (compe-

tencies) of each module of the Teacher's Guide. The module

 

 

123

design specifications were formed based on a review of the
literature. These specifications were used to produce
the substance, form and order of the Teacher's Guide.

The methodology used in the main field test involved
the implementation of the Teacher's Guide through the use
of the Direct Service Model of inservice training. The
field test was conducted in central lower Michigan and in-
volved teachers in both rural and urban communities. Field
test teachers (N = 19) and consultants (N = 4) were used
to identify deficiencies in the Guide.

An entry skills survey supplemented by consultant
observations<1fteacher's pre—treatment classroom behavior
was used to identify teacher entry status. The effect of
each module of the Guide was detemined by an item by teacher
analysis of three dependent variables: post test achieve-
ment, consultant ratings and intervention estimate and
teacher attitude scores. When negative responses were
recorded on any item of the dependent measures by 20 per-
cent or more teachers a deficiency was identified. Consul-
tant debriefings were held, using the listed deficiencies
as the debriefing agenda, to determine the nature of the
problem and to generate feasible revision recommendations.

.The consultant debriefing, based on data indicating
the proportion of teachers achieving the module objectives,
provided for both the systematic and logical identification
of module deficiencies and the revision recommendations.

As the data were recorded,using the item by teacher matrix

5

 

kzma;

v _-rv etuvr- All

 

 

 

124

procedure,patterns became evident as the error rate or
negative responses from teachers and consultants on the
instruments began to support one another.

The nature of the debriefing interaction was open
and frank. The logs kept by the consultants were helpful in
determining the type of tutorial assistance they had offered
and were valuable in decisions relative to revision recom—
mendations. The consultants were quick to offer sugges-
tions that had been proposed by individual teachers.

Major revisions recommended were: 1) a clarifica-
tion of the rationale for each section of the Guide and a
highlighting and clarification of the teacher behavior model
on which the Guide was based, 2) a separate module on
long term planning that would be placed last in the Teacher's
Guide, 3) the inclusion of media to supplement the modules
on assessment and prescription, and 4) the addition of many
more examples to each module.

The revision recommendations were submitted to the
I CAN Project Staff; two evaluators, one project designer
and one Teacher's Guide author. Each revision recommenda-
tion accepted by three members of this group was incorporated
into the content of a revised Teacher's Guide. Two of the
original authors revised the Teacher's Guide. Revisions
based both on the results of this study and on revisions in

the I CAN materials themselves were begun in July

1974.

 

 

125

Conclusions

Conclusion 1: THE SYSTEMS APPROACH WAS AN EFFEC-
TIVE METHOD FOR DEVELOPING THE
PROTOTYPE TEACHER'S GUIDE.
The use of the systems approach provided the means
:fior dealing with the complex realities faced by the authors
<3f the Teacher's Guide. The development process Was accom-

‘plished with relative ease within the time lines of the

development schedule.

During the development each module author used the
five-step deve10pment model to produce the prototype ma-
terials. Each module author followed through to develOp
material that had been revised on the basis of technical
review, individual student tryouts, and final approval by
the I CAN Project Staff.

It should be pointed out that the module authors
were committed to the systematic improvement of their ma;

terial based on the feedback they received. In addition,

each author was familiar with systems design principles and

the competency based teacher education movement.

ConClusion 2: THE TEACHING SKILLS IDENTIFIED WERE
THE COMPETENCIES ESSENTIAL TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE I CAN IN—
STRUCTIONAL SYSTEM.
At the conclusion of the inservice training program,
each consultant and teacher indicated that the teaching

skills of planning, assessment, prescription, teaching and

evaluation were in fact the competencies essential to the

_—

   

126

correct implementation of the I CAN Instructional System.
No additional competencies were identified by consultants
or field test teachers during the formative evaluation of
the prototype Teacher's Guide.

Conclusion 3: THE DIRECT SERVICE MODEL WAS AN EFFEC-

TIVE METHOD FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION AND
FORMATIVE EVALUATION OF THE PROTOTYPE
TEACHER'S GUIDE.

The model provided for data collection or teacher
entry status, learning, attitude and classroom performance.
The model also provided for direct feedback from individu-
al teachers via each consultant. In short, it provided
for tutorial procedures within a large group context.

In addition, the presence of a consultant in the
classroom provided intervention as an immediate alterna-
tive strategy when the Teacher's Guide or any other part of
the inservice program was deficient. This intervention
assured that the field test teacher was implementing the
materials as intended.

While no formal attempt was made to gather data
relative to the Direct Service Model, consultant impres-
sions spontaneously emerged during the course of the field
test. First, the consultants strongly agreed that since so
many of the field test teachers had not been consulted by
their school administrators relative to their willingness
or desire to participate in this field test an addition
should be made to the implementation model. The suggestion

was that a meeting of all teachers should precede any

 

 

 

127

consultant visitations to individual teachers for purposes
of defining exactly what the entire procedure would in-
volve. In short, a "what we're all about" presentation.

It was also suggested that the teachers Sign the Participa-
tion Agreement contract as well as the authorized adminis-
trator.

Second, the consultants also agreed that the direct
contact with teachers and children in actual classrooms had
been highly beneficial to them personally. It became clear
from the consultant comments that the experience away from
the University had afforded them an opportunity to be con-
fronted with the day-to-day realities of teaching the TMR
student and also an opportunity to upgrade their own teach-
ing skills.

Third, the consultants agreed that the high percent-
age of teachers needing consultant assistance in addition
to the material in the Teacher's Guide was only partly
based on a deficiency in the material. They noted that
teachers traditionally view inservice training as relief
from the day to day responsibilities of teaching and that
ultimately teachers began to look forward to their visits
because even though the daily routine was carried out, the
presence of the consultant provided a break in the daily

routine.

 

128

Conclusion 4: THE TEACHERS DID ACQUIRE THE SKILLS
NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE I CAN
INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEM.

Consultant's rated a relatively low percentage of
teachers as unable to demonstrate the competencies neces-
sary for the correct implementation of the I CAN Instruc-
tional System. Consultant intervention was necessary rela-
tive to the planning competency, the assessment competency
and to the evaluation sub-competency dealing with recording
student progress. The Teacher's Guide material relative to
long term planning was judged extremely deficient and poorly
sequenced. The objective relative to assessment which
stated a 90 percent criterion level was judged unrealistic.
Consultants were in agreement that all teacher knew how
to use the report forms to record student status but many
were resistant to record keeping. These factors appeared
to account for the failure of some teachers to achieve the
objectives of these modules.

Conclusion 5: THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN THE INTENDED AND OBSERVED
BEHAVIOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION
SPECIALISTS AND CLASSROOM TEACHERS
AS THEY IMPLEMENTED THE I CAN IN-
STRUCTIONAL SYSTEM.

Little difference in the achievement levels was
evidenced between these two teacher types. In cases where
difficulty was encountered by teachers, both teacher types
had difficulty. Consultants, however, reported some subtle

differences that they had noted during their visits. They

reported the classroom teachers as very verbal concerning

 

 

129

their perceived lack of experience or inadequacy in dealing
with the physical education program. Classroom teachers
reported that their preservice training had included no
preparation to assist them in coping with the conduct of a
physical education program. In addition, consultants re-
ported that,in their opinion,the classroom teachers
appeared "uneasy" in the gymnasium. One teacher clearly
expressed her feelings when she indicated that she was much
more comfortable when the students were sitting at their
desks. She found their movement and activity unfamiliar
and "never felt comfortable when they were all moving around
and being noisy".

Consultants indicated that many of the physical
education specialists had no preservice training relative to
handicapped students. Some had taken jobs working as a
physical education teacher of retarded students because the
job was available. Consultants reported that in some cases
the phySical education specialists had expectations for
their students that were much too high, while others ex-
pected nothing.

Although these teachers possessed varying skills
and backgrounds only three, two physical education
specialists (G and K), and one classroom teacher (8)

failed to achieve most of the objectives of the inservice

modules.

 

Q", '_

{ma-I '

 

L J;

 

130

Recommendations

 

The development, implementation and evaluation of
competency based inservice training materials should be
conducted continuously in an effort to find methods of
improving the quality of teaching. More efficient and
effective methods of conducting competency based inservice
teacher education may be developed through continuing re-
search efforts. The following suggestions for additional
investigations concerned with the competency based in-
service training program for implementing the I CAN
Instructional System are offered as a result of this study.

1. There is a need to extend the implementation
materials for presentation of the teaching competencies
identified as essential to the implementation of the I CAN
Instructional System. 'Implementation materials should in-
clude media, such as loop films, film strips and video
tapes if the Teacher's Guide is to stand alone as self-
instructional material. Such materials would facilitate
the dissemination of the I CAN Instructional System.

2. The delivery of physical education services to
trainable mentally retarded students is accomplished
through both physical education specialists and classroom
teachers. For this reason there is a need to investigate
both the pre-service and inservice education of these two
teacher types as it relates to the conduct of physical edu-

cation programs for the retarded.

 

 

131

3. There is a need for continued iterations of try-
out and revision procedures of the inservice modules that
comprise the Teacher's Guide to the use of the I CAN In—
structional System developed as a result of this study.

Such investigations should include experimental comparisons
between prototype and revised versions of the materials.

4. Further investigations should determine the
effects of the competency based teacher training materials
on the trainable mentally retarded student as well as on the

immediate changes in teacher behavior.

b
i .

_ ‘ ‘ , .
1.17.51 mu“ ~17

 

‘16:: I V‘-‘ aw

.—
1

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abedor, A. J. Development and Validation of a Model Ex-
plicating the Formative Evaluation Process for
Multi-Media Self-Instructional Learning Systems.
Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1971.

V’Alkin, C. "Products for Improving Educational Evaluation".
Evaluation Comment, Center for the Study of Evalua-
tion, U.C.L.A., 1970, 2, 4.

if

Banathy, Bela. Instructional Systems. Fearon Publishers,
Palo Alto, California, 1968.

J Barson, J. Instructional Systems Development. A Demonstra-
tion and Evaluation Project. U. S. Office of Educa-
tion, Title III-B Project OE-3-l6-025, Michigan State
University, 1967.

 

Brethower, D. M., pg. 31. Programmed Learning: A Practicum.
Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Publishers, 1966.

 

V Briggs, L. J. Handbook of Procedures for the Design of
Instruction. Pittsburg: American Institute for
Research, Monograph No. 4., 1970-

Burke, C. Individual Competencnyased System of Teacher
Education at Weber State. Washington, D. C.:
A.A.C.T.E., 1972.

Burdin, J. L. and Mathieson, M. B. "A Review of Research
on Performance-Based Teacher Education." Educational
Technology 12: 61-66; November, 1972.

 

 

BlIrke, D., and Rowland, M. An Inservice technique to teach
ward attendants how to give language development
training to institutionalized retardates. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting, Michigan Speech and
Hearing Association, Lansing, Michigan, October, 1971.

Camtnell, D. and J. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi Experi-
mental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally,.
1966.

 

132

 

133

‘ICorrigan, R. and Roger Koffman. Planning How to Get From
Here to There. Portland, Oregon, 1972. Northwest
Regional Laboratories.

 

 

«Cronbach, L. J. "Course Improvement Through Evaluation,"
Teachers College Record, 1963, 64, 675-683.

Cooper, J. M., and W. A. Weber. "A Competency-Based
Approach to Teacher Education." In J. M. Cooper,
W. A. Weber, and C. E. Johnson (Eds.) Competenpy
Based Teacher Education: A Systems Approach to Pro-
gram Design. Berkeley: McCutchan, 1973.

 

Davis, R. H., Alexander and Yelon, S. L. Learning System
Design. McGraw Hill: Prepublication Edition. East
Lansing: Michigan State University, 1972.

 

Elam, S. Performance-Based Teacher Education: What is the
State of the Art? PBTE Series: No. 1. Washington,
D. C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education, 1971.

\/Hamreus, D. G., "Instructional Systems DevelOpment." National
Research Training Manual. J. Crawford (Ed.) Mon-
mouth: Teaching Research, Division of the Oregon
State System of Higher Education, 1969.

