11111111111111111111111111111111111111 1293 10808 4199 1:? LET THE519 E§1¢L2fi ---.. :33 State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A SURVEY OF THE READING COORDINATOR'S ROLE AS PERCEIVED BY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS, CLASSROOM TEACHERS, AND READING COORDINATORS presented by Marjorie Troy Hart has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Administration and Curriculum Major professor Date July 16, I985 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 042771 MSU RETURNING MATERIAL§: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. £1N§§_will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. LI 9 RARl E s .—..‘I_- _I hu‘ovfi.%.mz—fi-¢sd l .. .L‘"- '(J C3 "2‘ ’9 A119 A SURVEY OF THE READING COORDINATOR'S ROLE AS PERCEIVED BY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS. CLASSROOM TEACHERS» AND READING COORDINATORS By Marjorie Troy Hart A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1985 ABSTRACT A SURVEY OF THE READING COORDINATOR'S ROLE AS PERCEIVED BY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS. CLASSROOM TEACHERS. AND READING COORDINATORS By Marjorie Troy Hart Since research has shown that role ambiguity and role conflict exist in the perceived role of the reading coordinator. this study was designed to formulate a prioritized list of recognized roles of the reading coordinator and to determine if a difference existed among elementary school principals. elementary classroom teachers. and read- ing coordinators in their perceptions of this position. A rating scale was developed with four comprehensive roles and 32 role indicators and sent to all the elementary school principals and reading coordinators and a random sample of 220 classroom teachers from Midland. Bay City. and Saginaw. From the 191 returned surveys. data analysis found 12 of the 32 role indicators at the highest rating of the scale. The multi- variate and univariate analyses of the data indicated significant differences at the .05 level of significance among the participants on 44% of the role indicators. These differences were found on the comprehensive roles of Bringing About Change and Consulting. The elementary school principals rated the role indicators from these Marjorie Troy Hart comprehensive roles much higher than the other two groups of respond- ents. except for the role indicator of Working with students with reading problems in a pull-out program. which the other two respondent groups rated much higher. Reading coordinators rated the role indi- cators of Help write criteria for evaluation reading personnel. Help set goals for school/grade. and Participate in professional reading- related activities much higher than the other two groups of respond- ents. Classroom teachers rated the role indicators of Bringing About Change and Consulting lower than the other two groups of respondents except for Working with students with reading problems in a pull-out progranu There was 1005 agreement among this population on the role of Working with Reading Materials and 78% agreement on the role of Coordi- nating District Programs. There was little significant difference (9%) among the respondents who had reading coordinators assigned to their schools and those without. Respondents from Midland. Bay City. and Saginaw differed significantly on 28% of the role indicators examined in this study. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. John H. Suehr. the chairman of my guidance committee. my major advisor and steadfast supporter. To the other members of my committee: Dr. Louis Romano for his encouragement and support. Dr. James McKee for his encouragement and support. and Dr. Peggy Riethmiller for her continued encouragement and support. To the Graduate Office and especially Virginia Wiseman. who always went out of her way to help and support me. To my husband. William. whose love. support. and encouragement have sustained me in accomplishing this goal. To our four children. Sheila. William. Maureen. and Kevin. whose faith in me has been con- tinued encouragement. To all my teachers and professors. who have ledIne toward this goal through their confidence in my ability. To Susan Cooley. who was so helpful in editing and typing the manuscript. To my parents. Charles and Gertrude Troy. who not only gave me life but the confidence to live it. Many thanks to all. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TMLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 WE PRw LEM O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Background . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . Importance of the Problem . Definition of Terms . . . . . . Research Questions and Hypotheses Assumptions and Delimitation . . . Data-Analysis Procedures . . . . . Selection of the Sample . . . . Development and Process of the Survey Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE O O O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction . . . Perception . . . . Role . . . . . . . Role Ambiguity . . Role Conflict . Research on the Ro e of th Reading Coordinator suma ry O O O O O O O O I O O I C O O O C O O 0 DESIGN OF WE stY O O O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . Study Population . . . . . . . The Research Instrument . . . The Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . Processing and Coding Survey Responses Research Questions and Hypotheses . . Page vii .a—a CO‘O‘D‘OQObW-a 13 13 13 16 17 19 46 47 47 47 49 SO SO 53 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treatment of the Data . . . . . . . . . IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Prioritized List of Role Indicators The Rating Scale Process . . . . . . . Results of Hypothesis Testing . . . . Hypothesis l . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS. AND REOOWENDATIO‘JS Introduction . . Sumary . . . . Findings . . . . Conclusions . . Recommendations . . . . . . . For Educational Institutions . . . For School Boards and Superintendents For Elementary School Principals . . . For State Boards of Education and State 5 intendents . . . . . . . . . . . . . For the State Teacher Organizations . For Further Research . . . . . . . . . Personal Observations . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . coo-c.0000. ooooQoooooooo 7 Page 53 54 54 56 56 56 56 60 60 71 79 B7 89 Table 10. LIST OF TABLES Ranking of 32 Role Indicators. With Number of Times Selected and Percentage of Respondents Selecting EaCh In’d‘cator O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance for the Role of Consulting . . . . . . Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance for the Role of Bringing About Change . Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance for the Role of Working With Reading Mater1a] S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance for the Role of Coordinating District's Program 0 O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O l O 0 Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance for the Role of Consulting Among Respondents With/Without Reading Coordinators . Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance for the Role of Bringing About Change Among Respondents With/Without Reading Coordinators Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance for the Role of Working With Reading Materials Among Respondents With/Without Reading coord‘ nators O O O C O O I O O O I O O O I O O O O I Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance for the Role of Coordinating District Programs Among Respondents With/Without Reading Coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance for the Role of Consulting Among the SChOO‘ D‘StrICts O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Page 58 61 62 63 64 73 74 75 76 Page 11. Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance for the Role of Bringing About Change Among the School Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bl 12. Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance for the Role of Working With Reading Materials Among the School Districts . . . . . . . . . 82 13. Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance for the Role of Coordinating District Programs Among the School Districts . . . . . . . . . 83 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Mean Differences Among Position Groups on Role Indicators for Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 2. Mean Differences Among Position Groups on Role Indicators for Bringing About Change . . . . . . . . 68 3. Mean Differences Among Position Groups on Role Indicators for Coordinating District's Programs . . . 7O 4. Mean Differences Between Respondents With and Without Reading Coordinators on Role Indicators for 000511112an 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O 72 5. Mean Differences Between Respondents With and Without Reading Coordinators on Role Indicator for Coordinating District Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 78 6. Mean Differences Among Respondents From the Three School Districts on Role Indicators for Consulting . 84 7. Mean Differences Among Respondents From the Three School Districts on Role Indicators for Bringing About Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8S 8. Mean Differences Among Respondents From the Three School Districts on Role Indicator for Working With Reading Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 9. Mean Differences Among Respondents From the Three School Districts on Role Indicators for Coordinating District Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 87 vii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Background The roles and responsibilities of a reading coordinator are constantly changing. .Although much research in reading has been amassed in the last decade. little attention has been given to the role of the reading coordinator itself. After polling state reading consultants. the lgnnnal_g£_3ead1ng (1974) reported a continued lack of clarity concerning the reading coordinatOr position throughout the United States and four Canadian provinces. Responses to the survey reflected a wide range of poorly defined lines of personnel responsibility. which ranged from consultants who served as remedial specialists to those who headed Right-to—Read projects. These findings. along with those of other researchers. seem to indicate that ambiguity still exists concerning the role of the reading coordinator. which threatens the effectiveness of highly trained personnel in reading. The need for trained reading consultants grew with the implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1966. FhL. 89-10. Title I sought to break the vicious circle of the disad- vantaged student by establishing compensatory education programs. It states. in part: Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies serving areas with concentration of children from low-income families in order to expand and improve their educational programs by various means. which contribute particularly to meeting the special educational needs of educationally deprived children. Large numbers of certified teaching personnel were engaged to fill the reading coordinator positions created by this congressional act. Yet the role and qualifications of this position are always changing because the guidelines of the Title I program and hiring practices are constantly in flux. Title I programs began by employing certified classroom teachers who had had several reading methods classes. Those teachers who had not had such classes were sent to school to receive needed training in reading instruction. When they met the necessary qualifications. these teachers were assigned to designated schools in the school district as reading consultants. These consultants worked directly with the elementary school classroom teachers and principals but did not work with the designated elementary children. At the end of each school year. the pupils were tested on reading Objectives Chosen by the school district and with test items constructed by the school district's reading personnel. Each year since its inception. the Title I program has been evaluated and changed to some extent. either by placing the reading coordinator directly in the classroom working directly with children or by having small groups of designated students pulled out of the classroom to be instructed in the reading skills in which they were found to be deficient. Consulting with teachers and principals has become a minor role because the Evaluation Department felt that the effectiveness of the reading coordinators could not be evaluated unless they worked directly with the students. Qualifications for reading coordinators have also changed from personnel with specific reading credentials to the teacher with the highest seniority in the building when the position becomes available. Each school district that qualifies for Title I aid establishes its own guidelines for the program and for its personnel. These guide- lines are evaluated each year by the State Monitoring and Compliance Department. As a result. many changes have taken place within these programs over the years. When the ever-changing needs of the classroom teacher and the elementary school principal are added to the constantly changing guidelines of the Title I programs. defining the role of the reading coordinator becomes very important. mm The purpose of the study is to formulate a prioritized list of recognized roles or expectations of reading coordinators. as perceived by elementary school principals. elementary classroom teachers. and reading coordinators. School districts could use this list to form realistic guidelines for the Title I program and for employing personnel to implement it. 'This prioritized list of recognized roles of reading coordinators might also be used as a guide by the appropriate decision-making groups that recommend practical and relevant courses of study for existing reading personnel. WWW Few people would dispute the importance of a well-trained and well-educated reading coordinator. Because reading is the most important skill a child learns in elementary school. the reading consultant's role cannot be over-emphasized. Primary-grade reading instruction is the most crucial level in a comprehensive reading program. Nevertheless. an elementary school principal often avoids giving specific help or evaluation in primary reading. Many times the principal is somewhat uncomfortable about supervising primary reading programs and considers such supervision either too sensitive or too delicate a responsibility (McHugh. 1967). For many years. principals have sought aid from supervisors. consultants. or coordinators to help their teachers and reading programs. One of the key factors responsible for a successful reading program is leadership. Rauch (1983) claimed that this leadership comes from either a concerned and knowledgeable principal or a reading super- visor Or director with the full and open support of the principal. The reading coordinator is a valuable resource for the elementary school principal. as well as the elementary school. Baker (1976) reported that few principals will admit to having the necessary time to devote to full-time management of a school's reading program. He suggested that it would be a welcome new strategy of overall management procedure to give necessary and specialized decision-making powers and responsibilities to staff members who work directly with clients. Further. he claimed that few principals possess the range of specialized knowledge to qualify them to be both adminis- trator and reading specialist--a dysfunctional concept from its genesis. The illiteracy problem was addressed in a 1983 report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. which stated: Business and military leaders complain that they are required to spend millions of dollars on costly remedial education and training programs in such basic skills as reading. writing. spelling. and computation. ‘The Department of the Navy. for example. reported to the Commission that one-quarter of its recent recruits cannot read at the ninth grade level. the minimum needed simply to understand written safety instructions. The 1982 Gallup Poll of the publicfls attitudes toward the public schools strongly supported the belief that people steadfastly believe that education is the major foundation for the future strength of the United States. According to this survey. education was the first priority for federal funds among 12 funding categories; 55 percent of those surveyed selected public education as one of their first three choices. According to Rutledge (1970). "it is the post-industrial age-- the age of the automobile. the airplane. the computer. the satellite. and the spaceship--that has made reading and writing ability a necessity)‘ In 1979. the Michigan Department of Education published W. The Department felt that the rapidly expanding interest in and knowledge of reading in American society has forced a change of role for those responsible for guiding and directing the learning process in the reading area. Evidence of the need for training in reading was provided by Michigan Education Assessment Program data. To upgrade reading instruction. state boards of education have recently begun endorsing reading teachers. The International Reading Association has developed a recommended list of attitudes. concepts. and skills that apply to all persons engaged in reading education. In addition. the Michigan Reading Association (1984) has developed guidelines for the professional preparation of reading teachers. Therefore. based on the preceding discussion. it seems to follow that identifying the role of the reading coordinator. as perceived by elementary school principals. classroom teachers. and reading coordinators is very important. W The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this dissertation. .Beadlng_cognd1natgn: The term "reading coordinator" is interchangeable with reading consultant. reading supervisor. and reading resource person. A reading coordinator is a certified teacher who provides consultation in reading instruction to school personnel. A reading coordinator is a full-time employee who works directly with students. teachers. and administrators within a school to develop and implement a total reading program. E1ementany_sghggl_p11ngjpal: The elementary school principal is the site administrator who is delegated certain responsibilities by the school board. usually through the district superintendent. These responsibilities usually include. but are not limited to. executing board of education policies; allocating available resources. both material and human; providing measurable growth toward predetermined district objectives; and supervising the education of elementary students enrolled at the designated school site. .Qlassngom_teaghen: Classroom teachers are certified personnel who are employed full time to be responsible for the educational growth of a group of children in a designated grade or curriculum. .Beaning: Reading is the process of transforming the visual representation of language into meaning. IAn idea is transferred from the written page to the reader's mind. In 1983.1 the Michigan Reading Association developed a new definition of reading. According to this definition. reading is the process of constructing meaning through the dynamic interaction among the reader's existing knowledge. the informa- tion suggested by the written language. and the context of the reading situation. This new definition of reading is suited to today's techno- logical society. W: Compensatory funds are those monies made available under categorical eligibility. usually to compensate for specified needs of students in one location or school attendance area in which the specified need seems to be greater than in the general student population. IAn example is providing schools with additional money for reading programs when the reading level of students in those schools is a specified degree lower than that of their counterparts in the general population. Ween: Five research questions were constructed to guide the collec- tion of data in this study. They are as follows: 1. What are the roles of the reading coordinator. as perceived by the elementary school principals. reading coordinators. and elementary classroom teachers? 2. In prioritizing roles. is there a difference among respond- ents with reading coordinators assigned to their buildings and those without such coordinators? 