University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The teacher in cooperative curriculum development

(USC Thesis Other)

The teacher in cooperative curriculum development

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE TEACHER IN COOPERATIVE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the School of Education The University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION by Mary Dahlberg Martin January 1965 This dissertation has been 65-8919 microfilmed exactly as received MARTIN, Mary Dahlberg, 1926- THE TEACHER IN COOPERATIVE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT. University of Southern California, Ed. D ., 1965 Education, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate's Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education' in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. Date J^ARr*...l?65.................. Dean Guidance Committee \irman TABLE OF CONTENTS Page iv 1 The Importance of the Problem Definition of Terms Assumptions Hypotheses Limitations and Delimitations Summary Chapter LIST OF TABLES I. THE PROBLEM . II. THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE............... 17 Literature Regarding Cooperative Curriculum Development Literature Regarding Role Analysis and Roles in Education" Summary III. PROCEDURES FOR GATHERING AND ANALYZING DATA 56 Development of the Questionnaire Selection of the Respondents Administration of the Questionnaire in a Group Interview The Reliability and Validity of the Questionnaire Statistical Procedures Summary _ IV. FINDINGS...................................... 71 Division of Labor Facilitating Teacher Participation Group Processes Criteria for Participation The Measures of Satisfaction Expectations for the Teacher's Role in Cooperative Curriculum Development Chapter Page Resolution of the Hypotheses Summary V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............. 146 Summary of the Study Recommendations for Curriculum Develop ment and Conclusions Suggestions for Further Research APPENDIX A. Sources of Questionnaire Items .... 159 APPENDIX B. The Questionnaire................ 189 APPENDIX C. Participating Unified School Districts and Curriculum Development Groups . . 191 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................... 194 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Expectations for division of l a b o r ......... 84 2. Chi-square values of the distribution of responses for direction only, division of labor.......................... 86 3. T values for differences between means of curriculum leaders, secondary teachers, and elementary teachers, division of labor . . 87 4. Means and variances of responses of groups, division of labor........... 88 5. Expectations for facilitating teacher partici pation ...................................... 96 6. T values for differences between means' of curriculum leaders, secondary teachers, and elementary teachers: facilitating teacher participation.............. . . 9 8 7. Means and variances of responses of groups: facilitating teacher participation .... 99 8. Expectations for group processes ........... 10 8 9. T values for differences between means of curriculum leaders, secondary teachers, and elementary teachers: group processes . . . 110 10. Means and variances of responses of groups: group processes............................. Ill 11. Expectations for criteria for participation . 119 12. T values for differences between means of curriculum leaders, secondary teachers, and elementary teachers: criteria for partici pation .......................... 121 V Table Page 13. Means and variances of responses of groups: criteria for participation ............... 122 14. Proportion of responses in each response category of satisfaction items ........... 124 15. Median variances ............................. 134 16. Percentage of each sample's variances below sample's median variance . . . ......... 135 17. Percentage of variances below median variance of total sample............................. 136 18. Rank orders of participating groups......... 139 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The purpose of the study was to contribute to the improvement of curriculum development procedures by analyzing how teachers and curriculum leaders view the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development. The study was primarily concerned with discovering expecta tions for the teacher's role in curriculum development upon which the teachers agreed since the satisfaction of clearly defined expectations was regarded as crucial to adequate functioning in the role. Also of interest were conflict between the expectations held by teachers and curriculum leaders and factors relating to consensus on role expectations within curriculum development groups. The Importance of the Problem The importance of cooperative curriculum develop ment.— During the early years of the twentieth century, curriculum development was the prerogative of textbook writers, national committees, administrators, and school boards (131:2). Cooperative planning by local school dis trict personnel has been a major source of curriculum development since 1920 (29:593-94; 79:315; 103:6; 131:2; 145:447). At first, curriculum development was regarded as involving teachers but stemming from the central office (42:2; 136:427; 143:663; 145:447). During the lOSO's, teacher participation at the school level became the sine qua non of implementation (3:440; 11:90; 79:315; 131:2). Curriculum development was closely associated with in-service education (90:82; 130:568; 139:328). The application of group dynamics theory to curriculum develop ment and emphasis on democratic practices profoundly altered the working relationships of the teacher, super visor, and administrator (12:57; 79:318; 123:80; 143:689- 90) . Although in theory the teacher had moved from a peripheral to a central role in curriculum development, in practice cooperative curriculum development at the school site proved difficult. Some administrators extolled democratic group processes while using subtle means to control curriculum change (24:23-24). Often, teacher par ticipation was regarded as unduly time-consuming (11:46; 45:172; 78:12; 140:370). Some educators concluded that the results of cooperative curriculum development indicated that cooperation alone did not assure efficacious change (38:31; 93:315; 146:452; 164:349-50). In the 1960's, curriculum change was accelerated by unfavorable comparisons with education in other coun tries, demands for more challenging curricula, and startl ing new developments in several fields. Under such pres sures, curriculum change generated by national committees (67:43-45; 146:448), by administrative action (24:22-24), and by subject matter specialists (94:61; 97:66) regained favor with many educators. However, genuine curriculum change usually occurs in the classroom, in what teachers and students do. Curriculum workers have discovered that teachers tend to resist change unless they have a part in determining that change (8:24; 146:451; 164:350). Effective group work is not, then, merely a method of planning for change, but is also a method of facilitating change by providing a climate conducive to acceptance. Despite the pressures for swift modification and efficient innovation, the . knowledge and insights ,of teachers cannot be ignored in planning curricula which will meet the demands of today's 4 world. The importance of role definition.— Curriculum specialists agreed that an initial--step in improving coop erative curriculum development is to clarify the roles of participants (76:142-43; 146:478-79; 168:406). Obviously, not all teachers can be involved in all aspects of curric ulum development. Educators need to know what competencies are required of teacher participants in particular curric ulum development activities and what kinds of assistance teachers expect of personnel in supervisory and adminis trative positions. Students of role analysis have found that the pat tern of roles within a group provides the basis for communication (183:486). If the roles are not defined, an individual does not know how to relate himself to other participants and cannot make his maximum contribution. Nor can leadership function adequately in such a situa tion (13: 6 8) . When the curriculum leaders of a district hold concepts of the teacher's function in curriculum develop ment which differ appreciably from the concepts held by teachers, a situation of conflict is created. The teacher whose expectations are consistently thwarted feels inse cure, his morale drops, and productivity decreases (13:68, 80) . Curriculum experts have repeatedly called for clarification of the roles involved in curricular change and innumerable articles have described the responsibili ties of the various participants (29:604; 79:13; 120:104-5 146:456). However, research on the expectations held by teachers for roles in cooperative curriculum development has been neglected. This study was an attempt to fulfill that need. Definition of Terms Cooperative curriculum development.— The partici pation of a group of teachers and curriculum leaders in a series of meetings approved by the administration and for the purpose of changing or improving learning activities provided by the school or district was termed cooperative curriculum development. Group.— -Group, or curriculum development group, referred to the participants in a particular cooperative curriculum project. A group was defined as having a rela tively stable membership and scheduled meetings. Workshops, work conferences, study or research groups, committees or departments were acceptable if engaged in curriculum development. Groups involving regular partici pants from more than one school district were excluded. Any organizational pattern (horizontal, vertical, inter school, intra-school) was accepted. Curriculum leader.— Curriculum leader might logi cally designate any person who accepts leadership, even temporarily, in the development of curricula. However, curriculum leader was used in this study to identify participants in cooperative curriculum development who were employed in a capacity other than that of teacher and who were officially responsible for curriculum development. Curriculum leaders were usually members of administrative or supervisory staffs. Elementary teacher. — Respondents who were teaching in the primary or intermediate grades were regarded as elementary teachers. Seventh and eighth grade teachers who taught in an elementary school self-contained class room were also considered elementary teachers. Secondary teacher.— Respondents who were teaching in a junior or senior high school in a departmentalized situation were considered secondary teachers. 7 Role.— In the literature, definitions of the ferm, role, differed considerably and each definition carried implications for research. In this study, role was defined as a set of expectations which may be applied to an incum bent of a particular position. Position.— In role literature, position was found to be synonymous with status and referred to the location of an actor in a system of social relationships. For the purpose of the study, three positions were distinguished: elementary teacher, secondary teacher, and curriculum leader. Expectation.— Expectation was defined in the liter ature both in a normative sense (how the actor should behave) and a predictive sense (how the actor will behave). The normative definition formulated by Gross, Mason and McEachern was applied in the study. An expectation was defined as an evaluative standard applied to the incumbent of a position (179:58). Direction.■ — Each expectation may be expressed as a statement for or against a particular behavior or attri bute. Direction referred to whether the responses indi cated a proscription or a prescription. Intensity.— In addition to being proscriptive or prescriptive, an expectation may be permissive, preferen tial, or mandatory. The response categories provided in the questionnaire permitted the respondents to indicate both the direction and intensity of expectations. Consensus.— Consensus was regarded as a variable and was measured by the variance of a distribution of responses. Consensus referred to agreement either within a curriculum development group or among the incumbents of a position. Role conflict.— A situation in which the incumbent of a position was confronted by incongruent expectations was regarded as role conflict. Assumptions An individual's expectations for the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development may be inferred from his responses to a questionnaire.— Since the purpose of the study was to discover how teachers and curriculum leaders believed teachers should function in a curriculum development group rather than to study actual behavior, obtaining the necessary data was dependent on verbal responses. The development and administration of a questionnaire to obtain data regarding expectations for a role, while common in role analysis, involved the assump tion that expectations for a role could be inferred from responses to a questionnaire. The intensity and direction of expectations may be represented by points on a continuum.— Gross, Mason and McEachern described expectations as including the dimen sions of direction and intensity. Direction was defined in terms of an affirmative or negative response, a state ment for or against. For either direction,•responses could represent varying degrees of intensity ranging from permissive through preferential to mandatory (179:60). The standardization of responses to a questionnaire involved the assumption that intensity and direction could be represented by five response categories. Expectations on which agreement is obtained are the more crucial aspects of a role.— A role analysis by Gerald verified that a clearly defined set of role expec tations was required before an individual could effec tively contribute to a group task (176:487). Hartley and- Hartley concluded that the clearly defined elements of a role are of the most critical importance for group 10 functioning and are central to the role (183:489). The identification of such central expectations for the teach er's role in cooperative curriculum development was regarded as contributing to the improvement of curriculum development procedures. Therefore, the assumption that expectations on which agreement is obtained are the more crucial aspects of a role was basic to the purposes and design of the study. Hypotheses The study was primarily concerned with locating crucial aspects of the teacher's role in cooperative cur riculum development. However, four hypotheses were formulated which related to role conflict and consensus within curriculum development groups. Hypothesis 1. Teachers' and curriculum leaders' expectations will sometimes be divergent, indicating role conflict.— Role conflict was described by Brookover as deriving from two incompatible roles held by one actor (173:7). Gross, Mason and McEachern called conflict resulting from occupancy of incompatible roles "inter-role conflict" and identified a second type of conflict, 11 "intra-role conflict," resulting from incongruent expecta tions for the same role (179:248-49). A situation in which curriculum leaders agreed upon one response whereas teachers agreed upon a different response was regarded as intra-role conflict. Experience in cooperative curriculum development and a survey of the literature suggested the nature of the hypothesized divergence. In the section of the question naire dealing with the division of labor, individuals were expected to assign more responsibility to their positions than to the positions of others. Items relating to the rights of teachers or ways in which teacher participation in cooperative curriculum development could be facilitated were thought to be of more -immediate concern to teachers than to curriculum specialists. Therefore, a divergence in intensity of response with the teachers1 responses being more emphatic was predicted. The items related to group process were expected to elicit more positive responses from curriculum leaders than from teachers because of the emphasis in curriculum development theory on the curric ulum leader as a facilitator of group processes. Hypothesis 2. Curriculum leaders will reveal more 12 consensus regarding the teacher's role in cooperative cur riculum development than will teachers.— The respondents designated as curriculum leaders were expected to have more similar backgrounds than teacher respondents, since cur riculum leaders generally held supervisory or administra tive credentials and presumably were exposed to similar professional organizations, journals, books, conventions, and the like. Teacher respondents, on the other hand, represented a variety of subject specialties and grade levels. In addition, curriculum leaders were expected to be more experienced in cooperative curriculum development than teachers. Therefore, curriculum leaders' responses were predicted to reveal more consensus than teachers' responses. Hypothesis 3. Curriculum development groups with a homogeneous membership will achieve more consensus than will groups with heterogeneous membership.— Perceptions of the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development may be derived from many kinds of experiences. However, professional training and actual participation in coopera tive curriculum development appeared to be specific sources of such perceptions. Therefore, similarity in professional 13 training, an equivalent number of years of teaching expe rience, and working together in a departmental or grade level group were expected to influence consensus. The hypothesis was formulated that curriculum development groups comprised of members with similar educational back grounds and a similar amount of teaching experience and who taught the same subjects or grade levels would achieve more consensus than groups whose membership was dissimilar in these ways. Hypothesis 4. The amount of satisfaction which members of a group derive from participating in coopera tive curriculum development will be positively related to the amount of consensus within the group.— A number of role studies suggested a relationship between role clarity and satisfaction or morale among role incumbents (179:213; 176:475-88; 177:30-40). In addition, investigations by Bernstein (171:1) and Bidwell (172:47) indicated that when expectations for a role converged with perceptions of what the role actually was in a given situation, morale was high. Therefore, the hypothesis was formulated that satisfaction as measured by the convergence of expecta tions and perceptions of actual behavior would be 14 accompanied by a high consensus score. Limitations and Delimitations The study dealt only with one segment of the teach er's role, participation in cooperative curriculum devel opment. The normative definition of expectations confined the study to what teacher participants in curriculum development should do. The study did not attempt to dis cover to which expectations teachers conformed or the ways in which teachers actually did participate. The effec tiveness of individual group members and of groups was not investigated. Since the study dealt with curriculum development groups, the respondents or role definers were limited to individuals who participated in such groups. In practice, nonparticipating teachers undoubtedly influence role definition within the curriculum development group. Also, educational leaders who do not usually participate in the group (the superintendent or assistant superintendents, for example) may circumscribe or extend the teacher's role. When expectations rather than actual behaviors are investigated, the findings must be dependent on the verbal 15 reports of respondents. Moreover, an indefinite number of expectations for the teacher's role were assumed to exist, but the instrument could only include a sample of these. Summary The purpose of the study was to contribute to the improvement of curriculum development procedures by analyzing how teachers and curriculum leaders view the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development. The study was primarily concerned with discovering expecta tions upon which teachers agreed, since the satisfaction of clearly defined expectations was considered crucial to adequate functioning in the role. Role conflict and fac tors affecting consensus within curriculum development groups were also of concern. Terminology necessary to the study was defined in conformance with similar studies in curriculum development and role analysis. Assumptions basic to the study were that an individual's expectations for the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development may be inferred from his responses to a questionnaire, that the intensity and direction of expectations may be represented by points on a continuum, and that expectations upon which agreement is 16 obtained are the more crucial aspects of a role. Although the study was primarily concerned with locating crucial aspects of the teacher's role, four subsidiary hypotheses were formulated: (1) teachers' and curriculum leaders' expectations will sometimes be divergent, indicating role conflict; (2) curriculum leaders will reveal more consen sus regarding the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development than will teachers; (3) curriculum development groups with homogeneous membership will achieve more con sensus than will groups with heterogeneous membership; and (4) the amount of satisfaction which a group derives from participating in cooperative curriculum development is positively related to the amount of consensus within the group. The study was delimited to one segment of the teacher's role, participation in cooperative curriculum development, and was normative in character. The findings were based on verbal expressions of expectations rather than observations of behavior and were considered a sample from among the indefinite number of expectations which were assumed to exist. CHAPTER II THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of literature is divided into two sec tions. The first section considers literature dealing with curriculum development. The second section is con cerned with literature related to the design of the study. Literature Regarding Cooperative Curriculum Development Since the trends of concern to a study of coopera tive curriculum development can be traced in the litera ture published since 19 45, publications prior to that date were not considered. The literature on cooperative curriculum development was surveyed in terms of seven significant trends which have had profound influence on the role played by teacher participants in cooperative curriculum development: (1) decentralized or centrally- coordinated organization for curriculum development; (2) wide teacher participation; (3) the conjunction of 18 curriculum development and in-service education; (4) demo cratic curriculum development; (5) group processes; (6) action research; and (7) role analysis. Decentralized or centrally-coordinated organization for curriculum development.— Until the 19 30's, most school districts approached curriculum development as a central ized function emanating from the district office. Zimmer man characterized the centralized pattern as a procedure whereby the problems were defined by the administration and a committee of teachers found the solutions (170:121). Gradually, what has been called the "broken-front approach" superseded the centralized organization, at least- in theory, making the local building unit the opera tional center for curriculum development. Gilchrist (55:451-58) in 1948 and Dimond (41:309-11) in 1951 illus trated this concept with reports on curriculum improvement programs in which the school faculties had been a natural and effective work unit. In 1951, William M. Alexander expressed concern that the individual schools were not yet accepting suffi cient responsibility for curriculum development. The school staff was advised to work on curriculum projects 19 suggested by a system-wide group to insure concentration on school-wide needs rather than individual problems (5: 278-86). However, in New England, Anderson observed a trend toward greater curriculum responsibility at the school level (9:261-72). In 1953, Doll, Passow, and Corey compared the centralized, decentralized, and centrally-coordinated approaches. The teacher's role was found to be distinc tive in each type of organization. The decentralized pattern involved more teacher participation and leadership than the others and consequently enhanced the teachers' feelings of personal security and worth. The authors felt that the centrally-coordinated approach combined advan tages of both the decentralized and centralized methods while avoiding their shortcomings (42). The concept of curriculum development conducted at school sites and facilitated by a district coordinating body became generally accepted during the 1950's. McMahon suggested that district coordination be handled by in structional vice principals who would work primarily as curriculum leaders at the building level (89:168-69). Shaver and Ragene proposed the assignment of teacher 20 coordinators to the major areas of the curriculum in each school (135': 473-80) . Hall suggested that curriculum im provement could occur under any plan of organization which takes the nature of improvement and the nature of the people involved into consideration (61:234) . Teacher participation.— Concommitant with the trend toward the school as the unit for curriculum develop ment was the principle of teacher involvement. Proponents of wide participation asserted that teachers would under stand and implement curricula which they had helped develop. In 1953, Banning employed questionnaires and structured interviews to examine the effect of personal relationships upon attitudes toward curriculum change among sixty-five junior high teachers. A significant cor relation was found between the teachers' feeling of par ticipation and a favorable attitude toward curriculum change (16:47-49). Eckhardt surveyed the curriculum development pro cedures in high schools of 1947. The teachers in smaller schools were found to be more interested in curriculum development than teachers in medium-sized or large 21 schools (46:47). The plan recommended for high school curriculum programs was a structure of work groups which would permit considerable teacher participation (46:252-55). Schroth also advanced a plan for curriculum de velopment designed to involve a school's entire faculty. First a steering committee was to conduct a problems cen sus, then select a problem for study. The entire staff was formed into study groups also involving community mem bers and students. A separate committee was to evaluate the results (132:42). Similar proposals were made by Alberty (3:421-43), Ahrens (2:102-17), Briggs and Justman (25:460-65), and others. In effect, the committee struc ture which, under the centrally coordinated plan, had been Controlled by the central office was sustained by one faculty. In 1954, Floyd replicated Trillingham's 1934 study to discover what changes had occurred in curriculum devel opment practice during the intervening twenty years. Floyd concluded that the most impressive change since Trillingham's study was the increase in teacher participa tion (50:280-81). Formerly, teachers had participated primarily in study and discussion groups on philosophy and objectives. 22 As the criterion for a commendable curriculum development program became the extent of teacher involvement, educa tors devised a variety of ways in which teachers could contribute. Herrick and Estvan identified four broad areas in which teacher participation seemed essential: (1) edu cational objectives and their use in the teaching-learning process; (2) the selection and organization of learning experiences; (3) evaluation as part of the teaching-learn ing process; and (4) the over-all curriculum plan of the total educational program (69:184). That teachers were not universally enthusiastic about the expansion of their responsibilities was evidenced by literature on how to effect a favorable teacher attitude toward curriculum work. Salisbury suggested that the principal initiate activities which would induce teachers to feel the need for particular curriculum planning (128: 9-11) . The literature abounded with suggestions for mak ing curriculum work more attractive: consultant help, opportunities to visit other schools and attend profes sional meetings, provision of a professional library, sti pends when attending district workshops, credit toward advancement on the salary schedule, clerical assistance, and access to a pleasant work room were among the 23 inducements frequently mentioned. The provision of re leased time or the employment of teachers during vacations to do curriculum work was generally recommended. However, a study by the Iowa Association for Supervision and Curric ulum Development in 1950-51 indicated that released time was not an accepted practice. Most curriculum work took place after the school day was over (71:14). Herrick asserted that curriculum development was an integral aspect of the teaching job and should not require released time or bonuses (68:236-37). Lawler felt that salary increases constituted an undesirable pressure to participate (84:220). However, the failure of many dis tricts to provide time and facilities for curriculum development devolved not on the desirability of such practices, but on budgetary considerations. Dewar listed as conditions essential to creative curriculum work, not only time provisions, but also administrative encouragement and guidance, consideration of the group's recommendations by the administration, implementation of effective work by the administration, and encouragement to experiment (40:7). In the 1950's, the literature revealed some dis enchantment with the theory that the success of a 24 curriculum development program was directly proportional to the extent of teacher involvement. Watkins listed obstacles to effective teacher participation: the diffi culty of suiting task to teacher personality, the need in many tasks for some native ability and professional educa tion, and the pressures of the teaching job (161:300). Margaret Stuckey used questionnaires to determine the degree of involvement and the effectiveness of par ticipation in a junior high curriculum improvement program. Although total participation had been desired, only two thirds of the staff felt themselves "deeply" or "moder ately" involved. Stuckey concluded that the attempt to include all staff members in curriculum improvement pro grams was impractical (144:405-07). Tierney pointed out that curriculum leaders did not agree on the extent of participation and amount of responsibility appropriate for various groups of partici pants (152:19 4). Saylor and Alexander considered securing more widespread participation the most critical problem in curriculum planning, but agreed that all participants neither should nor could participate identically in all steps (130:535-49). 25 Many educators recommended voluntary participation rather than enforced involvement of the entire staff. Alexander described a curriculum development program in which all personnel were invited to participate, but the voluntary nature of committee assignments was stressed (4:230-34). Broderick and Mason, after surveying elemen tary and secondary teachers, concluded that whether participation was voluntary or compulsory did not affect the teacher's evaluation of its worth (28:343-46). McNeil suggested that the opportunity to participate was perhaps more important than actual participation (92:46). An alternative espoused by Krug was that the work of producing curriculum materials be assigned to teachers with special interest in such activities, but that all teachers be involved in appraising such materials (79:13- 14). Mitchum's suggestion was that the staff at large participate in establishing the objectives for a committee assignment to identify the whole faculty with the project (106:35), while McNearney proposed that the working group simply report to the faculty at regular intervals (91:174). Some educators agreed with Harold Spears that the indiscriminate involvement of all teachers in curriculum development was as extreme as curriculum-making 26 exclusively by experts (138:45). Lindberg's comment re flected a growing concern regarding the principle of involvement: If teachers are directly involved in writing the curriculum guide, it is assumed that they will then use it. So it is that in hundreds of schools across the country carelessly conceived curriculum designs have been hurriedly put together. (86:76) A number of studies were cited by Kimball Wiles which indicated that faculty participation resulted in higher morale, sustained interest, and willingness to accept change. However, Wiles pointed out that such out comes provide no guarantee that the curricular changes will be salutary (16 4:347-50). Undoubtedly, Macdonald was expressing the concern of many educators when he called for some precise testing of the theory of teacher involve ment (9 3:315) . Curriculum development as in-service education.— The advocates of the teacher involvement approach to cur riculum development contended that curriculum development and in-service education, if not synonymous, were at least complementary. In a study reported by Michaelis, four hundred teachers rated the value of in-service activities for curriculum improvement. All activities listed on the ■ 27 questionnaire were rated as "excellent," "good," or "aver age." None was rated "fair" or "poor" (102:142-45). Gilchrist, Fielstra and Davis echoed a widely held viewpoint: "It is difficult to conceive of a functional in-service program which is not an integral part of the over-all curriculum-development program" (56:294). In 1960, McNally and Passow remarked that "the distinction between curriculum improvement programs and in-service education has disappeared" (90:82). Democratic curriculum development.— The major tenet of the democratic curriculum development theory was that all participants in a curriculum planning group should have an equal voice regardless of the positions held in the educational hierarchy. George Sharp stated that in an "equipodal" relationship, such responsibilities as initiat ing curriculum work and decision-making, formerly reserved for authority figures, became a part of the teacher's role (134:195). Instead of involving teachers in a curriculum development program under the leadership of curriculum specialists or administrators, the procedure was now reversed. Curriculum development was viewed as stemming from the teacher and involving curriculum leaders as facilitators or consultants. The democratic relationship was elucidated by Laimnel who applied the findings of industrial personnel studies to school situations. Loyalty, morale, and the drive to produce and improve were enhanced if teachers par ticipated in formulating policies, if individual responsi bilities seemed a significant part of the total under taking, and if participants knew one another socially (81: 289). Pellett considered the administrative environment of paramount importance. "When concepts of line and staff define who can offer valid ideas, then the tendency is to stifle the development of original ideas within the teacher group." (116:414) However, the barriers established by status pat terns were not easily dissolved. Raymond Young, reporting for the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Curriculum Improvement Commission, described the difficulty of adjusting to the freedom of a strictly democratic relationship as the greatest single deterrent to curriculum change (169:20). A conference sponsored by the Southwestern Cooper ative Program in Educational Administration recognized teachers as a major source of leadership in curriculum 29 development, but stressed the teacher's need for expert administrative help in undertaking leadership responsibil ities (137:43). Much of the difficulty appeared to lie in finding a balance between democratically sharing and abdicating responsibility. In Jensen's study, 285 teachers indicated that strong leadership from school administration was desired in curriculum work. The respondents preferred to have a guiding philosophy formulated for them and indicated a willingness to move in directions provided by curriculum leaders (73:295-96). Hines, basing his opinion on research done at the University of Florida, averred that curriculum improvement is more likely to occur in schools with democratic princi pals. Behavior descriptions indicated that democratic leadership was exercised when principals (1) involved the staff in making policy and program decisions, (2) followed policies determined by the staff, (3) promoted group or individual productivity or satisfaction without threat to others, (4) respected the dignity of individuals, (5) acted to become an accepted member of faculty groups, and (6) kept the channels of communication open (70:110-12). 30 Wiles perhaps best described the democratic approach to curriculum development as the sharing of authority. According to Wiles, "the basic way of getting people to cooperate is to give them a share in deciding how the authority allocated to the group and its official leader will be used" (165:82).. Group processes in cooperative curriculum develop ment.