N/Hastings, J. T., "Curriculum Evaluation: The Whys of the .
Outcomes". Journal of Educational Measurement, 1966,
3, 1, 27-32.

Horn, R. E. Developmental Testing. Ann Arbor: Center for
Programmed Learning for Business, 1966.

Houston, R. W. and Howsam, R. B. "Change and Challenge."
In R. W. Houston and R. B. Howsam (Eds.) Competency-
Based Teacher Education: Progress, Problems and
'Prospects. Palo Alto: Science Research Associates,

 

 

 

Inc., 1972.

Klingstedt, J. L. "Learning Modules for Competency-Based
Education." ‘Educational Technology. 1972, 12, 11,
29-31.

Knowles, C. J., Vogel, P. G. and Wessel, J. A Teaching
Model: Improving Instruction in Physical Education
Through Continuous Progress Programming. Position
Paper: Programmatic Research Project, Michigan State
University, 1973.

 

Ianier, P. E. and Henderson, J. E. The Content and Process
of Teacher Education, Unpublished report (Michigan
State University, 1973) mimeographed.

 

 

 

/

134

Mager, R. F. "On the Sequencing of Instructional Content."
Psycholognyeports, 9, 1961, 405-413.

Markle, David G. The DevelOpment of the Bell System First
Aid and Personal Safety Course. Palo Alto: American
Institutes for Research, 1967.

Markle, S. M. "Empirical Testing of Programs." (Chap. V).
Programmed Instruction. Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part II.
P. C; Lange (Ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1967.

Merwin, W. C. "Competency-Based Modules for Inservice Edu-
cation." Educational Leadership 1974, 31:4,
pp. 329-332.

Meyen, E. L. "A Statewide Approach to Inservice Training
for Teachers of the Mentally Retarded." Exceptional
Children 1969, 35, 353-357.

 

Meyen, E. L. 95. 31. "Field Testing: A Source of Evalua-
tion in Developing Instructional Materials." Edu-
cation and Training of the MentallyfiRetarded. 1970,
5, 1, 31-36.

 

Paulson, C. F. "Evaluation of Instructional Systems.”
National Research Training Manual. J. Crawford (Ed.)
Monmouth: Teaching Research, Division of the Oregon
State System of Higher Education, 1969.

Robeck, M. 'A Study of the Revision Process in Programmed
Instruction. M. A. Thesis, UCLA, 1965.

 

Rosenshine, B. "Evaluation of Classroom Instruction,"
Review of Educational Research. 1970, 40, pp. 279-5
300. 4

Rosenshine, B. Critique of the Model Teacher Elementary
Education Programs. ERIC ED 055 976. 1971.

Rosenshine, B. Teachinngehaviors and Student Achievement.
Humanities Press, 1971.

Rosenshine, B. and Furst, N. "Research on Teacher Perform-
ance Criteria," ResearCh in Teacher Education - A
Symposium. February 1972.

Scott, R. O. and Yelon, S. L. "The Student As Co-Author--
The First Step in Formative Evaluation. Educational
Technology, 1969, 9, 10, 76-78.

 

 

 

 

 

135

IScriven, M. "The Methodology of Evaluation.” In R. E.
Stake (Ed.) Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation,
AERA Monograph Series: Chicago, Rand McNally and
Co., 1967. ~ ‘

Shearron, G. F., Johnson, C. E. A Prototype for a Compe-
tency-Based Proficiency Module, GEM Bulletin,
Georgia University, Athens College of Education,
ERIC ED 042 693, 1969.

 

Silberman, H. and Coulson, J. Use of Exploratory Research
and Individual Tutoring Techniques for the DevelOp-
ment of Programming Methods and Theogy. Santa

. Monica: System Development Corporation, June, 1965.

 

J Sorenson, G. Evaluation for the Improvement of Instruc-
tional Programs: Some Practical Steps. Evaluation
Comment. Center for the Study of Evaluation,
U.C.L.A., 1971, 2, 4, 13-17.

 

Stake, R. E. "The Countenance of Educational Evaluation".
Teachers College Record, 1968, 68, 7, 523-540.

 

Steig, P. A. Competency—Based Teacher Education: Some
~ Practical and Theoretical Dimensions for Eastern
Michigan University. Sabbatical Leave Report,
Department of Health, Physical Education and Recrea-
tion, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti,
Michigan, 1974. (Mimeographed)

 

J Thiagarajan, S., D. S. Semmel, and M. I. Semmel. Instruc-
tional Develgpment for Training Teachers of Excep-
tional Children. Bloomington, Indiana: Center for
Innovation in Teaching the Handicapped, 1974.

 

(Twelker, P. A., Urbach, F. D. and Buck, J. E. The Syste-
matic Development of Instruction: An Overview and
Basic Guide to the Literature. ERIC, 1972, ED 059
629.

 

 

VrTyler, R. W. "The Functions of Measurement in Improving
Instruction.. E. F. Lindquist (Ed.) Educational
Measurement. Washington, D. C. American Council
on Education, 1951.

 

 

weSSel, J. A. Programmatic Research Project in Physical
Education for the Mentally Retarded Child in the
Elementary School: Final Report. U. S. Office of
Education, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped,
Project No. 322718 Grant No. OEG—0—7l-3905(608)
1975.

 

 

 

APPENDIX A

OVERVIEW OF I CAN

 

 

 

136

 

room; 968:. _mcoznocam
Sci 3235 35:35
82:8; to... 32685 omcoco

modzm mnommm “Sum

oxobmxoom ZSSEoE _mcozocau
396 .380 xoom accrues“.
$95 :5th _mcozuoczm

395 $83: .3265“.

8.05m mcEcE _mcococsu

mmzomkm

>EE< >bcm $83 .2285”.
x22 5:5 Sci xomm _mcozoczu 7
xo_v_ 5:5 pool Econ .3285“.
.825 9 3253:; .352

@4435 o_m<m

 

 

 

 

 

.25? 2326 332:5 EOE
550 9.3208 8 8222355 2838:
9: 53> 22o 2: 8:65 522, 22%
0385.8 new $0.03... 28b dz}... EoE
$3.6m Boots 393 of 89:05 2.522
8350.4 of. 5:2.“ 383 new coco
.3335 £85; _mo_m>zo .Smocoofiom
co ucoanERfi one .8 8508. m not;
.05 83 3338 £3.54. .So .9593
o2 .mcEmc SEC? .295 defines on room
>t>zom “0828-552, >5 5 522:2th
3o... toe oxrsaotma E388: m 832....
-coo 02o r x Sb £8: 5 5% 63m:
._o> a mEEEEm 3 >75 “02 .moEZSm
95.5 368 poo _ocozmotoot ..mSooo
28E 5 mmmmco 9 Bio consume of 3..
>:::toaao :m 32.63 mc_EE_>>m

8:83
_ 31.505.

137

 

9.36:0

82.5.3 Zoom o.Eo:>o
838.3 zoom BEBE. 235
”8:28 zoom £353 235
30:33. .63. .38.

>QOm m1... OZIJOEPZCU

3830 3.38392...
8530a >pom c.8330
9:53. can 9:23... .ac._.:n.
motnomon. >oom 0.35

I

mehmOm >DOm m0 mmemm<>><

8on .3360 new .3029.
20.885 .3QO
83m new $935

FZmEZOm _>Zw ”.0 wmwzmm<>><

moot/u Zoom
35.. Zoom
mcozo< zoom

mmmZm m<>>< >DOm

_.- _ _-.._-—.—-..

.moocofio >DOb poo £88526
.259. $3.232 . 3.35.836 .33.
-236 .602 «mooEOOCo 2.3.8 :26

3:59: .

>533... too 8:23. -

EoanESU ..30E-.m3oootoa .

”moms

3.26:3 3: 5 2.3.3 :0 comma mm;

mwcoEoE SSE $05 one to 8.823

3:. .cozootooc. .oucoEcotSco ocm

SEES. SSE >533 t8 cozopcsoe

a mm 2.858% tocmioo m. 2.69.:

«E... .E.}... 92.3.3 new 6.3:. .omo:

-mco. .EobEsc .tm. 82m Sofia cacao

c. 5265 5.2, 3563mm BEES. >cmE

02m :5 .mEmtmota 3.28m c.3350

.3253 £595 3co8a2o>mo ozuootm

new $2.58 :39: £38.33 or:

.8 3388: 38:33 3: Zoo «o: 8.3
.50 «Boos. acoEomocos. >oom of.

acoEomocoz atom

= BBQQE

138

.Jflduwn;

 
 

00.000.006600
300605.). 33.6.

00.00.00 000 00000.4

. 000m 00>.003 00 3 30060.65. 800.0000”.
. 000m 00>m 00 3 3006055. 300.0000“.

0.33.0 0.5.1.310.

02.3.0 6.0005 000001-03... 800.3000“.
3.0% 00002000 800.0000... ..
00....5 00000.0... 000.800.... .
00.05 0808.6 0000.800“.

00.3w 003.8003 800.0000“.

0300 800.0000”.

000000 000000000 000.0000“.

v.0.v. 800.0000“.

26.0.0 00008>O 800.0000“. _
2.0.0... 0000.000: .00000000.
:00. 0000800... 0000:0000

0000200 .8080 ._

 

0.0.0 800.800....

00.5 800.0000”.

00:00 800.0000”.

.00... 000.0000“.

060.. .0208) 800.0000".
060.. 3002.0... 2000.800“.
000.. 800.0000“.

00m 800.3000“.

0.1.5.0 COPOEOUOA

..0>0. 000.06.00.00 .26300
0.0 0000.. 3 0:00 000.30. 000 0.0000
3 4.60.030 ..000 0. 00.00 2.0... .30060
.000. 000.00 0 000.00. 0.300000 .00“
003.006. 0.30800 .0. u. 2...»: 0000. .0

>006 :00003: 00 3 00000 0:00 000.3.

-0. 000 50.0.2000 >20 0. 00>.0>0. 0.00.0
0.000 000 0.00. =202300.000... 3 600m
00.0..00 .06.00 0..0>> 300.30. 003
.0 3.. .0 3:000 003 00.000000 0. 003.00
-6. 2.200000 0.0 2:20 .30060003 .00.
0:00 ..0 3 00.0> 000.0 .0 0000004

9.03 .000.0000> 000
06.0. >..00 0.022-203 .3 2008000
0...... .0 00.00.0000 000 .0. 0000 0 0006.0
2.8.0 30060003 0000.. 00.0.00. :3...
.306 .0000 ..0 .3 00.000003 003 06.3
2:00 30060003 .0 00.0.00. 00...

2.0% 3.0060000".

0 0.5000.

139

 

.2339: 35 E 853:8 2m 36 new _o:
.80 £923 8 2.858% 9:29. «2:
$58 .83 $85: ho 232 _mcozoc3
mc_ao_m>mu E van: 8 :8 £023 822
-uom m£>= >23 390?, new 8&2me
8823 85:00 23322 mmmctficsmmz

mucmEBtmm a $5 on... .mmucotmaxo EmEm>oE ucm 8223a

8?sz >nom .8523 MB But? on? m E acaamcm

mumcm >uom .2 225 m 32260 220 9: 60:88.9.

_otcoo Em_m>>amm_8mxw. ucm 3:538: 65:55. .5953... .23

405.200 Prom? .38 3 8:89.88 39:: «5 955%

c. .273 .250: m5 9 m_ x mm 250

Emaoi mEcoEncou 06mm 8932 >=ScoE of 2 $3395 8
cozmxgmm m_ 365: .3323 we «5an.33 2:.

>329me 3.. a xczc.

mocmSncm mcsdtmmr .w 9.75%
85:35 .2332 a

26:86 “8:0-.ou_:ozm\§<
oocegcw

5.28:2 a Lumceum 3580??