3. Is there a difference among the three groups of respondents in terms Of their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role? 4. Is there a difference among the three groups of respondents in terms of the prioritized role indicators? 5. Are there differences among the three school districts with regard to respondents' perceptions of the reading coordinator's role? The following null hypotheses were formulated to analyze the data gathered in the study: Hypothesis 1: There is no statistically significant difference among elementary school principals, reading coordinators, and elementary classroom teachers concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. Hypothesis 2: There is no statistically significant difference between respondents with reading coordinators assigned to their buildings and those without such coordinators, concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. Hypothesis 3: There is no statistically significant difference among respondents from the three school districts surveyed, concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. W The primary assumption of this study was that elementary education is considered important to all educators and that reading coordinators fill an important role in elementary education. It was assumed that the individuals surveyed would answer the survey questions to the best of their ability. The investigator also assumed that the findings regarding prioritized roles and role indicators would reflect the perceptions of the elementary school principals. reading coordi- nators. and classroom teachers in a day-to-day elementary school opera- tion. The study was delimited to the elementary school principals. reading coordinators. and a random sample of 200 elementary classroom teachers in the Tri-City area of Michigan. which includes the Bay City. Midland. and Saginaw School Districts. WW2 .Selection_nt_tbe_§amnle The sample was chosen from the Tri-City school districts of Bay City. Midland. and Saginaw. Michigan. All of the elementary school principals. all of the reading coordinators. and 200 elementary class- room teachers selected proportionally from the three school districts constituted the sample. Approximately 300 surveys were mailed out. using the participants' elementary school addresses. lO We: mm The survey instrument was a sel f-administered instrument listing the four recognized reading coordinator roles and their indicators (see Appendix). These recognized roles were selected from those identified by studies and research in various areas of the United States. ‘The survey instrument provided respondents an opportunity to rank. according to priority. the roles of reading coordinators and their role indicators. Along with the survey. a stamped return-addressed envelope and a return-addressed postcard were mailed to 47 elementary school princi— pals. 39 elementary school reading coordinators. and the 200 elementary classroom teachers from the Bay City. Midland. and Saginaw School Districts. Participants were asked to return the completed survey and the signed postcard within two weeks after receiving them. In this way. the respondent's name could be checked off upon receipt of the postcard. IAn attempt was made to reach nonrespondents by telephone. or a second survey was mailed to those individuals whose names were not checked off. The cover letter (see Appendix) stressed the importance of returning the survey and ensured complete anonymity of responses. W Multivariate (Wilks lambda) and univariate analyses were used to analyze the data. Comparative differences of mean scores were the basis for reporting the survey results. ll W This dissertation is divided into five chapters. In Chapter I. the basic problem of identifying the role of the reading coordinator was introduced and developed. The need for and importance of the study were considered. General and specific purposes of the study were stated. as were the research questions and hypotheses tested. Assump- tions underlying the study were listed. and key terms used in the dissertation were defined. Chapter II contains a review of literature that relates to this study and the role of reading coordinators. Important studies in the areas of perception. role. role ambiguity. and role conflict are discussed. The identified role of the reading coordinator is also explored. The design of the study is explained in Chapter III. In this chapter the study population is identified. The selection and develop- ment of the survey instrument are described. and the pilot study is reviewed. Included in the chapter are a description of data-collection procedures and statistical-analysis techniques employed in the study. In Chapter IV. the analysis of the data is reported. Each research hypothesis is restated. followed by the survey results and the statistical relationships discovered. A prioritized list of role indi- cators that was developed from the statistical analysis of the study is included in Chapter IV. Chapter V contains the conclusions of the study. Significant differences among the respondent groups concerning their perceptions of 12 the role of the reading coordinator are discussed. Recommendations are presented for further research on perceptions of the reading coordi- nators' role and on fulfilling their educational needs. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The review of literature provides an essential background for this study. Included in the review are important studies in the areas of perception. role. role ambiguity. and role conflict. The identified role of the reading coordinator is also discussed. The review of studies concerning the role of the reading coordinator demonstrates the role conflict and role ambiguity that exist in the perceptions of this important educational role. Eomootion The importance of observation in research is so great. and its relation to theory so intimate and so complex. that no clear insight into an investigation of this kind is possible without the study of perception. The external world is a vast array of qualified objects whose character. structure. movements. and changes constitute a mass of information. One's only access to knowledge of the external world is through the physical senses. Such knowledge must be conveyed to the mind if one is to know it. and the primary means of conveyance are the physical influences that stimulate the sense organs from the Objects the information is about. The sense organs are receptors. and sensory l3 1h information is transmitted through the nerves to the brain. where it is recorded as perception. stored in memory. and made available as knowl- edge (Locke. 1690). In their raw and unprocessed form. as they are originally received. the deliverances of sense are simple. particular qualities. Locke's "simple ideas of sensation" or the sensory data of modern theories. These are the original building blocks. out of which all knowledge and science as the most faithful representation of the outer world is obtained. Whether perception is among the innate characteristics of the organism or is an outcome of the individual's interactions with his environment is among the fundamental questions with which experimental psychology began. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. the issue of innate origins of perception (nativism) versus perception as learned during contact with the environment (empiricism) was often posed in extreme terms. The question today is more often a matter of which aspects of perception occur without previous experience. which are an outcome of learning. and how innate and learned perceptual activities interact. Since it maintains the organisnfls contact with the environment. perception is essential for the organisnfls adaptation and survival. How should perception be defined? What are its essential characteristics? Perception concerns one's awareness of the objects or conditions about him. It depends on the impressions these objects make on the senses. Perception is the way things look. sound. feel. taste. or smell. ‘To some degree. perception also involves an understanding 15 awareness. a "meaning." or a "recognition" of these objects (Allport. 1955). Perception is an activity of the organism. It involves receptors. neural impulses. cortical patterns. and motor elements. to say nothing of the possible influence of bodily states such as need. motivation. and emotion. In 1866. Von Helmholtz recognized that past experience contributes to perception and that process resembles in its outcome a correct judgment about what experience would lead the perceiver to expect. Von Helmholtz's research led to the statement that perception is an instantaneous. unconscious inference. made on the basis of whatever sensory data are received from the object and its surround- ings. Therefore. it has been theorized that one does not always have perception. then will. and then action; a pre-established attitude may determine what is to be perceived and how one will react. According to Titchener (1909). a perception consists in its earliest stage of the following three itemsa (l) a number of sensa- tions consolidated and incorporated into a group under the laws of attention and special principles of sensory connection; (2) images from past experience to supplement the sensations; and (3) meaning--the context to explain individual differences in perceiving. The sensory core would be the same for different individuals. but the imagery supplied as context (and also meaning) would be different for differ- ent persons. according to their past experiences. Many theories and much research have evolved over the years in regard to perception. The set theory (Kulpe & Bryan. 1904). the 16 gestalt theory (Kohler. 1929; Koffka. 1935). the cortical field theory (Kohler & Wallach. 1944; Kohler 8. Held. 1949; Lashley. Chow. 8. Semmes. 1951). the associative theory (Hebb. 1949). the decision theory (Swets. Tanner. & Birdsall. 1964). attention theory (Muller. 1904. 1923; the figure-ground theory (Rubin. 1951); and the transactionalist theory (Dewey. 1896; Brunswick. 1940; Heider. 1958) are but a few theories and researchers who have contributed to present knowledge of the scientific term "percepti on." 39.1.9 The word "role" was traced by Moreno (1960) to the Latin word 119111.13. meaning little wheel or round log. In ancient Greece and Rome. this log held sheets of parchment paper upon which were written the theatrical parts or roles. More recently. the term "role" has been defined as a part or function taken or assumed by any person or struc- ture; a set of standards. descriptions. norms. or concepts held by anyone for the behaviors of a person or a position. Perhaps the most common definition of the term "role" is that it is a set of prescrip- tions defining what the behavior of a person holding that position should be. The concept of role. then. applies neither to unique indi- vidual personalities nor to a persona. but to positions within a struc- tural system that includes persons. positions. and tasks. In some cases. the definition of "role" encompasses only the expectations that outsiders hold for incumbents of assigned positions and ignores the part the incumbents play in role specifications. 17 Walker. Churchill. and Ford (1975) asserted that individuals' roles are defined through a three-step process. In the first step. the expectations and demands of the appropriate behaviors are communicated to role occupants by members of the role set. In the second step. occupants of roles perceive these role expectations and develop conceptions of how the roles should be performed. During the third step. role perceptions are converted into role behaviors. Walker et a1. ignored the possibility that incumbents have their own ideas about the roles they perform. Although role theory is a relatively new field of inquiry. it began as early as 1893 with Durkheinfls classic work on the division of labor. At about the same time. James (1890). Baldwin (1897). and Cooley (1902) made important contributions to the theory of self; Sumner (1906) proposed the well-known distinctions between folkways and mores; Dewey (1922) analyzed habit and conduct; Maine (1861) introduced the idea of status; and Simmel (1920) discussed interaction. These early researchers employed concepts of role that survive today or that have their counterparts in modern role theory. W111 Individuals in society occupy positions. and their role performance in these positions is determined by social norms. demands. and rules; by the individual's particular capabilities and personality; by the role performance of others in their respective positions; and by those who observe and react to the performance. ‘The behavior of the individual is examined in terms of how it is shaped by the demands and 18 rules of others. by their sanctions for his conforming and nonconform- ing behavior. and by the individualhs own understanding and conceptions of what his behavior should be. Members of the focal individual's role set (role senders) have expectations about the way the focal person should behave and about how he is actually performing (Kahn. Wolfe. Quinn. Snoek. & Rosenthal. 1964L The adequacy of communication of role expectations by the role senders determines the amount of ambiguity experienced by the focal person. If the role senders' role expectations are not adequately communicated. the focal person will experience ambiguity. Van Sell et a1. (1977) defined role ambiguity as the degree to which clear information is lacking regarding the expectations associated with a role. the methods for fulfilling known role expectations. and the consequences of role performance. Organizational research has shown that role ambiguity is related to dissatisfaction. tension. anxiety. distrust. turnover. absenteeism. and poor performance. Role ambiguity seems to be wide- lspread in organizations. Weick (1969) asserted that all organizational environments are characterized by ambiguity. 'Thirty-five percent of Kahn et ale (1964) sample reported significant amounts of role ambi- guity. and 65 percent of French and Caplan's (1972) sample reported experiencing considerable amounts of role ambiguity. According to classical management theory. every position in a formal organizational structure should have a specific set of tasks or position responsibilities (Rizzo. House. & Lirtzman. 1970). Such 19 formal specifications of duties should reduce the role ambiguity experienced by organizational members. .Bolo_ConIlict Another type of role strain that has received attention recently is role conflict. Role conflict is a situation in which the individual perceives inconsistencies in the role behaviors that are expected of him. Role conflict has also been defined as the simul- taneous occurrence of two or more sets of pressures. such that compli- ance with one would make compliance with the other more difficult (Kahn et a1.. 1964). Miles and Perreault (1976) found that individuals experience different kinds of role conflict. They described four types of role conflict: (1) person-role conflict--the situation in which role expectations are incongruent with the orientations. expectations. or values of the role occupants; (2) intersender conflict--the situation in which one or more role expectations from one role sender oppose those from one or more other role senders; (3) intrasender conflict-- the situation in which two or more role expectations from a single role sender are mutually incompatible; and (4) overload-~the situation in which various role expectations communicated to role occupants exceed the amount of time and resources available for their accomplishment. Additional types of role conflict are conflicting expectations and organizational demands in the form of incompatible policies. 20 conflicting requests from others. and incompatible standards of evalua- tions (Rizzo et a1.. 1970). Role conflict occurs when the actor is exposed to conflicting sets of legitimized role expectations and realizes that fulfillment of both sets is impossible (Parsons. 1951). For Parsons. legitimized role expectations are institutionalized expectations. Differences in role expectations must be adjusted by ordering or allocating the claims of the different roles--expectations to which the actor is subject. This ordering occurs by establishing priorities and by distributing role expectations among alters. Legitimacy was defined by Getzels and Cuba (1954) as mutual acceptance by ego and alter of expectations in a given situation. A legitimate expectation of a role is one the incumbent of a focal posi- tion feels others have a right to hold. An illegitimate expectation is one he does not feel others are entitled to hold (Gross. Mason. & McEachern. 1958). Role conflict has been defined as a situation in which an actor is exposed to incompatible expectations. whether he is aware of the conflict or not. Other social scientists have used the term "role conflict” to denote a situation in which the actor perceives incompatible expectations (Gross et a1.. 1958). Numerous studies have been conducted to determine the conse- quences of general role conflict. and several researchers have studied the effects of various forms of role conflict. This type of role strain has been associated with many dysfunctional effects on indi- viduals and organizations. Role conflict affects individuals' 21 attitudes toward role senders (Miles. 1975) and changes cholesterol levels and heart rates (French & Caplan. 1972). Individuals are less satisfied with work. supervision. pay. and opportunities for promotion (Keller. 1975) and have less self-esteem (Brief & Aldag. 1976) as they experience more role conflict. A direct relationship has been found to exist between the level of role conflict experienced and the amount of job-related stress. tension. anxiety (Rizzo et a1.. 1970); ineffective- ness (Getzels & Cuba. 1954); job-related threat (Hammer & Tbsi. 1974); and uncertainty (Whetten. 1978). The effects of role conflict on organizations include indi- vidualsfl decision-making difficulties (Seaman. 1953). lower organiza- tional commitment (Oliver 8 Brief. 1977—78). perception that the organization is less effective (House & Rizzo. 1972). and greater propensity to leave the organization (Schuler. Aldag. a Brief. 