— The publication of Alice Miel's Changing the Curriculum: A Social Process in 1946 provided abrilliant application of the theories of group dynamics to curric ulum development. Miel emphasized that the means of curriculum change were inseparable from the ends, that the process of curriculum change must guarantee security, growth in socialization, and satisfactory accomplishment for participants (103:21-29). Communication skills were seen as essential to adequate group functioning (103:191). Authority was regarded as residing in the group and lead ership as emerging from the group (103:157-62). Although Miel stressed the need for solidarity in the curriculum planning group, heterogeneity of skills and needs was also found desirable to increase group productivity (103: 89-91). Miel's analysis of the process of change was a 31 landmark in curriculum theory and heralded a preoccupation with group functioning. Anderson, in the same year, listed the following procedures which would result in genuine instructional improvement: (1) a cooperative approach to solving common problems, (2) cooperative planning of the group's proce dures, (3) opportunity for all teachers to participate, r (4) respect for the individual and for all points of view, (5) freedom to express beliefs without fear of criticism, (6) openmindedness toward new ideas, and (7) desire to obtain and evaluate the facts before a decision is reached (10:538-39). In his book, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, Anderson later designated the com petent teacher as the expert in curriculum making, and the curriculum specialist as the expert in group processes whose primary responsibility was to help the group become skillful in working together (8:39) . Thelen described the curriculum development group as a change agent with two major objectives: to produce worthwhile changes in a particular situation and to increase understanding of group dynamics (148:579-96). A group of teachers in Winnetka, Illinois, after a stint of social studies curriculum making, concluded that process 32 values encouraging better human relations were equally as important as the curriculum work (133:177-78). In 19 48, the Association for Supervision and Cur riculum Development published a supervisor's handbook characterized by a group dynamics orientation. The super visor was described as the principal "climate-making factor in a group" (12:59). The successful group member was one whose behavior facilitated group interaction (12:52). In several articles, J. Cecil Parker enumerated criteria for effective cooperative curriculum development. In "Guidelines for Curriculum Development," he succinctly stated the group processes approach: "The group learns when it thinks, discusses, plans, decides, acts, and evaluates in terms of 'we' goals instead of 'I' goals" (111:21). Benne and Sheats1 taxonomy of the functional roles of group members served to categorize both constructive and destructive participation. Group task roles necessary to facilitate group effort toward defining and solving a problem were listed as initiator-contributor, information seeker, information giver, opinion seeker, opinion giver, elaborator, coordinator, evaluator-critic, energizer, procedural technician, and recorder. Group building and 33 maintenance roles were designated as encourager, harmon- izer, compromiser, gate-keeper, standard setter, group observer and commentator, and follower (20:92-97). A number of studies applied evaluative criteria derived from group processes to curriculum development groups. Lowe analyzed the activities of three curriculum committees and concluded that problems arising from processes used by the committees were not faced. Assist ing the committees in the perception of group tasks was regarded as the major function of curriculum leadership (88:99). Halverson's study suggested that attention to group technique resulted in more effective group function ing, but information was lacking as to when attention to group process was appropriate and what form such attention should take (62 :188) . Ebaugh evaluated the processes used in the Royal Oak, Michigan, Curriculum Study. Most par ticipants revealed little understanding of the fundamental principles of group processes (45:77). Corey studied the reports of a number of curric ulum development groups and concluded that four conditions must exist before the quality of cooperation can be improved: 34 1. Freedom to change the established ways of working in groups. 2. Continuous evaluation of group process by group members. 3. Willingness to put into effect those changes which various members of the group, after considerable discussion, feel are necessary if the methods of group work are to be im proved. 4. Training in group work methods under circum stances that simulate reality but are not quite so crucial. (36:96) In 1952, Gold commented that the group process movement in education had been introduced and become absorbed in general practice in less than a decade (5 8:230). Textbooks on administration and supervision by such eminent practitioners as Faunce (49:65-107), Bartky (18:178-205), Burton and Brueckner (29:174-202), and Adams and Dickey (1:304-11) included chapters dealing with group process. The 1951 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development provided many examples of the group process approach to continuous curriculum improvement (11). A number of publications reflected the need of administrators and supervisors to interpret their role in the group dynamics milieu. Hall suggested that the admin istration was responsible for providing the following opportunities for all staff members: (1) to have their ideas considered, (2) to be treated as important individ uals, and (3) to be given responsibility (61:236). 35 Mackenzie and Corey reported a three-year cooperative study in Denver, Colorado, to improve instructional leadership in terms of the group process approach (95). A changing attitude toward the role of the teacher was reflected in Martin's comment that the teacher who disagrees or has doubts may be considered the most con structive member of the group (99:353). Thelen placed emphasis on the openness of communication, allowing the teacher to gain feelings of security in the group, and permitting the group to understand and accept community needs (149:414-15). Fullagar interviewed teachers in an informal study of teacher reaction to the group process approach. Con siderable confusion was discovered among the teachers as to what the supervisors and consultants were trying to do and as to what the teacher's role should be (54:110). Miles published a book in 1959 designed to fulfill this need. The volume illustrated procedures for training school personnel to work effectively in groups (105) . In 196 3, Bradford and Mial summed up the contem porary attitude toward group process in these words: The phrase "group dynamics" may have lost its usefulness through overuse, but not very many 36 people today say they do not "believe" in it. Rather, one of the important social insights of our day is that the deliberate, conscious study of forces operating in a group can increase the chances that individual resources present in the group will be discovered and developed. (23:147) Action research.— During the 1940's, the concept of cooperative action research caught the imagination of curriculum builders. This approach called for teachers, with the help of research technicians, to conduct experi mental study on problems of immediate concern, thus bring ing research methods to bear on curriculum problems. After six years of field work with public school personnel in cooperative research projects, the Horace Mann-Lincoln Institute staff concluded that the following role aspects are conducive to action research: (1) teach ers should be encouraged to conduct experimentation and to develop creative ideas; (2) teachers should be concerned about gathering evidence of the success or failure of an innovation; and (3) teachers should be allowed time to conduct research (37:209). In 1952, Wann described the results of an experi mental program sponsored by Columbia University in which teachers participated. Action research was found to require a climate in which teachers could freely discuss 37 problems, devise ways of studying problems, and try out new ways of working (159:489-95). In reviewing studies of action research, Wann con cluded: It was considered important but not essential that action research be cooperative in order to bring to bear upon problem solving the power of group support and group effort. . . . Emphasis was placed on the need for the teacher to share in all aspects of the research from problem identifi cation to testing solutions in action. Teachers should become research associates, not merely subjects of experiments or assistants in gathering data. (158:339) A panel discussion at Columbia Teachers College Curriculum Conference reiterated that action research could be either group or individual. However, the panel ists agreed that group work may produce higher quality research because the talents of a number of people are available (19:249). Passow, Miles, Corey, and Draper reported on a training conference sponsored by the Horace Mann-Lincoln Institute to increase the ability of school personnel to conduct action research. Several features essential to conducting research as a basis for curriculum improvement were enumerated: (1) evidence collecting, (2) hypotheses making, (3) testing in practice, and (4) evaluation 38 (115:3-4). The action research concept propounded in the 1957 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development stressed the applicability of the study to the immediate situation and the involvement of teachers as experts in classroom dynamics and as change agents (14:31). In this volume, Miles concluded that whether or not action research makes for better problem-solvers was the crucial question (14:226). In a candid evaluation of action research, Corey admitted that few educators had mastered the techniques of the method. Moreover, the efforts of teachers had been frequently and justifiably criticized because of their ignorance of previous research. Corey concluded that teacher participants in action research need technical help in defining problems, designing experiments, develop ing evaluative instruments, and interpreting results (38: 29-31) . Role analysis.— During the two decades from 19 30 to 1950, methods of curriculum development underwent revolutionary changes: the nerve center of curriculum improvement moved from the central office to the individual 39 building; the supervisor became a facilitator; the teacher became a researcher; and concern with ^production was superseded by concern with group process. But such rapid change in theory could not be assimilated into the behavior of individuals with equal rapidity. In an effort to clar ify patterns of responsibility and behavior, educators borrowed the concept of role from social psychology. Thomas and Farley described the confusion that results when a traditionally authoritarian social system becomes democratic. The individual participant in curric ulum development was charged with the responsibility for understanding and accepting his role as well as the roles of fellow participants (151:245-49). In an interim report of the Midwest Cooperative Program in Educational Administration, Rehage described a comprehensive study focused on exploring the roles and responsibilities of status leaders. Neither principals nor supervisors agreed among themselves as to their responsibilities for providing curriculum leadership (122: 107). Kinnick suggested that teacher groups talk about the concept of role and how role expectations affect the ways in which people work together (76:143). 40 Coffey and Goldner wrote knowledgeably of the psychology of change within an institution. The school was regarded as an institution consisting of a prescribed set of roles. Coffey and Goldner pointed out that beliefs and values of administrators and classroom teachers fre quently differ substantially and cause conflict (34:78). In writing of the curriculum consultant's task, Marcella Lawler averred that curriculum development groups should formulate explicit statements in clarification of the participants1 roles. Structured interviews conducted with six consultants had identified the area of role defi nition as crucial to success (82:89). Woodruff indicted confusion of roles as a chief difficulty in curriculum improvement. The nature of such confusion was described in the following manner: In every complete enterprise three roles must be filled. Someone must make value judgments and establish goals. Someone must find facts or carry on research. Someone must use facts to set up a program that will reach goals effectively and efficiently. These roles require different preparation, different procedures, and often dif ferent personalities. . . . It is inadvisable for any person to take more than one of these roles for a given enterprise. . . . It is highly improbable that a really good administrator or teacher can find the time or energy for sound research. (16 8:406) 41 The 1960 yearbook of the Association for Super vision and Curriculum Development attempted to clarify the roles of curriculum leaders. Status leaders were cautioned not to abrogate their responsibilities by being merely facilitators of group action (13:10 8). In 1961, Leighbody and Weinrich attempted to clar ify the curriculum planning roles of educators in different positions. The teacher's role was described as of critical importance, yet was less clearly defined than that of the principal, curriculum specialist, superintendent, and other curriculum leaders. The teacher was regarded as the expert in judging the practicality of content (85:162-94). Taba, in a notable volume published in 1962, wrote: "The functional roles important to curriculum development . . . need to be more sharply defined to avoid role confu sion and to permit allocation of particular roles accord ing to specific competencies as well as according to professional status and responsibilities" (146:478-79). Taba listed as the steps in curriculum change (1) produc ing pilot units, (2) testing experimental units, (3) revising and consolidating, (4) developing a framework, and (5) installing and disseminating new units. The first two steps were described as requiring teacher participa 42 tion, the third and fourth were regarded as primarily the tasks of curriculum specialists, and the fifth step was assigned to administrators (146:457-59). Urick and Frymier decried ill-defined relationships among teachers, administrators, and supervisors as well as conflicting perceptions of roles as inhibitors of change. For example, if the principal sees the faculty as respon sible for stimulating change, but the teacher regards the principal as the originator of change, this conflict in role perceptions causes resistance toward change on the part of both (155:108). Gill, commenting on trends in curriculum develop ment observed in 1963, noted an emphasis on the teacher's role in curriculum development revealed in conference themes, pamphlets, and reports (57:121). Preoccupation with roles in curriculum development may have partly stemmed from the uneasy feeling that the teacher involvement movement was derogating the need for curriculum specialists at the district level. Some cur riculum leaders asserted the vitality of their roles. Hamilton wrote, "Curriculum planning is essentially a specialized task, properly to be carried on by vocationally specialized staffs of curricular experts. Rather than 43 acting as consultants to the other people properly in volved, these other people should be the consultants of the experts" (63:388). Brickell, who was appointed to study educational experimentation in the New York schools, found that admin istrators generally introduced new programs. "Shared decision making" and "staff involvement" appeared to be administrative terminology which failed to describe actual practice (24:23-24). Brickell distinguished three dis tinct phases of instructional innovation: design, evalua tion, and dissemination. People who worked well in one phase were usually ineffective in another (24:62). Brickell concluded that teachers generally should not be involved in the designing and evaluating of new programs. Instead, a state research agency which would plan and rigorously evaluate new instructional programs was recom mended. Selected schools would participate in dissemina tion by demonstrating (24:80). Although the literature tended to suggest a narrowing of the teacher's role in curriculum development, other forces tended to work in the opposite direction. New concepts of staff utilization indicated that methods of providing time for teachers to do curriculum planning 44 had not been exhausted. The popularity of teaching teams, increasing departmentalization, and extended requirements for credentials all tended to cast the teacher in the role of curriculum expert. Frazier wrote of the "new teacher" in 196 3 as being truly a curriculum expert and suggested that curriculum specialists must redefine their roles in terms of (1) behaviors expected of a fully pro fessional teacher, (2) concepts of the curriculum which will enable the teacher to function professionally, and (3) the activities of curriculum leaders which will support the development of desirable curricula (52:97-98). Literature Regarding Role Analysis and Roles in Education Literature on roles and role analysis was surveyed. Publications which specifically relate to the design of the study were reviewed. Analysis of roles in education were given particular attention. Sargent examined the history of role study and found that the first serious psychological treatment was undertaken by Woodworth in 1934. Roles were described as having ingredients of cultural, personal, and situational determination, but were never wholly determined by any one 45 of these. Rather, a given role was viewed as being affected by different degrees of these three components (193:355-70). Ralph Linton defined role as the sum total of the culture patterns associated with a particular status. Status and position were defined as referring to the place in a particular system which an individual occupies at a particular time. Thus, a role was regarded as the dynamic aspect of a status and could be described in terms of what the individual must do to validate his occupation of the status (187:367-70). A group was described by Greer as a set of rela tionships between individual members (178:18). His opera tional definition of role was "the minimum action pattern necessary for holding a given position in a group" (17 8: 22). Greer specified that roles are not always delineated through job descriptions because many important areas of expectations may be left out (178:22), for example, joviality or submissiveness. A position in a social structure was defined by Sarbin in terms of obligations or actions expected of an occupant and rights or those actions expected from others. Sarbin asserted that role expectations could be studied by 46 means of questionnaires or inventories (192:223-5 8). Mot2 further explored the use of questionnaires and inventories in role analysis. Open-ended questionnaires and interviews were used to obtain items for a role concep tion inventory. Judges evaluated and classified the items. The inventory appeared to be a useful research tool (188:465-71). Sarbin and Jones stated that role expectations may be assessed by an inventory composed of action sentences or by an instrument which taps qualitative aspects. How ever, the expectations expressed by an individual for a specific role must be distinguished from actual performance in the role. In a social psychology textbook. Hartley and Hartley discussed role concepts in some detail. An indi vidual's perception of his role in relation to the roles of others as well as in relation to his own performance in that role was regarded as basic to the functioning of any organized society (183:486-87). According to the authors, when social phenomena are reduced to laboratory conditions, the results are not necessarily the same phenomena that would obtain if the complexities of normal social living were a part of the situation. Therefore, the researcher's 47 effort to control variables may introduce an element that invalidates the results (183:5-6). An experiment was reported by Gerald in which forty-eight groups, each comprised of four individuals, were analyzed in terms of status, clarity of role,, and clarity of goal. Gerald found that the greater the clarity of an individual's role, the less was he concerned with his own performance. In an unclear role situation, low status persons perceived themselves as ineffectual (176: 475-88). The use of the role concept in analyzing complex organizations was evaluated by Jacobson,' Charters, and Lieberman who concluded that the functioning and effec tiveness of such organizations might better be understood if role theory were more extensively applied. The sugges tion was made that response to projected change programs might be predictable if the attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of the members of complex hierarchical organiza- tions were more carefully studied (184:18-27). Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendency Role, by Gross, Mason, and McEachern established a pattern for the analysis of educational roles and role conflict. The first five chapters dealt largely 48 with solutions to the theoretical and operational problems of role analysis from which subsequent investigators could profit. Most definitions of role were found to be based on the concept that individuals in social locations behave with reference to expectations (179:17). The authors pointed out that to study one position it is necessary to consider one or more related or counter positions (179:62). The degree of consensus among role definers was assumed to be an important variable affecting the behavior of an actor. By considering consensus a variable, the investigation of degrees of consensus within small,groups, within total samples of role definers, and between role definers was possible (179:74). One half of the superintendents in Massachusetts and their school boards responded to six role definition instruments and were interviewed at length by a team of trained interviewers. The inventories were based on an examination of the literature, informal discussions with educators, and participation in conferences with adminis trators and school board members. The questionnaires provided consensus data; the interviews were used to locate role conflicts. Role conflict situations were differen tiated as those arising from occupancy of more than one position and as intrarole conflict, a situation in which an individual perceived that others held differing expec tations for him as the incumbent of a particular position (179:81-102). The data obtained from the study were used primarily to test hypotheses regarding consensus and role conflict. Halpin studied the leadership behavior of fifty Ohio school superintendents as perceived by members of the board of education, staff members, and the superintendents themselves. Two specific dimensions of leadership behavior were measured— "initiating structure" and "con sideration." The former referred to behavior of the superintendent in delineating his relationship with others and establishing lines of communication. Consideration referred to his warmth and respect in relationships with his staff. The data were obtained exclusively with ques tionnaires (181:4). The purpose of the inquiry was not to evaluate the superintendents' behavior but to determine relationships between the perceptions of the superintend ents, the boards, and the staffs. Agreement among the groups would presumably provide a basis for leadership training, whereas lack of agreement would indicate the need for a more complex program (181:2). Halpin 50 concluded that the descriptions of all three role definers were needed to provide an adequate picture of the superin tendents' behavior (181:2). Getzels and Guba used extended interviews of forty-one teachers to obtain items expressing job dissatis faction. An instrument was then constructed to identify the character of the teacher's role and to estimate the conflict among expectations and its effect upon teachers. Elementary and secondary teachers from rural and metro politan areas responded. The investigators concluded that role conflicts affected all the respondents, but that the intensity of the conflict was determined by the local situation (177:30-40). Bidwell reported a study conducted under the auspices of the Midwest Administration Center, Cooperative Program in Educational Administration at the University of Chicago in which questionnaires were used to measure expectations for the principal's and superintendent's role and to establish the degree of the respondent's satisfac tion with the teaching situation. Focused interviews were conducted with eleven of the subjects to estimate the reliability of the questionnaire. Despite the coherence of the results of the two, the investigator felt that the 51 interviews were of limited value. Convergence of expecta tions toward the administrator with perceptions of his actual behavior was accompanied by teaching satisfaction (172:41-47). Bernstein employed an opinionnaire to elicit role expectations and perceptions as a means of measuring teacher morale. Four groups of teachers were identified according to whether their role expectations of the school board were being fulfilled or not and whether their expec tations of the principal were fulfilled. The moral tendency scores based on attitudes toward the board of education and principal were compared using chi square and the t test. Bernstein found that secondary teachers tended to think of.the principal and superintendent in a less personal manner than the elementary teachers. Con vergence of expectations and perceptions was significantly correlated with high morale (171). Cowan studied the expectations held by building directors, principals, adult education co-ordinators, and teachers for the building director's role, a position which had been created by the Michigan Board of Education. A questionnaire was constructed dealing with four segments of the building director's role. The role expectations of 52 the respondent groups were compared and convergence and divergence of beliefs noted. The principal hypothesis, that building directors and significant others hold differr- ing and sometimes conflicting expectations for thq building director's role, was supported (174). Terrien described an intensive study completed in 19 49 to test the hypothesis that an occupation could chan nel the behavior of its adherents both on and off the job. Deep interviews were conducted with a random sample of the teachers in an eastern city. The results appeared to sub stantiate the hypothesis. Teachers conceived of them selves as loyal, nonaggressive, and somewhat martyred. Terrien commented that the forces most important in the definition of an occupational role are those felt and defined by that occupational group itself (196:14-20). Brookover reviewed the research on teacher and administrator roles in the educative process. The role concept was described as involving an actor in relation to others in particular social groups. Brookover pointed out that as communication occurs, expectations change or are replaced by new expectations. Moreover, the expectations for a general status may not be compatible with expecta tions for a specific situational status. General status, 53 status in a specific situation, and role were differen tiated. Brookover suggested that more knowledge was needed of the circumstances under which group expectations are modified and of the degree of tolerance permitted in the teacher's role (173:2-13). Jahoda, Deutsch, and Cook compared the interview and questionnaire approaches. Both were found to place heavy reliance on the subject's verbal report which largely limited the data to information which the subject was willing or able to reveal. However, the validity of verbal reports was indicated by their usefulness in pre diction. Some uniformity from one measurement situation to another was obtained by careful pre-testing and by helping the respondents to understand the questionnaire during its administration. The interviewing situation was found to be rarely uniform from one situation to another. However, the interview approach allowed a more permissive atmosphere (18^:152-5 8). Jonsson's comparison’of questionnaires and inter views as research techniques was based on experimental evidence. Jonsson found that the questionnaire method was superior when specific information was desired and when the questions were not difficult to answer. However, non 54 responses were three to four per cent greater in the ques tionnaire method. Jonsson cited a study by Kahn in which non-responses were fewer for the questionnaires because the subjects were reassured by" the anonymity of the method. The questionnaire also exerted less pressure for immediate response. In a number of studies reviewed by Jonsson, the questionnaire elicited more detailed responses than inter views. In the exploratory stages of investigations, the interview method was generally superior. Jonsson concluded that the interview method is often used when the question naire method could also be considered (186). Summary A review of the literature on cooperative curric ulum development revealed six trends which tended to extend the authority and responsibility of the teacher: (1) decentralized or centrally coordinated organization for curriculum development, (2) wide teacher participation, (3) the conjunction of curriculum development and in- service education, (4) democratic curriculum development, (5) group process, and (6) action research. However, cer tain problems generated by these trends remained unre solved. The problems centered around time provisions, 55 coordination of curriculum development activities, and the efficient use of specialized personnel. When rapid expansion of knowledge in a number of fields led to demands for curricular innovation, prevalent methods of curriculum development were too diffused to effect the changes desired. The teacher's relatively new role as curriculum expert was challenged. In this climate, a seventh trend appeared in the literature— an interest in the clarification of curriculum workers1 roles. The literature regarding role analysis suggested that this research tool should be a productive technique for examining the roles of participants in cooperative curriculum development. Although in recent years role analysis has been applied to various positions in educa tional systems, no research focused directly on the teach er's role in curriculum development was located. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES FOR GATHERING AND ANALYZING DATA The procedures used in gathering and analyzing the data are presented in this chapter. The development of the questionnaire and the group interview as a technique for administering a questionnaire are discussed in consid erable detail. Information regarding the selection of respondents is included. Finally, the statistical methods applied to the raw data are explained. Development of the Questionnaire The use of an inventory or opinionnaire to find out how a role was perceived was common in comparable stud ies of roles in education. Banning used this method to study aspects of teachers' attitudes toward curriculum change (16:47-49). Bidwell mailed questionnaires to respondents in a study of the relationship between the administrative role and satisfaction in teaching (172:43). Gross, Mason, and McEachern, in a study of the 56 ; 57 superintendent's role, used a number of instruments based largely on the conception of the role found in the litera ture (179:102-04). Bernstein used an opinionnaire in the study of teachers' role expectations for the principal, superintendent, and board of education roles (171:1). Halpin devised a questionnaire for an analysis of the leadership behavior of superintendents (18:6-10.) . A mailed questionnaire was used by Cowan in his study of the build ing director's role (174:2).. Selection of the items for the questionnaire on the basis of a review of current literature was also found to be accepted practice in educational research. To assure currency in the role items selected, only litera ture published since 19 44 was considered. Statements regarding the teacher's role in curric ulum development were compiled from the literature. The items fell readily into four categories, or four aspects of the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum develop ment: (1) division of labor, (2) facilitation of teacher participation, (3) group processes, and (4) criteria for participation in cooperative curriculum g^.yeiopment. The number of expectations to be included in the questionnaire was appreciably reduced by eliminating those 58 infrequently mentioned in the literature. Other items eliminated by inspection dealt with a specific and narrow aspect of curriculum development with which respondents might not have had experience. The final selection of items was scrutinized in terms of the equitable coverage of various viewpoints and the inclusion of all important aspects of each category. The Division of Labor items included responsibili ties in curriculum development which might or might not be delegated to teachers. For each item, a choice of five responses was indicated: (1) should be entirely the responsibility of teachers, (2) should be largely the responsibility of teachers, (3) equally the responsibility of teachers and the administrative or supervisory staffs, (4) should be largely the responsibility of the adminis trative and supervisory personnel, and (5) should be entirely the responsibility of administrative and super visory personnel. Respondents were invited to write in other responses if none of those given was adequate to describe the ideal division of labor. Grouped under Facilitation of Teacher Participation were items which the literature described as rights of teachers, or responsi bilities which teachers might or might not ascribe to 59 district personnel in positions other than that of teacher. The Group Processes items dealt with ways in which group members might interact. Criteria for Participation were comprised of qualifications for teacher participants in cooperative curriculum development. For items under Facilitation of Teacher Participation, Group Processes, and Criteria for Participation, five responses were pro vided: (1) absolutely must, (2) preferably should, (3) may or may not, (4) preferably should not, and (5) absolutely must not. The individual's choice would thus reveal both the direction and intensity of response. Each section of the questionnaire closed with an item which asked whether or not the actual behaviors of participants in curriculum development generally corres ponded with the expectations expressed by the respondent. Previous research had indicated that the convergence of expectations and perceptions resulted in high morale. Therefore, an affirmative response was regarded as an indication of satisfaction. Nine questions were appended to the questionnaire to obtain data regarding the training and experience of respondents. These items provided data for the interpre tation of differential responses to the questionnaire and 60 for the comparison of groups. The questionnaire was submitted to a district cur riculum council for criticism. Members of the council were the central office personnel with curriculum responsibility and a representative from each school in the district, usually the principal, but in a few instances a teacher appointed by the principal. The group of twenty-eight responded to the questionnaire and suggested changes to reduce ambiguity. Extensive changes were consequently made in the original questionnaire. Two pilot studies were conducted, using the revised questionnaire. In Pilot Study A, the questionnaire was administered to the homemaking department of a junior high school. The department was in the process of developing a new junior high course of study for homemaking and had evinced unusual interest in the processes of cooperative curriculum development. A teaching team participated in Pilot Study B. The team teachers had worked together closely for three and one-half semesters, frequently func tioning as a curriculum development group. Pilot Study B was regarded as a check on problems which would arise in using the questionnaire in a closely integrated group which could be expected to reveal a high degree of 61 consensus. The questionnaire was revised on the basis of the two pilot studies.