0.335 mmm 2.5... ._<o_w>Im

maéfifigz
2 33302

140

3M103l‘80 BONVWHOSHBd

 

 

wwww.

an... 032:. a an: 3 633-230 3 in .v
Ana: :2: n a
mo ova. hazy“. cosunu Nu .oauulao bio: uni-ouonn uOOu .u
33> 03.
lo: .3 :2» «you “:5 non “gonna-:60: go 02:. .a
“gonna-icon mo 30:... unsung-coo .1

"up uvuuuCuu-udcu uoaccl I c« nova can can any
:33: 2..» Eon-33.30.. - v..- u-gvon :e.: a 92,3 .H

.5: 0.5:.- - 3.328... o... .«

 

 

 

E>E< S”. $2.8 4.8”. 3:825 9.355
.3. «2832—3 - 39328.3. 3. ”a Wicg g 43:535. 6 .4“ a
.328 33.33 ”g g .33... «35.25.— ; g B

 

 

 

 

 

b_-. ._.-

_

.

.36: .32 :08 :2 :83; m. >22 .

.3. 3.59."... @5203... < .5338 :2
3:6: .80“. :5 mm 3 3:38 8m 3:8
89:. 382:. .0 2039.2. :8886
$3.: 99: :o 80 .0 $58 :. 32:58:
Em $2.830 3.33m 9.... .3638
855.88: .m:_E._2 9: :88 2 220
9.: 33:5 £0.22, 33” 9:. 82.830
852:8th. 9: 5500 v.85 mszmBO
.8535. 9.... .5... .3265: a 88$
:95: .8 :03 .on 9 m3: 2. 239....
358. 2.. as: ..m. .E....ugso .2932.
s a 32.220 85.535 2:

 

36:383.“.

.2055 :5 .385 203 855:0th
E253. .296. 8885th “5:3“
83.3.8 22:33”: 8.250 :02;
.>mo...2m>z. ..(HZwSEO..m>mo
#58335: :3... 5.3 acofi

n93 E: 23:3 .mm....>:.0< w§<0
.mEEmo. E253.

39:8: 3 3282 c. :8: Sm 52:2,
.mm....>_....o< oz.zm<m. oz.Io<w...
89:05 8.5
32... .533 32.850 m:__nm:m «5
3283 *o no. 2: mme :3. 35 SEE
:3 m. :o.SE:8:. £35 550 .523
3.2.8 :8 3.2.0: .250“.
:05 5.2, mw>....um...mo oz...m<2m

mw>.h0wam0 w02<2m0mmmm 1.4.2:).me

w<mm< moz<2m0ummm
mmJDoOs.
”3:38:80 0.3288
8:. :26: «3.5%.: 2: .35 9 02mm
8:: :o 8032: «$5 3 3.”. .8022:
3.5.33: .0 :mnEa: m .o 88:88 m.
£333.50 z<o . «5 *0 2303.5 on...

. 22$:

3%... ...

APPENDIX B

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE

TEACHER'S GUIDE AUTHORS

 

141

 

 

 

.m.m sz
wumncoomm mumm> m , .umma mmmm
Hmmm H $2 unnumfimma‘wpmsomuw U Hosudd
umHHMAommm
MHUmE Hmwm H
Eooummmao
mumucmEmHm mumwm m am: .umma 80H
mummm N «E ucmumflmmd wumnomuo m Honusd
wcflnommu
wmmHHoo whom» v
.m.m mumwcoomm new
mumucmfimam mummm Ha pommoum z¢o H
mumm> m fix ucmumflmmd soumwmmm m Honusm

 

mamaumume Hmcofluosuumaw
mafimon>mU cw mocmfiummxm
no ucwcflmuu msoflbmum

mocwflummxm
mcflnomma new mmnmmn

coflufimom
cam :oflumflaflmma

 

 

mmomBD< HQHDG m.mmmumm9 mm& 20 ZOHBQZMOLZH QZDomm¥U¢m

w madmfifi

APPENDIX C
LETTER TO FIELD TEST TEACHERS:

STATEMENT OF RATIONALE

‘J_._ g? —-
4a.;q.‘ '- 4&3: \

 

 

' '_.-.

!- W‘

 

142
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ' DhPARTMI-LNI OF HEALTH EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN ' 48824

PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION

' WOMEN'S INTRAMURAL BLIII DING

To Field Test Teachers:

We are very pleased to have you as a member of our Field Test Network.
If you are new to us this year we wlecome you. If you are among those

who have assisted us through our early stages of development, welcome
back.

During the year of pilot testing of the I CAN Physical Education Curri-
culum a number of questions were raised by participating teachers which
indicated how we could best explain just how to use the curriculum.
Their questions and suggestions gave us valuable assistance in con-
structing this Guide for Field Test Teachers. We sincerely hope that
.this Guide will serve you as you implement the I CAN Curriculum.

The use of the curriculum is structured around the following teacher
behavior model:

Plan
,. I .
Assess
Evaluate ++ Prescribe
k
1‘
Teach

There are two kinds of Performance Objectives included in our Guide that

we envision as critical to the implementation of this teacher behavior
model when using the I CAN materials.

Igrminal Performance Objectives

The terminal performance objectives describe what you can learn

by reading the Guide, interacting with the I CAN Consultant and prac-
ticing with your own students.

Enabling Objectives

Enabling objectives describe what you can learn from reading the
Cnide only. Enabling objectives describe the skills and knowledge you
Will need to interact with the I CAN Consultant who will assist you in
applying these skills and knowledge with your own student.

We have attempted in this Guide to make our thinking understandable,
acceptable and attractive to you. However, if there is a difference
between the knowledge you need to implement the curriculum in the way
we perceive it, and the manner in which you.acquire knowledge and
actually use the materials, we will need to revise the Teacher's Guide.

143

Field Test Teacher

It may be that our approach, our examples or perhaps our objectives
are incorrect. If we are off base there will be many problems with
the ultimate evaluation and revision of the teacher training materials.

If after reading this Guide and faithfully turning in your Post-Test
Assessment Activities and Teacher Reactionnaires at the end of each
section to your I CAN Consultant, you still have questions - ASK THEM.
Through your valuable assistance we can include better answers and
better in-service assistance in the future.

Appreciatively,

I CAN Project Staff

 

 

 

APPENDIX D
QUESTIONNAIRE ON PREVIOUS BACKGROUND:

ENTRY SKILLS SURVEY

 

144

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PREVIOUS BACKGROUND

Please be frank and honest in answering the following questions.
Remember you are our prime source of information regarding what needs
to be revised. Please tear out this questionnaire on previous back-

ground and give it to your I CAN Consultant on the second visit to your

school. Thank you.

Part I: Personal Data

 

 

 

1. Name: 2. School:

3. Sex: N_____ E____ 4. Age: 20-30_____30-40_____ 40-

5. Major responsibility: P.E. Teacher____ Classroom Teacher
Aide____. Other_____ If other state major responsibility

 

Part II: Educational Data

 

 

 

1. Number of years college education_____Date of last class taken
2. Highest college degree obtained

3._ Undergraduate major Graduate major

4. Number of college courses in special education

5.

Number of college courses in P.E. for handicapped

Part III: Experience

You may leave blank those entries which do not apply to you.

1. Number of years of P.E. experience working as an aide in a school
for mentally retarded

2. Number of years of P.E. experience working in a school for mentally
retarded as a teacher

3. Number of years of P.E. experience with:

a. severly mentally retarded children
b. trainable mentally retarded children
c. educable mentally retarded children

4. Number of years experience teaching P.E. in classrooms not
especially intended for mentally retarded children

5. Approximately how many times in a typical month does someone give
you really helpful advice on how to teach physical education to
your students?

a. typically not at all
b. typically about time(s) a month

 

 

 

145

Check all entries that apply.

6.

I have received really helpful advice on how to teach physical
education to my students more effectively from:

a. a curriculum coordinator

b. my supervisor

c. commercial curriculum packages
d. college or university courses
e. other (specify)

 

Apart from this field test operation, how many times during the
past year have you had an opportunity to participate in an in—
service training program related to physical education?

a. not at all

h. once

c. twice

d. more than twice

Apart from this field test operation, how many time during the
past year have you actually participated in an inservice training
program?

a. ’not at all

h. once

c. twice

d. more than twice

Part IV: Specific Familiarity With Skills to be Covered

Circle the letters of alternatives that best describe your

familiarity with the given skill before you begin this Field Test

experience.

1.

In implementing any individualized curriculum for mentally retarded
students.

Circle one of two:
a. had some experience with this before this Field Test began
b. had no experience with this before the Field Test began

Circle one of three:

c. would not know where to begin to do this

d. have attempted to do this but the Teacher' 5 Manual did not pro-
vide sufficient instruction for me to be successful

e. would most likely be able to do this in a reasonably comfort-
able and proficient manner

In developing a long term plan (6—10 or more weeks) for physical
instruction based on performance objectives.

Circle one of two:
a. had some experience with this before this Field Test began
ho had no experience with this before this Field Test began

146

(continued)

Circle one of three:

c. would not know where to begin to do this

d. might be able to do this but with some difficulty

e. would most likely be able to do this in a reasonable comfort-
able and proficient manner

In using observational techniques to assess student status in
physical skills based on behaviorally stated competency measures.

Circle one of two:
a. had some experience with this before this Field Test began
b. had no experience with this before this Field Test began

Circle one of three:

c. would not know where to begin to do this

d. might be able to do this but with some difficulty

e. would most likely be able to do this in a reasonably comfort-
able and proficient manner

In recognizing cues (student behavioral responses) that determine a
student's learning style and using alternate methodology (for
example; manipulation, response chaining, modeling, verbal cues,
problem solving) to suit each student's learning style.

Circle one of two:
a. had some experience with this before this Field Test began
b. had no experience with this before this Field Test began

Circle one of three:

a. would not know where to begin to do this

d. might be able to do this but with some difficulty

e. would most likely be able to do this in a reasonably comfort-
able and proficient manner

In training mentally retarded students to achieve a performance
objective in gross motor skills.

Circle one of two:
a. had some experience with this before this Field Test began
b. had no experience with this before this Field Test began

Circle one of three:

c. would not know where to begin to do this

d. might be able to do this but with some difficulty

e. would most likely be able to do this in a reasonably comfort-
able and proficient manner.

In planning daily lessons with a skill development focus based on
individual need assessment, for a class of mentally retarded
Students.

Circle one. of two:
a- had some experience with this before this Field Test began
t3- had no experience with this before this Field Test began

 

6.

 

147

(continued)

Circle one of three:

c. would not know where to begin to do this

d. might be able to do this but with some difficulty

e. would most likely be able to do this in a reasonably comfort-
able and proficient manner

In determining when to recycle or terminate instruction when teach-
ing a mentally retarded student to achieve a performance objective
in gross motor skills.

Circle one of two:
a. had some experience with this before this Field Test began
b. had no experience with this before this Field Test began

Circle one of three:

c. would not know where to begin to do this

d. might be able to do this but with some difficulty

e. would most likely be able to do this in a reasonably comfort-
able and proficient manner

In using report forms to record student performance levels and
learning styles for individuals and classes when teaching mentally
retarded students to achieve performance objectives in gross motor
skills.

Circle one of two:
a. had some experience with this before this Field Test began
b. had no experience with this before this Field Test began

Circle one of three:

c. would not know where to begin to do this

d. might be able to do this but with some difficulty

e. would most likely be able to do this in a reasonably comfort-
able and proficient manner

In organizing and.moving activity groups of mentally retarded
children so that gross motor skill instruction may be individually
carried out according to stated performance objectives.