1977). WWW The range of duties and responsibilities associated with the position of reading coordinator is illustrated by the number of names for the position: reading consultant. reading resource teacher. reading director. reading specialist. and reading supervisor. When the Evaluation Committee of the International Reading Association (IRA) sought to define the role of reading specialist. they found that survey respondents in this role performed a broad range of duties. Likewise. Lanfrey (1975) found that principals. professors. and reading special- ists did not agree about the competencies needed to becomera successful 22 reading specialist or about the manner in which these competencies might be gained. Further role conflict was reported by Wylie (1969). who found that reading specialists. classroom teachers. and school administrators had conflicting perceptions of the reading specialist's major func- tions. Although many reading specialists. dissatisfied with the results of remedial teaching. prefer to leave what Stauffer (1967) termed ther"bottom1ess pit of remediation" to do staff development and consulting to prevent reading failure. many administrators and teachers continue to prefer that reading specialists work only as remedial teachers (Pikulski & Ross. 1979). Many reading specialists manifest a classic role conflict in which different and sometimes conflicting role expectations exist for the same position. Whereas school administra- tors in Mangieri and Heimberger%;(l980) study perceived instruction and diagnosis to be the reading consultant's most important role. consultants preferred an inservice and resource-person role. More information is needed about the value of the various roles performed by reading specialists and the specialist's influence on children's reading growth. Bean (1979) reported on a project conducted by the Pittsburgh City School District and seven other school districts across the country. The basic goal of this project was to study the various roles of reading specialists. Findings indicated that the specialists in the study assumed four major roles: diagnosis. instruc- tion. inservice training of teachers. and resource to parents. Three of the most highly valued roles of the specialist (as perceived by 23 classroom teachers) were those demanding that the reading specialist function as a resource person to the teacher (inservice. development of materials. and conferring). Instruction with Children (outside of the classroom) was rated fourth in importance. The least valued of the 14 roles that classroom teachers rated were: individual diagnosis in the classroom. group diagnosis in the classroom. and group instruction in the classroom. Although the project emphasized the instructional role of the reading specialist. the time spent with teachers was valued more highly than instruction. Role ambiguity in the position of reading coordinator was discovered in Kinder's (1968) survey of state education agency certification officers in the 50 states. the District of Columbia. and Puerto Rico. Each officer was asked to respond to seven or eight questionnaire items (seven items for states that did not require and eight items for states that did require specific certification for reading teachers or specialists). Responses to the question. "Does your state now have specific certification requirements for reading teachers. specialists. consult- ants. or supervisors?." indicated that 25 of the 52 state agencies had certification or endorsement for reading specialists. and 23 of the 52 agencies required certification for at least somerof the people who do this work in their local schools. In many of the states. an elemen- tary- or secondary-school teaching certificate was considered suffi- cient indication that a person could provide reading instruction for special groups or classes; a supervisor's. elementary-school teacher's. 24 or principal's credential was sufficient for supervising a school reading program. Therefore. most states required no special training or experience for the personnel who taught special reading groups and classes or for persons who supervised a school reading program. Although the 38 different certification credentials in exist- ence among the 23 states that required special reading certification had several identical characteristics. most of them did not meet the "Minimum Standards for the Professional Training of Reading Special- ists" published by the International Reading Association (IRA) in 1965. Only eight reading credentials appeared to meet the IRA's minimum standards. The areas of study mentioned in these certification creden- tials were generally very different. Most of the surveyed states anticipated state certification of reading personnel in the future; all but 13 states reported that some work was being done in this area. Kinder was certain that many highly qualified reading teachers and specialists were working in all 50 states. the District of Colum- bia. and Puerto Rico. but he believed that improved state reading- certification standards could protect the professional status of these teachers and specialists and also strengthen reading instruction for more children and youths. A reading supervisor experiences conflicting roles when he is in the position of wearing two cloaks: one identifying the supervisor as a resource to help teachers and the other a mantle of authority. which may be seen by teachers as largely judgmental and closely related to job security and promotion (Burg et a1.. 1978). The conflict is a 25 real one. which is evident not only in examining the supervisor's role but also in examining teachers' perceptions of that role. A supervisor who is perceived as helping. encouraging. and trusting will have a better chance of working closely with teachers. Supervisors who are perceived as evaluators. controllers. and organizers may experience greater difficulty in having teachers who are open and frank about their needs. problems with children. or problems within the curriculum. To develop an atmosphere within which a suitable teacher/supervisor relationship may exist is very difficult and complex. It is often hampered by different expectations. as well as by conflicts in terms of perceptions of the supervisor's role. For 20 years. Rauch (1983) has observed and surveyed classroom teachers. reading- and learning-disabilities specialists. librarians. administrative personnel. pupils. and parents in attempting to evaluate school reading programs. According to Rauch. the key factors for a successful reading program are as follows: Mann. Every successful program had a guiding force behind it. either a concerned and knowledgeable principal or a reading supervisor or director (with the full and open support of the adminis- tration). W513. Rauch found that a successful elementary reading program averaged two hours a day on specific reading and language activities. .Conoenned_lea§hens. Every successful program Rauch observed had a faculty of dedicated and concerned teachers. who made a concerted 26 effort to improve pupils' reading. Also included were content-area teachers who recognized that the acquisition of content required effec- tive reading skills. WWW. Parents were continually informed about the purposes and content of the reading program through newsletters. individual conferences. grade-level meetings. book fairs. and exhibits of children's work. In turn. the parents supported requests for addi- tional personnel. special classes. and materials. Wm. Through informal conversations. grade-level meetings. and/or regularly scheduled inservice sessions. teachers were encouraged to exchange ideas and materials. W. Pupil progress was carefully monitored. but with the understanding that many factors affected test scores and that the scores were not absolute values. Equal weight was given to teacher judgment and informal testing. Reading was regarded as more than an accumulation of skills. The ultimate goal was to develop enthusiastic. discriminating readers. Since the reading specialist may fill many different roles. Hutson et a1. (1982) felt that the time spent on a given role may be influenced not only by the specialist's own values. but also by the perceived values of his administrator. ‘Twenty-three reading special- ists were surveyed about the percentage of time they spent on eight different roles. their own skill assessment of these roles. their value of the roles. and their principals' perceived values of the roles. Respondents were asked to assign values to the seven roles identified 27 by Robinson and Ranch (1965). as well as to an eighth one--that of remedial teacher. Results of the study indicated that the roles most highly valued by these reading specialists were those of resource person. instructor of other teachers. diagnostician. and advisor. The reading specialists thought their principals would value these same roles (except for that of advisor) but would attach a high value to the role of remedial teacher. The role of remedial teacher plays a promi- nent part in the value system and time allocation of many reading specialists but has a low priority for others. This role is also a potential point of discrepancy between reading specialists and adminis- trators and could be considered a role conflict. Role conflict was also evident in a study reported by Wylie (1969). in which 100 classroom teachers and 100 reading consultants chosen randomly from four New England states were surveyed. ‘The results of the study showed dramatic differences between classroom teachers' and reading consultants! concepts of the role of the elementary-school reading consultant. Wylie found that: 1. Elementary classroom teachers viewed the consultant as a supplier of materials. a demonstrator of techniques. and a director of informal diagnostic and corrective classroom procedures. ‘The consult- ants were also concerned with materials; however. they emphasized administrative organization. time allotment. grouping. and school cur- riculum. 2. The implementation of aid by the reading consultant was viewed by the classroom teacher as a personalized. informal. 28 small-group activity. ‘The consultants themselves favored approaches that emphasized involvement with greater numbers. grade-level meetings. orientation programs. and bulletins or letters to teachers. 3. The views expressed by the classroom teachers and the reading consultants did not vary appreciably in terms of the informa- tion. materials. and/or procedures that the consultant should use to help the new teacher. The three most important areas reported were materials to vary the program. meaningful seatwork. and introduction of new materials. 4. The characteristics that classroom teachers viewed as most important for the consultant to possess included in-depth knowledge of reading and related areas. ability to give constructive criticism. and willingness to consult. Consultants viewed the following characteris- tics as important: ability to establish rapport. ability to give constructive criticism. and equal treatment of all teachers. Both teachers and consultants viewed elementary-classroom experience as being extremely important. Wylie felt that if the elementary-school reading consultant is to improve the quality of reading instruction. the role(s) of the specialists must be well defined. universally understood. and agreed upon. In formulating the job description of a newly created position of reading coordinator. Burgy (1974) found that her responsibilities lay in five major areas: direct and indirect supervision of instruc- tion; inservice teacher education; reading curriculum development; 29 public relations. both with the community at large and with the facul- ties of various schools within the school system; and one's own con- tinuing professional growth. .5upan11519n_gf_1n§tnugtion. which took about 65 percent of the coordinator's time. consisted in performing the following activities: visiting classes and conferring with teachers about reading problems. conferring with principals about problem areas. attending central- office staff meetings and conferring with the director of curriculum and the director of administration and instruction. and writing and publishing monthly supervisory bulletins. iInsonuioo.toaonon_oduoation took about 15 percent of the coordinator's ti me and consisted of the following activities: conduct- ing grade-level meetings. teaching demonstration lessons. publishing a monthly reading inservice bulletin along with additional service bulle- tins. conferring with teachers about their professional reading and obtaining materials for them. and participating in the RISE program. a training program for parent volunteers. .Bead1ng_cunn1cu1um_dexelooment. which took about 15 percent of the coordinator's time. consisted of the following activities: meeting with the reading committee; conferring with sales representatives and their consultants; ordering. examining. and evaluating new reading materials; and conducting a faculty-wide evaluation of the newly installed reading program. W took about 5 percent Of the coordi nator's working hours. as well as numerous after-school and evening hours. and 3O consisted of these activities: working with the press in developing feature articles and news stories for the local daily newspaper. addressing PTA groups and community-service Cl ubs. preparing video tapes of classroom reading instruction and presenting and interpreting them to PTA groups and community-service clubs. and visiting homes to confer with parents about their children's reading problems. In addition. the reading coordinator's physical presence in the schools and in the classrooms. to the maximum extent possible. was considered to be closely related to the public-relations function. EInIess1gna1_gnowtn_ann_dexeloom§nt consisted of such activi- ties as reading professional journals and new publications in the field of reading; attending reading conferences. workshops. and meetings; maintaining memberships in various professional organizations; and becoming familiar with new materials through visits to area instruc- tional materials centers. ‘The time allotted to this responsibility varied greatly from month to month. and the percentage of time over- lapped the allotment for each of the other four responsibilities. As a result of this research. Burgy felt it might be wise for a reading coordinator to estimate and plan a strategy for a forthcoming year's activities. She also provided insights into the daily activi- ties of reading coordinators and gave a realistic description of their role. The purpose of Garry's (1974) study was to compare the percep- tions of specialized reading personnel employed in the Pennsylvania Public Schools regarding the relative importance of SO task 31 competencies essential to the execution of position responsibilities and the adequacy of their graduate preparatory programs in developing these task competencies. Garry developed the list of 50 task competen- cies after reviewing the literature on the necessary competencies expected of specialized reading personnel. interviewing reading authorities and reading-education advisors from the state department of education. and investigating graduate preparatory programs for reading specialization. The 50 task competencies expected of specialized read- ing personnel surveyed in this study were as follows: 1. Stimulating and guiding analysis and selection of instruc- tional materials for reading through committees and arranging for their distribution to teachers. 2. Promoting creation of games. devices. word cards. and worksheets for use in the classroom reading program. 3. Supervising inventory of all supplies. books. and equipment used in regular and special reading classes. 4. Suggesting and demonstrating use of instructional materials and procedures to teachers. 5. Selecting and developing materials to promote higher-level reading competency. 6. Providing direct technical aid to classroom teachers by directing attention to sources of instruction to answer their problems and questions for purposes of helping them increase their own skill and performance in teaching reading in all areas. including the content subjects. 32 7. Helping teachers plan and provide corrective and remedial- reading instruction and suggesting remedial techniques for disabled readers both in the classroom and in special reading programs. 8. Teaching small groups of disabled readers. 9. Encouraging. helping. and stimulating teachers to use different strategies of teaching reading. 10. Providing assistance to new and experienced teachers for reading instruction. according to the plan the teacher will use. 11. Selecting and suggesting the most valid techniques for appraising readiness to read. 12. Developing sample lessons. with the assistance of classroom teachers. to teach various word-identification and comprehension skills. 13. Developing. teaching. or helping teach directed-reading activities. 14. Assisting in personalized. informal. small-group activities and using this means to demonstrate teaching techniques that teachers may use. 15. Observing classroom behavior of children during reading instruction to learn about specific students or techniques. 16. Ascertaining the reading difficulty of various materials. 17. Assisting in the selection of appropriate reading tests. 18. Supervising the administration of reading tests. 19. Assisting in the interpretation of standardized and informal reading test results. 33 20. Assisting classroom teachers in diagnosing and analyzing students' strengths and weaknesses in various skill areas. 21. Diagnosing and recommending treatment for more complex and severe reading-disability cases. 22. Providing guidance in writing case studies of reading disabilities. giving background information. interpreting test data. and making a prognosis of a child's retardation. 23. Referring pupils with special problems to proper agencies. such as guidance and psychological services. 24. Constructing. administering. and evaluating informal reading inventories. 25. Providing guidance in administering. scoring. and inter- preting nonverbal intelligence tests. sensory motor tests. personality tests. and tests of perceptual ability. 26. Providing guidance in determining the extent of reading retardation by using various procedures. 27. Helping to implement experimentation in reading and to evaluate published research in reading. 28. Reading and interpreting research and new developments in the field to other members of the staff. 29. Informing school administrators and teachers of existing problems. trends. and needed research. 30. Writing local or federally funded reading proposals with the assistance of others. 3h 31. Providing guidance in selecting and identifying candidates for remedial-reading classes or a reading clinic. 32. Assisting in regularly scheduled meetings for reading personnel. administrators. and teachers to discuss the reading program and to evaluate students' progress. 33. Assisting classroom teachers with parent-teacher confer- ences. when necessary. 34. Defining the reading philosophy of the district. together with teachers. remedial instructors. and specialized personnel. 3S. Informing the public-service organizations. libraries. and health agencies of the goals. needs. and rationale of the reading program and their role in education. 36. Developing reading goals and objectives in coordination with teachers and administrators. 37. Assisting inexperienced teachers with reading instruction as part of the orientation program. 38. Attending and participating in local. regional. and national meetings concerned with the improvement of reading instruc- tion. 39. Heading committees to develop guides. curriculum. or courses of study in reading. 40. Acting as a resource person and advisor to teachers developing curriculum units. 41. Providing book lists and source materials for appropriate literature for children and helping teachers select books. 35 42. Taking part with many others in the school system in preparing reading bulletins. pamphlets. and handbooks to publicize good ideas coming out of the reading program. 43. Helping provide internship training for prospective clinicians or reading teachers. 44. Acquainting the board of education and the administration with the reading goals of the district and the rationale for the financial support needed to attain them. 45. Demonstrating reading lessons and techniques for work- shops. inservice meetings. training sessions for new teachers. or study groups. 46. Helping arrange. conduct. and participate in inservice meetings. workshops. and conferences. 47. Helping write reports to the central office on the status of the reading program. 48. Guiding the preparation of record forms for appraising individual students' progress. 49. Appraising and evaluating the success or failure of the reading program. 50. Providing guidelines and practical assistance for evaluat- ing student progress in remediation. This survey of competencies was sent to randomly chosen specialized reading personnel. Respondents were asked to assign a degree of relative importance to each task competency. Respondents were also asked to rate each of the task competencies in terms of the 36 relative adequacy of their graduate preparatory programs in developing these competencies. Garry found a wide diversity of practices and policies in the employment of specialized reading personnel in Pennsylvania elementary schools. Factors involving title of position. acceptable certification and qualifications. and nature of the work revealed role ambiguity. The author recommended that publ ic-el ementary-school adminis- trators and supervisors examine the task competencies that were ranked in the low-middle quarter and the lowest quarter in importance in position responsibility to determine areas in which specialized reading personnel could assume more responsibility. Garry also suggested that school administrators should familiarize themselves with the range of competencies possessed by qualified reading personnel and permit their reading staffs broad flexibility in operating the reading program. extending far beyond the limitations presently confining them. In an attempt to determine public-school administrators' attitudes. knowledge. and concepts about reading programs. Haggard and Meeks (1979) surveyed 100 public-school administrators in a midwestern metropolitan area. Ambiguity concerning the reading specialist's role was evident in the administrators' responses. The superintendents' responses concerning the reading specialist's role were fairly evenly distributed among three major areas: testing. teaching (developmental and remedial). and resource. Secondary-school principals indicated emphasis should be placed on teaching remedial classes and functioning as a resource person. Elementary-school principals also felt that the 37 job priority of the reading specialist should be as a remedial teacher and resource person. Only half of the principals responded that empha- sis should be placed on testing. Their comments suggested that the reading specialist should establish the reading program. combine developmental and remedial reading where necessary. diagnose and relay practical information to establish remediation programs within the classroom. and work in a team situation with the classroom teachers. Findings led the authors to conclude that the general trend among administrators was to view the reading specialist as a sort of "person for all seasons." The different roles a reading coordinator can and should fill were listed by Robinson and Rauch (1965). They summarized these roles as follows: 1. As a resource person. the reading consultant supplies materials on request. helps select and evaluate materials (including tests). suggests methods appropriate to individual needs. and answers questions about reading asked by staff members and members of the community. 