- A distinguished panel next examined the question naire and made invaluable suggestions for its refinement. The panel was comprised of two experts in curriculum development, Dr. Myron S. Olson of the University of Southern California, and Dr. John D. Lawrence, Director of the Division of Secondary Education, Los Angeles County Schools, and one expert in group process, Dr. Robert Haas of the University of California at Los Angeles. A third pilot study was conducted to identify any ambiguities which might have resulted from the several revisions of the questionnaire. Eleven teachers who had participated in the development of the social studies cur riculum in a new junior high school were the respondents. Several changes in wording were made on the basis of Pilot Study C. The content and format were deemed satisfactory. A copy of the questionnaire appears in the appendix. Selection of the Respondents Every third district in an alphabetical list of the unified school districts of Los Angeles County (except ing the Los Angeles City Schools) was contacted to obtain 62 the groups comprising the sample. If a school district was unwilling or unable to participate, the next district in the alphabetical list was contacted. The superintendent in charge of instruction or the director of curriculum in the school district suggested a curriculum development group which had met a minimum of four times. The chairman of the group was then contacted, additional information about the purposes, working proce dures, and membership of the group was obtained, and the administration of the questionnaire was placed on the agenda of the scheduled group meeting. Ten cooperative curriculum development groups ranging in size from four to twenty-three members comprised the sample. One group was working with the primary cur riculum, one with the total elementary program, and three with the intermediate grades. Thus, one-half the groups were comprised of elementary teachers and their curriculum leaders. The other five were secondary groups. Three were working at the junior high level, two at the senior high level. The total sample consisted of thirty-eight elemen tary teachers, thirty-six secondary teachers, and twenty- two curriculum leaders. Positions of curriculum leadership 63 included were four resource teachers (released from teach ing duties full time), two counselors with curriculum development responsibilities, three assistant principals, six principals, one secondary curriculum consultant, two general consultants, one supervisor, one coordinator of elementary education, one director of curriculum, and one assistant superintendent. Administration of the Questionnaire in a Group Interview The questionnaires were administered by the inves tigator to each participating curriculum development group during a scheduled meeting of the group. Participants were permitted to ask questions and to discuss items. This method undoubtedly resulted in higher consensus (that is, less variance) in responses than would.have been obtained by administering each questionnaire individually. However, expectations for the role studied are not formu lated in isolation, but rather through group discussion and. interaction. Since the study was concerned with consensus and the lack of consensus, perfunctory replies could suggest disagreement where a lack of interest or experience actu ally existed. In other words, such responses would not 64 reflect an expectation held by the respondent. Therefore, the participants were told to leave unanswered any items on which they had not had an opportunity to form an opin ion. The results for each group were summarized. Copies of the summarizations were sent to the group leaders and the district administrators in charge of curriculum. The Reliability and Validity of the Questionnaire Reliability is invariably a serious problem when questionnaires are employed. Many role analysis studies ameliorated this difficulty by following the administration of questionnaires with interviews of a portion of the respondents. An alternative was to administer the ques tionnaire in a group situation, thus combining some of the advantages of the focused group interview with the ques tionnaire method. Jonsson, in comparing questionnaire and interview methods, differentiated between the two in terms of the administrator's participation. The questionnaire method was defined as involving a minimum of verbal par ticipation on the administrator's part; the interview method required the administrator's taking an active part 65 in the question and answer process. Jonsson pointed out that the line of demarcation between the two methods was not always clear (186:15). The group interview situation in which the instru ment was administered enabled the investigator to clarify questions when needed, thus insuring greater uniformity in the interpretation of items then could have been obtained from mailed questionnaires. The questionnaire method pro vided the advantage of anonymity of response, while the group interview situation appeared to reduce perfunctory replies. Frequently, additional information was volun teered by group members regarding the circumstances under which expectations had been formulated. A certain lack of validity is inherent in the role analysis questionnaire because of the necessity of select ing a sample of expectations from among the indefinite number of possible expectations for any given role. The selection of items was based on a review of the literature to insure that all aspects of the role regarded as impor tant by a majority of curriculum specialists would be included. The panel of experts furnished an additional check on the selection of items. The three pilot studies provided opportunities for twenty-eight teachers to suggest 66 additional expectations. In addition, the group interview allowed respondents to express expectations which were important to them but were not included in the question naire. The fact that additional expectations expressed by- respondents reflected specific situations confronting the group and that no two groups suggested the same additional expectations indicated that adequate coverage had been obtained in the questionnaire. Statistical Procedures The application of statistical procedures to the responses required that a numerical value be assigned to each response category. Throughout the instrument, values from one to five were assigned to the five response cate gories . To accept or reject the hypotheses formulated, a statistical method of determining the presence or lack of intraposition consensus was needed. Also, a means of determining whether the three samples (official leaders, elementary teachers", "and secondary teachers) agreed or dis agreed was necessary. The variance was selected as the criterion for con sensus. Gross, Mason, and McEachern preferred the variance 67 because it magnified extreme deviations, thus recognizing that responses in nonadjacent categories reflect more important conflicting points of view than responises in adjacent categories (179:115). In addition, differences in variance were easily tested by the variance ratio or F-test, and the variance was appropriate in the pooled or small sample formula to determine differences in means. For each item in the questionnaire, the mean response and variance were computed for curriculum leaders, for elementary teachers, for secondary teachers, and for each participating curriculum development group. A means of interpreting the variance for each item was needed. Following the procedure of Gross, Mason, and McEachern (179:117), the median variance score for the total sample, 0.766, was selected as the cutting point between scores which indicated high agreement and those which indicated a diversity of opinion. The cutting point, then, was the median of the distribution.of variances for all items and for the three samples, curriculum leaders, elementary teachers, and secondary teachers. Reference to the median score provided an immediate method of evaluating the amount of consensus within a group. In addition, two groups with similar variances and means but with variance scores 68 larger than the median could be described as having similar distributions reflecting a lack of consensus in either group, rather than as agreeing with each other.. The presence or lack of agreement between the three sets of role definers (interposition consensus) was deter mined by the t test for the difference between means. When the F test indicated that the variances differed sig nificantly, the value of t was obtained by dividing the difference between the means by the standard error of the difference, as was suggested by Edwards (175:271). The value of t was adjusted by the following formula (175:273). t.05 = (trl2) (tl) + (<T 22) (t2) <T12 + CT22 For the Division of Labor instrument, differences in the direction of responses among the three samples (curriculum leaders, secondary, and elementary teachers) were determined by the chi square criterion. The response categories, entirely and largely the responsibility of teachers, were combined and regarded as responses in the direction of teacher responsibility. The third category, equally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel, was kept separate. The fourth 69 and fifth categories, largely and entirely the responsi bility of administrative and supervisory personnel, were combined. Since the curriculum leader sample was small, this procedure was necessary to allow reasonably large expected frequencies in each square of the contingency table. Summary The use of a questionnaire based on the literature to determine expectations for a role was found to be accepted practice in role analysis. Statements regarding the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development were compiled and grouped into four categories: (1) divi sion of labor, (2) facilitation of teacher participation, (3) group processes, and (4) criteria for participation in cooperative curriculum development. For the Division of Labor instrument, five response alternatives were provided whereby the respondent could indicate whether he consid ered the task described to be entirely or largely a teacher responsibility, a joint responsibility, or entirely or largely an administrative and supervisory responsibility. For the other three sections of the questionnaire, five i response choices represented points on a continuum ranging 70 from absolutely must to absolutely must not. The questionnaire was submitted to a district cur riculum council and to a panel of experts for criticism. Three pilot studies were conducted. The final revision incorporated the changes suggested. The respondents were members of curriculum develop ment groups in ten unified school districts in Los Angeles County. The total sample was comprised of thirty-eight elementary teachers, thirty-six secondary teachers, and twenty-two curriculum leaders. The questionnaire was administered by the investi gator in a group interview situation. This technique com bined the advantages of the interview and questionnaire methods and enhanced the reliability of the responses. The variance was selected as the measure of varia bility of the distribution. Variances and means were computed for each group and for curriculum leaders, elemen tary teachers, and secondary teachers. The median variance for the total sample was the cutting point between variances which represented consensus and which represented a lack of consensus. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Chapter IV consists of an analysis of the responses to a four-part role analysis instrument, "The Teacher in Cooperative Curriculum Development." The responses of three samples of role definers (twenty-two curriculum leaders, thirty-eight elementary teachers, and thirty-six secondary teachers) are compared. The variances of each sample's responses were used as the measure of intraposi tion consensus. A comparison of the means of samples determined interposition consensus. Differences in the responses of the ten participating curriculum development groups are noted when doing so clarifies the pattern of responses. The chapter is divided into eight sections. The first four correspond with the four sections of the ques tionnaire: Division of Labor, Facilitating Teacher Par ticipation, Group Processes, and Criteria for Participa tion. The fifth section considers the questionnaire items 71 related to satisfaction derived from participation in cooperative curriculum development. The sixth part summa rizes the expectations for the teacher's role in coopera tive curriculum development as revealed by responses to the questionnaire. The seventh part is concerned with the application of the findings to the hypotheses posed in Chapter I. The chapter concludes with a summary. Division of Labor The Division of Labor section listed twenty activi ties frequently mentioned in the literature as aspects of cooperative curriculum development. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they regarded each task as (1) entirely the responsibility of teachers, (2) largely the responsi bility of teachers, (3) equally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel, (4) largely the responsibility of administrative or supervisory personnel, or (5) entirely the responsibility of adminis trative or supervisory personnel. Develop or revise courses of study or curriculum guides.— The mean response of the three samples fell in the same category and indicated that developing courses of 73 study should be the joint responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel. Consensus was obtained within the elementary and secondary teacher samples, but not within the curriculum leader sample. The chi square value was computed for direction only; that is, the two response categories in the direction of teacher responsibility were combined, as were the two response categories in the direction of administrative or super visory responsibility. The chi square was significant at the five per cent.level of confidence. The difference in distributions was accounted for by a disparate number of responses from the secondary teacher sample in the direc tion of teacher responsibility. Determine scope and sequence in a specific subject for either elementary or secondary grades.— The mean response of the. total sample was that determining scope and sequence shoulcS^be equally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel. However, the variances for curriculum leaders and secondary teachers were above the median variance, indicating a lack of intra position consensus. The distributions were not signifi cantly different. 74 Formulate curricular objectives in a specific sub ject area.— The mean response of curriculum leaders and elementary teachers was that the formulation of curricular objectives should be equally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel. The variances indicated consensus within these positions. The mean response of secondary teachers was "should be largely the responsibility of teachers," but the response did not rep resent consensus. The chi-square test indicated that the distributions of the three samples were significantly dif ferent. Of the ten participating curriculum development groups, two responded in the direction of teacher responsi bility, one in the direction of administrative or super visory responsibility, and four considered this a joint responsibility. Develop resource or teaching units.— The curriculum leaders and elementary teachers agreed that developing resource or teaching units should be equally the responsi bility of teachers and administrative or supervisory per sonnel. The difference between the means, was not signifi cant and the variances were below the median variance indicating both intraposition and interposition consensus. 75 The secondary teachers' mean response was "should be largely the responsibility of teachers," and the low vari ance indicated consensus. The t-test revealed highly significant differences between the secondary teachers' mean response and the means of curriculum leaders and elementary teachers. The chi-square test for direction only indicated that the difference in distributions was also highly significant. The difference in means was fur ther examined by grouping the responses of the participat ing curriculum development groups according to whether the curriculum planning was being done for the primary, inter mediate, junior high, or senior high level. The primary and intermediate teachers considered developing resource units a joint responsibility of teachers and administrators or supervisors; the junior high teachers as largely a teacher responsibility; and the high school teachers as entirely a teacher responsibility. Evaluate and select textbooks and other instruc tional materials.— The mean response of both curriculum leaders and secondary teachers was that the evaluation and selection of textbooks and other instructional materials should be largely the responsibility of teachers. However, 76 the reliability of the curriculum leaders' mean was sus pect because of the lack of consensus within the group. The mean response of elementary teachers was "should be equally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel." The difference between the means of secondary and elementary teachers was highly sig nificant. Differences in the distributions as tested by chi square were also highly significant. Prepare publications or handbooks for parents explaining aspects of the instructional program.— The sample of elementary teachers agreed that the preparation of publications or handbooks for parents explaining aspects of the instructional program should be largely the respon sibility of administrative and supervisory personnel. The consensus of the secondary sample was that this task should be equally the responsibility of teachers and administra tive or supervisory personnel. The difference between the means was highly significant. The mean response of the curriculum leaders fell between the means of the two teacher samples and was significantly different from the elementary teachers' mean. 77 Determine the functions, responsibilities, and authority of the curriculum development group.— Although the mean response for both curriculum leaders and elemen tary teachers was that administrative and supervisory personnel should be largely responsible for determining the functions, responsibilities, and authority of- the curric ulum development group, only the elementary teachers' responses reflected consensus. Secondary teachers felt that this task should be equally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel. The differences between the secondary teachers' mean and the means of the curriculum leaders and elementary teachers were significant, as was the chi-square value. Formulate a philosophy of education to serve as a guide for the group.— Consensus was not obtained in any one of the samples as to who should be responsible for formu lating a philosophy to guide the curriculum development group. Although the means and the distribution of responses were significantly different, the lack of agree ment within the samples of role definers diminished the importance of differences between the samples. 78 Conduct a survey of teachers' classroom or curric ular problems.— Official leaders and secondary teachers agreed that conducting a survey of teachers1 problems should be equally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel. The chi-square test revealed a significant difference in the distribution of responses, partly due to the lack of consensus within the elementary teacher sample. The elementary teachers' responses were distributed between joint responsibility and supervisory or administrative responsibility. Gather evidence as to the effectiveness of instruc tional procedures being used in the school system.— The curriculum leaders' mean fell between the two response categories of joint responsibility and largely administra tive or supervisory responsibility. The variances of the ■ elementary and secondary teachers' responses were both above the median variance, indicating a lack of consensus. Of the ten participating curriculum development groups, three responded in the joint responsibility category and seven assigned responsibility largely to administrators and supervisors. 79 Conduct experimental studies or action research.— Both the curriculum leaders' and secondary teachers' vari ances indicated consensus within the groups to the effect that conducting experimental studies or action research should be equally the responsibility of teachers and administrators or supervisors. The mean response for elementary teachers was "should be largely the responsibil ity of administrative or supervisory personnel," but considerable disagreement was manifested. Differences in the distributions of responses were highly significant as evaluated by the chi-square criterion. Study the needs and interests of the students as a basis for curriculum planning.— The mean response for the three samples was that studying the needs and interests of students should be a joint responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel. However, the difference between the elementary and secondary teachers' means was highly significant. The secondary teachers' responses were pulled in the direction of teacher responsi bility. Of the ten participating groups, the mean response for the three junior high groups was in the direction of teacher responsibility. The distributions were not 80 significantly different. Study the contemporary cultural, political, and economic life in relation to the curriculum.— The mean — - « response for all three samples was that the study of cul tural, political, and economic life should be equally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or super visory personnel. However, since the variance scores indicated a lack of consensus within all three groups, the similarity in means cannot be interpreted as signifying agreement. The distributions were not significantly dif ferent. Review the literature on child development and learning theory to gather information needed by the curric ulum development group.— The mean response for the three samples indicated that reviewing literature on child development and learning theory should be a joint responsi bility of teachers and administrators or supervisors. However, curriculum leaders did not obtain consensus. Of the ten curriculum development groups, the means of six were in the response category, "largely an administrative or supervisory responsibility," while the remaining four were in the equal responsibility category. 81 Decide whether and how to use a consultant's serv ices .— Consensus was not obtained within the teacher samples as to who should decide whether and how to use a consultant's services. The mean responses for the three samples were in the equal responsibility category. The means of the ten participating groups ranged from largely a teacher responsibility to largely an administrative or supervisory responsibility. Visit other schools to learn what procedures are being used there.— Close agreement was obtained within the leaders' sample that visiting schools to observe proce dures should be equally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel. The elementary teachers' mean response fell in the same category, but a wide variation of opinions was reflected in the high vari ance score. The secondary teachers' variance was also above the median variance score; the mean response was "should be largely the responsibility of teachers." The t-test when adjusted for differing variances revealed a highly significant difference between the means of curric ulum leaders and secondary teachers. The distributions of teachers' and leaders' responses were significantly 82 different. Do work between meetings for the group; for exam ple, review research studies to locate needed facts.— Cur riculum leaders and secondary teachers agreed that work between meetings should be the joint responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel. The mean response of elementary teachers made such activity largely the responsibility of administrative or supervisory personnel, but the variance score indicated a lack of con sensus. The responses of secondary and elementary teachers differed at the one per cent level of confidence. The distributions differed at the five per cent level. Recommend a statement of policy as the result of cooperative curriculum work.— The mean response for curric ulum leaders and secondary teachers was "equally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervis ory personnel." However, the secondary teachers' variance score indicated considerable disagreement within the sam ple. The elementary teachers strongly agreed that recom mending statements of policy should be largely the responsibility of administrators and supervisors. The difference between elementary response and the means of 83 both leaders and secondary teachers was highly significant, as was the chi-square value. Interpret plans and materials produced in coopera tive curriculum development to other teachers.— The mean response for all three of the samples was that interpreting plans and materials to other teachers should be equally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervis ory personnel. No significant differences in distributions were found. However, consensus was reached only within the curriculum leaders' sample. Evaluate the results of cooperative curriculum development in operation against the desired outcomes.— Agreement was obtained within the secondary teacher sample that evaluation of curriculum work should be equally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or super visory personnel.. The mean response of official leaders was in the same category, but the variance did not indicate consensus. Nor was consensus reached in the elementary teacher sample, for which the mean response was "should be largely the responsibility of administrative or super visory personnel." 84 TABLE 1 EXPECTATIONS FOR DIVISION OF LABOR Key to Column Headings CL = Curriculum leaders (N=23) ET = Elementary Teachers (N=38) ST = Secondary Teachers (N=36) 1 = Entirely the responsibility of teachers 2 = Largely the responsibility of teachers 3 = Equally the responsibility NA = No of teachers and administra tive or supervisory personnel 4 * Largely the responsibility of administrative or supervisory personnel 5 = Entirely the responsibility of administrative or supervisory personnel answer given CL, ET, _______Response Item briefly stated 1 or ST 1 2 3 4 5 NA Mean or2 1. Develop or revise CL 2 5 10 5 0 0 2.82 0.785 courses of study ET 0 10 26 2 0 0 2.79 0.271 ST 3 11 21 1 0 0 2.56 0.470 2. Determine scope and CL 1 3 9 8 1 0 3.23 0.812 sequence in a ET 0 9 23 6 0 0 2.92 0.389 subject area ST 4 9 16 7 0 0 2.72 0.812 3. Formulate curricu CL 0 7 10 4 1 0 3.04 0.680 lar objectives ET 1 8 22 5 0 2 2.86 0.453 ST 4 18 10 0 3 1 2.43 0.987 4. Develop resource or CL 1 5 12 4 0 0 2.86 0.573 teaching units ET 1 16 16 5 0 0 2.66 0.541 ST 8 19 8 1 0 0 2.06 0.553 5. Evaluate and select CL 4 9 5 3 1 0 2.46 1.158 textbooks ET 0 12 20 5 0 1 2.81 0.423 ST 8 18 10 0 0 0 2.06 0.497 6. Prepare publica CL 0 1 7 13 1 0 3.64 0.414 tions explaining ET 0 0 9 15 14 0 4.13 0.588 instructional ST 0 4 16 12 4 0 3.44 0.691 program 7. Determine functions CL 0 2 4 10 •5 1 3.86 0.790 and authority of ET ' 1 0 13 17 5 2 3.69 0.656 group ST 0 5 18 10 3 0 3.31 0.656 8. Formulate a philos CL 3 4 10 4 1 0 2.82 1.058 ophy to guide ET 1 3 15 12 7 0 3.55 0.931 the group ST 2 7 20 4 3 0 2.97 0.860 TABLE 1--Continued 85 Item briefly stated CL, ET, or ST 1 2 Response 3 4 5 NA Mean C^2 9. Survey teachers' CL 0 5 12 5 0 0 3.00 0.445 classroom, cur ET 1 1 10 14 11 1 3.89 0.907 ricular problems ST 0 5 15 14 1 1 3.31 0.559 10. Examine effective CL 0 3 8 9 2 0 3.46 0.702 ness of instruc ET 1 3 6 15 13 0 3.95 1.050 tion ST 0 6 12 13 5 0 3.47 0.861 11. Conduct experi CL 0 6 12 4 0 0 2.91 0.447 mental studies, ET 0 6 9 12 10 1 3.70 1.074 action research ST 1 7 19 7 2 0 3.06 0.719 12. Study needs and CL 2 7 11 1 1 0 2.64 0.777 interests of ET 0 9 21 6 2 0 3.03 0.604 students ST 1 16 17 2 0 0 2.56 0.414 13. Study cultural, CL 0 7 8 4 2 1 3.05 0.903 political, eco ET 0 5 16 7 7 3 3.46 0.934 nomic life ST 1 6 19 5 3 2 3.09 0.786 14. Obtain informa CL 1 6 9 5 1 1 2.96 0.862 tion needed by ET 1 2 14 19 2 0 3.50 0.618 the group ST 0 6 12 15 3 0 3,42 0.743 15. Decide whether and CL 0 2 10 8 2 0 3.46 0.611 how to use con ET 2 6 16 10 4 0 3.21 1.008 sultants ST 5 6 11 14 0 0 2.94 1.108 16. Visit schools to CL 0 2 16 2 0 2 3.00 0.182 study their pro ET 7 8 14 6 1 2 2.61 1.127 cedures ST 8 8 17 2 0 1 2.37 0.806 17. Do work between CL 0 4 8 9 1 0 3.32 0.672 meetings for ET 0 6 6 19 7 0 3.71 0.890 the group ST 0 7 17 11 1 0 3.17 0.584 18. Recommend a CL 0 3 11 6 2 0 3.32 0.672 statement of ET 0 1 7 22 7 1 3.95 0.483 policy ST 0 13 15 5 3 0 2.94 0.830 19. Interpret plans CL 0 3 9 10 0 0 3.32 0.490 and materials to ET 0 8 14 i2 3 1 3.27 0.792 teachers ST 1 8 15 10 2 0 3.11 0.821 20. Evaluate results CL 1 6 7 7 1 0 3.04 0.953 of curriculum ET 0 4 13 14 7 0 3.63 0.812 development ST 0 5 20 9 2 0 3.22 0.562 TABLE 2 CHI-SQUARE VALUES OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES FOR DIRECTION ONLY DIVISION OF LABOR Item No. Chi Square Sig. 1 9.625 .05 2 7.518 Not sig. 3 12.788 .05 4 13.472 .01 . 5 16.654 .01 6 7.686 Not sig. 7 11.205 .05 8 10.590 .05 9 12.225 .05 10 5.660 Not sig. 11 13.412 .01 12 5.774 Not sig. 13 4.791 Not sig. 14 8.165 Not sig. 15 3.579 Not sig. 16 12. 187 .05 17 10. 597 .05 18 26. 361 .01 19 1.462 Not sig. 20 6.925 Not sig. 87 TABLE 3 T VALUES FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS OF CURRICULUM LEADERS, SECONDARY TEACHERS, AND ELEMENTARY TEACHERS DIVISION OF LABOR Item No, Curriculum Leaders and Elementary Teachers Curriculum Leaders and Secondary Teachers Elementary Teachers and Secondary Teachers t Value Sig, t Value Sig. t Value Sig. 1 *0.140 NS 1.74 NS 0.929 . NS 2 *1.41 NS 2.04 .05 *1.10 NS 3 0.911 NS 2.39 .05 *2.14 .05 4 1.02 NS 3.92 .01 3.46 .01 5 *1.45 NS *1.51 NS 4.69 .01 6 2.52 .05 0.910 NS 3.66 .01 7 0.694 NS 2.34 .05 2.00 .05 8 2.74 .01 0.578 NS 2.60 .05 9 *4.19 .01 1.57 NS 2.82 .01 10 1.88 NS 0.069 NS 2.06 .05 11 *3.58 .01 0.680 NS 2.88 .01 12 1.75 NS *0.370 NS 2.76 .01 13 1.58 NS 0.155 NS 1.70 NS 14 2.38 .05 1.89 NS 0.427 NS 15 0.964 NS 1.94 NS 1.10 NS 16 *1.94 NS *3.51 .01 1.01 NS 17 1.60 NS 0.699 NS 2.68 .01 18 3.08 .01 1.54 NS 5.22 .01 19 0.212 NS 1.04 NS 0.811 NS 20 2.32 .05 0.763 NS 2.09 .05 *Because the F test indicated that the variances were different, the t value was obtained by an alternate formula which allowed for the difference in variances. TABLE 4 88 MEANS AND VARIANCES OF RESPONSES OF GROUPS DIVISION OF LABOR Elementary Secondary Item Junior High Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 3.00 3.20 2.40 2.75 2.43 2.00 2.75 2.76 2.56 2.21 Cr2 0.18 0.16 0.24 0.19 0.24 0.50 0.19 0.18 0.70 0.56 2 M 3.00 3.40 2.80 2.75 3.00 2.25 2.75 3.05 2.95 . 2.60 C r2 0.36 0.64 0.16 0.19 0.57 1.19 0.19 0.62 1.06 1.04 3 M 3.05 3.80 2.75 3.00 2.14 2.25 2.00 3.00 2.56 2.20 Cr1 0.33 0.56 0.19 0.50 0.41 0.19 0.00 0.86 1.28 0.56 4 M 2.91 3.40 2.40 2.50 2.14 2.00 2.50 2.33 1.95 1.60 c r2 0.54 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.41 1.00 0.75 0.32 0.39 0.64 5 M 3.00 3.80 2.60 2.75 2.43 2.00 2.25 2.43 1.78 1.20 cr2 0.38 0.56 0.24 0.19 0.67 0.50 0.19 0.25 0.62 0.16 6 M 4.36 3.80 3.40 4.00 3.71 3.25 4.00 3.67 3.11 3.20 c r 1 0.60 0.56 0.24 0.50 0.49 0.19 0.00 0.60 0.99 0.16 7 M 3.95 4.00 3.60 3.50 3.14 3.00 4.25 3.43 3.22 3.40 O' 2 0.35 1.20 0.24 0.25 0.12 1.00 0.69 0.53 0.62 0.64 8 M 3.86 3.80 3.20 3.50 2.57 3.00 3.00 3.33 3.00 2.80 Cr2 0.66 0.56 0.56 0.25 0.82 2.00 0.00 0.51 1.56 0.56 9 M 4.04 3.40 3.80 3.75 2.67 3.50 3.25 3.38 3.56 3.25 C r2 0.77 0.24 0.56 0.19 1.22 0.75 0.19 0.62 0.68 0.19 10 M 4.00 3.60 4.40 3.75 3.43 3.25 4.00 3.71 3.33 3.60 O '2 0.91 0.24 0.64 0.69 1.96 0.69 0.00 0.68 1.11 0.64 11 M 4.09 3.20 4.00 3.00 2.50 2.75 2.75 3.48 3.00 3.00 Cr2 0.72 0.16 0.40 0.50 0.58 1.19 0.19 0.63 0.44 0.00 12 M 3.14 2.80 3.00 2.75 2.43 2.25 2.00 2.57 2.89 3.00 C r1 0.85 0.96 0.40 0.19 0.24 0.69 0.00 0.34 0.55 0.40 13 M 3.67 3.80 3.20 3.50 2.71 3.50 2.00 3.10 3.33 3.00 C r1 1.08 0.56 0.56 0.75 0.78 0.25 0.00 0.37 1.56 0.50 14 M 3.68 3.60 3.80 4.00 2.57 4.00 3.50 3.19 3.89 2.80 O'2 0.40 0.24 0.16 0.00 0.82 0.50 0.75 0.44 0.77 0.96 15 M 3.54 4.40 2.80 2.75 2.86 3.00 2.25 3.29 3.33 2.40 O'2 0.61 0.24 0.96 1.19 1.27 1.00 0.69 0.97 0.67 0.64 16 M 2.41 3.40 3.40 2.75 2.86 2.00 3.00 2.76 1.89 2.40 cr1 1.33 0.24 0.24 0.69 0.41 0.50 0.00 0.56 0.99 0.64 17 M 4.14 4.00 4.00 3.25 2.86 3.25 3.25 3.19 3.44 2.80 O'2 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.41 0.69 0.69 0.25 0.70 0.96 18 M 4.14 3.80 3.60 3.75 3.50 3.50 2.50 3.43 2.67 2.40 Cr2 0.48 0.96 0.24 0.19 0.58 0.25 0.25 0.53 0.89 0.24 19 M 3.71 3.80 2.80 3.00 2.57 3.50 3.00 3.38 3.11 2.20 c r2 0.68 0.16 0.16 0.50 0,24 . 0.25 0.00 0.72 0.77 0.56 20 M 3.96 4.00 3.60 2.75 3.57 3.25 3.00 3.52 3.33 2.80 O '1 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.19 0.82 1.21 0.00 0.63 0.45 0.16 89 Facilitating Teacher Participation The instrument entitled "Facilitating Teacher Par ticipation" dealt with the rights rather than the responsi bilities of the teacher participants in cooperative curriculum development. Ways in which the board of educa tion, administration, or supervisory staff might help or encourage teachers to participate in cooperative curriculum development were listed. Respondents were to indicate whether or not teachers should be helped or encouraged in these ways. The following response categories were pro vided: (1) absolutely must, (2) preferably should, (3) may or may not, (4) preferably should not, and (5) absolutely must not. Offer guidance and advice.— The curriculum leaders, elementary teachers, and secondary teachers agreed that administrative or supervisory personnel preferably should offer guidance and advice to the curriculum development group. The criterion for intraposition consensus, the variance score, indicated agreement within each teacher sample as well as within the combined sample of teachers. The curriculum leaders’ variance was above the median variance, indicating a lack of consensus. 90 Work with the curriculum development group in a leadership capacity.— A lack of agreement obtained within all samples as to whether or not administrative or super visory personnel should work with the curriculum development group in a leadership capacity. The mean response for secondary teachers was in the "may or may not" category, the mean response for elementary teachers was "preferably should," and the curriculum leaders' mean fell between the two categories. Participate on the same basis as teachers; that is, as working members of the curriculum development group.— Only the official leader sample attained consensus as to whether administrators and supervisors should participate in the curriculum development group on the same basis as teachers. The leaders' mean response fell between the per missive and preferential categories. The mean response for both teacher samples was "preferably should." Five of the ten participating groups responded "preferably should," four responded "may or may not," and one response fell be tween these two categories. Provide training to develop skills needed in cur riculum development.— The mean response of all three samples was that training preferably should be provided. Consensus on this response was found within the two teacher samples. Nine of the ten curriculum development groups also responded in the preferential category. Serve as experts in group dynamics or in curric ulum development techniques.— The mean response for the elementary teacher sample was that administrators or super visors preferably should serve as experts in group dynamics or curriculum development techniques. The official leader and secondary teacher responses revealed a lack of con sensus. The means of both fell between the preferential and permissive responses. The difference between the means of the two teacher groups was significant. Provide the assistance of consultants (other than district employees) if desirable.— The two teacher samples attained both intraposition and interposition consensus that consultant help preferably should be available. The mean responses for all ten of the participating curriculum development groups also fell in the preferential category. Little consensus was found in the curriculum leader sample. Involve as many teachers as possible in cooperative curriculum development.— The mean response for the three samples was that as many teachers as possible preferably should be involved in cooperative curriculum development. However, only the elementary teachers' variance indicated consensus. For all ten of the participating groups, the mean response was also "preferably should." Provide clerical assistance.— The two teacher sam ples strongly, agreed that clerical assistance absolutely must be provided. The curriculum leaders' mean was "pref erably should,” but the variance revealed a lack of con sensus. The mean response of six of the ten participating ^groups was "absolutely must," three responded "preferably should," and one, "may or may not." Provide a comfortable and convenient place to meet and work.— Clear agreement between and consensus within the two teacher samples indicated that a comfortable, conven ient place to meet and work absolutely must be provided. The curriculum leaders' mean was "preferably should," but the variance score was again above the median. Five of the curriculum development groups considered a comfortable work place imperative, three responded in the preferential category, and two were between preferential and mandatory. 