Circle one of two:
a. had some experience with this before this Field Test began
b. had no experience with this before this Field Test began

Circle one of three:

C. would not know where to begin to do this

d- might be able to do this but with some difficulty

e. would most likely be able to do this in a reasonably comfort-
able and proficient manner

 

APPENDIX E
ONE PROTOTYPE MODULE

I CAN TEACHER'S GUIDE

 

uamuHsmooo z<u H mnu :uHs
monuos mp muamvsum ago» wwmmmm ou huHHHnm woo» xomnu .m
muouowm mambo «o moowumoHHdaH onu paw unmamwwnn
uummwm hma umsu muouomm maowumaoooa on» mumum .m
maau uuofim m oH
mucHon msoow deHuHaa wowwvsn pH com: woman on» umHH .w

oomamwvofi
nMow homomoooo wuoaon mooom ago vofim ou mumsa onHuomov .u
A. u:«oa woven one so unavaum

lnumm mchmmmmw wow osHu mo nuwcmH vmummwmom unu woman .A
muH>Huow uaoammummm ochmv .w

.mHmHumuaa z<o H «no mo

mu>Huumfino gnu an wmaHmmv mm mumusuuw Nam nufis mHHme

Hmuooawpcah mounu no mwoovsum was mo mango ummmH um mmmmmm
on «How on HHH3 panama» onu wwwso w.um£umoa mnu om>Hu .H .maumum uomwSum mmommm OH .H

 

 

 

KEG/a mo“. $28; 458 .”Ebmao wzzmazm

 

.aflsuauuau 23 H on» no 333an «5 .3 393% n N mZBmBo BEECH—Em 35%:

an mouaum acuvsum mmumma on «How on HHHS nunummu one

 

 

uaaammmmma.u<mm< moz<zzommmm «HHme coauaucoaoHdsH . H MADQOZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

149

 

I'- -.:
@m

TEAGIIIIG—LEARNING ACTIVITIES

 

 

”EM 1 TPO 2 : The teacher will be able to E0 1 ; To assess
assess and record student student status.

status as defined by the ob~
jectives of the I CAN
Curriculum.

 

 

Pfigfififigfifi I’UDULE TPO E0 TLA AATERIALS:

I Structure
of 1 CAN 1 1 1 Arc I CAN Resource Files

long term plan 1 l 2 ArE

Teacher's Guide

 

 

 

 

Steps used in judging multiple focii
unconscious factors that affect judgement

check ability to assess

moo-awn:

FOCUS FDR THIS ACTIVITY.
I . define assessment activity
. time for assessment
. focus points necessary for judgement

1"

Jwr
IL»-

 

 

150

Introduction _

Assessing student progress is an essential part of individualized
instruction. The Focus Points for Activity developed for the I CAN curriculum
are the key to prescribing and planning instruction.

In addition to understanding the focus points included in the materials,
teachers should develop skill in observing and judging performance. If the
teacher has had little experience in judging movement, some practice will be
necessary prior to assessing students. The teacher should also be aware of

the unconscious factors which influence any perceptual judgement.

The I CAN Assessment Tools . GI

 

 

 

 

 

Each Enabling Objective (E0) in the I CAN curriculum has an associated
assessment activity. These activities are designed so that the teacher can
assess all the students while they are engaged in the activity. If no
assessment activity is listed, or the one listed is not appropriate in a
pmrticular teaching situation, other activities may be used. The primary
concern is that the assessment activity should involve students of all levels
Ofaiparticular skill. The activity should also allow for a minimum of teacher
involvement, to allow time for assessment. ‘

A.score sheet is provided for each assessment, (see example attached) to

assist in recording results.

 

321351-33 for Assessment :1

A ....._

-"__——-—-.-..-.- .- -.-

151

A note regarding a broader concept of assessment and prescription

(for inclusion in the Teacher's Manual TPO #2 Assessment)

'The term assessment is quite often directly linked to prescription.
flanmny educators, assessment and then prescription found upon that assess-
rent is the only logical way to initiate instruction. We feel that the

assessment-prescription relationship is appropriate and should be a goal

award which teachers constantly strive. However, unless the concept of

assessment-prescription is broad, it can be more of a hinderance to instruc-'
tion than a help.

It is the position of the I CAN Staff, that a broad concept of assess-

ment-prescription is necessary to be really workable in the instructional

setting. We must assess student levels of performance, prescribe and teach

relevant activities; and, at the same time, (i.e. during the actual instruc-

tion) be continuously re-assessing and re-prescribing. Perhaps an example

is in order. If we were teaching the one hand overhand throw and Joe was

assessed to be deficient in weight transfer and arm action, we would prescribe

and teach toward one or more of those focal points. Assume that we select

weight transfer as the first focal point to work on and that within the contex

cm the throwing activities of the class our attention to Joe centers on the

focal point of weight transfer. If, after a period of instruction and practice

kathrowing, Joe masters weight transfer, do we continue to focus on weight

tmansfer for Joe? No, it now becomes appropriate to move on to rotation and

amithis element to the newly acquired weight transfer conpetenc . we have

tna1(in the context of the instructional setting) assessed throwing needs,
guemnfibed relevant instruction, re-assessed and re-prescribed. This then is
anexah“Pie of the broader concept of ASSESCVF“T~PRESC”IPTION.

U.~.—IL\' UL\

Further, it
15¢mbedded directly into the instructional phenomia'rather than conducted

" .'- - H
‘30 00.213.

‘ L". ‘ -: - v "‘|"' :- ‘- *' " a .‘~--'- '--‘ ‘ ’1" ~ 'y 'Q - -:
0dk.‘.>.‘.C.e (CLI C! CURD-.U.~.‘.;.:‘~.3) Lam: . Rd"€1oo:n$-.l¢;-[, «4:: riubt‘ICthLI. .LI‘. I

("‘3
”pg. 5"" o _ ' _ 1 . h:— g b.‘ v ‘ . '1 .

: uuuld be a constant part of snow inst-uctlonnl psLLOu. It 15
CCfca-3- . ‘ 1

‘yL‘II o usr. .Iv- ‘ A-.. c -" ' -n‘ -. ?

LOA», )eo, deerotJe, to mane all 01 ‘our p-c~assess:nnt ano

 

 

152
post re-assessment test data collected and recorded as an integral part of

your instructional activity rather than during a contrived test situation

prior to and following instruction.1

It is with the above comments in mind that we suggest: 1) assess your
shflents using the STUDENT PERFORMANCE SCORE SHEET to record your observations.
ZIPrescribe and Egggh_the identified focal points; 3) during teaching
rmmgnize that you are re-assessing and re-prescribing and subsequent to each

class period record on the same STUDENT PERFORI-EANCE SCORE SHEET any progress

 

imfixiduals made during the instructional period. By following such a procedure
anwill have an accurate, constantly updated, record of pupil progress for
bofl1rflanning subsequent instruction and reporting to parents. More importantly,
Ymivdjl have achieved this admirable goal within the context of each instruc-
-tfibnal period and with a minimum of time devoted to artificial "outside testing"

situations.

N

Although our assessment suggestions includes assessment activities and

evaluative forms the intent i for these sessions to be 29th instructional

ID

and diagnostic. Conducting the assessment activity facilitates learning

8"... ‘ I O 1“- Q " 9“ q
““113 0f rocus and results in a completed STUEnnT PLRFORmAhCh SCORE SHEET

 

vhf 1 o 0 ' '
’1Ch‘iLlows subsequent instruction to be more prec13e 1n terms of the

’0 “"0 '-
utug-:‘I.-. pe‘i’Ix; jrze,‘
' -\.\ ‘J \

"o1

i i d.

1‘)

153

_After the teacher has identified the TPO's and EO's which need to be
assessed, the associated focus points should be studied thoroughly. 3355
focus points should be carefully memorized prior to assessing students. Any
physical performance is a complex combination of movements. Memorization of
focus points will make the relevant parts of a movement easier to recognize
and judge.

In order to assess the students, each focus listed must be thoroughly
understood. The teacher should try to visualize bg£h_successful and un-
fi‘successful performance on each focus. Reading the Teaching-Learning Activities FEET‘

'would serve to clarify those points which are not clear after reading the focus
points. It is felt that mentally picturing bg£h_ successful and unsuccessful

performance is important in the assessment procedure. It serves to clarify the

 

procedure, and will increase the accuracy of judgement. If each point is not

 

clearly understood, viewing a slow motion film with an experienced observer can
clarify each point.

The assessment activity should then be read and/or prepared for the class.
The evaluation form should also be reviewed prior to presenting the activity.

(See TPO 5, E0 1, Evaluate and Record Pupil Progress.)

E) ‘ I
DevelopingObservation Skills StagiEPC) . I

 

 

 

One of the most difficult aspects of assessment is that many judgements
must be made in.a very short time span. Teachers who are not already adept
at observing movement should follow the guidelines below to help develop
observation skills. It is important that all teachers become efficient at
observing and judging movement. Spending large amount of class time in
assessment would be detrimental to learning. Ideally no more than 10 seconds
per student should be used to assess each E0. _

Some EO's will be easier to assess than others. .When observing the run
for example, the teacher will be able to observe each focus in order since
many repetitions will'occur within a given time span. Theimore complex
sports skills may require observation of up to six foci in as few as three
repetitions by the student. In order to assess efficiently, then, teachers must

has highly 'tuned' observation skills.

154

The following steps are suggested to help the teacher increase the

ability to assess students on multiple focus points in a short period of time.

<35 Step 1
"RB Select one E0 which has at least four focus points,
preferably of one of the Fundamental Skills. If possible,
_~_‘ procure a filmed sequence of students performing this skill,
.",,) or observe children on the playground, or a sports eveht on

television.

Step 2 p
Observe a single focus using subjects you have

selected. Select a standard time period for your observation

(10) seconds if you have a timer, or one length of a basketball

court, etc.

 

Step 3
Observe two foci, without changing your standard time
period. Then increase the number of foci until you are able

to observe up to four in your standard period.

 

I Step 4
Assess the practice subjects, using the evaluation
form. Time your assessment to see if it is within the 10

second/student limit.

 

Step 5

Check the accuracy of your assessment by practicing with
the trainer, or another trained observer. You should aim 90%
accuracy. Discuss any errors you make to be sure you under-

stand the criterion.

155

Step 6
Don't be discouraged if you are too slow at first, you

will become more proficient with practice, and you may find

_ - _.- -_..—-»...~..--——- --

that observing people move is a fascinating activity in itself!

 

Experienced observers have been found to memorize the entire movement
prior to making any judgement. That is, they watch the entire movement,
remembering each focus point. Then, after the movement is completed, they

decide which parts were acceptable and which were not.

Understandipg Judgement iE;\\ - I
[f‘ z
I

‘When making a series of judgements, certain unconscious factors have been

 

identified through the research in psychophysics(!!!) Although these factors
are known to occur unconsciously, advance knowledge of these effects may help
increase the accuracy of a teachers' judgement.

Accuracy of judgemtnt has been shown to increase as more objects are

judged in a particular group. Thus, the least accurate judgement normally

 

occurs during the first few trials. Accuracy in making the first judgements can
be increased by having the standards clearly in mind prior to beginning. If
time permits, it would also be good tore-assess the first few students after

the others have been assessed.-

The context of a judgement is also a factor. Two 'contexts' are apparently
important; the environmental context of the assessment and the background,
context of the teacher. As all students are aware, some teachers are
'hard graders' others are 'easy'. What ever bias the teacher may have
'influences judgements made in other situations. The environmental context of
the activity is important. If the assessment activity is particularly exciting
to the students, judgements about their skill may differ considerably from
judgements made in a less stimulating activity. It is important that the teacher
make a conscious effort to observe the movement in isolation regardless of the

context in.which it occurs.

 

156

Probably the most important factor influencing judgement is the
phenomenon of anchoring. This term refers to the unconscious shift of the
observer's criteria due to observing an outstanding performance (either good
or poor). The shift occurs in the direction of the performance. Thus, the
teacher may unconsciously lower the level for successful performance after
viewing particularly poor performer.

This effect is most noticeable when the 'anchor' appears near the
beginning of a series of judgements. Thus, it would be best to observe
'average' ability students during the first few assessments. The teacher gums“
should also mentally review the criteria after each particularly good or poor : I I
performer. Mentally recollecting the average performers might also help in E
holding a standard.

Teachers who are relatively new to observing performance should
periodically check their judgements against filmed sequences or with a trainer

or other experienced observer. Teachers working with TMI students initially

 

have a tendency to lower their judgement level. Periodic checks against an
outside observer will help to correct this. It is important that the teacher

'anchor' the assessment on the performance levels defined by the I CAN materials.