2. As an adviser. the reading consultant advises administrators. teachers. and otherInembers of the staff about the teaching of reading within the school or school system. keeps the school staff up to date on new developments in reading as reflected in research reports. experimentation in other school districts. and reports at professional meetings. and confers with parents. in order to interpret the school reading program or discuss individual problems. 3. As an in-service leader. the reading consultant arranges for and occasionally teaches in-service courses in reading. con- ducts demonstration lessons in the classrooms of individual teachers or before groups of teachers. directs or arranges for short-term informal sessions. or workshops. in which groups of teachers may give specific attention to certain problems that arise in carrying out the instructional program in reading. and 38 plans and helps to implement the total school in-service pro- gram. especially those aspects which are directed toward the training of new teachers. 4. As an investigator. the reading consultant encourages teachers to experiment with new materials and methods. designs research plans involving a group of teachers. the school. or the school system. and reports the results of these research studies. 5. As a diagnostician. the reading consultant directs or conducts diagnoses of individual students who appear to be severely retarded in reading. helps teachers learn to diagnose more effectively. interprets the results of diagnoses to staff members. to parents. and sometimes to students themselves. and attempts to help teachers. in regular classrooms or remedial situations. to make use of information from diagnoses in their teaching. 6. As an instructor. the reading consultant helps teachers. for- mally and informally. to learn about methods and materials that will be useful to them. helps specific students at times. especially those very retarded in reading. and may teach a group (remedial or developmental) in order to try out new ideas or demonstrate certain procedures as a part of teacher train- ing. 7. As an evaluator. the reading consultant directs. supervises. or coordinates schoolwide testing programs involving reading achievement and capacity testing. interprets test results to the staff and community. investigates the curriculum and teaching procedures to ascertain ways of correcting faults demonstrated in test results. conducts with help of the total staff complete periodical evaluations of the reading program. and assists in the selection of new tests to be used in a school program. This list of seven roles was used in a study conducted by Mangieri and Heimberger (1980). A sample of reading specialists and school administrators in New York. Ohio. West Virginia. Pennsylvania. and South Carolina was asked to rank-order the goals. The investi- gators wanted to ascertain which activities were perceived to be the most crucial functions of a reading consultant. 39 Role conflict was evident in the results of this study. Read- ing consultants perceived their roles as inservice leader and as resource person; working as a diagnostician was ranked least important. On the other hand. school administrators ranked the roles of instruc- tor first and diagnostician second; they ranked the role of resource person least important. Although the data collected in this study showed that reading consultants and school administrators had widely varying beliefs about how reading consultants can best spend their time. neither reading specialists nor administrators expressed disap- proval of any of the seven roles described by Robinson and Rauch. All felt that the seven functions should be performed. Role ambiguity also exists among reading specialists them- selves. The Evaluation Committee of the International Reading Associa- tion surveyed 39 percent of its members who identified themselves as reading specialists. When asked to check a list of reasons why they referred to themselves as reading specialists. 20 of the respondents decided that they did not refer to themselves in this way. even though they had done so on the original survey. The remaining respondents checked the following reasons: 1. a. Other professionals tend to come to me with questions about reading. D. My administrators refer to me as the reading specialist in my building. 2. a. I have read and studied a great deal about the teaching of reading on my own. A0 b. My job description requires me to provide consultative services to other teachers. 3. I have had a great deal of success in teaching reading to my students. 4. I have been assigned to teach reading more than half of my working time. 5. I have completed a reading degree program (in Hutson et a1.. 1979). In a rank ordering of the activities that occupy the time of reading specialists in states with and without such certification. the four most frequently performed activities were remedial reading. diag- nostic work. developing instructional materials. and teaching develop- mental reading. The view of self as a reflection of others emerged from the study findings. Assignments by administrators. self-study. and completion of a reading degree clustered closely but were decidedly behind recognition by colleagues. The IRA survey found that as long as "reading specialist" is treated as both a generic term and a specific certification term. members will be confused about how to identify themselves professionally. Ngandu and Strum (1981) investigated the reading special ist's role as perceived by reading specialists. administrators. special edu- cation instructors. and classroom teachers. Questionnaires identifying ten roles a reading specialist might perform were sent to elementary- school reading specialists. administrators. special education instruc- tors. and classroom teachers in aInedium-sized Maryland county school 41 district. Among the 22 reading specialists who returned their ques- tionnaires. remediation was their number-one choice. followed by help- ing teachers assess and plan instruction for their students. The speci alists' third choice of roles was to inform teachers about effec- tive materials and methods. whereas their fourth priority was to tutor students. Organizing the school's reading program. providing parents with suggestions. teaching gifted students. developing materials with teachers. evaluating the reading curriculum. and teaching in regular classrooms followed in the order of their choices. The roles ranked in the top three positions by reading specialists were also rated in the top three positions by the administrators. special education instruc- tors. and classroom teachers. Helping teachers assess and plan instruction for their students was the first choice of administrators and classroom teachers and was the second choice of reading speci al- ists. Although they felt this role was very important. both the class- room teachers and reading special ists lamented the lack of time in a day to carry out the role. A high level of agreement existed between the special ists' rankings of these ten roles and the rankings of the other three groups. Ngandu and Strum felt the consensus among these educators regarding the reading specialist's role should positively affect students' progress. Pikulski and Ross (1979) surveyed classroom teachers' percep- tions of the reading specialist. The purpose of the study was to try to determine (1) the extent to which classroom teachers valued special reading personnel. (2) the ways in which classroom teachers felt the AZ consultants should spend their time. and (3) the skills that classroom teachers felt were most important for the reading consultant to pos- sess. Responses to the 432 questionnaires returned by elementary. middle school. and high school teachers showed that the high school teachers thought having a reading specialist in a school was much more important than did elementary and middle school classroom teachers. However. a majority of the respondents said that having a reading specialist in a school was very important or absolutely essentiaL. The time reading specialists spent working with students also varied among the three groups; the high school and elementary teachers were in closer agreement than were the middle school teachers. According to the survey. classroom teachers felt the need of a reading specialisths direct help about one-fourth of the time. The researchers categorized the most important skills and attitudes that one would expect from a successful reading specialist into three primary areas: (1) knowledge. (2) interpersonal. and (3) administrative. The same classroom teachers were asked to rate each of 30 items from these categories on a five-point scale. Knowl- edge items were clearly rated as most important. with interpersonal skills next and administrative/organizational skills seen as least important. Since there was not a great deal of difference in the mean scores of the most important and the least important skills and atti- tudes. the authors inferred that classroom teachers felt many skills are very important and even absolutely essential for a reading special- ist. The authors concluded that reading specialists seemed to be seen ‘13 as important. necessary personnel who are available for consultation but spend the vast majority of their time working directly with chil- dren. Classroom teachers saw a wide variety of skills and attitudes as important for effective reading specialists: They should know their area well. should have positive attitudes about people. and should respond well in interpersonal relationships. Cohen et a1. (1977) surveyed 414 classroom teachers in 46 elementary schools in the San Francisco area concerning the services they received from the reading specialists in their schools. Almost 50 percent of the teachers said that the reading specialist instructed selected students. usually outside of the classroom. and provided no other services to the teachers. Only 20 percent reported that they received one service (diagnostic feedback. suggestions. or materials) on a weekly basis. in addition to instruction for students. Only 10 percent of the teachers reported receiving two or more services weekly. in addition to instruction for students. The investigators also found a marked association between the degree of teacher/ specialist cooperation and the following instructional practices: use of detailed formal planning and record keeping for individual students and use of complex information in making instructional decisions for daily student activities. The results of the study suggested that the instructional program might be strengthened by promoting a more cooperative relationship between the reading specialist and the classroom teacher. Ah In another study. 300 elementary- and secondary-school teachers from across the United States responded to a survey concerning their attitudes toward the role and performance of reading specialists in their schools (Gaus & Smith. 1981). Factors included in the survey were as follows: Factor 1: Definition of the Role of Reading Specialist With Respect a. b. d. e. f. g. to Teachers Reading specialists should be concerned with assisting teachers to teach reading in the content areas. Reading specialists should train teachers to teach remedial reading. Reading consultants should supply information concerning student placement in appropriate instructional materials. Reading specialists should assist teachers in the selection of classroom reading materials. Reading specialists should assist teachers to determine students' instructional level. All reading skills are taught in the reading class. A primary role of the reading specialist should be to remedi- ate. Factor 2: Role of the Reading Specialist With Respect to Students a. b. Co d. Instruction from reading specialists is welcomed by students. Students who receive remedial instruction show improvement. Students who are poor in reading like reading classes. Students who receive remediation make some progress. Not as significantly related to this factor was the following: Reading specialists should maintain open communication with parents. Factor 3: Teachers' Perceptions of the Effectiveness of the Reading Specialists in Role Fulfillment Reading specialists assist teachers in choosing materials. Students with reading problems are sent to reading special- ists. Diagnostic reports of reading specialists are helpful. d. e. f. 9. Not h. ‘45 Reading specialists are available to consult with classroom teachers. Reading specialists and teachers should select materials. Reading specialists help teachers plan lessons. Reading specialists are available to consult and demonstrate teaching techniques. significantly related to this factor was the following: Teachers prefer to send their students to the reading specialist. Factor 4: Classroom Teachers' Perceptions of Their Own Role in Teaching Reading These factors are not included here because they do not apply to the present research. Factor 5: Classroom Teachers' Dispositions Toward Innovative Ideas C. d. and Techniques of Reading Specialists Teachers seek reading specialists' assistance when planning new reading techniques. Classroom teachers receive assistance when incorporating reading activities into lessons. Teachers receive assistance in implementing new strategies and materials. Teachers understand diagnostic reports from reading special- ists. The factor mean score for Factor 1 was 3.1. for Factor 2 it was 3.7. for Factor 3 it was 3.5. and for Factor 5 it was 3.7. Means for each item on the questionnaire ranged from 4.4 to 2.8. and the grand mean was 3.7. The researchers determined that a mean score of 3.5 or more indicated a positive viewpoint toward the reading specialist's role. The results of the study indicated that. in general. teachers did not have a negative attitude toward reading specialists. The authors felt that reading specialists should look favorably on these 116 findings. which indicated that. by and large. school personnel per- ceived specialists and their role homogeneously and in positive terms. Sumau In this chapter. the concepts of perception. role. role ambi- guity. and role conflict were discussed to provide an essential back- ground for the study. Relevant research on the role of the reading coordinator was discussed. Many of these studies reflected the ambi- guity and conflict surrounding the role of reading coordinator. thus adding support to the need for the present investigation. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The researcher's primary objective in conducting this study was to identify the role of the reading coordinator. A list of identified role indicators was compiled from the research literature. and the individual roles were categorized into four major role areas. The roles were prioritized by the survey respondents. In addition. responses to the Base Data Survey provided information relevant to the study and important to the data analysis and interpretation. This chapter contains information on the composition of the sample. the data-collection instruments used in the study. the gathering of the data. the pilot study. and the procedures used in analyzing the data. Study—Emulation The study population comprised all of the elementary school principals. all of the reading coordinators. and a random sample of elementary school classroom teachers from the Bay City. Midland. and Saginaw public schools. as described in Chapter I. The names and school addresses of the elementary school principals. reading coordi- nators. and classroom teachers were obtained from a current personnel #7 48 directory of each school district. Forty-seven elementary school prin- cipals. 33 reading coordinators. and 650 classroom teachers were listed in the directories of these school districts. Survey instruments were mailed to each of the 47 elementary school principals in the population; 33 were mailed to the reading coordinators; and 220 were mailed to randomly selected elementary school classroom teachers. One hundred ninety-six instruments were returned to the researcher. Of that number. 191 were completed. validated instruments--an overall response rate of 6357 percent. No follow-up letter was sent. The 196 returned questionnaires were categorized as follows: Completed. validated instruments 191 Instruments returned as having ”nondeliverable address" 1 Instruments returned with a statement that the recipient did not wish to be 4 included in the study Question 1 on the Base Data Survey requested the respondent to identify the school district in which he/she was employed. The three responses-—Midland. Bay City. and Saginaw--were used in testing relationships for Hypothesis 3. Question 2 of the Base Data Survey concerned the respondent's present position in the school district. Again. three categories-- classroom teacher. principal. and reading coordinator--were used in testing relationships for Hypothesis 1. Two categories. "Yes. there is a reading coordinator assigned to my school" or "No. there is not.” were used to test Hypothesis 2. 49 IDLBosoarcLInstcumont A hand-addressed business envelope containing a cover letter. the survey instrument. a stamped and addressed return envelope. and an addressed return postal card was sent to 220 elementary school class- room teachers. 33 elementary school reading coordinators. and 47 ele- mentary school principals. In the cover letter. the researcher stated that the survey was being sent only to elementary school principals. reading coordinators. and classroom teachers in the Bay City. Midland. and Saginaw school districts. Some background information and the purpose of the study were also included in the letter. The cover letter told the recipients about how long it would take them to com- plete the survey. Directions for cOmpleting the instrument were also provided. (See Appendix for a copy of the cover letter and the survey instrument.) Included in the packet of materials was the Base Data Survey. which contained questions concerning the respondent's school's qualifi- cations for compensatory funding. whether a reading coordinator was assigned to his/her school. number of years experience the respondent had had in education. degrees held by respondent. and major area of study. (See Appendix.) Also included in the materials sent to participants was a rating scale on which respondents were to rate 32 selected role indicators of the reading coordinator. (See Appendix.) The scale ranged from 1 ("not at all important") to 6 ("very extremely impor- tant"). In the six columns to the left of the listed role indicators. 