93 Allow released time during the school day to work on cooperative curriculum projects.— Secondary teachers responded that released time absolutely must be allowed. Elementary teachers and curriculum leaders responded in the preferential category. The difference between the responses of secondary teachers and curriculum leaders was highly significant. However, only the secondary teacher sample attained consensus. Of the ten participating groups, three responded "absolutely must," five "preferably should," and two between the mandatory and preferential categories. Employ teachers on Saturdays or during vacations to work on curriculum projects.-— Considerable difference of opinion within samples was revealed as to the efficacy of employing teachers on Saturdays or during vacations for curriculum work. The mean response for curriculum leaders and secondary teachers was "preferably should" while the elementary teachers' mean fell between the preferential, and permissive responses. The means and variances of the ten participating groups also suggested considerable differ ence of opinion. One group which had been employed during summer vacation concurred on a mandatory response. The only group which had been remunerated for meeting on 94 Saturdays tended to respond in the permissive category. Give promotional credit on the salary schedule or extra pay for curriculum work.— The variance scores indi cated a lack of agreement within the samples. The mean response for the curriculum leaders fell between "may or may not" and "preferably should." The means of the teacher samples were in the preferential category. Coordinate the group's work with related curriculum projects in the district.— The mean for the three samples was that administrators or supervisors preferably should coordinate district curriculum projects. Consensus was obtained with the teacher samples. Adopt worthy recommendations made by the curriculum development group and see that they are put into effect.— The mean response of the curriculum leader and elementary teacher samples was that worthy'recommendations made by the curriculum group preferably should be adopted and put into effect. Curriculum leaders failed to reach consensus. The mean response of the secondary teachers lay between preferential and mandatory. 95 Report back to the participants in cooperative cur riculum development as to what action was taken on their recommendations and why.— Secondary and elementary teachers concurred both within and between samples that participants in curriculum development absolutely must be told what action was taken on the curriculum development group's recommendations. Diverse opinions were expressed by the curriculum leaders. Group Processes The section entitled "Group Processes" dealt with aspects of group dynamics emphasized in the literature on cooperative curriculum development. A list of eighteen ways in which the members of a curriculum development group might interact was provided. Respondents were to indicate whether group members (1) absolutely must, (2) preferably should, (3) may or may not, (4) preferably should not, or (5) absolutely must not behave in the manner described. The ubiquity of articles on the application of group dynamics to the classroom situation was felt to in sure some sophistication in attitudes toward group process. Although a positive response was expected on most items, the range of choices from "absolutely must" to "absolutely 96 TABLE 5 EXPECTATIONS FOR FACILITATING TEACHER PARTICIPATION Key to Column Headings CL = Curriculum leaders (N=22) ET = Elementary teachers (N=38) ST ® Secondary teachers (N=36) 1 = Absolutely must 2 - Preferably should 3 = May or may not 4 = Preferably should not 5 ® Absolutely must not NA c No answer given Item, briefly stated vjJ L j , or ST 1 2 3 4 5 NA Mean cr2 1. Offer guidance CL 9 9 2 2 0 0 1.86 0.846 and advice ET 12 20 6 0 0 0 1.84 0.449 ST 11 22 3 0 0 0 1.78 0.340 2. Work with the CL 3 7 9 3 0 0 2.54 0.793 group in a lead ET 10 13 10 3 0 2 2.17 0.861 ership capacity ST 3 15 10 7 1 0 2.67 0.944 3. Participate on CL 1 8 9 1 0 2 2.53 0.460 the same basis ET 12 14 7 2 0 3 1.97 0.770 as teachers ST 7 15 10 2 1 1 2.29 0.889 4. Provide training CL 9 7 4 1 1 0 2.00 1.180 in curriculum de ET 11 21 5 1 0 0 1.90 0.515 velopment skills ST 6 16 14 0 0 0 2.22 0.507 5. Serve as experts CL 4 6 7 3 0 2 2.45 0.948 in group dynamics ET 9 15 9 1 0 4 2.06 0.644 or curriculum ST 5 13 11 4 1 2 2.50 0.956 6. Provide consultants CL 7 7 3 2 1 2 2.15 1.330 ET 12 17 7 1 0 1 1.92 0.615 ST 7 22 5 1' 0 1 2.00 0.457 7. Involve as many CL 8 4 7 0 2 1 2.24 1.515 teachers as ET 6 17 10 1 1 3 2.26 0.763 possible ST 14 14 3 2 1 2 1.88 0.986$ 8. Provide clerical CL 10 7 3 0 2 0 1.96 1.407 assistance ET 26 10 1 1 0 0 1.40 0.449 ST 25 9 1 1 0 0 1.39 0.460 97 TABLE 5--Continued CL, ET, -------ftSPgonse Item, briefly stated U1j, fii, or ST 1 2 3 4 5 NA Mean O'1 9. Provide a comfort CL 8 11 1 0 2 0 1.96 1.225 able, convenient ET 30 7 0 1 0 0 1.26 0.352 place to work ST 23 12 1 0 0 0 1.39 0.293 10. Allow released CL 7 8 4 2 1 0 2.18 1.240 time for curric ET 17 17 1 1 2 0 1.79 1.008 ulum work ST 23 11 1 1 0 0 1.44 0.470 11. Employ teachers CL 5 9 5 1 1 1 2.24 1.038 on Saturdays or ET 6 15 8 6 2 1 2.54 1.221 during vacations ST 12 10 7 4 2 1 2.26 1.448 12. Give promotional CL 5 5 9 2 1 0 2.50 1.159 credit or extra ET 14 14 7 2 1 0 2.00 1.000 pay ST 11 15 5 5 0 0 2.11 0.988 13. Coordinate the CL 8 10 2 1 1 0 1.96 1.043 group's work with ET 13 22 2 1 0 0 1.76 0.444 district projects ST 15 18 3 0 0 0 1.67 0.388 14. Adopt worthy recom CL 8 9 3 1 1 0 2.00 1.091 mendations and ET 16 19 2 1 0 0 1.68 0.479 put into effect ST 20 14 2 0 0 0 1.50 0.361 15. Tell group what CL 11 8 0 0 2 1 1.76 1.324 action taken on ET 25 11 0 1 0 1 1.38 0.398 recommendations ST 26 7 1 0 0 2 1.26 0.254 98 TABLE 6 T VALUES FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS OF CURRICULUM LEADERS, SECONDARY TEACHERS, AND ELEMENTARY TEACHERS: FACILITATING TEACHER PARTICIPATION Item No. Curriculum Leaders and Elementary Teachers Curriculum Leaders and Secondary Teachers Elementary Teachers and Secondary Teachers t Value Sig. t Value Sig. t Value Sig. 1. *0.098 NS *0.393 NS 0.432 NS 2. 1.50 NS 0.471 NS 2.20 .05 3. 2.39 .05 *1.07 NS 1.42 NS 4. *0.405 NS 0.925 NS 1.95 NS 5. 1.56 NS 0.339 NS 2.00 .05 6. *0.807 NS 0.598 NS 0.857 NS 7. 0.662 NS 1.16 NS 1.64 NS 8. *2.04 NS *2.04 NS 0.023 NS 9. *2.71 .01 *2.24 .05 0.940 NS 10. 1.38 NS *2.80 .01 1.69 NS 11. 0.759 NS 0.188 NS 1.03 NS 12. 1.79 NS 1.38 NS 0.472 NS 13. *0.790 NS *1.20 NS 0.632 NS 14. *1.27 NS *2.05 NS 1.20 NS 15. *1.41 NS *1.87 NS 0.819 NS *Because the F test indicated that the variances were different, the t value was obtained by an alternate formula which allowed for the difference in variances. 99 TABLE 7 MEANS AND VARIANCES OF RESPONSES OF GROUPS: FACILITATING TEACHER PARTICIPATION Elementary Secondary Item No. Junior High Sr. High l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 M O'2 1.86 0.39 2.40 It 04 1.80 0.16 1.75 0.69 2.00 0.57 1.50 0.25 1.75 0.19 1.81 0.63 1.78 0.17 1.80 0.56 2 M O'1 2.14 0.79 2.20 1.36 2.20 0.16 2.25 1.19 2.29 0.78 3.00 0.50 2.75 0.19 2.51 1.20 2.00 0.00 3.20 0.96 3 0-2 1.73 0.38 3.00 0.00 2.60 0.44 2.50 1.25 2.17 0.47 2.25 0.19 2.75 0.19 2.14 0.79 2.44 1.37 2.60 0.64 4 M2 a2 1.77 0.36 1.80 1.36 1.80 0.56 2.00 1.50 2.14 0.41 2.25 0.19 2.00 0.50 2.05 0.71 2.67 0.44 2.40 0.64 5 M9 Or1 1.90 0.66 2.40 1.04 2.20 0.56 2.33 0.22 2.57 0.53 2.75 0.19 2.00 1.00 2.60 1.14 1.89 0.32 3.00 0.40 6 M 0-2 1.81 0.60 2.40 1.84 2.00 0.40 2.00 1.50 1.86 0.12 2.25 0.69 2.25 1.19 2.33 0.79 1.67 0.22 1.80 0.56 7 M 0-2 2.27 0.93 2.20 2.56 2.20 0.16 2.25 1.19 2.17 0.47 1.75 0.69 1.50 0.25 1.76 0.85 2.44 1.14 2.20 2.16 8 M Or1 1.18 0.15 3.00 1.60 1.40 0.64 2.00 1.50 2.00 0.29 1.25 0.19 1.25 0.19 1.81 1.11 1.33 0.22 1.20 0.16 9 M O' 2 1.09 0.08 2.40 2.24 1.40 0.64 2.25 1.19 1.43 0.24 1.50 0.25 1.25 0.19 1.57 0.82 1.22 0.17 1.60 0.24 10 Mo p* 2 1.54 0.34 2.20 1.36 1.40 0.64 2.25 2.69 2.57 1.67 1.25 0.19 1.75 0.19 1.86 1.17 1.22 0.17 2.40 1.04 11 M 0*2 2.68 0.94 2.20 0.96 1.00 0.00 3.25 1.61 2.71 1.63 2.25 0.69 2.25 1.69 2.48 1.68 2.56 1.14 2.00 0.40 12 M c r2 1.77 0.72 2.60 1.04 1.20 0.16 2.50 1.25 2.86 1.55 1.75 0,69 2.00 1.50 2.29 0.97 2.44 1.37 2.20 0.56 13 M cr1 1.64 0.32 2.20 1.36 1.60 0.24 2.50 1.25 1.86 0.12 1.75 0.19 1.50 0.25 1.76 0.75 2.00 0.67 1.60 0.24 14 M cr2 1.54 0.34 1.80 1.36 1.60 0.24 2.25 1.19 2.00 0.29 1.50 0.25 1.25 0.19 1.81 0.82 1.22 0.17 1.20 0.16 15 M2 c r1 1.27 0.20 2.00 2.40 1.20 0.16 2.00 1.50 1.43 0.24 1.25 0.19 1.25 0.19 1.52 0.92 1.11 0.10 1.00 0.00 100 must not" allowed for a full range of opinion. Also, maintaining similar response categories throughout the instrument simplified the respondent's task. Develop cohesiveness or solidarity as a group; be loyal to the group.— Curriculum leaders, secondary teachers, and elementary teachers concurred that participants pref erably should strive for group solidarity. However, the variances for both leaders and secondary teachers were above the median variance, indicating a lack of consensus. Of the ten participating curriculum development groups, two attained consensus that cohesiveness absolutely must be achieved, while one was equally well agreed on the permis sive response. The mean response of the remaining seven was "preferably should." Try to get better acquainted with each other by sharing refreshments before meetings and so forth.— The two teacher samples agreed that group members preferably should try to get better acquainted through social activi ties. The curriculum leaders' variance indicated a lack of consensus. The leaders' mean response, "may or may not," was significantly different from the teachers' mean responses. Of the ten participating groups, five responded in the "preferably should" category, while four chose "may or may not" and one mean fell between the two categories. Choose their own group leader.— The secondary teacher sample responded more positively and with greater consensus in favor of election of a leader by the group than the other two samples. The difference between the secondary response, "preferably should," and that of the curriculum leaders, "may or may not," was highly signifi cant according to the t-test. The mean response of elemen tary teachers fell between the means of the other two samples and in the preferential category. Only the second ary teachers reached consensus. The mean responses of the ten participating groups tended to reflect the actual group situation. Four groups which responded permissively were chaired by an administrator or supervisor. Five groups which responded in the preferential or mandatory categories' were chaired by teachers. Define the problem confronting the group and formu^- late its goals.— Over two-thirds of the secondary teachers responded that the curriculum development group absolutely must define its problem and formulate goals. The mean responses of. elementary teachers and curriculum leaders 10 2 fell in the preferential category, but the leaders did not obtain consensus. The t-test revealed a difference be tween the curriculum leaders and secondary teachers signif icant at the one per cent level of confidence. Five of the participating groups responded in the mandatory category. Groups Which responded in the preferential category had high variances indicating a lack of agreement within the groups. Plan the procedures to be used by the group.--All three samples contended that the curriculum development group preferably should be responsible for planning its own procedures. However, a lack of consensus within the cur riculum leader sample was evidenced by a high variance. The mean responses of the ten participating groups were divided evenly between the mandatory and preferential cate gories . Communicate freely and on an equal footing with all group members no matter what their positions in the educa tional hierarchy.— Agreement was apparent within and between the elementary and secondary teacher samples that all group members absolutely must communicate freely. Because of. a signal lack of consensus within the official 10 3 leaders' sample, comparison with the teachers' mean response proved misleading. The mean responses of the ten participating groups were divided evenly between "abso lutely must" and "preferably should." Feel free to express their own fears, needs, and limitations to the group.— No significant differences were found in the mean responses of the three samples. The secondary teachers' mean response was "absolutely must." The curriculum leaders' and elementary teachers' responses did not reflect consensus. The mean for both groups was "preferably should." Demand that other participants support their state ments with verifiable facts.— According to the median vari ance criterion, none of the three samples obtained consen sus as to whether verification of statements should be demanded. The responses fell primarily in the "preferably should" and "may or may not" categories. Considerable variance was also present in the responses of the ten par ticipating groups. State their personal opinions pertinent to sugges tions and decisions made, even though the majority of the 10 4 group holds a contrary opinion.— The mean responses of the three samples indicated that group members preferably should state their own opinions even if in a minority. The elementary and secondary teachers obtained consensus. Eight of the ten participating groups responded in the # preferential category, and two responded permissively. Make certain that each group member understands all possible paths of action or points of view.— A highly sig nificant difference between the responses of teachers and curriculum leaders was verified by the t-test. Consensus was reached in both teacher groups, since responses in both samples were distributed fairly evenly between the "abso lutely must" and "preferably should" categories. The cur riculum leaders were less well agreed on a preferential response. Eight of the ten participating groups responded in the preferential category. The remaining two were characterized by a preponderance of administrative and supervisory personnel and responded permissively. Suggest changes in goals or procedures already decided upon by the group.— For all three samples, the mean response was that group members may or may not suggest changes in goals or procedures already decided by the 105 group. Consensus was obtained only in the secondary teach er sample. Six of the ten participating groups responded in the permissive category; the remaining four in the pref erential category or between preferential and permissive. Attempt to draw all group members into discussion.- According to the mean response of the elementary and secondary teacher samples, group members preferably should try to draw all participants into the discussion. The cur riculum leaders' mean response was between mandatory and preferential, but this group did not reach consensus. Prefer to compromise differences in an effort to reach agreement rather than to accept the decision of the majority.— The variances denoted a lack of agreement within all three samples. The curriculum leaders' mean response was "preferably should"; both teachers' was "may or may not." All ten of the participating groups responded in the permissive category. Prevent any one member from dominating the group.— High variance scores were obtained by all three samples, indicating little consensus. The mean response for the three samples was that group members preferably should 106 prevent one person from dominating the group. Two of the participating curriculum development groups responded in the mandatory category. Learn about and apply the findings of studies in group processes to improve the group's procedures for work ing together.— The teacher samples concurred on the response that participants in cooperative curriculum devel opment preferably should learn about and apply the findings of studies in group process. The official leaders' vari ance indicated disagreement within the sample. Seven of the participating groups responded "preferably should," one responded "may or may not," and two divided their responses between the preferential and permissive categor ies . Serve in leadership capacities when needed; dis tribute leadership functions among group members.— The mean response for the three samples indicated that members pref erably should share leadership tasks. Consensus was found within the teacher samples. Nine of the ten participating groups also responded in the preferential category; one responded permissively. 10 7 The group leader/ whether elected or appointed, should direct the group's thinking and acting.— The vari ances indicated a lack of agreement within all three samples as to whether or not the group leader should direct the group's thinking and acting. The curriculum leaders and secondary teachers responded in the permissive category. The elementary teachers' response, "preferably should," was significantly different from the other samples. Within the ten participating groups, the mean responses ranged from "preferably should" to "preferably should not." The group leader should serve primarily as a guide in group processes.— The three samples agreed that the leader preferably should serve primarily as a guide in group process. Seven of the ten participating groups responded in the "preferably should" category, two responded "may or may not," and one responded "absolutely must." Criteria for Participation The questionnaire section entitled "Criteria for Participation in Cooperative Curriculum Development" was divided into two parts. The first part listed nine TABLE 8 EXPECTATIONS FOR GROUP PROCESSES Key to Column Headings CL = Curriculum leaders (N=»22) ET a Elementary teachers (N=38) ST = Secondary teachers (Nc36) 1 ™ Absolutely must 2 = * Preferably should 3 = May or may not 4 * Preferably should not 5 = Absolutely must not NA = No answer given Response Item, briefly stated J - - j or ST 1 2 3 4 5 NA Mean cr2 1. Develop group CL 7 8 5 1 1 0 2.14 1.118 solidarity; be ET 11 16 6 1 1 3 2.00 0.857 loyal to group ST 9 17 9 1 0 0 2.06 0.608 2. Try to get ac CL 3 6 10 2 1 0 2.64 0.959 quainted with ET 6 18 10 1 0 3 2.17 0.542 each other ST 8 17 11 0 0 0 2.08 0.521 3. Choose their CL 2 7 6 3 2 2 2.80 1.260 own group ET 6 16 10 1 0 3 2.31 0.844 leader ST 14 14 5 1 0 2 1.79 0.634 4. Define problem CL 11 5 3 ^1 2 0 2.00 1.636 and formulate ET 19 14 2 0 1 2 1.61 0.683 goals ST 25 11 0 0 0 0 1.31 0.212 5. Plan the proce CL 8 8 4 0 2 0 2.09 1.356 dures to be ET 18 16 2 0 1 1 1.65 0.661 used ST 17 14 5 0 0 0 1.67 0.500 6. Communicate freely CL 13 5 2 0 2 0 2.27 1.471 with all group ET 24 12 0 0 1 1 1.43 0.570 members ST 27 7 1 1 0 0 1.33 0.445 7. Feel free to CL 11 9 0 0 2 0 1.77 1.267 express fears ET 22 9 4 0 1 2 1.58 0.799 and needs ST 22 12 2 0 0 0 1.44 0.359 8. Demand state CL 4 10 2 4 2 0 2.54 1.521 ments be sup ET 9 15 8 3 1 2 2.22 1.007 ported by facts ST 15 11 9 0 1 0 1.92 .0.910 109 TABLE 8--Continued CL ET — — Item, briefly stated l i l j , E l l , or ST 1 2 3 4 5 NA Mean cr2 9. Give own opinion CL 8 7 2 4 1 0 2.23 1.539 even if majority ET 10 16 9 2 0 1 2.08 0.723 disagrees ST 13 13 7 1 0 2 1.88 0.692 10. Make certain all CL 2 14 3 1 2 0 2.41 1.060 points of view ET 15 20 1 0 1 1 1.70 0.588 are understood ST 17 17 1 1 0 0 1.61 0.460 11. Suggest changes CL 2 8 9 2 1 0 2.64 0.868 in goals or ET 5 11 11 7 1 3 2.66 1.082 plans ST 2 14 13 4 1 2 2.65 0.757 12. Try to draw all CL 8 10 2 1 1 0 1.54 1.024 group members ET 9 22 5 1 0 1 1.95 0.483 into discussion ST 12 23 1 0 0 0 1.69 0.267 13. Compromise dif CL 5 8 5 3 1 0 2.41 1.242 ferences to ET 3 13 12 4 1 5 2.61 0.845 reach agreement ST 3 10 12 10 1 0 2.89 0.988 14. Prevent any one CL 7 10 2 1 2 0 2.14 1.390 member from dom ET 23 11 1 0 2 1 1.57 0.947 inating group ST 20 11 2 1 2 0 1.72 1.146 15. Study group CL 1 12 6 2 1 0 2.54 0.794 processes ET 5 22 8 1 0 2 2.14 0.453 ST 5 23 7 0 0 1 2.06 0.340 16. Serve in leader CL 3 15 2 1 1 0 2.18 0.785 ship capacities ET 5 24 7 1 0 1 2.11 0.420 when needed ST 10 20 6 0 0 0 1.89 0.432 17. Group leader CL 2 4 9 2 3 2 3.00 1.300 should direct ET 1 15 6 7 5 4 2.35 1.353 group's thinking ST 2 8 10 12 2 2 3.12 1.045 18. Group leader pri CL 4 9 6 1 1 1 2.33 0.984 marily guides ET 10 20 3 0 1 4 1.88 0.633 group processes ST 12 19 3 0 0 2 1.74 0.371 110 TABLE 9 T VALUES FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS OF CURRICULUM LEADERS, SECONDARY TEACHERS, AND ELEMENTARY TEACHERS GROUP PROCESSES Item No. Curriculum Leaders and Elementary Teachers Curriculum Leaders and Secondary Teachers Elementary Teachers and Secondary Teachers t Value Sig. t Value Sig. t Value Sig. 1 0.502 NS 0.325 NS 0.272 NS 2 2.00 .05 2.42 . .05 0.500 NS 3 1.70 NS *3.52 .01 2.48 .05 4 *1.27 NS *2.45 .05 *1.96 NS 5 *1.57 NS *1.54 NS *0.101 NS 6 3.24 .01 *3.33 .01 0.585 NS 7 0.698 NS *1.26 NS *0.776 NS 8 1.07 NS 2.14 .05 1.30 NS 9 *0.488 NS *1.15 NS 0.980 NS 10 2.95 .01 *3.23 .01 0.535 NS 11 0.076 NS 0.044 NS 0.043 NS 12 *1.66 NS *0.642 NS *1.77 NS 13 0.701 NS 1.67 NS 1.21 NS 14 1.96 NS 1.35 NS 0.634 NS 15 1.93 NS *2.28 .05 0.539 NS 16 *0.341 NS 1.42 NS 1.41 NS 17 2.17 .05 0.426 NS 2.84 .01 18 1.82 NS *2.49 .01 0.845 NS ^Because the F test Indicated that the variances were different, the t value was obtained by an alternate formula which allowed for the difference in variances. Ill TABLE 10 MEANS AND VARIANCES OF RESPONSES OF GROUPS: GROUP PROCESSES Elementary Secondary Item No. Junior Hieh Sr. High i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 M9 c r 2 2.10 0.49 2.00 1.60 1.40 0.24 2.00 3.00 2.33 0.55 2.75 0.19 1.25 0.19 2.52 0.73 1.56 0.25 2.20 0.56 2 % c r 2 2.05 0.55 2.60 1.04 2.60 0.24 2.75 0.69 1.71 0.49 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.48 0.63 1.56 0.48 2.40 0.64 3 M c r 2 1.95 0.52 3.00 2.00 3.00 0.80 2.75 1.69 2.71 0.20 1.50 0.25 2.00 0.50 2.57 1.10 1.33 0.22 1.60 0.24 4 M 2 c r2 1.40 0.24 2.00 2.40 1.20 0.16 2.50 2.25 1.86 0.69 1.25 0.19 1.50 0.25 1.67 0.98 1.22 0.17 1.00 0.00 5 % c r 2 1,48 0.34 2.40 2.24 1.20 0.16 2.50 2.25 1.57 0.24 1.50 0.25 2.00 0.50 1.91 0.94 1.44 0.48 1.20 0.16 6 M 2 c r 2 1.29 0.21 1.80 2.56 1.00 0.00 2.25 1.69 1.57 0.24 2.25 1.69 1.50 0.25 1.48 0.82 1.11 0.10 1.00 0.00 7 c r 2 1.52 0.54 2.00 2.40 1.25 0.19 2.25 2.69 2.57 0.53 1.25 0.19 1.75 0.69 1.62 0.81 1.56 0.25 1.20 0.16 8 M2 c r 2 2.19 0.72 3.00 1.60 2.25 1.69 3.00 2.50 2.71 0.49 2.50 0.75 1.25 0.19 2.38 1.19 1.89 1.66 2.00 0.40 9 M O'2 2.05 0.43 2.80 2.16 2.00 1.60 2.75 1.19 2.29 0.78 2.25 1.19 1.75 0.19 1.86 0.98 2.11 0.99 1.80 0.56 10 M cr2 1.52 0.25 2.80 1.36 1.60 0.24 2.50 2.25 2.14 0.12 2.00 0.00 1.75 0.19 1.71 0.87 1.56 0.48 1.80 0.56 11 M9 O'2 2.80 0.96 3.00 0.00 2.40 0.64 3.00 1.50 2.14 0.98 2.50 0.75 2.75 0.19 2.90 1.04 2.78 0.84 2.40 0.24 12 O'2 1.86 0.31 1.80 1.36 2.20 0.16 2.25 1.19 2.00 0.57 1.50 0.25 1.75 0.19 1.81 0.92 1.56 0.25 2.20 0.16 13 M 2 cr1 2.68 0.95 3.40 0.24 2.60 0.64 3.00 0.67 2.57 0.53 2.75 1.19 2.75 0.19 2.81 1.11 3.44 0.48 3.00 0.40 14 M 2 o ~ 1.52 0.63 2.20 1.36 1.60 0.64 2.25 1.19 1.43 0.24 1.50 0.75 2.00 1.50 1.95 1.86 1.33 0.22 1.60 0.64 15 M O'2 2.10 0.39 2.60 0.64 2.40 0.24 2.50 0.75 2.29 0.49 2.25 0.19 2.50 0.75 2.30 1.11 1.78 0t17 2.40 0.24 16 M < r2 1.95 0.33 2.40 0.64 2.20 0.16 2.75 0.69 1.86 0.12 2.00 0.50 2.25 0.19 2.05 0.90 1.56 0.37 1.80 0.16 17 M 2 O'2 2.67 0.98 2.40 1.84 4.00 0.80 3.25 1.69 3.43 1.39 3.50 1.25 3.50 0.75 2.80 1.56 3.33 0.67 3.40 0.24 18 M 1.66 2.60 2.20 3.00 1.86 2.00 1.75 2.05 1.44 1.80 O'2 0.32 2.24 0.16 2.00 0.41 0.50 0.19 0.62 0.25 0.16 112 qualifications which participants in curriculum development might or might not possess. The pilot studies disclosed a need to qualify the items in terms of the curriculum group's task. Therefore, the respondents were asked to imagine that the school district was forming a committee to study enrichment within the classroom and that teachers were to be recommended for participation. Thus, the responses were in terms of a committee which crossed grade level and subject matter lines and whose task was not auto matically the responsibility of a previously appointed group such as a department. The respondents were asked whether or not the qualifications listed should be consid ered in selecting participants. Has special knowledge of enrichment for gifted children.— The mean responses for the three samples indi cated that the members of a curriculum development commit tee preferably should have training or experience related to the project. The mean response of the elementary teacher sample was strongly pulled toward the "absolutely must" category and differed significantly from the curric ulum leaders' mean response. Seven of the ten participat ing groups responded in the preferential category, two 113 concurred on a mandatory response, and one responded per missively. Is especially interested in enrichment for gifted children.— Within the curriculum leader sample, little agreement was evidenced as to whether interest in the cur riculum development project should be a prerequisite for participation. The mean responses of the two teacher sam ples fell between "absolutely must" and "preferably should." The t-test revealed significant differences be tween the teacher and curriculum leader means. Is especially interested in curriculum development. Interposition consensus decreed that participants prefer ably should be particularly interested in curriculum development. The variance score of the official leader sample indicated a lack of consensus. Eight of the ten participating groups also responded in the preferential category, two in the mandatory category. Is skilled in the use of the problem-solving method and objective in handling data.— Again, the three samples responded in the "preferably should" category and consensus was obtained in the two teacher samples. Eight of the ten 114 participating groups also responded preferentially. Is well informed about recent advances in child psychology, teaching methods, learning theory, and so forth.— The mean response for the three samples was "pref erably should." Consensus was obtained within the teacher samples. Eight of the ten participating curriculum devel opment groups also responded preferentially, while two designated the mandatory category. Is considered an above-average teacher by his col leagues .— Teachers and curriculum leaders agreed that the teacher who is regarded as more competent than average should be preferred in selecting curriculum development participants. The curriculum leader sample did not reach consensus. The ten participating groups also responded preferentially. Has tenure.-— A lack of consensus within the samples made comparison of means difficult. Comments made by the respondents when the questionnaire was administered sug gested that many qualifying circumstances could apply, such as the previous experience of the teacher and the prestige of the committee. Therefore, the mean response of the three samples, "may or may not," possibly was intended to be conditional rather than permissive. Is regarded as a leader in faculty groups.— Consen sus was reached within the three samples that faculty leadership may or may not be a qualification for participa tion in cooperative curriculum development. The ten par ticipating groups were less well agreed; four responded "preferably should," one response bordered "preferably should," four responded "may or may not," and one responded "preferably should not." Volunteered for this work.— The teacher samples agreed with each other and within each sample that partici pants in cooperative curriculum development preferably should be^selected from among volunteers. The curriculum leaders' response fell between "preferably should" and "may or may not." The difference was not significant. Of the ten participating groups, seven responded preferen tially while two responded permissivelyI The second part of the section entitled "Criteria for Participation" presented four points of view prevalent in the literature on cooperative curriculum development. The respondents were to indicate whether or not a school 116 district should base the curriculum development program on the viewpoints stated. Cooperative curriculum development should be con sidered an integral part of the teaching job.— The secondaiy teachers and curriculum leaders responded that cooperative curriculum development preferably should be considered an integral part of teaching. The curriculum leaders' vari ance indicated disagreement within the group. The elemen tary teacher sample responded in the permissive category, but did not reach consensus. The elementary and secondary teachers' means differed at the one per cent level of con fidence. The means of participating secondary groups were "preferably should," while the means of the elementary groups were evenly distributed between "preferably should" and "may or may not." Participation in cooperative curriculum development should be considered an aspect of in-service education, a means of improving teaching competence.— The mean response for all three samples was "preferably should," but the variances denoted a lack of consensus within each sample. Six of the participating groups responded preferentially, four responded permissively. 117 A teacher should participate only in those coopera tive curriculum development projects which are directly related to the teaching learning situation in his class room.— Curriculum leaders and secondary teachers agreed that teachers may or may not be limited to participation in curriculum projects which are directly related to the class room situation. The elementary teachers' mean response was between preferential and permissive and was significantly different from the mean response of secondary teachers and curriculum leaders. Teachers should be involved in the planning of the total district program, rather than confining their par ticipation to their subject specialty.— As might be ex pected, the samples' mean responses on the previous item tended to be reversed on this item. Thus, the elementary teacher sample indicated that teachers may or may not be involved in planning the total district program, while the secondary teachers responded "preferably should." The dif ference between these means was highly significant. The curriculum leaders' mean response fell between the two categories. The responses of the ten participating groups suggested that high school groups tended to respond preferentially, while junior high and elementary groups tended to respond permissively. The Measures of Satisfaction At the end of each section of the questionnaire, an item regarding the satisfaction of expectations was pro vided. In the first three sections, the question asked was whether the expectations indicated by the individual's responses converged with actual practice in that curriculum development group. The responses "usually," "sometimes," "seldom," and "do not know" were provided. The purpose of the item was to determine whether expectations were more or less well satisfied in one aspect of the role than in an other. The chi-square criterion was applied to determine whether or not significant differences existed in the dis tribution of responses among the questionnaire sections or among the three samples of respondents. No significant differences were- found. The satisfaction item for the section entitled "Criteria for Participation" differed somewhat from the preceding items. After responding to the questions regarding what should be the qualifications for participa tion in curriculum development groups, the respondents were 119 TABLE 11 EXPECTATIONS FOR CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPATION Key to Column Headings CL = Curriculum leaders (N=22) ET = Elementary teachers (N=38) ST = Secondary teachers (N=36) 1 = Absolutely must NA = No CL, ET, _______Reason Item, briefly stated or ST 1 2 3 4 5 NA Mean <y / 1. Has training or CL 3 15 2 1 1 0 2.18 0.785 experience perti ET 18 16 1 0 1 2 1.61 0.627 nent to project ST 11 23 2 0 0 0 1.75 0.299 2. Is especially CL 7 8 5 1 1 0 2.14 1.118 interested in ET 20 14 1 0 1 2 1.56 0.635 project ST 20 15 1 0 0 0 1.47 0.305 3. Is interested in CL 4 11 4 1 1 1 2.24 0.943 curriculum de ET 10 22 3 1 0 2 1.86 0.453 velopment ST 12 18 6 0 0 0 1.83 0.472 4. Is skilled in CL 4 11 5 1 1 0 2.27 0.925 problem-solving ET 10 21 4 1 0 2 1.89 0.488 techniques ST 9 22 5 0 0 0 1.89 0.377 5. Knows about re CL 5 11 3 1 1 1 2.14 0.980 cent advances in ET 8 25 1 0 1 3 1.89 0.501 education ST 9 21 4 0 0 2 1.85 0.360 6.. Is considered an CL 8 7 5 1 1 0 2.09 1.174 above-average ET 11 20 4 1 0 2 1.86 0.508 teacher ST 11 17 7 0 0 1 1.89 0.501 7. Has tenure CL 2 0 12 6 2 0 3.27 0.927 ET 6 9 16 0 4 3 2.63 1.262 ST 2 6 24 1 3 0 2.92 0.743 8. Is regarded as a CL 1 9 10 2 0 0 2.59 0.514 leader in fac ET 2 14 17 1 2 2 2.64 0.731 ulty groups ST 3 12 20 0 1 0 2.56 0.580 2 » Preferably should 3 * May or may not 4 = Preferably should not 5 « Absolutely must not answer given 120 TABLE 11--Continued ' * V Item, briefly stated CL, ET, or ST Response 5 NA Mean 9. Volunteered for this work 1. Cooperative curric ulum development should be con sidered an integ ral part of teaching. 2. Cooperative cur riculum develop ment should be considered as in-service edu cation. 3. Teachers should participate only in projects di rectly related to their classroom situations. 4. Teachers should be involved in the planning of the total district program. CL 2 8 8 2 0 2 2.50 0.650 ET 8 15 11 1 0 3 2.14 0.637 ST 7 15 11 0 1 2 2.21 0.752 CL 5 9 5 3 0 0 2.27 0.927 ET 3 13 15 2 3 2 2.69 0.989 ST 8 23 1 2 0 2 1.91 0.492 CL 5 11 3 3 0 0 2.18 0.876 ET 5 19 9 1 2 2 2.33 0.889 ST 10 17 3 5 0 1 2.09 0.936 CL 0 2 14 4 1 1 3.19 0.440 ET 2 17 11 4 0 4 2.50 0.603 ST 0 10 14 7 2 3 3.03" 0.757 CL 3 6 10 2 0 1 2.52 0.725 ET 1 8 17 9 0 3 2.97 0.599 ST 5 17 8 5 0 1 2.37 0.805 121 TABLE 12 T VALUES FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS OF CURRICULUM LEADERS, SECONDARY TEACHERS, AND ELEMENTARY TEACHERS CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPATION Item No. Curriculum Leaders and Elementary Teachers Curriculum Leaders and Secondary Teachers Elementary Teachers and Secondary Teachers t Value Sig. t Value Sig. t Value Sife. 1. 2.50 .05 *2.05 NS *0.869 NS 2. 2.33 .05 *2.96 .01 *0.519 NS 3. *1.57 NS *1.68 NS 0.175 NS 4. *1.62 NS *1.68 NS 0.000 NS 5. *1.04 NS *1.21 NS 0.206 NS 6. *0.885 NS *0.788 NS 0.015 NS 7. 3.22 .01 1.42 NS 1.68 NS 8. 0.216 NS 0.161 NS 0.408 NS 9. 1.56 NS 1.21 NS 0.310 NS 1. 1.77 NS 1.59 NS *3.82 .01 2. 0.632 NS 0.364 NS 1.07 NS 3. 3.32 .01 0.708 NS 2.60 .05 4. 1.98 NS 0.616 NS 2.96 .01 *Because the F test Indicated that the variances were different, the t value was obtained by an alternate formula which allowed for the difference in variances. 122 TABLE 13 MEANS AND VARIANCES OF RESPONSES OF GROUPS: CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPATION Elementary Secondary Item No. Junior High Sr. Hifsh l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 M 2 cr2 1.55 0.25 2.60 1.44 1.00 0.00 2.25 2.69 2.00 0.29 2.25 0.19 2.25 0.19 2.00 0.10 1.22 0.17 1.60 0.24 2 M 2 c r 2 1.50 0.35 2.60 1.84 1.40 0.24 2.25 2.69 1.57 0.24 1.50 0.25 1.25 0.19 1.81 0.63 1.44 0.48 1.40 0.24 3 M 0-2 1.90 0.29 2.20 2.16 1.20 0.16 2.25 1.19 2.14 0.12 2.00 1.00 1.50 0.25 2.14 0.60 1.78 0.39 2.20 0.56 4 M O'2 1.95 0.35 2.60 2.24 1.60 0.64 2.50 0.75 1.71 0.20 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.10 0.66 1.78 0.62 1.80 0.16 5 M7 cr2 1.85 0.12 2.00 2.40 1.40 0.24 2.25 2.69 2.00 0.29 1.75 0.69 2.25 0.19 2.14 0.50 1.44 0.25 2.00 0.00 6 O'2 1.85 0.32 2.20 2.16 2.00 0.40 1.75 1.69 1.86 0.41 2.50 0.75 2.33 0.89 1.81 0.63 1.89 0.32 2.20 0.56 7 M ? cr-2 2.50 1.35 2.60 0.64 4.20 0.96 2.25 0.69 2.86 0.12 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.50 3.05 1.00 2.67 0.22 2.60 0.64 8" M 2 O'2 2.50 0.35 3.00 0.40 3.80 0.96 2.25 1.19 2.17 0.49 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2.67 0.70 2.44 0.25 2.20 0.56 9 M 2 O'2 1.95 0.55 3.20 0.16 2.00 0.80 3.00 0.50 2.43 0.24 2.25 0.69 2.25 0.19 2.55 0.95 2.11 0.55 2.20 0.56 1 M 2 c r 2 2.90 1.19 2.00 1.20 2.60 0.64 2.50 1.25 2.29 0.20 2.50 0.75 1.75 0.19 2.10 0.89 2.00 0.22 2.00 0.00 2 M 2 O'2 2.30 0.71 2.60 0.64 3.00 1.60 2.00 1.50 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.50 1.50 0.25 1.95 0.68 2.78 1.28 3.00 0.80 3 M cr1 2.25 0.29 2.80 0.16 2.60 0.64 2.25 0.19 2.86 0.69 2.50 0.25 2.75 0.19 3.53 0.88 2.78 0.62 2.40 0.24 4 M <r2 3.05 0.47 3.20 0.16 3.00 0.40 3.25 0.69 3.00 0.29 3.00 0.50 3.50 0.25 2.26 0.83 2.11 0.77 2.20 0.16 123 asked whether or not they considered themselves qualified. The majority, 79 per cent, responded affirmatively. Expectations for the Teacher's Role in Cooperative Curriculum Development An assumption of the study was that the expecta tions on which consensus obtained were the best defined and that satisfaction of such expectations may be crucial for adequate functioning in the role. The items on which con sensus was obtained within the teacher samples represent clearly defined expectations for the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development. That is, these expec tations were clearly defined within the ten participating groups when the questionnaire was administered. The following expectations were derived from responses to the division of labor section of the question naire. The original items have been re-worded to express the direction and intensity of the teachers' responses. 