157

if Z55

.-q— -..——-'

 

 

 

SUMMARY

Read, memorize, and analyse the focus points for the EO's you will be
assessing.

Review and/or plan an activity to use while assessing.
Review the forms to be used for recording results.

Conduct the assessment, being aware of early inaccuracies, context, and
anchoring effects.

Record each judgement, or have an aide record while you observe.

Use these results to plan the instruction each student will need.

<2 er

I
I
I
D

I

i

\k I

. I

u \ ‘53 I I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

158

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.NH
.HH
.OH
.m
.m
.n
.o
.m
.<
.m
.N
.H
muomeaoo v o A m b o v o n m maoz
«amomco mmz noEHpm m a N a H a
9:5 so "“558.“ e o m o a o m c
cOHuoowHQ mo mono o mucmEmwomm< .7“ unmEmmmmmaw
mmmcx modem 2 m umom \ x. mum
mmwoou mmuowuommz m A unspoh
wcHumm n .

 

 

 

AmuCoEEou ow mmfiuuamv gumbo u p

mmwuwmoaao Ep< v mmoonmmm vmumHmucb n u

ummmmmem boom 0 mmooamom 02 u b

a; n. wfiflficduu¢ 602 H fl.
uuoammm aoz ocuumfimcoo a woman mom was?» i.
me>mH moz<zxommmm

mmHumumHmmmn boo wowueuoHooum m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

know

 

Hoonum -

 

HouuauumoH

 

can He "one mHHme Hounoauwcom "oHnwoz

harm HEBm 85:20sz gm

 

APPENDIX F
FIELD TEST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT:

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS OF FIELD TEST SITES

 

 

 

 

159

FIELD TEST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT

The following lines detail the commitments of teachers; schools,

centers or districts; and the PROGRAMMATIC RESEARCH PROJECT Staff

relative to field testing the I CAN curriculum during the 1973-74

school year.

A.

The Teacher Should:

I)
2)

3)

4)
5)

6)

7)
The
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

7)

The
1)

2)
3)

4)

be highly recommended

be willing to spend extra time in preparation of the

I CAN materials

be willing to work with the I CAN Staff and participate
in a training session prior to implementation and other
training sessions as mutually scheduled

be willing to teach the materials in at least 1
elementary program

spend a minimum of 70 minutes per week teaching the

I CAN materials

be willing to complete evaluation reports (a small
honorarium will be provided upon receipt of feed-

back)

agree to occasional observers

Center, School or District should:

agree to the involvement as a field test site

agree to presence of occasional observers in the class
agree to support the inservice education of partici-
pating teachers by providing released time up to as
much as 5 days total

provide for a minimum of 70 minutes of scheduled
physical education time per week

provide the teacher with the equipment necessary to
implement locally selected I CAN curriculum components.
be willing to supply at no expense, class roster with
selected information on background of each child

be willing to supply clearance for each child to
participate in the field test

I CAN Project will:

provide the district with at least 1 set of I CAN
materials

provide revised materials at cost when available
provide inservice education relevant to implementing
I CAN and individualizing instruction

credit involved teachers in published versions of I
CAN

5)

6)

I have

160

provide support service--on-site and by phone to
assist in problem areas

provide a c0py of the evaluation report if
requested

reviewed and find the commitments of the Field Test

Participation Agreement acceptable and wish to participate in the

field testing of I CAN.

Signed:

 

(Authorized Administrator)

School(s):

 

School District:

 

 

 

 

 

 

uomqo‘mc-wNH
00.0.0...

161

 

 

 

. VZ/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D
_~
9
8
3 2
I c F 1‘
J A 5 I B
4 l
5
L“
Figure 11
Geographical Area Involved in the
Field Test of I CAN
Urban Sites Rural Sites
Ann Arbor 100,000 A. Charlotte 8,000
Flint 193,000 E. Howell 5,000
Grand Rapids 198,000 C. Ionia 6,000
Kalamazoo 86,000 D. St. Helen 1,000
Monroe 23,000 E. St. Johns 6,600
Mount Clemens 20,000
Muskegon 44 , 000

Saginaw 91,000

 

 

APPENDIX G

FIELD TEST

SITE INFORMATION FORM

 

 

162

FIELD TEST INFORMATION FORM

 

 

 

 

Name of Center Telephone
Address

City Zip
Directions:

Best day to visit:

Teachers and Aides Home Phone Other Special Help

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(DQO‘U'IwaH

 

 

 

Description of facilities:

Program hours:

Staff hours:

Comments on mobility of children:

Other disabilities:

—""” L- "'

 

APPENDIX H
GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR CONSULTANT VISITATIONS:

ORIENTATION VISIT PROCEDURES

 

 

163

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR I CAN
CONSULTANT'S VISITATIONS

Protocol

1. Call the center (ISD office or principle's office) at least one week
prior to every visitation.

1.1 Give your name and recall MSU I CAN Physical Education Field

 

 

Test.

1.2 Your call is to remind them you will be visiting
(Field Test Teacher's Name) on (day and date) and
will arrive at (time).

 

2. Check in at the school office when you arrive at the building.

2.1 Make every effort to speak to the administrator in charge of
the building during the first few visitations.

 

2.2 When speaking to administrators or secretaries take every
opportunity to mention:
2.2.1 How much we appreciate their involvement
2.2.2 The enthusiasm or expertise of the Field Test Teacher
2.2.3 The attractiveness of the center
2.2.4 How impressed you are by how smoothly the center

functions, etc.

2.3 Make every effort to learn and use the names of administra-
tors, secretaries, teachers, aides and personnel you contact
in the centers.

2.4 Make every effort to show your enthusiasm for your work with
them while you are there.

 

3. When working with the Field Test Teacher the consultant should use
a "low profile approach"

3.1 Come in quietly and wait for an appropriate time to speak to
the teacher.

3.2 Encourage the teacher to continue with her work. This gives
you an opportunity to observe procedures.

3.3 When you make suggestions to the Field Test Teacher you should
.be aware of how the center functions.

3.3.1 What is the climate of the center?
3.3.2 What is the philosophy of the center?

3.3.3 Have you established "basic trust" with this Field
Test Teacher?

 

4.

164

3.4 When you make suggestions to the teacher make sure:

3.4.1 Any decisions based on your suggestions are made as
a joint effort between you and that teacher.

3.4.2 When a change is decided upon make sure the teacher
understands the change, is provided with a demonstra-
tion, visual or verbal, of that change, practices the

change in procedure and receives feedback from you on
her efforts.

3.4.3 Make a record of changes suggested. Use carbon paper
so the teacher has a copy of the procedures to refer
to when you are gone and you have a c0py to refer to
before your next visit.

3.4.4 If you are asked specifically about how to solve a
problem, insist that they show you the problem.

3.4.5 A temporary solution to a suggested change or problem
that does not work is more data gathering.

When leaving the Field Test Teacher the consultant should indicate
high enthusiasm about the visit.

4.1 Make a tentative arrangement for a return date.

4.2 Compliment the teacher on at least three things you are

pleased with in training or in the classroom in general.

As quickly as possible following each visitation the consultant
should:
5.1 Complete monitoring form.

5.2 Organize carbons of suggestions in your notebook for that
center.

5.3 Gather any materials that must be returned to the I CAN
office.

 

kayak

 

165

I CAN ORIENTATION VISIT PROCEDURES

Observe General Guidelines for all consultant visitations

Step I

What to take with you?

Center Notebook including
-Center address and phone
-Directions to Center
ePersonnel

-Human Subject Release Forms
~Participation AGreement

Step II

Stop at school office and announce arrival.

Step III

Introduce yourself to the Field Test Teacher. Create a feeling of the
importance of the Field Test Teacher to the process of improving the
materials, the Teacher's Guide and the inservice training. Show them

the participation agreement to indicate the agreement and the high
regard their administration has for them.

Step IV

Show and explain the Teacher's Guide, and the four primary skills
modules. Explain our View of inservice training and how we intend to
operate the consultant's service. Assist the teacher in choosing a

class, or indicating a specific time our materials will be used with
her students.

Step V

To facilitate their use of our materials assign TPO 1 E0 1 and 2 from
the Teacher's Guide. Also ask them to fill out the Personal Data Sheet
in the Teacher's Guide.

Post in their office on a 3 by 5 card the materials you will need to
collect or look over on your next visit.

To collect
1. Personal Data Sheet
2. Post Tests TPO 1 E0 1 and 2 Teacher's Guide
3. Reactionnaires TPO 1 E0 1 and 2 Teacher's Guide

 

thmfiy

 

166

To look over
Their long term plan
Step VI
(five them an opportunity to ask ppx_questions they may have”
Step VII

Make a tentative date for next visitation.

Leave Hot Line Phone
number 353-4744 and your home phone number.

 

 

 

 

-APPENDIX I
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION REPORT:

CONSULTANT VISITATION REPORT

 

 

167

Center Date

 

Consultant(s) Implementation Area

 

PROGRAM I MPLEMENTAT ION REPORT

Need(s) Identified:

 

Procedure(s) Suggested:

 

 

a. If you have difficulty implementing any of the above, don't hesi-
tate to write or call your consultant. Home Phone: .
I CAN Phone: (517) 355-4744.

 

b. Be sure to write down things you may want to discuss during the
next visitation.

 

 

168

Center Date

 

 

Consultant Teacher(s)

 

 

VISITATION REPORT

Describe obstacles or difficulties you may haVe encountered today:

Indicate what information/material/resource would have been of value in
working through these problems:

Describe any positive feelings you have about this visit.

Describe what you did that you think was particularly effective and may
be of interest to other consultants.

Indicate what you think you should have done differently.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX J

IMODULE POST TESTS

 

 

 

 

 

169

Post—Test Assessment, TPO 1 - E0 1

Name: Date:

 

School: Consultant:

 

Please answer the following questions without referring back to
the TLA in the Teacher's Guide. Tear out this post—test and return it

to the consultant who visits your school. Thank-You.

l. The following terms appear in the I CAN materials, place TPO before
each term which appears on the TPO sheet, TLA before those which
appear on the TLA sheet.

(a) MODULE (h) ENABLING OBJECTIVE'

Y .
(b) TEACHING STRATEG (1) PREREQUISITE LEARNINGS

IA 5 .
-—————(c) MATER L (J) GENERAL DIRECTIONS

(d) FOCAL POINTS

 

(k) NON-VERBAL CUES

(e) FOCUS (l) TERMINAL PERFORMANCE
(f) VERBAL CUES OBJECTIVE
(9) PERFORMANCE AREA (m) TEACHING-LEARNING ACTIVI-

 

_—

TIES
2. Write the full meaning of each of the following abbreviations:
TPO (a)
E0 (b)
TLA (c)

 

 

 

3. The following diagram outlines a typical sheet for a terminal per-

formance objective, fill in the correct titles.

 

 

(a) ‘ (b)
Fundamental Skills _ Locomotor Skills

 

 

(c) , : To demonstrate a vertical jump.

 

(d) (e)
To demonstrate a mature The student can jump ver-
vertical jump. tically in a manner char-
’ acterized by:
-90° knee flexion
-full arm swing, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

1f70

The following diagram represents a typical TLA sheet, fill in
all titles.

 

(a)

 

 

(b) (c)

 

 

 

(d)

 

 

(e)

 

 

(f) (9) (h)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explain the meaning of the following words used in the I CAN
materials:

ENABLING OBJECTIVE:

 

 

FOCAL POINTS OF ENABLING OBJECTIVES:

 

 

PERFORMANCE AREA :

 

 

FOCUS :

 

 

 

 

171

Post-Test Assessment, TPO 1 - E0 2

 

Name: Date:

 

 

School: Consultant:

 

 

Please answer the following questions without referring back to

the‘TLA in the Teacher's Guide. Tear out this post-test and return it

to the consultant who visits your school. Thank-you.

l.

2.

How long should a long term plan be?