50 respondents were to rate each indicator according to its perceived importance in relation to their perceived role of a reading coordi- nator. These role indicators were categorized under four general areas: Consulting. Bringing About Change. Working With Reading Mate- rials. and Coordinating District Programs. Under each general role. space was provided for the respondent to add other role indicators he/she felt were important but had not been selected for the study. IbeifloLStudx The researcher conducted the pilot study by individually selecting principals. reading coordinators. and classroom teachers from school districts that were not to be surveyed in the study. One prin- cipal. five reading coordinators. and two classroom teachers completed the pilot survey. Each pilot study participant completed the survey in less than 20 minutes. None of the individuals objected to any part of the survey. One classroom teacher commented that there was no inservice in her school district. so Items 2.3 and 2.4 of the survey did not apply. She also commented. "In our school. it has been total staff involvement to bring about change)‘ The other classroom teacher added as Item 3.8: "Make lesson plans for very lowest reading groups in classroom." WWW Each of the 32 identified role indicators of reading coordi- nators was classified into one of four areas: Consulting. Bringing 51 About Change. Working with Reading Materials. and Coordinating District Programs. Included 1.1 1.2 1.4 LS 1.6 1.7 1.8 Included 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 under Consulting were: Serve as resource to teachers/grade. Teach demonstration lessons. Help with diagnostic testing and grouping of students. Inform teachers of professional-growth activities available. Work with content-area teachers to integrate reading activities. Serve as consultant to parents. Work with students with reading problems in a pull-out program. Work with students with reading problems within the regular classroom. under Bringing About Change were: Help write criteria for evaluating reading personnel. Help with needs assessments to use in setting goals. Help plan inservice. Present inservice sessions. Help set goals for schools and/or grade levels. Help set objectives for district. Recommend policy changes involving reading programs. Help implement changes in reading instruction. Included 3.1 3.2 3.3 3 .4 3 .5 3.6 3.7 Included 4.1 4.2 4.7 4.8 4.9 52 under Working with Reading Materials were: Help construct or revise reading curriculum materials. Work with committees to evaluate and recommend textbooks. Be familiar with a wide variety of teaching materials in the area of reading. Share information about reading materials with teachers. Help make reading materials available to teachers. Help make vacation packets of reading materials for students. Work with parents in making and learning reading games (game workshops). under Coordinating District Program were: Involve community in reading program. Conduct and share research in reading. Help plan budgets to make reading a priority. Serve as resource person to principal. Prepare reading reports for board. community. Serve as communication link between administration and school. Participate in professional reading-related activities. Coordinate district reading-incentive programs (R.I.F.. etc.). Coordinate district reading-testing program. The data collected and the relationships developed through these classifications were used to test Hypotheses 1 through 3. The researcher coded the survey data with the assistance of personnel from the Michigan State University Computer Center. ‘The researcher sorted 53 the surveys according to the respondents' school districts. Michigan State University Computer Center personnel transferred the coded responses to computer punch cards. (The computer codes used are shown in the AppendixJ Control punch cards were made for all 191 coded surveys. Whose: BesoaLanuosttons Four research questions were posed to guide the collection of data for the study: 1. What reading coordinator roles will be chosen as "very extremely important” by most respondents in the rating scale section of the survey instrument? 2. Is there a significant difference among respondents. based on whether a reading coordinator is assigned to his/her building? 3. Is there a significant difference among elementary school classroom teachers. elementary school principals. and reading coordi- nators as to the roles chosen as the most important among those listed on the rating scale? 4. Is there a significant difference among respondents from the three school districts--Bay City. Midland. and Saginaw--as to the roles chosen as most important for the reading coordinator? 54 Hyoothosos Three hypotheses were formulated to guide the statistical analysis of data in the study: Hypothesjs_1: There is no statistically significant difference among elementary school principals. reading coordinators. and ele- mentary classroom teachers concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. lflypothesis_z: There is no statistically significant difference between respondents with reading coordinators assigned to their buildings and those without such coordinators. concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. Hypothesis;3: There is no statistically significant difference among respondents from the three school districts surveyed. con- cerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. W The data were programmed uSing the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Version 9 (Nie. Hull. Jenkins. Steinbrenner. & Bent. 1975). and processed by the Control Data Corporation Cyber 750 computer at Michigan State University. The following analyses were performed: 1. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedure with appropriate F-tests was used to determine whether significant differ— ences existed among respondents in terms of mean scores on the priori- tized list of role indicators in the areas of Consulting. Bringing About Change. Working with Reading Materials. and Coordinating District Programs. 2. A MANOVA procedure with F-tests was used to determine whether significant differences existed among respondents in different positions (elementary classroom teacher. elementary school principal. 55 or reading coordinator). in terms of mean scores on the prioritized list of reading coordinator roles. 3. A MANOVA procedure with F-tests was used to determine whether significant differences existed among respondents from the three school districts. in terms of mean scores on the prioritized list of reading coordinator roles. 4. A MANOVA procedure with F-tests was used to determine whether significant differences existed among respondents with and without reading coordinators assigned to their buildings. in terms of mean scores on the prioritized list of reading coordinator roles. The .05 level of significance was selected for all of the statistical tests. The results of the data analyses conducted in this research are presented and discussed in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction The major purpose of this study was to identify the role of the reading coordinator. In this chapter. the data collected through the survey instrument is presented. The results of various analyses of the data are examined. and implications of the research findings are discussed. The chapter concludes with a summary. Ibc_Er_ior_itizod_List_of_Bol_e_Ind.icatons The rating scale selection process was used to formulate a prioritized list of role indicators for reading coordinators. The researcher identified 32 role indicators. which were classified under four comprehensive roles. These comprehensive roles and role indi- cators were printed on a rating scale. ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 6 (very extremely important) and sent to the study par- ticipants. A multiple-response program was used to record the respond- ents' ratings of the role indicators. MW Each participant was asked to circle one number to the left of each role indicator. which would show how important he or she thought the role indicator was. In Table 1. the role indicators are listed 56 57 according to the scale rating preference. from Very Extremely Important to Important. The largest number of respondents selecting the role indicator was used as the criterion for the ranking. This ranking of role indicators fulfilled one of the purposes of the study. namely. to formulate a prioritized list of role indicators as determined by practicing elementary classroom teachers. elementary school principals. and reading coordinators. The highest ranking. Very Extremely Important. had 12 role indicators with the highest percentages of respondents prioritizing them in this ranking. The 12 role indicators of the reading coordinators' role that were ranked Very Extremely Important were: Be familiar with a wide variety of teaching materials in the area of reading Share information about reading materials with teachers Help make reading materials available to teachers Help with diagnostic testing and grouping of students Serve as resource to teachers/grade Work with students with reading problems in a pull-out program Work with committees to evaluate and recommend textbooks Help implement changes in reading instruction Coordinate district reading incentive programs (RIF. etc.) Serve as resource person to principal Work with parents in making and learning reading games (game workshops) 58 Table l.--Ranking of 32 role indicators, with number of times selected and percentage of respondents selecting each indicator (N: 191). . Times Percent Role IndIcator Rank Selected of N Very Extremely Important 8e familiar with a wide variety of teaching materials in reading l 100 52.A Share information about reading mate- rials with teachers 2 98 51.3 Help make reading materials available to teachers 3 99 99-2 Help with diagnostic testing and grouping of students 71 37.2 Serve as resource to teachers/grade 65 39.0 Wbrk with students with reading problems in a pull-out program 6 69 33.5 Work with committees to evaluate and recommend textbooks 7 63 33.0 Help implement changes in reading instruction 8 56 29.3 Coordinate district reading incentive programs (RIF, etc.) 9 50 26.2 Recommend policy changes involving reading programs 9 50 26.2 Serve as resource person to principal lO #9 25.7 Work with parents in making and learning reading games (game workshops) 11 Ah 23.0 Extremely Important Coordinate district reading-testing programs 12 68 35.6 Help set objectives for district 13 62 32.5 Help set goals for schools and/or grade levels 1h 58 30.h Participate in professional reading- related activities 15 51 26.7 Serve as consultant to parents 15 51 26.7 59 Table l.--Continued. . Times Percent Role IndIcator Rank Selected of N Help construct or revise reading cur- riculum materials 16 A9 25.7 Present inservice sessions 17 #8 25.1 Help with needs assessments to use in setting goals 18 A7 2h.6 Help plan inservice 19 95 23.6 Very Important Help make vacation packets for students 20 50 26.2 Important Help write criteria for evaluating reading personnel 21 56 29.3 Teach demonstration lessons 21 56 29.3 Inform teachers of professional-growth activities available 22 53 27.7 Involve community in reading program 22 53 27.7 Conduct and share research in reading 23 51 26.7 Work with content-area teachers to integrate reading activities 29 50 26.2 Prepare reading reports for board, community 25 99 25.7 Serve as communication link between administration and school 26 #8 25.1 Help plan budgets to make reading a priority 27 92 22.2 Work with students with reading problems within the regular classroom 23 #1 21.5 60 WW onotnoslsJ The data were analyzed to determine whether there was a statis- tically significant difference among elementary school principals. reading coordinators. and elementary classroom teachers concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. Hypothesis 1 stated: There is no statistically significant difference among elementary school principals. reading coordinators. and elementary classroom teachers concerning their perception of the reading coordinator's role. In the Base Data Survey. the respondents indicated their present position: classroom teacher. principal. or reading coordi- nator. In analyzing the data forthis hypothesis. ratings of the role indicators were examined by position group. Statistically significant differences (at the .05 level of significance) existed among respond- ents in the three position groups. in terms of their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. (See Tables 2 through 5). As Tables 2. 3. and 5 indicate. there were statistically significant differences among respondents in the three position groups concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role of Consulting. Bringing About Change. and Coordinating District Programs. As shown in Table 2. the role indicators of Consulting on which there were significant differences at the .05 level in the multivariate analysis were: Serve as resource to teacher/grade. Teach demonstration lessons. Work with content area teachers. and Work with students in a pull-out program. 61 ._00. v ness ._0. v use .mo. v as ECOmee_o smms._ oon.m o_mm._ Neeo.m Nm_~._ emo~.m Lm_smut can :_;u_: meo_eota mc_cmoL zu_3 mucocaum no.3 Joe: .238. same. 886 3%.. $35 $8.. $3.: 288: 39:2. m E 26303 mc_umuc no.3 mucovaum zu_3 xcoz gem... comm.: nmmo._ .smo.: :_mm._ mono.: mucocma cu Hana—emcee mm o>cum «£38. 82.. 8%... 28.. 33.: 3%.. 3.56 823:2. 9.38.. 32985 8 nuanceOH moLqucODcoo ;u_z xcoz :Nmo._ oo~_.: o:~:._ mauo.: _:_:._ aawm.m o_ne__m>m mo_u_>_uom cuzocm , I_mco_mmomoLo mo neocooOu anewc_ «om... ooom.: mom~._ .nmm.: mmom._ mmmo.: mucovaum mo mc_o:oLm vcm mc_umuu u_um0cmm_c cum: a_u: «m:~mo. m_o~._ ommm.m mo__._ omen.: omNm._ ~_mm.m meOmmD. co_umcumcoeou coach .388. 88.. 23... 3%. Some can; 3?... 32m \mcocom0u Cu ouc36moL mm o>com am and: cm emu: om coo: o_umxuo Aawlzv omuz -_Iz Dummcm>_c: Leumc_ecooQ .mhmoc_wa Mosomow Leumo_ec_ 0.6: mc_umom >cmucoeo_u eoomem_u .m:_u_:mc0u mo u_0c on» com oocm_cm> to mum>_mcm cum—Lm>_c: can eum_cm>_u_:s mo mu_:mozuu.~ 0—3mh 62 ._oo. v a««« ._o. v a«« .mo. v a« ««mmooo. mwo~._ oomw.: mqoc._ .mm_.m mnem._ moum.e co_uuagumc_ m:.voog c. momcmcu waved—as. a_o: «««N:ooo. Noe... oomm.q oxmm. omnm.: :mmm._ __m_.: mEmLmoLa mc_umo. m=_>_o>=_ momcmzu >u__oa vcoEEouom «ommNo. ommm. oo:o.: mmoo._ m_~w.: n:-._ mmm_.: uu_Lum_u Lou mu>_uuuqao gum a_o: «_~N_o. _owo._ oooo.: m_mo._ ocmm.: m~_m._ mnoo.: m_o>u_ ovmgm .0\vcm m_oo:0m no» m_m0m you a_o: ««mm:oo. me~._ mmwo.: cam... mo_m.: «mo:._ mamm.m mco_mmom ou_>gum:_ acumen; «mqmoo. .mo~._ omum.: m~w_._ m:ow.: mNmm._ moso.: ou_>L»mc_ =~_q a_o= «««m_ooo. mos... mmmm.a “Nmo._ mm:m.: womm._ mmom.m m_mom mc_uumm c. on: cu mucoEmmummm mvuu: cu_3 a_o: «m_m_o. wo_m._ oom~.: o:mm.. maww.m mom:.. coca.m .occomLoa mc_umo. mc_um=_m>u no» m_guu_gu uu_53 a_u: om cmoz om emu: om cmmz o_um¢-u Aawuzv Ammuzv ANN—nzv oum_gm>_:: Leumc_vgooQ .ma_uc_gm Locum0h Leumu_tc_ v.01 mc_cm0¢ >Lmuccsm_m 5005mmm_u .omcm:u usoa< mc_mc_gm *0 0.0; «cu Lo» mucm_gm> mo mom>_mcm mum_gm>_c: ucm oum_gm>_u_:e mo mu_:momsn.m o_nmh 63 Amaosmxgoz m:5m._ ooam.m u:m:.. :_mm.a «mom._ oumm.m usmmv magma mc_uau. mc_=.mu_ vcm mc_xms c. mucogma ;u_: :50: :oum._ oomo.: Nkma._ wo_m.m oon._ moom.m mucuuaum Lo» m_m_.oume m:_uou. mo muoxuma co_umum> oxms a_o: om__._ oooo.m Nun... mmzm.: omoo._ o~_~.m muonumou cu u_nm__m>m m_m_guume wc_vmoL oxms a_o: om__._ ooo~.m :mmm. :mmm.m ooo_._ o_o_.m mgunumOH zu_3 m_m_guume m:_vmug «scam comamELOmc_ «gnaw . m:_vmog mo moLm .NNmm. comm.m m:~n. amoq.m memo._ oo:..m ecu :. m_m_.uuas mc_;umou mo >uo_gm> uu_3 m ;u_3 gm...Euw on mmeo._ oomm.: omm~._ omnm.: mmw~._ mm:m.: meOnuxou acoEEOuoL can muma_m>u cu moouu_eeou ;u_3 x503 onwm._ oom~.: ommm._ ooom.: _m:~._ Numm.a m_m_LoumE E:_:u_ggau mc_umoL um.>og Lo uuagumcou a.o: om :moz om cmoz om com: oum_um¢-u Aa~uzv Aomuzv A-_.zv Leumu_uc_ o_om .Lm>_c: Laumc_6500u .ma_uc_gm Lozumoh mc_vmo¢ >LmucoEo_m eoomem_u ;u_3 mc_xgoz mo 0—0; 0;» no» oucm_gm> mo mom>_mcm .m_m_goumz mc_vmox mum_gm>_c: new cum—Lm>_u_:s mo mu_:mo¢|u.: o_nm» 6h .88. v 9: .mo. v a« EmgmoLa a:_umuu um:_vmuL uu_Lum_u ouoc.v500u mmmm._ oom~.: mwmm._ ___m.: oom~._ mom:.: A.uuo .u_¢v msmgmoLa u>_u:uuc_ nmc_umoL uu_gum_v came—vLOOQ «mwmmo. om_m._ no_m.: «on... nw-.: “mom._ mmm~.: mo_u_>_uum vuum_ognmc_vmug _mco_mmowoLa c. ouna.u_ugmm mam; ooomé 3mm; mummé «mama.— o~_m.m .0033. van cOthflcEvm :33an x:.. co_umu_caseou mm o>gom mmo4._ oo~m.m “mm~._ momn.m onm._ am~m.m >u_==esou .u.mon no» mugoaog m:_umog eunuch; ««moooo. o_m~._ ooom.: 04mm. .mo_.m wa:._ mawm.m .ma_uc_ga ‘ cu camgua ou530mog mm o>gom .mmm._ omfiw.m -m:._ mm:m.m omum._ -mm.m >u,.o_.a m u=_uao. cxme cu muumvan cm_a a_u= _w_m._ ~_mfi.m ~mm:.. mum~.: mmam._ mmmo.m m=_umu. :_ cuumumog chasm ucm uuavcoQ momm._ m_:o.: num:._ .amo.: ammm._ “mon.m EmLmoLa mc_vmog c. >u_c:EEou o>_o>c_ om emu: am cam: on cmoz o_ummau Aawuzv Ammuz n~_lz oummgm>_c: Laumc_vL00u .ma_uc_wm Mozumow gaumu_tc_ 0_om mc_omom >Lmucmeo_w soomem_u mc_umcmukooQ $0 6.0; ecu Low oucm_gm> mo mom>_mcm .EmgmoLu m.uu_gum_o cum—Lm>_c: vcm oum_Lm>_u_:E mo mu_:muxnu.m o_amh 65 The mean differences among the three groups on these four roie indi- cators of Consuiting are shown in Figure 1. 5i 5- A D ’ A 4- o G g B Q) I: 3. 21 1 . Teachers Principais Reading ConsuTtants Figure 1.--Mean differences among position groups on roie indicators for Consuiting. (A = Serve as resource to teacher/grade. B = Teach demonstration Tessons. C = Work with content area teachers. D = Work with students in a puTT-out program) The resuits of this study did not specificaiiy support any of the research reported in Chapter II. except for the fact that the ciassroom teachers. principais. and reading coordinators did not c1ear1y agree on the perceived roTe of the reading coordinator (Hyiie. 1969). Aithough a1] three groups of respondents in this study agreed that the reading coordinator's roie shouid inc‘lude diagnostic testing and grouping of students. informing teachers of professional growth activities avaiiabie. serving as consuTtant to parents. and working 66 with students with reading problems within the regular classroom. there seemed to be disagreement on the other four role indicators under the comprehensive role of Consulting (see Figure l). Bean's (1979) report of the project conducted by the Pittsburgh City School District and seven other school districts across the country noted that the classroom teachers' most highly valued role for reading coordinators was that of resource person to the teacher. The least valued roles chosen by classroom teachers in that study were individual diagnosis in the classroom. group diagnosis in the class- room. and group instruction. which disagreed with the results of the present study. Although the Pittsburgh project emphasized the instruc- tional role of the reading specialist. respondents in the present study valued time spent with the teacher more highly than instructional time. In this study. the reading coordinator's serving as resource to the teacher or grade was rated highest by principals. next highest by reading coordinators. and lowest by classroom teachers (see Figure l). Magieri and Heimberger's (1980) research findings differed from the findings of this study with regard to administrators perceiving the reading coordinator's most important role to be instruction and diagnosis. whereas reading coordinators preferred an inservice and resource person role. The principals in this study seemed to rate serving as resource to teacher/grade. teaching demonstration lessons. and working with content area teachers much more highly than did classroom teachers and reading coordinators. The principals rated the role indicator working 67 with students in a pull-out program much lower than did reading coordinators and classroom teachers (see Figure 1). This might be interpreted to indicate a need that principals perceive in staff development. All of the role indicators for Bringing About Change indicated a statistically significant difference at the .05 level among respondents in the three position groups in the multivariate analysis. The role indicators on which significant differences existed among participant groups' ratings were: Help write criteria for evaluating reading personnel. Help with needs assessments to use in setting goals. Help plan inservice. Present inservice sessions. Help set goals for schools and/or grade levels. Help set objectives for district. Recom— mend policy changes involving reading programs. and Help implement changes in reading instruction. The mean differences of all the role indicators of Bringing About Change are shown in Figure 2. The results of the analysis of classroom teachershi princi- palsh. and reading coordinators' perceptions of the role of Bringing About Change were highly significant. Help write criteria for evalu- ating reading personnel and Help implement changes in reading instruction were the most diversified of the eight role indicators. Principals gave a higher rating than the other respondent groups to all of the role indicators except Help write criteria for evaluating read- ing personnel (see Figure 2). The findings seem to»indicate that principals felt the role indicators for bringing about change were more important than did the classroom teachers or reading coordinators. 'The 68 researcher interpreted this to mean that the principals perceived the role of the reading coordinator to be that of a change agent in the area of reading. 6 e H 5 o _ G /\__ E , fl #1 E 4 d; ’5 I; A c D f0 0 I 3 h 2 n 1 n Teachers Principals Reading Consultants Figure 2.--Mean differences among position groups on role indicators for Bringing About Change. (A = Help write criteria for evaluating reading personnel. B = Help with needs assess- ments to use in setting goals. C = Help plan inservice. D = Present inservice sessions. E = Help set goals for schools and/or grade levels. F = Help set objectives for district. G Recommend policy changes involving reading programs. H Help implement changes in reading instruction) The role indicators for Bringing About Change include many staff-development items. such as Help plan inservice. Present inservice sessions. Help set goals for school and/or grade level. and Help set objectives for district. These results support Bean's (1979) report of the project conducted by the Pittsburgh City School District. one of 69 whose priorities was inservice training of teachers. The present study also lends support to the Stauffer investigation (1967). in which the reading coordinators preferred to do staff development and consulting to prevent reading failure rather than to do remediation. The findings of Wylie's (1969) study were again supported in the present research; classroom teachers. reading coordinators. and school administrators had conflicting perceptions of the reading specialist's major functions. In the multivariate analysis. no statistically significant differences were found at the .05 level among the three respondent groups concerning their perceptions of the role indicators of Working with Reading Materials. All of the respondent groups in this study seemed to accept the reading coordinator's role of Working with Reading Materials because no significant differences existed among respondents' ratings of the role indicators. As there were no significant differences among the respondents' ratings of these role indicators. there was more agreement within this role than the other general roles. The two role indicators that were rated lower than the others in this comprehensive role were Help make vacation packets of reading materials for students and Work with parents in making and learning reading games (game workshop). The mean scores for the other five role indicators were around the 5.0 mark. which. according to the rating scale. is Extremely Important. Wylie (1969) found that elementary teachers viewed the role of the reading coordinator as a supplier of materials. In this study. the 70 respondents also felt the coordinator should be concerned with mate- rials. On two role indicators under the general role Coordinating District Programs. statistically significant differences (at the .05 level) existed among respondent groups. These role indicators were Serve as resource person to principal and Participate in professional reading-related activities. ‘The mean differences among the three groups for these role indicators are shown in Figure 3. 5 n 54» _ B / A 4 j > C m 0 z 34f 2T 1 v Teachers Principals Reading Consultants Figure 3.--Mean differences among position groups on role indicators for Coordinating District's Programs. (A = Serve as resource person to principal. B = Participate in profes- sional reading-related activities) Of the three position groups surveyed. principals rated these two role indicators higher than did classroom teachers. ‘The role 7i indicator concerning participating in professional reading-related activities was rated slightly higher by reading coordinators than by classroom teachers or principals. Respondents agreed that the remaining role indicators under this comprehensive role area were Important to Very Important. As a result of the data analysis. Hypothesis 1 was rejected. Statistically significant differences did exist among respondents in the three position groups with regard to their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. .Hxnntbesis_2 The data were analyzed to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in how respondents perceived the role of the reading coordinator. depending on whether a reading coordinator was assigned to their building. 0n the Base Data Survey. classroom teachers and principals were asked if a reading coordinator was assigned to their school. Hypothesis 2 stated: There is no statistically significant difference between respond- ents with reading coordinators assigned to their buildings and those without such coordinators. concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. A multivariate and a univariate test were performed on the 32 identified role indicators. Tables 6 through 9 show the results of these tests. Statistically significant differences existed on two role indicators of the Consulting role (Table 6). The two role indicators on which a significant difference was found between respondents with reading coordinators assigned to their buildings and those without 72 were: Work with students with reading problems in a pull-out program and Work with students with reading problems within the regular classroom. The mean differences between respondents with and those without reading coordinators in terms of how they perceived these two role indicators are shown in Figure 4. 4 m \ A 3 -P \\ B Mean With Without Figure 4.--Mean differences between respondents with and without reading coordinators on role indicators for Consulting. (A = Work with students with reading problems in a pull-out program. B = Work with students with reading problems within the regular classroom) Both groups of respondents viewed the role of the reading coordinator very much the same. The respondents who had reading coordinators rated working with students with reading problems in a pull-out program higher than did those without reading coordinators. The respondents who had reading coordinators assigned to their 73 ._oo. v a« .mo. v a; acetamm_o «Rem—o. m_mm._ o_~m.~ .mmm._ _-¢.m LflameL use :_;u_z mau_aoaa m:_umoc cu_3 mucouaum cu_3 xcoz .«smooo. m-m._ mmo~.m mm~s._ mmmo.s smamoaa “so-__=a m c. usu_soaa mc_vooc :u_z mucovaum ;u_3 sap: acmm._ .mn_.: Nam... o:mo.: mucucma ou ucmu_:mcou me u>com _~:m._ ~_:m.m mm-.. ~m__.: mo_s_>_aum mc_emoa «because. as mconumuu mucmuucoucou ;u_3 xcoz :mo:._ mamw.m o~_:._ mnmo.: u_nm__m>m mo_u~>.uem :uZOam , :_e:o_mmomoLn mo mconumou atom:- :_m:._ mmmm.s mmm_._ Nosm.: mscoesam to mc_a:oam ecu mc_umou u_umocmm_v ;u_3 a_o= «Non._ mmmm.m swam._ o_mm.m mnemmu_ cohumcumcoeeu sneak qus._ Numm.q ~c-._ s-e.s oemam \mcozomou ou «eczema; me o>cum omummnm am cmoz om coo: cOumu : o o oum_5m>mc= Awmlzv Aw__lzv _v _ _ a ozone—3 :u_3 mc_u_:mcou we .mcoum:_ucoou m:_umoL u30cu_3\;u_z mucuvcoamoc mcosm 0—0; use to» oucm_cm> we mom>_mcm oum_cm>_c: one mum—cm>_u_:e mo mu_:mo¢n:.o o_nmh 7h wmom._ mmum.: smm~._ :ms:.s co_uu=aamc_ acmemoa c. momcmcu geese—as. a_o: wmwm._ m:n~.: _om~._ mm~:.: mEmcmOLQ mc_nmoc mc_>_o>:_ momcmcu >u__oa ecoeeouom m_~m._ mm__.: 5mm... mmom.: uu_cum_u co» mo>_uuomno uom a_o: ~o_m.. mmom.m _om_._ _:m~.a m_e>o_ oemcm ao\e:m m_oo;um Low m_mom yum a_o: nmaw._ mmn_.: _~_m._ o:wo.: mcommmom ou_>comc_ «comet; ~__s._ mumm.s seem._ m_m_.s uu_>aemc_ cm_a a.o= :m~m.. _em_.: o__m._ om~..: m_mom m:_uaom c_ um: cu mucoEmmumma move: ;u_3 a_o: m:n:.. wmom.m :__m._ oncm.m .occomcoa mc_umoc mc_um:_m>o com emcee—Lu ou_c3 a_o: o_ummnu om cmoz am new: oum_cm>_c: Ammnzv Aw__nzv coumu_vc_ o_om unocu_3 no.3 .maOumc_ULoOu mc_vmoc unocu_z\cu_z nucuvcoamuc macaw omcmcu unca< mc_mc_cm mo o_0c ecu co» oucm_cm> mo mom>_mcm oum_cm>_c: can uum_cm>_u_:e mo mu_:mozuu.n o_amb 75 Amaozmxcoz momm._ oooo.: mwmm._ memo.: osmmv meson mc_vmoc mc_ccmo. can mc_xme c_ mucucee ;u_3 x503 ~mom.. mam—.a mmm:._ Noam.m mucouaum com m_m_coume mc_vmoc mo muoxuma co_umum> oxme a_o: _:m_._ om__.m mmmm. m~:_.m mausumou cu o_am__m>e m_m_coume mc_eooL axes a_o: :~mo._ oom~.m mnmo.. m~:_.m maozumou no.3 m_m_aoume m:_vmoc uzonm co_uMELomc_ ocmzm m:_vmoc mo mote om__._ oom~.m m_om. ~_0N.m use :_ m_m_aoame mc_;umuu co >uo_cm> 06.3 m 3a.: Lm___Emm om Nom~._ mmoo.: osm~._ mmmo.: mxoOnuxou ecoeeouoa ecu oum:_m>u Ou moouu_550o ;u_z xcoz mam... munm.: mo_m._ .on:.: m_m_coume E:_:u_cc:u m:_vm0c om_>oc co uoacumcou a_o: 0—HNKIL CW :00: GM :8: oom.Lm>_c: Ammuzv Am__lzv topmome:_ o_o¢ unocu_3 gum: . .maoumc_ecoou mc_vmoc unocu_3\;u_z mucoucoamoc macaw m_m_aouez mchumuz ;u_3 mc_xcoz mo o_oc one to» oocm_am> wo mom>_mcm oum_cm>_c: new oum_am>_u_:e mo mu_:moxsu.m o.amh 76 .mo. v a« m_om._ Noms.s m~o~._ mm_:.q saamoaa mc_amus :mc_vmoc uu_cum_v vane—ecoou mmhm._ hm_m.s ~m-._ ousm.q A.uuu .a.¢v mentmoaa u>_ucuuc. sac—vac. uu_cum_v cues—ucooQ mm::.. .mm_.: ~m-._ osm:.; mu_u_>_uum eoam_ua-mc_euoa .mco_mmomoca c_ oumn_o_ucma omee._ eons.m e:_s._ Nomm.m .oogum ecu co_amaum_c_2em cuozuon xc._ co_umu_caeeou mm o>com mmu:._ mmo~.m m~m~._ ooom.m >u_c:eeou .ecmon cow mucoaoc mc_emoc ocmnocm mm_e._ mmm_.: _omm._ -m~.s .ma_uc_aa cu acmcoo ooczomoc mm o>com ommm._ _m~m.m mm::._ m_mm.m >u_ao_aa a mc_emua axes cu muomvsn ce_a a_o: o:m:.. wcmw.m mmnm._ __mn.m mc_vmoc c. gucmomoc ocmnm use uuaucOQ «_o~_o. moum._ ommo.: nmm~._ m_~o.m smcmoaa mc_vmoc c. >u_caeeoo o>_o>:_ o_ummnm om see: on com: mum—cm>_:= ANmqu Am__uzv LOHmo_vc_ o_om uaonu_3 ;u_3 .mcoum:_vaooo mc_umoc uaogumz\;u_3 mucoccoamoc macaw mamcmoca uubcum.a mc_umc_uaoou we v.0. one com oucm_am> yo mom>_ecm uum_cm>_c: ucm uuo_ao>_u_:e mo mu_:muzuu.m o_amb 77 buildings also rated working with students with reading problems within the regular classroom much higher than did respondents without reading coordinators. 'This finding might be interpreted in two ways: (1) respondents with reading coordinators were in a situation in which a reading coordinator was needed. and/or (2) respondents without read- ing coordinators were in a situation that did not require such a resource person. There was a significant difference at the .05 level concerning one role indicator in the role area of Coordinating District Programs (Table 9). The one indicator on which a significant difference existed between the respondents who had a reading coordinator and those who did not was Involve community in reading program. The mean difference between respondents with and without reading coordinators. concerning how they perceived that one role indicator. are shown in Figure 5. The researcher interpreted the fact that the two respondent groups differed on the comprehensive role of Coordinating District Programs (the respondents with reading coordinators rated the role indicator Involve community in reading program lower than did those without a reading coordinator) to mean that the need for this role indicator was not as great as if there were no reading coordinator to function in this capacity. The multivariate and univariate tests showed no statistically significant differences at the .05 alpha level between respondents who had reading coordinators and those who did not. concerning the role areas Bringing About Change and Working with Reading Materials (Tables 78 7 and 8). Perceptions of respondents with and those without reading coordinators were alike concerning the role indicators under these two role areas. The researcher interpreted this to mean that these are acceptable roles as perceived by most educators in the elementary schools. 6h- Mean With Without Figure 5.--Mean differences between respondents with and without reading coordinators on role indicator for Coordi- nating District Programs. (A = Involve community in reading program) Not enough difference at the.DS alpha level was indicated by the multivariate and univariate tests to indicate a statistically significant difference existed between respondents who had reading coordinators assigned to their buildings and those who did not. 79 concerning their perceptions of the role of the reading coordinator. Therefore. Null Hypothesis 2 could not be rejected. W3 The data were analyzed to determine whether there was a statis- tically significant difference among respondents from the Midland. Bay City. and Saginaw school districts concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. Hypothesis 3 stated: There is no statistically significant difference among respondents from the three school districts surveyed. concerning their percep- tions of the reading coordinator's role. A multivariate and a univariate analysis of variance were performed on the data to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference among participants from the three school dis- tricts concerning how they perceived the role of the reading coordi- nator. The results of these tests are shown in Tables l0 through l3. There was a statistically significant difference at the .05 alpha level among respondents from the three districts in terms of their perceptions of the reading coordinator's Consulting role (Table 10% The two role indicators on which a significant difference existed were Work with students with reading problems in a pull-out program and Work with students with reading problems within the regular classroom. The mean differences among respondents from the three school districts in how they perceived these two indicators under the role of Consulting are shown in Figure 6. 80 .8. v92 .3. a. EOOcmmm_u ..smmoo. m_wm._ .mmo.m mm:~._ .eoN.m “mum._ ~amo.~ am_=moa use c_;u_z mso_soaa mc_nmoc ;u_3 mucouaum no.3 xcoi «asemo. Nemm._ moue.: msem._ su~..: ~_e~._ __~m.m smamoaa “so-__=a a c. msu_aoaa mc_vmoc ;u_3 mucuvsum :u_z xcoz os_m._ m_om.m mm-.. om::.s Noo~._ mwso.s macotma ou scmu_=m=ou mm u>aom ~mm~._ mo~_.s o-s._ ~_:o.: wees._ nsmm.m mo,u_>_aua ac.eaoa uaaamou:_ ob mcocumou mocmsucoucou no.3 xccz owsm._ ammo.: mmsm._ mo_m.m Nosm._ m~m_.: o_sm__a>m no_a_>_uuo zuzoam . :_mco_mmomoLa mo mcosumuu stoke. ~mm... m~mm.s smmm._ mo_m.s mmus._ _~:m.: mucoeaum to mc_asoam ecu mc_umou u.umocmm_u ;u_3 a_o= Nsmm._ ~_mm.m mome._ nam~.n m-:._ auss.m meow... co_amaamcoeoe gone» moNN._ unmo.: _m_s.. oms:.s m_e_._ o~mo.m manta \mguzumvu Ou Gog—40mm.» mm 0>L0m cmo cmo cmv o_sm¢-a cm x cm x cm : toumu_e=_ o_o¢ uum_tm>_c= A_o_nzv Amsnzv Ammuzv zacsmmm >s.u sac ecm_e.z .muu_cum_v .0050» ecu macaw mc_u_:mcou mo v.0; use to» oocm_tm> we mom>_mcm uum_am>_c: ecu oum_cm>_u_:e mo mu_:mu¢n:.o_ o_am» 8] ._o. v nae .mo. v ca «memeo. m:_m._ mow:.a mamm._ mnom.: ocam. nmsm.: co_uuacumc_ mc_emoc c_ momcmnu ucoEu_aE_ a_o: mmm~._ :om:.s ~m_m._ ~so_.: m_s_._ ~sme.s msmtmoaa mc_emoa m:_>_o>=_ momcmsu >u__oe nauseouox .msmuo. mam... so~m.s cmm~._ eoem.m m.m_._ memo.s au_aom_e tot mo>_uuoaao so. a_o= «Nam—o. m_o~._ omm~.: omam._ mo_m.m o:~o.. o_me.: m.o>o_ oemam toxecm m_oo;um to» m_mom you a_o: ooam._ Noam.m ocw:._ nmm~.: o~::.. nmn:.: mco_mnum oo_>cumc_ ucomucm «amo_oo. mmum._ omoo.: muo:._ mmm_.: ~mmo.. «nam.: uu_>comc. cm_e a_u: m_m~._ mw~m.: anom._ mo:c.: onN._ mmww.: m_mom mc_uuum c_ um: ou mucoEmmommm memo: ;u_3 a_o: own:._ cemm.m onao._ 4mm:.m m_nm._ nqmm.m .occomcua m:_emoc m:_un:_m>o to» o_cou_co uu_az n_uz o_umxsm om emu: om cmoz am can: uum_cm>_c: A_o_lzv Amanzv Awmlzv coumu_nc_ 0—0: zmc_mmm >a_u sum ecm_e_z .muu_cum_u .oo;um ecu mcosm omcmzu uaoa< mc_mc_cm mo v.0; any to» oucm_cm> mo mom>_mcm oum_5m>_c: new oum_cm>_u_:e mo mu_:mo¢::.__ u_nmh 82 ..ooo. v 0« .maocmxcoz gem... m_mm.m o_a0._ :NN... .oom._ mumo.: 05mm. magma m=_e~oa u=_:amo_ 0:0 00.xme 0. 0000.00 50.3 xcoz 0.00.. 0000.: 0000.. 0m~..: ~0N:.. mwnm.m muc0vaum to. m.m.couee 00.000. .0 000x000 co.umom> 0x05 0.0: m:00.. m0...m :00~.. 0mmm.: .m.m. mamm.m 00050000 0» 0.00..m>m 0.0.00005 00.000; 0.05 0.0: m~m0.. wmo..m 0m0~.. ~.00.m mmNN. umn:.m mc0cum0u 50.3 m.m.c0ume 0:. -000; 00000 co.umscouc. 0cmzm 00.000. .0 00cm 0mom. m~m..m n.m~.. ~.00.m 0:~m. mumm.m 0;. 0. 0.0.L0uee 00.50000 mo >u0.cm> 00.3 m nu.3 cm...emm 00 «00000. 000N.. 0:mm.: mqm~.. .00m.: mmmw. nemm.m axoonux0u 00025000; 0:0 000 a:.m>0 ou m00uu.eeou 50.3 xcoz mmm~.. .mmm.: mm0~.. 005m.: Nm0m.. 0.m0.: m.m.c0ume E:.:o...:u 00.000; 0m.>0c co uuacumcou 0.0: 0.000-. cm :00: 0m :00: cm :00: 000.cm>.:: ..0.|zv .mauzv .wmuzv 00000.00. 0.00 zmc_mmm >uwu >mm ecm_e_z .muu.cum.v .00500 0zu mcoEm 0.0.c0umt mc.tmom 50.3 mc.xc03 00 0.0L 0zu to. 00:0.cm> mo m0m>.mcm 0am.Lm>.c: vcm 000.cm>.u.:s mo mu.:n0¢n:.~. 0.00h 83 ..0. v 000 .mo. v 0% 5000000 00.0000 n00.0000 00.000.0 0000.00000 mmmN.. m:~m.0 .n.m.. :NN..: n.m... mm00.: ..u00 .0_¢. 00000000 0>.00000. n00.0000 00.000.0 0000.00000 .o~0:o. _m_m.. mmmm.: ..0~.. 00NM.: mom... .m00.0 00.0_>.0um 0000.00-00.0000 .000.000mo00 0. 0000.0.0000 -.m.. 025m 9.9... meumé mNmm. 3&0 .0000... .00 00.00000.0.000 000300.. 00.. 00.000.000500 00 0>000 .«00N00. o.0~.. 0....m oo~m.. 000... 000... 00.... 00.0seeou .e0mo0 . 000 0000000 00.0000 0000000 0mm... 00.... 00m... 0000.. .mo... c00m.. .ma.u0.0a 00 000000 00000000 00 0>00m .om... mm00.m Nm.m.. 0000.m .mmo.. mo.~.: 00.00..0 0 00.0000 0x05 00 0000000 00.0 0.0: m..m.. 0000.m 00.... mm00.m m.~... 0000.. 00.0000 0. 00000000 00000 000 0000000 mum... ~000.m .0:m.. 00.0.m ~0.m.. 0000.: 0000000 00.0000 0. >0.0aseoo 0>.o>0. 0.00¢:0 om 000: om 000: 00 000: 000.00>.0: ..0.nz. .mauz. .mmnz. 00000.00. 0.0x 300.000 00.0 0.0 00000.: .00o.000.0 .00000 000 00050 05000000 00.000.0 00.000.00000 00 0.00 000 000 0000.00> 00 000>.000 000.00>.0: 000 000.00>.0.:E 00 00.:00:::.m. 0.00h 8h Mean 0: w Midland Bay City Saginaw Figure 6.--Mean differences among respondents from the three school districts on role indicators for Consulting. (A = Work with students with reading problems in a pull-out program. B = Work with students with reading problems in the regu- lar classroom) Concerning the role area of Bringing About Change. the tests showed a statistically significant difference at the .05 level among respondents from the three school districts concerning four role indicators (Table ll). These indicators were Help plan inservice. Help set goals for schools and/or grade levels. Help set objectives for district. and Help implement changes in reading instruction. The mean differences among respondents from the three school districts concern- ing how they perceived these four indicators under Bringing About Change are shown in Figure 7. 85 U1 1.— an) 0 Mean Midland Bay City Saginaw Figure 7.--Mean differences among respondents from the three school districts on role indicators for Bringing About Change. (A = Help plan inservice. B = Help set goals for schools and/or grade levels. C = Help set objectives for district. D = Help implement changes in reading instruction) Participants from the three school districts differed signifi- cantly (at the .05 level) concerning one role indicator under the role area Working with Reading Materials (Table 12L The indicator was Work with committees to evaluate and recommend textbooks. Figure 8 shows the mean differences among participants from the three districts con- cerning how they perceived this role indicator. 86 Mean Midland Bay City Saginaw Figure 8.--Mean differences among respondents from the three school districts on role indicators for Working With Reading Materials. (A = Work with committees to evaluate and recommend textbooks) On two role indicators under the role area Coordinating Dis- trict Programs. a significant difference existed at the .05 level among participants from the three school districts. These two indicators were Prepare reading reports for board. community and Participate in professional reading-related activities. The mean differences among participants from the three districts concerning how they perceived these role indicators are shown in Figure 9. At the .05 alpha level. enough statistically significant dif- ference was found among participants from the Midland. Bay City. and Saginaw districts concerning their perceptions of the reading coordi- nator's role that Null Hypothesis 3 was rejected. 87 Mean Midland Bay City Saginaw Figure 9.--Mean differences among respondents from the three school districts on role indicators for Coordinating District Programs. (A = Prepare reading reports for board. community: B = Participate in professional reading- related activities) mm Data collected and analyzed in the research project were reported in this chapter. A prioritized list of role indicators was formulated. based on how survey participants perceived the role of the reading coordinator. Multivariate analyses of variance were conducted to test the three hypotheses formulated for the study; An analysis of variance was performed to determine»if a significant difference existed among classroom teachers. principals. and reading coordinators concerning how they perceived the reading coordinator's role (Hypothesis 1). An analysis of variance was also computed to determine whether there was a 88 significant difference in role perceptions between participants who had reading coordinators assigned to their buildings and those who did not (Hypothesis 2). An analysis of variance was performed to determine if a significant difference existed among respondents from the three school districts surveyed. concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role (Hypothesis 3). Based on the predetermined .05 level of significance. two of the three null hypotheses were rejected as a result of the analysis of variance. ‘There was a significant difference among classroom teachers. principals. and reading coordinators concerning how they perceived the role of the reading coordinator. There was no significant difference in role perceptions of respondents who had a reading coordinator assigned to their buildings and those who did not. A significant difference was found among respondents from the Midland. Bay City. and Saginaw school districts concerning how they perceived the role of the reading coordinator. In Chapter V. a further summary of results is provided and conclusions are drawn. In closing. recommendations are made for further research on the perceived role of the reading coordinator. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. FINDIMES. CONCLUSICNS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS mm In Chapter IV. results of the survey were presented. This chapter contains a summary of the study. the findings of this research. conclusions drawn from theistudy. and recommendations for further study and future action in using the survey results. mar! For this study null hypotheses were formulated that there would be no difference between elementary principals. classroom teachers. and reading coordinators in their perceptions of the role of the reading coordinator. A null hypothesis was formulated that there would be no difference between survey respondents who had a reading coordinator and those without. in terms of their perceptions of the reading coordi- nator's role. A null hypothesis was also formulated that there would be no difference between respondents from the three school districts as to their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. Three hundred surveys were mailed to all the elementary principals. all the reading coordinators. and a random sample of the classroom teachers from the Midland. Bay City. and Saginaw School Districts. From this mailing. 191 questionnaires were returned. and 89 90 these data were used for the study. Multivariate (Wilks lambda) and univariate analyses were used to analyze the data. Comparative differences in mean scores were the basis for reporting the survey results. A prioritized list of role indicators was developed from the statistical analysis of the study. Significant differences were found among the respondent groups concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. These differences and their implications are discussed in this chapter. Recommendations for further study and future implementation for change are also examined. findings Of the 32 role indicators for reading coordinators that were considered in this study. l2 were prioritized as Very Extremefly Impor- tant. Nine of the role indicators were selected by the respondents as Extremely Important. One role indicator was selected by a majority of respondents as Very Important. ‘Ten role indicators were rated by the majority of respondents as Important. Of the 12 that were prioritized as Very Extremely Important. 42 percent of the role indicators were from the comprehensive role of Working With Reading Materials. Findings of multivariate and univariate analyses of the data indicated significant differences among respondent groups on several role indicators. but most strongly on the role indicators of Bringing About Change. The mean differences concerning the role indicators for this comprehensive role indicated that elementary school principals rated these roles as a higher level of importance than did the other 91 two respondent groups. These results indicated disagreement among the position groups and possibly role conflict and role ambiguity for the reading coordinator. The other comprehensive role that showed the most significant difference among classroom teachers. elementary school principals. and reading coordinators was that of Consulting. Within this role and among the three groups of participants. four of eight (50 percent) role indicators showed disagreement. Although elementary school principals rated Serve as resource to teacher/grade. Teach demonstration lesson. and Work with content-area teachers much more highly than did classroom teachers and reading coordinators. they rated Work with students in a pull-out program much lower. 'These differences might lead to role conflict and role ambiguity for the reading coordinator. The reading coordinators who participated in the study rated the role indicator Work with students in a pull-out program much more highly than did classroom teachers and elementary school principals. The other role indicators that reading coordinators rated more highly than did classroom teachers and principals were Help write criteria for evaluating reading personnel. Help set goals for schools and/or grade levels. and Participate in professional reading-related activities. The results indicated disagreement among participant groups and hence possible role conflict and role ambiguity for the reading coordinators. The classroom teachers rated the role indicators under Bringing About Change much lower than did the other two groups of respondents. The four role indicators under Consulting on which there was a 92 significant difference were also rated much lower by teachers than the other two groups of participants. An exception was the role indicator. Working with students in a pull-out program. which teachers rated higher than principals did but lower than reading coordinators did. No significant difference existed among respondent groups concerning their perceptions of the comprehensive role of Working With Reading Materials. All of the respondents rated the seven role indicators of this category between Important and Very Extremely Important. ‘The survey results indicated that this comprehensive role was perceived by all three respondent groups to be the most important of the four roles examined in the study. The other comprehensive role of reading coordinators on which there was considerable agreement among respondent groups was Coordinat- ing District Programs. Participants differed significantly in their perceptions of two role indicators in this category. 'The two role indicators were Serve as resource person to principal. which principals rated much more highly than did the other two groups. and Participate in professional reading-related activities. which reading coordinators rated much more highly than the other two groups. Seven of the nine role indicators under Coordinating District Programs were agreed upon by the three groups of participants. who rated them from Important to Very Extremely Important. The multivariate and univariate analyses showed a significant difference among classroom teachers. elementary school principals. and reading coordinators on T4 of the 32 role indicators (44 percent). Based on these results. Null Hypothesis 1. which stated that there is no significant difference among classroom teachers. principals. and reading coordinators concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. was rejected. These findings supported a previous study conducted by Wylie (1969). The multivariate and univariate analyses showed very little difference between respondents with and those without reading coordi- nators assigned to their buildings. in terms of their perceptions of the role indicators. The two groups differed significantly on 3 out of 32 (9 percent) role indicators. Two of these role indicators were under the comprehensive role of Consulting. They were Work with stu- dents with reading problems in a pull-out program and Work with stu- dents with reading problems within the regular classroom. Respondents with reading coordinators assigned to their buildings rated these two role indicators much more highly than did respondents without reading coordinators. The other role indicator on which the respondent groups differed significantly was under the comprehensive role of Coordinating District Programs. 'The role indicator on which significant differences existed between respondents with and those without reading coordinators was Involve community in reading program. The respondents with reading coordinators rated this role indicator much lower than did those without reading coordinators. Based on the results of the multivariate and univariate analyses of variance. Null Hypothesis 2. which stated that there is 94 no difference between respondents with reading coordinators assigned to their buildings and those without such coordinators concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. was not rejected. The multivariate and univariate analyses showed a significant difference among respondents from the Midland. Bay City. and Saginaw School Districts concerning their perceptions of several role indi- cators. 'The greatest number of significant differences were under the comprehensive role of Bringing About Change. The four role indicators on which respondents from the three districts differed significantly were Help plan inservice. Help set goals for schools and/or grade levels. Help set objectives for district. and Help implement changes in reading instruction. The respondents from Midland rated these four role indicators higher in terms of importance than did respondents from the other two districts. Another comprehensive role on which a significant difference existed among respondents from Midland. Bay City. and Saginaw was Coordinating District Programs. The two role indicators on which respondents differed significantly were Prepare reading reports for board. community and Participate in professional reading-rel ated activities. Respondents from Midland rated these two role indicators higher in terms of importance than did respondents from the other two districts. who gave similar importance ratings. A third comprehensive role on which respondents from the three districts differed significantly was Consulting. The two role indicators on which there was a significant difference were Work with 95 students with reading problems in a pull-out program and Work with students with reading problems in the classroom. Respondents from Saginaw gave a higher importance rating to these two role indicators than did those fran the other two districts. The last comprehensive role on which a significant difference was found in the multivariate and univariate analyses of the data was Working With Reading Materials. The role indicator on which respond- ents from the three school districts differed significantly was Work with committees to evaluate and recommend textbooks. Respondents from Midland gave this role a higher importance rating than did those from the other two districts. who were close to agreement at a lower impor- tance rating. Respondents from Midland. Bay City. and Saginaw differed significantly on 9 of the 32 (28 percent) role indicators examined in this study. Therefore. Null Hypothesis 3. which stated that there is no difference among respondents from the three school districts concerning their perceptions of the reading coordinator's role. was rejected . (20mm Results of the survey answered the first research question: What reading coordinator roles will be chosen as Very Extremely Impor- tant by most respondents in the rating scale section of the survey instrument? It was observed that the number 1. 2. and 3 prioritized roles were in the comprehensive role of Working With Reading Materials 96 as well as 42 percent of l2 prioritized role indicators. The researcher concluded that the comprehensive role of Working With Reading Materials was the most important agreed-upon role to the respondents of this study. The second research question--Is there a significant difference among respondents. based on whether a reading coordinator is assigned to their building?--was answered in the results of this study. ‘Three role indicators (9 percent) showed a significant difference among the respondents with and those without reading coordinators. 'These differ- ences were Working with students with reading problems in a pull-out program. Working with students with reading problems in the classroom. and Involve community in the reading program. To the researcher. these differences reflected the needs of the two groups of respondents in how the role of reading coordinator was perceived. Thus it was concluded that the role of the reading coordinator was perceived to be the same by both groups. In answering the third research question--Is there a signifi- cant difference among elementary school classroom teachers. elementary school principals. and reading coordinators as to the roles chosen as the most important among those listed on the rating scale?--this study found a significant difference among these groups of respondents. From the results of the data analysis. it was concluded that the priorities of the elementary school principals for the role of reading coordinator lay within the roles of Bringing About Change. Staff Development. and having the reading coordinator Serve as a resource person to the 97 principal. The priorities of the reading coordinators among the role indicators on which there was a significant difference among respond- ents indicated that working for the students and the professional interests of reading coordinators were most important to them. The classroom teachers rated the role indicators under Bringing About Change much lower than the other two groups of respondents. which might indicate that they did not view the role of the reading coordinator to be that of a change agent. as the elementary school principals and reading coordinators did. The classroom teachers also rated the four roles of Consulting that showed a significant difference much lower except for Working with students in a pull-out program. TOQether with the reading coordinators this role was rated much higher than the prin- cipals. 'This classroom teacher rating along with that of the reading coordinators placed the role of the reading coordinator in a remedial position. Since there was no significant difference in the comprehen- sive role of Working With Reading Materials. and it was prioritized higher than the other roles. it could be concluded that this comprehen- sive role was perceived by all three respondent groups to be the most important of the four roles examined in the study. 'The role of Coordi- nating District Programs was agreed upon to a lesser extent. which indicated the partici pants' agreement on the importance of their acceptance of this role. From these results. the researcher concluded that there was a significant difference among the three groups of respondents as to how they perceived the role of the reading coordi- nator. 98 The fourth research question examined in this survey was: Is there a significant difference among respondents from the three school districts--Bay City. Midland. and Saginaw-—as to the roles chosen as Inost important for the reading coordinator? Respondents from the three school districts differed significantly on 28 percent of the role indicators. These differences were in the comprehensive roles of Bringing About Change. Consulting. Coordinating District Programs. and Working With Reading Materials. The respondents from Midland rated the role indicators of Help plan in-service. Help set goals for school/ grade levels. Help set objectives for district..and Help implement changes in reading instruction much higher than the respondents from Bay City and Saginaw. who gave these role indicators a similar rating. The respondents from Midland also rated the role indicators of Prepare reading reports for board. community. Participate in professional reading-related activities. and Work with committees to evaluate and recommend textbooks much more highly than the other two respondent groups. The researcher concluded from these results that the respond- ents from Midland perceived the role of the reading coordinator as a change agent and a quasi-administrative role. The results of the survey showed that the respondents from Saginaw rated the role indi- cators Work with students with reading problems in a pull-out program and Work with students with reading problems in the classroom much higher than the respondents from Midland and Bay City. These results showed a remedial role was perceived by the Saginaw respondents. The researcher concluded that there was a significant difference among 99 respondents from the three school districts as to the roles chosen as most important for the reading coordinator. From the findings of this study. the researcher concluded that there was a significant difference in the perception of the role of the reading coordinator. The implication that might be drawn from these results is that there must be discord among the elementary school personnel who were surveyed. This discord could make a difference in achieving the educational objectives and goals of the school districts and the students in these elementary schools. The results also implied role ambiguity and role conflict for the reading coordinator. with the resulting effect on the person who filled that role/position. Winds EQL_Edncatinnnl_ln§111u112ns In this study. participants prioritized 12 role indicators as being Very Extremely Important to the perceived role of reading coordinator. To provide the necessary preparation for reading personnel. educators in universities and area educational colleges should review their present curriculum and update it to match this prioritized list. Leadership for more effective schools falls within the realm of institutions for higher learning. and by matching the most important skills to the preparation of reading personnel. this leader- ship becomes relevant to today's schools. Through the leadership of universities and area educational colleges. present reading coordinat- ors and personnel could update their skills through recommended classes and workshops. 100 Since role ambiguity and role conflict have been shown to exist in the perceived role of the reading coordinator. not only in this study but also in previous studies. universities and area colleges should initiate workshops in techniques such as Job Expectation Techniques (Huse. 1980) for local school districts to reduce this problem and to provide an opportunity for more task-relevant behavior. Using such techniques. universities and area colleges could bring about agreement among classroom teachers. principals. and reading coordinat- ors about the perceived role of the reading coordinator. Skilled personnel and trained researchers from the universities could provide the evaluation and follow-up necessary to ascertain whether role ambi- guity and role conflict concerning the role of reading personnel were reduced and whether the schools are becoming more effective as a result. Wm School board and superintendents should be aware of the dis- agreement among classroom teachers. principals. and reading coordi- nators about how they perceive the role of the reading coordinator. The reading coordinator's role is such an important resource to an effective school that agreement as to the coordi nator's most important role should be established. School boards and superintendents should provide the time and facilities for eliminating disagreement among staff members of individual schools concerning the perceived role of the reading coordinator. In eliminating disagreement among classroom 101 teachers. principals. and reading coordinators about the reading coor- dinator's role. school boards and superintendents could also eliminate role ambiguity and role conflict for these important resource personnel and thereby probably increase students! reading achievement. After the role of the reading coordinator has been identified and agreed on by staff members of individual schools in the district. the school board and superintendent should provide the time and facilities to update the skills needed in implementing the perceived role. MW Elementary school principals should be made aware of the findings of this study and of the disagreement that existed among classroom teachers. principals. and reading coordinators in the sample concerning the reading coordinator's role. As educational leaders of their individual schools. elementary principals should provide the time and facilities for identifying the role of the reading coordinator among the staff of their buildings. After the role has been identified and agreed on by the staff. elementary principals should provide lead- ership support for its implementation. In reaching agreement among the staff of an elementary school concerning the identified role of the reading coordinator. an important resource could be more efficiently used and the effectiveness of the school increased. 102 W Want: The state board of education and the state superintendent should be made aware of the study findings concerning the disagreement that exists about the perceived role of the reading coordinator. Funding should be appropriated for further research among other school districts in Michigan to establish an identified role for the reading coordinator. Matching funds should be allocated to update and maintain the skills of practicing reading personnel. in order to implement the identified role. Role ambiguity and role conflict could be greatly reduced. and the effects would probably increase the reading achieve- ment of public-school students throughout the state. The guidelines for Chapter I funding could also incorporate the necessary procedures for identifying the reading coordinator's role and. once the role is established. the necessary procedures for implementing the role activi- ties. W The state teacher organizations should be made aware of the study findings. Committees within these teacher organizations could be formed to support the idea of identifying the role of the reading coordinator. Such resource personnel could also be identified to make further research easier. A published list of reading personnel throughout Michigan could be used to form a support group for reading coordinators and a means for sharing techniques and skills. 103 Wasatch Some implications for future research became evident as a result of this study. The following are some of the possibilities for further studies in areas identified in this research. 1. This study should be replicated using a larger sample of classroom teachers. elementary school principals. and reading coordinators throughout Michigan. The present study was limited to practicing elementary classroom teachers. elementary school principals. and reading coordinators in the Midland. Bay City. and Saginaw school districts. Further investigations should include all types of school districts and educational personnel from all levels. rather than just elementary schools. 2. A study should be conducted to investigate whether a relationship exists between a school staff's agreement on the perceived role of the reading coordinator and students' reading achievement. 3. Research should be conducted to investigate the educational needs of practicing reading coordinators to fulfill the role of their present position. as well as an agreed-upon perceived role. 4. A similar study should be conducted to investigate the educational needs of practicing reading coordinators by surveying a sample of practicing classroom teachers. 5. Research should be conducted among practicing elementary principals to establish a perspective of how the reading coordinators can better contribute to the educational objectives and goals of the schools and students. 104 Win: The friendly notes that accompanied many of the returns of the participating principals. classroom teachers. and reading coordinators were rewarding. The encouragement and interest evidenced in these notes were greatly appreciated. The interest that many participants had in receiving the results of the study led the researcher to believe that this investigation was important to many practicing educators. When such interest is so evident in a small sample. results should be published and the study replicated with a larger sample. The difficulty that some elementary school principals had in completing the survey led the researcher to believe that some educators are not well acquainted with the role of the reading coordinator. 'This might be interpreted to mean that the elementary school principal is not involved in the reading program of his/her school. The difficulty the researcher had in locating a list of reading coordinators led her to believe that no distinction is made between the roles of classroom teachers and reading coordinators. as far as some educational organizations are concerned. Only because school districts list these personnel separately was it possible to conduct the present study. This fact alone led the researcher to realize that role ambi- guity exists concerning the role of the reading coordinator. The results of this study were a great surprise to the researcher. The wide differences in the perceptions of the elementary school principals. elementary classroom teachers. and reading coordi- nators had not been anticipated. APPENDIX 105 106 November 1, 1984 Dear Elementary School Educator. This survey is being sent exclusively to the elementary school principals. elementary school reading coordinators. and elementary school classroom teachers of the Bay City. Midland. and Saginaw School Districts. There has never been consensus on the scope of the role of the reading coordinator. Recognizing that learning to read in the elementary grades is perhaps the most important skill a child masters. educators have felt the need for the position of reading coordinator. Identi- fying the most important role that the reading coordinator serves is the purpose of this study. It takes approximately ten minutes to complete this survey. The instrument contains two parts: the Base Data Survey and the Rating Scale. After completing these two parts of the questionnaire. please return them in the stamped return-addressed envelope that has been provided. Please do not sign your name on the survey. but do sign the enclosed postcard and mail it to me. This will let me know you have mailed your survey and yet maintain anonymity of responses. Please feel free to take this opportunity to suggest other roles or role indicators. Your judgment in this area is highly valued. This study is the first broad-based attempt to secure the collective knowledge and experience of the practicing elementary personnel being surveyed in regard to identifying the reading coordinator role that will be the most effective in successfully administering a reading program. . Compiled data from this study will be available upon request. Your prompt response will enable me to complete the study and provide you with the results at an early date. Sincerely. Marjorie J. Hart S. 107 BASE DATA SURVEY Please indicate the school district in which you are employed: Midland _______ Bay City Saginaw Please indicate your present position: Classroom teacher Principal Reading coordinator Does your school qualify for compensatory funding? Yes No If you are a principal or classroom teacher. please indicate whether There is a reading coordinator assigned to my school: Yes No Please indicate: Number of years in education Degree(52 held_ Major area of study 1(38 RATING SCALE DIRECTIONS: Step I. Read each role indicator below the comprehensive role of Reading Coordinators-and circle one number at the left that indicates how important you think t“. role indicator to be. Step 2. Add role indicators where you think appropriate. Rate each role indicator using the following scale: -- Not at All Important -- Slightly Important -- Important Very Important -- Extremely Important -- Very Extremely Important O‘U'ItkaUN-d I I importance Role/Role Indicators L2: ‘2122 l.0 CONSULTING I 2 3 g 5 6 l.i Serve as resource to teachers/grade. l 2 3 ,h S 6 l.2 Teach demonstration lessons. I 2 3 h S 6 1.3 Help with diagnostic testing and grouping of students. I 2 3 h 5 6 l.A Inform teachers of professional—growth activities available. I 2 3 h 5 6 l.5 Work with content-area teachers to integrate reading activities. I 5 6 I.6 Serve as consultant to parents. l 2 3 h S 6 l.7 Hork with students with reading problems in a pull-out - program. . I 2 3 h 5 6 l.8 Work with students with reading problems within the regular classroom. I 2 3 A 5 6 1.9 2.0 BRINGING ABOUT CHANGE l 2 3 h 5 6 2.l Help write criteria for evaluating reading personnel. l 2 3 A 5 6 2.2 Help with needs assessments to use in setting goals. I 2 3 h S 6 2.3 Help plan inservice. l 2 3 A 5 6 2.h Present inservice sessions. 1 2 3 h 5 6 2.5 Help set goals for schools and/or grade levels. I 2 3 h 5 6 2.6 Help set objectives for district. I 2 3 h 5 6 2.7 Recommend policy changes involving reading programs. 1 2 3 h 5 6 2.8 Help implement changes in reading instruction. l 2 3 h S 6 2.9 Importance & "Jib ' I 2 3 h 5 6 l 2 3 A 5 6 l 2 3 h 5 6 I 2 3 A S 6 l 2 3 h S 6 I 2 3 A 5 6 N W bk UT 0‘ 3.0 3.l 3.2 3.3 3.h 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 A.O A.I h.2 A.3 A.h “.5 “.6 h.7 “.8 h.9 “.95 l()9 Role/Role Indicators WORKING WITH READING MATERIALS Help construct or revise reading curriculum materials. Work with committees to evaluate and recommend textbooks. Be familiar with a wide variety of teaching materials in the area of reading. Share information about reading materials with teachers. Help make reading materials available to teachers. Help make vacation packets of reading materials for students. Work with parents in making and learning reading games (game workshops). COORDINATING DISTRICT PROGRAM Involve community in reading program. Conduct and share research in reading. Help plan budgets to make reading a priority. Serve as resource person to principal. Prepare reading reports for board, community. Serve as communication link between administration and school. Participate in professional reading-related activities. Coordinate district reading-incentive programs (R.I.F., etc.). Coordinate district reading-testing program. C O O O O O. O I O O O. I \DmflmUl-bWNdNOiUl#wN-Jm\loim#WN-JQNO‘U'I#WN—l—I 2222mm28083538883888sagesseessesaazaaz llO Wm School districts Present position Compensatory funding Reading coordinator assigned to school Number of years in education Degrees held Serve as resource to teachers Teach demonstration lessons Diagnostic testing and grouping Professional growth activities Work with content-area teachers Serve as consultant to parents Work with students in pull-out program Work with students in classroom Write criteria for evaluating reading personnel Help with assessments Help plan inservice Present in-service sessions Set goals for school Help set objectives for districts Recommend policy changes - Help implement changes Construct reading curriculum materials Work with committees to evaluate books Familiar with wide variety of teaching materials Share info about reading materials Reading materials available to teachers Vacation packets of materials for student Work with parents Involve community in reading program Conduct and share research in reading Plan budgets to make reading a priority Serve as resource person to principal Prepare reports for board. community Communication link between administration and school Participate in professional activities Reading incentive programs Reading testing programs I Value Labels Al A2 A3. A4 81.1 to 34.9 (I) (l) (3) (l) (I) (3) (5) (6) III Midland (2) Bay City (3) Saginaw Classroom teacher (2) Principal Reading coordinator Yes (2) No Not At All Important (2) Slightly Important Important (4) Very Important Extremely Important Very Extremely Important BIBLIOGRAPHY llZ BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahren. Patricia R.. and White. Daryl E. "A State Reading Consultant? What Do You Do?" .lgunnal.01 Beading 17 (S) (1974): 344-51. Allport: Floyd H. Mfiwmmmfim .tune. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1955. Baker. Stanley E. "The Reading Consultant as Change Agent." Paper presented at the Southeastern Regional Conference of the Inter- national Reading Association. Jacksonville. Florida. 1976. Bean. Rita M. "Role of the Reading Specialist: A Multifaceted Dilemma." .Ihe Beading league: 32 (January 1979): 409-13. Biddle. Bruce J.. and Thomas. Edwin J. .Bole.IheoLx:.09ncapts.and .Beseanch. New York: John Wiley and Sons. l966. Brief. A. P.. and Aldag. R. J. "Correlates of Role Indices." .lgunnal 0: Applied 251.909.19.91 61 0976): 468-72. Burg. Leslie A.. et a1. MWWWM .89105. Columbus. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill. 1978. Burgy. Dianne R. "Supervisory Strategy in Reading.” .lounnal.of .Beadjng 18 (November 1974): 119-21. Carterette. Edward C.. and Friedman. Morton P. .flandbogk‘gf‘flenceptign. Volume I. New York: Academic Press. 1974. Cohen. Elizabeth (3.. et al. "Teachers and Reading Specialists: Cooperation or Isolation?" Palo Alto: Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching. Stanford University. 1977. Day. R. H. .Human.Ee£centlon. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1969. Dember. William N. Ihe Emhsflggy of Perception. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. 1964. Drum. Priscilla A.. and Calfee. Robert C. .Ihe.Cgmpensatozy.flaading .Snrxox. Newark. Del.: International Reading Association. 1979. 113 llh Erickson. Lawrence G. "An Ounce of Prevention." .Beading.flonizgns (Western Michigan University) 22 (1982): 85-138. Efififinnl.Bfigistgn 45 (April 3. l980): 22494-22631. French. J. R. R.. Jr.. and Caplan. R. D. "Organizational Stress and Individual Strain." In Ihe Eajluze of Success. Edited by A. J. Marrow. New York: AMACDM. 1972. Gallup. George H. Ibefieunteentb Annualfiallup BollaftbeEubJJLLs Attitudes Island the EubJJs; 50119015. Bloanington. Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa. 1982. Garry. V. V. "Competencies That Count Among Reading Specialists." .Jounnal of Beading 17 (May 1974): 608-12. Gaus. Paula J.. and Smith. Anne L. "Evaluation of Teachers' Attitudes Toward Reading Specialists." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference. Dallas. Texas. December 1981. Getzels. J. W.. and Guba. E. G. "Role. Role Conflict. and Effective- ness= An Empirical Study.“ American 53.191.001.91 Baxter I9 (1954): 164-70. . Gross. N.: Mason. W. L.: and McEachern. A. W. .Explgzations.1n.flole ‘Analysis. New York: Wiley. 1958. Haggard. Geraldine. "Role of the Reading Coordinator Perceived by Teachers and Supervisors of Reading.” Ph.D. dissertation. Texas Women's University. 1981. Haggard. Martha Rapp. and Meeks. Jane Warren. "What Administrators Actually Know About Reading Programs." .Beadjng Horizons (Western Michigan University) 19 (1979): 200-207. Hall. Joseph C. "Role and Responsibility of the Black Reading Specialist." ,lounnal of Reading 16 (December 1972): 207-14. Hammer. W. C.. and Tosi. H. W. "Relationship of Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity to Job Involvement Measures." .lounnil.QI.Annlind .Esycholggy S9 (1974): 497-99. Harris. Errol E. Hypothesis.and.Eezception. London: George Allen and Unwin. Ltd.. 1970. House. R. J.. and Rizzo. J. R. "Role Conflict and Ambiguity as Criti- cal Variables in a Model of Organizational Behavior." tional Maxim: and Human Eeniomance 7 (1972): 467-505. 115 “use: Edgar F- atomization 00191020001 and Change- 20d 9d- St. Paul. Minn.: West Publishing 00.. 1980. Hutson. Barbara A.. et al. "A Multifaceted View of the Roles of the Reading Specialist.” Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 1979. Kahn. R. L.: Wolfe. D. M.: Quinn. R. P.: Snoek. J. 0.: and Rosenthal. R. A. wmmfimmmmm guity. New York: Wiley. 1964. Keller. R. T. ”Role Conflict and Ambiguity: Correlates With Job Satisfaction and Values." .Eensonnel.Esychology 28 (1975): 57-64. Kinder. Robert Farrar. "State Certification of Reading Teachers and Specialists." ‘lgunnal.01.flead1ng 12 (October 1968): 9-12. 68-71. Koenke. Karl. "0n Becoming a Reading Consultant." .Ih§.Baadl Q Inachet 34 (April 1981): 844-47. Mangieri. John N.. and Heimberger. Mary J. "Perceptions of the Reading Consultant's Role." .Jounnal of Beadjng 23 (March 1980): 527-30. McHugh. Walter J. "In Service Training for the Administrator and the Reading Teacher." Cullen: Administnatjxe Emblem in Reading. Newark. Del.: International Reading Association. 1967. Meritt. Ronni Ellen. "Person-Role Conflict: The Case of the School Principal." M.A. thesis. Michigan State University. 1981. Michigan Department of Education. .Ezoposed.5tandazd5.JnMBfiadlng.IQ£ mam leacbecs and Beading Eensonnel. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education. 1979. Michigan Reading Association. .Standazns in Reading. Grand Rapids: Michigan Reading Association. March 1984. Miles. R. H. "An Empirical Test of Causal Inferences Between Role Perceptions of Conflict and Ambiguity and Various Personal Outcomes." lemma], of Applied Psychology 60 (1975): 334-39. Miles. R. H.. and Perreault. W. 0.. Jr. "Organizational Role Con- flict: Its Antecedents and Consequences." .Qnganizational.flehaxin£ ‘gng.figmgn.flgnionmanc§ 17 (1976): 19-24. Mitchell. Thomas M. "Effects of Leader Initiating Structure Under Con- ditions of High and Low Role Ambiguity." M.A. thesis. Michigan State University. 1979. 116 National Commission on Excellence in Education. .A.Naiign.at.Bisk:.Ihe .Impenatixe in: Educational Reform. Washington. D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office. April 1983. Nemeth. Joseph 5. . ed. Reading 32:1 Better leaflets. Bette: Sugar: .xisons..Betien.Enognams. Newark. Del.: International Reading Association. 1978. Ngandu. Kathleen H.. and Strum. Carolyn B. "The Reading Specialist's Role as Perceived by Reading Specialists. Administrators. Special Education Instructors. and C1 assroan Teachers." Beading titanium: (Western Michigan University) 22 (Fall 1981): 29-32. Nie. Norman H.. et a1. mmmmmm. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.. 1975. Oliver. R. L.. and Brief. A. P. "Determinants and Consequences of Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Among Retail Sales Managers." Jaunnal .91.B§Iilling 53 (1977-78): 47-58. Parsons. T. Ibo Social.§xstem. Glencoe. Ill.: The Free Press. 1951. Pertz. Doris L.. et al. "What's in a Name: Reading Specialist?" Joumal 91 Reading 22 (April 1979): 623-28. Pikulski. John J.. and Ross. Elliott. "Classroom Teachers' Perceptions of the Role of the Reading Specialist." .lounnal oi Beading 23 (November 1979): 126-35. Professional Standards and Ethics Committee of the International Reading Association. ”Guidelines for the Professional Prepara- tion of Reading Teachers." Newark. 001.: International Reading Association. 1978. Rauch. Sidney J. ”The Administrator and the Reading Program: Why Reading Programs Succeed." .Beading.flnnld (October 1983): 75-77. Rizzo. J. L.: House. R. J.: and Lirtzman. S. I. "Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations." Administrative Science may 15 (1970): 150-63. Rutledge. Phillip J. "The Relevance of Reading to the Technological Revolution." .Bending and Bexnluiinn. Newark. Del.: Inter- national Reading Association. 1970. Schuler. R. 5.: Aldag. R. J.: and Brief. A. P. "Role Conflict and Ambiguity: A Scale Analysis." Qmanizaflmal Bennie: and Human .Eeninnmance 20 (1977): 111-28. 117 Seaman. M. "Role Conflict and Ambivalence in Leadership." .Amazican Sociological Roxie: 18 (1953): 373-80. Smith. Carl B.. et al. "The Role of the Principal. Teacher. Special- ist. Administrator.” .Ineating Banding Difficulties. National Center for Educational Communication. U.S. Department of Health. Education. and Welfare. Office of Education. 1970. Stauffer. Russell G.: Abrams. Jules 0.: and Pikulski. John J. .Qiag: nosianoccectiomandflmeniionoifieadimDisabUifles. New York: Harper and Row. 1978. Whetten. D. A. "Coping with Incompatible Expectations: An Integrated View of Role Conflict." .Administnatixe.Science.0uattezlx 23 (1978): 254-71. Wixon. Karen K.. and Peters. Charles. "Reading Definition." Position ' paper. Grand Rapids: Michigan Reading Association. 1983. Wylie. Richard E. "Diversified Concepts of the Role of the Reading Consultant." .Ihe Beading Inacnen 22 (March 1969): 519-22.