1. Teachers should be largely responsible for developing resource or teaching units. 2. Teachers should be largely responsible for evaluating textbooks and other instructional materials for the secondary schools. 3. Teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel should be equally responsible for TABLE 14 PROPORTION OF RESPONSES IN EACH RESPONSE CATEGORY OF SATISFACTION ITEMS Expectations Expectations Expectations usually sometimes seldom satisfied_______satisfied_______satisfied_____ Do not know____ No response N f E f E f £ f E f E )ivision of Labor Status leaders 22 11 .50 9 .41 0 - 1 .045 1 .045 Elementary teachers 38 12 .32 8 .21 4 .105 10 .26 4 .105 Secondary teachers 36 14 .39 9 .25 3 .08 7 .19 3 .08 Total teachers 74 26 .35 17 .23 7 .09 17 .23 7 .09 Total Sample 96 37 .39 26 .27 7 .07 18 .19 8 .08 Facilitating Teacher Participation Status leaders 22 11 .50 7 .32 2 .09 0 - 2 .09 Elementary teachers 38 13 .34 13 .34 5 .13 5 .13 2 .05 Secondary teachers 36 15 .42 15 .42 3 .08 2 .05 1 .03 Total teachers 74 28 .38 28 .38 8 .11 7 .09 3 .04 Total sample 96 39 .41 36 .36 10 .10 7 .07 5 .05 Group Processes Status leaders 22 14 .64 6 .27 1 .045 * 1 .045 Elementary teachers 38 21 .55 10 .26 0 - * 7 .18 Secondary teachers 36 22 .61 9 .25 3 .08 * 2 .06 Total teachers 74 43 .58 19 .26 3 .04 * 9 .12 Total sample 96 57 .59 25 .26 4 .04 * 10 .10 124 TABLE 14--Continued Expectations usually satisfied Expectations sometimes satisfied Expectations seldom satisfied Do not know No response N f £ L £ f £ f £ I £ Criteria for Participation Status leaders 22 21 .955 * 0 1 .045 0 Elementary teachers 38 24 .63 * 2 .05 3 .08 9 .24 Secondary teachers 36 31 .86 * 0 - 4 .11 1 .03 Total teachers 74 55 .74 * 2 .03 7 .09 10 .14 Total sample 96 76 .79 * 2 .02 8 .08 10 .10 *This response not provided for in the instrument. K) (Ji 126 developing or revising courses of study. 4. Teachers and administrative or supervisory per sonnel should be equally responsible for study ing the needs and interests of students as a basis for curriculum planning. 5. Teachers and administrative or supervisory per sonnel should be equally responsible for formu lating curricular objectives and determining scope and sequence in elementary school subjects. 6. Teachers and administrative or supervisory per sonnel should be equally responsible for evalu ating and selecting instructional materials for the elementary schools. 7. Teachers and administrative or supervisory per sonnel should be equally responsible for con ducting experimental studies or action research in the elementary schools. 8. Teachers and administrative or supervisory per sonnel should be equally responsible for pre paring publications explaining the secondary school program to parents. 9. Teachers and administrative or supervisory per sonnel should be equally responsible for determining the functions, responsibilities, and authority of secondary curriculum develop ment groups. 10. Teachers and administrative or supervisory per sonnel should be equally responsible for doing work between meetings for secondary curriculum development groups. 11. Teachers and administrative or supervisory per sonnel should be equally responsible for evalu ating the results of cooperative curriculum development in the secondary schools. 12. Administrative or supervisory personnel should 127 be largely responsible for preparing publica tions for parents explaining aspects of the elementary school instructional program. 13. Administrative or supervisory personnel should be largely responsible for recommending state ments of policy as the result of cooperative curriculum development in the elementary schools. 14. Administrative or supervisory personnel should be largely responsible for determining the functions/ responsibilities, and authority of elementary school curriculum development groups. The following expectations indicate ways in which administrators or supervisors should facilitate teacher participation in cooperative curriculum development. The items have been re-worded to express the intensity of the teachers 1 responses. 1. Clerical assistance absolutely must be avail able. 2. A comfortable and convenient place for the curriculum development group to meet and work absolutely must be provided. 3. Participants in cooperative curriculum devel opment absolutely must be told what action is taken on the group's recommendations and why. 4. Released time preferably should be available for the participants in cooperative curriculum development. 5. Administrative and supervisory personnel should offer guidance and advice to the curriculum development group. 128 6. Administrative or supervisory personnel should accept responsibility for coordinating the curriculum group's work with other district projects. 7. Administrative or supervisory personnel should see that worthy recommendations made by the curriculum development group are adopted and put into effect. 8. Training in skills needed for curriculum devel opment should be provided. 9. Consultants from outside the school district should be available. The following expectations were derived from the questionnaire section on group processes. The intensity and direction of the teachers' responses are indicated by the wording of the expectations. 1. Opportunities should be provided for group members to become better acquainted with each other. 2. Group members should elect the group leader. 3. Participants should formulate the problem con fronting the group and formulate its goals. 4. The participants should plan the procedures to be used by the group, 5. Lines of communication should be open and free; members should feel free to express fears and needs to the group. 6. Minority opinions should be fully expressed; all points of view should be given considera tion. 129 7. All group members should be drawn into discus sion. 8. The group should study and consciously apply the principles of group dynamics. 9. Leadership functions should be distributed among group members. 10. The elected or appointed group leader should serve primarily as a guide in group process. Expectations derived from the section on criteria for teacher participation have been re-worded below to ex press the direction and intensity of responses. 1. Teacher participants should be particularly interested in the curriculum development project. 2. Teacher participants should have training or experience related to the curriculum develop ment project. 3. Teacher participants should be particularly interested in curriculum development. 4. Teacher participants should be well informed about recent advances in child psychology, teaching methods, learning theory, and so forth. 5. Teacher participants should be regarded by colleagues as above-average teachers. 6. Teacher participants should be skilled in problem-solving techniques and objective in handling data. 7. Teacher participants preferably should have volunteered to take part. 130 Group leadership was not clearly defined by the respondents. Items regarding leadership were generally answered permissively or preferentially and considerable disagreement obtained. Possibly the kind of leadership desired is determined by the specific situation. Resolution of the Hypotheses Although the purpose of the study was primarily to discover expectations for the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development, four research hypotheses were formulated to guide additional analysis of the data. Hypothesis 1: Teachers' and curriculum leaders' ex pectations will sometimes be divergent indicating role conflict.— When the mean response of teachers and curricu lum leaders fell in different response categories, a situa tion of role conflict was inferred. Conflict was revealed on thirty-two of the sixty-six questionnaire items and the hypothesis was accepted. However, all instances of con flict represented responses which differed but were in adjacent categories. On the division of labor items, the difference was < predicted to be caused by a tendency in each sample to 131 assign more responsibility to the position held by that sample. Thus, teachers would assign more responsibility to teachers, while curriculum leaders would assign more responsibility to administrative or supervisory personnel. Conflict was indicated on twelve of the twenty items in the division of labor section. The prediction was accurate in five instances, but inaccurate in seven. Where the con flict was between curriculum leaders and secondary teach ers, the prediction was verified. Where the conflict was between curriculum leaders and elementary teachers, the nature of the difference was contrary to the prediction. That is, elementary teachers assigned more responsibility to administrative and supervisory personnel than curriculum leaders did. Thus, the prediction held true for conflict between the reisponses of curriculum leaders and secondary teachers, but was not true for conflict between curriculum leaders and elementary teachers. On the section entitled "Facilitating Teacher Par ticipation, 1 1 conflict was indicated on seven of the fifteen items. The conflict was predicted to be caused by a tendency of teachers to respond more positively. The pre diction was accurate in six of the seven instances. Both elementary and secondary teachers responded affirmatively 132 and with greater intensity than the curriculum leaders on the items on which conflict was revealed. Curriculum leaders were predicted to respond more ' positively on the items dealing with group processes than teachers. On nine of the eighteen items, conflict was indicated. Contrary to the prediction, the teachers responded affirmatively and with greater intensity than the curriculum leaders on eight of the nine conflict items. No prediction was made regarding conflict in the section on criteria for participation, since the literature did not provide a basis for such a prediction. Conflict was observed on only three of the thirteen items, and the direction of the conflict was not consistent. Hypothesis 2. Curriculum leaders will reveal more consensus regarding the teacher's role in cooperative cur riculum development than will teachers.— Hypothesis two was based on an assumption that curriculum leaders would be in positions requiring similar credentials and would tend to formulate expectations for the teacher's role from exposure to similar professional experiences.. Evidence from the •study did not support the hypothesis. Using the median variance score for the total 133 sample as the criterion for consensus, the percentages of items for each section and for each sample on which consen sus was reached were computed.' The curriculum leaders attained consensus on 23 per cent of the items, elementary teachers on 61 per cent, and secondary teachers on 67 per cent. As is shown in Table 17, curriculum leaders attained consensus on appreciably fewer items than teachers in all sections of the questionnaire with the exception of the division of labor section. There, curriculum leaders reached consensus on 50 per cent of the items, elementary teachers on 50 per cent, and secondary teachers on 55 per cent. Little consensus obtained among curriculum leaders on the items dealing with the facilitation of teacher par ticipation and group processes. However, the sample was- small, which caused extreme variations to have considerable effect on consensus. Hypothesis 3. Curriculum development groups with a homogeneous membership will achieve greater consensus than will groups with heterogeneous membership.— Three of the ten curriculum development groups consistently attained the lowest variances, indicating high consensus. From the data available regarding respondents, homogeneity in 134 TABLE 15 MEDIAN VARIANCES Section of Instrument Curriculum Leaders Elementary Teachers Secondary Teachers All Re spondents Division of Labor Facilitating Teacher Par ticipation Group Processes Criteria for Participation Total Instru ment (N=22) .691 1.159 1.251 .925 .946 (N=38) .724 .615 .703 .627 .636 (N=36) .731 .470 *511 .501 .582 (N=96) .711 .846 .822 .650 .766 135 TABLE 16 PERCENTAGE OF EACH SAMPLE'S VARIANCES BELOW SAMPLE'S MEDIAN VARIANCE Curriculum Elementary Secondary All Section of Leaders Teachers Teachers Teachers Instrument Md^y- =.946 Md (yz=.636 Md =. 582 Md ^^=.706 Division of Labor Facilitating Participation Group Processes Criteria for Participation 85% 45% 20% 53% 17% 44% 77% 62% 30% 35% 60% 53% 56% 56% 62% 62% TABLE 17 PERCENTAGE OF VARIANCES BELOW MEDIAN VARIANCE OF TOTAL SAMPLE (Md<j2=.766) Section of Curriculum Elementary Secondary Instrument Leaders Teachers Teachers Division of Labor Facilitating Participation 50% 50% 55% 7% 67% 60% Group Processes 0% 56% 78% 31% 77% 85% Criteria for Participation Total Instrument 237» 61% 67% 137 subject taught, in educational background, and in years of experience could be estimated. In regard to the subjects taught by teacher par ticipants, one of the three groups with the most consensus was homogeneous; the other two were not. When the ten participating groups were listed in order from most to least consensus, the two groups which were most homogeneous in teaching assignment were ranked fifth and sixth. Homo geneity in subjects taught by the participants did not appear to affect consensus. The participants in the three high consensus groups represented varied educational backgrounds. The members of each group had majored in varying subjects. In two of the groups, participants varied also regarding the amount of college training obtained. One group was homogeneous in this regard; all participants had some units beyond the bachelor's degree, but none had obtained the master's degree. The two groups which appeared to be the most homogeneous in educational backgrounds ranked seventh and tenth in a list of the groups in order from most to least consensus. Homogeneity in educational background appeared to bear no relationship to consensus. 138 In years of teaching experience, the participants in the three groups with the most consensus were relatively homogeneous in that, none of the three contained teachers with less than seven years of experience. In two of the groups, no teacher had less than ten years of experience. Of the remaining groups, four contained teachers in the first or second year of teaching; the least experienced teachers in the other three groups were in the third or fourth year of teaching. Homogeneity in being composed of experienced teachers appeared.to bear some relationship to the consensus scores, although the results were not con clusive. Hypothesis A. - The amount of satisfaction which members of a group derive from participation'in cooperative curriculum development will be positively related to the amount of consensus within the group.— Rank orders for the groups ranging from most to least consensus were compared with the rank order in terms of most to least satisfaction. No correlation between the two was found. The hypothesis that the amount of satisfaction derived from participation in curriculum development would relate to the amount of consensus within the groups was rejected. 139 TABLE 18 RANK ORDERS OF PARTICIPATING GROUPS Most to Most to Least Most to Least Group Least Homogeneous Satisfaction. No. Consensus Training Experience Expressed Elementary School 1 7 9 10 5 2 2 2 2 4 3 10 2 3 2 4 9 2 8 6 5 4 6 9 7 Junior High 6 School 5 6 6 9 7 1 6 5 1 8 8 10 4 3 Senior High School 9 6 6 7 10 10 3 6 1 8 140 Summary Chapter IV dealt with the responses of elementary teachers, secondary teachers, and curriculum leaders to a role analysis instrument, "The Teacher in Cooperative Cur riculum Development." The responses of the three samples were regarded as expectations held for the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development. The respondents were participants in ten curriculum planning groups repre senting ten school districts. The division of labor section of the questionnaire was concerned with the assignment of responsibility for twenty curriculum development tasks to teachers or to administrators and supervisors. In general, the responses of the three samples tended to fall in the middle, or joint, responsibility category. Of the three samples, the secondary teachers most frequently assigned tasks to teachers; the elementary teachers most frequently assigned tasks to administrative and supervisory personnel. The mean responses of the ten participating curriculum develop ment groups tended to differ according to the grade levels taught by the teachers. The t-test of the difference between means 141 revealed that the means of curriculum leaders and elemen tary teachers were significantly different at the five per cent level of confidence on two items and at the one per cent level on four items. Curriculum leaders' and secondary teachers' means were significantly different at the five per cent level of confidence on three items and at the one per cent level on two. Elementary and secondary teachers differed at the five per cent level on five items, and at the one per cent level on eight. in other words, curriculum leaders and elementary teachers differed on 35 per cent of the items; curriculum leaders and secondary teachers on 25 per cent of the items; and elementary and secondary teachers differed on 65 per cent. According to the chi-square criterion, the distri butions of the three samples were significantly different on over half of the twenty items. For seven items, the distributions were different at the five per cent level of confidence; for four items, at the one per cent level. The section entitled "Facilitating Teacher Partici pation" dealt with ways in which teachers might be helped or encouraged to participate in cooperative curriculum development. Perhaps the most salient characteristic of the responses to the section on facilitating participation 142 was the lack of consensus within the curriculum leader sample. Although the central tendency was immediately evi dent, dissenting responses in extreme categories resulted in consensus scores higher than the median variance for the total sample, the criterion for consensus. Although in the division of labor section the responses of secondary and elementary teachers were often divergent, in the section on facilitating participation their responses were usually similar. In fact, a notable amount of agreement between the samples was apparent. In only six instances were the differences between the means of the three samples significant. The group processes section was comprised of items regarding the ways in which members of a curriculum devel opment group might interact. In general, the responses were positive, indicating that the respondents believed that the principles of group dynamics could profitably be applied to curriculum development groups. Conspicuously less consensus was discovered within the curriculum leader sample than within the two teacher samples on the group processes section. The mean response of the curriculum leaders differed significantly from elementary teachers' mean responses on four items and from 143 the secondary teachers' responses on eight items. The mean responses of elementary and secondary teachers were signif icantly different on two items. \ The fourth section presented nine qualifications for participation in cooperative curriculum development. The respondents affirmed that seven of the nine preferably should be considered in selecting participants, although none of the qualifications was regarded as absolutely essential. Comparatively little difference of opinion was indicated between the three samples. Official leaders and elementary teachers differed significantly in mean responses to four items, official leaders and secondary teachers on only one. Pour items representing prevalent attitudes toward teacher participation in cooperative curriculum development comprised part two of the section on criteria for partici pation. The respondents believed that cooperative curric ulum development should be considered an integral part of teaching and an aspect of in-service education. Permissive responses were elicited by questions regarding whether teachers should participate in planning beyond that related to their classroom situations. Each section of the instrument concluded with a question asking whether the respondent's expectations were satisfied. No significant differences were found either between the responses for the different sections of the questionnaire or between the responses of teachers and cur riculum leaders. Clearly defined expectations for the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development were assumed to be the most crucial aspects of the role. Therefore, the ex pectations upon which teachers reached consensus were re-worded to express the direction and intensity of the responses as listed. Four hypotheses were formulated regarding factors related to consensus. The hypothesis that teachers' and curriculum leaders' expectations would sometimes be diver gent was accepted since role conflict was suggested by the responses to thirty-two of the sixty-six questionnaire items. The hypothesis that curriculum leaders would reveal more consensus regarding the teacher's role in cooperative % curriculum development than would teachers was rejected. The hypothesis that a homogeneous membership would be related to consensus was rejected, although homogeneity in terms of having a group comprised entirely of teachers with at least seven years of experience was related to the 145 consensus scores of the ten participating groups. Homo geneity in subject taught and educational background was not related to consensus. The hypothesis that satisfaction derived from working with the group would relate to consen sus was rejected. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter V consists of a summary of the study and recommendations and conclusions regarding the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development. Recommendations for further research conclude the chapter. Summary of the Study The purpose of the study was to contribute to the improvement of curriculum development procedures by analyz ing how teachers and curriculum leaders view the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development. The study was primarily concerned with discovering expectations for the teacher's role in a curriculum development group upon which teachers agreed, since the satisfaction of clearly defined expectations was regarded as crucial to adequate function ing in the role. In addition, four hypotheses were formu lated relating to role conflict and factors affecting consensus within groups: (1) teachers' and curriculum 146 147 leaders' expectations will sometimes be divergent indicat ing role conflict; (2) curriculum leaders will reveal more consensus regarding the teacher's role in cooperative cur riculum development than will teachers; (3) curriculum development groups with a homogeneous membership will achieve greater consensus than will groups with hetero geneous membership; and (4) the amount of satisfaction which members of a group derive from participation in coop erative curriculum development will be positively related to the amount of consensus within the group. The research design made use of techniques which had been developed by researchers in role analysis. A questionnaire was constructed based on the literature on cooperative curriculum development. The items, each repre senting an expectation which a teacher might hold for his role in curriculum development, were classified in four categories: Division of Labor, Facilitating Teacher Par ticipation, Group Processes, and Criteria for Participa tion. Four pilot studies were conducted and a panel of two experts in the field of curriculum development and one expert in group dynamics suggested revisions in the instrument. From an alphabetical list of unified school 148 districts in Los Angeles County (excepting Los Angeles City Schools), every third district was contacted. Ten dis tricts consented to participate in the study. The instru ment was administered by the investigator during a regular meeting. Since the role of a teacher in cooperative curric ulum development is determined through group interaction, administering the instrument in a group interview situation appeared to be a valid technique. The responses were divided into three samples: elementary teachers, secondary teachers, and curriculum leaders. The means and variances of each sample for each item were calculated and reported as findings. The t-test was used to determine differences in mean responses. If the differences were not significant, the responses repre sented interposition consensus. The median variance for the responses of the three samples on all items was calcu lated and served as the cutting point between variances which indicated consensus and those which indicated a lack of consensus. The responses to each item on the questionnaire were presented and the items on which consensus was obtained within the teacher samples were summarized. The first hypothesis was accepted; the second, third, and 149 fourth hypotheses were rejected. Recommendations for Curriculum Development and Conclusions The four major conclusions derived from the find ings may be helpful to curriculum workers involved in cooperative curriculum development. The conclusions relate to differences between the roles of secondary and elemen tary teachers, facilitation of teacher participation, role conflict, and role clarity. Differences between the roles of secondary and elementary teachers.— The differential responses of secon dary and elementary teachers to the division of labor section of the questionnaire suggested that the roles of the two groups of teachers are not the same. In general, elementary teachers were more prone to assign responsibil ity to administrators and supervisors, while the responses of secondary teachers were more apt to specify a given activity as a teacher responsibility. Since secondary teachers are usually subject-matter specialists, a tendency for secondary teachers to feel more competent in activities related to subject matter would be expected. However, only five of the twenty items in the division of labor section 150 of the questionnaire were related to subject matter compe tency. Aspects of curriculum development related to child psychology and educational objectives, for example, might be closer to the specialized competencies of elementary teachers than secondary teachers. Although the subject matter orientation of secondary teachers does not explain the differential response, possibly a feeling of special competence in a subject does contribute to a perception of the teacher's role as a curriculum specialist. The literature on curriculum development vacillates between regarding teacher participation as essential and regarding curriculum development as a job for curriculum experts. Both positions may be tenable. At the elementary level, curriculum specialists should be primarily respon sible for curriculum development tasks. Surely the specialist should utilize teachers' insights into teaching techniques, development psychology, sequence in learning, and the like. However, the specialist should assume responsibility for drawing together and preparing units and other materials, for conducting research, for making recommendations, and for evaluating materials. The secon dary teacher should be more directly involved in the details of curriculum development. As a subject-matter 151 specialist, the secondary teacher would be responsible for curriculum development in one subject rather than in many, as would be true at the elementary level. Therefore, involvement of secondary teachers would not usurp as much time as involvement of elementary teachers. The elementary curriculum specialist, then, should be responsible for most curriculum development tasks, but should involve the elementary teacher as a consultant who is well informed on the realities of the classroom situa tion. The secondary curriculum specialist shouldjwork with secondary teachers on curriculum development tasks and should facilitate the teachers 1 curriculum work in every way possible. The secondary teacher should be regarded' as an expert in curriculum development in his subject specialty. Facilitation of teacher participation.— The two items in the questionnaire which elicited the most intense responses were both in the section, "Facilitating Teacher Participation." Both elementary and secondary teachers strongly agreed that the provision of clerical assistance and the provision of a comfortable and convenient place to meet and work are absolutely essential. Secondary teachers 152 felt equally strongly that released time should be provided during the" school day to allow teachers to work on curric ulum development. The literature on curriculum development also emphasized the importance of time, a place to work, and clerical assistance. Nevertheless, six of the ten participating groups met after school in a teacher's class room. Failure to provide comfortable curriculum centers where teacher groups feel free to schedule meetings, to assign clerical assistance specifically to the group, and to allot more than a few token hours of released time may have had a deleterious effect on many curriculum develop ment programs. Although much has been done to meet these demands, too often curriculum leaders have felt justified in allowing a penurious budget, crowded facilities, or other expediencies to interfere. This study served to re emphasize the- mandatory nature of such provisions. Role conflict.— The findings revealed that curric ulum leaders and teachers frequently view the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development differently. An assumption of the study was that the satisfaction of expectations is vital to adequate functioning within a role. Conflicting role expectations can breed discontent, frustration, and failure. Two examples based on divergent responses to the division of labor section of the questionnaire may serve to illustrate the effect of divergent expectations. The find ings revealed that secondary teachers regarded the devel opment of resource or teaching units as largely a teacher responsibility. Curriculum leaders perceived this task as a joint responsibility of teachers and administrators or supervisors. How an administrator or supervisor functions within a group organized to develop resource units may well be determined by which of these expectations he holds. If planning, selecting, and evaluating units is largely a teacher responsibility, the administrator or supervisor will probably function in a facilitating role. If the administrator or supervisor is equally responsible for developing the units, his participation in planning, selecting, and evaluating will be on the same basis as teachers, who would customarily be subject matter special ists. Elementary teachers regarded the recommendation of a statement of policy as the result of cooperative curric ulum work to be largely the responsibility of administra tors or supervisors. Curriculum leaders designated the 154 same task as equally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel. Possibly the dissatisfactions sometimes expressed in the effectiveness of cooperative curriculum development are based on incon- gruent expectations of this sort. Administrators or supervisors may be disappointed when teachers conclude a curriculum study short of making specific policy recommen dations. The teachers, on the other hand, may be disap pointed when the administration fails to recommend policy on the basis of the findings presented by the committee. The conclusion that every differing response in the study represents a role conflict in a larger population than the respondents would be fatuous. However, since dif fering expectations may seriously affect the functioning of the group, such conflicts should be located and resolved within curriculum development groups. Role clarity.— Although the literature reiterated that the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum develop ment lacked clarity, the present study indicated that the role was rather clearly defined by the teacher respondents. However, only sixty-six of an indefinite number of expecta tions were considered. Since the items included in the 155 questionnaire were derived from the literature, the most clearly defined expectations may have been selected. Nevertheless, curriculum leaders, who could be expected to be more familiar with the literature on curriculum develop ment than teachers, were less well agreed on the items included than were teachers. Expectations for the teacher's role as summarized in the chapter on findings may serve as a guideline to curriculum leaders who are concerned with satisfying teacher's expectations. Since group structure is rarely a pattern of fixed and standardized roles, curriculum leaders should not assume that every group will hold the same ex pectations for the teacher's role. The ten groups which participated in the study revealed distinct differences of opinion on a number of items. If the fulfillment of clearly held expectations is essential for adequate func tioning, then the curriculum specialist would be well advised to determine what expectations are held within a given group as an initial step in cooperative curriculum development. A candid discussion of roles may prove especially helpful to the inexperienced teacher. 156 Suggestions for Further Research Additional research on the teacher's role in coop erative curriculum development is needed to ascertain the factors related to conformance to role expectations, the relationship between convergence of teachers' and curric ulum leaders' expectations and productivity or morale, and the relationship between satisfaction of expectations and productivity or morale. Conflicts between"the teacher's role in curriculum development and other segments of the teacher's role should be examined. More knowledge is needed of the functioning of cur riculum development groups. Research in group dynamics suggests methods which would enlarge understanding of the development of role definition and consensus within a group. The amount of consensus which is desirable in cur riculum development groups needs to be estimated. Too much consensus, as well as too little, may be dysfunctional. Demands for more effective curriculum planning and dissatisfaction with the results of cooperative curriculum development portend a movement toward less teacher partici pation. Educational theory has in the past too often oscillated between extreme views. A cogent and thorough 157 understanding of what each participant in the educational enterprise can and should contribute to curriculum develop ment is needed. APPENDIX A SOURCES OF QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS SOURCES OF QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS The questionnaire items are listed below. The sources which considered the item a valid expectation for the teacher's role in cooperative curriculum development are indicated by a brief reference. The complete citation may be found in the bibliography. Division of Labor 1. Develop or revise.courses of study or curriculum guides. Ahrens, p. 103 American Association of School Administrators, p. 85 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. .90 Burton and Brueckner, p. 592, p. 607. Eckhardt, p. 114 Floyd, p. 243 Implementation Committee of the Iowa ASCD Chap ter, p. 5, p. 9 Klahn, p. 81 Krug et al., p* 12, pp. 221-22 Krug, pp. 228-91 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 105 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 153 Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Im provement," p. 39 Ritchie, p. 50 Saylor and Alexander, p. 561 Spears, Improving the Supervision of Instruction, p. 327 Tyler, p. 82 159 160 2. Determine scope and sequence in a specific subject for either elementary or secondary grades. ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 205 Briggs, Leonard, and Justman, p. 245, p. 247 Eckhardt, p. 253 Herrick and Estvan, p. 184 Kinnick, pp. 146-47 McNally and Passow, pp. 163-6 4 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 139 Wahlquist et al., p. 290 3. Formulate curricular objectives in a specific subject area. Briggs and Justman, p. 462 Eckhardt, p. 255 Floyd, p. 243, pp. 332-33 Herrick and Estvan, p. 184 Krug et al., p. 12 Krug, pp. 287-91 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 105 Palm, p. 45 Southwestern Cooperative Program in Educational Administration, p. 42 Spears, Curriculum Planning Through In-Service Programs, p. 179 Stratemeyer, et al., p. 672 Taba, Curriculum Development, p. 453 Taba, "General Techniques of Curriculum Planning," p. 90 Umstattd, p. 17 Wahlquist et al., pp. 302-05 4. Develop resource or teaching units. American Association of School Administrators, p. 85, p. 241 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 90 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 63 Briggs and Justman, p. 220 Cutright, p. 273 161 Ebaugh, p. 9 7 Floyd, pp. 243-44, pp. 332-33 Gilchrist, p. 456 Gilchrist, Fielstra, and Davis, p. 294 Implementation Committee of the Iowa ASCD Chapter, p. 5, p. 9 Krug et al., p. 12, pp. 221-22 Krug, p. 13, p. 282, pp. 288-91 Lonsdale, p. 139 McMahon, p. 170 McNally and Passow, p. 89 Michaelis, p. 145 Palm, p. 45 Saylor and Alexander, p. 561 Shane, p. 177 Taba, Curriculum Development, pp. 287-91, pp. 456- 59 Wahlquist et al., p. 290, pp. 302-05 5. Evaluate and select textbooks and other instructional materials. ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 217 Burton and Brueckner, p. 5 89 Douglass, p. 157 Eckhardt, p. 114, p. 245 Floyd, p. 165, p. 275 Freese, p. 169 Gilchrist et al., p. 294 Hand, p. 2 87 Klahn, p. 81 McMahon, p. 170 McNally and Passow, p. 203, p. 230 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 139 Michaelis, p. 143 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 53 Stratemeyer, p. 672 Wahlquist et al., p. 290 Watkins, p. 296 6. Prepare publications or handbooks for parents explain ing aspects of the instructional program. Barnes, p. 472 162 Burton and Brueckner, p. 570, p. 589 McNally and Passow, p. 83, p. 230 Merritt and Karap, p. 31 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 85 7. Determine the functions, responsibilities, and authority of the curriculum development group. American Association of School Administrators, p. 155 ASCD, Leadership for Improving Instruction, p. 40, p. 165 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 230 Bartky, p. 290 Broderick and Mason, p. 345 Kinnick, p. 142 Mackenzie, pp. 71-72 8. Formulate a philosophy Of education to serve as a guide for the group. Alberty, p. 432 American Association of School Administrators, p. 155 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 112 Briggs, Leonard and Justman, p. 243 Ebaugh, p. 85 Eckhardt, p. 153 Floyd, pp. 130-33 Hammock, p. 56 Krug et al., p. 12 Krug, pp. 287-91 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, pp. 37-39, p. 49, p. 189 Mitchum, p. 17 Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improvement," pp. 39-40 Southwestern Cooperative Program in Educational Administration, p. 3 Stratemeyer et al., p. 672 Thelen, "Engineering Research in Curriculum Building," p. 581 Tyler, p. 82 163 9. Conduct a survey of teachers' classroom or curricular problems. Adams and Dickey, p. 30 8 Ahrens, p. 105 Alexander, "Can We Supervise Through Group Planning?" p. 231 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 112 Hammock and Owings, p. 29 Lawler, Curriculum Consultants at Work, p. 73 Lowe, p. 22 McNally and Passow, p. 72 McNearney, p. 170 Mitchum, p. 30 Schroth, p. 42 10. Gather evidence as to the effectiveness of instruc tional procedures being used in the school system. Alberty, p. 439 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 217 Krum and Brown, p. 220 McNally and Passow, p. 83, p. 20 8 Mackenzie, p. 71 Martin, p. 353 Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improve ment , " p. 3 8 Passow et al., p. 3-4 Rose, p. 26 Spears, Curriculum Planning Through In-Service Programs, p. 179-80 Waskin, p. 42 11. Conduct experimental studies or action research. Anderson, "Trends in Curriculum Improvement in the New England Region," p. 269 - ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 44, p. 129, p. 217 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, pp. 42-71, pp. 187-226 Bellack et al., p. 249 Burton and Brueckner, p. 5 89 Corey, Action Research to Improve School Prac tices , p. 15, p. 94 164 Dewar, p. 7 - - Eckhardt, p. 256 Floyd, p. 165, p. 278 Krura and Brown, p. 220 McNally and Passow, p. 307 Melchior, p. 235 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 9 4 Passow, "Organization and Procedures for Curric ulum Improvement," p. 221 Passow et al., p. 2 -Taba, Noel, and Marsh, p. 453 Taba, Curriculum Development, p. 451, p. 464 Wann, "Action Research in Schools," p. 339 12. Study the needs and interests of the students as a basis for curriculum planning. Alberty, p. 437 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, pp. 41-42 Briggs, Leonard, and Justman, p. 244 Ebaugh, p. 82 Eckhardt, p. 254 Krug et al., p. 12 Melchior, pp. 247-48 Rose, p. 26 Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improve ment," pp. 3 8-39 Tyler, p. 82 13. Study contemporary cultural, political, and economic life in relation to the curriculum. ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 42 Burton and Brueckner, p. 570 Eckhardt, p. 25 4 Gilchrist, Fielstra, and Davis, p. 293 Krug et al., p. 12 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," p. 123 Smith, Stanley, and Shores, p. 462 Taba, "General Techniques of Curriculum Plan ning," pp. 85-86 165 14. Review the literature on child development and learn ing theory to gather information needed by the curric ulum development group. American Association of School Administrators, p. 156 Broderick and Mason, p. 344 Burton and Brueckner, p. 570 Cutright, p. 273 Ebaugh, p. 82 Gilchrist, Fielstra, and Davis, p. 29 3 Herrick, p. 2 37 Wahlquist et al., p. 297 15. Decide whether and how to use a consultant's services. ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 141 Benne and Muntyan, pp. 79-80 Krug et al., p. 20 Lawler, Curriculum Consultants at Work, p. 88 Lawler, "The Role of the Consultant in Curriculum Improvement," p. 220 16. Visit other schools to learn what procedures are being used there. Ahrens, p. 116 Brickell, p. 27 Burton and Brueckner, p. 589 Eckhardt, p. 255 Edgar, p. 242 Krum and Brown, p. 220 Melchior, p. 235 Schroth, p. 42 Stratemeyer et al., p. 690 Wahlquist et al., p. 295 17. Do work between meetings for the group, e.g., review research studies to locate needed facts. Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, p. 49 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, p. 52 Benne and Muntyan, p. 79 166 Briggs and Justman, p. 220 Burton and Brueckner, p. 180 Faunce, p. 75 Griffith, p. 175 Lowe, p. 32 McNally and Passow, p. 83 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 149 Taba, Curriculum Development, p. 477 18. Recommend a statement of policy as the result of cooperative curriculum work. Floyd, p. 332-33 Krug, p. 281, pp. 287-91 McNally and Passow, p. 41, p. 85 Michaelis, p. 143 Stratemeyer et al., p. 672 Thelen, "Group Dynamics in Curriculum Improvement," p. 414 19. Interpret plans and materials worked out in coopera tive curriculum development to other teachers. ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 140 McNally and Passow, p. 83 Mitchum, p. 34 20. Evaluate the results of cooperative curriculum devel opment in operation against the desired outcomes. ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, pp. 35-36 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, pp. 6 3-64 Benne and Muntyan, pp. 68-69, p. 93 Benne, p. 430 Briggs and Justman, p. 46 3 Coffey and Goldner, pp. 92-9 3, p. 9 4 Corey, "Conditions Conducive to Curricular Experimentation," p. 209 Gilchrist, Fielstra, and Davis, p. 286 Kinnick, p. 150 McNally and Passow, p. 20 8 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, pp. 58-59 167 Parker, "Guidelines for Curriculum Development," p. 22 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," p. 112 Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improvement," p. 37 Passow et al., p. 4 Pellett, p. 414 Smith, Stanley, and Shores, pp. 428-35 Facilitating Teacher Participation - r._v- 1. Offer guidance and advice. ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 16 4 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, p. 58, p. 128 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 200 Dewar, p. 7 Eb augh, p. 78 Eckhardt, p. 253 McMahon, p. 171 Manlove, p. 5 7 Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improve ment," p. 40. Sharp, p. 48 Spears, Curriculum Planning Through In-Service Programs, pp. 180-81 -> - Tierney, p. 195 Wann, "Teachers as Researchers," pp. 494-95 2. Work with the curriculum development group in a lead ership capacity. (Administrators or supervisors should serve as leaders of curriculum development groups.) ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, p. 58 ASCD, Leadership for Improving Instruction, p. 108 Bartky, pp. 190-91 Lonsdale, p. 139 168 Sharp, p. 95 Spears, Improving the Supervision of Instruc tion, p. 328 (Administrators and supervisors have no lead ership prerogatives in curriculum development groups.) ASCD, Leadership for Improving Instruction, p. 56 Hines, p. 110 Manlove, p. 5 8 Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools, p. 30 3. Participate on the same basis as teachers; that is, as working members of the curriculum development group. ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 43, p. 218 Faunce, p. 74 Freese, p. 175 Herrick, p. 235 Hines, p. 110 Leighbody and Weinrich, p. 171 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 138 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 178 Robinson, p. 13 Sharp, pp. 92-9 3 Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools, p. 30 4. Provide training to develop skills needed in curric ulum development. Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," pp. 113-14 Passow et al., p. 5 Stratemeyer et al., p. 683 Taba, Curriculum Development, pp. 455-56, pp. 460- 62, pp. 480-81 5. Serve as experts in group dynamics or in curriculum development techniques. Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, p. 13 169 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, , p. 16 4 Corey, "Cooperative Curriculum Development," p. 31 Freese, p. 159 Krug, pp. 293-9 4 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 137 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, pp. 160-62, pp. 191-92 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," p. 110, pp. 113-14 Pinckney, p. 161 Stratemeyer et al., pp. 689-90, pp. 693-95 6. Provide the assistance of consultants (other than district employees) if desirable. Alberty, p. 440 American Association of School Administrators, p. 85 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 173 Burton and Brueckner, p. 584, p. 588, p. 592 Eckhardt, pp. 253-54 Edgar, p'. 242 Everett, p. 424 Gilchrist, p. 456 Gilchrist, Fielstra, and Davis, p. 303 Herrick, p. 235 Implementation Committee of the Iowa ASCD Chapter, p. 13 J. J. Jones, p. 93 Klahn, p. 82 Lawler, Curriculum Consultants at Work, pp. 138-39 Lowe, p. 23 McNally and Passow, p. 50, p. 85 Melchior, p. 235 Merritt and Harap, p. 10 Michaelis, p. 143 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 130-31 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," p. Ill Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improve ment," p. 40 Passow, p. 221 Ritchie, p. 50 170 Schroth, p. 42 Shane, p. 176 Spears, Improving the Supervision of Instruction, p. 328 Stratemeyer et al., p. 6 70 Taba, Noel, and Marsh, p. 457 Thelen, "Group Dynamics in Curriculum Development," P- 417 Wahlquist et al. ■ , p. 287 7. Involve as many teachers as possible in cooperative curriculum development. Ahrens, p. 105, p. 112 Alberty, p. 432, p. 440 American Association of School Administrators, p. 84 Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, p. 157 Anderson, "When Does Curriculum Change Occur?" p. 539 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 90, p. 217 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 229 Burton and Brueckner, p. 584 Caswell, Curriculum Improvement in Public School Systems, p. 70 Caswell, "Democratic Curriculum Development," p. 504 Cutright, p. 273 Dewar, p. 5 Eckhardt, p. 258 Floyd, p. 114, p. 116, pp. 271-72, p. 338 Halverson, p. 20 Herrick, p. 235 J. J. Jones, p. 92 Krum and Brown, p. 221 McNally and Passow, p. 295 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 70, p. 85, pp. 90-91 . . Mitchum, p. 35 Palm, p. 45 Passow, p. 221 Saylor and Alexander, p. 5 35 171 Smith, Stanley, and Shores, p. 42 8 Spears, Improving the Supervision of Instruction, p. 328 Thomas and Parley, p. 246 Tierney, p. 194 Tyler, p. 82 Wagner, p. 574 Wahlquist et al. , p. 2 81 Willey, pp. 43-44 8. Provide clerical assistance. Alberty, p. 440 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 241 Herrick, p. 238 J. J. Jones, p. 9 3 Potter, p. 574 Stratemeyer, et al., p. 69 4 Tierney, pp. 195-96 Wahlquist, p. 291 9. Provide a comfortable and convenient place to meet and work. Alberty, p. 440 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 112 Burton and Brueckner,- p. 179 Gilchrist et al., p. 301 Herrick, p. 235 J. J. Jones, p. 9 3 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 152 Redford, p. 175 Sanford, p. 362 Wahlquist, p. 291 10. Allow released time during the school day to work on cooperative curriculum projects. Ahrens, p. 109 Alberty, p. 440 Alexander, "Can We Supervise Through Group Plan ning," p. 232 American Association of School Administrators, p. 156 172 Anderson, "Trends in Curriculum Development in the New England Region," p. 271 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 46, p. 112 Caswell, "Democratic Curriculum Development," p. 504 Corey, Action Research to. Improve School Practices, p. 101 Cutright, p. 275 Dewar, pp. 6-7 Ebaugh, p. 174 Eckhardt, pp. 258-59 Floyd, p. 338 Gilchrist, p. 457 Gilchrist et al., p. 301 Hammock, p. 57 Herrick, p. 236 Implementation Committee of the Iowa ASCD Chapter, pp. 4-5, pp. 8-9, pp. 11-14 J. J. Jones, p. 9 3 Kinnick, p. 146 Klahn, p. 81 Leighbody and Weinrich, p. 167 Lowe, p. 23 McNally and Passow, p. 53, p. 148, p. 225 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 105, p. 143 Mackenzie, p. 72 Melchior, p. 235 Potter, p. 564 Schroth, p. 42 Smith, Stanley, and Shores, p. 429 Stratemeyer, p. 670 Tierney, pp. 195-96 Wagner, p. 573 Wahlquist et al., p. 287 Witt, pp. 294-95 11. Employ teachers on Saturdays or during vacations to work on cooperative curriculum projects. Caswell, Curriculum Improvement in Public School Systems, p. 383 Caswell, "Democratic Curriculum Development," p. 504 173 Dewar, p. 6 Everett, p. 424 Implementation Committee of the Iowa ASCD Chapter, p. 7 Lonsdale, p. 136 McNally and Passow, p. 53, p. 225 Rose, p. 26 Wagner, p. 573 12. Give promotional credit on the salary schedule or extra pay for curriculum work. Ebaugh, p. 133 Eckhardt, pp. 258-59 Everett, p. 424 Floyd, p. 338 Herrick, p. 236 Implementation Committee of the Iowa ASCD Chapter, p. 11 Kinnick, p. 148 Krug et al., p. 18 Melchior, p. 234 13. Coordinate the group's work with related curriculum development projects in the district. ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 114 Burton and Brueckner, p. 5 85 Dewar, p. 7 Freese, p. 158, pp. 309-10 Gilchrist, p. 453 Hammock, p. 59 Krurn and Brown, p. 221 Lawler, Curriculum Consultants at Work, pp. 130-31 Leighbody and Weinrich, p. 170 McNally and Passow, p. 301 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, pp. 128-29, p. 133, p. 162, pp. 173-75 Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improve ment," p. 41 Saylor and Alexander, p. 545 Spears, Curriculum Planning Through In-Service Programs, pp. 179-80 Stratemeyer et al., p. 664, pp. 670-71, p. 695 174 14. Adopt worthy recommendations made by the curriculum development group and see that they are put into effect. ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 112, p. 218 Burton and Brueckner, p. 5 89 Dewar, p. 7 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," p. 112 Pinckney, p. 162 Pritzkau, p. 10 Richard, p. 83 Shane, p. 178 Willey, pp. 47-48 15. Report back to teachers as to what action was taken on their recommendations and why. ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 112 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 15 8 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, pp. 75-77 Group Processes 1. Develop cohesiveness or solidarity as a group: be loyal to the group. Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, pp. 36-37 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, pp. 217- 18 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, pp. 49-50, pp. 52-53, p. 128 Benne, p. 431 Burton and Brueckner, p. 175, p. 591 Coffey and Goldner, p. 93, p. 102 Ebaugh, pp. 100-01 J. J. Jones, p. 92 McNeil, p. 46 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 6.2, pp. 190-91 Parker, "Guidelines for Curriculum Development," p. 21 175 Southwestern Cooperative Program in Educational Administration, p. 2 8 Strang, p. 4, p. 81 Stratemeyer et al., p. 6 82 Thelen, "Engineering Research in Curriculum Building," p. 414, p. 581 2. Try to get better acquainted with each other by shar ing refreshments before meetings and so forth. Adams and Dickey, p. 30 8 Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, p. 34 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 43, p. 140 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, p. 55, p. 120, p. 128 Burton and Brueckner, p. 591 Corey, Action Research to Improve School Practices, p. 91-92 Ebaugh, p. 101 Gold, p. 231 ■ Krug et al., p. 224 Lammel, p. 289 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 154 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 85 Pickney, p. 161 Spears, Improving the Supervision of Instruction, p. 334 Zimmerman, p. 123 3. Choose their own group leader. Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, p. 50 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, p. 56 ASCD, Leadership for Improving Instruction, p. 46 Bartky, p. 19 4 Krug et al., p. 223 Schroth, p. 42 Strang, p. 80 176 4. Define the problem confronting the group and formu late its goals. Adams and Dickey, p. 304 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, p. 12 8 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 211 Benne and Muntyan, p. 80 Benne, p. 430 Bradford, Benne, and Lippitt, p. 351 Bradford and Mial, p. 14 8 Burton and Brueckner, p. 175, p. 180, p. 591 Caswell, Curriculum Improvement in Public School Systems, p. 6 8 Coffey and Goldner, pp. 91-9 4, p. 102 Ebaugh, pp. 100-01 Gilchrist, Fielstra, and Davis, p. 286 Halverson, p. 20 Hammock, p. 58 Kinnick, p. 132 Lawler, Curriculum Consultants at Work, pp. 74-75 Lawler, "Role of the Consultant in Curriculum Improvement," p. 222 McNally and Passow, p. 77 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 137, p. 145 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, pp. 48^49, pp. 73- 74, p. 190 Mitch urn, p. 16 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," p. 107 Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improve ment," p. 37, p. 40 Richard, p. 82, p. 127 Smith, Stanley, and Shores, pp. 428-35 Strang, p. 80 Taba, Curriculum Development, p. 466, p. 474 Thelen, "Engineering Research in Curriculum Build ing," p. 580 5. Plan the procedures to be used by the group. Adams and Dickey, p. 304, p. 308 Anderson, "When Does Curriculum Change Occur?" p. 539 - ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, p. 52 177 Benne and Muntyan, p. 69, p. 80 Benne, p. 430 Bradford, Benne, and Lippitt, p. 352 Burton and Brueckner, p. 180, p. 182 Coffey and Goldner, pp. 91-94, p. 102 Ebaugh, p. 101 Faunce, p. 75 Gilchrist, Fielstra, and Davis, p. 286 Kinnick, p. 133 Lawler, Curriculum Consultants at Work, p. 73 Lawler, "Role of the Consultant in Curriculum . Improvement," p. 222 McNally and Passow, p. 77, p. 83 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," p. 107 Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improve ment," p. 37, p. 40 Passow, p. 221 Richard, p. 83 Schroth, p. 42 Wann, "Teachers as Researchers," pp. 49 4-95 6. Communicate freely and on an equal footing with all group members no matter what their positions in the educational hierarchy. Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, p. 49 Anderson, "When Does Curriculum Change Occur?" p. 539 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, pp. 45-46, p. 54, p. 59, p. 128 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 213 Bartky, p. 191 Benne, p. 431 Bradford and Mial, p. 150 Burton and Brueckner, p. 175, p. 584, p. 591 Coffey and Goldner, p. 97, p. 102 Doll, Passow, and Corey, p. 16, p. 25 Gold, p. 231 Griffith, p. 174 Hall, p. 236 Hines, p. 110 Jenkins and Zander, p. 102 178 McNeil, p. 46 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 145 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 16 8, p. 192 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," pp. 112-13 Pellett, p. 414 Pritzkau, p. 17 Saylor and Alexander, p. 545 Sharp, p. 46 Southwestern Cooperative Program in Educational Administration, p. 28 Strang, pp. 30-31, pp. 80-81 Taba, Noel, and Marsh, p. 45 7 Thele.n, "Engineering Research in Curriculum Build ing," p. 5 80 Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools, p. 312 Young, p. 20 7. Feel free to express their own fears, needs, and limitations to the group. Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, p. 34, p. 37 Anderson, "When Does Curriculum Change Occur?" p. 539 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, p. 52-53 Benne and Muntyan, p. 71 Bradford and Mial, p. 149 Burton and Brueckner, p. 371, p. 589 Corey, Action Research to Improve School Practices, p. 88 Halverson, p. 21-22 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 145 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," p. 112 Thelen, "Engineering Research in Curriculum Build ing," p. 5 81 Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools, p. 312 8. State their personal opinions pertinent to suggestions and decisions made, even though the majority of the group holds a contrary opinion. Adams and Dickey, p. 159, pp. 309-10 179 Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, p. 37, p. 61 Anderson, "When Does Curriculum Change Occur?" ■p. 539 Alexander, "The Role of Leadership in Curriculum Planning," p. 107 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, pp. 45-46 Bartky, p. 191, p. 194 Benne and Muntyan, p. 99 Burton and Brueckner, p. 187 Ebaugh, p. 172 Griffith, p. 175 Krug, p. 281 Martin, p. 353 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, pp. 139-40 Miles, p. 20 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," p. 112 Pellett, p. 414 Taba, Curriculum Development, p. 476 Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools, p. 79 10. Make certain that each group member understands all possible paths of action or points of view. Adams and Dickey, p. 30 4, p. 310 Anderson, "When Does Curriculum Change Occur?" p. 539 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, pp. 35-36, pp. 45-46, p. 50, p. 120 Benne and Muntyan, p. 99 Bradford and Mial, p. 151 Burton and Brueckner, p. 185 Griffith, p. 174 Kinnick, p. 137 Krug, p. 281 Martin, p. 353 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 139-40 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," p. 112 Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improve ment," p. 37 Taba, Curriculum Development, p. 476 180 11. Suggest changes in the goals or procedures already decided on by the group. Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, p. 49 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, pp. 45-46, pp. 52-53 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 229 Benne and Muntyan, p. 69, p. 75, p. 99 Burton and Brueckner, p. 175, p. 180 Halverson, p. 178 Jenkins and Zander, p. 102 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 150 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 37, pp. 58-59, p. 190 Thelen, "Engineering Research in Curriculum Build ing," p. 590 12. Attempt to draw all group members into the discussion. Adams and Dickey, p. 158, p. 304 Alexander, "The Role of Leadership in Curriculum Planning," p. 107 Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, p. 34 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, pp. 45-46, p. 50, pp. 52-53 Bartky, p. 19 4 Benne and Muntyan, p. 83 Benne, p. 431 Broderick and Mason, p. 3 45 Burton and Brueckner, p. 181 Faunce, p. 75 Gold, p. 231 Griffith, p. 174 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, pp. 139-40' Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improve ment," p. 37 Pellett, p. 414 Saylor and Alexander, p. 545 Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools, p. 312 181 13. Prefer to compromise differences in an effort to reach agreement rather than to accept the decision of the majority. Adams and Dickey, p. 160 Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, p. 37 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 173 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, pp. 35-36, pp. 45-46, pp. 52-53, p. 55, p. 60 Benne and Muntyan, p. 84, p. 93, pp. 100-01 Burton and Brueckner, pp. 185-86 Faunce, p. 76 Krug, p. 2 81 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, pp. 139-40 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," p. 106 Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improve ment," p. 37 Schroth, p. 42 Thelen, "Engineering Research in Curriculum Build ing," p. 5 89 Thomas and Farley, p. 245 Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools, p. 87, p. 312 14. Prevent any one member from dominating the group. Adams and Dickey, p. 311 Benne and Muntyan, p. 84 Griffith, p. 174 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," p. H I Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools, p. 312 Witt, p. 29 2 15. Learns about and applies the findings of studies in group processes to improve the group's procedures for working together. Adams and Dickey, p. 304 American Association of School Administrators, p. 156 Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement, p. 40 182 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 189 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, pp. 35-36, pp. 51-53 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 213, p. 215 Bartky, p. 191 - ^ Benne and Muntyan, p. 81, p. 101 Bradford, Benne, and Lippitt, p. 352 Bradford and Mial, pp. 147-48 Burton and Brueckner, p. 181 Coffey and Goldner, p. 9 5 Corey, Action Research to Improve School Practices, p. 96, p. 98 Corey, "Cooperative Curriculum Development," p. 29 Faunce, pp. 75-76 Halverson, p. 21, p. 185, p. 188 Hammock, p. 57, p. 61 Jenkins and Zander, p. 102 Kinnick, p. 142 Lowe, p.2,p.65,p.99 McNally and Passow, p. 318 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 16 7 Martin, p. 351 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 191 Miles, Learning to Work in Groups, p. 20 Parker, "Guidelines for Curriculum Development," p. 22 Parker, "Guidelines for In-Service Education," p. Ill Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improve ment ," p. 37 Passow et al., p. 5 Pellett, p. 414 Shane, pp. 177-y8 Stratemeyer et al., p. 680, pp. 682-83 Taba, Curriculum Development, pp. 475-76, p. 481 Thelen, "Engineering Research in Curriculum Building," p. 59 4 16. Serve in leadership capacities when needed; distribute leadership functions among group members. ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 130, p. 218 / / 183 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, pp. 52-53, p. 55, p. 56, p. 58 ASCD, Leadership for Improving Instruction, p. 46, p. 56, p. 165 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 229 Bradford and Mial, p. 14 8 Burton and Brueckner, p. 175, p. 183, p. 584, p. 591 Coffey and Goldner, pp. 9 3-9 4, p. 102 Dimond, p. 309 Doll, Passow, and Corey, p. 16 Ebaugh, p. 77 Faunce, p. 75 Griffith, p. 141 Halverson, pp. 20-21 Jenkins and Zander, p. 102 Jones, Hazel, p. 75 Krug, et al., p. 223 McNally and Passow, p. 302, p. 317 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, pp. 15 7-6 2, pp. 191-92 Miles, p. 16, p. 18, p. 26 Parker, "Guidelines for Curriculum Development," P- 21 Salisbury, p. 10 Saylor and Alexander, p. 545 Shane, p. 178 Strang, pp. 30-31 Stratemeyer, p. 695 Taba, Curriculum Development, p. 476, p. 478 Thelen, "Engineering Research in Curriculum Build ing," p. 583 Thomas and Farley, p. 245 Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools, p. 30 17. The official leader, whether elected or appointed, should direct the group's thinking and acting. Ebaugh, p. 77 Pinckney, p. 162 Saylor and Alexander, p. 545 Southwestern Cooperative Program in Educational Administration, p. 28 Taba, Curriculum Development, p. 476 . . . * 184 18. The official leader, whether elected or appointed, should serve primarily as a guide in group processes. ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, pp. 217-18 ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, p. 58, p. 128 Smith, Stanley, and Shores, p. 462 Taba, Curriculum Development, p. 481 Criteria for Participation in Cooperative Curriculum Development 1. Has special knowledge of enrichment for gifted chil dren because of his training or experience. Briggs and Justman, pp. 46 3-6 4 Corey, "Cooperative Curriculum Development," p. 29 Doll, Passow, and Corey, p. 17 Ebaugh, p. 173 Krug et al., p. 12 Mackenzie and Corey, p.' 141 Shane, p. 178 2. Is especially interested in enrichment for gifted children. ASCD, Group Processes in Supervision, p. 46 Briggs and Justman, pp. 463-6 4 Dewar, p. 6 Doll, Passow, and Corey, p. 17 Eckhardt, p. 37 Kinnick, p. 146 Krug et al., p. 12, p. 221 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 141 Stratemeyer, p. 664 Taba, Curriculum Development, p. 469 3. Is especially interested in curriculum development. Eckhardt, p. 37 Floyd, p. 81, p. 83 Krug, pp. 13-14 185 Saylor and Alexander, p. 561 4. Is skilled in the use of the problem solving method and objective in handling data. Anderson, "When Does Curriculum Change Occur?" p. 539 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 44, p. 213, p. 223 Bartky, p. 191 Burton and Brueckner, p. 184 Corey, "Cooperative Curriculum Development," p. 29 Edgar, p. 242 Everett, pp. 425-26 .Shane, p. 178 5. Is well informed about recent advances in child psychology, teaching methods, learning theory, and so forth. Corey, "Cooperative Curriculum Development," p. 31 Doll, Passow, and Corey, p. 17 Eckhardt, p. 37 Redford, p. 175 Schroth, p. 42 Taba, Curriculum Development, pp. 480-81 Wahlquist et al., p. 297 Watkins, pp. 300-01 6. Is considered an above average teacher by his col leagues. Burton and Brueckner, p. 604 Doll, Passow, and Corey, p. 17 Eckhardt, p. 37 Floyd, p. 81, p. 83 Wahlquist et al., p. 287 7. Has tenure, (Participants in curriculum development projects should feel assured of job security.) Burton and Brueckner, p. 591 186 Miel, "Let's Work Together on the Curriculum," p. 300 Watkins, p. 301 8. Is regarded as a leader in faculty groups. ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 139 Burton and Brueckner, p. 589 Eckhardt, p. 37 Floyd, p. 81, p. 83 Taba, Curriculum Development, p. 474 9. Volunteered for this work. Alexander, "Can We Supervise Through Group Plan ning," p. 232 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 229 Barnes, p. 474 Doll, Passow, Corey, p. 15 Ebaugh, p. 100, p. 172 Everett, p. 424 Gilchrist, p. 292 Kinnick, pp. 136-37 Lawler, "Role of the Consultant in Curriculum Improvement," p. 220 Lowe, p. 2 0, p. 3 4 Mackenzie and Corey, pp. 139-40 Thelen, "Group Dynamics in Curriculum Development," p. 417 1. Cooperative curriculum development should be consid ered an integral part of the teaching job. American Association of School Administrators, p. 156 ASCD, Action for Curriculum Improvement, p. 112 Briggs and Justman, p. 460 Broderick and Mason, p. 345 Eckhardt, p. 25 8 Herrick, "Evaluating Curriculum Improvement Programs," pp. 236-37 Klahn, p. 81 Krug, p. 284 Krum and Brown, p. 221 187 Pritzkau, pp. 7-8 Stratemeyer, p. 669 2. Participation in cooperative curriculum development should be considered an aspect of in-service education, a means of improving teaching competence. Alberty, p. 440 ASCD, Research for Curriculum Improvement, p. 201 Briggs and Justman, p. 461 Cutright, p. 274 Dimond, p. 311 Doll, Passow, and Corey, p. 18 Gilchrist et al., pp. 29 3-9 4 Halverson, p. 25 McNally and Passow, p. 82 Passow, p. 221 Saylor and Alexander, p. 56 8 3. A teacher should participate only in those cooperative curriculum development projects which are directly related to the teaching-learning situation in his own classroom. Adams and Dickey, p. 151 Broderick and Mason, p. 345 Burton and Brueckner, p. 591 Caswell, "Democratic Curriculum Development," p. 505 Coffey and Goldner, p. 9 3 Doll, Passow, and Corey, p. 12, pp. 16-17, p. 19 Ebaugh, p. 173 Faunce, p. 6 5 Gilchrist et al., p. 286 Krug, p. 13, p. 2 82 Krum and Brown, p. 220 Lawler, "Important Phases of Problem Definition in Curriculum Improvement," p. 537 Mackenzie and Corey, p. 139 Miel, "Let's Work Together on the Curriculum," p. 299 Parker, "Working Together for Curriculum Improve ment ," p. 3 7 Pritzkau, pp. 5-6 188 Southwestern Cooperative Program of Educational Administration, p. 42 Spears, Improving the Supervision of Instruction, p. 328 Taba, Curriculum Development, p. 465, p. 469 4. Teachers should be involved in the planning of the total district program, rather than confining their participation to their subject specialty. Alexander, "Organizing the Individual School for Curriculum Improvement," p. 278 Briggs and Justman, p. 46 3 Dewar, p. 6 Herrick and Estvan, p. 184 Kinnick, p. 146 Krug, p. 14 Mackenzie, p. 71 Miel, Changing the Curriculum, p. 86 Redford, p. 175 Saylor and Alexander, p. 537 Stratemeyer, p. 664, p. 683 APPENDIX B THE QUESTIONNAIRE Filmed as received without page(s) 190 UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS, INC. APPENDIX C PARTICIPATING UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT GROUPS PARTICIPATING UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT GROUPS 1. Bassett Unified School District, English Curriculum Committee 2. Beverly Hills Unified School District, Primary Teachers Workshop 3. Charter Oak Unified School District, Social Studies Curriculum Guide Committee 4. Culver City Unified School District, Elementary Social Studies Committee 5. El Rancho Unified School District, Industrial Educa tion Committee 6. Glendora Unified School District, Resource Teachers 7. Long Beach Unified School District,. Junior High School Division Curriculum Committee 8. Lynwood Unified School District, Upper Grade Teachers of Wilson School 9. Paramount Unified School District, Industrial Arts Committee 10. Temple City Unified School District, Temple City High School Curriculum Council 192 BI BLI OG R AP H Y BIBLIOGRAPHY Cooperative Curriculum Development Adams, Harold P., and Dickey, Frank G. Basic Princi ples of Supervision. New York: American Book Co., 1953. Ahrens, Maurice R. ."Developing a Plan of Action for Improving Programs for Youth," Adapting the Secondary-School Program to the Needs of Youth. Edited by Nelson B. Henry. Fifty-second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa tion, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953, 102-17. Alberty, Harold. Reorganizing the High School Curric ulum. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950. Alexander, William M. "Can We Supervise Through Group Planning," Educational Leadership, IV (January, 1947), 230-34. _________. "Organizing the Individual School for Cur riculum Improvement," Teachers College Record, LII (February, 1951), 278-86. ■ "The Role of Leadership in Curriculum Plan ning," Toward Improved Curriculum Theory. Edited by Virgil E. Herrick and Ralph W. Tyler. Educa tional Monograph. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950, pp. 100-109.. American Association of School Administrators. American School Curriculum. Thirty-first Yearbook of the American Association of School Administra tors. Washington: American Association of School Administrators, 195 3. Anderson, Vernon E. Principles and Procedures of Cur riculum Improvement. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1956. 195 9. Anderson, Vernon E. "Trends in Curriculum Development in the New England Region," Educational Leader ship, IX (January, 1952), 261-72. 10. ________ . "When Does Curriculum Change Occur," Educa tional Administration and Supervision, XXXII (December, 1946), 538-39. 11. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop ment. Action for Curriculum Improvement. 1951 Yearbook. Washington: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education Association of the United States, 1951. 12. ________ . Group Processes in Supervision. Washing ton: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education Association of the United States, 1948. 13. ________ . Leadership for Improving Instruction. 1960 Yearbook. Washington: Association for Supervision, and Curriculum Development, National Education Association of the United States, 1960. 14. ________ . Research for Curriculum Improvement. 1957 Yearbook. Washington: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education Association of the United States, 1957. 15. Ayer, Fred C. Fundamentals of Instructional Super vision. "Exploration Series in Education." New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1954. 16. Banning, Evelyn I. "Personal Relationships Do Affect Curriculum Change,” School Executive, LXXIII (September, 1953), 47-49. 17. Barnes, Marcillene. "Curriculum Materials in the Making," Educational Leadership, XI (May, 1954), 471-75. 18.. Bartky, John A. Supervision as Human Relations. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1953. T 196 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Bellack, Arno, et al. "Action Research in Schools: A Panel Discussion,/'_Teachers College Record, LIV (February, 1953), 246-55. Benne, Kenneth D., Muntyan, Bozidar. Human Relations in Curriculum Change: Selected Readings with Especial Emphasis on Group Development. New York: The Dryden Press, 1951. _________. "Theory of Cooperative Planning in Educa tion," Teachers College Record, LIII (May, 1953), 429-35. Bradford, Leland P., Benne, Kenneth D., and Lippitt, Ronald. "The Promise of Group Dynamics for Edu cation," NEA Journal, XXXVII (September, 1948), 350-52. Bradford, Leland P., and Mial, Dorothy. "When Is a Group?" Educational Leadership, XXI (December, 1963) , 147-51. Brickell, Henry M. Organizing New York State for Educational Change. Albany: University of the State of New York, State Education Department, 1961. Briggs, Thomas H., and Justman, Joseph. Improving Instruction through Supervision. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1952. _________* Leonard, J. Paul, and Justman, Joseph. Secondary Education. 1st ed. rev. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1950. Bristow, William E., Frederick, 0. I. "Curriculum Development," Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Revised edition. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1950, pp. 307-14. Broderick, Catherine M., and Mason, Barbara T. "What Questions Need We Ask About Staff Participation," Educational Leadership, XV (March, 1958), 343-46. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 19 7 Burton, William H., and Brueckner, Leo J. Supervision: A Social Process. 3d ed. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, Inc., 1955. Caswell, Hollis L. "Administrative Provisions for Curriculum Improvement,” Teachers College Record, LII (December, 1950), 157-72. _________. "Democratic Curriculum Development," NEA Journal, XXXVI (October, 1947), 504-05. _________ and Associates. Curriculum Improvement in Public School Systems. New York: Bureau of Pub lications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1950. Coffey, Herbert S., and Tiffany, Burton C. "Follow- up of a Summer Workshop," Educational Leadership, IX (October, 1951), 27-31. ________ and Goldner, William P. "Psychology of Change within an Institution," In-Service Educa tion for Teachers, Supervisors, and Administra tors . Edited by Nelson B. Henry. Fifty-sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Coffman, William E. "Teacher Morale and Curriculum Development: A Statistical Analysis of Responses to a Reaction Inventory," Journal of Experimental Education, XIX (June, 1951), 305-32. Corey, Stephen. Action Research to Improve School Practices. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1953. _________. "Conditions Conducive to Curricular Experi mentation," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXVI (April, 1950), 209-16. ________ . "Cooperative Curriculum Development," Edu cation Digest, XX (March, 1955), 29-31. 19 8 39. Cutright, Prudence. "Practice in Curriculum Develop ment ," American Education in the Postwar Period. Edited by Nelson B. Henry. Forty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa tion, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945, 267-88. 40. Dewar, John A. "When Teachers Help Plan the Curric ulum," Educational Leadership, XIX (October, 1961), 5-7. 41. Dimond, Stanley E. "The Total School Approach," Educational Leadership, VIII (February, 1951), 309-11. 42. Doll, Ronald C., Passow, A. Harry, and Corey, Stephen M. Organizing for Curriculum Improvement. Horace Mann-Lincoln Institute of School Experimen tation Pamphlet. New York: Bureau of Publica tions, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1953. 43. Douglass, Harl R. Modern Administration of Secondary Schools. Boston: Ginn and Company, 19 54. 44. Eash, Maurice J., and Chasnoff, Robert E. "Framework for Effective Curriculum Improvement," Overview, I (March, 1960), 64-65. 45. Ebaugh, A. Raymond. "An Evaluation of the Processes Used in a Curriculum Program." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, School of Education, Wayne Univer sity, 1954. 46. Eckhardt, John W. "A Study of the High School Prin- cipalship in Its Relation to Curriculum Develop ment." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, School of Education, University of Southern California, 1947. 47. Edgar, Robert W. "A Cooperative Approach to Curric ulum Surveys," Educational Leadership, VII (January, 1950), 239-44. 199 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. Everett, Samuel. "Teachers Explore Basic Principles," Educational Leadership, VI (April, 1949), 423-26. Faunce, Roland C. Secondary School Administration. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1955. Floyd, Earl Howard. "The Organization and Administra tion of Curriculum Programs in Selected City School Systems." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, School of Education, University of Southern Cali fornia, 1947. Freese, Theron. "A Study of the Position of Assistant Superintendent in Charge of Instruction; Its History, Status, and Functions." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, School of Education, University of Southern California, 1955. Frazier, Alexander. "The New Teacher— and a New Kind of Supervision?" Educational Leadership, XXI (November, 1963), 97-106. Frich, Herman L. "The Principal's Perception of His Role in the Improvement of the High School Pro gram," The High School Journal, XLII (January, 1959), 126-31. Fullagar, William A. "Teacher and Curriculum Improve ment Programs," Educational Administration and Supervision, XL (February, 1954), 109-12. Gilchrist, Robert S. "A City Launches a High School Curriculum Improvement Program," Educational Leadership, V (April, 1948), 451-58. Gilchrist, Robert S., Fielstra, Clarence, and Davis, Anna L. "Organization of Programs of In-Service Education," In-Service Education for Teachers, Supervisors, and Administrators. Edited by Nelson B. Henry. Fifty-sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, pp. 285-310. 200 57. Gill, Margaret. "News and Trends in Curriculum Devel opment," Educational Leadership, XXI (November, 1963), 121-27. 58. Gold, Milton J. "Group Process and the Curriculum," Educational Leadership, IX (January, 1952), 230- 34. 59. Griffiths, Daniel E. Human Relations in School Admin istration. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1956. 60. Haiman, Franklyn S. Group Leadership and Democratic Action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951. 61. Hall, James A. "Organization for Curriculum Improve ment," Educational Leadership, IX (January, 1952), 234-37. 62. Halverson, Paul M. "Group Work in Cooperative Curric ulum Development." Unpublished Ed.D. disserta tion, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952. 63. Hamilton, J. A. "Who Should Plan Curriculums?" Education, LXXIII (February, 1953), 388-90. 64. Hammock, Robert C. "Planning Supervisory Programs," NASSP Bulletin, XXXIV (December, 1950), 54-61. 65. _, and Owings, Ralph S. Supervising Instruc tion in Secondary Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955. 66. Hand, Harold C. Principles of Public Secondary Educa tion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1958. 67. Hanna, P. R. "Design for a National Curriculum," The Nation1s SchooIs, LXII (September, 1958) , 43-45. 6 8. Herrick, Virgil E, "Evaluating Curriculum Improvement Programs," Educational Leadership, VIII (January, 1951), 234-39. 201 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. _________, and Estvan, Frank J. "Teachers and Needed Research in Curriculum/" Educational Leadership, XIV (December, 1956), 187-89. Hines, Vynce A. "Democratic Administration— Passe", Clich^*, Touche?" The High School Journal, XLII (January, 1959), 106-12. Implementation Committee of the Iowa ASCD Chapter. Time and Funds for Curriculum Development. Wash ington: Association for Supervision and Curric ulum Development, a Department of the National Education Association, 1950-1951. Jenkins, David H., and Zander, Alvin. "Some Skills for Improving Group Dynamics," NEA Journal, XXXVIII (February, 1949), 102-03. Jensen, Grant W. "Tapping Resources for Curriculum Development," Clearing House, XXX (January, 1956), 295-96. Jones, Hazel J. "Curriculum Development Through Action Research," California Journal of Secondary Education, XXXII (February, 1957), 74-77. Jones, James J. "Superintendent Must Lead in Curric ulum Development," Educational Administration and Supervision, XLV (March, 1959), 91. Kinnick, B. Jo. "The Teachers and the In-Service Education Program," In-Service Education for Teachers, Supervisors, and Administrators. Edited by Nelson B. Henry. Fifty-sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa tion, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, 131-52. Klahn,.Richard P. "A Report of a Curriculum Study," NASSP Bulletin,. XLV (September, 1961), 80-84. Krug, Edward A., et al. Administering Curriculum Planning. Exploration Series in Education. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1956. 202 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. _________. Curriculum Planning. Revised edition. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1957. Krum, William J. , and Brown, Ralph Adams. "Criteria for Evaluating Curriculum Change," School and Society, LXVI (September 20, 1947), 219-21. Lammel, Rose. "School System Workshops," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIV (January, 1951), 285-91. Lawler, Marcella R. Curriculum Consultants at Work: Factors Affecting Their Success. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958. _________. "Important Phases of Problem Definition in Curriculum Improvement," Teachers College Record, LI (May, 1950), 537-43. _________. "Role of the Consultant in Curriculum Im provement," Educational Leadership, VIII (January, 1951), 219-25. Leighbody, Gerald B., and Weinrich, Ernest F. "Bal ancing the Roles in Curriculum Decision Making," Balance in the Curriculum. 1961 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel opment. Washington: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education Association of the United States, 1961. Lindberg, Lucile. "Teacher Participation in Curric ulum Planning," Curriculum Planning to Meet Tomorrow1s Needs. Edited by Arthur E. Traxler. Report of the Twenty-fourth Educational Confer ence, Educational Records Bureau and American Council on Education. Washington: American Coun cil on Education, 1960, pp. 71-77. Lonsdale, Bernard J. "Programs in Action," Principles of Curriculum Building. Edited by John U. Michaelis. Twentieth Yearbook of the California Elementary Principal's Association, n.p.: Cali fornia Elementary Principals Association, 1948, 203 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. pp. 135-45. Lowe, Elizabeth. "An Analysis of the Activities of Three Curriculum Committees." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia Univer sity, 1952. McMahon, Lois G. "The Role of the Instructional Vice Principal in Curriculum Work," California Journal of Secondary Education, XXX (March, 1955), 16 8-69. McNally, Harold J., and Passow, A. Harry. Improving the Quality of Public School Programs; Approaches to Curriculum Development. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univer sity, 1960. McNearney, Chester T. Educational Supervision. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1951. McNeil, John D. "A Deciding Factor in Curriculum Improvement: the Superintendent's Attitude," School Executive, LXXVII (July, 1958), 46-47. Macdonald, James B. "Curriculum Development: What Do ^ We Need to Know?" Educational Leadership, XXI (February, 1964), 313-21. ________ . "Educational Research and Development as an Agent in Social Change," Educational Leader ship, XXII (October, 1964), 57-63. Mackenzie, Gordon N., and Corey, Stephen M. Instruc tional Leadership. New York: Bureau of Publica tions, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1954. ________ . "Organization and Methods of Curriculum Making," School Executive, LXV (November, 19 45), 71-72. _____"Where Should Responsibility for Curricu lum Planning Lie?" Curriculum Planning to Meet 204 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. Tomorrow's Needs. Edited by Arthur E. Traxler. Report of the Twenty-fourth Educational Conference, Educational Records Bureau and American Council on Education. Washington: American Council on Edu cation, 1960, pp. 60-63. Manlove, Donald C. "Organizing the Faculty for Cur riculum Improvement," NASSP Bulletin, XLIII (Feb ruary, 1959) , 57-60. Martin, John Henry. "Do They All Have to Agree," Educational Leadership, XI (March, 1954), 350-53. Melchior, William T. Instructional Supervision: A Guide to Modern Practice. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1950. Merritt, Eleanor, and Harap, Henry. Trends in the Production of Curriculum Guides. Nashville: Division of Surveys and Field Services, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1955. Michaelis, John U. "In-Service Education Activities Improve the Curriculum," The Principal and Cur- .riculum Building. Twentieth Yearbook of the California Elementary Schools Principals Associa tion. n.p.: California Elementary Schools Prin cipals Association, 1948, pp. 142-45. Miel, Alice M. Changing the Curriculum: a Social Process. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 19 46. _________. "Let's Work Together on the Curriculum," Educational Leadership, V (February, 1948), 294- 300. Miles, Matthew B. Learning to Work in Groups: A Program Guide for Educational Leaders. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1959. 106. Mitchum, Paul M. The High School Principal and Staff Plan for Program Improvement. New York: 205 107. 10 8. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 195 8. Mort, Paul R., and Cornell, Francis G. American Schools in Transition: How Our Schools Adapt Their Practices to Changing Needs: A Study of Pennsyl vania. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941. Noel, Elizabeth, and Marsh, Jack. "A County Staff Experiments with Action Research for Curriculum Improvement," Educational Leadership, XII (March, 1955), p. 367. O'Rourke, Everett V. "Continuity of Foreign Language Instruction in California Schools," 1964 CASSA Curriculum Report. Burlingame, California: Cali fornia Association of Secondary School Adminis trators, 1964, pp. 52-59. Palm, Reuben R. "The Curriculum Coordinator," NASSP Bulletin, XXXIV (December, 1950), 42-47. Parker, J. Cecil. "Guidelines for Curriculum Devel opment ," The Principal and Curriculum Building. Edited by John U. Michaelis, Twentieth Yearbook of the California Elementary School Principal's Association. n.p.: California Elementary School Principal's Association, 1948, pp. 18-23. ________ . "Guidelines for In-Service Education," In-Service Education for Teachers Supervisors, and Administrators. Edited by Nelson B. Henry. Fifty-sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: Univer sity of Chicago Press, 1957, pp. 103-28. "Working Together for Curriculum Improve ment," California Journal of Secondary Education, XXIV (January, 1949), 36-41. Passow, A. Harry. "Organization and Procedures for Curriculum Improvement," Review of Educational Research, XXIV (June, 1954), 221-36. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 206 ■ _______, et al. Training Curriculum Leaders in Cooperative Research. A Horace-Mann Lincoln Institute Pamphlet. New York: Bureau of Publica tions, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1955. Pellett, Elizabeth A. "A Development in Process: The Science Curriculum in the Whittier Union High School District," Science Education, XLIII (Decem ber, 1959), 409-14. Pinckney, Paul W. "How a High School Principal Meets His Responsibilities for Curriculum Improvement," California Journal of Secondary Education, XXX (March, 1955), 161-66. Potter, Gladys L. "Teachers Guide the Curriculum," NEA Journal, XXXVI (November, 19 47), 564-65. Prall, Charles E., Cushman, C. Leslie. Teacher Edu cation in Service. Washington: American. Council on Education, 19 44. Pritzkau, Philo T. Dynamics of Curriculum Improve ment. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1959. Redford, Edward H. "Organizing for Curriculum Devel opment in a City's Secondary Schools," California Journal of Secondary Education, XXX (March, 1955) , 174-78. Rehage, Kenneth J. "Midwest CPEA, Leadership for Instruction," School Executive, LXXIII (March, 1954), 106-07. Richard, John A. "The Art of Creative Supervision," Educational Leadership, XXI (November, 1963), 80-83. 124. Ritchie, Harold S. "Democratic Curriculum Planning," School Executive, LXVI (March, 1947), 50. 207 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. •130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. Robinson, Cliff. "Curriculum Leadership by Secondary School Principals," NASSP Bulletin, XXXIX (Novem- ber, 1955), 9-15. Rose, Lowell. "Classroom Teachers and Curriculum Appraisal," National Elementary Principal, XXXVII (December, 1957), 25-26. Rubin, Louis J. "A Strategy in Curricular Change," Educational Leadership, XXI (February, 196 4) , 277-79. Salisbury, Arnold W. "A Climate Conducive to Curric ulum Study," NASSP Bulletin, XLIII (February, 1959), 9-11. Sanford, C. W. "Principal's Role in Curriculum Development," NASSP Bulletin, XXVIII (April, 1954), 362-67. Saylor, J. Galen, and Alexander, William M. Curric ulum Planning for Better Teaching and Learning. New York: Rinehart &. Company, Inc., 1955. ________ . Factors Associated with Participation in Cooperative Programs of Curriculum Development. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Col lege, Columbia University, 1941. Schroth, E. H. "Curriculum Improvement," Nations Schools, XLIX (February, 1952), 42. Shane, Harold G. "Freeing Creative Group Power," Educational Leadership, V (December, 1947), 174- 78. Sharp, George. Curriculum Development as Re-educa tion of the Teacher. New York: Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1951. Shaver, Stanley B., Farris, Ragene. "Four-dimension al Curriculum Development: Coordination for Secondary Schools," California Journal of Secon dary Education, XXXIV (December, 1959), 473-80. 208 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. Smith, B. Othanel, Stanley, William 0., and Shores, J. Harlan. Fundamentals of Curriculum Develop ment. Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York: World Book Company, 1957. Southwestern Cooperative Program in Educational Administration. The Role of the Administrator in the Analysis and Improvement of Instruction. Austin: The University of Texas, 1954. Spears, Harold. Curriculum Planning Through In- Service Programs. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957. . ______. Improving the Supervision of Instruction. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953. _________. "Supervision in Transition," Educational Leadership, XI (March, 1954), 368-71. Stembridge, A. W. "A Curriculum Advisory Committee," NASSP Bulletin, XLV (September, 1961), 75-79. Strang, Ruth. Group Work in Education. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 195 8. Stratemeyer, Florence B., et al. Developing a Cur riculum for Modern Living. 2d ed. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Colum bia University, 1957. Stuckey, Margaret M. "Involvement in Curriculum Improvement," Clearing House, XXX (March, 1956), 405-07. Taba, Hilda; Noel, Elizabeth; and Marsh, Jack. "Action Research as a Technique of Supervision," Educational Leadership, XII (May, 1955), 453-58. _________. Curriculum Development: Theory and Prac tice . New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1962. 209 147. 148. 149. 150. 15.1. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. ________ . "General Techniques of Curriculum Plan ning ," American Education in the Postwar Period. Edited by Nelson B. Henry. Forty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa tion, Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1945, 80-115. Thelen, Herbert A. "Engineering Research in Curric ulum Building," Journal of Educational Research, XLI (April, 1948), 579-96. _________. "Group Dynamics in Curriculum Improve ment," Educational Leadership, XI (April, 1954), 413-17. ________ . "Group Dynamics in Instruction: Principle of Least Group Size," School Review, LVII (Febru ary, 1949), 139-48. Thomas, Irene, and Farley, Edgar S. "Understanding Each Other's Roles," Childhood Education, XXVIII (February, 1952), 245-49. Tierney, William F. "Directing Educational Change," Education, LXXIII (November, 1952), 191-98. Tyler, Ralph W. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. Umstattd, J. G. "The Principal Interprets His Role in Curriculum Development," NASSP Bulletin, XLIII (February, 1959), 15-20. Urick, Ronald, and Frymier, Jack R. "Personalities, Teachers, and Curriculum Change," Educational Leadership, XXI (November, 1963), 107-11. Wagner, Guy. "What Schools Are Doing: Organizing for Curriculum Development," Education, LXXXII (May, 1962), 573-74. Wahlquist, John T., et al. The Administration of Public Education. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1952. 210 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. -16 4. 165. 166. 167. 16 8. Wann, Kenneth D. "Action Research in Schools," Review of Educational Research, XXIII (October, 1953), 337-45. _________. "Teachers as Researchers," Educational Leadership, IX (May, 1952), 489-95. Waskin, Leon S. "Organizing for Curriculum Study," NASSP Bulletin, XLIII (February, 1959), 41-45. Watkins, Ralph K. "The Teacher and the Curriculum," The High School Curriculum. Edited by Harl R. Douglass. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1956, pp. 293-326. Weber, C. A. "What Techniques of Curriculum Develop ment Are Most Effective?" Curriculum Journal, ^ . XIV (April, 1943), 173-76. White, Ralph K., and Lippitt, Ronald. Autocracy and Democracy: An Experimental Inquiry. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1960. Wiles, Kimball. "Does Faculty Participation Produce Curriculum Improvement?" Educational Leadership, XV (March, 1958), 347-50. ____________Supervision for Better Schools: The Role of the Official Leader in Program Development. 2d. ed. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955. Willey, Vilbert S. "Organizing for Curriculum Improvement," Educational Leadership, VII (Octo ber, 1949), 43-48. Witt, Paul. "Effective Communication in Curriculum Development," Teachers College Record, LI (Febru ary, 1950), 286-95. Woodruff, Asahel D. "Educational Research and the Curriculum," School Review, LXVI (December, 1958), 402-17. 211 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. Young, Raymond J. "The Curriculum Improvement Move ment in Oklahoma," NASSP Bulletin, XXXIX {Novem ber, 1955) , 16-25. Zimmerman, William A. "Organization and Staffing for Curriculum Improvement," NASSP Bulletin, XLI (November, 1957) , 121-31. Role Analysis Bernstein, Mildred Ruth. "A Study of Teachers’ Role- Expectations and Role-Perceptions of a Principal, Superintendent and Board of Education, and the Relationship between Convergence and Divergence'of Role-Expectation and Role-Perception and Teacher Morale." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Education, New York University, 1959. Bidwell, Charles E. "The Administrative Role and Satisfaction in Teaching," The Journal of Educa tional Sociology, XXIX (September, 1955), 41-47. Brookover, W. B. . "Research on Teacher and Adminis trator Roles," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIX (September, 1955), 2-13. Cowan, Alton Walter. "The Flint Building Director: Role Expectations Held by Relevant Groups." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. Michigan State University, 1960. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Rinehart & Com pany, Inc.,1954. Gerald, Harold B. "Some Effects of Status Role Clarity and Group Goal Clarity Upon the Individ ual’s Relationships to the Group Process," Jour nal of Personality, XXV (June, 1957), 475-88. Getzels, J. W., and Guba, E. G. "The Structure of Roles and Role Conflict in the Teaching Situa tion," The Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIX 212 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. (September, 1955), 30-40. Greer, Scott A. Social Organization. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1955. Gross, Neal; Mason, Ward S.; and McEachern, Alexander W. Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendency Role. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , 1958. _______ ; McEachern, Alexander W. ; and Mason, Ward S. "Role Conflict and Its Resolution," Readings in Social Psychology. Edited by Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1958, pp. 447-59. Halpin, Andrew W. The Leadership Behavior of School Superintendents: The Perceptions and Expectations of Board Members, Staff Members, and Superintend ents . Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1959. Hare, A. Paul. "A Study of Interaction and Consensus in Different Sized Groups," American Sociological Review, XVII (June, 1952), 261-67. Hartley, Eugene L., and Hartley, Ruth E. Fundamen tals of Social Psychology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955. Jacobson, Eugene; Charters, W. W., Jr.; Lieberman, Seymour. "The Use of the Role Concept in the Study of Complex Organizations," Journal of Social Issues, VII (1951), 18-27. Jahoda, Marie; Deutsch, Morton; and Cook, Stuart W. Research Methods in Social Relations with Especial Reference to Prejudice. Part I. New York: The Dryden Press, 1951. Jonsson, Carl-Otto. Questionnaires and Interviews: Experimental Studies Concerning Concurrent Valid ity on Well Motivated Subjects. Stockholm: The Swedish Council for Personnel Administration, 1957. 213 187'. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 19 3. Linton, Ralph. "Role and Status," Readings in Social Psychology. Edited by Theodore M. Newcomb and Eugene L. Hartley. New York: Henry Holt and Com pany, 1947, pp. 367-70. Motz, Annabelle Bender. "The Role Conception Inven tory: A Tool for Research in Social Psychology," American Sociological Review, XVII (August, 1952), 465-71. National Education Association, Research Division. The Questionnaire. Research Bulletin, III. Washington: Research Division of the National Education Association, January, 19 30. Riley, Matilda White; Riley, John W., Jr.; and Toby, Marcia L. "Consensus," Sociological Studies in Scale Analysis: Applications, Theory, Procedures. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1954, pp. 93-123. Sarbin, Theodore R., and Jones, Donald S. "An Exper imental Analysis of Role Behavior," Readings in Social Psychology. Edited by Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 195 8, 465-72. Sarbin, Theodore R. "Role Theory," Theory and Method, Vol. I: Handbook of Social Psychology. Edited by Gardner Lindsey. Cambridge, Massachu setts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954, 223-58. Sargent, S. Stansfield. "Conceptions of Role and Ego in Contemporary Psychology," Social Psychology at the Crossroads. Edited by John R. Rohrer and Muzafer Sherif. "The University of Oklahoma Lec tures in Social Psychology." New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1951, pp. 355-70. 19 4. Sherif, Muzafer, and Sherif, Carolyn W. An Outline of Social Psychology. 1st ed. rev. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1956. 214 195. Strauss, Anselm. "Concepts, Communication, and Groups," Group Relations at the Cross Roads. Edited by Muzafer Sherif and M. 0. Wilson. "The University of Oklahoma Lectures in Social Psychol ogy." New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1953, pp. 99-119. 196. Terrien, Frederic W. "The Occupational Role of Teacher," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIX (September, 1955), 14-20. THE TEACHER IN COOPERATIVE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT This study Is concerned with how mem bers of groups involved in cooperative curriculum development perceive the teacher's role in such a group* Your responses will indicate what you think the teacher*s function should be rather than what it actually is in your group* I. DIVISION OF LABOR Th« loll owing: activities are Frequently undertaken as aspeots of cooperative curriculum development. You are to indioate vhothor you con sider these tasks the responsibility of the teach- ins staff or the responsibility of the administra tive and/or supervisory personnel. A ohoice of five responses is provided. Nark an X in the square that corresponds with your response. 1. Should be entirely the responsibility of teachers 2. Should be largely the responsibility of teachers 3. Squally the responsibility of teachers and administrative or supervisory personnel ■b* Should be largely the responsibility of administrative or supervisory personnel 5. Should be entirely the responsibility of 'administrative or supervisory personnel 1 2 3 * * ■ 5 1. Develop or revise courses of study I I it'll or curriculum guides. 2. Determine scope and sequenoe In a M i l l I specific subject for either elemen tary or secondary grades. 3. Formulate curricular objectives in I I 1 1 1 1 a speoiflc subject area. Develop resource or teaching units. I 1 I I [ 1 5« Evaluate and select textbooks and I 111 I 1 other instructional materials. 6. Prepare publications or handbooks I I I I I I for parents explaining aspeots of the Instructional program* 7* Determine the functions, responsi— 111 t II bllltles. and authority of the cur riculum development group. 8. Formulate a philosophy of education III II I to serve as a guide for the group. 9* Conduct a survey of teaohers* I I I I I I olassroom or currioular problems. f 2 1 2 3 » 5 10. Gather evidenoe as to the effeo- 1 | | | | j tiveness of* Instructional proce dures being used In the school system. 11. Conduct experimental studies or I 1 I I I I action research. 12. Study the needs and Interests of* II III ! the students as a basis*for cur riculum planning. 13* Study the contemporary cultural. II I I I I political, and economic life in relation to the curriculum. Ilf. Review the literature on child I I I I I j development and learning theory to gather information needed by the curriculum development group. 15* Decide whether and how to use a I I I 1 I I consultant’s services. 16* Visit other schools to learn what II I f I I procedures are being used there. 17* Do work between meetings for the I 1 I 1 I 1 group, e.g.. review research studies to locate needed facts. 18. Recommend a statement of policy I I I 1 I I as the result of cooperative cur riculum work. 19. Interpret plans and materials pro- I I I I I \ duced in cooperative curriculum development to other teachers. 20. Evaluate the results of coopera- III lit tive curriculum development in operation against the desired out comes. How many of your responses reflect what the divi sion of labor actually is in your district? All or most > Hone or almost none Some ___ I do not know. II. fACILITATING TBACHBR PARTICIPATION The following items desoribe v«ys in whioh the board of education* administration, or super visory staff might help or enoourage teachers to participate in cooperative ourrioulum develop ment* Should they encourage or help teachers in these ways? 1, Absolutely must 2* Preferably should 3* May or may not Preferably should not 5* Absolutely must not 1. 2. 3* 5. 6. 7. 8. 9* 10* Offer guidance and advice* Vork with the ourrioulum develop ment group in a leadership oapaoity* Participate on the same basis as teaohers; that is* as working mem bers of the ourrioulum development group* Provide training to develop skills needed in ourrioulum development* Serve as experts in group dynamics or in curriculum development tech niques* Provide the assistance of consult ants (other than district employees) if desirable* 1 2 T Q Q Q a Involve as many teachers as possible fT in cooperative curriculum develop ment* Provide clerical assistance* Q Provide a comfortable and convenient [ plaoe to meet and work* Allow released time during the school day to work on cooperative curriculum projects* Q Z A 4 11. Employ teachers on Saturdays or during vacations to work on cur riculum projects* 12* Give promotional credit on the salary schedule or extra pay for curriculum work. 13* Coordinate the groupfs work with related curriculum projects in the district* 14* Adopt worthy recommendations made by the curriculum development group and see that they are put into effect. 15. Report back to the participants in cooperative curriculum devel opment as to what action was taken on their recommendations and why. 12 3 4 5 nrrn a I I i n r i " i ~ i i ■ i i i i i Do your responses reflect not only the ways in which you think teachers should be encouraged or helped, but also the ways in which they usually are encouraged or helped in your district? Yes or usually Some No or seldom I do not know. Ill* GROUP PROCESSES When working together as a group, should the participants in cooperative curriculum devel— opotent interact in these ways? 1, Absolutely must 2. Preferably should 3* Mayor may not if* Preferably should not 5* Absolutely must not 1* Develop cohesiveness or solidarity as a group; be loyal to the group* 2* Try to get better acquainted with each other by sharing refreshments before meetings* etc* 3* Choose their own group leader* Jf* Define the problem confronting the group and formulate its goals* 5* Plan the procedures to be used by the group* 6. Communicate freely and on an equal footing with all group members no matter what their positions in the educational hierarchy* 7• Feel free to express their own fears* needs* and limitations to the group* 8* Demand that other participants support their statements with verifiable facts* 9* State their personal opinions per tinent to suggestions and decisions made* even though the majority of the group holds a contrary opinion* 10* Make certain that eaoh group member understands all possible paths of action or points of view* 1 2 3 If 5 rTTT- n f'TLI I~ 1 HIT I I I 1 I rrrr E l i n I i i m i i i l t d i i i i i i 11* Suggest changes in goals or proce dures already decided upon by the group, 12* Attempt to draw all group members into discussion. 13m Prefer to compromise differences in an effort to reach agreement rather than to accept the decision of* the majority* lU. Prevent any one member from domin ating the group* 15. Learns about and applies the find ings of studies in group processes to improve the group*s procedures for working together* 16* Serve in leadership capacities when needed; distribute leadership functions among group members* THE OFFICIAL LEADER, WHETHER ELECTED OR APPOINTED, SHOULD— 17* Direct the group's thinking and acting* 18. Serve primarily as a guide in group processes* 12 3 5 - i i r i n n r i . I i r i i i i i C Z T n rn i~n LLI-LZD IT TT'TI mill Your responses reveal how you think teachers parti cipating in cooperative curriculum development should interact* Do you think your group does interact in these ways? Usually Sometimes Seldom IV. CRITERIA TOR PARTICIPATION IN COOPERATIVE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Assume that your school district Is launch ing a study of how to provide enrichment within the classroom Tor gifted students. You have been asked to recommend several teachers as members of a committee to work on this project* How much emphasis would you place on the following criteria in making your selections? 1. Absolutely must 2. Preferably should 3. May or may not *f. Preferably should not 5* Absolutely must not 1. 2. 3. if. 3. 6. 7. 8. Has special knowledge of enrich ment for gifted children because of his training or experience. Is especially interested in enrich ment for gifted children. Is especially interested in curric ulum development. Is skilled in the use of the prob lem solving method and objective in handling data. Is well informed about reoent advances in child psychology. teaching methods, learning theory, etc. Is considered an above average teacher by his colleagues. Has tenure. Is regarded as a groups. leader in faculty 1 2 3 nr 1 * 1 r m n n j . : i rnrrn □ n i r 1.1 i i rrrm i »"i~r ri CUE m 9. Volunteered for this work. 1 I 1 ill 8 How should a school district regard teacher par ticipation in cooperative curriculum development? 1 2 3 4 5 1* Cooperative curriculum development f I I I I I should be considered an integral part of* the teaching job* 2. Participation in cooperative cur— I I I I I I riculum development should be con sidered an aspect of* in-service education* a means of* Improving teaching competence* 3* A teacher should participate only III I 1 in those cooperative curriculum development projects which are directly related to the teaching- learning situation in his own classroom* 4* Teaohers should be involved in the II I I 1 planning of* the total district pro- _gram* rather than confining their participation to their subject specialty* Do you consider yourself qualified to be a mem ber of the curriculum development group in which you are now participating? Yes No Uncertain 215 10 The following information will b© used to determine whether experience and training are related to the questionnaire responses. It will not be used to identify respondents. If you are not a regular employee of the school district, please indicate the capacity in which you participate in this group (e.g., parent, student, consultant, etc,) and do NOT answer the questions below. 1. How many years of teaching experience have you had? Elementary Junior High Senior High___ 2. How many years have you been employed in this school district? 3. In what capacity are you now employed by this district?- If you are employed as a teacher, do you have any special assignment related to your parti cipation in this group? (E.g., department chairman, curriculum assistant, representa tive to district curriculum council, etc.) 5. What college degrees do you hold? _____________ 6. Approximately how many units have you earned beyond your highest degree? _________ 7. What was your major field in your graduate work?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Inservice Training Of Elementary School Teachers In Contemporary Conceptsof Arithmetic