 

 

How many different approaches to long-term planning are suggested?

What are they called?

 

 

 

How do you decide how much time should be spent on each module?

 

 

Explain what is meant by "double pay-off" planning?

 

 

 

 

 

Try your hand at a long-term plan for your students. Show the plan
to the Project Consultant for comments. This is the best time to
utilize the expertise of the trainer to save you time. Good long-
term planning is dependent on a thorough knowledge of the I CAN
materials. You will find that you will become more efficient as

you become more familiar with the materials.

REVISE YOUR PLAN IN VIEW OF THE PROJECT CONSULTANTS' COMMENTS.

Then write two others using the other suggested approaches. You may
‘want to use different plans with different classes or during dif-

ferent semesters just to get a feel for them.

 

 

 

 

172

 

 

 

 

You should check your ability to assess students by working with
a trained observer or with pre-judged filmed sequences. Try the fol-
lovung activities to check your skill. Select a Competency Measure

With at least four focii for these exercises.

1. Assess three students. Record the time it took you

to assess, not including the time it took to organ—

ize the students. 30 seconds should be sufficient. _____sec.
2. Assess the first three students again the next day.

You should have at least 90% agreement with your

first assessment. %

 

3. Assess three other students. Check your results
with a trained observer. 90% agreement is neces-
sary (if your Competency Measure has four focus

points, you should have only one discrepancy). %

 

4- If you did not have 90% agreement, you need to practice,
or you should investigate the unconscious factors which

may be affecting your judgements. Check the box that

 

describes your need.

 

 

practice

 

 

uncon-

cious
factors

 

 

173

Post-Test Assessment, TPO 2 - E0 1

Name : Date :

 

School: Consultant:

 

Please answer the following questions without referring back

to the TLA in the Teacher's Guide. Tear out this post-test and re-

turn it to the consultant who visits your school. Thank-you.

1.

What is an Assessment Activity?

 

 

 

How long should it take to assess each student on any one Focal

Point for activity?

 

 

How do you know what to look for when assessing students' skill?

 

 

What seems to be the most efficient procedure for judging multiple

focii in such a short time?

 

 

 

 

When do observers tend to be least accurate when judging a series
of students? What implications does this have in assessing stu-

dents?

 

 

 

 

Does the activity or game being used during assessment effect the

Observers judgement?

 

 

 

What does the term "anchoring" mean? When is "anchoring" most
likely to be a problem? What implications does this have when

assessing students?

 

 

 

174

Post-Test Assessment, TPO 3 - E0 1

Name: Date:

 

School : Consultant :

 

Please answer the following questions without referring back to

tiueTLA in the Teacher's Guide. Tear out this post-test and return it

tc>the consultant who visits your school. Thank-you.

1.

List 4 possible phases of a lesson.
1.
2.
3.
4.

 

 

 

 

What do we call exercises that are performed by students during the

first part of a physical education lesson?

 

 

After assessing individual needs, how can a teacher prescribe for

them?

 

 

 

 

What should the central focus of each lesson be?

 

 

 

Activities intended to let students use a skill in a meaningful
context must meet certain criteria. Indicate which of the follow-
ing criteria statements are true:

T F a. These activities should involve early competition to mo-
tivate the students.

T F b. The activity should allow the teacher time to assess
student skills.

T F 0. Activity rules should not prevent students who need the
most practice from participating.

IF F d. Students should not be removed from activity for instruc-
tion. '

13hould assessment be in the first or the last phase of a lesson
Plan?

 

 

 

175

Post-Test Assessment, TPO 4 - E0 1

 

Name: Date:

School: I Consultant:

 

 

Please answer the following questions without referring back to

tim TLA in the Teacher's Guide. Tear out this post-test and return it

to the consultant who visits your school. Thank-you.

1.

Define what is meant by "on task time"?

 

 

 

 

State the percentage of class time that each student should be

“on task".

List the four basic formations you will be using with the I CAN

materials.

 

 

Describe two methods which are recommended for getting students

into a circle formation. Method 1:

 

 

 

Method 2:

 

 

 

State two ways instruction may be individualized when working
with a group of six or more students who are in a circle formation.

1.

 

 

 

 

‘What two signals should every student understand and respond to

cJuickly? 1 .
2.

 

 

A*—_———~

 

176

7. List the steps you should take when a student is injured.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Time yourself three times (on different days) in the following
exercises. You should be able to decrease the amount of time it

takes for these organizational tasks.

lst trial 2nd trial 3rd trial

a. Getting students prepared for
class. (From entry to gym
until first student movement .
occurs.) sec. sec. sec.

b. Move a group of six students
or more from scatter forma-
tion to circle. sec. sec. sec.

c. Move a group of six students
or more from a line to a
semicircle. sec. sec. sec.

d. Move a group of six students
or more from a line to a
circle. sec. sec. sec.

e. Have an aide or observer
time the number of minutes
a single student, selected
at random, is actually
"on task" in a lesson you
are teaching. sec. sec. sec.

177

Post-Test Assessment, TPO 4 - E0 2

 

Name: Date:

 

 

School : Consul tant :

 

 

Please answer the following questions without referring back to
tlm TLA in the Teacher's Guide. Tear out this post-test and return it
tc>the consultant who visits your school. Thank-you.

1. Describe the three types of non-verbal strategies which are in-
cluded in the I CAN materials.
1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2-» Describe three ways to reinforce the learning of TMI students.

1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3- For each of the following student responses list one appropriate
teaching style to use in dealing with the response.

a. unrelated response

 

 

b. primary response

 

0. non attending behavior

 

6. intermediate presponse

E. mature response

f. no response

 

4.

5.

What does GNINAHC mean?

178

skills?

How does it apply to teaching physical

 

 

 

 

 

 

What general statement can be made about student answers to

inquiry questions?

 

 

 

 

Match each question with its level of cognitive difficulty:

a.

b.

What is the difference between
a walk and a run?

Show me two ways to move from
one end to the other of the
mat without standing up.

Do a jumping jack.

Tell me when I am moving my
arms like the girl in the
movie.

Perceptual
Conceptual
Relational

Applicational

w

 

 

 

 

 

 

179 .

Post-Test Assessment, TPO 5 - E0 1

Name: Date:

 

School: Consultant:

 

Please answer the following questions without referring back
to the TLA in the Teacher's Guide. Tear out this post test and re-

turn it to the consultant who visits your school. Thank-you.

1. State five reasons why teachers should use report forms.

1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Define the following evaluative terms:

a. non attending behavior:

 

 

b. no response:

 

 

 

c. unrelated response:

 

 

d. learning style:

 

e. primary response:

 

f. mature response:

180

 

 

 

9. intermediate response:

 

 

 

 

 

 

i. manipulation:

 

 

 

Practice filling out a report form for one or two of your students

so the consultant may go over them with you.

 

 

 

Practiced

 

Did not practice

 

 

 

 

181

Post-Test Assessment, TPO 5 - E0 2

Name: Date:

School: Consultant:

 

 

Please answer the following questions without referring back

to the TLA. Tear out the post-test and return it to the consultant

who visits your school. Thank-you.

1.

Write the 'rule of thumb' for deciding how long to continue re-

cycling a physical skill.

 

 

 

 

When is it apprOpriate to terminate forever?

 

 

 

 

What is the difference between 'terminate' and 'terminate forever'?

 

 

 

 

Once students have acquired a skill, is review or recycling more

appropriate for helping them retain it?

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX K
CONSULTANT RATING AND

INTERVENTION ESTIMATE

 

 

 

182

CONSULTANT INTERVENTION ESTIMATE

Teacher Consultant

The following statements reflect the teaching competencies or terminal

performance and enabling objectives of the Teacher's Guide to the Use
Of the I CAN Materials.

Please circle YES if the teacher incorporated this teaching behavior
into his/her repertoire. Circle E9.if the teacher never achieved the
competency reflected in the statement.

Please use the following 5 point scale to indicate the amount of consul-
tant intervention that was necessary to assist the teacher in achieving
these competencies. In the descriptors below, the word "demonstration"
refers to an elaborate verbal description, paper/pencil presentation or
an actual demonstration in the classroom with students that was re-
quired as an laternative instructional strategy because an inservice
module in the Teacher's Guide was deficient.

l = never. Never. No intervention necessary. _

2 = seldom. Tutorial assistance offered only for refinement.
NO demonstration necessary.

3 = occasionally. Offered tutorial assistance two or three times

via a demonstration.

4 = often. Offered tutorial assistance more than three times
via a demonstration. .

5 = always. Initiated tutorial assistance during every visit.

1. Correctly use the organization, structure and logic of the I CAN
materials to develop a long-term plan;

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High
Comment:'

2. Utilize the concept of "double pay-off" planning in designing a
long term plan.

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High

Comment:

Base lessons upon the predetermined long-range plan.
Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High

Comment:

10.

11.

12.

183

Assess student with at least (consultant judged) 90% accuracy as
defined by the I CAN objectives.

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High
Comment:

Used appropriate assessment activities.

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High
Comment:

Used the student performance score sheet to assess and reassess
student progress on a daily basis as defined by the objectives of
the I CAN materials.

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High
Comment:

Organized lessons (pulled TLAS) based on student assessment (rat-
ings on student performance score sheets).

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High
Comment:

Included an introductory phase to lessons (warm up, review, pre-
requisite learnings, health fitness activites).

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High
Comment:

Included a lesson summary (review and/or reinforcement of main
focal points).

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High
Comment: ‘

Constructed the body of the lesson to present or practice specific
instructional focal points.

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High

Comment:

Selected game activities for a lesson that were related to speci-
fic lesson focal points.

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High
Comment:

Taught or deleted prerequisite learnings listed on TLAs based on
student need.

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High

Comment:

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

184

Applied the 5 guidelines when conducting demonstrations.

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High

Comment:

Provided opportunities for students to practice for sufficient
(consultant judged) amounts of time.

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High

Comment:

Provided adequate reinforcement (primary, praise, touch, etc.).
Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High

Comment:

Used teaching strategies apprOpriate to the learning styles of
individual students (manipulation, modeling, verbal cues, demon-
strations, inquiry, etc.)

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High

Comment:

Organized and moved students in a manner that provided maximum
"on task time" and individualized instruction.

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High

Comment:

Reviewed the effectiveness of a lesson and made appropriate
evaluative decisions (review prerequisites, recycle, terminate,
continue instruction).

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High

Comment:

Modified or confirmed long-term plan based on evaluative de—
cisions (as above).

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High

Comment:

Correctly used the individual student profile forms to record con-

tinuous student progress.

Yes No Low 1 2 3 4 5 High
Comment:

APPENDIX L

TEACHER ATTITUDE SURVEY

185

TEACHER ATTITUDE SURVEY

Name Date

TPO

Please be frank and honest in answering the following questions.

 

EO TLA Consultant

 

Remem-

ber you are our prime source of information regarding what needs to be
revised.

KEY:

10.

11.

SA means you strongly agree; §_means you agree; U means you are
uncertain; Q_means you disagree; and §p_means you strongly dis-

agree.

I had sufficient prerequisites to prepare
me for this TLA in the Teacher's Guide.

I was often ppsure of what, exactly, I
was supposed to be learning.

Reading this section of the Guide was
often boring.

This TLA was very well organized. The
concepts were highly related to each other.

There was too much information.

There was too much repetition of ideas.

There was very little unnecessary in-
formation in this TLA.

The examples used to illustrate main points
were excellent.

The vocabulary used contained many un-
familiar words. I often did not under-
stand what was going on.

The Post test questions did a good job
of testing my knowledge of the main
points in the TLA.

I would not need the assistance of the
consultant to implement the concepts of
this TLA with my students.

 

SA

 

SD

 

SA

 

SD

 

SA

 

SD

 

SA

SD

 

SA

SD

 

SA

SD

 

SA

 

SD

 

SA

 

SD

 

SA

 

SD

 

SA

 

SD

 

SA

 

SD

 

 

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

186

At the end of the TLA I was still un-
certain about a lot of things and had
to guess on many of the post test

 

questions. SA

I believe I learned a lot, considering

 

 

 

the time spent on this TLA. SA

I would recommend extensive modifica-
tions to the TLA before using it with

 

other teachers. SA

After completing the TLA, I was more
interested in and/or favorably im-
pressed with the I CAN curriculum

 

 

than I was before the lesson. SA

Please write below any comments, suggestions, Or changes which
you believe will improve this section of the Teacher's Guide.

Thank you.

 

A U D SD
A U D SD
A U D SD
A U D SD

 

 

 

APPENDIX M
MODULE 1: E0 1 and 2

RAW DATA

187

TABLE 8.0

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX ENTRY SKILL SURVEY AND CONSULTANT
PRE-TREATMENT JUDGEMENT OF TEACHER COMPETENCE

Module 1: E0 1 Planning

 

 

Teacher Perceived Consultant

Teachers Item I Difficulty Judgement

'U
til

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NO
No
No
No

I + + + +

wawwMHmwww

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
0

a>\10\uub.u:N>h'Oix o H m o m m o o m b
+ + + + + + I

mewwwwww

TOTAL 15(+)
% indicating

familiarity

with skill (+) 78.95%

% anticipating '

difficulty

(1 or 2 rating) 26.32%
% judged competent

by consultant prior

to field test 00.00%

188

TABLE 8.1

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX

Attitude Survey
Module 1: E0 1 Structure and Logic of I CAN

 

 

Teachers ‘ Items

 

P.E. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

 

 

 

 

 

A x ' x x x
B x x
C
D x x
E x
F x x
G x x x
H x x
I x
J x x
K
C.R.
1 x
2 x
3
4 x x x
S x
6 x x x
7 x
8 x x x
Total
Negative 5 4 12
Responses
% Nega-
tive 1
Responses 26.31 21.05 63.16

 

x = Teacher responses more than 2 points from positive extreme

Note 1. No item by Teacher Analysis presented for post test.
All teachers answered all questions correctly.

Note 2. No item by Teacher Analysis of Consultant Rating and
Intervention Estimate. All teachers judged as demon-
strating this competency. No intervention reported in
all cases.

Note 3. Items 9 and 11 were discussed at the consultant debriefing.

189

TABLE 8.2

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX
ENTRY SKILLS SURVEY AND CONSULTANT PRE-TREATMENT
JUDGEMENT OF TEACHER COMPETENCE

Module 1: E0 2 Planning

 

 

Teacher Perceived Consultant

Teachers Item 2 Difficulty Judgement

'0
F1

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

a + + +

I+
NNWWWNNNWQJW

 

NO
No
No
No
No
NO
No
No
TOTAL 8(+) 10 19
% indicating

familiarity

with skill (+) 42.11%

% anticipating

difficulty

(1 or 2 rating) 52.63%

% judged competent

by consultant prior

to field test 00.00%

mQO‘UIAWNI-JOFKQHZOWJMUOLDP
+

+
MHNNNwww

190

TABLE 8.3

ANALYSIS OF ANSWERS TO POSTTEST QUESTIONS

Module 1: E0 2 Planning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Items
PE 1 2 3 4 5 6
A __
B - _
C _..__
D _ .-
E --—
F _ -
G _ ..-
H _ _
I - - - -
J - -
K _ _
CR
1 _ _ _
2 _ -
3 _ _ _ _ _
4 - - - _
5 _ - - -
6 _ -
7 - - _
g - _
Total
Error 3 12 4 15 18
% Error

so In In 0

r-IOQ‘O

v—I

Minus sign(-) = Error

Note: Items 3, 4, 5 and 6 were discussed
at the consultant debriefing.

 

191

TABLE 8.4

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX

Attitude Survey
Module 1: E0 2 Planning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers . Items

PE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15
A x x x

B x

C x x

D x

E X x
F x

G x

H x x
I

J x x
K x x

CR

1 x

2 x

3 x

4 x

5

6 x

7 x

8 x
Total

Negative

Responses 13

% Negative

Responses 68.42

 

x = Teacher responses more than 2 points from the positive extreme.

Note: Item 11 was discussed at the consultant's debriefing.

 

192

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

www.mH wvm.wm wob.vm HmoHumm mlvlmv

mucmumHmmm HMHwOuou

pompous“ mcH>Hmomw

. mwmnumme mo w

mm.H m mm.N m mm.m m confiHumm

GOHucm>wmuoH M

amm.OH now amm.Hm non amm.Hm non ucmoHsmcoo an oz

mH mo poo N mH mo poo m mH mo poo o omumm mumnumoe mo w

H mm» m 02 m 02 m

H mm» m mm» v 02 h

N mow m 02 m mm» o

H mow N mm» m mow m

N mm» m oz m mow v

v mm» v 02 a 02 m

H mm» m mm» v 02 N

N mm» N oz v mow H

mu

N mm» m mm» a oz M

N no» N mm» N mm» b

H mm» H mow m mm» H

H mm» H mm» v mm» m

m oz N oz a wow 0

H mm» H no» N mm» m

N mow N mm» m mm» m

H mm» H mm» v mow o

N 02 N mm» m mm» U

N no». N no» a mm» m

H mow H mm» m 02 m
mumEHumm mumEHumm mumsHumm

coHumm>wmucH m EmuH cOHuco>wmuoH N EmuH cOHucm>wmucH H EmuH mm

 

 

ocaccmHm m on "H mHscoz

measHemm onezm>mmezH oza ozHeam azaeoomzoo mHmwaaza ammoame so ameH

m.m mHm<B

 

 

APPENDIX N
MODULE 2 E0 1

RAW DATA

 

 

193

TABLE .9.0

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX
ENTRY SKILLS SURVEY AND CONSULTANT PRE-TREATMENT
JUDGEMENT BY TEACHER COMPETENCE

Module 2: E0 1 Assessment

 

 

TOTAL

% indicating
familiarity

with skill (+)

% anticipating
difficulty

(1 or 2 rating)

% judged competent
by consultant prior
to field test

Teachers Item 3

o
m
l + + +

+

+ + + +

mummwaHOxQHI-CQ'UNUOWII’

12(+)

61.16%

Teacher Perceived
Difficulty

NNNNWNNNNMW

\DNWNNWWWW

47.37%

 

Consultant

Judggment

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
0

00.00%

 

 

 

194

TABLE .9.1

TEACHER BY ITEM ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES
TO POSTTEST QUESTIONS

Module 2: E0 1 Assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher Items
PE 1 2 3 4 5 6
A
B
C
D
E .-
F
G .. _ _ _
H ..
I - _ - - _
J _ _
K
CR
1
2
3 -
4
5 -
6 _ _
7 _ -
8
Total
Error 6 6
% Error 5 5
L!) In
H‘ 4
m 00
Minus sign (-) = Error

Note: Items 1 and 4 discussed at the
consultant debriefing.

195

TABLE 9.2

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX

Attitude Survey
Module 2: E0 1 Assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Items

PE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15
A x x x x x

B x

C x

D x

E x x x
F

G

H x x
I x

J x

K x

CR

k x

2 x

3 x x x x x x x x

4 x
5

6

7 x
8 x x

Total

Negative

Responses 10 4 4
% Negative

‘Bgsponses 52.63 21.05 21.05

 

x = Teacher responses more than 2 points from the positive extreme.

Note: Items 11, 12 and 15 were discussed at the consultant debriefing.

 

196

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wHN.vm wmm.Hm www.mh . Hmowumm mlvlmv
moomumHmmm HMHHouou

unmovmwm mcH>HmomH

mwmnomms mo w

oo.v m mN.N m NH.m m OHMEHumm
GOHHQO>Hmqu,N

www.mb MOM www.mH How wmm.hm Mom mucmuHomcoo an oz

mH mo poo vH 0H m0 poo m mH mo woo HH omumm mumnomma mo w

m 02 m 02 m 02 w
m 02 H mm» m mm» b
v oz m mm» v 02 o
N mm» H mm» o oz m
m oz m mm» m 02 a
v 02 v mm» m 02 m
m oz H mow N no» N
m 02 N mm» m 02 H
mu

m 02 N mm» m oz M
m oz N mow m oz b
m mm» m mm» m mm» H
m 02 H mow N mm» m
a 02 m oz m 02 o
m mm» N mm» N mow m
N mow N no» N mm» m
m oz no» N mow a
N mm» N no» N . mm» 0
v 02 N 02 m oz m
m 02 H mm» v 02 d
mHU m EouH mHU m EmuH mHU v EmuH mm

 

 

ucmEmmmmmm H om "N mHnooz
WB<ZHBmm 20H92m>mMBZH QZ¢ UZHBdm BZdBHDmZOU mHmMH¢Z¢ mmmUdMB mm EMBH

m.m mqm<8

 

 

 

APPENDIX 0
MODULE 3 E0 1

RAW DATA

 

 

ENTRY SKILLS SURVEY AND CONSULTANT PRE-TREATMENT
JUDGEMENT BY TEACHER COMPETENCE

197

TABLE 10.

O

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX

Module 3: E0 1 Pr

escription

 

 

Teachers Item 6

Teacher Perceived Consultant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Difficulty Judgement

PE
A + 3 No
B + 3 No
C + 3 No
D + 2 No
B - 2 No
F - 2 No
G + 3 No
H - 3 No
I + 3 No
J - 2 No
K — 2 No
CR
1 + 3 No
2 + 3 No
3 - 3 No
4 + 3 No
5 - 3 No
6 + 3 No
7 - 3 No
8 + 2 No

TOTAL 10(+) 6 o

% indicating

familiarity

Lith skill (+) 52.63%

% anticipating

difficulty

ngr 2 rating) 31.59%

% judged competent

by consultant prior

to field test 00.00%

 

 

 

 

 

198

TABLE 10.1

TEACHER BY ITEM ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES

TO POSTTEST QUESTIONS

Module 3: E0 1 Prescription

 

 

Teachers Items
PE 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

R

 

Q>\JG\UI¢-ulk)h‘0 N u u m 0 m m U 0 m >

 

Total
Error 11
% Error

 

57.89

 

Minus sign (-) = Error

Note: Item 6 was discussed at the consul-
tant debriefing.

 

 

 

 

199

TABLE 10.2

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX

Attitude Survey
Module 3: BO 1 Prescription

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Items

PE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14
A x x x x
B x

C x

D

E

F x

G x

H x

I x x

J x

K

CR

1 x

2 x

3

4 x x x x x x
S x

6 x

7 x

8

Total

Negative

Responses 4 10

% Negative

Responses 21.05 . 52.63

 

x = Teacher response more than 2 points from the positive extreme

Note: Items 2 and 11 were discussed at the consultant debriefings.

200

 

wH.Nv wmm.OH wH.Nv me.m $0.5m AmCHumm mIVImv
museumHmmm HMHHousu

unmswonm mcH>HoomH
mumnomme mo w

 

 

 

 

 

 

em.~ m «TN m SH m 3H m e.m m eumfiume
GOHucm>HmuCH m

umo.Hm ueu umm.eH ueu ueH.me ueu weeH new uem.em ueu museuHsmseo an oz

mH we use v eH me use m mH we use NH mH me use 0 mH me use A emuem mueseeee me u

m ez m .mww e ez v we» m oz m
H mm» m mm» m oz H mm» m was a
m mm» m mm» m ez H mew m mew e
H mm» H mm» m mow H mm» N mm» m
H mm» m mm» m ez H mm» m me» e
m mew m we» m mm» m me» e ez m
H we» m mew m ez H mm» m mew m
N mm» N mow N oz H mow N mm» H
- mo

Isl. ez. m maul. m .mmw HI. .mux xw< ez, M
e ez m mm» m ez H me» e oz 6
m we» N mm» H oz H mm» m mm» H
H mm% H mww H mww H mmw H mm? m
m oz m 02 m oz H mm» v 02 0
m mm» H mew H oz m mm» m mm» m
H mm». m mm» H mm? H mm? m mm% m
H mm». H mm% H mm? H mm? H mmw O
H mow m mm» H mm» H mow m now 0
e ez v mew m ez H mew v ez m
e mm» H ez m ez H me» e ez «
mHo HH seuH mHo eH EeuH mHo m aeuH mHo m seuH mHo n seuH ms

 

 

cOHumHuomwum H Om um mstoz

HBGEHBmm ZOHBZm>mmBZH 02¢ UZHBflM BZGBHDWZOU
mHmNH¢Z< mmmv¢mfi mm 2MBH

n.eH mamas

 

 

APPENDIX P
MODULE 4 E0 1 AND 2

RAW DATA

 

201

TABLE 11.0

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX
ENTRY SKILLS SURVEY AND CONSULTANT PRE-TREATMENT
JUDGEMENT BY TEACHER COMPETENCE

Module 1: BO 1 Teaching

 

 

TOTAL

% indicating
familiarity

with skill

% anticipating
difficulty

(1 or 2 rating)

% judged competent
by consultant prior
to field test

Teachers Item 9

w
m
+ + +

G)\10‘U1bru)N)P'O K Q H m 0 w m U 0 m w
+

Teacher Perceived
Difficulty

NNWWWNNNMUJU

\ONWNWWWNN

47.37%

Consultant

Judgement

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
0

00.00%

202

TABLE 11.1

TEACHER BY ITEM ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES
TO POSTTEST QUESTIONS

Module 4: E0 1 Teaching

 

 

Teachers Items
PE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

GDxJO‘U1£>UJh)P‘O x u H m a m m U 0 m y
I
I

 

H
0
(If
m
H

Error 12

% Error

47.36 ‘9
63.15

H
U1

78.94

 

Minus sign (-) = Error

Note: Items 1, 5 and 8 were discussed at

the consultant debriefing.

203

TABLE 11.2

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX

Attitude Survey
Module 4: E0 1 Teaching

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Items

PE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l3 14 15
A x

B x
C x

D

E x x

F

G

H x

I x
J x
K

CR

1 x

2 x x

3

4

5

6 x x x
7 x

8

Total

Negative

Responses .4 8

% Negative

Responses 21.05 442.10

x = Teacher response more than 2 points from the positive extreme.

Note: Items 7 and 8 were discussed at the consultant debriefing.

204

TABLE 11.3

TEACHER BY ITEM ANALYSIS
CONSULTANT RATING AND INTERVENTION ESTIMATE

Module 4: E0 1 Teaching

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PE Item 17 CIE
A Yes 1
B No 5
C Yes 4
D Yes 3
E Yes 4
F Yes 3
G No 5
H Yes 3
I Yes 3
J Yes 5
K No 5
CR

1 Yes 2
2 Yes 4
3 Yes 4
4 Yes 1
5 Yes 1
6 Yes 3
7 Yes 4
8 No 5
% of Teachers 5 out of

Rated No by 19 for

Consultants 21.05%

i intervention

estimate i 3.16

 

% of Teachers

receiving fre-

quent tutorial

assistance

(3-4-5 Rating) 73.68

205

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo.oo mo.HN ummu pHoHM ou

HOHHQ ucmuHSmcoo zn

ucmummfioo powwow w

mm.Hm HH.mv HmsHueu m ue He zuHse

IHuuHe esHueeHeHuee u

«v.86 eH.me H+V HHHHm zuHs zmHue

IHHHseu eeHueeHesH u

o w H+v mH v H+v NH .dfiaoa
02 N + 02 N + m
oz m I oz m + 5
oz N I new N I 0
oz m I oz m + m
oz m + oz m + w
oz m + oz m I m
oz m + 02 m + N
oz m + oz H I H
mu
02 N + oz N + M
oz m I oz H I 6
oz m + oz m + H
oz m I oz m + m
oz m + 02 m I 0
oz N I new N I m
OZ N + 02 H + m
oz N + mm» N I Q
oz m + oz m + 0
oz m + 02 m + m
oz m + mm» m + a
mm

ucwEmmpsn NuHsoHMMHQ m EmuH ucmfimm05h mmHuHDoHMMHQ w EwUH mumnomme
ucmuHSmcou po>Hmoumm umsomma ucmanmcou ©m>Honmm Honomoe

 

 

OCHnommB N om “v mHspoz

mozmemeZoo oszommH. mm .Hzmzmooon 924998200 92 CHE/mom. mHHHzm wmezm 5922 am: um mmmodme

v.HH mqmdfi

206

TABLE 11.5

TEACHER BY ITEM ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES
TO POSTTEST QUESTION

Module 4: E0 2 Teaching

 

 

Teachers Items
PE 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

WQHEQ'UMUOU’?

 

 

w

 

mummwaI—In
I

 

..3
O
n
D)
H

Error
% Error

47.36 *9

 

Minus sign (-) = Error

 

Note: Item 6 was discussed at the consultant
/ debriefing.

 

 

 

 

207

TABLE 11.6

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX

Attitude Survey
Module 4: E0 2 Teaching

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Items

PE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A x x x x x

B x

C x

D x x x
E x

F

G

H x

I x x x
J x

K

CR

1

2 x x

3 x x
4 x x x
5

6 x

7

8

Total

Negative

Responses 5 7 5 4
% Negative

Responses 26.31 36.84 26.31 21.05

 

x = Teacher response more than 2 points from the positive extreme.

Note: Items 5, ll, 12 and 15 were discuSsed at the consultant de-
briefings.

208

 

 

umm.eH umm.e~ uH.~v ume.Hm umm.em Hwouuom muonmo
OOGMHMHmmm

HMHHOuau pcmsv
Ionm mGH>HoomH
mumnomma mo w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.H m o.m m mm.H m on.H m om.H m ouoeHumo
COHuao>MmucH m

umm.OH sou umo.Hm Hom umm.0H new , um>.mH new wmm.0H you mucouHsmsoo No oz

mH mo uso N mH mo #50 q NH «O uso N mH mo uso m 0H mo uso N venom mumsomms mo w

H mo» m oz m mm» m oz H mm» m
H mow H mm» H mow m mow H wow u
H mm» m mow H mm» m mm» m me» o
H we» H mo» H mow H mm» H mm» m
H mm» H mm» H mm» H mm» H mm» o
H mow m mm» m mm» m mm» m mow m
H mom H mow H mm» m mm» H mm» m
H mm» H mm» H mm» m mow H mm» H
I, so

m oz o oz m oz H mm» m oz x
H mm» m mos m mm» m mow m me» e
H mm» H mm» m mow H mm» H mow H
H mo» H we» m mm» H me» H me» x
m oz o oz m oz m oz m oz o
H mo» H mm» H mm» H mow H mm» m
N mm» H mm» H mm» H mm» m mm» m
H we» H mos m mo» H we» H mow o
m mm» H mm» H mo» H mos m me» o
m mow m oz m mow m oz m mm» m
H mm» H mm» H we» H mm» m we» 4
mHO mH EouH mHO vH souH mHo mH souH mHo NH souH mHo 6H souH mm

 

mcHsommB N om no mHsvoz
mmamZHBmm ZOHBzm>mMBZH Q24 UZHBNm BZGBHDMZOU mHme<z¢ mmmuwme wm ZmBH

h.HH mqmdfi

APPENDIX Q
MODULE 5 E0 1 AND 2

RAW DATA

 

209

TABLE 12.0

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX
ENTRY SKILLS SURVEY AND CONSULTANT PRE-TREATMENT
JUDGEMENT BY TEACHER COMPETENCE

Module 5:

E0 1 Evaluation

 

 

TOTAL

% indicating
familiarity

with skill (+)

% anticipating
difficulty

(1 or 2 rating)

% judged competent
by consultant prior
to field test

Teachers

'0
E121

QWLIHZQ'TJFJUOCDR’

mQOAUT-DUJNH

Item 5

+ + + + I + +

Teacher Perceived Consultant

Difficulty

WNWWWNNNUNN

LONWNwaJwN

47.37%

Judgement

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
0

 

n: .1.

 

210

TABLE 12.1

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX

Attitude Survey
Module 5: E0 1 Evaluation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Items

PE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16
A x x x x

B x x x x x x x x
C X x

D

E

F x x x x

G

H

I x x

J x x

K

CR

1 x

2 x

3 x x x x x x x
4 x x x x x x x

5 x

6 x

7

8 ‘—
Total

Negative .

Responses 5 4 8 4 5

% Negative

Responses 26.31 21.05 42.10 21.05 26.31

 

x = Teacher response more than 2 points from the positiVe extreme.

Note 1: No item by Teacher Analysis of post test presented. All
teachers answered all items correctly.

Note 2: Items 2, 9, 11, 12 and 14 were discussed at the consultant
debriefing.

 

 

 

211

TABLE 12.2

TEACHER BY ITEM ANALYSIS
CONSULTANT RATING AND INTERVENTION ESTIMATE

Module 5: E0 1 Evaluation

 

 

'0
[‘11

Item 20 C
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

('1

P‘NDP‘P‘NDP‘P‘P‘F‘NDF'H

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

% of Teachers 14 out of
Rated No by 19 for
Consultants 73.68%

E Intervention

Estimate i 1.79
% of Teachers

receiving fre-

quent tutorial

assistance

(3-4-5 Rating) 10.53

mummwaI-‘OWC-IHCEOMMUOUJV

I-‘l—‘U'INNU'INN

212

TABLE 12.3

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX
ENTRY SKILLS SURVEY AND CONSULTANT PRE-TREATMENT
JUDGEMENT BY TEACHER COMPETENCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Module 5: E0 2 Evaluation
Teachers Item 7 Teacher Perceived Consultant
Difficulty Judgement

PE
A + 3 No
B + 3 No
C + 3 No
D - 2 No
E - 2 NO
P + 2 No
G + 3 No
H + 3 No
I + 3 No
J - 2 No
K - 2 No
CR
1 - 2 No
2 + 3 No
3 - 3 NO
4 + 3 No
5 - 3 No
6 - 2 No
7 - 3 No
8 - 2 No

TOTAL 9 (+) 8 O

% indicating

familiarity

with skill (+) 47.37%

% anticipating

difficulty

(1 or 2 rating) 42.1%

 

% judged competent
by consultant prior
to field test

00.00%

 

 

213

TABLE 12.4

TEACHER BY ITEM MATRIX

Sttitude Survey
Module 5: E0 2 Evaluation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Items

PE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A x

B x

C

D

E x

F x x x x x x
G

H

I

J x

K

CR

'1 x x x x
2

3

4

5 X
6 x

7

8

Total

Negative

Responses 6

% Negative

Responses 31.57

 

x = Teacher response more than 2 points from the positive extreme.

Note 1: No item by teacher analysis of post test presented. All
teachers answered all items correctly.

Note 2: Item 11 was discussed at the consultant debriefing.

 

 

214

TABLE 12.5

TEACHER BY ITEM ANALYSIS
CONSULTANT RATING AND INTERVENTION ESTIMATE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Module 5: E0 2 Evaluation
PE Item 18 CIE Item 19 CIE
A Yes 1 Yes 1
B No 3 No 2
C Yes 1 Yes 1
D Yes 1 Yes 1
E Yes 1 Yes 1
F Yes 3 Yes 2
G No 3 No 2
H Yes 1 Yes 1
I Yes 2 Yes 1
J Yes 3 Yes 2
K Yes 1 Yes 1
CR
1 Yes 2 Yes 3
2 Yes 1 Yes 1
3 Yes 3 Yes 3
4 Yes 3 Yes 3
5 Yes 3 Yes 2
6 Yes 3 Yes 4
7 Yes 1 Yes 1
8 No 5 No 5
% of Teachers 3 out of 3 out of
Rated No_by 19 for 19 for
Consultants 15.79% 15.79%
i Intervention
Estimate i 2.16 i 1.95
% of Teachers
receiving fre-
quent tutorial
assistance
(3-4-5 Rating) 47.37 36.32

 

 

 

writing
. flunk fiinderg

‘~._€EXTER, M\C"“

"7111111'11'111'111ITS