PDF

Some Factors In The Secondary School Curriculum Which Affect Student Learning Efficiency

PDF

Capital Outlay Approval Procedures For Public Institutions Of Higher Learning

PDF

Selected Non-Intellectual Factors As Predictors Of Academic Success In Junior College Intellectually Capable Students

PDF

An Historical Analysis Of The Origin And Development Of The College Of Medical Evangelists

PDF

Student Perceptions Of Selected Innovations In Secondary Education

PDF

Development And Analysis Of Some Tactual Measures Of Intelligence For Adolescent And Adult Blind

PDF

Nietzsche'S Philosophy Of Education: A Critical Exposition

PDF

The Relationship Of Selected Predictive Variables To Foreign Student Achievement At The University Of California, Los Angeles

PDF

Talent In Art: Creative Intelligence Of Selected Senior High School Students Compared With Creative And Aesthetic Qualities Of Their Products

PDF

An Experiment Utilizing The Team Approach As A Method Of Teaching High School United States History

PDF

Relationships Of Variables Identified With Success In College Clothing-Construction Courses: A View Toward Advanced Placement And Improved Learning

PDF

Secondary Students' Interest In Teaching Seven Years Later: A Follow-Up Study

PDF

Sabbatical Leaves And California Certificated Public School Employees

PDF

Community Service Programs In California Public Junior Colleges

PDF

Faculty Personnel Administration At The United States Merchant Marine Academy: The College Teacher In The Federal Service

PDF

Criteria For Directing Junior College Instruction

PDF

Summertime Activities Of High School Teachers

PDF

A Study Of Philosophy Curriculum Dissonance In Selected Colleges And Universities In California

PDF

A Critical Analysis And Evaluation Of Evidence Regarding The Reliability And Validity Of Four Selected Measures Of Self-Concept

Asset Metadata

Creator Martin, Mary Dahlberg (author)

Core Title The teacher in cooperative curriculum development

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, general,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Georgiades, William (committee chair), Meyers, Charles Edward (committee member), Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-160755

Unique identifier UC11359245

Identifier 6508919.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-160755 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6508919.pdf

Dmrecord 160755

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Martin, Mary Dahlberg

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA