ED 257 224

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCYREPORT NOPUB DATEGRANTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

&MRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 017 826

Romberg, Thomas A., Ed.Toward Effective Schooling: The IGE Experience.Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Madison,National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.ISBN-0-8191-4581-585NIE-G-81-0009239p.Customer Service, University Press of America, 4720Boston Way, Lanham, MD 20706 (Paperback--ISBN-4581-5,$11.75 plus $1.25 postage; Cloth Cover --ISBN-4580-7,$22.75 plus $1.25 postage; prepayment required;quantity discounts).Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142) -- Reports -Research /Technical (143)

MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.Ability Grouping; Curriculum Evaluation; EducationalObjectives; *Elementary Education; *IndividualizedEducation Programs; Individualized Instruction;Instructional Design; *Instructional Innovation;*Instructional Systems; Nontraditional Education;Program Effectiveness; *Program Evaluation; ProgramValidation; School Effectiveness; SchoolOrganization

IDENTIFIERS *Individually Guided Education

ABSTRACTThis book is a collection of essays by various

authors documenting the development and evaluation of IndividuallyGuided Education (IGE), a planned attempt, involving thousands ofscholars and practitioners, to produce more effective elementaryschools. Part 1, "An Attempt to Restructure Elementary Schooling,"consists of three chapters describing IGE. Chapter 1 delineates theassumptions of IGE in the context of school reform efforts of thepast quarter century. Chapter 2 outlines the intentions, components,and implementation strategies of the IGE program, while chapter 3describes the plan for evaluating IGE. In part 2, "The Effects ofPlanned Change," five chapters summarize the evidence gathered in theIGE evaluation project. Chapter 4 summarizes the data concerningwhether IGE "really happened" in schools, while chapters 5 to 8summarize the findings from each of the four phases of the project: alarge sample causal study, on-site validation of IGE implementation,a field study of six IGE schools, and five curriculum studies. Part 3concludes the book with a single chapter (chapter 9) discussing theimplications of IGE and its evaluation. A list of presentations andpublications associated with the project is included. (TE)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

*************************************************w*********************

2

U.S. DEINUMAINT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

if(CENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced Sireceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

l 1 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official MEposition or policy

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLYHAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL R URGESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

TOWARDEFFECTIVESCHOOLING

Sr 11- A.

, r II

Edited by

Thomas A. Romberg

UNIVERSITYPRESS OFAMERICA

Copyright CO 1985 by the

Board of Regents of the University ofWisconsin System

University Press of Americaim Inc.

4720 Boston WayLanham, MD 20706

: Henrietta StreetLondon WC2E 8LU England

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataMain entry under title:

Toward effective schooling.

I. Individualized instructionAddresses, essays,lectures. 1. Romberg, Thomas A.LB1031.T68 1985 371.3'94 85-3156

ISBN 0.8191-4580-7 (alk. paper)ISBN 0-8191.4581-5 (pbk. : alk. paper)

I his book is based upon work supported by the National institute of Education under(irant No NIE.G.81 00G? to the Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Anyopinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute or the U.S.

Department of Education.

( °published by arrangement withI he Vv isconsin ( enter for Education Research

To Herbert J. Klausmeier, colleague and friend,through whose dedication and tireless efforts

the belief that elementary school childrenshould be taught according to their needs

. evolved into the system ofindividually Guided Education.

iii

One principle of education which those men especially who formeducational schemes should keep before their eyes is this- -children ought to be educated, not for the present, but for apossibly improved condition of man in the future; that is, ina manner which is adapted to the idea of humanity and thewhole destiny of man. This principle is of great importance.Parents usually educate their children in such a manner thatthey may be adapted to the present conditions, however degener-ate the world may be. But they ought to give them a bettereducation, in order that a better condition of things maythereby be brought about in the future.

v

Kant, Pedagogical Principles

U

Acknowledgements

The schools that participated in these studies representthe thousands of American elementary schools that adoptedand interpreted Individually Guided Education. I particularlywant to thank all the school staff members and students whowere willing to fill out questionnaires, take tests, be ob-served, and be interviewed.

I appreciate the assistance and constructive criticismprovided by members of the Advisory Committee: Chester W.tiarri, chairman; Arno Be Hack; David C. Berliner; DavidHamilton; and William Wiersma.

Many staff of the IGE Evaluation project authored orcoauthored parts of this volume. I want to thank them fortheir contribution and patience. I am also indebted to otherproject staff and graduate assistants for their conscientiouswork: Anne E. Buchanan, Jacob Evanson, Pamela M. Klopp,and Herbert Vandeventer; Kathleen Densmore, Trudy Dunham,Judith Howard, Terence Janicki, and Ruthanne Landsness.For typing and retyping drafts of the manuscript, I thankDorothy Egener and Donna Mlsna. For creating the finalcopy with her characteristic attention to quality and detail,I am grateful to Teri J. Frailey.

Finally, I particularly want to thank Deborah Stewart.As coordinator of the evaluation project she monitored thedetails of data gathering and report preparation. And sheedited this volume with care.

VI.

Contents

List of Tables xi

List of Figures xiii

PART 1: An Attempt To Restructure Elementary Schooling 1

Chapter 1. Effective Elementary Schooling 3

Thomas A. Romberg

Chapter 2. One at a Time Together: The ICE App-oachTo Elementary Schooling 19

Thomas A. Romberg

IGE As Effective Education 20The Components of ICE 21

General Objectives and Performance Objectives 29Implementation of IGE 30IGE's Challenge to Schooling Traditions 33

Chapter 3. The Plan for Evaluating IGE 39Thomas A. Romberg

Background to the Plan 39Details of the Plan 44The Evaluation Plan in Perspective 48

PART 2: The Effects of Planned Change 53

Chapter 4. To Be, or Not To Be, IGE 55Thomas A. Romberg and Deborah M. Stewart

Degree of Change in Schools 55Degree of Implementation 57IGE Schools Questionnaire 58IGE Implementation Survey 66In Conclusion 71

Chapter 5. Phase I: The Large Sample Causal Study 75Gary G. Price and Thomas A. Romberg

Methods 81

Description of Variables 85Results and Discussion 89Conclusion 97

ix

Chapter 6. Phase II: The On-Site Validationof IGE Implementation 103

Roderick A. Ironside and Larry A. Conaway

The Validation Process 103Procedure 104Findings 106Conclusions and Implications 125

Chapter 7. Phase III: The Field Study of Six IGE Schools 131Thomas S. Popkewitz, B. Robert Tabachnickand Gary G. Wehlage

Institutional Life and The Focus of Reform:A Theoretical Perspective to the Problem 134

The Resilience of Institutional Arrangements 138Conclusion 152

Chapter 8. Pr,2ce IV: The Five Curriculum Studies 159Thomas A. Romberg.. Deborah M. Stewart,Norman L. Webb and Anne G. Nerenz

Curriculum Description 161Data Collection Procedures 162The Three Descriptive Studies 165The IGEIWDRSD Comparativ, -.tudy 172The IGE/DA1P Comparative ,.dy 179Conclusions 186

PART 3: Implications About ICE and Its Evaluation 213

Chapter 9. A Center Goes To School 215Thomas A. Romberg

ICE and Its Evaluation 215What We Learned by Going to School 218A Final Word 224

Presentations and Publicaticns 227

Presentations 227Publications 228

List of Tables

Table 4-1. Spring 1977 Percentage Implementation Scoresfrom the IGE Implementation Survey 68

Table 4-2. Phase I Percentage Implementation Scores from theIGE Implementation Survey 69

Table 4-3. Frequency of Staff Responses in Three Schools onItems 24 and 32 70

Table 4-4. Number of Phase I Schools Categorized by Levelof Implementation for MUSS Instruction, Renewaland Total 71

Table 4-5. Number of Phasc I Schools by Level of Implementa-tion for both MUS and Instruction 72

Table 4- -6. IGE Implementation Scores for Schou in Phases I, II,III, ana IV 73

Table 5-1, Phase I Staff QuestionntOres 83

Table 5-2. Phase I Student Tests 84

Table 5-3. Reports Describing Variables Used in Phase I andResults of Phase I Study 87

Table 5-4. Means and Standard Deviations 88

Table 5-5. Correlations Between the Organizational Variablesand Their Varimax-Rotated Principal Components 92

Table 5-6. Bivariate Relationships That Had StatisticallSignificant Correlations With Student Achievementin Both Grades 93

Table 6-1. Comparison of Phase II and Phase I Ratings for11 Key Items on IGE implementation Survey 109

Table 6-2. Degrees of CTBS and Local Curriculum Match 111

Table 6-3. Reported Turning Points in Implemena;:,nSequence 113

Table 6-4. School Perceptions of ICE Cost and Savings 124

Table 8-1. VIDRSD Skills by Element and by TraditionalGrade Level 162

xi

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Tabic

Table

8-2. Student Achievement Variables for the WDRSDComparative Study 175

8-3. Student Achievement Variables for the IGE/DMPComparative Study 180

8A-1. Grade 2 Allocated Hours to Reading InstructionPer Child Over the Total Study Period 192

8A-2. Grade 2 Reading Achievement Scores 194

8A-3. Grade 5 Allocated Hours to Reading InstructionPer Child Over the Total Study Period 196

8A-4. Grade 5 Reading Achievement Results 198

8A-5. Grade Average Allocated Hours of MathematicsSkills Ir,struction Per Child Over the Total StudyPeriod 200

8A-6. Mathematics Achievement Results for the Grade 2Schools 202

8A-7. Grade 5 Average Allocated HoursSkills Instruction per Child OverPeriod, by Objective 206

of Mathematicsthe Total Study

8A-8. Mathematics Achievement Results for Grade 5Schools 208

9-1. Summary of Functions of an Elementary SchoolToday and in the Future 209

xii

Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-3.

Figure 3-1.

Figure 4-1.

Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-2.

Figure 8-1.

List of Figures

Instructional Programming Model in IGE 22

Multiunit Organization of an IGE School of400-600 Students 23

Patterns of Objectives, Criteria of Attainmentand Sequencing 34

Framework for an ICE Evaluation 40

Rating of Staff Organization 63

Causal Model of Relationships Implied in ICELiterati. 78

A Priori Model for Teacher Job Satisfaction 95

Phase IV Model of Anticipated RelationshipsBetween Variables 160

12

AN ATTEMPTTO RESTRUCTUREPart 1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLING

Desire for change or improvement is natural. All of usare motivated, expected, or even pressured to change ourideas, attitudes, and behaviors. Thus, teachers read journ-als, go to workshops, and attend professional meetings withthe expectation of gleaning an idea or a tactic they might useto improve instruction. Administrators and educational schol-ars do the same things; and they organize committees andtask forces, write essays, develop materials, and carry outresearch with the objective of improving the practice ofschooling. Also, parents, special interest groups, and othersocial forces expect the schools to change to meet theirdemands. But what happens when resources are actuallyprovided and literally thousands of scholars and practitionersare involved in a planned attempt to produce more effectiveelementary schools? This book answers that question for theParticular case of Individually Guided Education (IGE).

In chapter 1, an attempt has been made tc. place IGEwithin the context of school reform efforts of the past quartercentury. From that presentation, the assumed need for achange in elementary schooling and the assumptions uponwhich ICE was bused should be apparent. In chapter 2, theintentions of the IGE program are outlined. Included is abrief discussion of the ideas that evolved and were laterimplemented in soma 3,000 schools. The purpose of chapter 3is to describe the perspectives and procedures that weadopted to evaluate the ICE program.

CHAPTER 1

EFFECTIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLINGThomas A. Romberg

Mention of the word school, particularly elementaryschool, often generates a set of images including red brickbuildings; matronly teachers; freshly scrubbed, smilingchildren; well-worn books in some disarray in desks; dustyblackboards; and boisterous recesses. The images we allhave could go on and on. They are a product -:* our upbring-ing. Schools ;n other sections of this country and even inother countries seem familiar because most of the same imagesare prevalent. The physical surroundings may differ, butchildren and teachers and books remain and there is a facilitycalled a school. In today's world, elementary schools existand at least at a surface level share many common characteris-tics across cultures and settings.

This phenomenon of elementary schooling so familiar tous all, however, is historically recent. Only in the last twocenturies have societies seen fit to educate most of theirchildren in schools. Every society educates its young, butfor most of history, children received their education throughthe family, the community, and the church. Much education--theshaping of children's attitudes, behavior, and skills--is stillcarried on this way today. Schools for educating all childrenwere created in large part to transmit some pre-establishedknowledge and skills to the young and to enculturate themmore quickly and systematically into the prevailing socialsystem.

In the short time since their creation, elementary schoolshave evolved several primary characteristics. By far themost important features of schools are these:

1. Schooling is goz. directed.Educators are never free from questions or problems

related to the aims of education. Most societies view school-ing as a vehicle for reaching some worthwhile destination oran instrument for shaping some desirable end product.

2. Schooling is a collective experience.For the child, being in school means being in a crowd.

For the teacher it means being responsible for a group ofstudents. How a small number of adults can organize and

3

manage a large number of children is the central -rganiza-tional problem of schools. This problem leads to the thirdprimary feature of schools.

3. Time is the major control mechanism of schools.School is a place where things often happen not becausestudents want them to, but because it is time for them tooccur (Jackson, 1968). Scheduling classes, allocating fixedtimes, and making sure teachers and students adhere to themis a large part of the role of school administrators.

4. Students at a particular age are assumed to be moresimilar to each other than they are different.

Children are basically grouped by age (all 6-year-oldsare in the first grade). Although there is much rhetoricabout attending to the individual needs and desires of eachchild, the actual groupings of children rarely reflect thoseconcerns. In a typical elementary school, all children of anage are subdivided into sets containing 20 to 30 members andassigned to a teacher for a full school year--the self-contained, age-graded classroom. Also, within general contentconstraints involving grade level expectations in schools, eachteacher is given considerable latit; de in arranging the sche-dule.

5. Instruction within a time segment involves children work-ing on a lesson which stresses competition, order, andcontrol.

Regardless of the ingredients of a lesson, the dominantpedagogy in American schools involves intragroup competition.Competition is fostered because it is both a method of motivat-ing learning and a means of differentiating students. Accomp-lishing an assigned task and perhaps doing it better or fasteris rewarded. Competing for grades, or a spot on a team, orto be a cheerleader is training for competition in adult life.Going to school also means being evaluated. Children areconstantly having their words and deeds judged by others.The job of teaching becomes in large part one of creatingcompetitions and judging the results. Order and control arenecessary because the collective experience requires thesubordination of individual to institutional objectives. Someinstitutional objectives are culturally determined and consti-tute the "hidden curriculum" of the schools. Order andcontrol also ensure that the lessons (competitions) proceedaccording to schedule.

4

1

6. The knowledge and skills to be transmitted to thechildren are expressed in cognitive terms rather than interms of social or vocational development.

The concepts and skills of reading, mathematics, history,science, and so on define the expressed curricu' m of schools.The individual lessons are selected by teachers to cover anaspect of a concept or skill within a given time slot. Inpractice, however, teachers' decisions about what to selectare often limited in spite of the apparent latitude to arrangeschedules and select activities. In most schools the conceptsand skills which are to be taught in a discipline are providedfor teachers via a curriculum guide, a syllabus, or most oftena textbook. Such materials rarely give teachers many alterna-tives. Thus, the knowledge to be transmitted to children islargely determined by commercial publishing companies thattend to be educationally conservative and slow to respond topressures for change.

These six characteristics are the traditional ones thatdefine school. The real picture of an elementary school isthat of a work place. Teachers work, for the most part,independent of other teachers with ont group of students fora year. Their job is to assign lessons to their class ofstudents, start and stop the lessons according to someschedule, explain the rules and procedures of each lesson,judge the actions of the students during the lesson, andmaintain order and control throughout. Furthermore, thelessons which define the knowledge to be transmitted areprescribed by a syllabus (or text) and are organized intocontent-time segments. For students, the job is to be activeparticipants in each lesson, attend to the explanation of rulesand procedures, work independently on tasks, and try to dobetter than others.

Schools, of course, differ because of the locale, the typeof parents, the particular school's history, and other factors.But these differences are only of degree, not kind, and formost schools are probably trivial compared to the uniformcharacteristics. In fact, elementary schools are very stablesocial institutions; it is difficult to change any of the funda-mental characteristics of scnools significantly. The basicproblem facing reformers is to challenge the traditions uponwhich schooling practice is based. As Popper (19149) hasargued, the role of traditions in society is twofold: first,traditions create a certain social structure; and second,traditions are things we can criticize and change. Schoolingtraditions such as the age graded, self-contained classroomprovide regularities in the social stru ture of schools. The

5

lu

mere existence of these regularities is more important thantheir merits or demerits; they bring order and rational pre-dictability into the social world of schools. But traditionssometimes outlive their usefulness. Traditions in this senseare similar to theories. They provide a framework to beexamined critically and to be altered over and over again.Significant reform movements are characterized by challengesto widely held traditions; in education such traditions are thework of teachers, the work of children, the way in whichoperating decisions are made by the professional staff, thestructure of the knowledge to be transmitted. That manyreform movements have failed is not surprising. The tradi-tions which have evolved give the participants a sense oforder which is essential. Superficial attempts to changeschools have praised the "new" without challenging the "old"and the traditions upon which the old rested. Thus, one wayof judging the effectiveness of a reform program is to deter-mine the extent to which the traditions of schooling have beenchallenged and altered, and one way of understanding thecomplexity of schooling is to study reform attempts.

Periodically, in the history of educational though. ,

reformers have tried to change schools which, they believed,were failing to respond to societal changes. Malcom Ski lbeck(1975) argued that such actions emerge during periods ofupheaval or rapid social change; fc,r example, the plans inFrance and America in the late eighteenth century for usingschools as nation builders, more recently the widespreadinterest in using education to accelerate economic progress indeveloping countries. In the past 25 years, a number ofproposals have been made attacking the traditional characteris-tics of schools, programs have been developed based on thoseproposals, and alternate forms of schooling have been adopted.It is not the purpose of this chapter to examine in detail theconditions underlying the school reform movement of the lastquarter century of which !GE is a major example. However,it is worth noting some of the major events.

IGE is a product of the mid-1960s and as such is anexemplar of the "modern-school" reform movement which beganin the 1950s, a decade of political turmoil and technologicalupheaval. The cold war, the Korean war, and the potentialof nuclear holocaust kept military preparedness and continualdevelopment of sophisticated armaments a high national priority.Conservative retrenchment on the one hand, exemplified bySenator Joseph McCarthy's attacks on "potential Reds," andthe emergent civil rights movement on the other were focalpoints of America's internal political turmoil during that era.

6

Furthermore, the rapid development of computers along with aseries of spectacular basic inventions such as the transistorwere creating new opportunities for giant corporations andreshaping most industries. The need for a large cadre ofscientifically trained personnel was critical and defined pri-marily in terms of national survival.

Schools fit into the arguments of this period in threeways. First, one set of educational critics claimed that fewof the graduates of our schools and colleges had an adequatemathematics, scientific, or engineering background. Theculprits were seen to be the progressive education movement,the life-adjustment curriculum, and, in particular, educationprofessors. The critics of post-World War II schooling atfirst were dismissed by educators as "cranks," "witch hunters,""super-patriots," and so on. But by 1952, Hollis Caswellargued that "what was happening was not merely a subversiveattack on the schools but rather a searching reappraisal of(schooling) (p. 12).

Arthur Bestor, an American historian, became the mostnoted spokesman for the critics. His principal book,Educational Wastelands, published in 1953, was widely re-viewed and commented upon. His argument may be summedup under three broad headings: a theory of education, aconception of the historic role of the public school, and anotion of the "great subversion" of American education. Thepurpose of education is "the deliberate cultivation of theability to think." Intellectual training may not be the onlyfunction of the schools, but it is their raison d'etre. In-tellectual training is given through the academic disciplines.True education, then, is the deliberate cultivation of theability to think through training in the basic academic dis-ciplines: history, English, science, mathematics, and foreignlanguages.

Bestor then argued that the function of the public schoolis to give such a basic education to all citizens. Democraticeducation differs from aristocratic education only in thenumber of persons with whom it deals, not in the values itseeks to impart. To educate the common man through otherthan systematic intellectual training is to rob him of hisbirthright; it is to vulgarize culture under the guise ofdemocratizing it. By training all in the ability to think, theschools distribute intellectual power widely among the people.This alone is the distinctive way schools contribute to socialprogress.

1)

Finally, Bestor believed that the great subversion ofAmerican education had been the divorce of the schools fromscholarship and of teacher training from the arts and sciences.Bestor's arguments found considerable support within theacademic community, the press, the military, and even thepublic. In essence, there was a growing belief that thelessons children were engaged in failed to reflect the essentialcontent of the disciplines and that students in competitionwith one another were not being judged in terms of "ability tothink" but on other criteria.

During this time several study groups began to producecurriculum materials which emphasized the structure of thedisciplines. When the Soviets launched the first space satel-lite in the autumn of 1957, our shocked nation realized thatits technological supremacy had been challenged. What fol-lowed was the "modern curriculum" movement in which thefederal government spent considerable sums to have newdiscipline-oriented materials developed and to have teachersretrained. The new curricula were deliberately developedunder the direction of scholars from the disciplines. Experi-enced classroom teachers were junior partners in the endeavor.Professors of education, both mathematics or science educatorsand educational psychologists, were expressly excluded.

A second group of educational critics during the 1950sargued that schools were psychologically alienating. Spokes-men for low-income and minority groups, for example, pointedto a pattern in the lack of achievement of school children.Critics sharing these concerns made insistent demands thatschools become more accountable for the learning of all pupils.As Charles Silberman (1970) so convincingly argued, "Onalmost any measure, the schools are still failing to providethe kind of education Negroes, Indians, Puerto Ricans,Mexican Americans, Appalachian whites--indeed, the poor ofevery color, race, and ethnic background--need, and deserve"(p. 62). In particular, Silberman argued that slum schoolswere failing "to teach the intellectual skills and academicknowledge that students need if they are to be able to earn adecent living and to participate in the social and political lifeof the community" (p. 62). Furthermore, he argued,

it would be unreasonable, perhaps to expectabsolutely equal results from different schools.Lower-class youngsters start school with severeeducational deficiencies for which the school cannotbe blamed; moreover, the school as we have alreadyargued, is only one of a number of educating

1 ,18

institutions and Influences that affect a youngster'sacademic achievement. It is not unreasonable,however, in a society that prizes (or claims toprize) equality of opportunity, to expect theschools to be a significant influence - -to expect themto make the opportunities open to its students lessdependent upon their social origins. And thatmeans making it possible for students from everysocial class and every ethnic and racial group toacquire the necessary basic skills. (p. 62)

Finally, based on this concern about "equality of opportunity"an array of federal policies and programs were developed,based "on the assumption that differences In school inputslargely explained the differences In outputs, I.e., studentachievement, the main thrust of educational policy has been toequalize the inputs--to provide the resources and programsnecessary to bring below-average and average schools up tothe level of the best" (Silberman, 1970, p. 70).

The third aspect of the educational debates was less acriticism of schools than a prescription of how to produce abetter system. American belief in science and technology hadreached a peak in the years following World War II. Manybelieved that the same rational procedures that enabled themilitary and industry to conduct a massive war and thenprovide for an affluent consumer society could be enlisted tosolve the most pressing social and political problems thatconfronted the United States.

In 1957 another group of scholars, the psychologists,also reacted to the nation& crisis. Many scholars who hadnever worked in the area of classroom learning volunteeredtheir services. Lee Cronbach's presidential address to theAmerican Psychological Association that year set thc.. tone. Inthat speech he argued that the historic separation of experi-mental psychology from the study of individual differencesimpeded psychological research. He called for a crossbreedingto bring forth a science of aptitude by treatment interactions(Cronbach, 1957). The psychologists brought to the curriculumrevolution the constructs, tools, and conflicting theories oftheir discipline. Of the variety of ideas they applied to theschool reform movement, three major themes gradually emerged:

9

1. Emphasis should be on the cognitive processes whichunderlie the acquisition of the concepts and skills of mathe-matics, science, and other disciplines.

Initially, attention was drawn to taxonomic categories ofbehaviors (e.g., Bloom, 1956), behavioral objectives, andlearning hierarchies (e.g., Gagne, 1962). These constructswere grounded in the behaviorist traditions dominant in thepsychology of the time. Later, the constructivist psycholo-gists joined the fray, led in spirit if not in actuality by JeanPiaget. More recently, ideas from the emerging field ofinformation-processing have been in vogue. As Shulman andShroyer (1978) have pointed out, the roots of this theorycome from independent publications by Jerome Bruner, GeorgeMiller, Noam Chomsky, and others during the mid-1950s.Indeed the invasion of cognitive psychologists into the field ofinstruction is nearly complete.

2. Systems analysis founded on behaviorist ideas can beused in an engineering model appropriate for curriculumdevelopment.

This approach had its roots in the military trainingprocedures developed i n World War I I and the ensuing coldwar. Educational psychologists who developed military train-ing programs returned to major universities and introducedengineering models for curriculum development with the samefervor that was seen in the larger political realm. Applyingprinciples of systems analysis, they gave attention to identi-fying taxonomies of learning, organizing hierarchies of behav-ioral objectives, constructing objective-referenced tests, anddeveloping elaborate flow-diagrams of school organizations asa part of the effort to use human engineering for schoolimprovement. In Essentials of Learning for Instruction(1(1714). Robert Gagne argued that all forms of learning arehierarchically organized in relation to one another. withclassical and operant conditioning as the foundation for thehierarchy and problem solving at its peak. Thus, any formof learning could be reduced to its components and thesecould be systematically taught in a guided fashion to ensurelearning. Programmed instruction was the firc< product fromthis approach which later yielded a variety of programs toprovide differential instruction for students. The rationale ofthe systems analysts was and continues to be to improve theefficiency of the instructional system.

3. Individual differences among students, particularly inlearning rate and aptitudes, are of major interest.

10

21

The work of a number of educational psychologistsduring the 1950s had been to extend and document theThurstone tradition of distinct mental abilities (Anastasi,1958). By 1963 this interest in differences in individualaptitudes led to concerted efforts to create curriculum mater-ials that could be adapted to take into account these differ-ences. Recall Cronbach's (1957) plea for individual differ-ences research in the design of instruction. These materialswere labeled programs of individualized instruction, and theschools reorganized to use these programs were labeled indi-vidualized schools. IGE is one of the most extensive programsdesigned to deal with individual differences of students.

By taking the impetus to change the curriculum contentand adding to it the influence of psychologists, some re-formers hoped to change the prevalent characteristics ofschooling. A variety of instructional programs had previouslybeen constructed as alternatives to the age-graded, lock-stepsystem in which all student studied the same materials at thesame time. Gibbons (197V pointed out that such programsdate from the post-Civil War period. Correspondence coursesbegan as early as 1d73, and self-paced units of instruction in1888. Most of those programs for changing traditional instruc-tion were also referred to as individualized. But in the early1060s, zfter d decade of clamor for educational reform, indi-vidualized programs were returned to the scene with newenthusiasm. Tod:y it is hard for us to reconstruct theeuphoria of that period. John Kennedy had just been electedP. esident; the space prog -am had just started; and newmonies for educational research and development were forth-coming. The prevailing opinion during that era was "giventime and resources, Americans can do anything."

Unfortunately the resulting variety of prosy ims usingthe label individualized constituted a diverse fa mily, sincethey were based on different theoretical notiont., about knowl-edge and learning and different technologies. The labelindividualized instruction is ambiguous beca..qe 't involves twobasic ideas stemming from different intellectual traditions:th,?. recognition of individual differences in modern psychologyand education, and individualism as an ideological construct inAmerican political history.

The study of individual differences grew with the increas-ing sophistication of the testing move, .ent. It %las clear thatpeople differ on a variety of physical, intellectual, and per-sonality traits. Psychologists assumed that these traits werebiological in origin and therefore stable. The argur,ent was

11

222

that these differences, when identified, should be consideredin schooling. The implication was that, by attending to suchdifferences, instruction would be more efficient. In fact,what was being argued is that the traditional classroom is aninefficient arrangement for appropriate instruction. However,note that this idea challenged neither the hidden curriculumof the schools nor the expressed knowledge and skills to betransmitted by them; it challenged only the fundamentalgrouping practices in schools. The content of lessons, thenature of competition, and the work of children In schoolswere not to be different because the teacher understood howindividuals differed: for example, teachers who were awareof individual differences in rate of learning could only makevariations in allocated time for students or provide alternatematerials; teachers could not restructure the group of studentsunder their tutelage.

The discussion of individual differences by learningpsychologists came from two distinct philosophic schools ofthought (Borne, 1966). One pictured the learner as apassive recipient of info, mation from hi,; environment (asso-ciational learning); the other saw the learner as an activeparticipant who entertains and tests hypotheses (coIstructivelearning), both schools have their merits, but the work ofchildren would clearly differ under the two philosophies.Thus, the goal of providing more effkier,t instruction byattending to individual differences is not simple to define orto attain.

Individualism as an ideoloc, al construct in politicalthought involves the liberal belief in the autonomy of theindividual against the demands of the system. Cagan (1978)suggested there are three distinct components of this belief:

1. self-deteminationthe individual is in controlof his own destiny;2. sel -actualizationthe good life is attainedthrough acting on one's personal needs and desires;and3, self-directionone is free from social con-straints.

Individuali7ed programs based on this construct challenge thecontrol mechanisms of schools (both time and the hiddencurriculum) and the expressed knowledge and skills to betransmitted. From this standpoint the traditional classroomwith its hidden curriculum of competition, evaluation, order ,and control is seen as an organization which rosters inappro-

12

2

priate instruction. This attack has come both from advocatesof social individualism demanding more self-direction and fromsocialist educators demanding a collectivist pedagogy thatwould emphasize interdependence and cooperation rather thanindependence and competition (Cagan, 1978). Individualismassumes the existence of individual differences but does notconsider identification of those differences particularly rele-vant. In fact, radical reform proposals (Gross & Gross,1969) often attack the engineering of individualized programsas just more sophisticated means of social control.

The distinctions between "individualization" and "indi-vidualism" are subtle but important. Programs of "individual-ization" are based on assumptions about biological traits andas:.,ociational learning. "Teacher-proof" materials are theoutcome of most programs of individualization. The teacher isseen as the operator of a complex engineered system. "Indi-vidualism" on the other hand is based on assumptions relatedto constructive learning paradigms. The teacher is viewed asa guide who provides students a rich environment in which togrow and mature.

In summary, reformers in the early 1950s believed thatthe knowledge schools were transmitting was out of date andthat the competition of instruction was not sufficiently relatedto thinking. Toward the end of that decade children'sintellectual differences took on more importance and systemsengineering was thought to be a technique for developingmore efficient schools.

We are beginning to understand that challenges to one ormore primary characteristics of an institution bring about newattacks, both on the assumptions of that challenge and onother primary institutional characteristics. Thus, the proposedchanges which seemed so straight-forward in the immediatepost-Sputnik era now are viewed as complex and even chaotic.The object of study in this book, IGE, grew out of theturbulence of the past quarter-century. IGE was conceivedand evolved during the period of enthusiasm for rationalplanning and was believed to provide a significant alterationof schooling practices in elementary school. It was based onthree assumptions.

Fir _ ., it was assumed there was tacit consensus amongd.l educators on the goals of elementary education. The term"eftective education" was used to describe an "education thatyields high student achievement, develops the abilities under-

13

01,

lying those achievements, and contributes to healthy person-ality development" (Klausmeier. 1977, p. 7). Put bluntly itwas "assumed that the learning of each individual child mustbe the focal point of the school" (Romberg, 1969, p. 1).

Second, because American schools and school systemsd;ffered, at least on the surface, what was needed to react,the agreed upon goals for elementary schools was not aproduct but a process, a problem-solving procedure whichwould allow each school to respond to local conditions.

And third, it was assumed that the major impediment tomore effective schooling was the organizational constraints ofthe age-graded, self-contained classroom. The staff of atypical elementary school building in the mid-1960s was organ-ized in a way that prevented teachers from developing orexecuting an effective educational program. HerbertKlausmeier summarized this point as follows:

As the Wisconsin R & D Center got underway in1964-1965, it was found that the usual elementaryschool environment hampered, rather than facil-itated, cooperative research and development byschool people and the Center staff. The usualelementary school had a building principal and anumber of certified teachers, each equally re-sponsible for the instruction of about thirtychildren, and each being involved with childrenthroughout most of the instructional day. Thewhole staff spent most of its energy and time inkeeping school going, not in curriculum improve-ment, research, development, or innovation. Theatmosphere was one of frustration. The staffwanted to move ahead, but could not.

Four limitations of this environment merit briefattention. First, teachers busy with children withno time to share in identifying research or develop-ment projects, in planning the projects, or incarrying them out, properly recognized that littleconstructive work could be done after school hoursas an unpaid overload. Second, each teacher hadto be treated as equally capable of carrying outresearch and development activities. Differentiatedresponsibilities had not been worked out wherebysome teachers could take greater initiative andresponsibility than others. Third, working and

14

other conditions did not permit principal andteachers to mount an effort within the building toutilize available knowledge or best practices indeveloping excellent programs. For example, manyschools in 1964-65 had moved only partially fromtraditional to modern mathematics after ten years ofeffort; some teachers were still using 1925 methodswith 1965 textbooks. Fourth, each classroom,operating as an independent unit, did not allow forappropriate research designs, especially "ran-domization" of children or teachers according toinstructional treatments. (Klausmeier, 1970,pp. 49-50)

The three assumptions on which ICE was based directlychallenge the traditional characteristics of schools. Forexample, the assumption about consensus among educators ongoals was made by the ICE developers in spite of the factthat educational goals then (as now) were expressed in abewildering array of statements made from many Ideologicallydivergent, personal standpoints. Some schools' goals werestated for individuals: to learn a useful trade, to make lifeinteresting and enjoyable, to acquire basic knowledge andskills, to become independent. Other goal statements werepublic oriented: to contribute to an informed citizenry, topromote social efficiency, to create a stable world order.

A realistic appraisal of consensus on the aims of school-ing was made difficult by other factors as well. First, thereis no national '...stem of education; ins..ad there are evennow about 16,000 separate school systems each reflecting inpart the social characteristics of the cultural groups itserves. And second, stated goals often are mere rhetoricand not reflected in schools. In fact, the expression ofhigh-sounding but unattainable aims often is misleading, forsimilarly stated goals often reference different actions. Toknow what schools are about, one needs to know what teachersand students do. The disInction between means (actions)and ends (goals) has been common in educational dis..ourse,but as John Dewey (1916) so forcefully argued, the firstthing to look to when there is a question of aims is thenature of work both of teachers and students. It was claimedby the IGE developers that what most schools did was maintainan existing and ineffective instructional program (Klausmeier,Morrow, & Walter, 1967), and this needed to be changed.

15

. 2 u

Nevertheless, and perhaps paradoxically, it was believedthat educators agreed VI. t schools could be focused on indi-viduals, could be more efficient and more effective. Inessence, they could provide each student an effective educa-tion. All that was needed was help, and help was on the wayin the form of findings and products from the newly estab-lished research and development centers with support fromfederal funds. If the focus of schools was to be on thelearning of individual children and if school staffs usedrational procedures to plan for their instruction, common aimscould be met. The instructional activities might be differentbecause of individual or cultural differences, but an effectiveeducation for all was possible.

In the next chapter, IGE is briefly described as it wasconceived and as it evolved in response to these assumptions.In particular, the evolution of a rational system of schoolingwhich directly challenges the traditional organizational andprocedural characteristics of elementary schools is presented.

Finally, for the evaluation project, our intent has beennot only to describe the features of practicing IGE schoolsand their empirical effects, but also to examine the assump-tions and relations of the reform movement itself. The designof the study, outlined in Chapter 3, began by consideringthe complex dual forces of stability and change. In partic-ular, the question of how the six characteristics of schoolssummarized earlier were actually affected by IGE guided theoverall evaluation design.

ReferencesAoastassi, A. Differential psychology. New York:

Macmillan, 1958.

Bestor, A. Educational wostelands. New York: Knopf,1953.

MOOR), B. (Ed.) Taxonomy of educational objectives,handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans,1956.

Bourne, L. Human conceptual behavior. Boston: Allyn andBacon, 1966.

Cagan, E. Individualism, collectivism, and radical educationalreform. Harvard Educational Review, 1978, 48, 227-266.

16

Caswell, H. The great reappraisal of public education.Teachers College Record, 1952, 54, 12-22.

Cronbach, L. The two disciplines of scientific psychology.American Psychologist, 1957, 12, 671-684.

Dewey, J. Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan,1916.

Gagne, R. (Ed.), Psychological principles in system develop-ment. New York: Holt, 1962.

Gagne, R. Essentials of learning for instruction. Hinsdale,III.: The Dryden Press, 1974.

Gibbons, M. What is individualized Instruction? In A.Bel lack (Ed.), Theory and research in teaching. NewYork: Teachers College Press, 1978.

Gross, R. , & Gross, B. Radical school reform. New York:Simon & Schuster, 1969.

Jackson, P. Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, 1968.

Klausmeier, H. J. Organizing the school for research anddevelopment activities. In M. V. De Vault (Ed.), Re-search, development, and the classroom teacher:Producer/consumer. Washington, D.C.: The Associationfor Childhood Education International, 1970.

Klausmeier, H. J. Origin and overview of IGE. In H. J.Klausmeier, R. A. Rossmiller, & M. Sally (Eds.), Indi-vidually guided elementary education: Concepts andpractices. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Klausmeier, H. J., Morrow, R. C., & Walter, J. E. Themultiunit organization and elementary education in thedecades ahead. Madison: Wisconsin Research andDevelopment Center for Cognitive Learning, 1967.

Popper, K. Conjectures and refutations: The growth ofscientific knowledge. London: Rout ledge & Kegan Paul,1949.

Romberg, T. A. Design of a network to extend individucilyguided education. Madison: Wisconsin Research andDevelopment Center for Cognitive Learning, 1969.

11

Shulman, L., & Shroyer, J. Psychology and mathematicseducation revisited (Occasional Paper No. 10). EastLansing, Mich.: The Institute for Research onTeaching, 1978.

Silberman, C. E. Crisis in the classroom: The remaking ofAmerican education. New York: Random House, 1970.

Skilbeck, M. The school and cultural development. In M.Colby, J. Greenwall, & R. West (Eds.), Curriculumdesign. London: The Open University Press, 1975.

18

23

CHAPTER 2

ONE AT A TIME TOGETHER:THE IGE APPROACH

TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLINGThomas A. Romberg

In this brief chapter, it is impossible to identify all ofthe ideas proposed by various scholars and practitioners or toreport all of the events which led to the IGE system of elemen-tary education. Rather, some of the guiding principles of thesystem are pointed out; the components of the system areoutlined; the steps taken to implement the IGE system nation-wide described; and the resulting ideal system is examined interms of its challenge to the traditional characteristics ofschools discussed in chapter 1.

In the 10-year evolution of ICE, three characteristicswere constant. First, while there was a vision about effec-tive education, about what schools could be like, and a beliefthat the vision could be realized, IGE was not an ivory-towerproduct. The ideas were not merely logically derived byscholars from a philosophically rigorous model of . 'ctructionor schooling. The IGE system of elementary education radu-aily developed as scholars from the Wisconsin R & D Centercooperated with local school administrators and teachers whowere attempting to provide effective education for all stu-dents.

Second, as ideas were put forward, th , were tested inthe cooperating classes and schools. What evolved was a setof practical suggestions about how to operate a school andhow to carry out instruction. These suggestions, stated interms of IGE components and performance objectives, were allrelated to actions which had been tried out in schools, andsubsequently revised if necessary, and were believed to beimportantly related to the underlying notion of effectiveschooling.

Third, as aspects of the system became fixed in thecooperating schools (IGE components identified and perform-ance objectives specified), it seemed that other schools couldadopt the same features. Implementation of the IGE system ofelementary schooling in other sites across the nation became amajor goal of the U.S. Office of Education and the NationalInstitute of Education as well as the Wisconsin Center.

19

IGE AS EFFECTIVE EDUCATIONThe staff of the Wisconsin Center believed schooling

could be better. Effective education was assumed to be theoutcome in schools where

le individual students learn at rates appropriate toeach student and in a manner suitable to eachstudent's learning style and other intellectual andpersonal characteristics. Students, upon completingIGE elementary schooling, should have achievedmore than in other kinds of .,chools, should haveacquired higher-level conceptualizing skills andother abilities which enable them to continue tolearn, and also should have developed healthyself-concepts. (Klausmeier, 1977b, p. 7)

This notion is focused on three aspects of schooling:first, that students differ, as discussed in chapter 1, andtheir differences should be considered in schooling; second,that the purpose of schooling is for students to acquirepredetermined cognitive skills; and third, that the problemfacing schools is to create a facilitative environment wheresuch learning is possible.

It was assumed that teachers and administrators wantedimproved instructional programs. With the increase in school-related research, the extensive "modern" curriculum develop-ment efforts, and a variety of creative instructional innova-tions, all that seemed necessary was to provide schools analternative organizational plan and a set of procedures tofollow. In 1965-66, the second year of the Wisconsin Center,a project called Maximizing Opportunities for Development andExperimentation in Learning in the Schools (Project MODELS)was begun "to improve student learning and also to provide afacilitative environment for school related research, develop-ment, and innovation" (Klausmeier & Quilling, 1967, p. 1).It is from that project and the related work in schools thatthe ideas of 1GE evolved.

Over the ensuing ten years it became clear that thefollowing conditions were together necessary in order toproduce high quaiity instruction focused on students:"clearly defined roles and responsibilities, shared decisionmaking, continuous pupil progress, personalized instruction,active learning, evaluation related to instructional objectives,involvement of parents and support from the community, andsupport by responsible education agencies" (Klausmeier,1977b, p. 7).

20

31

THE COMPONENTS OF IGEThe conditions listed above became incorporated into a

total system of schooling as seven components:

1. instructional programming for the individual student;2. multiunit organizational-administrative arrangements;3. evaluation for educational decision making;4. curricular materials compatible with IGE;5. home-school-community relations;6. facilitative environments for ICE; and7. the continuing research and development required toimprove IGE.

The following descriptions of six components are abbre-viated from those provided by Klausmeier (1977b, pp. 10-22).The descriptiJn of curriculum materials is based on Romberg(1976a, pp. 232-234).

The Instructional Programming ModelTo adapt instruction to the needs of the individual, a

model of instructional programming was conceptualized tofacilitate each student's development (Klausmeier, Sorenson, &Quilling, 1971). The purpose of this model, shown inFigure 2-1, is to portray each individual student in terms ofan initial level of performance, rate of progress, style oflearning, motivational level, and other characteristics, and tosituate this portrayal of each student in the context of theeducational program of the school. Thus, the informationbase for interaction begins with knowing a lot about eachindividual student. Second, this knowledge is to be used inlight of the school's goals to teach a predetermined set ofcognitive skills. The model is used with explicitly statedinstructional objectives and related criteria of attainmentwhich indicate that every student should attain mastery ofcertain objectives before completing elementary school.Instructional programming for the individual student shouldnot be interpreted to mean that all students engage in thesame number or kinds of activities, or reach an identical levelof achievement, interest, or motivation. It does imply thatobjective-referenced instruction may proceed differently fordifferent kinds of objectives within the same curricular areaand also across various curricular areas.

It also implies that, while instructional programming isdone for each individual student, instruction (Step 5) isprovided for groups of students with common learning needs.In practice such grouping of students usually led to in-

21

Step 1.

Step 2.

Step 3.

Step 4.

Step 5.

Step 6.

Step 1.

State the educational objectives to be attained by the studentpopulation of the building in terms of level of achievementand in terms of values and antic natterns.

4 tEstimate the range of objectives that may be attainable forsubgroups of the student population.

Assess the level of achievement, learning style, and motivationlevel of each student by use of criterion-referenced tests,observation schedules, or work samples with appropriate -sizedsubgroups.

4Set instructional objectives for each child to attain over ashort period of time.

Plan and implement an Instructional program suitable for eachstudent or place the student in a preplanned program. Vary(a) the amount of attention and guidance by the teacher, (b) theamount of time spent in interaction among students, (c) the useof printed materials, audiovisual materials, and direct experiencingof phenomena, (d) the use of space and equipment (media), and(e) the amount of time spent by each student in one-to-oneinteractions with the teacher or media, independent study, adult-or student-led small-group activities, and adult-led large-groupactivities.

Assess students for attainment of initial objectives.

Objectives notattained tomastery or someother criterion

Reassess the student'scharacteristics, ortake other actions.

V

Objectives attained-Os 1-4- to mastery or

Isome other criterion

Implement nextsequence in program,or take other actions.

- -4- -- ( Feedback )

Figure 2-1. Instructional Programming Model in IGE(Adapted from Klausmeier, Quilling, Sorenson,Way, & Glasrud, 1971, p. 19).

22

33

struction on a content unit for two to three weeks, followedby post-assessment, some regrouping of students, and in-struction on another content unit.

Multiunit School (MUS)The multiunit school organizational structure emerged

initially through cooperative problem solving by personnel ofthe Wisconsin Center and local school districts. The problemto be solved was how to group and regroup students withcommon learning needs for effective and efficient instruction.The procedural steps of instructional programming for eachindividual student are unmanageable by teachers In thetypical self-contained classroom. The organizationalstructure, shown in Figure 2-2, replaces the age-graded,self-contained classroom organization for instruction and therelated administrative relationships. The Instruction and

Retwesematirt teschinand ',nu Wars

COMM...mayfeptinentative

Pereolre6rInefltIltiv

Districtadministrator

orclesiaroe

PRINCIPAL

Doeclor of,oftIutlionalmatelots center

Reptrieentativeprincipals

Gotta! office Indoften' consultants

Speci41fINChert

UNIT LEADER A UNIT LEADER El UNIT LEADER C UNIT LEADER D

3-5 alatf teeCMrt 3-6 'tiff teachers 3-5 staff tenhvi 3-6 Staff tilacterteInIffuctOnai Instrucfional Instructionai Instructional

4101171) rtelsl andelt)sidela) Clar.cal mdelal Clerical aidelsI Clerical andelll

5t.cbtot teacher Sturieni teacher Student teacher Student teacherar nte or mien, Of intern Of intern

100.150 iludenti 100-150 1144ents 103-150 students 100-150 iludentaApe/ 4-6 Agri 5-9 Aces 8-1 t Arks 10-12

* Inclusion of these persons will vary according to particularschool settings.

Figure 1-1. Multiunit organization of an IGE school of 400-600students (Adapted from Klausmeier, Morrow, 6Walter, 1968, p. 19). Instruction andResearch Unit; Instructional ImprovementCommittee; Systemwide ProgramCommittee.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE23

3 4

Research (I & R) Unit replaces the self-contained classroomorganization for Instruction. A Unit Is comprised of a groupof teachers who plan and carry out the steps of Instructionalprogramming for each student and provide instruction togroups of students with common learning needs.

The Instructional Improvement Committee (11C), composedof the principal and the Unit leaders, replaces the principalas the sole educational decision maker at the building level.The main functions for which the IIC takes primary initiativeare formulating the general educational objectives for theentire school building, interpreting and implementing system-wide and statewide policies that affect the educational programof the building, coordinating the activities of the I 6 R Unitsto achieve continuity in all curricular areas, and arrangingfor the use of the time, facilities, and resources that are notmanaged independently by the Units. The IIC thus dealsprimarily with planning, decision making, and coordinatingthe activities related to instruction.

The Systemwide Program Committee (SPC) is a neworganizational arrangement at the school district level. Itsdecision-making responsibilities are identifying the functionsto be performed in each IGE school of the district, providingfor the recruiting of personnel for each IGE school and fortheir inservice education, providing the essential physicalresources and instructional materials, planning an effectiveprogram of home-school-community relations for the district,and providing for the transition of students from the IGEelementary school to middle school or junior high school.

These three groups--the I 6 R Unit, the IIC, and theSPC--assume responsibility for planning, decision making, andevaluation at the three respective levels and also for com-munication within the school setting and between the schooland the community.

Evaluation for Decision MakingThe third major component of IGE is a model of eval-

uation leading to decisions which will facilitate studentlearning through use of the instructional programming for theindividual student. In IGE, the evaluation of the student'slearning characteristics and achievements is aimed at pro-viding information at three times: prior to being grouped fora unit of instruction, during the instructional sequence, and

24

35

at the end of a unit of instruction. The IIC, interacting withthe staffs of the I & R Units, is responsible for formulatingobjectives and criteria at the building level, ;ind the I & RUrit staff is responsible for gathering the hiformation. Threeaspects of evaluation evolved for this component. The firstare criterion-referenced tests related to the instructionalobjective; these are used to identify needs and determineinstructional groups. The second is a set of motivationalprocedures called individually Guided Motivation (Klausmeier,Jeter, Quilling, Frayer, & Allen, 1975), used to determine themotivational level of each child and to encourage each studentto reach azreed upon objectives. The third encouragedjudgment by teachers about how students best learned so thatefficient groups could be Formed. The evaluation proceduresare planned by the same groups, and most measuring is doneby the individual teachers. Individual teachers are involvedin relating measurements of particular students to the criteriathat have been set. Teachers make judgments and act uponthem in the daily instruction of children; the staff of the I &

R Unit rio so for the children of the unit; and the IIC for thechild population of the school.

Compatible Curriculum MaterialsIt is at steps 4, 5, and 6 of the IPM (see Figure 2-1)

that decisions are made about grouping children for in-struction. It was evident that the availability of curriculummaterials that help professional staffs carry out these threesteps of instructional programming makes the real differencein whether or not IGE works.

Early attempts at carrying out the steps of the IPM werehampered by five characteristics of most available curriculummaterials:

1. They had no clearly specified instructional objectives.Content to be covered was implied by the basal texts in use,but outcomes were not well identified.

2. They had no objective-referenced assessment procedures.

3. Suggested instructional activities were not keyed toobjectives.

4. They lacked a variety of instructional activities whichcould be used for children with different styles of learning.

25

3d

5. They did not have efficient ways of keeping records ofchildren's progress.

There were two basic ways to overcome these deficien-cies. One was to have IGE school staffs independently de-velop the needed materials. There are several examples ofexcellent sets of materials developed in this manner. How-ever, such efforts often resulted in a 'cut-and-paste" pro-gram which had an inadequate and incomplete set of ob-jectives, poor tests, and incomplete sets of instructionalactivities. Preparing good curriculum materials which over-come the five handicaps listed above, an at the same timeare conceptually sound and comprehensive, :s an expensive,time-consuming task.

The second way of developing curriculum materials wasto have a staff of content experts and practitioners withadequate resources prepare materials that could be readilyadapted by professional teachers for their students. Thiswas the approach taken by the curriculum development pro-jects at the Wisconsin Center.

The three principal curriculum projects of Cle Centerproduced the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development(WDRSD) (Otto & Askov, 19714), the Pre-Reading SkillsProgram (PRS) (Venezky, Pittelman, Kamm, & Leslie, 19714),and Developing Mathematical Processes (DMP) (Romberg,Harvey, Moser, & Montgomery, 19714, 1975, 1976). Indeveloping each program, the project staffs were faced withthe same basic problem--overcoming the five handicaps above.However, due to differences in content and availability ofinstructional materials, the final sets of curriculum materialsdiffer significantly from each other.

All three projects carefully developed iists of objectivesand criterion-referenced assessment procedures and specifiedrecord-keeping procedures. But because of different ways oforganizing content, and different patterns of objectives(common or variable objectives, full or variable attainment,and invariant or variant sequence), the programs differ fromone another in these features.

The biggest difference, however, is with respect toinstructional materials. In reading, it was decided thatsufficient materials for teaching most of the essential skillswere already available. Consequently, WDRSD includesresource files for teachers which provide a means of

26

37

organizing existing materials and activities. The publishedfiles include only a sample of appropriate resources related toeach objective. Teachers are expected to add other resourcesthey judge to be relevant to the objectives and to the needsof their pupils.

In developing both PRS and DMP, it was decided thatmaterials for teaching most of the objectives had to becreated. Since prereading skills was a new content area,very few materials even existed. In mathematics, almost allexisting materials reflected the modern structural approach tomathematics which had proven to be inappropriate for ele-mentary school children (Romberg, 1976b). DMP was devel-oped from a modeling-process approach to mathematics, usingmeasurement as the basis of modeling. Furthermore, it wasassumed that knowledge, skills, and values are not simply putinto students, rather they are are acquired through activeparticipation. Sensing, manipulating, and self-directedparticipation are reflected in the activities developed for bothPRS and DMP. These include games, manipulatives, experi-ments, and materials for learning stations. Both PRS andDMP are complete instructional programs which are packagedin kits for convenient use by teachers.

The organization of materials In all three programs,WDRSD, PRS, and DMP, encourages teachers to recognize andmeet the reeds of each child. The teachers' materialsemphasize flexibility in grouping children, sequencinginstruction, and varying instruction for individual children.The assessment procedures enable teachers to determine eachchild's progress and plan appropriate instructional activities.

It should be noted that reading and mathematics werethe two areas of primary concern. It was assumed that otherinstructional materials suitable for use in IGE schools werebeing developed. In addition to the Wisconsin Center, othercenters, regional educational laboratories, and nonprofit andprofit-making organizations were producing a wide variety ofhigh quality curricular materials. The following proceduresfor identifying and using appropriate materials were recom-mended: terminal educational objectives related to the majorcurricular areas were to be formulated at state and schooldistrict. levels. Then, available printed and audiovisualinstructional materials were to be identified by a repre-sentative committee of teachers and administrators. From thislist, the IIC and I & R Units of a school were to select the

21

materials which were appropriate for each student to attainspecified instructional objectives. Each building staff was tocontinuously recommend to the district committee the specificmaterials needed for the students in a particular school andcommunity.

Home-School-Community RelationsThe success of any school program depends in large

measure on relations with the community it serves. In IGEschools, there should be three general aims of a home-school-community relations program: first, that the staff be awareof available resources and he responsive to the educationalexpectations of the community, parents, and students; second,that the community, parents, and students be aware of andresponsive to the requirements for implementing !GE; andthird, that both staff and community be involved in thechangeover and refinement of ICE.

At the level of the school district, the larger communitycontrols the schools through its willingness to expend itspower and resources on programs which reflect its values andinterests. If the values held in the broader community arecommunicated, and if the school is responsive to these educa-tional expectations, then the community will use its power andresources to support the instructional program.

At the local school level, particular attention should beaccorded parents. Parents often hold expectations for theschool which are more specific, and perhaps less objective,than those of the wider community. Because of their intenseinterest, the parents collectively constitute the most influ-ential school-related group; they have the greatest impact onactual awareness and potential political actions within thelarger community.

At the instruction level, parents must have a clearunderstanding of the school's aims regarding the developmentof their children. Because roles and functions may differ inthe IGE school, parents also must understand the organization,programs, and procedures used. To develop such understandings,the Unit staff must provide an effective program of home-school-community relations. At the level of instruction, thefamily directly affects the individual student's abilities, skills,and attitudes.

28

39

Facilitative Environments'A system of supportive and facilitative environments is

required to maintain and strengthen' each ICE school so that,in fact, each school becomes increasingly self-renewing.Facilitative environments, consisting of human and materialresources, are both intraorganizational and extraorganiza-tional. The intraorganizational environment is represented inthe multiunit organizational structure, and the focus is onproviding the physical and material resources needed forlearning and instruction. Extraorganizatlonal facilitativeenvironments are represented in the state education agency,intermediate educational agencies, teacher education insti-tutions, and other groups such as teachers' associations andparents' organizations.

Continuing Research and DevelopmentsThe seventh and final component of ICE, a program of

continuing research and development, ensures the continuousimprovement of ICE. Without this component, ICE, like anyother form of schooling, will become sterile, unresponsive tothe changing nature of society, and incapable of adapting tothe needs of individual students (Klausmeier, 1972b).

GENERAL OBJECTIVES ANDPERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

To provide guidance to school staffs implementing eachof the seven components, two kinds of objectives were devel-oped. The first were 11 general objective,. related to fourimplementation phases: one for the awareness phase, one forcommitment, seven for changeover (one for each IGE component),one for refinement, and one for renewal (Klausmeier, Kargas,& Krupa, 1977). The second were detailed performanceobjectives to guide school staffs in specific actions and helpthem evaluate their implementation of the IGE components.

1 The meaning of the term facilitative environmentschanged in the IGE literature from 1966 to 1977. Initially theUnit was seen as a "facilitative environment" for research,development, and innovation. Later the term was used as inthis section to refer to a supportive system both within andoutside the school.

19

For example, for the changeover phase one stated perform\ante objective dealing with the I 6 R Units' use of the IPMis:

Each unit assigns each student to an instructionalgroup on the basis of assessed level of attainmentof specific instructional objectives, learning styles,and level of motivation. (Klausmeier, Kargas, &Krupa, 1977, p. 349)

Over 80 similar performance objectives were developed. It isagainst these performance objzctives that a school staff canjudge whether orot their school is truly an ICE school. ti

The implication was that the more of these perforTrAnce objec-stives that were met, the more "IGE" the school; ana\Ln fact,an ideal IGE school would be one that met all the objeN.yes.Also, it is from a consideration of these performance objak-fives that we were able to study variations in performancethis study.

IMPLEMENTATION OF IGEBecause in the IGE Evaluation Project we planned to

gather information from a sample of schools that had beenattempting to implement the comporKtsnts. some informationabout the implementation strategy seems warranted. In fact,both the IGE system of elementary schoyling and the imple-mentation procedures are of necessity being evaluated in thisstudy.

With the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Edu-cation Act in 1963 and the start of the r & d centers pro-gram, there was an unchallenged belief in what has come tobe known as the "research 0- development -- diffusion"perspective with respect to planned educational change (Clark& Guna, 1967). This model of change is characterized by asequence of planned, coordinated activities and a ratherpassive target population. The argument for implementingprograms of r 6 d centers began with the cl,iim that theinvolvement of the federal government as an active partner ineducation with the state and local schools made available anew source of support. Federal dollars accelerated a programof research and development at all levels resulting in a hostof new programs and approaches designed to meet identifiededucational needs. From this position, leading educationaladministrators such as William Kahl, Wisconsin Superintendentof Public Instruction, concluded the argument by stating thatthe state Department of Public Instruction "must be respon-

30

41

sible for the installation of improved educational practices inthe school districts of the state" (Kahl, 1967, p. 1). Themultiunit school organization and then the IGE system wereidentified as new programs which were a "promising compon-ent of a facilitative environment for the individualization ofinstruction and learning" (Kahl, 1967, p. 1).

The key historical events which led to the nationalimplementation of !GE have been outlined by Klausmeler(1977b) and are briefly summarized here. In 1968, theWisconsin Department of Public Instruction selected themultiunit school concept for statewide demonstration andimplementation during the 1968-69 school year. The Centerstaff then proceeded, with the assistance of staff members ofthe Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and localschools, to develop a book and 15 videotapes for use by stateeducation agencies, teacher education institutions, and othereducational agencies interested in assisting local schools makethe changeover to !GE.

In 1969, an agreement was entered into between theWisconsin Center and the Institute for Development of Educa-tional Activities (/1/D/E/A/) providing for /1/0/E/A/ to usethe prototype materials in producing a more sophisticated setof new inservice materials. /I/D/E/A/ incorporated into thenew materials some insights gained from their study of educa-tional change. In 1970-71 and thereafter, /I/D/E/A/ usedthese "IGE Change Program" materials to prepare "facilitators"to start !GE schools (National School Public Relations Asso-ciation, 1972).

In 1970, the Council of the Great City Schools ant.Teacher Corps decided that the multiunit school was an idealschool environment for their collaborative Portal SchoolsProject (Lutonsky, 1971).

Early in 1971, the multiunit organization component ofIGE was selected by the USOE for nationwide implementation,and the Wisconsin Center started its first large-scale imple-mentation effort. The Center was funded to carry out acomprehensive program to implement various components of!GE during 1971-72 and 1972-73. The National Institute ofEducation (NIE) funded a small continuing effort during1973-74 and thereafter, continuing through 1976.

In 1972, the Sears-Roebuck Foundation invited a pro-posal that led to its funding of the !GE Teacher EducationProject at the Un:versity of Wisconsin (Klausmeier, 19/2a).

31

This project was to develop seven sets of printed and audio-visual instructional materials for use in undergraduate pro-grams to prepare teachers for !GE schools; one set for use ingraduate programs to prepare unit leaders and staff teachers;and another set to prepare IGE school principals and otheradministrators (Klausmeier, 1975). Since these materials werenot available until the 1976-77 school year, the effects ofthese materials on school practices could not be examined inthis project.

Finally, in 1973, the Association for Individually GuidedEducation was established by the IGE coordinators of 12states, with support of the Wisconsin Center and the !GETeacher Education Project at the University of Wisconsin.New theoretical conceptualizations, reports of research, andpractical ideas for the implementation and refinement of IGEare shared in programs at its annual meetings and in theorganization's publications. As a result of these efforts, thenumber of !GE schools increased rapidly: 50 in 1969-70, 500in 1971-72, approximately 700 in 1973-78, and between 2,000and 3,000 in 1974-75 (Klausmeier, 1977b).

The specific R--0.D-4-D implementation strategy usedby the Wisconsin Center had two key features. First, inpreparation for the national implementation effort in 1971, aplan was formulated consisting of the following four stages:awareness, first-year changeover, second-year maintenanceand refinement, and institutionalization (Klausmeier, 1971).Second, a network of cooperating agents was defined. Theterm "network" was used to refer to the formal relationshipbetween primary, intermediate, and operational agents toeffectively carry out implementation and maintenance of ICE.The primary agent in the network provides the proceduresand materials which can be used to change schools. For IGE,the primary agents were the Wisconsin Center and /I/D/E/A/.The intermediate agent was seen as an organization withproven resources and staff to disseminate, demonstrate,implement, and maintain !GE in schools. Depending nn cir-cumstances, the intermediate agent was a state or intermediateeducation agency, a teacher education institution, or theadministration of a large school district. It was theresponsibility of an intermediate agent to train and monitorthe operationa,1 agents in implementing ICE. An operationalagent was the organization which actually carried out imple-menting change. For ICE, this was the staff of an elemen-tary school which actually implemented :GE, i.e., the prin-cipal, unit leaders, and teachers. Thus, the Center and/I/D/E/A/ worked with the intermediate agents (facilitators)

32

who in turn worked with local school staffs. Also, since theneeded four phases for IGE were seen to take three or moreyears, the relationship between agents was seen to be longterm and mutually supportive.

Scholars involved with ICE were aware of some of thelimitations of the RP-DP-D perspective. For example,Herbert Klausmeier, then director of the Center, argued thatthere are many sequences relating basic research, develop-ment, and improved practice, not just a single linearsequence (Klausmeier, 1968). However, their concerns dealtmore with the relationship between research and developmentthan with implementation.

In retrospect, the real problem with the R--operspective is its failure to give heed to the users' ownperception of their needs. Thus, as implementation planswere developed, the local problem-solving basis of ICE fromwhich its components were developed gave way to proceduralrules, and the R--1) -4-D perspective rather than problem-solving became dominant.

IGE'S CHALLENGE TOSCHOOLING TRADITIONS

The components of IGE and the procedures outlined inthose components were seen as means to an end: the aim of!GE was to provide an effective education for each individualstudent. This "one at a time" theme is a direct challenge tothe pervasive group aims in most schools. A different instruc-tional program was to be considered and planned for eachstudent. The plans were to take into consideration bothsocial aims and individual aims and were focused on intel-lectual growth.

The procedures first involved considering content interms of "units of instruction." Units were seen as sets ofrelated activities in a content area which could be taught in ashort period of time, possibly two to three weeks, with anatural beginning and end point. Each unit was objective-referenced for assessment purposes in that one or morerelated behavioral objectives were to be identified. Alsothere should be a wide variety of activities so that individualdifferences in learning style could be taken into account.

Then an individual's instructional program was to bedesigned depending on three factors:

33

4 4

(1) whether the obje'Alves incorporated in the unitare to be attained by all students, (2) whether thecriteria that are specified for attainment of theobjectives are the same for all students, and(3) whether the units of instruction are to be takenin a fixed sequence. (Klausmeier, 1977a, p. 60)

Considering these three factors, there are eight possiblepatterns, as shown in Figure 2-3. Then when one considersvariations in activities within units for different students, itis clear that allowances can be made for each student.

There was a second aim of IGE in addition to effectiveeducation and that was to create an environment where researchand development could flourish. This is again a direct chal-lenge to traditional practice. Development-based researchcar ,led out in schools was seen as the dominant form ofschooling research in the coming decades (Klausmeier, 1968).

F WI Mastery

CommonObjectives

Variable Attainment

Invariant SequenceAcross Units

Variable SequenceAcross Units

Invariant SequenceAcross Units

Variable SequenceAcross Units

Pattern 1

Pattern 2

Pattern 3

Pattern 4

Invariant SequenceAcross Units

Pattern 5

Pattern 6

Pattern 1

Pattern 8

Full MasteryVariable Sequence-1Across Units

arableOtlectives

Invariant SequenceAcruss Units

Variable AttainmentVariable SequenceAcroz Units

rigure 2- 3. Patterns of objectives, criteria of attainment,and sequencing (From hlausmeier, 1977, p. 61).

BEST COPY AVAILABLE34

4J

As has been previously argued, the traditional way inwhich children were grouped in elementary schools--theage-graded, self-contained classroom--simply was inappro-priate for accomplishing either aim. Instruction in IGE was tobe accomplished by periodic regrouping of students for newunits of instruction depending upon need. Regular regroupingrequired that teachers were working with a large number ofstudents. Thus, the I & R Unit was created and then themultiunit school. This change in how students were assignedfor instruction also challenged how time was allocated andwhen instructional units were offered. Shared decisionmaking by teachers to meet individual needs of students wasto replace the fixed time periods at prescribed grade levels.The traditions of instruction and content were challenged byfocusing on units. Competition and evaluation were stillemphasized, but they were referenced to individual needs sostudents were aiming to master some unit rather than to dobetter than other students.

in summary, the possibility of providing each student aneffective instructional program guided the development of theprocedures which together became Individually Guided Educa-tion. It was seen as a radical departure from traditionalschooli1,1 practices. The intent of the evaluation project wasto document the implementation of IGE in elementary schoolsand to understand both how the aims and procedures weregiven meaning by practitioners and how the assumptions uponwhich the components of !GE were built were accepted andfollowed in schools.

ReferencesClark, D. L. & Guba, E. G. An examination of potential

change roles in education. In Ole Sand (Ed.), Rationalplanning in curriculum and instruction. Washington,D.C.: NEA-CSI, 1967.

Kahl, W. E. Position statement. Madison: WisconsinDepartment of Public Instruction, 1967.

Klouhriivier, H. J. The Wisconsin research and developmentcenter for cognitive learning. In H. J. Klausmeier & G.T. O'llearn (Eds.), Research and development towardthe improvement of education. Madison, Wis.: DembarEducational Research Services, 1968.

35

0

Klausmeier, H. J. Project plan and budget request fornationwide installation of multiunit schools. Madison:Wisconsin Research and Development Center for CognitiveLearning, 1971.

Klausmeier, H. J. An invitation to The Sears-RoebuckFoundation to improve elementary schooling throughimplementation, refinement, and institutionalization ofIGE/MUS-E. Madison: School of Education, Universityof Wisconsin, 1972. (a)

Klausmeier, H. J. Individually guided education: Analternative system of education. New Haven, Conn.:Center for the Study of Education, Yale University, 1972. (b)

Klausmeier, H. J. Leadership series in individually guidededucation. Madison: University of Wisconsin ICETeacher Education Project, 1975.

1:!;iusmeier, H. J. Instructional programming for theindividual student. In H. J. Klausmeier, R. A.Rossaliller, 6 M. Sailey (Eds.) Individually guidedelementary education: Concepts and practices. New

York: Academic Press, 1977. (a)

Klausmeier, H. J. Overview and origin of ICE. In H. J.Klausmeier, R. A. Rossmiller, & M. Salley (Eds.),Individually guided elementary education: Concepts andpractices. New York: Academic Press, 1977. (b)

Klausmeier, '1. J., Jeter, J. T., Quilling, M. R., Frayer, D.A., & Allen, P. S. Individually guided motivation.Madison: Wisconsin Research and Development Centerfor Cognitive Learning, 1975.

Klausmeier, H. J., Kargas, M. L., & Krupa, W. E. Out-comes of IGE and performance objectives for imple-mentation. !n H. J. Klausmeier, R. A. Rossmiller, 6 M.

Sailey (Eds.), Individually guided elementary education:Concepts and practices. New York: Academic Press,1977.

36

4

Klausmeier, H. J., Morrow, R. G., & Walter, J. E. Indi-vidually guided education in the multiunit elementaryschool: Guidelines for implementation. Madison:Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cogni-tive Learning, 1968.

Klausmeier, H. J., & Quilling, M. R. An alternative toself-contained, age-graded classes. Madison: WisconsinResearch and Development Center for Cognitive Learn-ing, 1967.

Klausmeier, H. J., Quilling, M. R., Sorenson, J. S., Way,R. S., & Glasrud, G. R. Individually guided educationand the multiunit school: Guidelines for implementation.Madison: Wisconsin Research and Development Centerfor Cognitive Learning, 1971.

Klausmeier, H. J., Sorenson, J. S., & Quilling, M. R. In-structional programming for the individual pupil in themultiunit elementary school. Elementary School Journal,1971, 72, 88-101.

Lutonsky, L. Portal schools. Washington, D.C.: Council ofthe Great City Schools, 1971.

National School Public Relations Association. Education USAspecial report: Individually guided education and themultiunit school. Arlington, Va.: 1972.

Otto, W., & Askov, E. Tne Wisconsin design for readingskill development: Rationale and guidelines (3rd ed.).Minneapolis: National Compute' Systems, 1974.

Romberg, T. A. Curriculum materials make a difference.Journol of Teocher Education, 1976, 27, 232-234. (a)

Romberg, T. A. Individuolly guided mathematics. Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1976. (b)

Romberg, T. A., Harvey, J. G., Moser, J. M., & Montgomery,M. E. Developing mathematical processes. Chicago:Rana McNally, 1974, 1975, 1976.

Venezky, R. L., Pittelman, S. D., Kamm, M. R., & Leslie,R. C. Prereading skills program. Chicago: Encyclo-pedia Brittanica, 1974.

31

'd

CHAPTER 3

THE PLANFOR EVALUATING IGE

Thomas A. Romberg

The Wisconsin Center's ability to marshal) human andfinancial resources in an attempt to restructure elementaryeducation in the United States has been pictured as a primeexample of the utility of federal financing of educationalresearch and development. Through the efforts of the Center,

r'. 11 /CIE /A /, and IGE coordinators in 29 states, by 1976 approx-imately 3,000 elementary schools claimed to be IGE schools.Unfortunately, no comprehensive picture of the extent or

'L, effectiveness of ICE was available. This is not to imply thatno evaluations of ICE had been done. Katzenmeyer, Ingison,Zajano, and Romaniuk (1976) found approximately 50 differentstudies that evaluated various aspects of IGE. Each of thesestudies, however, dealt with parts of the IGE system andoffered only a glimpse of the impact of ICE. Also in 1976,responses from over 950 schools to an IGE Schools Question-naire clearly indicated substantial variance in affiliation,degree of utilization, use of the instructional programmingmodel (IPM), subject matter selected for IPM implementation,staff organization, and so on (Zajano 6 Stewart, 1976).Obviously, the translation of ICE into practice had takenmany forms. Thus, a plan to evaluate ICE was outlined toprovide a comprehensive picture of the system in operationand to determine its effectiveness (Romberg, 1976).

BACKGROUND TO THE PLANThe design of such an evaluation was not easy. IGE is

not a product like a washing machine to be judged simply byperformance against competitors as in a consumer report.Rather it is a complex system based (4ri theoretic and prag-matic ideas about schooling, children's learning, and theprofessional roles of school staffs. As described in chapter 2ICE was the result of a long, collaborative interplay of theseideas by various scholars and professional educators.

A descriptive framework was developed that consideredoutcomes of IGE as a function of instructional means and ofthe degree of implementation. This framework, presented inFigure 3-1, was int,mded to show four types of variables andhow they are functionally related. Outcomes were separatedinto pupil and staff outcomes.

39

43

Support Systemr

Continued R&D

HomeSchoolRelations

FacilitativeEnvironments

4.4

PRS

DMP

MRS°

Evaluation

IPM

MUS

Background

PupilBackground

TYPE OF VARIABLE

Means of Instruction

_ _ J

IIGE Stan

DevelopmentTeacherTraining

E

(IC Activities

l&R UnilActivities

StaffBackground

PupilActivates

I

Teacher

ManagementCurriculum

Ma

Teacher/PupaInteractiveActivities

Outcomes

SeltOirection

I Cognitive Skills

II

Pupil

5uFigure 3-1. Framework for an ICE Evaluation.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Values

Attitudes

Knowledge of 1

!GE Principles

Staff_J

The functional relationships illustrated in Figure 3-1were intended to convey the following: The degree of imple-mentation of the !GE support systems along with pupil andstaff backgrounds directly intluence the means of instructionin an IGE school. The means of instruction, along with pupiland staff backgrounds, account for pupil and staff outcomes.

Pupil outcomes were the basisof the evaluation plan.

As Klausmeier stated,

Students, upon completing IGE elementary schooling,should have achieved more than in other kinds ofschools, should have acquired higher-level concep-tualizing skills and other abilities which enable themto continue to learn, and also should have developedhealthy self-concepts. (Klausmeier, 1977, p. 7)

The extent to which these outcomes were attained was basicto the evaluation plan. Measuring attainment proved to be adifficult problem for three reasons. First, conceptually andanalytically there is a "unit of investigation" problem. In-structional programming is at the individual student level.Ideally each student has a different instructional program.Thus, to judge the effectiveness of the instructional programthe student should be the unit of investigation. However,instruction on content topics is done for groups of studentswith common learning needs. Eftectiveness of instructionshould be judged on such groups. And planning and regroup-ing are done at the I & R Unit level. Thus, data for theentire I & R Unit should be the basis of evaluation of thosefunctions.

Second, because of the expected variability in instruc-tional programming, the sensitivity of instruments to theeffects of such variability was a problem. Too many tests ofpupil outcomes are very global and reflect general intelligencerather than effects of instruction (Berliner, 1975).

Third, the multivariate/multilevel conception of outcomesmeant that several different measures of pupil outcomes wouldhave to be used so that a composite picture could be formedand examined.

Staff outcomes were also important.If changed pupil outcomes are a result of changed pupil

activities, then it follows that changed means are in part aresult of changed teacher activities. One established fact in

41

IGE schools is changed staff roles. The extent to which staffchanges are reflected in increased knowledge about individ-uals and schooling or in changed attitudes and values shouldalso be reflected in the plan. In fact, if !GE is as dynamicas is claimed, then the evolution of a staff to an increasinglyprofessional approach to solving the problems of educatingchildren should be evident.

Both pupil and staff outcomes are illustrated as beingmultivariate and multilevel. Pupil outcomes included achieve-ment in both reading and mathematics, cognitive skills suchas conceptualizing and problem solving, and self-direction.Staff outcomes included knowledge of !GE principles related toindividual differences and instruction using the instructionalprogramming model, attitudes about children and schooling,and perceived values of education.

The instructional means or form offormal schooling was to be examined.

It has been fashionable in evaluation circles to concen-trate on ends or outcomes and to ignore the means by whichthey are reached. It has been persuasively argued in tradi-tional circles that means are, by definition, the optionalroutes to fixed goals. These optional routes are of no sig-nificance in and of themselves, but only in terms of thecontribution they can make to those ends (Olson, 1976).Yet, in this case, the form of formal schooling is distinctive.Reform movements invariably attack the properties of means.Clearly, IGE is an educational reform aimed at changing themeans of instruction. To this extent judging the means wasconsidered as important as assessing outcomes.

Means of instruction were separated into three sets ofactivities based upon the operating characteristics of IGEschools; namely, the staff activities of the IIC (InstructionalImprovement Committee) and the I 6 R Unit (Instruction andilesearch Unit), the activities of the staff teacher (bothcurriculum management and pupil in araction) , and activitiesof pupils,

The degree to which the supportive systemsof IGE have been incorporated and developedin a school was to be judged.

The seven components of !GE had evolved as practicalfeatures of !GE schools in order to support new instructionalmethods which in turn produced desired pupil and staffoutcomes. It can be argued that the efficiency of an IGE

42

school is a function of which components have been imple-mented and how well they are operating. In fact Klausmeier(1977) claimed that

high quality instruction is realized in IGE schoolswhen conditions such as the following are operative:clearly defined roles and responsibilities, shareddecision making, continuous pupil progress, personal-ized instruction, active learning, evaluation relatedto instructional objectives, involvement of parentsand support from the community, and support byresponsible education agencies. (p. 7)

The support systems for an IGE learning environmentwere separated into four categories. The first, Compon-ents 1, 2, and 3 (the multiunit organization, Instruc-tional programming, and evaluation), was seen as mostdirectly related to the means of instruction. The secondcategory, Component 4 (curriculum materials compatiblewith Components 2 and 3), is shown in the figure as thethree major curriculum products developed for IGE:namely, The Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Develop-ment (WDRSD) (Otto, 1977), veveloping MathematicalProcesses (DMP) (Romberg, 1977), and the Pre-ReadingSkills Program (PRS) (Venezky & Pittelman, 1977). Thethird category, Components 5, 6, and 7 (home schoolrelations, facilitative environments, and continued re-search and development), was seen as supportive anddesirable. These later support systems were consideredless directly related to instructional means than theother compor ants.

Pupil and staff background variables were includedbecause knowledge of prior pupil achievement, level ofmotivation, and learning styles were assumed necessaryfor efficient grouping of students and selection ofappropriate activities. Similarly, staff experience withICE principles, with working in groups, and with pupilswas considered to be important.

In summary, as a comprehensive system of educa-tion, IGE is directed toward the development of self-direction and motivation for learning in students as wellas different levels of achievement. Further, the com-ponents are directed toward school staff and communitymembers in addition to changing what students do.

hus, it was essential to gather data beyond pupiloutcomes to encompass staff outcomes, the instructionalmeans, and the degree of implementation of IGE.

43

53

DETAILS OF THE PLANGiven that there were limited resources to examine

the framework of variables described above, that instru-ments or techniques were not readily available to scalereasonable proxy variables for each category or sub-category of variables, and that the various relationshipsdepicted in the framework called for different analyticstrategies (status surveys, time-series designs, within-school and between-school comparison, and so on), thefollowing guidelines were adopted to insure that areasonable portrayal of IGE schooling would be obtained.

First, a stratified sample of approximately 150schools was drawn from a population of some 950 schools.Stratification was done on demographic and IGE supportcharacteristics to insure a wide variability of schools andsituations.

Second, we decided to limit the evaluation toteachers and students at the IGE equivalents of secondand fifth grades. Second grade is the earliest at whichgroup-administered paper-and-pencil tests can be givento children; fifth grade is the last common grade inelementary schools.

Third, it was decided that resources should not beexpended on instrument or test development for use withthe total population. Thus, existing self-report surveysand paper- and- pencii tests were selected for use.

Fourth, the analysis of "ie basic data was to followa structural equations model which accounts for bothwithin-school and between-school variance.

Fifth, several follow-up studies were to be carriedout to gather other data over a long period of time onsubsamples of the original population.

Sixth, the Center was to subcontract throughcompetitive bidding one or more follow-up studies.

1 Members of the Advisory Panel were: Chester W.Harris, chairman; Arno A. Be Ilack, David C. Berliner,David Hamilton, and William Wiersma.

44

5,4

Finally, the evaluation was to be conducted by theCenter IGE evaluation staff, with the assistance of an ICEEvaluation Advisory Panel. The evaluation of IGEincluded a preliminary examination of the extent ofvariation of IGE implementation and five operationalphases.

Variation in implementation was examined initially asa part of the process of identifying a population of IGEschools to study and a means of selecting a representa-tive sample of schools. The results of this examinationare reported in chapter 4.

Phase I was the large sample study to provide t-asicinformation about IGE schooling. I he specific objectivesof Phase I were:

1. to determine the degree to which the components ofICE had been impler, ented in IGE schools.

2. to describe the implementation of IGE components interms that can be related to means of instruction, par-ticularly in reading and mathematics, and then to examinethe relationship of this implementation to means of in-struction.

3. to describe the implementation of IGE components interms that can be related to staff outcomes, and then toascertain the relationship between this implementationand staff outcomes.

4. to describe the implementation of IGE components interms that can be related--presumably by way of instruc-tional means--to pupil outcomes such as reading andmathematics achievement, selected cognitive skips, andaspects of personality development, and then to ascertainthe relationship of component implementation to thosepupil outcomes.

The means of instruction and the outcome variablesof this study were without question influenced by multiplecauses that operate simultaneously. This multiplicity ofcauses resists easy description. Since causal relation-ships are easier to study when considered in isolation,most studies have examined only one or a few causalrelationships. With respect to IGE, simpe comparisonsbetween IGE as an undifferentiated package and one or afew other education& alternatives provide us with littleinformation about specific features and processes that

45

J J

occur in !GE schools. Using structural equations,phase I simultaneously examined relationships among thenetwork of variables believed to influence means ofinstruction, staff outcomes, and pupil outcomes.

Da':1 for this phase were gathered from staff andstudents in over 150 schools In Fall 1977. A summary ofthe findings from Phase I appears in chapter 5.

Phase I I was designed to verif, the self-report datagathered in Phase I as well as to extend data collectionto include more fully the range of variables that deter-mines the processes of schooling. As a verificationactivity, this phase was subcontracted to ResearchTriangle Institute (RTI). Roderick A. Ironside of R I l'sCenter for Educational Research and Evaluation wasprincipal investigator. Specifically, the objectives ofPhase II were:

1. to determine the validity of the self-report datagathered in Phase I.

2. to use interview and observation data to extend theinformation about each category of variable.

3. to ascertain the rule of developmental agencies in thenational diffusion process as perceived in !GE schools.

4. to gather cost data so that some indications ofcost-etfectiveness can be determined.

The areas of cost and of implementation history,including the role of developmental agencies, are theprimary additions to Phase I data. The importance ofcost analyses has been discussed by Rossmiller andGeske (1977). Adoption and instituti,lnalization ofinnovative practices are processes which interest notonly practitioners and scholars, but also funding agencies(Berman & McLaughlin, 1976).

In Spring 1978 RTI staff contacted and visited 30schools that had participated in Phase I. A summary ofthe findings from Phase II appears in chapter 6.

Phase ill was field study conducted in sixschools, five of which had also participated in Phase I.Each of the six schools had been reported to be anexemplary IGE school by one or more !GE regional co-ordinators or researchers. The purposes of this studywere:

0p-

I..)

464

I. to determine the degree of reform evident in exemplary!GE schools.

2. to determine the degree of renewal evident in exemplaryIGE schools.

In particular this phase focused on the socialmeaning which emerges as !GE is used on a day-to-daybasis. Research into the impact of educational reformsuggests that changes in school programs frequently donot alter existing patterns, but instead incorporate thereforms into the everyday patterns of school life.Failure of educational planners to consider the insti-tutional patterns of schools has produced unanticipatedal unintended results from reform efforts. Early intoe development of ICE, the R & D Center explicitlystated that the purpose of IGE schooling was to alter thesubstantive nature of curriculum and instruction inelementary schools (Klausmeier, Morrow, & Walter, 1968).

Phase III data gathering was carried out during theschool year 1971 -78. A summary of the findings from thisphase is in chapter 7.

Phase IV focused on the use and effectiveness ofthe three primary curricular projects dweloped at theWisconsin Research and Development Center for CognitiveLearning, the Wisconin Design for Reading Skills Develop-ment (WDRSD). Developing Mathematical Processes (DMP),and the Pre Reading Skills Program (PRS). Each pro-gram was developed to be compatible with the IGEsystem. WDRSD is an objective-based system designedo manage the development of reading skills for children

in grades kindergarten through six. DMP is a completeinstructional program for elementary mathematics, gradeskindergarten through six. PRS is designed to provideinstructior in five basic prereadirg skills at thekindergarten level.

Each program is being used by a number of schoolsthroughout the country in a variety of ways. Forexaniple, each program is being used in both IGE andnon-IGE schools. Exactly what the capability of eachprogram is to be used effectively in a number of dif-ferent situations is unknown.

41

5 ,/

Thus, Phase: IV of the ICE evaluation had two majorpurposes:

1. to describe how WDRSD, DMP, and PRS are beingimplemented; and

2. to compare the use and nonuse of these programswithin IGE and non-IGE settings.

Five studies were conducted as part of Phase IV,three Descriptive Studies and two Comparative Studies.The Descriptive Studies were small sample studies de-signed to describe how the curriculum programs DMP,WDRSD, and PRS were being used in IGE schools. Eachstudy was conducted during the winter and spring of1978. The two Comparative Studies were carried out inthe 1978-79 school year. Three types of schools wereincluded in each study: IGE schools using DMP orWDRSD, non-IGE schools using DMP or WDRSD, and IGEschools using neither program. A summary of thefindings of Phase IV appears in chapter 8.

Phase V was to be a summary report of the firsttour phases. Phases of the evaluation study weredesigned to complement and strengthen the validity ofthe data gathered by the previous phases. For example,data on means of instruction, gathered by the large-sample study of Phase I, are examined in greater depthin fewer schools by Phase II. Phase I I l's analysisdevelops a view of instruction from a different per-spective. Phase IV explores means of instruction withinspecific curricular areas. In Phase V we proposed toboth summarize the different evaluation phases and tointegrate and interpret the data from all the phases intoa series of statements about what implications the projecthas toward contemporary educational issues. This bookconstitutes the product of this phase.

THE EVALUATION PLANIN PERSPECTIVE

Ever since Cronbach (1964) ;Ind Scriven (1965)made the distinction betv,een "formative" and ''summative"evaluations in the literature, authors have vied toidentify and clarify types, phases, sequences orstandards and to develcp checklists on evaluation. Oneoutcome of these deliberations has been the realizationthat different questions are raised at different times inthe development of any program, thus, different informa-

48

50

tion is needed which must be gathered in different ways.A total product evaluation encompasses all such questions.The IGE evaluation plan is consistent with the notionthat there are different questions which need anrwers.Thus, the different phases of the plan require differentkinds of data, different designs, different methods ofanalysis, and different reports of results. However,reflective inquiry was at the heart of this plan. Wehoped to uncover some of the strengths and weaknessesof IGE in practice and to identity the unintended con-sequences of IGE schooling. The information generatedand relationships studied were to be a rich source ofideas for further investigation. However, it was hopedthe findings would help school staffs and funding agentsmake reasonable decisions in the future, such as how toapproach Implementation of ICE or at what level to fundfurther long term r & d efforts.

The literature on planned change is wide in scopeand vast in quantity. Havelock (1969) reviewed approx-imately 4,000 sources in his analysis of the theoreticalconcepts and the research evidence dealing with changein education, agriculture, medicine, and other fields.Many authors have attempted to provide a model orconceptual framework for planned educational change.

The many models of the change process can begrouped into three main classes. The researchdevelopment--o. diffusion perspective, associated partic-ularly with Guba (1968), is characterized by a rationalsequence of coordinated activities, a division of labor,and a rather passive target population. Evaluation inthis "center to periphery" notion of development andimplementation focused on whether the user at the peri-phery has adopted and is using correctly the productsdeveloped at some central setting.

The social interaction perspective is basicallysociological in nature and considers the path taken by aninnovation already in existence as it moves through asocial system.

The third major type of model for the changeprocess views the user as a problem solver. The pointsstressed by the problemsolver perspective are (1) start-ing with the user's need and its diagnosis, (2) providingnondirective help from outside, and (3) encouraging t,.euser t, aevelop his own internal resources and hiscapacity for self-renewal.

49

53

The implementation strategy for ICE attempted tocombine aspects of both the research --a. developmentdiffusion perspective and the user-as-problem-solverperspective. The IGE support system is seen as provid-ing necessary structural features which make it possiblefor school staffs to differentiate instruction in anefficient and effective manner. The multiunit schoolorganization and the Instructional Programming Model arenot universal prescriptions; instead they are mechanism.,to facilitate professional judgments. In fact, teacher andpupil activities should be different for different staffsand pupils. It should be evident that variation isanticipated both in a school and between schools, andthus estimates of both within-school and between-schoolvariances are important, The evaluation plan not onlyincludes estimates of the degree of IGE componentimplementation and of the level of pupil and staffoutcomes, it also provides for estimates of thedifferential quality of instruction.

In summary the ICE evaluation plan was conceivedin light of the variety of educational evaluation activitiesof the past decade. We tried to incorporate some of thebest ideas (like the combination of objective and sub-jective techniques) , the most important variables (suchas engaged learning time in the category of pupil activ-ities or degree of structuring in teacher activities) thatother researchers have identified in the past few years.We tried to put the evaluation plan in an adequateframework. And, we attempted to use appropriatestatistical techniques combined with subjective methodsfor examination and interpretation of the data. With thispreparation, we were confident we could picture IGE indll its complexity.

ReferencesBerliner, D. C. Impediments to the study of teacher

offoctiveness. Paper presented at the meeting of theNational Association for Research in ScienceTeaching, Los Angeles, 1975.

Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. E. Implementation ofeducational innovation. Educational forum, March,1976, 345-370.

50

Cronbach, L. J. Evaluation for course improvement. InR. W. Heath (Ed.), New curricula. New York:Harper 6 Row, 19614.

Guba, E. G. Development, diffusion, and evaluation.in T. L. Eidell 6 J. M. Kitchel (Eds.), Knowledgeproduction and utilization in educationaladministration. Eugene: University of OregonPress, 1966.

Havelock, R. G. Planning for innovation through dissem-ination and utilization of knowledge. Ann Arbor,Mich.: Institute for Social Research, 1969.

Katzenmeyer, C., Ingison, L., Zajano, N., & Roman:A,J. Evaluating IGE: An initial literature review andexploratory study (Technical Report No. 14014).Madison: Wisconsin Research and DevelopmentCenter for Cognitive Learning, 1976.

Klausmeier, H. J. Origin and ove-view of ICE. In H.J. Klausmeier, R. A. Rossmiller, & M. Sally(Eds.), Individually guided elementary education:Concepts and practices. New York: AcademicPress, 1977.

Klausmeier, H. J., Morrow, R. G., & Walter, J. E. Individu-ally guided education in the multiunit elementary school:Guidelines for implementation. Madison: WisconsinResearch and Development Center for Cognitive Learning,1968.

Olson, D. R. Toward a theory of instructional means.Educational Psychologist, 1976, 11(1), 113-35.

Otto, W. The Wisconsin design: A reading program forindividually guided education. In H. J. Klausmeier,R. A. Rossmiller, & M. Sally (Eds.) , Individuallyguided elementary education: Concepts andpru;:tices. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Romberg, T. A. Developing mathematical processes:The elementary mathematics program for individuallyguided education. In H. Klausmeier, R. A.Rossmiller, 6 M. Sally (Eds.), Individually guidedelemontary education: Concepts and practices.New York: Academic Press, 1977.

51

61.

Romberg, T. A. IGE evaluation: Perspectives and aplan (Working Paper No. 183). Madison: WisconsinResearch and Development Center for CognitiveLearning, 1976.

Rossmiller, R. A., 6 Geske, T. G. Resource allocationand time utilization in ICE and non-IGE schools(Technical Report No. 410). Madison: WisconsinResearch and Development Center for CognitiveLearning, 1977.

Striven, M. The methodology of evaluation. Paperwritten during the author's tenure as Director ofthe Evaluation Project of the Social Science Educa-tion Consortium, February, 1965.

Venezky, R. L. 6 Pittelman, S. D. PRS: A pre-reading skills program for individually guidededucation. In H. .1. Klausmeier, R. A. Rossmiller,& M. Sally (Eds.), Individually guided elementaryeducation: Concepts and practices. New York:Academic Press, 1977.

Zajano, N. C., & Stewart, D. M. IGE schools, spring1976: A status report on organization and instruc-tion in 26 states. Madison: Wisconsin Researchand Development Center for Cognitive Learning,1976.

52

64;

THE EFFECTSPart 2 OF PLANNED CHANGE

It is important for educators to consider systematicevaluation procedures let aeveral reasons: The first andmost important is dracti,:al. The community we serve, legis-lators, and school boarc's are all demanding some form ofaccountability. In the past it may have been enough for aprincipal when queried 7bout a new program to respond, "Inmy professional judgement. . ." Subjective judgments, nomutter how valid, are no longer sufficient. "What's yourevidence?" is beins asked. In part, this is because muchrecent educational change has been clouded by jargon, unsub-stantiated promises and panaceas, ill-defined goals, question-able implementation, and narrow evaluation. In addition,educators' credibility may have been weakened by the factthat some innovations could not be adequately evaluatedbecause they never really happened in the classroom; such"changes" rarely affected the ways teachers actually plannedand taught; and because no significant change occurred inwhat and how feud ers taught, many programs produced nosignificant difference in student learning. A new, but onlypartially implemented program can rarely match a fully usedprogram!

Educational plcnners and evaluators are confronted witha public skeptical of both the value and the results ofchange, skepticu: of the institution of public education whichpretends to be charging while remaining the same. Evenmore damaging for future educational improvement is that asegment of the public believes schools produce students whohave been changed changed so that they are less competentthan prtMOUS generations. Thus, all educators need to beable to present to Whers reasonable evidence about theeffects of their planned changes. In Part 2 of this volume,live chapters summarize the evidence gathered in the ICEevaluation project. In chapter 4 we summarize the dataconcerning whether ICE "really happened" in schools. Then

chopters st:mmary of the findings from each of thefour phases of the project is presented.

53

CHAPTER 4

TO BE, OR NOT TO BE, IGEThomas A. Romberg and Deborah M. Stewart

In 1976, the staff of the evaluation project knew that,although there were estimated to be nearly 3,000 elementaryschools in the USA who called themselves ICE schools, therewas considerable variation in the degree to which thoseschools had assimilated into practice the various featureswhich characterize Individually Guided Education. The pur-pose of this chapter is to describe the extent of variation inIGE implementation at the start of the IGE evaluation study.

DEGREE OF CHANGE IN SCHOOLSIGE should be viewed as an innovation which, if it were

really implemented, would bring about changes in schoolingpractices. However, there are several difficulties in in-corporating any particular innovation into the culture ofschools. The difficulty depends on many factors, rangingfrom the characteristics of the innovation itself to thestructure of the culture affected by the change. McClelland(1968) discusses how effective Implementation may involvedifferent levels of cultural restructuring. The simplest levelis the substitution of one isolated component of the system foranother, such as a change in textbook. If the simplest ofchanges causes further systematic alterations, such as thepurchase of manipulative materials for the classroom, that is ahigher level of change. The most complex of all changesdeals with values, such as asking teachers to value an activeclassroom over a quiet one. This way of characterizinginnovations focuses on the degree of restructuring that willbe involved.

Romberg and Price (1981) have labeled the poles of thisdimension of change "ameliorative innovation" and "radicalinnovation." Ameliorative innovations are designed, orperceived as designed, to make some ongoing schoolingpractice better or more efficient but do not challenge thetraditions associated with the school culture. For example,replacing the slide rule in engineering classes with the non-programmable calculator did not challenge how the knowledgeof engineering is defined or how teachers are to work.Thus, it is an innovation that requires only ameliorativechange.

55

6i

At the other extreme, radical innovations are designedand perceived as challenging the cultural traditions ofschools. A modern biology text asks schools to definebiological content differently; team teaching requires thedevelopment of new staff relationships. Obviously, as arguedin chapter 2, IGE was designed with radical change in mind.It challenges basic assumptions of how schools operate, howknowledge is defined in schools, and how teachers andchildren function in elementary schools.

The Wisconsin Center was well aware that IGE requiredsubstantial changes in the behaviors of persons involved inits implementation. So that school staffs would acquire thenew behaviors, the changeover was approached in two ways:first, by developing implementation materials and, second, byproviding opportunities for the school staff to acquire theunderstanding, skills, and attitudes expected in their newand expanded roles.

The materials that were developed described prototypesand guidelines for each of the seven components of IGE(Klausmeier, 1975). These materials were designed to assiststaff members in understanding the concepts and practices ofIGE, acquiring the needed skills, and making adaptationsappropriate to local circumstances.

To assist schools in making the changeover from thetraditional, age-graded, self-contained elementary school toIGE, three strategies were followed as a part of an overallimplementation plan. The first and primary strategy was forthe Center to train teams of implementors from other agencies--state education agencies, teacher education institutions, andso forth -who in turn worked with schools through fourimplementation stages: awareness, first-year changeover,second year maintenance and refinement, and institutionali-zation (Klausmeier, 1971).

The second strategy was for a teacher education institu-tion to take the initiative in helping schools implement ICE.This strategy was made possible by the development of theLeadership Series in IGE (Klausmeier, 1975). In this approach,a team of teacher educators plans a sequence of activitieswhich includes conferences, courses, and seminars to helpschool administrators and teachers learn about and sub-sequently implement ICE. However, these materials were notavailable beforc 1976, thus the effects of this strategy couldnot be examined in this study.

56

65

The third strdtegy was for an intermediate educationagency, a teaching center, or a school district to provide ICEimplementation assistance as part of an ongoing staff develop-ment program. This strategy was often used in school districtswhere there already were ICE schools and the commitment toIGE was strong. Persont knowledgeable about and experiencedin ICE conducted the staff development activities.

In addition, in 1969, an agreement was entered intobetween the Wisconsin Center and the Institute for Develop-ment of Educational Activities (/I/D/E/A/). /I/D/E/A/ thendeveloped a set of IGE Change Program materials and prepared"facilitators" to start IGE schools. Because the /I/D/E/A/approach to ICE differed somewhat from the Center's approach,mostly in what was emphasized, in 1972 the agreement betweenthe institutions was terminated. /1/D/E/A/ saw ICE as anorganization and set of procedures which would facilitate aharmonious learning-teaching environment. Thus, the emphasiswas shifted from more effective cognitive instruction to abroader conception of the goals of schooling. By the time theagreement was terminated many schools had become ICEschools through /1/D/E/Ai's efforts.

Since ICE elementary schools started in different ways,with the assistance of different persons and different agencies,and had been involved with ICE for differing number ofyears, it was reasonable to expect considerable variability inthe commitment to the ideas underlying ICE and to its differentcomponents. In part, one purpose of the evaluation projectwas to document this variability and its effects.

DEGREE OF IMPLEMENTATIONThe population with which this evaluation is concerned is

constrained in severa: ways. The population is necessarilylimited to those schools that define themselves as IGE schools.We believed there were about 3,000 such schools in 1975-76.In the fall of 1977, as data were being gathered for Phase I

of the study, we had five sources of data about degree ofimplementation of IGE, and a sixth source was to come lateras part of Phase II of the study. Three sources of data camefrom a brief ICE Schools Questionnaire filled out by schooladministrators. This questionnaire was first sent to all IGEschools that had direct contact with the Center in Spring 1976(1,1426 schools) . The population studied by this evaluation isconstrained to include only those schools that responded fullyto that questionnaire in March 1976. The questionnaire wassent again to the schools in Spring 1977 and again to the

PhciSC 1 sample in Fall 1977.

51

6

Two sources of data came from a second instrument, theIGE Implementation Survey (Stewart, 1977). This is composedof 77 statements or concepts defining ICE. Respondents wereasked to rank their school's implementation of each IGE con-cept on a 5-point scale. In Spring 1977, we requested thatthe IGE school's governing body, usually the IIC, provide aconcensus response. Then, in Fall 1977, as a part of Phase1, the same survey was answered independently by all schoolstaff; the median response to each statement was used inanalysis. Thus, results for both Spring and Fall 1977 wereba.;ed on one value per school for each statement.

Finally, since both the ICE Schools Questionnaire andthe Implementation Survey were self-report instruments,answers to questions from both were validated in Phase II ofthe evaluation. The Phase I I sample was a subset of thePhase I sample and was rated by site visit teams.

IGE SCHOOLS QUESTIONNAIRE

1976 Spring QuestionnaireOf the 1,426 ICE Schools Questionnaires sent out to

principals of schools in 27 states, nearly' 74% (1,049) werereturned before June 30. Zajano and Stewart (1976) des-cribed the characteristics of the 946 schools whose principalsconsidered them IGE schools; the first part of this section isbased on that description. In developing the sampling planfor Phase 1, Price (1977) used the responses of the 768schools that served both grades 2 and 5, those to be testedin the evaluation; the second part of this section is based onhis aridly As.

As suggested above, principals were asked whether theyconsidered their school to be an IGE school. Just over 90'6 ofthe respondents, 946, said they did. Of the remaining 103schools, nine reported never having been IGE schools. and 94reported no longer being IGE schools. Principals who saidtheir schools were no longer IGE were asked to give theirreasons for dropping the IGE program. Their responsespoint out the importance of a common commitment to IGE fromall members of the local educational community. Lack ofsupport at the school board/district level was reported tohave caused 17s, of the schools to leave IGE. Similarly, 16% ofthe schools abandoned ICE due to lack of faculty support,and another 1-4 cited the absence of administrative orcommunity backing. Only 5% of these schools dropped IGEbecause of implementation problems.

58

6/

For additional background information, the question wasd, "With what agency did your school's involvement in

ICE. originate?" One-third of the 946 schools said theoriginating agency was the Wisconsin R & D Center, another29% saki the Institute for Development of EducationalActivities (/1/D/E/A/1, while 19% said both of these. Theremaining 19% responded by saying it was another agency orthey didn't know or left the question unanswered. The nextbackground question concerned the age levels or grade-levelequivalents of pupils enrolled in each school. Although theK-6 grade range pattern was the most common (48%), therewere 39 patterns represented.

The second set of questions on the IGE Schools Question-naire dealt with whether or not a school affiliated with anyother ICE schools. This affiliation is possible either throughan association of IGE schools in the same school system orwith schools outside their system. Each principal was askedwhether there were any other IGE schools in their school,,ystem, and, if so, whether meetings were held with rep-resentatives from these schools and central office personnel;that is, did they belong to a Systemwide Program Committee(SPC1. The next question asked whether schools affiliatedwith other IGE schools outside theft school system inNetworks, Leagues, or other such groups. Of the 685schools that answered both of these questions and have otherschools in their systems, 92% maintained affiliations outsidetheir own building regarding ICE.

The third section of the questionnaire dealt with organ-ization and instruction in IGE schools. Each principal wasasked to complete a chart for all Units or learning com-munities describing the grade-range equivalei.L(s), numbersof teachers and pupils, inclusion of special education pupils,whether there were weekly planning meetings, and the IGEsubjects used. From this information, the answers to severalquestions about the organization and instruction of pupilscould he derived.

The first of these questions concerned the number ofhook, in which all pupils were organized into Units or

learning communities. Of the 946 schools, 550 or 58% hadunitized their entire pupil population. The percentage of IGEschool, with pupils of different ages in each Unit or learningcommunity w,r., .also determined. Of the 946 schools, 711 or;`, had ,111 Units multiaged. An additional 133 or 147 had,,oryie of their llnit-; riultiaged, while 55 or 6.. had no multi-,;qed

59

The combination of these findings was of primary inter-est; that is, of schools that had all their pupils in Units, howmany had all multiaged Units? Of the 550 schools with allpupils in Units, 415 had all Units multiaged. This is 75% ofthe 550 fully unitized schools and 44% of the total 946 IGEschools.

since the primary reason for organizing students intomultiaged Units is to provide for instruction based on indi-vidual needs, schools were asked to list by Unit their ICEsubject(s). An IGE subject was defined as "one in whichteachers follow the whole sequence of identifying objectivesfor the students in their Unit, preassessing for those ob-jectives, then grouping students according to which objectivesthey need to master, instructing on those objectives, thentesting again and regrouping," that is, the sequence of theInstructional Programming Model (IPM).

The responses of the 550 fully unitized schools weretabulated to determine which schools use the IPM in the samesubject(s) in all Units, thereby providing the fullest oppor-tunity for continuous progress in that subject for theirpupils. (For the purposes of discussion, a subject used inthis fashion will be termed an IPM subject.) Of the 550schools, 437 or 80% had at least one 1PM subject. Many ofthese schools were providing for continuous progress in morethan one subject area. The most common number of IPMsubjects was two, reported in 32% of the schools, but therange extended from zero to six. A disappointing findingwas that 96 schools (17%) did not use the IPM in even onesubject area that was the same for all their Units.

The subject areas most often selected for IPM imple-mentation in the fully unitized schools were identified.Reading was the most commonly selected subject, chosen bytwo-thirds of these schools; and math was a very closesecond. In the fully unitized schools implementing the IPM inonly one subject area, reading was again the most popularchoice (64%) while math was considerably further behind(27%).

It was hoped that the questionnaire would reveal someexamples of typical Unit structures; however, so many alter-native arrangements of pupils in Units were reported thatnone was representative. For example, the 159 K-6 schoolswith all pupils in multiaged Units included from one to sevenUnits in 52 different arrangements.

60

Another topic: of interest was the operating charac-teristics of the staffs of ICE schools. Schools were askedwhether they had the following features: weekly planningmeetings for Unit members, release time, Unit leaders, anInstructional improvement Committee for schoolwide govern-ance, aides, and interns or student teachers.

Eighty-four percent of the 946 schools responded that alltheir Units had weekly planning meetings, 6% said some oftheir Units did, another 6% said none of their Units t i thesemeetings. The results for a related question indicateu that in690 schools, 73%, release time was provided so that Unit staffmembers could plan together during the school day. Slightlymore than two-thirds of the schools that had release timeprovided two or more hours of it each week.

The question of whether all Units had Unit leadersreceived a positive response from 92% (869) of the 946schools. A related question concerned whether it was theschool's policy to rotate the Unit leader position. Twenty-sixpercent replied that it was, while 68% said it was not.

The question of whether each IGE school had an Instruc-tional Improvement Committee (IIC) comprised of the principaland Unit leaders received a positive response from 871 or 92%of the 946 schools. Tu the question of how frequently thisgroup met, by far the most common reply was "once a week."

A common feature of ICE schools is the use of eitherpaid or volunteer aides or both. Of the 922 schools whoresponded to both questions concerning the use of aides, 893or 979, use aides to some extent. Sixty-fiv percent of the922 schools had both paid and volunteer aides, while 23% usedonly paid aides and 9% used only volunteer aides.

Another common feature of ICE schools is their partici-pation in preservice teacher education. A total of 927 schoolsreported whether they had student teachers or interns duringboth spring 1976 and fall 1975. At some point during theprevious school year, 687 schools, or 74% of 927, had partici-pated in preservice teacher education. This percentage isremarkable when the availability of teacher education institu-tions is considered. The results suggest that IGE schoolswere welcoming available student teachers into their buildingand thereby providing valuable preservice preparation in IGE.

The final section of the questionraire dealt with thecurriculum products component of IGE. The schools wereasked to indicate whether they were using any of the

61

Wisconsin R F. I) Center's curriculum products. Over 50% ofthe schools were using one or more elements of the WisconsinDesign for Reading Skill Development (WDRSD). Thirty-threepercent were using one or more of the Individually GuidedMotivation (IGM) procedures. Eleven percent of ;he 946schools used Pre-Reading Skills (PRS); this figure is moremeaningfully presented as 14% of the 752 schools who havekindergarten pupils. Finally, Developing Mathematical Pro-cesses (DMP) was used by 11` of the 946 IGE schools.

This overall information about ICE schools was what wasavailable to the staff of the evaluation project in Fall 1976.Obviously, there was considerable variability in ICE charac-teristics among the reporting schools. We considered thisgood for two reasons--one is statistical, the other social.Statistically, an accurate assessment of relationships amongvariables requires that the sample not be of restricted rangewith respect to its parent population; restriction of range onany variable produces a sample estimate of relation that isweaker than the corresponding parameter in the population.Socially, it is important that certain subpopulations beadequately represented--both as parts of the general popula-tion dild as separately identifiable populations of specialinterest; for example, schools in low-income neighborhoods,particularly urban neighborhoods, may be more important anddeserve greater attention than their proportion of ICE schoolswould suggest.

From these considerations, a subpopulation of schoolsthat served both second and fifth graders was used as thebase population for the evaluation. These 768 schools areabout 25t, of the estimated total number of ICE schools. Wedid not assume that these schools were representative of IGEschools. Rather we assumed this population would be posi-tively biased toward ICE and exhibit more of the IGE charac-teristics on the average than the unidentified ICE schools.Those other schools either were not on current mailing lists,suggesting that they were new to or not active in ICEcir( les, or failed to respond to the questionnaire, suggestingd kick of interest.

Stratification variables were created from the ICE SchoolsQuestionnaire responses to provide the basis for Phase I

sampling, The four variables related directly to ICE charac-teristi are staff organization, use of the IPM, studentnrgaio..dion, and facilitative environments.

62

Four questionnaire items were used in creating the stafforganization variable. Responses to each item were assignedvalues from 0 to 2, and the four values were summed for apossible maximum value of 8. The following four organiza-tional characteristics are expressed in the 2-point version:first, weekly planning meetings for Unit staff; second, atleast two hours release time each week; third, Unit leadersfor all Units who were not, by policy, rotated out of positionon a regular basis; and fourth, weekly meetings of the princi-pal and Unit leaders. For the fourth item, I point wasassigned for meetings every other week; there was no inter-mediate value for th:: other three items. The distribution ofschool values for staff organization is shown in Figure 4-1.We considered a composite rating of 6 minimal for IGE stafforganization; 480 schools, 63 %, had composites of 6 or more.

25+)

200911=111111I

150

100

771,f)+)

Low 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 HighRATING

Figure 14-1. Rating of staff organization (Adapted from Price,1977, I). lb). No rating for 37 schools.

63

7'4

Use of the IPM was a composite variable based onwhether each of six curriculum areas--reading, mathematics,science, social studies, music or art or physical education,and language arts--was an IPM subject. Reading and mathe-matics were weighted more heavily than the other areas. In144 schools, 19%, there was no IPM subject. In contrast, 139schools, 18%, had reading, matnematics, and one or moreother areas as IPM subjects.

The rating for facilitative environments was based onthree pieces of information. First, whether the school waspart of a communication network larger than the district towhich the school belongs; second, whether there were otherIGE schools in the district; and third v.hether the schoolreported communication with other IGE schools in the samedistrict. Responses to each of these three questions wereclaszified dichotomously. Although 85 schools, 11%, reportedno communication with other IGE schools and an additional 120schools, i6%, had no communication network outside the dis-trict, over half of the schools reported full participation incommunication networks, 274 or 36% both within and outsidethe district and 146 or 19% outside a district with no other ICEschools.

A rating of the organization of students was developedfrom a composite of three items concerned with how childrenare organized in a multiunit school. For each item a maximumvalue of 3 and minimum of I was ass!gned t..) various re-sponses; points were summed for the composite rating. Thefirst constituent is based on the assumption that an I & RUnit can have too few children or to many; Units of from 100to 125 children were considered of optimal size and those of75-99 and 126-150 workable. The second is a rating of theextent to which all children in a school have been included inthe I a R Unit arrangement. The third variable reflectswhether all, some, or none of the Units are muitiaged. Only10*, of the schools reported optimal IGE organization of chil-dren. An additional 241 schools, 31%, reported groupings thatare workable.

In summary, responses to the 1971) ICE Schools Question-naire indicated that ICE implementation was incomplete inmany schools. The label IGE was obviously used to describemany schools that as yet had not implemented key IGE fea-tures: these we have called Nominal IGE schools. There werealso many schools who had fully implemented only some of the!GE features. And finally, there were some schools thatcould actually be called !GE in that ti,.iy reported that theyhad implemented al: major IC,E featui.s.

64

7J

Follow-Up InformationTo check both the stability of IGE implementation and

the validity of the reported information, there were threeadditional sources of data. In Spring 1977, when the Phase I

sample was being selected, 482 schools filled out the IGESchools Questionnaire a second time. Then in Fall 1977, as apart of Phase I data gathering procedures, participatingschools completed the questionnaire again. In both Springand Fall 1971, schools were asked to update their previousreports, rather than to fill in a blank questionnaire.

Both 1977 samples were similar to the 1976 sample, andthe data reflected near zerJ change in degree of implemen-tation. The differences reflected changing social and eco-nomic conditions nationally. Dramatic size changes werereportea by 30% of the schools: 38 schools lost over 100students from 1976 to 1977, with 13 losing over 300; and 32gained over 100 students in the same period, with 9 gainingover 300. Both losses and gains were due to overall lowerschool enrollments which caused some school closings andquite often restructuring of schools and Units within schools.In addition, there were many anecdotal comments about failureto implement other IGE features because of restricted budgetswhich limited staff development opportunities, purchase ofIGE-compatible materials, and so forth.

Finally, in F'hase II, the Research Triangle Institutevisit teams took the IGE Schools Questionnaire to each of the30 schools they visited during the spring of 1978. Their taskwas to validate the information provided in October 1977, thedate of Phase I testing. The value of the Phase II validationdata is not so much in the actual information reported as inthe frequency with which particular items were correctedacross schools and the total number of changes in givenschools. Both kinds of alterations in 1GE status were ob-tained in face-to- face contact with school personnel, primarilyprincipals, in the total Phase H sample. These alterationsintimate the nature and extent of such changes that might beexpected in the parent Phase I population, although there isno basis for predicting frequencies that might emerge in thetotal sample.

Overall the validation task resulted in a great deal moredata verification than data alteration or correction. F-triesmade prior to Phase II work in the field were found to becorrect in from 25 to 30 schools for most items in the instru-ment, including historical data, staffing patterns, and extra-school associations.

65

Across all s( hoots, no item escaped some sort of changeor correction, and certain items required a significant amountof attention. For example, status as an ICE school waschanged in one-fifth cf the schools; the fact or amount ofrelease time for Unit planning was corrected in almost one-third of the sample; and in two-thirds of the schools,designation of IGE subjects was altered. In all of thesecases, the change was essentially negative: the number ofIGE schools was reduced to 20 from 26; release time wasprovided in 22 rather than 25 schools and a number ofschools indicated reduced time allotments; and from I to 7 ICEsubjects were eliminated in each of 18 schools, while ICEsubject designations were added in only 4 schools.

In conclusion, the picture of limited ICE implementationderived from the ICE Schools Questionnaire appears to be arose-ti:Ited picture of the overall impact in the sample ofschools claiming to be IGE.

IGE IMPLEMENTATION SURVEYAs this questionnaire was originally conceived, it wouldprovide results to be used within a school to plan forrefinement and renewal of the school's program. On twooccasions, as described below, the Center distributed thequestionnaire tc obtain more information about the level ofIGE implementation nationally. The questionnaire consists of77 statements describing IGE outcomes organizational matters,and processes. The statements were presented in sevengroups, one for each of the components of ICE: Multiunit-Organizational Administrative Arrangements (MUS), Instruc-tional Programming for the Individual Student (IPM),Curricular Programs (CURR), Evaluation for Decision Making(EVAL), Home-School-Community Relations (HSC), FacilitativeEnvironments (ENV), and Continuing Research and Develop-ment (R & D). The statements to be judged in large partreflect the published list of performance objectives for ICE(1GE Staff Development Project, 1976) . The following state-ments are two of the 18 in the MUS section of the question-aire:

the entire organizational staff and the students areorganized into I & R Units.

Lich teacher of the I & R Unit participates in the Unitmeetings and the related planning and decision making.

66

For each statement, respondents rate their school using a5-point scale ranging from no implementation (0), throughadequate implementation (2), to ideal implementation (4).

Raw scores were obtained by summing the valuesassigned to the statements for each subscale Jnd the total.These scores were considered difficult to interpret becausesubscores were based on differing numbers of statements.The raw scores were divided by maximum possible score toobtain a percentage implementation score for each subscaleand the total. To categorize percentage implementationscores, we define those from 75% to 100% as indicating IGEschools, those from 50% up to 75% as indicating schoolsmarginally IGE, and those below 50% as indicating schools IGEin name inly.

Spring 1977 Resultsin Spring 1977 a single school response was requested of

the I IC in each building. Completed forms were returnedfrom 374 schools. The mean percent implementation scores forthese schools for all seven IGE components are shown inTable 4-1. On the average, schools were marginally IGE.

Fall 1971 ResultsThe IGE Implementation Survey was included in the

General Staff Questionnaires to be filled out by each pro-fessional staff member in the Phase I schools. Thus, insteadof a single response from a school, we received several.Average scores were calculated first for each school. To getan average school score for MUS, for example, the ratings ofall staff for the 18 questions were added together and thendivided by the number of staff responding. Using thisaverage score, the percentage implementation score was thencalculated. The average percentage implE-nentation scores forthese schools for the seven IGE components, shown in Table4-2, are from 7 to 10 percentage points lower than scores hadbeen in Spring 1977. The difference was not due to idio-syncratic responses by only a few staff members, since schoolmedians were almost identical to school means. In manyschools, there was considerable within school variability. Anexami.iation of individual school data revealed that the prin-cipal and other I IC members consistently reported higherimplementation ratings than other staff. The responses fromthree schools to items 24 and 32, shown in Table 4-3, illus-trate the typical variability in response frequencies. Thisvariability indicates that staff members in many schools have

61

7J

I able itSpring 1977 Percentage Implementation Scores

from the !GE Implementation SurveyN:374 ,chools, or ,-ctpunse

Component No. items Mean sd

1. MUS 18 62.41 14.40

2. IPM 14 64.71 16.01

3. Curric 8 70.77 16.02

4. Eval 9 61.22 17.60

5. HSC Rel 9 57.76 15.54

6. FacEnv 15 52.58 16.68

7. R&D 4 56.07 18.87

All concepts 77 60.77 12.50

considerably different notions about IGE components and howwell their school is implementing them. Some hiyh responsesmay be due to wishful thinking, believing implementation isbetter than it really is, and some low responses may be dueto unfamiliarity with the ICE terminology, not recognizing thelabel for a feature that has been implemented.

In summary, in many schools some staff judged that theIGE program was implemented only slightly in their school.In no case did staff judge the IGE program to be fully imple-mented in their school. Naturally, scores for each schoolvaried among components, refecting the varying prioritiesestablished for implementation of the components and varyingstrengths of the school.

Follow -up data were also gathered on eleven items fromthis questionnaire in the Phase II study. This followup wasconducted not only to estimate the validity of these imple-mentation data but also to identify reasons for disparateratings in a school. In each of the 30 schools, observersgave ratings for each of the eleven items, a total of 330independent ratings (see chapter 6). A comparison of dif-ferences in the staff ratings from Phase I and the inde-pendent Phase II ratings showed that 39%, of the ratingdifferences were essentially zero. However, of the nonzero

61

Table 4-2Phase I Percentage Implementation Scores from the

ICE Implementation Survey(159 schools, multiple responses per > hool)

Component

1. MUS

2. IPM

3. Curric

4. Eval

5. HSC Rel

6. FacEnv

7. R&D

Total

No. ofItems Mean sd

LowestScore

HighestScore

18 55.8 14.3 14.2 96.3

14 57.8 13.9 10.2 96.8

8 62.8 13.3 27.5 99.0

9 55.3 14.6 18.9 93.7

9 49.7 13.4 17.3 93.2

15 45.2 15.9 9.2 93.7

4 47.9 15.8 7.8 94.9

77 53.6 12.8 18.5 92.7

NOTE: The number of schools from which complete responses to theImplementation Survey were received differs from the numberwith complete responses to the ICE Schools Questionnaire andto each of the other Phase I instruments.

Table 4-3Frequency of Staff Responses in Three Schools

on Items 24 and 32

SchoolResponse 161 571 624

Item 24:

0

1

2

3

4

Each I & R Unit functions effectively.

0 0 0

1 0 7

1 9 10

6 14 4

5 4 0

Item The IIC functions effectively to coordinate the educa-tional program of the school and its program of staffdevelopment, home-school-community relations, researchand development, and external relations, taking intoaccount district and state requirements and the needsand objectives of each L & R Unit.

0 0 0 0

1 4 1 4

2 2 6 13

3 2 13 4

4 5 7 0

differences, two-thirds resulted from higher ratings by schoolstaff, and one-third from higher ratings by the Phase II visitteams. Reasons for lack of staff convergence (Table 4-3)were multiple, even at a single school. School staffs oftentesponded on the basis of something less than the wholeschool, had some difficulty with various aspects of the itemsthemselves, worked with their own sets rather than as thedirections asked, or made guesses and estimates. A largeproportion of the obtained reasons reflected some specialresponse bias such as the individual Unit or the previousyear's status. In all, these results suggest, as was the casefor the IGE Schools Questionnaire, that data aboutimplementation of the seven ICE components are positivelybiased.

10

IN CONCLUSIONLet us now return to the question of how many schools

who call themselves IGE could reasonably be considered tohave implemented its components. We consider the Phase I

Implementation Survey data to be the most valid, althoughclearly positively biased. Rather than working with all sevenIGE components separately, we collapsed them into threeclusters--the multiunit school (1), the instructional program(2, 3, and 4), and renewal (5, 6, and 7). Average implemen-tation scores for the 159 schools were categorized to indicateactual, marginal, and nominal IGE schools, as describedpreviously, with the marginal category split into high (62.5 -74.9 %) and low (50 - 62.4%). The number of schools that fitin each category is shown in Table 4-4. In terms of totalimplementation score, there are very few actual IGE schools,only 5, and not many high marginal schools, 32. Many lowratings on total score are due to low implementation of therenewal components--home-school relations, facilitativeenvironments, and research and development. Since thesecomponents naturally would come later in an implementationcycle than the other components, we decided to focus on

Table 4-4Number of Phase I Schools Categorized by Level of

Implementation for MIS, Instruction, Renewal and Total(Nf-159)

Linivl of

ImplementationMUS(1)

Instruction(2,3,4)

Renewal

(5,6,7)

Total

ActJal 13 13 5 5

(75 to 1002)

High Marginal 37 45 17 32(62.57 tc 74.90

Low Marginal 54 67 45 62(07. to 64.'.)

Nominal 55 34 92 60(1ts than 50Z)

11

scores from the first two clusters. A crosstabulation ofschools which fit into each cluster for MUS and forInstruction is shown in Table 4-5. From this tabulation, weidentified any school which is at least high marginal on bothMUS and Instruction as an actual ICE school; there are 38such schools, 24% of the Phase I population, that fit thisdescription. Next, schools which were at least high marginalon one aspect and low marginal on the other we have decidedto call marginal ICE schools; there are 30 such schools, 19% ofthe Phase I population. The remaining 91 schools, 57% mustbe called nominal ICE schools.

The number of each category of school participating ineach of the four phases of the ICE Evaluation is shown inTable 4-6. Nearly one-quarter of the schools who callthemselves ICE were really working at reorganizing theirstaffs by forming Units, sharing decision making, andattempting to change the pattern of instruction in theirschools. Another 20% were heading in the same direction butencountered problems in forming Units, or setting objectives,and so forth; they were not yet IGE but they are no longer aconventional school. Finally, there were the majority, some60%, who ostensibly liked some of the ideas about ICE andwho wanted to be identified with the concepts but who as yethad not made the fundamental organizational and instructionalchanges which reflect Individually Guided Education.

Table 4-5Number of Phase I Schools by Level of

Implementation for both MUS and Instruction

MUS ActualInstruction

High Marginal Low Marginal Nominal

Actual

high Marginal

Low Marginal

Nominal

7

L _5 _1

'15

21_ _ _J17

11

0

0

4

30

32

2 23

- - actual IGE schools

nominal 1GE schools

S

12

r 'em

M.

Table 4-6iGE Implementation Scores -or Schools in

Phases I, II, I I t. and IV

ImplementationCategory N,

I II

N,

III

N,

INDa

N, qIVCaN,

Actual ICE 37, 23 10, 3.:, 2, 33 1, 14 4, 21

Marginal IGE 28, 18 5, 17 3, 50 1, 14 -

Nominal IGE 94, 60 15, 50 - 3, 43 2, 11

Non-IGE - - - 7, 37

Unknown IGE - 1, 17 2, 29 6, 32

Total 159 30 6 7 19

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

"Phase IV had two parts: a descriptive set of studies (D) andtwo comparative studies (C).

bBecause these IGE schools did not participate in Phase I, we donot have results of the Implementation Survey and cannot specifylevel of IGE implementation with confidence.

ReferencesICE Staff Development Project. Performance objectives for

Individually Guided Education. Madison: WisconsinResearch & Development Center for Cognitive Learning,1976.

Klausmeier, H. J. Project plan and budget request for thenationwide installation of multiunit schools. Madison:Inisconsin Research & Development Center for CognitiveLearning, 1971.

Klausmeier, H. J. Leader hip series in Individually GuidedEducation. Madison: University of Wisconsin ICETeacher Education Project, 1975.

McClelland, W. A. The process of effecting change. (Pro-iessional Paper 32-68.) Alexandria, Va.: Human Re-sources Research Office. 1968.

13

62

Price, G. G Sampling for Phase I of the IGi evaluation.(Work Paper No. 223.) Madison: Wisconsin Research& Development Center for Cognitive Learning, 1977.

Romberg, T. A. , & Price, G. G. Assimilation of innovationsinto the culture of schools: Impediments to radicalchange. Paper prepared for the National Institute ofEducation Conference on Issues Related to theIrr:slementat'on of Computer Technology in Schools,Wasf.' ;tor, , D.C., February 1981.

Stewart, D. M. IGE schools spring 1977: A status report onorganizo ion and instruction. Paper presented at meet-ings of t.)e Association for Individually Guided Educa-tion, Cincinnati, November 1977.

Zajano, N. C., & Stewart, D. M. IGE schools spring 1976:A status report on organization and instruction in 26states. Madison: Wisconsin Research & DevelopmentCurter for Cognitive Learning, 1976.

14

CHAPTER 5

Phase I: THE LARGE SAMPLECAUSAL STUDY*

Gary G. Price and Thomas A. Romberg

Certain features of !GE schooling were assumed to bekeys to the program's success. Phase I of the ICE evaluationproject examined variations in the extent to which thesepresumably essential features had been implemented amongIGE school, and assessed how influential such variations inimplementation were on the reading and mathematics achieve-ment of second- and fifth-grade students and on teacherjob-satisfaction.

PurposesThe overall purpose of Phase I, as with the other IGE

evaluation phases, was to gain a more comprehensive view ofthe operation and effect's eness of !GE. The basic objectivewas to identify features of !GE schooling that contribute tosuccessful instruction, especially in reading an(' mathematics.The identification of such features was assumed to be criticalto evaluating IGE as an educational system and to understand-ing schooling in general.

The specific purposes, as described in chapter 3, were:

1. to describe and examine the relationship between theimplementation of ICE components and means of instruction,particularly in reading and mathematics;

2. to describe and examine the relationship between theimpiementatym of ICE components and stall outcomes; and

3. to describe and examine the relationshippresumably byway of the means of instruction--between the implementationof IGE components and pupil outcomes, such as reading andmathematics achievement, selected cognitive skills, andaspects of personaiity development.

This chapter is a condensation of the Phase I summaryreport by Gary G. Price, Thomas A. Romberg, and TerenceC. Janicki (19131).

15

Simple comparisons between IGE as an undifferentiatedpackage and other educational alternatives provide us withlittle information about specific features and processes thatoccur in ICE schools. The-etore, Phase I simultaneouslyexamined relationships a..iong the network of variables be-lieved to influence means of instruction, staff outcomes, a ,dpupil outcomes.

The Phase I study was not designees as a direct compar-ison between IGE schools and other schools. Instead, it wasan assessment of certain fundamental and empirically testablepremises on which IGE is based. As its developers intended,IGE was not an isolated innovation but a complete system builtupon theoretical positions about the goals of education, theeffects of certain forms of instruction, the effects of schoolorganization on instruction, and the effects of linkages thatgo beyond the walls of the school building.

PremisesSome of the premises on which IGE is based are explicit.

Others are implicit, but evident. Three general kinds ofpremises were recognized in the Phase I study.

Premises about instructional programming assert thatinstructional practices associated with the Instructional Pro-gramming Model make high student ach'evernent more likely(Klausrneier, Karges, & Krupa, 1977, pp. 333-334). Two instruc-tional practices and their reputed infiuenc. on student achieve-ment are included. The first practice is characterized by avariable named Management of Grouping and Instructional Con-tinuity (IE); the second by a variable named Individualizationof Instructional Decisions (IDM). These variables and othersww -scaled from information drawn from several questionnairestreat. i as one large pool e: potentially relevant items.

The IGE model suggests that the organization of class-room instruction should have an effect on student achieve-ment. The Instructional Programming Model (IPM.) is used tociroup students according to their individual needs, makingteacher student instructional interactions more effective.IE measures several facets of the classroom instructionalenvironment and should, according to the IGE model, bedirectly related to student learning.

16

IDM iaecISLIrk!S the extent to which instructional decisionstake into account the individual needs of the student. Tak-ing individual student needs into account is the cornerstoneof the ICE model, and it is supposed to be related to studentachievement.

The postulated causal links between these variables andmeasures of student achievement are shown in Figure 5-1.The figure expresses an ICE theory of the causal relation-ships among the variables.

Student achievement in reading and mathematics is thedependent variable in Figure 5-1. Another dependent vari-able is Teacher's Job Satisfaction (JOBSAT). It has been leftout of Figure 5-1 for visual simplicity.

Premises about information materials, and so on, assertthat certain systems of record keeping and information col-lection make it more likely that the instructional practices ofthe Instructiondl Programming Model will occur. Likewise, theuse of curriculum materials that lend themselves to recordkeepinc, information collection, and segmentation of curric-ulum units make those instructional practices more likely tooccur. Four variables are concerned with these premises.One of those vcriables, Individualization of InstructionalDecisio:,s (IDM), has already been mentioned. The second isthe Use of a Variety of Curriculum Resources (UCR), and thethird is the Schoolwide Implementation of the InstructionalProgramming Model (SIPM). Schoolwide implementation isimportprit because presumably, the instructional practices ofthe individual I & R Units resonate with the practices else-where in the school.

The IGE model suggests that the amount and variety ofstudent information available should directly influence theindividualization of instructional decisions. The amount andvariety of student information avaiiable! is reflected by thevariable Information i"cquisition (IA). The model also sug-gests that schoolwide implementation of the IPM should pro-mote such individualizi.tion. The procedures needed forefficient and useful information acquisition are presumablylimited by incomplete schoolwich Implementation of the IPM.

Premises about supportive a,rongements assert thatcertair. distinctively ICE features of school organization make

Or the ho,tr..ctionol Programming Model (IPM) more likely.Those orgonizational features d150 make it more likely that thestaff will be satisfied with their jobs.

'1

- IOR

Inter-

organitationailRelations

(8) - COS

proceduresHosterini.uordination andImprovement ofSchool ProgramSC - I4f)

(9) lus

Intra-OrginizationalStructure

-

.entral'(a ft

Bacaground

Ill) - MTV

Relief inIndividualDifferences

(S) - UCH

14P :In:t's

Utilization ofCurriculur.

ResourcesRe4dind, Math

12) -

1111 Unit's

Management ofGrouping and ofInstructionalContinuityHvading, Math

(if IDm(6) SI "M

of Instructional

t=74Math

individualization!SHwhorel Implementation

of the

Inutzucti,nelProgrammingModel 'a.

111

-0 de

11N f'ntt's

InformationALTI:sition!,radtnj, .4ttn

(41 - IA

C

Ficlure 5-1. Cagy_..! model of relationships implied in ICEliter attire.

BEST COPY AvAiLA:p.

StudentAcnievement1,e4.!Lnj, Math

(Controlling

for IV.)

Two orgatiirational features in particular have beenpresented in the IGE literature as ones which create anorganizational environment conducive to use of the IPM. Thefirst of these is an assort nent of activities collectivelylabeled and measured as Procedures Fostering Coordinationand Improvement of the School Program (GOS). The second,reflected by the variable Intraorganizationri Structure HOS'lb a collection of structural arrangements distinctive to IGEschools, such as organization into I & R Units, existence ofan Instructional Improvement Committee, and so forth.

Itie effect of orgarizational features on schoolwideimplementation of the i PM would be difficult to assess ifteachers' backgrounds and beliefs were not considered, too.Two appr ipriate staff measures are included. The first,General Staff Background (GSB), is an aggregate measure ofhow much IGE-related experience teachers have. The second,Belief in Individual Differences (INDIV), is a measure of howstrongly and unanimously the teachers of a school endorsed ati,r,ic assumption of IGE--the assumption that students differin ways that instruction ought to take into account.

One distinctive organizational feature of IGE is thesystem of linkages between IGE schools. One intended con-sequence of such Interorgani/ltional Relations (10R) is theexchange of information aL out PM-compatible curriculummaterials and other cut ,lculum resources. Contact with otherschools would presumably help teachers to use a variety ofcurriculum materials. The variety of curriculum materialsused by an I & R Unit would depend partly on other prac-tices of the Unit, too. For instance, I & R Units that gatherand og,nize information about students, through their effortsto individualize instructional decisions, would be more likelyto use a variety of curriculum materials.

Summary of the ModelThe fundamental premises have been represented as a

network of postulated causal links among the variables of thestudy. Fk,..re 5-1 presents these causal links in diagramform. It shows the paths of influence assumed to underliethe relationships between reading achievement and the otherN,ariables studied. The figure expresses an IGE theory ofhow each variable is causally related to the other variables.

file l'ti.ise I study evaluated these premises by empir-ically assessing the relationships they imply. This approachto evaluation would not be feasit2- if IGE schools had

19

uniformly implemented the organization;,, :eatures, curriculumfeatures, and instructional practices suggested by experts inIGE. Such uniformity, however, did not exist, as describedin the previous chapter.

Each arrow shown in Figure 5 -I signifies a causal linkassumed in the iGE system. Not every causal link assumed inVA is indicated, only some of the major causal assertionsimplicit in IGE. The intent was riot to ask whether IGEworks. Rather, the intent was to ask whether IGE works inthe way its developers thought it would.

The diagram is known as a structural model o: causalmodel and follows certain graphic conventions. According tothese conventions, a straight, unidirectional arrow signifiesthat the variable at its base directly influences the variableat its tip. The omission of an arrow constitutes an explicittheoretical statement that no direct causal relationship exists.A variable is an indirect cause of a dependent variable if apath through two or more arrows can be traced from thedependent variable back to the first variable. Associatedwith each straight arrow is a nonzero value. The sign of thevalue denotes whether an increase in the causal variableproduces an increase (plus) or a decrease (minus) in thedependent variable. A curved, bidirectional arrow is used atthe left of the figure between variables which are known tobe correlated, but for reasons not covered in the scope ofthe model.

A system of structural equations corresponds to themodel. These equations were statistically examined for theiragreement with the data collected in the Phase I study.Within the limits imposed by measurement error in the group-administered, standardized tests and questionna used tocollect the data, this approach tests tho theoret lode' thatunderlies ICE. !f the relationships 1-Jetween vari. ,es are notconsistent with Figure 5-1, then p; obable inaccu., ,:ies in theunderlying ICE ,node) would be revealed. On the positiveside, this approach can indicate important features and pro-cesses which deserve more attention fi ,gym schools implementingIGE. In this context, "importance" means that a feature orprocess influences outcomes that are socially valued.

80

METHODSSampling

Tne population with which this evaluation was concernedwas constrained in several.ways. The population was neces-sarily limited to tho e schools that identified themselves as;GE schools. The population studied by this evaluation wasfurther constrained to include only those schools that re-sponded fully to the IGE schools questionnaire of March 1976(see chapter 4 for details). There were 946 such schools,768 of which had both second- and fifth-grade students. Theevaluation was limited to students at the IGE equivalent ofsecond and fifth grades, and their teachers. This populationuf 768 IGE schools is nationwide; it includes urban areas,rural areas, low-income areas, and high-income areas.

A sample was sought in light of the planned analysis.To select the sample of 300 schools, a plan of .s:-otifiedantlam sampling was followed. Information from the March1976 IGL Schools Questionnaire was used to construct sevenstratification variables: (1) rating the staff organization,(2) age of the program, (3) utilization of the InstructionalProgramming Model, (4) rating for facilitative environment,(5) rating of the organization of children In the school,(6) use of Center curriculum products, and (7) demographicinformation. These seven vas ..tiles were then used toclassify the population into strata, and 302 schools were-selected randomly. The sample on which the evaluation wasultimately based, t owever , was not this initially drawnsample. Only 175 schools agreed to participate in theevaluation. There was consequently a danger that self-selection had created a sample that differed significantly fromthe population in terms of the ICE characteristics with whichthu evalu.ltion is concerned. The sampling frame, however,provided ;3 means of assessing whether and how the partici-pant schools differ from the population. Remarkably, theself-selected sample was very similar to the population interms of the stratification yariables. For a more detailedaccount of the sampl.ng procedure see Working Paper No. 223(Price., 1977).

InstrumentsInstrumentation for Phase I included self-report

questionnaires for staff and standardized tests of academicoptitude, ,,tandardired achievement tests, and personalitydevelopment scales for students. In addition, cognitive

$1

ability tests, developed dt the Center, were administered tothe grade 5 students. More detail about Phase I data gather-ing has been provided by Klopp, Buchanan, Stewart, andRomberg (1979) .

Questionnaires for the staff component of the evaluatienwere based primarily on several existing instruments whichwere modified in -ontent or format to meet the requirementsof IGE terminology and certain technical constraints, such asmachine-readable response forms. A discussion of the contentand source of each instrument appears in Stewart (1977).isted in Table 5-1 are the instruments used in the study and

the staff members who responded. The variables actuallyused in the Phase I analysis typically drew information fromseveral of the instruments. Consequently, scores were notdeveloped for instruments. An overview of the variables fromstaff questionnaires may be found in Price, Janicki, Howard,Stewart, Buchanan, and Romberg (1978).

Students were tested at grade 2 and grade 5. Listed inTable 5-2 are the tests administered at both grades. Copiesof the Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude (SFTAA),California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS), and Self-ObservationScales (SOS) were purchased from commercial publishers.The five Concept Attainment Abilities (CAA) tests are from abattery of tests that was developed as a part of a previouslycompleted Center project (Harris & Harris, 1973). Onlystudents in grade 5 participated in that study. 1 he CAAtests were administered to assess student cognitive skills inthree categoriesnumerical ability, memory, and word fluency.

Scaling of VariablesTh,1 structural model was formed before the variables

used in the model were created. However, the model wasformed with knowledge of the information from which thevariabls were created. To build scales for each variable i.the model several steps were followed. First, all items from.111 non-trident instruments were grouped together. Second,the evaluative staff independently divided the items into setsut items, eac.11 representative of d single variable. Havingfollowed this procedure independently, the group met andreached consensus on groups of items that defined a partic-ular variable. After this procedure for selecting item sets,ac h cirmip of items was given a verbal description thatreflected the information contained in its constituents. Nextthe selected item% in each group were combined to form a;..omposite variable.

82

Table 5-1Phase 1 Staff Questionnaires

Instrument Title School Respondents

Staff Background Informationa

IGE Implementation Survey b

Job Satisfaction Surveya

Assumptions About Conditionsof Effective Schoolingc

Assumptions About Learningand Knowledged

Role of the Szaff Teachere

Instructional Practices inReading, Mathematics, andLanguage Artsf

Instruction and Research UnitStructure and Function

Instructional Improvement Com-mittee Structure and Functions

IGE Schools Questionnaire,Verification Copy

Each staff member

Each staff member ingrade 2 and grade 5 unit

Each staff member ingrade 2 and grade 5 unit

I & R Unit groups, grade 2and grade 5

IIG group

Principal

aFrum Mendenhall, 1977.bFrum Klausmeier, 1976.

'Derived from Upham & Frutn, 1976.dFrom Barth, 1971

eFrom Ironsidu, 1972.

-Adaptvd by T. J. Vox from DeVault, 1973.

83

Table 5-2Phase i Student Tests

Test Grade(s)

Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude (SFTAA)a 2,5

Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS), Form Sb

Reading Vocabulary 2,5

Reading Comprehension: Sentences 2

Reading Comprehension: Passages 2

Reading Comprehension 5

Mathematics Computation 2,5

Mathematics Concepts & Applications 2,5

Spelling`' 5

self Observation Scales (SOS),d

Form C 2,5

Locus of Control (Cromwell, 1964)e 2,5

Concept Attainment Abilities (CAA)1

Number Series 5

Number Relations 5

Picture Class Memory 5

Remembering Classes: Members 5

Omelet 5

dGrade 2, Level 1: Grade 5, Level 3.bGrade 2, Level C; Grade 5, Level 2

cAdministered as a CAA word fluency substitute.

dGrade 2, Primary Level; Grade 5, Intermediate Level.

tNut included in the analysis beceuse of low reliability.fNot included in the analysis.

$4

9 i

Ilad there been resuurc es and time, it clearly would havebeen preferable to build questionnaire items specifically tomeasure the constructs for the model. As it was, items fromavailabl_ instruments were used to scale the variables. Formost variables, there were many pertinent items available, so,for those variables, little c:amage was done by relying uponavailable questionnaires.

Another limitation of the data sterns from the remotenessof the data collection procedure and the amount of time ittook school staff members to respond to the questionnaires.This questionnaire form of data collec..ion invites hurriedresponses. Moreover, respondents may have wanted toreFj_anci as they thought good ICE citizens should, since theyknew that the responses would be sent back to the Center.There is no doubt that the signal one wants to receive comespartly veiled with noise when one uses questionnaires.

The evaluation staff was aware of these limitations fromthe outsel and took steps to minimize their effect. An inno-vative use of questionnaire responses was developed whichdeserves mention. Usually questionnaire items, like testitems, are ccnnbined in a linear manner to form a scale. Thatwas not always done in our study. Rather, Boolean logicalexpressions were often used to combine the responses onseveral items into new, composite items to be arranged on a,cale. For measurement purposes, these composites were notthemselves present in any questionnaire. They were theproduct of logical operations performed on multiple ques-tionnaire items.

There were two reasons for taking this approach toscaling. One was to "cioof-proof" our variables. The detec-tion of contradictions and other convergent uses of ques-tionnaire responses were used to minimize the extent to whichour scaled values could be thrown off by erroneous responses.Some forms of distortion were anticipated, and scaling deci-sions were made to minimize their e'fect. A second reasonfur the approach had nothing to do with accuracy of responses.Irr surne cases we decided that, even if we assumed the respon-..e, wore perfectly accurate, a justifiable ordering would notbe obtained by arithmetic combination of item responsi.

DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLESThe model presented in Figure 5-1 has 11 variables.

The first, (1) in Figure 5-1, in the dependent variable. Fivedifferent dependent variables were used, teacher job-

115

9,4

satisfaction (JOI3LiA T ) and four variables associated withstudent achievement (reading and math at grades 2 and 5).Six of the variables, (6) to (11) in Figure 5-1, measureaspects of the school as a whole, such as organizationalfeatures, schoolwide practices, and staff background. Thus

single score was derived for each school. Teacher job-satisfaction was also a schoolwide variable. The othervariables, (2) to (5) in Figure 5-1, do not pertain to theschool as d whole; they are measures of a spe' ificI ii R Unit's practices in reading and in Meitil. Each variablespecific to an I & R Unit was actually treated as fourseparate variables. It was measured in two I & R Units perschool - -one that included children of grade 2 age and onethat included children of grade 5 age. In each I & R Unit,there was a reading version and a math version of the vari-able,

A more elaborate definition of each variable and how itwas died has been published in a series of technical re-p:)rts, listed in Table 5-3. Readers wanting to know moreabout a specific variable should refer to the report whichcorresponds to that variable. For reference, the mean andstandard deviation of each variable are given in Table 5-4.Additional descriptive statistics are given in each appropriatetechnical report.

Before proceeding to the results, a description of howstudent achievement scores were derived for each unit is inorder. The student achievement variables used in the analy-sis were not simply raw scores, but residual scores derivedfrom the differences between raw and predicted scores onachievement tests. Each student's scores on academic abilitytests were used to predict his or her scores on the achieve-eient tests. Prior to their use as covariates, the scores fromdcaderiiii ability tests were themselves adjusted to minimizemeasurenicrit error. Implausible combinations of ability testsubscores were adjusted by a procedure known as "winsoriza-non" (see Technical Reports No. 508 and No. 509). Thestudent's actual scores on achievement measures were thencompared win. predictions based on adjusted ability testsciire... The deviations of the actual scores from the pre-dic ted scores were the variables of interest.

The residual scores of individual students on CTBSsubtexts p.-ovided the basis for an aggregated measure repre-senting eac h school. The subtests are listed in Table 5-2.The scores of each group of Students in each school wereaveraged to form a school mean for ea( h subtest. In other

86

Table 5-3Reprts Describing Variables Usec. in Phase I

and Results of Phase I Study

TechnicalReport No.

ERICNo

Schoolwide Variables

Interorganizational Relations (IOR) 476 ED 182 332

Procedures Fostering Coordination and 477 ED 182 335Improvement of the School Program (GOS)

General Staff Backg-ound (GSB) 478 ED 182 329

Intraorganizational Structure (I0S) 479 ED 182 333

Belief in Individual Differences (INDIV) 480 ED 182 327

School's Demographic Setting (DB) 482 ED 182 336

Schoolwide Implementation of the 483 ED 182 328Instructional Programming Model (SIPM)

Teacher .jub Satisfaction (JOBSAT) 484 ED 182 337512 ED 186 426

I & R Unit Specific Variables

Utilization of Curriculum Resources (UCR) 485 ED 182 338

Information Acquisition TA) 486 ED 182 331

Individualization of Instructional 487 ED 182 330

Decisions

Manager.%utt of Grouping and of 488 ED 182 334Instructional Continuity (1E)

Student Achievement Variables

Grade 2 Reading 508 ED 183 598510 ED 185 538

Grade 2 Mathematics 508 ED 183 598511 ED 199 084

Grade 5 Reading 509 ED 183 597510 ED 185 538

Grade 5 Mathematics SOS ED 183 597

511 ED 199 084

Note: Scaling of a vxriable is described ir 'ire first, or only,

report for that variable. Where two reports dre listed for avariable, the second reports results of the structural equationsanalysis.

Si

93

Table 5-4Means and Standard Deviations

Variable MeanStandardDeviation

Schoolwide Measures

IORIOS

GOS

GSB

INDIVSIPMJOBSAT

20.4920.5258.183.843.16

62.4440.57

6.813.809.91.62

.18

12.265.08

Second-grade I & R Units: Reading

UCR 44.85 9.59IA 7.00 1.00IDM 8.16 2.38IE 28.64 6.12CTBS Reading Achievement, adjusted -.45 6.69

Second-grade I & R Units: Mathematics

UCR 39.53 9.61IA 7.1F. 1.28IDM 8.33 2.60IE 29.58 6.12CTBS Mathematics Achievement, adjusted -.26 3.47

Fifth-grade I & R Units: Reading

UCR 44.77 9.89IA 6.93 1.02IDM 7.51 2.18IE 26.34 5.91CTBS Reading Achievement, adjusted -.26 3.47

Fifth-glade I & R Units: Mathematics

UCR 40.15 9.53IA 7.39 1.16IDM 8.09 2.55IE 28.54 7.80CTBS Mathematics Achievement, adjusted -.10 4.60

111

97

words, the adjusted scores (regression residuals) of studentsin an I & R Unit were averaged to provide a representativemeasure of (ability adjusted) student achievement in thatI & R Unit.

After aggregation, I & R Unit means on residual scoresfrom achievement subtests were combined to form an overallreading achievement score and an overall math achievementscore. Overall scores could not have been formed for indi-vidual students because, with a few exceptions, a givenindividual took only some of the subtests.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Reading and Math AchievementThe positive relationships implied in the model between

features of IGE schools and measures of students' achievementwere not found in either grade. In grade 2 I & R Units, noorganizational variable and no measure of instructional prac-tices was correlated beyond a trivial level with either readingachievement or math achievement, although two correlationswere statistically significant. Reading achievement had acorrelation of .197 (p < .01) with General Staff Background(GSB), and math achievement had a correlation of .255 (p <.01) with General Implementation of the Instructional Pro-gramming Model.

The results in grade 5 I & R Units were similar. Everyvariable was correlated only trivially with the reading achieve-ment and math achievement variables. Not a single correla-tion differed from zero with statistical significance.Accordingly, the structural equation analysis lends noempirical support to hypothesized paths of influence.

This negative finding may, in part, indicate faults inour measurement of organizational features and instructionalpractices. However, not all of the blame can be placed onthe attenuating effect of noise in the measures, becauseratinys of organizational features made by field observers in30 schools (see Ironside & Conaway, 1979; condensed intochapter 6) showed reasonably high correlation with thequestionnaire-based scales (10R, .66; GOS, .53; 10S, .60;SIPM, .67). T.lere is less assurance that our measures ofinstructional practices are trustworthy.

89

The standardized, group-administered measures of read-ing and mathematics achievement can be criticized as aninadequate indication of what children know about reading ormathematics. The tests may have some sections and itemsthat do not reflect the curriculum of the schools in ourstudy. However, the instruments seem to provide a reason-able assessment. Other information we have indicates thatthe test scores are reasonably accurate. Different demo-graphic classifications of schools, for instance, show dif-ferences on the reading achievement and math achievementmeasures that closely parallel the findings in the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress.

Organizational Featuresand Instructional Practices

The following discussion examines links betweenorganizational features and the instructional practices theywere meant to facilitate. Analysis began with an estimation ofthe a priori model. The initial estimation procedure was astraightforward application of multiple regression. For eachpath in Figure 5-1, path coefficients (standardized multipleregression coefficients) were estimated for the full a priorimodels of grad:: 2 reading, grade 2 math, grade 5 reading,and grade 5 math, respectively. These coefficients weresubjected to a statistical test. The a priori model was re-vised on the basis of those tests. Causal links hypothesizedin the a priori model whose path coefficients did not differstatistically from zero were dropped from the models. Ineffect, such a procedure tests whether a variable used as apredictor accounts for any unique variance in the dependentvariable.

Pat' theoretically precluded from 2n a priori model werehypothesized to make no increment to R beyond that obtainedby using the path included in the model. The omitted pathsof greatest interest lead directly from remote causes toeffects--bypassing theorized mediators. When the addition ofa direct path from a remote cause--a path theoretically pre-cluded heretoforewa's statistically significant, a model wasdeemed insufficient to explain the observed relationshipbetween the effect and that remote cause. The correlationmatrices, path diagrams, and estimates for both the hypothe-sized models and the fitted models are given in TechnicalReports No. 510 and No. 511 (Price, Janicki, Van Deventer, &Romberg, 1980a, 1980b).

When predictors are interrelated--as they are here- -interpretation of the tests for particular path coefficients canbe easily misleading (see Goldberger, 1964; Gordon, 1968).

90

9j

The organizational features in this study were interrelated, aswere the instructional variables; therefore, the substantiveinterpretation of individual path coefficients becomes ambig-uous.

To get a clearer understanding of the relationshipsbetween the organizational and instructional variables, anothertype of an-lysis was used. We used orthogonalized predic-tors, which are unrelated to each other and are linear com-binations of the initial set of predictors. Interpretation ofcoefficients of orthogonalized predictors is possible only tothe extent that the orthogonalized predictors can be definedin a substantively meaningful way.

Orthogonalization of organizational variables. The sixorganizational variables in the model were transformedthrough principal components factor analysis into a set of sixuncorrelated (orthogonal) factors. Varimax rotation was usedon the full set of principal components. The net effect ofperforming these transformations was to impose orthogonalityon the set of six predictors, while preserving as closely aspossible a one-to-one correspondence between variables andprincipal components. Correlations between the six ortho-gonal factors and the six untransformed variables are givenin Table 5-5; these correlations are a special type of factorloading. As is evident in Table 5-5, each of the six factorsis a good proxy for one of the variables and is negligiblyrelated to the other five variables. Thus, the orthogonalizedpredictors are substantively meaningful, so their coefficientsin a regression equation do permit some interpretation.

When predictors are orthogonal like this, standardizedregression coefficients are equivalent to correlation co-efficients. Therefore, results based on orthogonalizedpredictors are presented as correlation coefficients.

Orthogonalization of instructional variables. For each ofthe four models (grade 2 reading, grade 5 reading, grade 2math, grade 5 math), the four instructional variables in themodel were transformed through principal components factoranalysis into a set of four uncorrelated (orthogonal) factors.

Correlations between the organizational factors of Table5-5 and instructional factors were found to be generallynonsignificant: even those five that were statistically sig-nificant were nevertheless weak. Our discussion is limited tothose correlations that were statistically significant in both

91

luJ

Tiibie 5-5Correlations Between the Organizational Variables and

Their Varirnax-Rotated Principal Components

Variables

Factors

GOSFAC IORFAC IPMFAC INDIVFAC IOSFAC GSBFAC

GOS .76 .38 .36 .23 .29 .10

IOR .24 .89 .25 .20 .20 .09

IPM .25 .26 .87 .22 .23 .12

INDIV .14 .17 .17 .96 .06 .06

IOS .06 .18 .19 .06 .94 .13

GSB .06 .08 .09 .06 .11 .98

Eigenvalue.72 1.07 1.02 1.07 1.08 1.01

of factor

grades 2 and 5 in either reading or math. Three such rela-tionships in reading and mathematics are listed in Table 5-6.Weak but statistically significant correlations occurring in onlyone grade were regarded as undeserving of serious attention.

The correlations in Table 5-6 are weak, but they arestatistically significant. Except for the relationship betweenGOSFAC and UCRFAC, which was statistically significant atboth grades in mathematics only, the other three relationshipsare statistically significant in both reading and mathematics atboth grades 2 and 5. Thus, although those correlations areweak, they do persist at a statistically significant level.

Two of the persistently significant correlations involvethe orthogonalized measure (IDMFAC) of the I & R Unit'sIndividualization of Instructional Decisions (IDM).I & R Units that scored high on IDM tended to be part of aschool that scored, high on schoolwide aspects of the imple-mentation of the Instructional Programming Model (IPM) , as

92

1

Table 5-6Bivariate Relationships That Had Statistically

Significant Correlations With Student Achievementin Both Grades

Factors

Correlations

Grade 2 Grade 5

Reading

IOC FAC & LDMFAC .14 .22

INDIVFAC & IAFAC .23 .20

SIPMFAC & IDMFAC .15 .15

Mathematics

IOSFAC & LDMFAC .19 .15

INDIVFAC & IAFAC .24 .18

SIPMFAC & I OMFAC .13 .17

GUSFAC & UCRFAC .17 .17

indicated by the persistent correlation between SIPMFAC andIDMFAC, This finding is consistent with the assumption madein IGE that schoolwide implementation of the IPM affects itsimplementation at the level of individual I & R Units.I & R Units that scored high on IDM also tended to be partof a school that conformed to the intraorganizational structurerecommended for ICE schools, as indicated by the persistentcorrelation between IOSFAC and IDMFAC.

93

102

1

The other relationship marked by persistently significantcorrelations is that between INDIV (a measure of the extentto which teachers in a school believe that individual differ-ences are important to consider when making instructionaldecisions) and IA (a measure of the extent to which anI & R Unit collects information about individual differences inreading and mathematics, respectively). The correlationssupporting this statement are those between the orthogonal-ized measures INDIVFAC and IAFAC. Although these correla-tions are weak, they are persistently significant, and they dosuggest that teachers who believe in the instructional impor-tance of individual differences are more likely to collectinformation of a kind that will support the individualization ofinstructional decisions.

As mentioned earlier, the correlation between GOSFACand UCRFAC was significant at both grades 2 and 5 only inmathematics. The a priori model did predict positive correla-tion between GOS (Procedures Fostering Coordination andImprovement of the School Program) and UCR (Utilization ofI PM- compatible Curriculum Resources by I & R Units), butthe model predicted the positive correlation in both readingand mathematics, not just in mathematics.

Job SatisfactionThe premise that teacher job satisfaction is affected by

particular organizational features of IGE has been representedas a network of postulated causal links among the variables.Figure 5-2 presents the various causal links in diagram form.It shows the paths of influence assumed a priori to underliethe relationships between teacher job satisfaction and Lheother variables.

Four variables, Interorganizational Relations (10R),Procedures Fostering Coordination and Improvement of theSchool Program (GOS), Intraorganizational Structure (I0S),and General Implementation of the Instructional ProgrammingModel (SIPM), are hypothesized to relate to teacher jobsatisfaction. The model in Figure 5-2 suggests that theamount of communication with other IGE schools (10R) shouldhelp teacher s feel better about their skills and be moresatisfied wito teaching. The structural model also suggeststhat schools with a well functioning ICE program (schoolshigh on GOS, 10S, and SIPM) would have satisfied teachers.The model indicates that General Staff Background (GSB) andBelief in Individual Differences (INDIV) indirectly affectteacher job satisfaction by way of SIPM. Factors affecting

f-)

94

Inter.ryanItational

uplat,,,

! F

I

7rweviduriotsZnring

777774fM

IntraoriAn,rational

Stratori,

..rt: iifft .ci in

LBel,,f o I,A,v1h.,

SchoolwIde

teacher Job

SatlufA,,Ion

11:

.metal tmlleme.totwn

of the InHtructInnei

Pr.gratIMinq h Jet IS.Ph.

Figure 5-2. A priori model for teacher job satisfaction.(From Price, Romberg, & Janicki, 1981, p. 78.)

SIPM are discussed more completely in Technical ReportsNo. 510 and No. E.11 (Price, Janicki, Van Deventer, &Romberg, 1980a, 1980b).

As with the analyses presented already, the analysisbegan with an estimation of the a priori model. Eachendogeneous variable was regressed on its theorized causes.As a set of predictors, organizational features in the a priorimodel account for 29.1% of the variance in teacher jobsatisfaction, which is statistically significant (2. < .001). Forstudies of this kind, 29.1% of the variance is good prediction.Whether one should regard good empirical prediction like thisas practically significant depends on the interpretation givento the empirical relations, however strong they are. Byadding exogenous variables that had not been included apyori as predictors of teacher job satisfaction, the multipleR is .301, which is only a 1% increase in variance explained.That small increase is not statistically significant < .25).Since the a priori model is approximately as predictive as isthe fuller model, we are inclined to judge the a priori modelto be adequate. However, IOS had a negative regressioncoefficient, which does give some pause; the a priori model

95

BEST COPY h , 1 04

would have that coefficient be positive. The zero-ordercorrelation of IOS with JOBSAT is, in faci, positive. It is.18 (2 < .05, one-tailed test). The negative coefficient isinconsistent with the interpretation implicit in the a priorimodel. The contradictory interpretation is that the featuresmeasured by IOS have a weakly negative effect on JOBSAT,which is not apparent by examination of zero-order correla-tions because of the countervailing influence of 10R, GOS,and SIPM, with which IOS is positively correlated. However,neither the a prior interpretation nor the contradictoryinterpretation are unequivocally supported by these results.

As notes in earlier analyses, the intercorrelation ofpredictors makes any interpretation of particular coefficientstreacherous. For that reason, the procedure of orthogonaliz-ing predictors was again used. The uncorrelated, substan-tiely interpretable factors defined in Table 5-5 were used aspredictors of JOBSAT. By having predictors that are uncor-related among themselves, path coefficients can be comparedand tested without ambiguity--as long as the variables usedas predictors are themselves substantively meaningful.

Organizational features as predictors. Factors corres-ponding to three organizational features had correlations withJOBSAT that were statistically significant and of noteworthymagnitude. The factor wresponding to GOS had a correla-tion of .32 (j < .00001 ,ne-tailed test) with JOBSAT. Thefactor corresponding to IOR had a correlation of .31 (2 <.0001, one-tailed test), and the factor corresponding to SIPMhad .24 (2 < .01, one-tailed test). The zero-order correla-tion coefficients reported here are equivalent to the stan-dardized regression coefficients of JOBSAT regreised on thefactors corresponding to GOS, 10R, and SIPM (R = .261).That equivalence is inherent to perfectly uncorrelated pre-dictors. The zero-order correlation of the factor corres-ponding to 10S, another organizational variable, is .02, whichis statistically nonsignificant and trivially small.

Schoo! staff measures as predictors. Besides the fourorganizational features discussed in the preceding paragraph,two measures of the school staff, INDIV and GSB, weretreated as causally prior to JOBSAT. The correlation of thefactor corresponding to INDIV with JOBSAT is .20, which isstatistically significant (2. < .01, one-tailed test). Thecorrelation of the factor corresponding to GSB with JOBSAT,on the other hand, is -.03, which is trivially small andstatistically nonsignificant. The addition of the factor

96

corresponding to INDIV to the predictor set of GOS,210R,and 2SIPM improved the prediction of JOBSAT from R = .261to R = .299, a statistically significant increase.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of this chapter considers the findings ofthe Phase I study, dividing them for sake of exposition intofive parts.

Organizational Featuresand Instructional Practices

Part of IGE schooling consists of organizational featuresdesigned to facilitate the instructional practices that composethe Instructional Programming Model. Because those organiza-tional features have as a primary purpose the facilitation ofcertain instructional practices, the Phase I study examinedempirically the implied relations between organizationalfeatures and instructional practices. Some implied correla-tions between organizational features and instructionalpractices were borne out in the Phase I data; others werenot. The impliea relations that were borne out empiricallywere presented in Table 5-6. The practice of individualizinginstructional decisions--an instructional practice pursued tovarying degrees by I & R Units in the schools studied--doesseem to be facilitated by certain schoolwide organizationalfeatures.

Schoolwide implementation of the 1PM. The extent towhich the Instructional Programming Model (IPM) had beenimplemented by the school in general (and not simply in theI & R Units studied) was positively correlated with the degreeto which the specific ! & R Units under study engaged in theindividualization of instructional decisions. This finding maysurprise no one, but it dues attest to the susceptibility ofsmall groups of teachers to the larger (schoolwide) milieu inwhich they are situated.

Intraorganizational structure. Another aspect of thelarger milieu that was consistently associated withI & R Units' individualization of instructional decisions is theintraorganizational structure of the school. (This is a proxyfor various structural arrangements distinctive to the IGEschools, such as the organization of staff and students intoI £ R Units and the existence of a functioning InstructionalImprovement Committee.) These correlations with I & R Units'

Si

If)

individualization of instructional decisions offer some vin-dication of the organizational theory contained in the IGEsystem. According to that theory, individuals who are partof an organization are affected by controllable features of thatorganization.

Implied correlations not found. some implied cvi.,-.citionsbetween organizational teatures and instructional practiceswere not borne out by the data in a consistent fashion. Anexpected connection between the interorganizational relationsof a school and the utilization of IPM-compatible curriculummaterials by I & R units in that school was not found.

Second, the expected connections between schoolwideimplementation of the IPM and utilization of IPM-compatiblematerials by I & R Units, collection of information aboutindividual differences, and the I & R Unit's management ofvouping arid instructional continuity also were not found.

In cases such as these, where expected relations werenot found, three types of explanations can be offered. Thefirst might be called a "model-blaming" explanation, because itfaults the underlying model that has failed under test. Thesecond and third might be called "test-blaming," because theyfault the procedures that have been used to perform the testof the model. The second attributes the lack of observedrelation to faulty measurement of the predictor variables (inthis case, measures of schoolwide organizational features).This explanation seems to have little ground in this case for acouple of reasons. The Phase I measures of schoolwideorganizational features agreed reasonably well with counter-part measures obtained in the Phase II field validation study(see chapter 6). Furthermore, other parts of the model wereborne out by correlations involving these variables, a cir-cumstance which should not have arisen if these variableswere badly measured.

The third type of explanation attributes the lack ofobserved relation to faulty measurement of the predictedvariables (in this case, measures of I & R Units' instructionalpractices). This type of "test-blaming" explanation cannot beseriously disputed. There was no field validation of thesemeasures, there was abundant opportunity for distortedinformation to enter the questionnaires, and there are noredeentingly high correlations to suggest that these variableswere measured reliably. The measures of I & R Units' instruc-tional practices are the least trustworthy part of the Phase

98

J

study. For this reason, we are disinclined to engage in"model-blaming" when data involving these particular measuresof instructional practices are involved.

Staff Beliefs and Instructional PracticesThe beliefs that staff members hold about the value of

ICE are obviously important. The instructional practice ofcollecting information about individual differences betweenstudents in content areas (reading and mathematics) was, asexpected, correlated with a measure of the extent to whichteachers in a school believe that individual differences areimportant to consider when making instructional decisions. Inthe presence of other factors likely to affect this importantelement of IGE practice, it is noteworthy that its strongestpredictor in Phase I was the extent to which teachers in a

Jol believed in what one could reasonably argue is themost basic tenet of the Instructional Programming Model,namely, that individual differences are pertinent to instruc-tiona: decisions.

Instructional Practicesand Student Achievement

In no instance--not in reading, not in mathematics, notin grade 2, not in grade 5--was there a statistically signi-ficant correlation between a measure of instructional practicesand a measure of student achievement. Besides the "model-blaming" explanation for this, which would fault the Instruc-tional Programming Model, there are two other types ofexplanation. One attributes the weak relations to badmeasurement of student achievement; the other, to badmeasurement of instructional practices. Student achievement,we believe, was measured reliably. Desp:te the reliabilitywith which student achievement was measured, any standard-ized, group-administered test can be criticized as an imper-fect reflection of what children know about the area assessedby the test. Persons who wish to make that criticism of thestudent achievement measures--a criticism of construct validity-must concommitantly dismiss any favorable findings based onoutcome measures such as these. We have already mentionedthe low trust we place in our measures of instructional prac-tices. Consequently, unreliability in those measures mayhave attenuated correlations between instructional practicesand studeut achievement. For that reason, we are disinclinedto use this particular negative finding as a basis for"model-blaming."

99

106

Organizational Featuresand Student Achievement

Expected correlations between organizational features andstudent achievement were not found, despite reliable measure-ment of both classes of variables. All measures of organiza-tional features were trivially and nonsignificantly associatedwith student achievement measures. With regard to thisnegative finding, a "model-blaming" explanation is the mostplausible. Specifically, these findings indicate that imple-mentation of the surface organizational features with whichIGE is commonly identified offers no assurance at all thatstudent achievement will be raised. Evidently, the instruc-tional effectiveness of I & R Units included in Phase I did notdepend on the degree to which IGE organizational featureshad been implemented in the school of which they were part.This finding (based on questionnaire data) resonates with thefindings of other phases of the IGE evaluation, all of whichhave converged on the conclusion that surface orthodoxyreveals little if anything about the value of an educationalprogram. Nor does it reveal whether the Instructional Pro-gramming Model is practiced in a form that would be recog-nizable by its developers.

Correlates of Teachers' Job SatisfactionThe foregoing discussion followed a long-standing

tra.'ition in educational evaluation by gauging the worth of aneducational,option on the basis of its effects on the students.There do exist other grounds on which to evaluate educationalprograms. In an era when "teacher burnout" has become ahousehold word, one evident alternative is to evaluate theeffects of programs on staff -n-mie. On those grounds, threeorganizational features common associated with IGE farewell. Three schoolwide organ' nal features have positivecorrelations (and positive path . vfficients) with the schoolwide measure of teacher job satisfaction. Those three featuresare: (1) the interorganizational relations of the school,(2) the existence of procedures fostering coordination andimprovement of the school program, and (3) general, school-wide implementation of the Instructional Programming Model.Underlying these positive relations appear to be two factors.One is that teachers like the contact with other adults pro-vided by !GE, especially the contact with a professionalnetwork that extend beyond their particular school. Theother is that job Satisfaction is derived from a belief thattheir instructional efforts are effective, a belief commonlyheld by teachers of schools in which the IPM had been imple-mented on a schoolwide basis.

-I

100

ReferencesBarth, R. S. So you want to change to an open classroom.

Phi Delta Kappan, 1971, 53, 97-99.

Cromwell, R. L. Locus of control and symbolic reinforce-ments in the mentally retarded. Acta Psychologica,1964, 23, 336-337.

De Vault, M. V. Descriptor for individualized instruction.Madison: Wisconsin Center for the Analysis of indivi-dualized Instruction, 1971.

Goldberger, A. Econmetric theory. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Gordon, R. A. Issues in multiple regression. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 1968, 77, 592-616.

Harris, M. L., & Harris, C. W. A structure of conceptattainment abilities. Madison: Wisconsin Research andDevelopment Center for Individualized Schooling, 1973.

Ironside, R. A. The 1971-72 nationwide installation of themultiunit/IGE model for elementary schools: A processevaluation (OEC-0-71-3705). Princeton: EducationalTesting Service, 1972. (ED 066 623)

Ironside, R. A., & Conway, L. IGE evaluation, Phase IIon-site validation and descriptive study: Final report(Technical Report No. 499). Madison: Wisconsin Re-search and Development Center for Individualized School-ing, 1979.

Klausmeier, H. J. Individually guided education in elemen-tary and middle schools: A handbook for implementorsand college instructors (Preliminary edition). Madison:ICE Teacher Education Proiect, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1976.

Klausmeier, H. J. , Karges, M. L., & Krupa, W. E. Outcomesof IGE and performance objectives for implementation.In H. J. Klausmeier, R. A. Rossmiller, & M. Saily(Eds.), Individually guided elementary education:Concepts and practices. New York: Academic Press,1977.

101

Klopp, P. M., Buchanan, A. c., Stewart, D. M., & Romberg,T. A. Conduct of the. study: Phase I of the IGE evalua-tion (Working Paper No. 258). Madison: WisconsinResearch and Development Center for IndividualizedSchooling, 1979.

Upham, J. M., & Fruth, M. J. The principal and individ-ually guided education. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,1976.

Mendenhall, D. R. Relationship of organizational structureand leadership behavior to staff satisfaction in 1GEschools (Technical Report No. 412). Madison: WisconsinResearch and Development Center for IndividualizedSchooling, 1977.

Price, G. G. Sampling for Phase I of the ICE evaluation(Working Paper No. 223). Madison: Wisconsin Researchand Development Center for Individualized Schooling,1977.

Price, G. G., Janicki, T. C., Howard, J. A., Stewart, D.M., Buch,..nan, A. E., & Romberg, T. A. Overview ofschool and unit variables and their structural relationsin Phase I of the IGE evaluation (Technical Report, No.475). Madison; Wisconsin Research and DevelopmentCenter for Individualized Schooling, 1978.

Price, G. G., Janicki, T. C., Van Deventer, H. C., Jr., &Romberg, T. A. Organizational and instructional featuresthat affect grade 2 and grade 5 reading achievement inWE schools: A causal model analysis (Technical ReportNo. 510). Madison: Wisconsin Research and DevelopmentCenter for Individualized Schooling, I98C. (a)

Price, G. G., Janicki, T. C., Van Deventer, H. C., Jr., &Romberg, T. A. Organizational and instructional fea-tures that affect grade 2 and grade 5 math achievementin WE schools: A causal analysis (Technical Report No.511 ) . Madison: Wisconsin Research and DevelopmentCenter for Individualized Schooling, 1980. (b)

Price, G. G., Romberg, T. A., & Janicki, T. C. ICE evalua-tion Phase 1 summary report (Technical Report No. 578).Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 1981.

Stewart, D. M. Instrumentation for Phase I of the IGEevaluation. (Unpublished Project Paper 77 -I). Madison:Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Individual-ized Schooling, 1977.

102

CHAPTER 6

Phase II: THE ON-SITE VALIDATIONOF IGE IMPLEMENTATION.Roderick A. Ironside and Larry A. Conaway

As outlined in chapter 3, there were three primarypurposes for this phase of the project.

1. To validate and clarify both specific and general Phase I

self-report data at school and unit levels. Topics includedbasic school information, schoolwide objectives, IGE subjectsand instructional programming, IIC and unit operations, re-sponse sets, disparate staff ratings on IGE status items,apparent inconsistencies in related responses.

2. To gather new and extended information for (a) descrip-tive purposes, (b) possible use in Phase I analysis, and (c)development of hypotheses. Topics included implementationhistory, Phase I testing conditions, staff developmentactivities, the Home School-Community Relations component,instructional modes, awareness and utilization of state IGEnetworks at various levels.

3. To study the dynamics of the IGE implementation andmaintenance processes in a range of situations, from an"outside" perspective. This purpose allowed the team visitorsto pursue additional topics and to derive somewhat personalperceptions of the nature of IGE beyond the formalrequirements related to the two objectives above.

THE VALIDATION PROCESSThe sort of validation carried out in the Phase II study

must be understood as nonstatistical. One might look at thePhase I I validation effort, in other words, as an attempt tosuggest on an essentially impressionistic basis the extent towhich Phase I responses may be construed as providingaccurate descriptions of the IGE status and activities of thePhase I I sample. Three validation approaches were used inthe Phase II study: (1) validation through direct confirma-tion of data, the most commonly employed approach; (2) vali-dation by means of supportive and related information; and(3) validation as the fulfillment of intended procedures.

*This chapter is condensed from the final reportsubmitted by Ironside and Conaway of Research TriangleInstitute. The condensation was done by Deborah M.Stewart, project monitor for the Phase II subcontract.

103

112

It was possible to confirm Phase I responses to a seriesof questionnaire items by means of direct discussion of itemsin the field (sometimes with reference to the school's Phase Idata), interviews, observations, and study of materials. Inthis sense, corroboration was accomplished by both direct andindirect means, where the purpose was to verify the )riginalknown response.

The supportive approach of gathering related informationwas employed in Phase II in connection with extension materialon such topics as instructional practices, objectives, andcooperative planning. Even where such related items werenot exactly the same as the origin& Phase I items, they wereused for validation purposes judgmentally so long as thePhase I responses were known. In this sense, too, it waspossible to employ the broad judgments that emerged from thesite visit to each school and across 411 thirty schools.

With respect to the third approach to validation, PhaseII provided an opportunity to examine the extent to which thePhase I instruments elicited the requisite information, thenature of respondent reactions to the instruments per se, andthe relationship between the quality of data obtained and thevariables with which those data were associated. They maybe viewed as validation in the least rigorous sense, since it isdependent upon the judgments of the participants--Phase Irespondents and Phase II site visitors/interviewers. Itnonetheless provides one basis for judging the efficacy ofvarious Phase I instruments and the implications for theseveral variables represented.

PROCEDURE

SampleResearch Triangle Institute (RTI) and Center staff

jointly set up criteria to select schools from the Phase Iroster.

The Phase II sample of 30 schools was characterized asfollows:

1. Located in 16 states from coast to coast, with a purposefuldeenuphasis on proportional representation from several stateswith large numbers of IGE schools; no more than 6 schools inany one state; most states had I or 2 schools.

104

2. Initial relationships with one or a combination of threesorts of agencies (R & D Center, /I/D/E/A/, or a stateeducational agency).

3. IGE initiation spread from 1969 to 1975.

4. School size from fewer than 150 students to more than1200.

5. Total scores on the ICE Implementation Survey rangingfrom 24 to 285 of a possible total 308 (in two subgroups:scores 24-132 and 191-285).

With respect to the last characterization, one feature ofsample selection was that half of the schools were torepresent the bottom of the scale and half the top.

Extensive communication by telephone and mall withschool principals, district personnel, and state IGE networkcontacts occurred as arrangements were made for the Phase IIsite visits.

Topical OutlineTo provide structure for the school visits, a Topical

Outline of content was developed. While the Center took onmajor responsibility for identifying the specific validationtopics, RTI undertook the major developmental work in the"new information" topics. The outline was accompanied by aTeam Visit Report Form for RTI staff. This form allowed forcollection of specific categorical information as well as entryof narrative material.

I. SCHOOLWIDE CONTENT AND TOPICS

A. New Information and Extended Information1. School implementation history2. Cost factors3. Inservice training4. Home-School-Community Relations5. Unanticipated outcomes

105

114

B. Ver ification- Clarification1. IGE School Survey verification, Staff Information

Sheet, and local demography2. MC Structure and Function Questionnaire3. IGE Implementation Survey4. Assumptions about Schooling and about Learning

II. UNIT CONTENT AND TOPICS

A. New Information and Extended Information1. CTBS and local curriculum match2. Student curriculum activities and progress3. Conditions of Phase I testing

B. Verification-Clarification1. Unit Questionnaire2. Unit Practices

Site VisitsVisits ofl from 1 1/2 to 2 days each took place in the

period from early March to late May 1978. Typically, a teamof two professionals made the visit, Interviewed and observedboth individually and as a team, and conferred on theirfindings. In all, eleven different individuals participated inthe field work, each visiting a total of from two to eightschools. This group of persons comprised nine RTI profes-sional staff and two consultants.

Four major modes of data collection were used: Inter-view, observation, study of relevant materials, and atten-dance at stated meetings. Data collected during the visitswere supplemented in all cases by relevant Phase II informa-tion obtained in advance from the principal, and In somecases by follow-up telephone contact to clarify visit findings.

FINDINGSEarly in the contract period the mate ial for validation,

extension, and new information needs was subsumed intomajor questions that would serve as focal points in the in-quiry. The findings and interpretations respond to thesequestions, which are as follows:

1. To what extent do the Phase I survey results reflectreality with respect to the school and IGE? Did staff answercarefully and honestly? Were procedures and directionsfollowed?

106

113

2. What are the turning points in implementation, points atwhich problems to be overcn,ne appear insurmountable andafter which there is a period of smooth continuing operation?

3. Are there general indicators or predictors of success/failure as an ICE school?

4. What are the specific features of implementation history ofgiven schools? Are there particular patterns?

5. Is the staff attitude consistent with the concepts under-lying ICE? Do individuals vary in their assumptions abouteducation?

6. Is there cooperative planning regarding the Instructionalprogram? Does it incorporate various teachers' strengths?Does it provide for continuous progress?

7. How is the IPM implemented and is it based on specificschooiwide instructional objectives? What are the relatedcurriculum practices and how are the IGE subjects handled?

8. Is there a recognition of things well done coupled with afeeling of working toward improvement? Is the current statusonly temporarily satisfactory and thus plans laid for newgrowth? Are external sources sought'

9. Is there benefit from the networks (at various levels)?Are the networks a source for refinement and renewal'

10. Does IGE cost too much, in time, money, energy? Is itworth it? In addition to reporting results over the entirePhase I I sample of 30 schools, rIT I conducted an exploratoryinquiry using two subgroups of schools in an effort to as-certain whether high- and low- ...iplementing schools differedsystematically. Each subgroup consisted of seven schools,chosen on the basis of original total self-report implementationscore and judgments arrived at after the field visits. Bothsets of "ratings" reflect overall implementation status as ofthe 1977-76 school year. Implementation scores of the lowsubgroup ranged from 24 to 125 and high subgroup, from 122to 285. The high subgroup score of 122 was judged an under-estimate; this group is better described as having scores from200 to 285. Scores 214 and 285 are the very lowest and veryhighest scores (of a possible implementation score of 308) ofall schools involved in Phases I and II.

101

116

Validation of Phase I ResultsThe staff in almost all schools attempted to follow the

survey procedures and answer the questions carefully andhonestly, although there were some difficulties reported thatalso affect the "reflection of reality." For example, personnelin about one-half of the schools indicated that survey instru-ments included many ambiguous terms--and in a fair numberof the schools there was a reaction that the surveys were toolong. But local conditions in a few cases exacerbated thesedifficulties, caused Phase I to represent a special pressurebecause school had begun late, there had just been a teachers'union strike, enrollment changes had caused alteration ofschedules and assignments, or a new principal had beenappointed effective September 1977. In addition, in someschools it was mentioned that many survey items dealt withmore than one element (as in the Implementation Survey), andthat the level of detail asked for in connection with instruc-tional practices in various curricula was somewhat taxing.

With respect to what may be called the "IGE environ-ment," a major concern (apparent in about one-third of theschools) was that the entire school or a significant part of itwas not well enough acquainted with IGE concepts and termin-ology to respond intelligently to a number of specific "ICEitems." Many staff reported, nonetheless, that they hadproceeded to respond either by guesswork or through consul-tation with others. Moreover, in several schools there wasnotable variation in the degree of acquaintance with IGE,making it difficult to obtain centrality in survey resultswithin or across un'ts.

The RTI team at each School arrived at its own ratingsof II key items from the IGE Implementation `iurvey that allschool staff members had been asked to complete. Both thec.taff ratings and the RTI ratings were made on a scalefrom 0, no implementation of the stated IGE concept, to 4,ideal implementation of the IGE concept. While both ratingshave some obvious limitationF, comparisons were made of thedifference between ratings, ignoring location on the 0-4 scale.

Table. 6-1 shows the frequency of the diffc.'rences, in .05increments, across all items and across all schools. Thereare two distinct tendencies in these data. First, of the totalpossible 30(' comparisons, 129 (or 39$) show virtual compatibil-ity of the two ratings; second, of the remainder, a strongmajority, 40`z., place the Phase II ratings below those rendered

108

117

Table 6-1Comparison of Phase II and Phase I Ratings for

11 Key Items on ICE Implementation Survey

Phase II/Phase I Rating Comparison

Ratings

Number

Phase II rating higher

by 2.1 to 2.5 2 1

by 1.6 to 2.0 11 3

by 1.1 to 1.5 14 4

by .6 to 1.0 36 11

Phase II rating same (+.5) 129 39

Phase II rating lower

by .6 to 1.0 70 21by 1.1 to 1.5 27 8

by 1.6 to 2.0 22 6by 2.1 to 2.5 10 3

by 2.6 to 3.0 7 2

Pnase II unable to rate 2 1

TOTA1. 330 99

in Phase 1, while 19% show Phase II ratings higher than thoseof the Phasc !. It appears that the majority ofschools were rated higher fo- these eleven items by thesLhonl staffs in Phase l than by the Phase P. visit teams.

Quality of staff responles to the Phase I questionnairesdiffered in the high- anH IcA.-implementing groups of schools.Based on all the sources of information available in Phase II(including the apparent extent !so which school staffs in totowere knowledgeable of ICE concepts and terminology), itseems clear that the low group were not only less informedabout IGE anC Phase I but also less inclined to participate.Many staff in the low group reported as much by acknowledg-ing hurry, resist Ice, carelessness, pressure, and the like inthe way they handled Phase I requirements, with the notableexception of student testh1g.

109

118

This overall attitudinal domain is especially important toconsider because, in the present case, it refers to respon-dents' general reactions to and handling of Phase I instru-ments and requirements, not merely the particular items orsubinstruments specifically marked for validation work inPhase II. In addition--and we feel this to be a clue ofconsiderable significance--the more a school or a staff wasremoved from IGE, the networks, terminology, expectations,implementation criteria, resources, and the like, the greaterthe tendency to dismiss the importance of Phase I and thus totreat it somewhat casually. From both the total implemen-tation scores and the Phase II field judgments, it is clear thatthe low group as a whole was quite far removed from the IGEmainstream, at least by the 1977-78 school year.

Unit staffs were asked about the quality of the testingsituation and, thus, test results as well as the content matchbetween the local curriculum and Comprehensive Tests ofBasic Skills (CTBS) reading and mathematics tests.

Unit staffs discussed the CTBS, examined copies, andrendered group judgments about toe match between CTBScontent and the curriculum in gene-al in 1977-78 in thoseunits (in fall 19;17 where that could be specified). Thefindings presented in Table 6-2 should be interpreted asgroc.6 indications of match, since many respondents found itnerd to relate the measures to the fall 1977 curriculum,expressed reservations about standardized tests in general,and otherwise found this task somewhat difficult (note thenumber of unit with unclear responses, for example).Overall, Unit 5 groups judged a considerably higher level oftest/curriculum consonance than did Unit 2 groups, for allsubtests.

Testing conditions themselves were explored based onrecollections of unit staffs, principals, aides, counselors, orothers who had administered the me isures; some individualsrecalled the details vividly, while most had some difficultyrecreating the situation. The responses for Unit 2 and Unit5 group:, were remarkably similar; thus what is discussedhere is across the 30 schools. In 23 schools (76%) staffreaction was that the tests were appropriate and adequate;staff in 5 schools (16%) reported feeling that the tests wereinappropriate. Reactions from staff in the other 2 schools(7%) could not be fit into the appropriate/inappropriatedichotomy.

110

11J

Table 6-2Degree of CTI3S and Local Curriculum Match

(30 units at each grade)

Local Curriculum Match

CTBS Subtest None Little Moderate Lot Much NA ?*

Grade 2 Units

Reading Vocabulary 1 5 6 5 7 1 5

Reading Comp, Passages 1 3 10 7 6 1 2

Reading Comp, Sentences 1 3 8 8 7 1 2

Math Computation 1 6 9 8 3 1 2

Math Concepts & Applic. 5 11 8 3 1 2

Grade 5 Units

Reading Vocabulary 1 5 10 10 1 3

Reading Comp (General) 2 3 12 11 1 1

Math Computation 2 6 8 12 1 1

Math Concepts & Applic. 2 7 10 9 1 1

*Unclear response.

Staff in 26 schools (86%) reported that test adminis-tration conditions would lead to trustworthy results, whilestaff in 2 schools (7%) reported the opposite. Againresponses from 2 schools could not be categorized.

Turning Points in IGE ImplementationThis was an exploratory inquiry in the sense that it

represents a byproduct of Phase II rather than a focus.There was, for example, no attempt to pursue the topic indepth or to validate any findings against outside measures inany formal way. The question may well be worth a survey initself, especially to those interested in expanding and/orrefining IGE implementation.

Principals and others were asked to identify turningpoints in terms of "points at which problems to be overcomeseem insurmountable and after which there is a period of

111

123

smooth operation." For discussion purposes, the primaryresponse of each school is included in Table 6-3; these breakout into three distinct groups: (a) one-half the schoolsreported points or circumstances that were viewed as positiveforces; (b) one-fourth reported negative points; and (c) theremainder gave either an unclear response or reported noparticular turning point. In connection ith the latter, staffmembers were unable to identify turning points. In somecases this was because they felt the program had always runsmoothly or that it gradually ran smoother each year as theygained more experience with ICE concepts and implementationstrategies; in other cases, this was because the IGE programwas still facing problems and had not yet become a smooth-running operation. Certainly the school's perception of pastand present status, along with its ability to identify keyfactors in the implementation process, affect the relevance ofthe responses provided.

Schools providing any sort of direct response fell intotwo categories: those who associated the turning point withthe advent of a smooth running operation, and those whoassociated it with stagnation or decline of the IGE program.Within both categories there was a wide range of responses.

One-third of the schools indicated a positive turningpoint associated with staff acceptance and implementation ofthe multiunit organization including full operation of the I IC.In five other schools, related turning points were associatedwith parent approval, successful delineation of curricularobjectives, and the IPM. In connection with the latter-perhaps the only surprise in the data obtained--two schoolsreported that the turning point for successful operation wasrelated to cutting back the initial IGE thrust. These staffmembers felt that the goals for implementation were set un-realistically high for the first years, and the goals were laterset at more attainable levels. Specific examples includeddropping science as an IGE subject area, reducing studentmovement during the school day, and reducing emphasis onthe IPM.

1 urning points associated with a decline in the IGEprogram a I so related to circumstances either at the outset ofimplementation or considerably later on. Several schoolsreferred to influences outside the school, usually at theflistrict level, as noted in Table 6-3. Staff at a few schoolsindicated that the program was hurt by more internal prob-lems, such as a unilateral decision to implement IGE without

112

1 2

Table 6-3Reported Turning Points in Implementation Sequence

Turning PointsNumber ofSchools

POSITIVE

Joint staff decision to go IGE 2

Recruitment of good staff, removal of weak staff 3or UL

Staff acceptance and implementation of multiunit 4organization

Full operation of the IIC (its several roles) 1

Parent approval and involvement 1

Successful delineation of objectives in subject 2areas

Reduced emphasis on IPM and multiaging 2

NEGATIVE

P made unilateral decision to go IGE 1

Recordkeeping requirement 2

Minimal training/assistance for staff at outset 1

Mass reassignment of staff to subjects and grades 2(by district decree)

Concurrent district dicta: narrow curriculum defined,no funds for inservice, reduced number of aides, nomore student teachers

Concurrent interactive factors: loss of aides, loss 1of planning time, reduced Board support, reducedstaff commitment, greater cost..

Unclear 2

None reported 5

113

122

staff support or the demands of the recordkeeping system.The impact of negative factors was sometimes in terms ofmultiple circumstances rather than single turning points.

In the comparative analysis of high and low schools, theidentification of turning points in implementation showed aclear difference between the two groups. The high groupreported no turning points or only positive ones; the lowgroup reported only negative turning points.

Predictors of Success in IGEThis question is highly related to the one just dis-

cus.ed. Again, Phase II reports represent a byproduct,since Phase II did not specify criteria in advance or focusspecial attention on this inquiry. Whereas turning pointsreflect school staff assessments of their history, the findingsdiscussed here are restricted to RTI team judgments andgeneral observations. in view of the literature and commonknowledge about IGE, nothing reported here appears to be atall unusual or unexpected, but rather a reinforcement of thegeneral wisdom about what is required in order for anydramatic change in school practice to flourish and prosper.

Phase II visit teams were unable to identify generalindicators of success or failure as an IGE school in one-sixthof the schools.

In terms of success, the general indicators reported mostfrequently have to do with the school staff, for nearly halfthe schools including at least one of the following: a majorityof the staff made a joint decision to initiate IGE in the school,or many of the school staff members displayed a willingness towork extra hours and work cooperatively in initiating andimplementing the ICE program. Success is also attributed toindividual student achievement and growth, substantialparental support, and continued inservice activities of apractical sort for learning and rejuvenation.

In terms of failure, the general indicators again have todo with the school staff, including one of the following inabout one-third of the schools: a unilateral decision by thesuperintendent or principal to initiate !GE against resistancefrom, or without the participation of, a majority of the staffwho were unwilling to devote time and energy in moving awayfrom traditional practices; or as time passed, decreasingattention to student re-evaluation and regrouping, causing areturn to practices characteristic of the self-contained class-

114

123

room. Other indicators of failure appear to be lack of leader-ship by the principal; changes in enrollment bringing aboutunfortunate teacher assignment changes; inadequate buildingand facilities; unionization; lack of cross fertilization withother IGE schools; and lack of actual individualization andapplication of the IPM.

The comparison of high- and low-implementing schoolswas intended in part to determine whether special indicatorsexist in school IGE history that might differentiate the twogroups. The two groups were virtually identical in thefrequency and range of reasons for going ICE given byschool principals and others. The same is true for the initialimplementation step, the kinds of assistance provided by thekey originating agency identified by the school, and therange of personnel trained in the first two "major trainingevents."

Features of Implementation HistoryInitial training from external agencies. Most schools

noted the Importance of initial training for any chance ofsuccess as an IGE school, and all but one reported some sortof formal initial training event for all or part of the schoolstaff. There were many different resources for the initialtraining, such as states (SEA and SICC), teacher educationinstitutions, various network agencies in the broad sense(HUB, intermediate agencies, district or diocest: facilitators),workshops conducted at or by the R & D Center, and work-shops conducted by district and/or school personnel them-selves. Staff members in many schools mentioned that theexperiences associated with early awareness and training werevital to IGE implementation; when they were successful, therewas good impetus for the program, and when they wereineffective, it was difficult for them to start the program.

A major problem which was mentioned in many schoolswas that few staff members had received training directlyfrom experienced personnel fully acquainted with IGEconcepts, potential obstacles, and effective implementationstrategies. Many of those interviewed felt that this had beena major drawback of the existing "networks" in the initialyears of IGE (i.e., roughly 1970-1974). This observation. maybe interpreted as a school-level reaction to the training chainconcepts implemented in the early years.

Initiation of IGE at the local school. Schools reported awide variety of "reasons for going IGE" (1-5 reasons perschool), with the large majority related to IGE concepts such

115

124

as differentiated staffing, improved educational opportunity,predisposition of staff or building to the IGE patterns. Onlya very few reasons (or schools) involved an irrelevant mattersuch as a district requirement. Appropriate motivations tojoin IGE were usually followed by obtaining a commitmentthrough participation of the total school staff and districtpersonnel, and sometimes such others as parents, the schoolboard, a TEI, the Center, or a league.

About two-thirds of the schools reported the earlyplanning of the implementation of the seven components in asequenced organized way, suggesting awareness of all sevenand some realization of their interrelatedness. (Most of theremainder had no set plan for component sequence or couldnot report on this because of the time lapse involved.)Some, however, apparently expected to initiate the full IGEpattern all at once and very soon (within the first twomonths), while half the schools expected initiation of theirplans to require twelve months or longer.

The majority of schools reported a formal staff trainingevent (2-5 days) before school opening for the year, with theremainder having one at or after that point. And while halfthe sample reported a second such formal training early inthe installation period, it was not the rule for the total staffto be involved or trained even across both such sessions.The basic content of these formal events concentrated onconcepts and philosophy, management and planning, and themultiunit structure (all important and necessary) at theexpense of the IPM, instructional objectives, and curricula forimplementation. Frequently these gaps were filled by sub-sequent staff development activities at the school or extra-school levels, but not all schools had (or recalled) suchtraining.

As schools looked back at their history, they noted thatit took 1-4 years to initiate the ICE components (comparedwith less than one year to 2 1/2 years in the initial plans).In abc ut two-thirds of the schools, 6 or 7 of the 7 compon-ents were reportedly initiated in that period. In this groupof schools, component 7, Research and Development, wasconsistently either the last to be implemented or not yetimplemented as of spring 1978. The other somewhat consistentpatterns were for the Multiunit Organization to be initiatedfirst and for the IPM to be initiated fifth or sixth in thesequence.

116

12i

Current IGE stuff development. Two-thirds of theschools make some provision for new staff to becomeacquainted with IGE, depending as a rule more on informalthan formal approaches and most often scheduled beforeschool opening or within the first month. The informality ofthis training, plus the fact that just over one-third of theschools had a 1977-78 preschool workshop (or equivalent),suggest the somewhat minimal extent of "annual IGE renewal"in the Phase II sample.

While the schoolwide inservice training is frequently wellorganized, related to IGE components, based on staff needs,and scheduled on a regular basis, the Phase II teams nonethe-less took away the impression that such training was oftennot adequate to staff needs (in terms of time or content) orwas approached more as general than as IGE inservice.

Patterns in implementation history. As the specific dataand the discussion above are studied, several patterns inimplementation history--at least so far as the Phase II sampleis concerned -can be discerned. These are outlined below,some in relation to school practice and some in terms of thelarger ICE context.

1. From the schools' viewpoint and in connection withspecific evidence available, considerably more technicalassistance, basic information, and training were available inthe early years of IGE installation than in recent years or atthe present (1978).

2. Similarly, recourse he networks (at all levels, butprincipally the state levell, and network-initiated assistancein installing new ICE schools as well as in helping establishedschools to refine IGE, has diminished.

3. While virtually all schools reported one initial formaltraining event (and half reported a second) plus variousamounts of IGE-related inservice training during the firstinstallation year, the amount of such inservice had reducedmarkedly by 1978. This appears to hold true for "inservicein general" as well as for strictly IGE-related staff devel-opment activity.

4. Similarly, the level of self-direction appears to havediminished over time. This relates to commitment, use ofimplementation criteria, self-assessment, planning, adherenceto the basic concepts, seeking outside resources, and so on.The actual level of commitment and IGE activity reported inPhase II suggest a reduced level of implementation in manyschools and a certain stagnation in a few others.

111

126

5. The home-School-Community activity, perhaps givenheightened importance in the first year or two, does notappear to enjoy recognition as an IGE component or to begiven special attention beyond the sorts of communication thatmost schools engage in.

6. Similarly, while a good deal of attention was given at theoutset to the IPM and a good deal of activity has revolvedaround it, this component has not emerged as either a specialinput or notable output of IGE in practice. It seems not toowell understood by many staff members, and where it isunderstood and accepted there are often obstacles such aslack of aides, loss of unit planning time, reduced willingnessto engage in detailed recordkeeping.

7. The range and frequency of reported impacts/conse-quences are about the same for the initial period as for thecurrent period, in terms of both positive and negative im-pacts. Both negative and positive outcomes continue to bereported up to the present (1978), including strong positiveoutcomes in a number of schools in this sample.

8. In practice, among Phase II schools, "IGE" appears tohave changed somewhat from a comprehensive attempt toachieve an integratQd instructional and organizational milieu toa way of denoting either the use of certain types of curricu-lar materials or a coordinated attempt to accomplish some levelof individualization. In the process of change, the IPM andits technical schemathe very heart of IGE conceptually-appear to have been replaced by the multiunit organization asthe most identifiable aspect of IGE at the same time that someindividually guided education continues to be implemented.

It seems reasonable to infer that these patterns areinterrelated. The existence and availability of outside re-sources, for example, will affect their value and utilization,and in turn this will influence the school's perception of itsgoals, its status, and its potential level of success--as well asits actual efforts in effecong change or accomplishing indi-vidually guided instruction.

Staff Agreement with IGE ConceptsIn view of much that has already been reported about

staff awareness and commitment, it is reasonable to theorizethat considerable variation in staff attitude would obtain alongwith meaningful differences in their assumptions about educa-tional practice.

118

The Phase II visit teams reported that the consistency ofstaff attitudes with respect to the concepts underlying IGEfalls into three categories: (I) a great majority of the staffmembers in about one-third of the schools had attitudes veryconsistent with the concepts underlying ICE; (2) in aboutone-half of the schools, there was a good deal of consonance,but either a significant number of the staff did not haveattitudes consistent with IGE concepts or the school did notimplement certain components of IGE; and (3) in the re-mainder of the schools, there was overall a lack of con-sistency with regard to IGE concepts. When these judgmentswere reduced to a simple Yes-No rating for the overall staffattitude and acceptance of underlying IGE concepts, theresult was Yes, 23 schools, and No, 7 schools. It seemsclear, however, that some of the Yes judgments are moderatedby the recognition that the majority of school staff acceptIGE-like concepts but do not (or have not yet) put all ofthem (or even the most important of them) into practice.

In the schools exhibiting the most consistency, it wassometimes noted that there was a great deal of staff unity orthat the staff was young and vigorous. It was also fre-quently true that new teachers were required to undergopreservice orientation or that many of the teachers hadserved as student teachers or interns in IGE schools beforeteaching in their present school.

Of those schools showing a lack of consistency withregard to IGE concepts, most included some staff memberswho have attitudes consistent with IGE concepts but thesepeople were definitely in the minority. There was alsogenerally a great deal of variation in attitudes and practicesacross Units, with IGE practices also in the minority.

Cooperative Instructional PlannningIn more than half the schools, the teams concluded that

there was strong evidence of cooperative planning regardingthe instructional program at the Unit level. In most of theseschools, cooperative planning was evidenced in instructionalmanagement, staff differentiation, and providing for con-tinuous student progress. In the remainder, staff differen-tiation appeared more firmly entrenched than did continuousprogress.

In about one-third of the schools, there was someevidence of cooperative planning at the Unit level, with littleor no leadership and coordination across the Units. In someof these schools, a moderate level of cooperative planning

119

123

took place in all Units, while in others it appeared in onlysome Units.

In the .emaining one-sixth of the schools, there wasalmost no evidence of cooperative Unit planning regarding theinstructional program. In these schools there was no func-tioning IIC to exert leadership or to provide coordination.Although there was some evidence of either staff differen-tiation or continuous student progress in individual Units, theefforts were weak, and they failed to have a significantpositive effect on the overall school instructional program.

Implementation of the IPMTwo general approaches were taken in exploring IPM

implementation. One was to observe, interview, and studymaterials in Units 2 and 5 in an attempt to synthesize IPMelements and determine whether or not they comprised theclassic IPM or possibly some variant of it. This "new in-formation" task proved difficult to accomplish because of thevariable Unit structures, and the many staff members whowere not conversant with IPM operations or concepts. Thesecond approach was to attempt to verify the accuracy ofreported ICE subjects through discussion of schoolwideobjectives and recordkeeping activities. This validation taskalso proved difficult because various subjects could not befollowed up in all Units and because what looked like school-wide practices in fact were often limited to certain Units (oreven parts of Units). In addition, designation of IGE sub-jects by principals was influenced by variable local definitionsof certain curricula, resulting in confusion over just what wasand was not a discrete IGE subject.

The IPM component--with its instructional objectives,status measurement, recordkeeping, continuous progress,grouping, instruction, and staff planning--was discussedthroughout the complete Phase II report in different contexts.Unit definitions of specific instructional objectives were notedalong with the finding that, in half the sample, schoolwideobjectives apparently do not exist for certain subjects ascriginally reported, resulting in variation in IP"1 imple-mentation at the Unit level. Similarly, staff reactions toassessment, grouping, and recordkeeping were reported,revealing somewhat limited practices and somewhat restrictiveattitudes. The fact, too, that many Unit 2 and Unit 5teachers described their typical instructional modes asclassroom groups within the Unit--combined with the findingthat many "Units" exist more as convenient administrative

120

123

entities than as instructional groupings--suggest a milieu inwhich it would be difficult for a strong implementation of theIPM to occur. It would be difficult to describe what Istypical, because overall the IPM appears to be eithur poorlyunderstood or partially implemented, and in a significantnumber of schools the IPM takes second place to the priorityplaced on the multiunit organization. The IPM itself hasseveral interrelated elements, and it is not always easy to seeall of them operating conjointly at the school or Unit levelespecially where the model does not appear to be perceived asa unified whole.

It is clear, however, that the IPM can function in smallgroups (such as multiaged or single-aged self-containedclassrooms) and Phase II gives ample evidence of this. Anumber of committed teachers operate in the IPM mold in oneor two subjects--in their own contained classrooms, in theirpersonally developed subunits with some cooperation from oneanother teacher or in other situations. And while a fewschools follow the IPM in a highly professional way in multi-aged Units and in three or even four subjects, this is nottypical for Phase II schools. Inasmuch as the classic IPM isexpected to work best where it is adopted schoolwide andwhere the total staff teaching multlaged groups of children isboth cognizant and committed, these isolated cases of positiveUnit autonomy may not be as effective as desired.

Refinement and Renewal AttitudesThe Phase II visit teams found many positive indications

of pride in the school program and a general recognition ofthings well done in about two-thirds of the schools, irre-spective of ICE status. They also found active seeking ofimprovement in about one-third of the schools, includinggeneral efforts across the school program and specific effortssuch as staff cooperation on curriculum development andrevised student reporting systems. These feelings of prideand accomplishment as well as efforts toward improvementwere not limited to ICE elements, however. They includedoverall school programs with their unique adaptations of ICEcomponents, and applied in one or two cases where ICE is nolonger recognized. It would likely require a case-studyapproach to these schools, with all that implies, to examinethis whole question definitively in terms of ICE status,renewal, and refinement.

Of the remaining one-third of the schools, some general-ly accepted the Status quo while a few others almost totally

121

flu

lacked pride in the educational program and were making littleeffort to improve. Again, this applied to the overall schoolprogram as well as to IGE operations.

State Network BenefitsFor purposes of this question, network is defined broad-

ly to include state networks, leagues, PACTs. HUBs, and anyother such organizations outside the individual school--withemphasis on the state-level organization but also conceived asthe total matrix of such resources.

About one-third of the schools reported that they cur-rently receive some positive benefits from the network ingeneral or vicw the network as an important source both ofmaterials and enrichment. Among the specifics mentionedwere: statewide ICE conferences; newsletters; regional,league, or other inservice or "sharing" meetings from time totime; joint activity (within a league) at self-evaluation; AIGE*as a "supernetwork" in relation to annual conferences; trad-ing ideas on curricula; general and specific courses at TEIs.Overall, however, when specific benefits were mentioned,they more often related to networks at regional or local levelsthan at state levels.

There was some indication that networks had been veryimportant in initiating ICE a few years ago, but that they aremuch less active in recruiting new schools or in providingenrichment and rejuvenation to "old" IGE schools at thepresent time (1978). In addition, there was some concernthat networks have been losing their funding resources in therecent past, causing personnel to be switched from facilitatorroles at the SEA level. A few respondents felt that thesetrends will hurt IGE severely, since IGE extension to newschools will be limited, and present IGE schools may abandonthe movement because of the lack of technical assistance andrefinement activities. In one state where two schools werevisited, both principals mentioned the efforts, in spring 1978,to recreate a regional league network, since they felt it wasindispensable to continuation of any level of IGE implemen-tation.

*Association for Individually Guided Education.

122

131

Cost of IGEThis topic was discu ;sed directly and indirectly in

interviews at all the schcols, with emphasis on "Does ICE costtoo much?" as will as ''Is IGE worth it?" to evoke both posi-tive and negative reactions.

When staff responded in terms of budget, about two-thirds of the schools stated that IGE involved either noadditional monetary costs or minimal additional costs, at leastat the present (1977-78). In terms of time and energy, staffin these schools indicated that IGE requires greater amountsthan traditional programs but is worth it. Many of theseschool.: gave specific examples of the benefits gained from theextra time and energy devoted to IGE: increased studentachievement; teacher cooperation and ;haring; better studentclimate in terms of responsibility, growth and discipline; andpersonal and professional growth of teachers.

Staff in about one-third of the schools stated that IGEdoes require too much commitment, in terms of money, time,and/or energy. In most cases they continued by stating thatIGE was really not being implemented in the schools, in spiteof its potential.

In addition to the general observations above, visitreports were analyzed for school perceptions of costs andsavings involved in IGE implementation, across the totalperiod to the present. Table 6-4 outlines the specificfindings across all schools. In the upper block, the overallperception of minimal cost or minimal saving is reported foreach school. In the lower block, specific costs or savingsare listed; this block is set up so that roughly equivalentcategories may be contrasted as perceived costs or savings.While monetary matters were mentioned, they were less fre-quent overall than other types of entries, and notably lessfrequent in the minimal savings column. Conversely, 14schools mentioned minimal costs in terms of actual dollaroutput and use of community personnel resources. Overall,there are 21 reasons for minimal savings among the 13 schoolsresponding with specifics, and 26 reasons for minimal costsfrom the 17 schools providing specific responses.

On balance, this sample of schools -- irrespective ofcurrent IGE implementation status--judged that IGE is moreworthwhile than not in terms of the costs of time, money, andenergy and perceived more specific savings than costs asso-ciated with IGE.

123

132

Table 6-4School Perceptions of IGE Cost and Savings

CostNumber ofSchools Savings

Number ofSchools

Overall perception: One response per school

None, minimal 10 None, minimal 6

Reasonable, a little(general) 9

Unclear response 3 Unclear response 5

No response 2 No response 2

Reasons for minimal cost/savings: Multiple responses allowed

Share materials; less to Costs for instructionalbuy 8 materials 3

Less cost for substitutes 1 Salaries for aides 5

More community resourcesused (parents, retiredteachers, othervolunteers) 5

More efficient use ofteacher time (teacher

Workload on staff (some-times means reduced

planning) 2 morale) 6

Maintaining staffcommitment 2

Better staff morale 2 Rivalry between IGE andnon-IGE staff in theschool 1

Resentment in non-IGEschools 1

Student responsibility,less vandalism, better

Attribution of disci-pline problems to

discipline 3 IGE 1

Better community attitudes Time to persuade commun-re education 1 ity of IGE value 1

More efficient use of Time for leagueprincipal's time activities 1

(more on instruction) 2

Better education for thesame money 2

124

133

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONSWhile some of the implications and strictly judgmental

observations below may properly be applied broadly to IGE,the conclusions themselves relate to the particular sample ofschools studied in Phase II. It is emphasized that among thecriteria employed in sample selection was inclusion of schoolswith higher and lower implementation status according toself-report data supplied in Phase I. As a result, the find-ings and the conclusions derived from them reveal a signifi-cant "spread" in ICE perceptions and practices rather than acommon set of findings that might describe what is typical.

1. Phase II validation findings may be applied to Phase Imore as aids to Thterpretation than as recommendationsspecific to Phase I variables or analysis.

This conclusion is related not only to the nature ofsomewhat equivocal findings but also to the nature of theinquiry. Where direct confirmation of Phase I data is con-cerned, the overall findings show a greater amount of verifieddata than of data not verified, but they also reveal someserious concern with particular Phase I items as well as withrespondent attitudes in some cases. The inquiry itself mustalso be considered in that it involved a select sample ofschools and included An array of validation items related to aselect group of Phase I variables.

One might note that a number of "new information"topics expand on what was obtained in Phase I (re history,irtservice, originating agencies, networks) , irrespective of thevalidation task. These data cannot be applied directly toPhase I variables or analyses (having been obtained for aselect sample), but they can "advise" interpretation of thestrength of the variables in effecting Phase I outcomes. Inthat sense, there is a clear conceptual relationship betweenthe validation and "new information" tasks as they relate toPhase 1.

2. A variety of factors affected the utility of data gatheredby the Pliuse I instruments.

In the majority of schools, Phase I data reflected anadequate to strong sense of reality with respect to ICE imple-mentation and the particular organizational and instructionalpractices engaged in. In the majority of schools, too, itappeared that staff members answered carefully and honestlyand attempted to follow the Phase I directions and proce-

125

134

dures. Across the Phase H sample of schools, however,staffs indicated a number of factors that made completion ofthe Phase I self-report questionnaires somewhat difficult andresulted in some responses they did not feel entirely com-fortable with. These factors included such matters as con-fusion over directions, staff resistance, differential appro-priateness of items to the local IGE situation, fatigue,inconsistent within-school responses, nonparticipation by somestaff, differential bases for rating implementation status,length and complexity of items or instruments, and ambiguitywithin items. While the intent in most all schools was tocooperate, to assist the evaluation, general and local cir-cumstances tended to reduce the expected meaningfulness ofthe questionnaire data. There was also apparently somespecial difficulty with the Implementation Survey as a whole.In addition, the final status of the verified IGE School Surveysuggests some confusion over IGE terminology as well asincomplete or inaccurate responses to basic descriptive itemsat the school level.

A related factor is that a significant number of schoolsno longer appear to be IGE schools or are IGE only partially- -and a general sense that IGE is not the paramount motivatoror touchstone of the educational program in many of thesample schools.

Student achievement and affective testing appears on thewhole to have been conducted appropriately, and the greatmajority of respondents indicated that they would trust anduse these outcomes. The usual careful approach to testingwas likely enhanced by the aura of formality and importancetypically attached to standardized measures by both studentsand school personnel.

3. The several 1GE components are differentially understood,valued, and implemented in the Phase 11 sample.

It is not the rule for school people (including principalsand unit leaders) to think of IGE in terms of components orof seven given components. And, among the seven statedelements, there is a rough hierarchy of awareness closelyrelated to extent of implementation. Although about equalemphasis on the Multiunit Organization and the Model forInstructional Programming for the Individual Student (IPM)was reported across schools, the Multiunit Organizationappear, much better understood and implemented than theIPM. Indeed, most principals and many teachers seem to feel

126

1 `,3 u

now that the heart of ICE is the Multiunit Organization (withshared decision-making and more open communication) irre-spective of the level of IPM implementation.

Aside from the Multiunit Organization two other com-ponents are tied quite firmly to the schools' overall concept ofIGE, Curricular Programs and Facilitative Environments (moreas a set of helpful circumstances than as integrated compon-ents of a larger system). Home-School-Community activitiesare also widely engaged in and valued--and received emphasisin the installation period--but in many schools these are notviewed as aspects of a component per se. Of all the compon-ents, Research & Development seems to be understood andimplemented at the lowest keel across schools.

A good deal of effort--more in the past than at present-has been expended in connection with the IPM component, butwith only moderate success overall. There was considerableevidence in Phase II of "partial IPM -ing," of variations withinand across units, of employment of the full IPM for somestudents but not others, and of emphasis on some steps inone curriculum but not another. Frequently this somewhatinconsistent approach resulted in an emphasis on and a valuingof some form of individualization but not necessarily the wholeIPM sequence.

4. The historical patterns that emerge in the Phase II samplesuggest a decline in implementation energy, availability anduse of outside resources, and adherence to busic IGEconcepts.

There are data of record as well as the perceptions ofschool people which indicate that the several originatingagencies and the networks at various levels provided a gooddeal of impetus for IGE implementation several years rdeveloped training chains, organized resources for technicalassistance and mutual support, and in other ways aided theimplementation/maintenance processes. At the same time theseresources have apparently declined either in actual existenceor in importance, there has been some evidence of a declinein ICE bootstrap attitudes, in acceptance of the more demand-ing IGE concepts and components, in staff development re-lated to !GE, and in affiliation with active networks--at leastso far as this sample is concerned. If there is a demon-strable relationship here, it is not a surprising one sincemost ICE schools report a need for contact with and supportfrom a larger. ICE context of some sort.

121

13'3

This conclusion is drawn from the total sample and theapparent overall patterns. But within the sample, there arestrong IGE schools with a high degree of independence andself-sufficiency; schools which continue to attempt improve-ment with whatever resources are available; and schools whichvalue IGE for what it has accomplished and saved and generated.There are also schools where adherence to the IPM is clearlyevident and where cooperative planning at IIC and Unit levelsis effective.

5. Certain predictable factors appear related to overall ICEstatus and success.

Direct and indirect findings in Phase II reinforce"common knowledge" about the sorts of historical cactorswhich relate to later healthy or declining IGE status.Particular facEts of a well planned installation period (such asstaff commitment, curricular objectives, parent approval)dppedr to augur well for later strong IGE status or at least asmooth operation. On the other end, schools recognized thatunilateral decisions to go IGE or insufficient training at theoutset appears to relate to later decline or stagnation of theIGE effort. Thus, a number of specitic turning points werestated by school personnel themselves and seem closely re-lated to present (1977-78) judged status of IGE implementationat least in the broad sense.

6. Useful data on "new information" topics can be obtainedviu refinement of data-collection methods.

Regardless of the specificity of the topical outline andTeam Visit Report Form, the conditions of a brief field visitdid not always permit obtaining the full extent of data thatmight be needed for some research purposes. Exploration ofthese areas would be enhanced--depending on research needs.- -by -;urveys specific to certain topics and/or by clearcutcase studies of a longitudinal nature.

7. some form of annual ( sessment of IGE status, operations..and commitment is important not only for research andaccounting purposes but also as a means of enhancing newand refined implementations.

I n view of a number of observations based on Phase I I

as well 15 general awareness of I E, an annual monitoring oraccounting activity is seen as a near necessity in order tokeep the movement alive and healthy. Such an activity

128

13/

should be national in scope and should be approached cross-sectionally as well as longitudinally in order to accomplishseveral related purposes and to make use of a broad spectrumof resources.

8. The multiunit organization of ICE schools is fluid andaffects operations as well as the description and evaluation ofthose operations.

Historically, it appears that IGE concepts, implementationplans, descriptions, and evaluation efforts have defined orassumed the school as the locus of operation and the focus ofstudy. The model's paradigm supports this interpretationwith its reference to the IIC and several Units equal in theirmakeup and their relation to the IIC. And while departuresfrom this model are no doubt expected, perhaps encouraged,Phase 11 findings suggest that implementation is so varied asto affect the kinds of data obtained in Phases I and 11 andthe interpretation of some of those data. The variationsoccur with regard to subjects, schedules, multiaging, group-ing strategies, planning, grades, use of the IPM in part orfull, or any combination of these.

9. Implementation variables lead to a question of what ICE isand me, -Is.

Among many school people as well as Phase II visitors, aquestion often arose--What is IGE?---and this appears to be alegitimate question. In a sense, IGE is whatever occursunder its name, but this is often quite different from themodels disseminated by the originating agencies. So far asthe Phase 11 sample is concerned, !CIE is more recognizable asa form of the multiunit organization along with facilitativeenvironments than as an implementation of the instructionalprogramming model.

However, what may be described as ICE (or partial IGE)schools do appear to have something in common. This is aneffort to accommodate individual students, to engage in someform of individualized instruction. In pursuit of individual-ization or personalization, these schools as a group havebroken the lockstep of strictly graded self-contained class-rooms and single-teacher instruction, although this is some-times evident in only a portion of the school or in the workof a few dedicated teachers or for one hour a day four daysa week. In the Phase II sample, a certain movement can beseen from the old to the new, and frequently IGE has beenadopted or adapted or borrowed from in an effort to findoperational ways of implementing "new" ideas related to theindividualization of instruction.

129

133

10. The full model may never be attained and may notbe attainable. But some moderate level of implementation maybe sufficient to describe 1GE and to accomplish its objectives.

It is quite apparent that all the !GE components andoutcomes can be and have been implemented--but not neces-sarily in the coherent integrated fashion that was intended.At the same time, many schools have moved beyond thetraditional mode, adopting certain important IGE practices andeffecting a degree of individualized or individually guidedinstruction. At this juncture, it may be useful to considerwhat IGE is and does in a normative way and to redefine IGEin terms of what is most attainable and still comes closest tothe "ideal."

It is conventional wisdom that a certain amount of "over-reach" is either necessary or desirable when institutionsattempt to make broad meaningful changes. Many IGE schoolsappear to have aimed high and fallen somewhat short, settlinginto a locally feasik:e adaptation of IGE that may be `ass thanthe ideal but at the same time is more than the traditional.Other schools have edged slowly up to that same level. Ineither case, the basic !GE concepts are not necessarily lost ordevalued. They are redefined. And the difficulties involvedin either sort of attempt can be--and often are--viewed asvaluable as well as necessary. They help schools to decideon the minimal elements that represent their goals; to alterthe model's goals and components to fit with reality; to choosetheir priorities within their resources; to accomplish somelevel of individualization.

13 130

CHAPTER 7

Phase III: THE FIELD STUDYOF SIX IGE SCHOOLS

Thomas S. Popkewitz, B. Robert 7tzbachnickand Gary G. Wehlage*

What values and meanings are transmitted by reformprograms in schools? This report, drawn from a more de-tailed discussion of the use of Individually Guided Education(IGE) in six schools reported to be exemplary IGE schools(Popkewitz, Tabachnick, 6 Wehlage, 1982), addresses thisquestion in a manner which reveals more than the conclusionsof a single research effort. This summary chapter considersthe development and implementation of IGE in a network ofsocial and political relationships involving students, teachersand their aides, parents and other community members, schooland district administrators, and the !GE designers. Its con-clusions, rather than simply evaluating the match betweenIntention and outcome, create a less conventional focus forthe study of what is intended and unintended, for what wasexpected to change and what was changed.

As a systems approach to the reform of schooling, IGEwas intended as a comprehensive program coordinating re-search and development, teacher training, curriculum mater-ials, school administration and district practices, and home-school relationships, as well as student and teacher beha-viors. IGE's designers believe that by applying the prin-ciples of educational psychology through a systems approachthe objectives, variables, and interrelationships of aneducational environment can be known and can be structuredto yield efficient learning. The procedures of IGE areassumed to be universally applicable to any and all schoolsettings and are believed to be a neutral, nonideologicaltechnology capable of reforming all elementary schooling.

The iGE program embodies at least two attitudes foundin the currents of American educational thinking. One ofthese is the belief that individualism is important and that thedevelopment of individual talents and interests is a significantgoal of education. The individualization of instruction can beseen as a contemporary response to the perception that

*The authors appreciate the editorial work of Paula N.Bozoian which made this chapter possible.

131

schools have failed in their responsibilities to the individual.The second attitude Involves the assumption that importantsocial problems, such as the education of youth, are mosteffectively attacked through the power of scientific expertise.

!GE is unusually attractive to many school people be-cause it links the appeal of individualism with the harmonyand efficiency of scientific management. Systems management,behavioral objectives, and criterion-referenced measures arebacked up by research on individual cognitive differences andneeds. The unitized school and the Instructional Program-ming Model combine systematically to provide for students wholearn at different rates and in different ways; by offeringvaried groups and materials as different routes to specifiedobjectives, this system appears to be responsive to differentlearning styles, Giving teach,?.rs the decision over whichindividual objectives children should achieve is Intended as aresponse to the cultural, social, and personal differences thatchildren bring to school, as well as to the different interestsand expertise among teachers. Individualism and scientificmanagement blend to bring coherence to the social purposesof schooling.

As instituted in the elementary school, however, Indi-vidually Guided Education's reforms extend beyond the systemsanalyses and management procedures of its program. Implicitin Individually Guided Education are values and assumptionsabout social change and control which remain tacit, even asconcrete proposals to intervene in the social world are devel-oped. To understand Individually Guided Education, thesetacit assumptions and values, which define the reform andmake it feasible, must be systematically investigated, and therelationship of the reform technologies to the ongoing norms,beliefs, and values of schooling must be made explicit.

Our intent in this study, then, was to make problematicthe assumptions and procedures of Individually Guided Educa-tion: to describe the implicit as well as the explicit learningwhich occurs when students, administrators, and teachersrespond to an educational reform, and to examine how thetechnologies of !GE are incorporated into the continuing socialand political context of schooling, and thereby receive mean-ing. Our investigation provides a framework in which moregeneral theoretical questions about the assumptions, impli-cations, and consequences of institutional life and change canbe raised. We will discuss school interactions, work pat-terns, and the relationships between schools and their com-munities to illuminate the rules, social values, and intereststhat influence different school practices.

132

Our intent Is not only to describe the perceptions andactions of people in schools, however; we are also concernedwith the underlying assumptions and social values implicit inschool p.actices, and how they affect the realization of reformtechnologies. The everyday activities of schooling and itsreform are placed within contexts of larger social, intel-lectual, and ideological concerns.

This summary proceeds in the following manner: after abrief consideration of methodology, discussion turns to theproblems of reform in an institutional context and to con-sideration of Individually Guided Education as social in-vention; next, the three conditions of schooling--technical,constructive, and illusory - -are introduced and described;finally, these three institutional configurations are related tothe ways educational reform is conceptualized, researched,and implemented and the assumptions about the nature ofschool change as a neutral and technical endeavor areexamined.

This investigation of Individually Guided Education,reform, and institutional life was designed to complement themore conventional evaluation of the other phases of the eval-uation effort. The approach taken was to study six ele-mentary schools that had been nominated as exemplary IGEschools. Nominations were solicited from people reputed to beknowledgeable about IGE including Center staff who hadworked with various schools to implement the program,individuals in state education agencies who had first-handknowledge of IGE in their states, and individuals who hadworked at implementing IGE at a variety of sites. Seventeenschools were visited for two days each by two people. Fourof these schools were selected for the study. Two additionalsites, not among the original 17, were added later.

This research effort was a four-year project. Our firstconcern was to place the IGE program in a general context ofschool reform and institutional life--to establish the programas a particular case of educational change and reform fromwhich theoretical insights could be derived. We then soughtto understand what the planners of IGE had written about theprogram; our intent was not to use the definitions and cate-gories of the planners in our field research, but to under-stand how the program had emerged historically, and whatassumptions and implications about educational practiceunderlay the thinking of its designers. To gain firsthandknowledge of how practitioners around the nation talked aboutand implemented Individually Guided Education, we initially

133

142

paid two-day visits to each of 17 schools which had beenreported to be exemplary IGE schools. From these schools weselected five in which, in the second year, intensive casestudies were carried out; a sixth school was added to theinvestigation in the course of the field work. Each schoolwas visited for data collection on at least three separateoccasions.

The last two years of the project involved analysis andwriting. As our research progressed, we had encounteredfundamental variations in the conditions and social implicationsin the six schools studied, as well as different institutionalresponses to the technologies of IGE; to describe these varia-tions and their significance, we created three categories:technical, constructive, and illusory schooling. The cate-gories are related to Wittgenstein's concept of family re-semblances; the schools in each category have overallsimilarities and overlapping characteristics, but the categoriesshould not be considered as qualitatively identified or de-termined.

Before discussing schools as institutions into whichreform programs are introduced and the elements of insti-tutional life, a comment on methodology is appropriate.Analyses of research often separate discussions of reform andinstitutional life from discussions of methodology, making thechoice of investigative procedures seem a purely technicalact. We believe, in contrast, that problems of methodologycannot be considered adequately without referring to thequestions, theories, and intellectual traditions that makeparticular investigative strategies plausible. Data anddescriptions of social conditions are not presented in avacuum, but are inevitably tied to theory. A study ofeducational reform, therefore, involves the complex andprofound relationships of reform, institutional life, andmethodology.

INSTITUTIONAL LIFE ANDTHE FOCUS OF REFORM:A Theoretical Perspective to the Problem

Social institutions perform certain agreed-upon functionsto achieve social goals. The mandate or function of schoolingis to provide a formal social structure within which children.ire to prepare for adulthood. Schools define and legitimizecategories of competence in society, provide publicly accept-able classitications of people and knowledge, and give accessto valued positions in society. While it is important to

134

143

recognize that schooling is given legitimacy because it has asocial mandate, that charter cannot be taken for granted.Most Americans acr...ept the mandate on the grounds thatschools should "prepare children for a democrat; z: society," orthat people should "be taught to think for themselves," butthese slogans have many possible interpretations. Some mayview the school mandate as a call for providing individualswith opportunities to develop their own intellectual capa-bilities, expressing a classic liberal faith in the individual'sability to contribute creatively and imaginatively to publiclife. Others may see schooling as preparation for entering asocial world already classified and organized according tocertain occupational and status lines (Popkewitz, 1981).Inherent in each interpretation are different social values andimplications for school practices that are obscured by slogansabout the social mandate.

The conflict between definitions of social purpose directsour attention to a second aspect of schooling--the actualvalues and beliefs sustained in day-to-day school life. Likeall institutions, schools function according to rules andprocedures which give coherence and meaning to everydayactivities and interactions. Such rules and procedures areembodied in regularized patterns of behavior, specific vocabu-laries (a child in school is a "learner," his or her learning is"achievement," and so on), and particular roles (teacher,pupil, or administrator). So potent are institutional patternsthat the social structure experienced in schools channels thethought and the action of participants, giving definition andmeaning to both school reform and pedagogical practice(Popkewitz, 1979).

While making this argument, we do not wish to presentan overly socialized, deterministic view of the individual.Institutional life can respond to and be shaped by the peoplewho partidipate in it. However, we cannot pretend thatcontemporary forms of social life are not potentially coercive.Our definitions of social conditions and our expectations arecreated by past and present patterns of action and beliefwhich limit the possibilities for change, or at least restrictthe options for making modifications.

In considering the effects of IGE as a reform program, itis important to look beyond its language of individualizedinstruction, team teaching, and nongraded teaching units.The ICE model carries with it certain assumptions about thenature of knowledge, the most effective ways children canwork to gain that knowledge, and the role of the professionalstaff in implementing the reform. IGE was conceived as a

135

144

systematic attempt to reform schools; it was also designed asa comprehensive program affecting both agencies external tothe school and structures within the school. There is apattern, therefore, of interrelated assumptions that give ICEform and content. Our understanding of institutional life,and of the effects of reform, may be clarified by consideringthese important dimensions of schooling--knowledge, work,and professionalism--and the relations among them.

Conceptions of KnowledgeSchools are places where conceptions of knowledge are

distributed and maintained; implicit in this discourse are waysof reasoning and communicating about social relations, socialconditions, and social authority. The authority of an insti-tution to channel thought and to define human conditions hassubtle implications for the way knowledge is conceptualizedand hints at the underlying patterns of thought found inschooling. Carl Becker (1932) suggested that rooted in theeveryday life of each age are certain preconceptions, beliefs,and/or value structures that give direction to social thought.The medieval assumption, for example, was that of existenceas a cosmic drama, written by God, and embodying a centraltheme and rational plan.

Today, however, a number of assumptions compete fordominance. The laws of God, and of nature, have beenchallenged by existentialists, liberals, and Marxists. Fromsuch a plurality of ideas, problems of choice arise that arecompounded by the institutionalization of education. Schoolsselectively impart cultural traditions and concepts of knowl-edge; and curriculum, instruction, and evaluation directstudents tuward specific uses of intelligence and a particularkind of reasoning about ideas and action. The concepts ofknowledge that are distributed in schools, then, becomeproblematic when we view curriculum, instruction, and eval-uation as having social as well as intellectual content.

Schools as Places of WorkSchools are also places of work where students and

teachers interact to alter and improve their world, establishsocial relations, and realize human purpose. The activities ofstudents and teachers in schools collectively form a pattern ofwork (Popkewitz 6 Wehlage, 1977). However, school workshould be considered in relation to human work in general.Work is fundamental human activity by which people establish,modify, and carry out their social purposes. An important

136

i4

aspect of work is the relation of thought and imagination tothe products of human labors (Braverman, 1974): work notonly affects the form of the material on which a personworks, but expresses, in the shape given to the material, therealization of purpose and will. While we can view work asexpressing human intent, we must also recognize that thestructure of human activity delimits the adaptability of theworld we live in and the possibilities for altering cultural andsocial conditions.

Work involves a developing interplay of activities,beliefs, norms, and social relations that is particularlyimportant in institutionally defined situations. From aninstitution's structures emerge historically conditioned ways ofexpressing intent, establishing social relations, and givingform to the social world and one's own humanity.

Because school work not only defines the possibilities ofhuman creative activity but also provides opportunities forcultural development and social mobility, the institution'sdefinitions of work are exceedingly important. The patternsof activities, social relations, and sentiments produced inschools must be clarified, so when the effects of reform areinvestigated we can question how reform technologies sustain,modify, or otherwise relate to these institutional patterns.The relationships between technologies of reform and otherelements of institutional work should make the significance ofintervention programs apparent.

Professionalism as a Social CategorySchools are staffed by an occupational group whose

activities give legitimacy to patterns of work and conceptionsof knowledge. Often that group uses the slogan "profes-sional" to establish its status, privilege, and control.Certain occupational groups professions - -at work in schoolshave the authority and power to define pedagogical practices.The label "professional" is used by occupational groups tosignify a highly trained, competent, specialized, anddedicated group that is effectively and efficiently serving thepublic trust. But the label "professional" is more than .3declaration of public trust: it is a social category thatimputes status and privilege to an occupational group. Inteaching, the label signifies not only technical Psnow ledge andservice, but the power of a particular group to bestow socialidentity ("students") upon its clients.

131

146

Some have argued that the culture of professionalism mayhave consequences for the capacity of individuals to providefor themselves (Lasch, 1977). Individual ability and personalcompetence have been progressively diminished throughschemes controlled, disseminated, and evaluated by part;cularoccupational grouts. ro "educate" students for Americanlife, school professionals have acquired mandates to teachchildren problem-solving, values clarification, sex education,health education, safety education, and much more. Thesesubjects reflect a professional definition of what kind of"help" should be given to people growing up and enteringsociety. Such education often poses a contradiction: whilethe purpose of schooling is the introduction of certain formsof social and personal autonomy, it also introduces a form ofdependency; people learn to rely upon professionals to defineand solve social problems. Psychologists give diagnoses andprescriptions for marital or family problems; urban sociol-ogists issue guidelines for living together in cities; andeducators define what knowledge, reasoning, and thought istaught to children in our society.

THE RESILIENCE OFINSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

The complex social and political arrangements of work,knowledge, and professionalism are not easily altered, andwhen we examine the context into which educational reform isintroduced the assumption that reforms will be faithfullyimplemented can be questioned. Faced with reform, insti-tutions exhibit remarkable resilience; innovations are firstincorporated into existing patterns of behavior and belief,then used to legitimize ongoing patterns of educational con-duct, while being identified in slogans to suggest reform. Inthis study three patterns of schooling were found which wehave labeled technical, constructive, and illusory.

Making Schools Efficient:Technical Schooling

Among the schools reported to have exemplary IGE pro-grams, three Maplewood, Be lair, and Clayburnsharecommon institutional characteristics. Although thecommunities they serve display considerable socioeconomicdiversity, the schools are quite similar in the configurationsof work, knowledge, and professionalism they offer in theirimplementation o Individually Guided Education.

131

141

Geographically, these schools are widely separated:Clayburn is in the southeast, Maplewood is in the midwest,and Be lair in the west. Clayburn is essentially rural,Maplewood is suburban, and Be lair is in an urban area.One-third of Clayburn's student population is black, butminorities have only miniscule representation in the otherschools. Clayburn is also the only school that serves morethan a local neighborhood; some of its black students arebused across the county to ach:eve racial balance.

There are other differences among the three schools.Maplewood is solidly middle class, with few students fromwealthy or poor families. On Zhe other hand, nearly one-halfof Clayburn's students qualify for federal educational assis-tance. Be lair's students represent a range of family incomes,but of the schools we studied its neighborhood is the onlyone in which millionaires are reported to live. Informationobtained from school personnel places Clayburn at the low endof the income scale and Be lair at the top end, with Maplewoodin the middle. It should be kept in mind, however, thatE3elair pulls students from the widest economic range, fromwelfare recipients to reported millionaires.

While there are demographic, as well as physical, dif-ferences among Be lair, Clayburn, and Maplewood schools, wefound them to be alike in their understanding and implemen-tation of Individually Guided Education. In a survey de-signed to measure the extent to which IGE technology andprinciples are perceived as operational by a school staff (IGEImplementation Survey), teachers of all three schools sawthemselves as implementors of a school "Unit" organizationcharacterized by a flexible separation of children intomultiaged groups, team planning of the curriculum, andteaching activities appropriate to a range of student interestsand abilities. Teachers in these schools identified theInstructional Programming Model as a second key feature ofIGE: they perceived themselves as formulating objectives forstudents, establishing record-keeping procedures to monitorachievement, and p oviding a set of instructional activities toguide students of iffering abilities toward the achievement ofindividual objectives.

An important part of teaching in these IGE schools is tosequence the work students do so that teachers can managepupil activities and monitor their achievements. These manage-ment procecidres are often justified in reference to broader,more abstract educational purposes, such as enhancing achieve-ment, learning better, or developing conceptual thought. At

139

143

Maplewood, Clayburn, and Be lair, however, management tech-niques have become the ends of school activity rather than ameans of instruction, and technology provides an independentvalue system that gives definition to curriculum, classroomactivity, and professional responsibility. While these three"technical" schools differ in some of the formal ways throughwhich they organize instruction and in their physicalarrangements, all three incorporate IGE technologies intoeveryday activities and make technique into a value.

The effect of viewing technologies as the ends of school-ing was to alter the social relations by defining the contentand the nature of the school work in such a way that individ-ual control over ideas or work was denied. As IGE wasoriginally designed, the language of techn.,iogy was plannedas a tool, an aid to the teacher's and student's assessment ofprogress. The designers viewed the language of systems ascoexisting with a language of ideas. In practice at thetechnical schools, this coexistence has never developed, andthe language of procedures has become legitimized as thesubstance of the curriculum itself.

Professionals searched for the most efficient ways toprocess people. For example, a teacher at E3elair spent amajor part of his time planning improvements in record-keeping procedures for children's mathematics levels. Theemphasis on processing people resulted in an unusual defini-tion of responsibility. For teachers, responsibility did notmean considering what was appropriate to teach and how tobest teach it; rather, responsibility meant structuring ob-jectives, keeping proper records, and insuring an orderlymovement of children. In these schools, the unit planningtime and decision-making process of Individually GuidedEducation came to be used in a way that denigrated theknowledge and work associated with teaching. For children,responsibility meant learning and obeying the rules of theclassroom, listening to authority, and striving to masterpredetermined objectives. Responsibility was operationallydefined as accepting dependence upon others for orderingactivities and thinking about intellectual problems, ratherthan taking charge of these issues in any manner. Thecriteria of teachers' and principals' success in all threeschools seemed to be related to the degree of planned controlthat could be exercised over children's progress.

"Excellence" was generally achieved by looking busy(process), or by producing in quantity (outcomes). Thesecriteria often applied to both teachers and students. Thedefinition of a better teacher in one school, for example, was

140

1-1

one who spent more time before and after class preparinglessons and keeping good records, and who kept childrenlooking busy. For children the ability to look industriouswas important, and achievement was often judged on the basisof hard and continuous work rather than on the quality ofthe results.

In the technical schools, knowledge was standardized.All ideas and skills to be learned were presented in a discreteand sequenced form. Ordering knowledge in this way enabledteachers to devote full attention to the procedures of imple-mentation. The standardization of ideas was demanded by theprocess of social control. This standardization of knowledgereduced the curriculum to learning that could be measured.The teachers at the technical schools have interpreted in-dividualized education as a systematic way of responding tochildren's lack of specific information or skill. No curriculumor instruction is considered appropriate unless precise,measurable objectives are stated. Instruction can then followthe test-teach-test routine.

The emphasis on preplanning and measurement eliminatedfrom consideration the serendipitous, accidental, or proble-matic process of instruction. Many valuable learning exper-iences arise from children's interactions with materials,peopl,::., and event,. If a child enjoys the alliteration in apoem, a teacher can capitalize on that interest when planningfuture activities. Similarly, a lesson on figuring change mayraise questions about currencies in other countries and howthey differ from ours. Such opportunities for learning wereobserved in the technical schools' classrooms, but theemphasis on technical mastery limited classroom exchanges toshort, utilitarian interactions serving immediate goals.Serendipitous learning was improbable in the technical schools.

Breaking learning down into a sequence of objectives tobe masted created a division between the conception andexecution of work. Each element was defined for the learnerin isolation, distinct from the logic which might guide or tieactivities together. The consequence of this separation wasthat teachers and students lost control over their work.

Nevertheless, data gathered at Maplewood, Be lair, andClayburn indicate that the daily routines and instructionalpractices of these schools do have a coherence, a coherenceprovided by five educational slogans which teachers identifywith their support of Individually Guided Education. Theslogans are individualization, continuous progress, meetingr' qdren's needs, positive self-image, and accountability.

141

1:5j

These words provide the public language through whichteachers and administrators discuss school conduct, justifyprogram planning, and give coherence to the reform programitself. The words in effect hold the promise that the quartyof schooling will improve. They establish a mood with whichboth parents and professionals can feel comfortable and withwhich they can affiliate particular pedagogical practices.Teachers perceive that the social and cultural life of thecommunity gives them a mandate to focus on basic skills andsocial discipline. Professional ideologies supply a technicaldefinition of educational problems. Together, these influencesgive credibility and legitimacy to the programs in the tech-nical schools.

Professional ideologies in school district administrationsand in other educational agencies defined the task of school-ing in terms of management and efficiency and provided stil!another source of credibility and support for the technicalschools. In school district administrations, the internalmanagement procedures and emphasis on efficiency in theseschools were seen as an extension of district programs todevelop consistency and standardization. Districtwide ob-jectives, criterion-referenced measures, a single readingtextbook series, and curriculum management systems had allbeen introduced in at least one of the districts. Thesuperintendent in another district viewed t'ne development ofa standardized and consistent program in z11 district schoolsas essential to good school administration. At the districtoffice of the county in which Clayburn is located, schoolmanagement appeared to be important as well. The curricu-lum coordinator said that the district was beginning todevelop a comprehensive management scheme which wouldinclude many of the instructional procedures at Clayburn, andthat management systems of instruction were being introduceddistrictwide through an adaptation of the reading textbook.

Professional agencies outside the Clayburn school districtalso gave credibility to the school's program. The statedepartment of instruction regularly used criterion-referencedtests to determine the level of achievement in schools through-out the state. In practice, this state policy gave legitimacyto instructional practices which aimed to improve test scores-like those found at Clayburn. At Maplewood and Be lair,standardizing curriculum and rationalizing instruction werealso given credence by agencies outside of the schools. Thesuperintendent in Maplewood's district considered the schoolas a model for other schools to emulate, and Maplewood'sprincipal and staff gave workshops and talks to other districtpersonnel. The state education agency supported the school's

142

computerized record-keeping program. At Be lair the principalreceived strong support from the superintendent's office, andalso had backing--including a grant--from state officials.

It must be pointed out, however, that the technicalemphasis given to conceptions of knowledge and to work atClayburn, Maplewood, and Be lair obscured underlying socialand political issues embedded in the process of schooling. Byfocusing attention on problems of management and of effi-ciency, the existing priorities, values, and patterns of socialcontrol remained unscruitinized. While the three schools re-sponded to and were sustained by institutional, demographic,and cultural facets of their communities. the emphasis ontechnology appeared to separate education from other com-munity affairs. School staffs operated as though there was abroad consensus about the goals of instruction, and teachersappeared to believe that the school mandate was unambiguous.Far from being a technical matter, however, the choices thathave to be made in education involve substantive issues aboutsocial life and its interpreta`ion, and they require debate.

The combination of social factors that makes technicalschool practices legitimate is a historical question whichcannot be addressed here. It is crucial, though, to considerour contention that the technical definition of the schoolmandate actually serves the interest; of neither the communitynor the teachers. The dissociation and fragmentation ofknowledge and work in these schools produce a definition ofprofessionalism that limits the creative and purposeful qualityof teaching. Students are offered a mode of thought thatcannot penetrate the complex patterns of communication dom-inant in contelo.porary society. Schooling is thus robbed ofits imaginative and liberating potential. The emphasis on onlythe most limited skill acquisition legitimates a style of workwhich is fragmented. isolated, and unrelated to truly purpose-ful activity. This style of school work and reasoning, ifint( rnalized, imposes occupational limitations upon the stu-dents: rather than offering options for adult life, thisschooling legitimates the specific demands and expectations ofthe social and cultural majority of the community. It providesno means for considering new possibilities beyond thosesuggested by circumstances of birth and community location.It also helps to perpetuate a belief that success in late life isdirectly proportional to success in basic skills.

143

152

Exploring Ways of Knowing:Constructive Schooling

Kennedy School is located in a university town on theedge of the foothills of a major mountain range. For yearsthe community remained modest in size, and the universityand agriculture were the mainstays of the town. Recently,however, corporate industry has discovered the area and thepopulation has expanded dramatkally. Much of the newindustry uses advanced technology. In addition to the lureof jobs, a pleasant climate and recreational opportunities makethe setting attractive. On several occasions people in theschool system commented to us that new families were movinginto the community because of its attractiveness even thoughthe parents had not yet found employment. The conventionalwisdom is that population and business growth will continueunabated in the foreseeable future. One new school openedin 1979, and the school district has been hiring a substantialnumber of new teachers.

When we first visited Kennedy Elementary School we hadalready spent considerable Vme in those schools we havecharacterized as technical, and our experience had led us notto expect any major variations in the way IGE was interpretedand implemented. It was with some surprise that we con-fronted a totally different set of institutional assumptions andbehaviors at Kennedy. The term constructive eventuallyemerged to summarize the patterns of work, conceptions ofknowledge, and professional definitions that gave meaning andinterpretation to this school situation.

Constructive schooling, rather than emphasizing state ofknowledge, pays attention to the ways knowledge is created.In the curriculum, relational ideas and the exploration ofgeneral principles and concepts are stressed, and skills aredeveloped within that context. For analytical purposes wecan separate the kind of work and knowledge that occupiedstudents from that which occupied teachers, but in actualitythey are inseparable.

The commitment at Kennedy was to make the school "akid's place," aid this commitment r ested in part on the beliefthat different kinds of activities and experiences contribute tochildren's intellectual and social development. The resultingcurriculum design provided a broad range of ways of knowingand learning. K .needy students were continually offeredexperiences that included art, music, poetry, drama, logic,literature, science, history, and even controversial issues.

144

The variety of classroom work and knowledge at Kennedyshared three characteristics. First, the problematic aspectsof knowledge were emphasized. Second, aesthetic forms ofknowledge, in which poetry, drama, music, and art are usedto produce and express understanding, were incorporated intoschool work. Third, frequent efforts were made to integratedifferent kinds of knowledge and skills. While from time totime we found examples of problematic, aesthetic, and inte-grative work at the other schools we studied, the persistenceand pervasiveness of these characteristics was definitive ofthe curriculum at Kennedy.

Within the set of beliefs, priorities, and patterns ofconduct established at Kennedy, Individually Guided Edu-cation was given a special meaning. While teachers appearedto have adopted the main elements of the reform program, thetechnologies were used in ways that responded to the defini-tions and special requirements of the school. The organiza-tional structures of ICE, such as the Units, provided forumsin which teachers could carry out their programs. Some formof the Instructional Programming Model was used in a fewsubject areas, but not to guide instruction. IGE's record-keeping procedures provided evidence that the school dls-trict's minimum objectives were being respected by the staff.

The interest at Kennedy in promoting student initiativeand autonomy has its corollary In the work of teaching itself:teachers viewed themselves as having the responsibility todecide what knowledge was to be introduced into classrooms,how it was to be introduced, and when. The value placed onautonomy did, however, involve the constructive schoolteachers in a professional conflict with the district adminis-tration and its policy of "consistency" in the curriculum.This policy entailed the specification of common behavioralobjectives that all teachers were to follow in developing thebasic curriculum for the several grade levels and the require-mant that all schools use the same reading program to ensurethat students who transferred from one school to anotherexperienced little discontinuity in reading. The idea of ahighly specified curriculum was offensive to the staff becausethey believed it was their right as professionals to makeexpert decisions about what educational experiences wereappropriate for their students.

Also important in understanding constructive schooling isthe relationship of Kennedy school to its community. It isclear that the style of life and orientation of the communityinfluenced specific patterns of instruction: parents supported

145

154

the instructional emphasis on multiple for ;is of knowledge andtheir children's active participation in learning; teachers oftentook the backgrounds of their students into account whenplanning programs; children related their own experiences tothe programs and, in some instances, took the initiative indetermining programs.

The intellectual and social points of view found in theschool are those of that substratum of the middle class repre-sented in the professional occupations. The emphasis oninterpersonal control characteristic of this substratum en-courages facility with language and responsiveness to thesubtle nuances of interpersonal situations. These abilities,necessary to enter the professions, are reflected in theflexible roles and ideas found in Kennedy school: knowledgeand work are the property of the individual and enable himor her to establish control in interpersonal relations and tomaintain skepticism toward ideas.

With knowledge and work defined as the property of theindividual, the pedagogic emphasis is upon children's exhibit-ing the attitudes and emotions appropriate to learning.Participation and involvement are the criteria of performanceand achievement, and children's activities are monitored toassess the underlying attitudes and emotions that give pur-pose to their intellectual and social activities. At Kennedy,all aspects of intellectual and social life were treated as partof the public concern of teaching. Reducing the privatespace in institutional settings like schools can make it harderfor an individual to withdraw, even momentarily, and canmake norms and expectations more coercive. in addition, thelanguage of constructivism--abstract, complex in construction,and self-reflective--while it legitimates the skills andsensibilities of intellectuals, denigrates the creativity,imagination, and craftsmanship entailed in some physicalwork.

The relationship of Individually Guided Education to theconditions of constructive schooling can be described asfollows. The aspects of the ICE program used at Kennedywere those which sustained the knowledge, v,,ork, and profes-sionalism of constructive schooling. The Unit and team-teaching technologies were employed as devices through whichteachers could express school and classroom priorities, and asa response to outside pressure for consistency. The Instruc-tional Programming Model was an in'egral part of the program,but it existed as a symbol of change and effectiveness in theschool. Its systems of record-keeping and testing were not

148

15u

basic to teachers' thinking and planning. Records were usedto prove to others that skill development was given explicitattention. The priorities, beliefs, and norms of Kennedydemanded a flexibility and ambiguity of ideas and work thatmade those aspects of the Instructional Programming Modelappear subsidiary and of minor importance.

The concrete ways in which the interests and orienta-tions of the community and school district were mediated inKennedy School is one of the major concerns that emerges inour analysis. While in the technical schools it was evidentthat the relationship of pedagogy to external factors wassignificant, the relationship was suppressed, to some extent,by the emphasis on the procedural aspects of school life.The language and procedures of technical schooling madepedagogical activities seem efficient, objective, ald neutral inapplication. In Kennedy what we see is the confluence ofcontradictory forces which attempt to define and shape theschool. The definition of schooling advocated by the centraladministration and the technologies of ICE were adapted inrelation to the expectatons and demands posited by thespecific community in which Kennedy is located.

Form as Substance:Illusory Schooling

In analyzing the institutional meanings of Charles Evansand Pierce elementary schools, WP discovered a series ofanomalies, discontinuities, and contradictions. Much of theaction of these schools created an image of rational, con-trolled, and productive enterprise, and their practicesappeared to be governed by a wish to create a positiveimage: what professionals and parents want and hope for isactually happening. While in a few instances the imagerepresented reality and could be substantiated by observa-tion, in many other instances the image was void.

Work and social interaction at Charles Evans and Piercepresented fundamental contradictions. There were facts andsubjects to be taught, but the rituals and ceremonies of theformal curriculum were unrelated to this content and thereforecould not produce success for most pupils. The social pro-cesses of the daily activities, however, did have substantivemeaning. Teachers perceived the failure to learn as a resultof conditions in the children's lives (broken homes, indif-ference to academic values, lack of educational readiness)which were believed to make achievement impossible for allbut a lucky few. The shortcomings of the schools wereattributed to the inadequacies of the poor and minority com-munities in which the schools were situated.

141

153

The label illusory applies to both the images and thedetails of life in these schools--the false impressions createdby the everyday patterns of activity, and the substantivevalues represented by these patterns of schooling. Theemphasis on community pathology, pedagogy as therapy, andritual gives these schools meaning different from those of thetechnical and constructive schools.

How then, did teachers in the Pierce and Charles Evansschools see the problem of teaching? What conceptions ofknowledge and of learners did they bring to the practices ofschooling? How did they define the mandate of schooling? Inthe technical schools the prevailing belief seemed to be thatteaching involves uncovering student deficiencies in skills andimplementing an instructional system to correct those defi-ciencies; the language of Individualization, children's needs,and continuous progress expressed these beliefs. In theillusory schools, teachers were pessimistic, not sure theycould overcome children's learning deficiencies; no technicalor professional skill could make up for such "social defects"as uncaring homes and culturai indifference to academicvalues. The ideology of professional practice that emerges inthe illusory schools is one of social pathology--a belief in thecultural inadequacy of the children who attend these schools.The knowledge and work transmitted in these schools isrelated to this view of social pathology.

Professionals in both Pierce and Charles Evans schoolsmade frequent references to the unstable and unsupportivehome lives of their pupils. Both schoois are situated incommunities regarded as "difficult" by their staffs: Pierceenrolls mainly pupils from white, low-income families, anumber of whom receive welfare assistance; Charles Evansenrolls children of low-income biack families whose economicposition is even less secure. With a 'law exceptions, teachersin the two schools generally believed that achievement at a"normal" rate was possible for oniy a few of their students.To teachers and principals alike, these communities werecharacterized by poverty, broken homes, and an underclassculture that is indifferent or hostile to academic values andthat creates social conditions that prevent pupils from learn-ing. Whether or not these perceived conditions are realities,the professionals in the schoois believe they are.

By accepting the idea that community conditions caninfluence schooling, teachers also affirm the view that thoseoutside conditions can hinder children's work in school. As aresult, there is an emphasis on professional competence in the

148

151

face of what seem to be overwhelming odds. The possibilityof success exists only if children in school can overcome thedebilitating elements of their home lives. On the other hand,when students fai! to achieve, their failure can be attributedto community pathology or a lack of individual motivation.Student failure is not seen as the result of the structuralqualities and norms of schooling itself.

A glance at the daily activities of Charles Evans andPierce schools reveals what on would expect to find in anyAmerican school: there are established times for teachinglanguage arts, social studies, reading, and mathematics, andchildren go to the gymnasium for physical education and haveart and music classes. The curriculum at the two schools isgiven a particular nonconventional form through the tech-nologies of Individually Guided Education. Units, smallgroups of children, and talk of instructional planning pervadethe patterns of school conduct.

Looking more closely at the actions and behaviors in theschools, discrepancies and discontinuities emerge. Ratherthan engaging in any elaborate grouping or testing practicesto determine instructional needs, instruction follows thesequences outlined in whatever teachers' manuals or textbooksare being used. As one probes further, this textbook instruc-tion takes on a ceremonious quality.

The discrepancies and discontinuities between the formand the substance of schooling in Charles Evans and Pierceschools appear in the response of these schools to the ICEreform program. In both schools, reform is symbolized in alanguage that refers to "flexibility," "individualization,""grouping and regrouping," and "testing," and bulletinboards at their entrances announce that these are IGEschools. Yet when we tried to observe the regrouping ofchildren, the implementation of a "systems" approach tocurriculum, or the use of evaluation procedures, we wereunable to find clear evidence that these schools were doingwhat they said they were doing.

Although optimism about the school mandate pervadedtechnical and constructive schooling, the staffs at the illusoryschools were pessimistic about conventional goals of instruc-tion. The day-to-day activities in the illusory schools gavepriority to teaching what was considered the necessary be-haviors, self-control, and attitudes, rather than formalschoolwork. It was the social messages in the instructionalprocesses that gave definition to the concept of work andknowledge.

149

153

The emphasis in the illusory schools on rules to beobeyed should be considered more closely. To establish arule is also to express a tacit message about what valuesshould underlie the structure of control. The rules ofillusory schooling are not what we might associate with theconventional "management skills" or discipline children shouldlearn in order to master formal schoolwork. In the technicaland constructive schools, teachers expected everyone to knowhow to act to accomplish their work, even though they mightneed reminders. In the illusory schools, teachers believedthat children did not know how to act and that the first taskof schooling was to establish the behavior necessary forschooling. The social process of instruction in the illusoryschools emphasized values related to the children's characterformation, such as cooperation, hard work, respect forproperty, and the delay of gratification. Teachers perceivethese behavioral and attitudinal characteristics as lacking inthe children's home environment. At Pierce school, teachersand a guidance counselor developed a motivation program tohelp children learn to get along with each other.

A distinction, then, exists between curriculum as theformal subject matter of schooling and the "curriculum" ofsocial processes at Pierce and Charles Evans schools. Theformal curriculum at these schools is a ritual involving littlefollow-through or substantive work. The social processes ofinstruction, however, do yield values and meaning: theacquiescence to external authority, respect for property,delayed gratification, and hard work required of a moralperson are emphasized. Often the image of the school as aninstitution conveying moral values is juxtaposed to the com-munity and the children's homes to indicate the benevolenceof institutional arrangements and the inadequacies of the homeenvironment.

Like the actions and behaviors within these schools,their relations to parents and school districts were also subtleand contradictory. While our data collection proceduresfocused upon the schools and limited our researchers' involve-ment with external agencies, certain district and state policiesarid practices emerged and were identified as factors thatinfluenced and legitimated the illusory quality of schooling.Many activities undertaken by the school staffs were viewedas public relations efforts in response to pressures forchdricie arid increased efficiency; their purpose was `..o con-vince parents that the schooling was efficient and benevolent.

150

The home-school-community relations component of theIGE model is intended to increase parent participation in andunderstanding of the school's program. In the illusoryschools, however, home-school-community activities had amore specific meaning: parents' interactions with profes-sionals functioned both to legitimate school practices and toseparate professionals in the school from parents in thecommunity.

In brief, the policies and practices of the schools, schooldistricts, and states appear to accept criteria of programdevelopment and evaluation that legitimate the conditions ofschooling found in Pierce and Charles Evans. Proceduralquestions and surface characteristics are used to projectinstitutional competence and benevolence. Public relationsefforts serve to establish the superiority of school moralityand behavior. While the evidence suggests that practices andpolicies external to the schools act to legitimate illusoryschooling, we realize that these relationships need to betreated more systematically than our data permit.

The role of public relations in school legitimacy wasillustrated by the ceremonial uses of IGE at Pierce andCharles Evans. Professionals viewed the technologies of IGEas part of the way the schools expressed their relations totheir communities. District administrators and schoolprincipals talked about the pressures placed on the school bythe public--pressure to improve reading and mathematicsachievement scores and to create rational, efficientorganizations. In response to these demands, IGE technol-ogies provided parents with information such as objectivesand test scores that enabled them to feel that they knew whatwas going on in the schools.

The illusory schools are confronted with a social predica-ment which the staffs do not perceive to be of their ownmaking. The conventional mental le.Irning of skills andknowledge is thought to be unattainable for most students.Children are seen as deficient because of the debilitatingeffects of home life and community. Teachers view thechildren who come to the schools as poorly equipped with thesensibilities, manners, and awarenesses appropriate for learn-ing. Patterns of school work are concerned with learninghow to act; the operative conceptions of school work aridknowledge emphasize the development of obedience and acquies-cence to institutionalized social authority, and acceptance ofcertain aspects of middle class culture.

151

16u

The nature of illusory schooling is illuminated throughits discrepancies and contradictions. The organization ofinstruction and the routines of school work and teaching areoften without content. The language of "meeting children'sneeds," of individualization, and of grouping is circular, andit becomes questionable when referred to concrete actions.The routines and language forms at Pierce and Charles Evansschools, however, help to project an image of schooling asrational, productive, and competent.

In all the schools there are discrepancies between whatthe schools hope to do, what they think they are doing, andwhat they actually do. The type and extent of these discrep-ancies at Pierce and Charles Evans lead us to distinguishbetween technical and constructive schooling, on the onehand, and illusory schooling on the other. In technical andconstructive schooling, the formal categories of the subjectmatter play a significant role in the organization of schoolwork and knowledge. The integration of content and personal-ization of knowledge give a particular meaning to constructive.schooling. The fragmentary and hierarchical organization ofknowledge, together with precisely specified forms and typesof work, provide meaning for technical schooling. In illusoryschooling, in contrast, the subject-matter objectives thatchildren recite, the emphasis in teachers' conversations, andthe norms of classroom discourse create a definition of knowl-edge and work only tangentially related to any formal curric-ulum. The messages of the instructional processes in Illusoryschooling contain different meanings. 'they give reference tocommunity pathology and docile student behavior. The formalcurriculum content in these schools seemed secondary to theinstitutional purpose of developing a controlled and morallycorrect student population. Yet, one must view the ritual ofparticipating in school work as having possible substantivevalues. The rituals define the formal categories of schoolknowledge as important in society and for individual successand achievement. The lack of follow-through in teaching thecontent and skills of the subject matter produces failurewhich is to be viewed as personal. It is defined as personalby the ceremonies which make it seem that all are beingtaught in a competent institutional setting.

CONCLUSIONThe aim of Individually Guided Education is to provide a

set of organizational and curricular procedures that if fol-lowed could be used in any community or social context. IGEassumes psychological differences among students; thk. central

152

technologies of the reform program circumscribe the variety ofresponses that these psychological differences require ofteachers. Underlying the reform technologies and the empha-sis on individual variation are the assumptions that the reformwill make schooling meritocratic, and that each student willprogress according to his or her ability regardless of thesocial conditions from which the child comes. The belief thatschooling can be a rational, efficient, and objective responseto individual differences is not unique to IGE; it is drawnfrom broader educational thought about school accountability,curriculum as management, and systems perspectives onschool organization (Kliebard, 1979). The unique quality ofthe ICE reform program is that it offers a comprehensiveorganizational, political, and curricular system that appears torespond to demands for a true meritocracy.

We find, however, that Individually Guided Educationneither creates a universal condition of schooling nor freesschooling from the constraints of different social conditions.Our data uncover configurations of schooling that respond asmuch to community and professional interests as they do tostudents' differing capabilities. In each of the three kinds ofschooling we have identified, the use of IGE technologies isshaped by distinct assumptions about teaching, learning, andschooling. The ways in which a school reform effort isshaped by different social contexts and predicaments is thefocus of this final section.

The influence of professional ideology on the meaning ofthe daily activities of schcoling is apparent when we comparetechnical, constructive, and illusory schooling. Despite thefact that IGE implementation literature includes extensivedescriptions of the program's goals and technologies, teachersand pupils in the six schools translated the slogan "Individ-ualization" in a way that responded to certain beliefs theyalready held about children and learning. In the technicalschools, children were considered deficient with respect to abody of predefined knowledge and skills. The underlyingpsychology of learning was behavioristic, and knowledge washeld to exist outside the minds of individuals. Individual-ization, in technical schooling, was a matter of pacing chil-dren through specific levels of information and skills. In theconstructive school, knowledge was considered to be personal;individualization involved the child in a communicative processthat would enable him or her to eercise control in inter-personal situations. In the illusory schools, since the chil-dren's backgrounds were seen as pathological, the individual-ized instruction was therapeutic: appropriate social valuesand behaviors could be sought and acquired, together with

153

162

those minimal academic skills that students were able toacquire, given the social constraints under which they werethought to live.

Those different professional ideologies defined the appro-priate means by which children were to engage in socialI elations, comprehend the world, and improve their social andcultural conditions. The technical schools' emphasis onprocedures and efficiency, for example, standardized knowl-edge and separated the conception of work from its execution;this in turn produced fragmented and oversimplified tasksthat removed from the activities of schooling the possibility ofcreating a self-organized, self-motivated, and self-renewingcommunity. In contrast, the emphasis in the constructiveschool on developing facility with language and responsivenessto the subtle variations of social situations offered practice incontrolling interpersonal relations. This emphasis in communi-cation skills, however, devalued knowledge related to certainkinds of physical labor. And finally, the ideology of pathol-ogy which permeated illusory schooling promoted the establish-ment of a moral basis for the socialization of children, inwhich schooling assumed a missionary quality.

As significant as the differences between professionalideologies might be, a second important factor in definition ofschooling was the relationship between ideology and theprofessionals' perception of the immediate community servedby the school. In each of the schools studied, professionalideology was related, in part, to a definition of the kind ofstudent being taught, and each of the three forms of school-ing offered different perceptions of students. The sense ofwhat professionals could (and should) accomplish was shapedboth by abstract beliefs about children and schooling and bya set of obligations and limitations arising from the profes-sionals' perceptions of their clientele. Professional definitionsand descriptions of student populations entailed claims aboutthe children's "needs," and meeting these "needs" was said tobe the overall obligation of the school. However, the socialcharacteristics of the children's community were treated byteachers as psychological traits inherent in the individualsthat constrained the possibilities of schooling.

That professionals perceive students as carrying differ-ent social characteristics is probably inevitable and notnecessarily undesirable. Differences do exist among stu-dents, and certainly some differences are a result of the factthat children spend a substantial part of their time amongpeople and in settings outside the school. Relations with

154

16,

families and friends and activities in the neighborhood can bethought of as sources of educational experiences; however,these experiences may or may not enhance the characteristicsof the "good pupil" envisioned by the professionals. Theproblem with the vision, however, is that a school staffdefines its mandate in relation to that ideal, often ignoringthe actual linguistic competencies, cognition, and reasoningpatterns of the children who come to the school.

Those who would introduce educational reform measures,then, must recognize that their intentions, goals, and tech-nologies are profoundly subject to the specific dynamicsaffecting a particular Institution. Reformers should expectthat their programs will be interpreted, modified, and used inaccordance with the professional ideologies which are assertedthrough institutions, as well as in response to conditionsoutside of institutions. The relationships among professionalideologies, communities, and classrooms are neither simple nordirect. They are mediated by signals inid pressures exertedby parents, communities, and occupational groups outside theschool, as well as by the interactions within the school.

In considering the different pressures that interact toproduce particular kinds of schooling, we must also recognizethat schooling gives form to certain social and communityinterests, and that it is not at all a neutral endeavor. Thesix schools in this study are distinguished by different stylesof thought and action that are passed on to the children asways of maintaining relationship with the world; each of theinstitutional conditions identified offered different visions ofsociety, rules for individuals establishing relationships withthe social world, and principles of legitimacy by which tojudge the adequacy of th- le social relations.

The relationships that we have found among social,cultural, occupational, and pedagogical practices suggest thatthe problem of reform in institutional life needs to be recast.The R--1, D.-0.D model of change has a center-to-peripheryorient:06bn; centralized groups were to develop the knowledge,ind programs necessary for school reform, and to disseminatenate the programs to the nation's schools. The flaw in thismodel of change becomes apparent when the logic of ..ndividuald:tferences and individualization is examined. Individualvariation is a psychological abstraction which isolates humantraits, aptitudes, and attitudes from the school setting,cultural environment, and social circumstances in whichchildren function. It assumes, incorrectly, that individual

155

164

differences exist apart from the social setting of schoolingand that they can be "treated" in a logical and administrativefashion.

What must be accomplished is the extension of the con-cept of schooling as an institution to articulate more dearlythe social and cultural meanings that impinge on school life.These relationships are best formulated as questions: Whatconceptions of knowledge and work exist in pedagogicalcontexts? Now do occupational ideologies and practice in-fluence the pedagogical context? What are the relationshipsamong teaching/learning, occupational structures, and thesocial/cultural orientations of the communities in which theschools are located?

The IGE study has pointed to the importance of under-standing how these sets of relationships affect institutionallife and what meaning they give to reform. Their specificcontent and dynamics contain unresok'ed questions and issues.For exoniple, how do specific social/cultural characteristicsfilter into the school to influence instructional practices, andwhat are the implications of teachers' different and potentiailyconflicting perceptions of their occupationai role? Profes-sionals do have relative autonomy in establishing pedagogicaipractices, but how is this autonomy exercised to create,sustain, and renew occupational ideologies? What are theroles played by state and local education agencies, teachers'associations and unions, and teacher-preparation institutionsin establishing and legitimating school practices?

The interplay of these sets of relationships requiresmethods of inquiry that respond to the complexities of theproblem. The issue, however, is not one of qualitativeversus quantitative measures, or process versus outputmeasures. Questionnaire and field study techniques need tobe incorporated into research designs to provide descriptionsof ongoing activities, the meaning that such actions have forthose involved, the interpretations people give to their ownactions and the actions of others, and the regularities andcorrelations exhibited in school practice.

The history of social and political reform efforts sug-(jests that their effects cannot be uncritically accepted andthat- -no matter how benevolent the intent of the reformers--unforoseen, unplanned, and unwilled consequences must beconsidered in ways that permit the researcher to go beyondthe as...sumptions and priorities of those who administrativelydefine the "system." Our research suggests that the distinc-

156

1

tion between intent and effect is important in studying school-ing and reform efforts. While the intent of reform may benoble and sincere, planned social intervention is fraught withunanticipated and sometimes undesired consequences. Thecurriculum reform movement upon which ICE is based wasbuilt upon certain assumptions about educational change andreform, and our research has raised questions about both thereform and its underlying assumptions. The study of sixelementary schools reported to be :emplary of IGF.. illustratesthe complexity of making schools b ter. Schools are socialand political enterprises characterized by interests thatcannot be taken for granted.

ReferencesBecker, C. The heavenly city of the eighteenth-century

philosophers. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1932.

Braverman H. Labor and monopoly capital: The degradationof work in the twentieth century. New York: MonthlyReview Press, 1974.

Kliebard, H. M. The drive for curriculum change: theUnited States, 1890-1958. I--The ideological roots ofcurriculum as a field of specialization. Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 1979, 11(3), 191.-202.

Lasch, C. The seige of the family. New York Rev,ew ofBooks, 1977, 24(19), 15-18.

Popkewitz, T. S. Educational life and institution& reform.Educational Researcher, 1979, 8(3), 3-8.

Popkewitz, T. S. Antagonistic meanings and institutionallife. In B. R. Tabachnick, T. S. Popkewitz, & B. B.Szekely (Eds.), Study of teaching and leorning: Trendsin Soviet and American research. New York: Praeger,1(l81.

f'opkewitz, T. S., Tabachnick, B. R. , & lage, G. Themyth of educational reform: A study of school responsesto u program of change. Madison: University of WisconsinPress, 1982.

pkcwitz, T. S., & Wehlage, G. G. 1.177. Schooling aswork: An dpr) roach to research and evaluation. TheTeachers College Record, 1977, 79, 69-86.

151

1 t`r3

CHAPTER 8

Phase IV: THE FIVECURRICULUAI STUDIES

Thomas A. Romberg, Deborah M. Stewart,Norman L. Webb and Anne G. Nerenz

The intent of Phase IV was to describe In detail theactual operations of a sample of schools using three curric-ulum programs designed to be compatible with !GE: Pre-Reading Skills program (PRS) (Venezky 6 Pittelman, 1977),Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development (WDRSD)(Otto, 1977), and Developing Mathematical Processes (DMP)(Romberg, 1977). First, three small sample descriptivestudies were conducted in ICE schools in Spring 1978, one foreach program. And then, data were gathered for two compara-tive studies during the 1978-1979 school year. In the laterstudies three groups of variables--pupil outcomes, instruc-tional time, and means of instruction- -were investigated inIGE and non -ICE settings in which WDRSD or DMP as well asalternative curriculum materials were being used.

In all studies, pupil attainment of program objectives wasthe dependent variable. The other two variables, instruc-tional time and means of instruction, are essential in ex-plaining and understanding how the programs work and howobjectives are obtained. The structural relationships amongthese variables are illustrated in Figure 8-1. The primarypurposes of Phase IV were:

1. to determine the degree to which PRS, WDRSD, andDMP meet their goal of having students mister specifiedobjectives and skills.

2. to determine how time is allocated for instruction inimplementing PRS, WDRSD, and DMP.

3. to relate instructional time to the means of instruc-tion and mastery of content for PNS, WDRSD, and DMP.

4. for WDRSD and DMP, to contrast IGE schools usingthe program with two situations non -ICE schools using theprogram and IGE schools using alternative programs--on thevariables of pupil outcomes, instructional time, and means ofinstruction.

151

167

Inter-cbganizationalRelations

ProceduresFosteringCoordination andImprovement ofSchool Program

Intra-organizationalE.trucZure

GeneralImplementationof InstructionalProgrammingModel

TeacherExperience

DemographicBackground

.

School

I.CurriculumImplementationand ProgramCustomizing

to

Means ofInstruction:

PacingGroupingMaterialsInteractions

Curriculum

AllocatedTime

EngagedTime

4 NonengagedTime

1Nonapplied

TimeStudent

Achievement

Classroom Activities /1 Student Pursuits

Classron Procedures Outcomes

Figure 8-1. Phase IV model of anticipated relationships between variables.

CURRICULUM DESCRIPTIONPre-Reading Skills

PRS was developed for use in kindergartens "to preventreading failure by teaching children skills that are necessaryfor success in beginning reading" (Verpazky, Pittelman,Kamm, & Leslie, 1974, Teacher's Guide Folder 1). Fiveskills, three visual and two sound, comprise the program.Letter order (distinguishing no from on), letter orientation(distinguishing b from d), and word detai: (distinguishingtake from tale) are the three visual skills. Sound matching(recognizing the same sound at the beginning of cow andkite) and sound blending (making pat from the sounds /o/,/a/, and /t/) arc the two sound skills.

The PRS program includes a variety of larrle gro rpactivities, small group games, and individual projects andpractice sheets. This variety may be used to provide chil-dren with a range of learning experiences for each skill.

In the preferred schedule, PRS instruction is providedevery day, alternating between sound and visual skills. Therecommended alternative is PRS instruction 3 days a weekwith a sound and visual lesson each day. After the visualschedule has been completed, it is recommended that instruc-tion ir sound skills be provided 5 days a week. Checkpointsare provided in both the visual and sound schedules. Thesepoints indicate when to give the individually administeredskills tests and provide directions for teachers who decide toform more than one skill group.

Wisconsin Design forReading Skill Development

WDRSD is an objective-based manarement system de-signed to provide both struction and substance fr r an ele-mentary school reading program. The focus is on developingthe essential subskills of reading which, once acquired andapplied, enable students to read successfully. The WDRSDhas four fundamental purposes:

1. to identify and describe instructionalobjectives for the skills which appear essential forcompetence in reading.

1. to assess individual pupils' skill develop-ment status.

111

16J

3. to manage instruction of children withdifferent skill development needs.

Li. to monitor each pupil's progress. (Otto 6Askov, 1973)

The WDRSD provides a framework for teaching reading skillsas the basis of a curriculum in which individual differences instudents' rate and type of learning are emphasized.

Six areas of reading skills have been Identified: WordAttack, Study Skills, Comprehension, Self-Directed Reading,Interpretive Reading, and Creative Reading. Behavioralobjectiv. 3 were written for each skill in the first three ofthese six areas. The skills in the other three areas are notbehaviorally described and assessment exercises are notincluded. Skills in each of the six elements are clustered atlevels that correspond to traditional grade levels, as shown inTable 8-1, in order to facilitate initial implementation and tohelp in general skills assessment and regrouping.

Formal tests of demonstrated reliability which aresuitable for individual or group administration and which aidin the preparation of skill development profiles have beendeveloped for most of the skills In Word Attack, Comprehen-sion, and Study Skills. The Teacher's Resource File includesa folder for each skill with a list of published instructionalactivities and at least a few new activities; teachers areencouraged to add to the folder other activities they havefound particularly successful.

Table 8-1WDRSD Skills by Element and by Traditional Grade Level

Grade

Skill area tC 1 2 3 4 5 6

Word attack A B C D - -

Comprehension A B C D E F G

Study skills A B C D E F G

Soli- directed reading A-C D-E F-G

Interpretiv reading A-C D-E F-G

Creative reading A-C D-E F-G

162

1fu

Developing Mathematical ProcessesDMP (Romberg, Harvey, Moser, & Montgomery, 1974,

1975, 1976) is a total program of elementary mathematics forgrades K-6. It is composed of 90 topics which correspondapproximately to grade levels as follows:

Topics 1-14 Grade K15-27 Grade 128-40 Grade 241-53 Grade 354-65 Grade 466-77 Grade 578-90 Grade 6

The components of DMP are resource manuals, teacher'sguides for each topic., student booklets and guides, printedand physical materials kits, a preassessment package, topicinventories, and pupil performance records.

DMP approaches mathematics through the measurement ofattributes. The major content areas are problem solving,place value, attributes, measurement, addition and subtrac-tion, multiplication and division, fractions, geometry, andstatistics. An emphasis is placed on exploring rela .shipsbetween objects using processes such as describing, classify-ing, ordering, equalizing, joining, separating, grouping, andpartitioning.

For each topic a sequence of activities is specified.Alternate activities are included for students who need morework on an objective or variation in instruction. The activ-ities are keyed to objectives. The topic inventories are usedto assess mastery of the objectives for each topic. Instruc-tional activities include experiments, use of manipulatives,'learning stations, games, stories, discussions, worksheets,and contests.

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

Classroom ObservationsThe data gathered from observations of teachers and

pupils was based on a system modeled after the one used inthe Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (Marliave, Fisher,ruby, & Dishaw, 1977). The observation system (Vv'ebb,1979) used time as a metric to describe how the curriculum

163

171

program operates to facilitate students' achievement of pro-gram objectives. The behaviors of target students wererecorded using time sampling procedures throughout theperiod allocated for reading or mathematics Instruction.

The categories used in the observation system were:

Available Time:

Nonapplied Time:

Specific Content:

Pace:

Grouping:

Materials:

Learner Moves:

Interaction:

allocated time devoted to the observedcurriculum

allocated time devoted to other thanthe curricular program being ob-served

reading or mathematics skill (specificcurriculum objectives)

whether the student is working at hisor her own pace or is paced by theg roup

size of group whis.h the student is amember

the materials being used by thestudent

student engagement or nonengagement

persons with whom the student isinteracting and the direction andfocus of that interaction

Teacher LogsTeachers maintair,ed logs for a sample of tarr.psL students

in order to obtain a measure of the total time allocated toinstruction on specific skills or objectives during theinvestigative period. On the logs, teachers recorded theamount if time allocated to instruction c,n each skill, the sizeof the group with which the target student was workingduring instruction, and the type of materials being used.Logs were kept daily for six to eight students by the teacherwho was directly responsible for the instruction of thestudents in the target population.

1 2 "4

InterviewsIn each school interviews were conducted by the

observer for that school with members of the participatingistructio-al staff and with the principal. Backgroundinformation about the school, the staff, and use of thecurriculum products was obtained from these interviews.Instructional staff provided information about their ownteaching experience, how the curriculum product was used,and how the overall instructional program was planned andcarried out. Each principal dricribed the school's organi-zation, its relationship to ot' educational agencies, andsome procedural aspects of the school's ongoing operation.From the interview responses the school variables identified inFigure 8-1 were scaled.

Achievement MeasuresIn the PRS study, group-administered tests developed

by the PRS staff for each of the five PRS skill areas wereused to measure achievement. The tests are criterion-referenced, and results provide teachers with diagnosticinformation.

For the WDRSD and DMP studies, four forms of achieve-ment r nitoring tests were developed for each grade. Duringeach testing, one-fourth of the pupils were given each formso that each pupil was tested on only a portion of the entireset of skills at a time. The forms were systematically rotatedamong the groups of students for each test time. A groupscore, percent correct, was computed for each objective usingthe corresponding items from all forms. In this manner, datawere obtained for the group on a large number of skills withminimal disruption of normal classroom activities. The WDRSDachievement monitoring tests used items from the publishedWDRSD skills tests. For the DMP achievement monitoringtests, four items for each objective were written to corres-pond to the items included in the topic inventories for eachobjective.

THE THREE DESCRIPTIVE STUDIESThese small sample studies were designed to describe

how each curriculum program was being used in different IGEschools arid, for WDRSD and DMP, to provide a testing groundfor instruments and procedures for the comparative studieswhich were to follow. A comprehensive summary for the PRSstudy cm he found in Stewart, Nerenz, Webb, and Romberg

165

173

(1980); for WIASD iii Nerenz, Webb, Romberg, and Stewart(1980); and for DMP in Webb, Nerenz, Romberg, and Stewart(1980). All three studies were conducted during the springsemester 1978. Three schools participated in the PRS studyand two in each of the WDRSD and DMP descriptive studies.In the later two, data were gathered at both grades 2 and 5.

ResultsPRSMeeting program objectives. 13y the beginning of the

study in February, the average scores on visual skills at allthree schools were above the PRS program's recommendedmastery level. This high level of student achievement in-dicates that the children were indeed acquiring the skills.Both kindergarten and first-grade teachers mentioned thatchildren's visual scores had gone up, that the time neededfor reading readiness had decreased, anc.; that children weremore comfortable with reading skills. First-grade teachersreported that many reading skills could be reviewed ratherthan taught and emphasis could be put on blending ratherthan on the more elementary material.

Time allocation. The developers of PRS recommend thatinstruction alternate between visual and sound skills untilvisual skills have been completed, that separate skill groupsbe formed if possible, and that review activities be providedonly for students who have not demonstrated mastery of askill on an individually administered test.

At the beginning of the study, teachers reported havingpassed Checkpoint 4 in the visual schedule, after which timeinstruction in visual skills should have been provided only tononmasters of the skill. Variation in visual skills instructionacross schools was evident.

None of the teachers in this study reported formingseparate skill groups. In each of the interviews, all studentswere said to be on the same page in the schedule.

Relating instructional time and achievement. An increasein the number of students mastering sound blending occurredin two schools where engaged time for that skill was muchhigher than at the other school.

Where time was allocated to all skills for four or morechildren, test results generally indicated that the instructionled to increased average scores, or raised the minimum score,or both.

166

Stoll responses to the program. Teachers at the threeschools in this study were very enthusiastic about the pro-gram, enjoyed teaching PRS, and believed that the children,parents, and first-grade teachers had all responded favorablyto the implementation of the program. The daily activities,the accessibility and attractiveness of materials, the thoroughcoverage of skills, and the quality of the materials for par-ents were listed as the major attractions of the program.Drawbacks were listed as not using letter names, not intro-ducing more letters, lack of supplementary visual materials,and amount of time needed for individual assessment.

Overall, the data indicated that the objective of PRS ofhaving children master specific skills was met. Pupils learnedand teachers were enthusiastic about the program. Therewas variability among classes in how the program was used.

Results WDRSDData were grouped for analysis at three progressively

more general content levels, The most inclusive is the con-tent area, followed by the general objective, and then specificobjective. In this chapter only results at the general objec-tive level of aggregation are discussed. I here are 12 suchgeneral objectives at each grade level. Means of instruction,use of time, and achievement profiles are described separatelyby grade level.

Grade 2. Even though the time allocated to readingskills was about the same at the two schools, students at oneschool received somewhat more skill instruction each daybecause the amount of available time was greater at theschool. At both schools large group, other-paced settingswere the predominant mode of instruction. Instruction atboth 5010015 wcis characterized by the use of paper and pencilmaterials about half of the time; at neither school was avariety of materials represented either on an individual dayor across observation days. Interactions were observed aboutone-thrid of the time at both schools, usually teacher-initiatedspeech. Thus, the percentage of allocated and available timedriil he averocie number of minutes for four means of instruc-tion variables were almost identical.

The use of time during reading skills instruction appearsto be very similar at the two schools. Each school provided

non on about 80'; of the possible instruction& days.Over all of the observation days, 62% of the time was actuallyavailable for instruction. Of this, engagement average 68% at

161

one school, and 70% at the other. Most of the observed andallocated time was devoted to Word Attack skills.

At grade 2 the achievement monitoring tests covered 10of the 12 general objectives. Students at both schools hadmastered phonic analysis-consonants at test time 1, and atschool 4 initial achievement in passage meaning was also high.By test time 3, students had mastered one additional skill,although this differed by school. At neither school, then,was a mastery level of 80% or more correct achieved for amajority of the general objectives for which data wereobtained.

Variations in initial achievement and type of progresswere also clear. At one school, there was very little dif-ference in initial achievement for many of the skills, andsubstantial gains were made for only two objectives, with thepercent correct for one objective declining by test time 3. Atthe other school there was considerable difference in initialscores. Steady gain't across test times occurred for fourobjectives, with small gains in two additional areas andachievement declining in one area over time.

Grade 5. The pattern of reading instruction was quitedifferent at the two schools. While students were self-paced43% of the time at one school, self-paced settings were ob-served 88% of the time at the other. Large group instructionwas observed 46% of the total period at the first school, butat the second school it accounted for only 7% of the availabletime, with nearly three-fourths of the instructional periodspent in individual work and 20% in small groups. Althoughboth schools relied heavily on paper and pencil materials, atthe first school there were used almost exclusively on aday-to-day basis. At the other, paper end pencil materialswere always used in conjunction with printed material.

There are also similarities between the two schools atgrade 5. Available time averaged about 75%, and studentswere engaged 769 .. of the available time at each school or aoout57.i of the allocated time. Little Word Attack time was sched-uled at either school. Skills instruction at the first schoolfocused almost equally on Study Skills and Comprehension,while at the other Comprehension was allocated over fourtimes as much.

At grade 5 students evidenced only small changes inachievement for all but a small number of the 12 generalobjectives at each school. The number of skills for whichstudents reached a :nastery level of 80% on the achievement

16$

17:i

monitoring tests was not significantly larger at test time 3than at test time 1 at either school. A pattern of steadyachievement across test administrations occurred for only twoskills at each school. In none of these instances of growthdid students reach a level of 80% correct, and in three of thecases the overall gains were not large.

Allocated time. Time allocations were adjusted to reflectthe average number of minutes allocated to the children whoreceived instruction rather than the average number of minutesper child. Overall, relatively large differences existed be-tween the amount of time which was allocated and the amountof time the developers considered necessary for continuousskill development and mastery. In that lees than the minimumrecommended amount of time was allocated, especially to WordAttack at grade 2 and to Study Skills and Comprehension atgrade 5, it is not surprising that there are ery few largegains in achievement over the investigation period. Thus,the nonsignificant correlations between time and achievementprobably occurred because an insufficient amount of time wasallocated to instruction, resulting in small and relativelyunstable changes in students' performance.

Results DM'Grade 2. The length of the class period was nearly the

same at both schools, ranging between 35 and 40 minutes.Three-quarters of this time was spent in activities related tospecific mathematics objectives. At both schools paper andpencil materials were used approximately 60% of the allocatedtime. Manipulatives were used for nearly one-third of thetime. This relatively high use of manipulative materials ismost likely associated with DMP, reflecting the program'semphasis on their use. Garrls were seldom used at eitherschool. The main type of interaction was teacher to group.occurring from 11,, to 14% of the time at both schools. Thepatterns of the other interaction types were very similar atboth schools.

The main variations in instruction between the twoschool. were in pacing and grouping. These two means ofinstruction appear to be more associated with the teacher,than with either school or program variables. Variations ingrouping and pacing also occurred from day to day, more atone school than the other, indicating flexibility in their use.Ako, within the instructional group of one teacher, somevariation rrr pacing and grouping existed between individualstudents, which suggests some individualization of instruc-tion.

169

177

At grade 2 the total allocated time for the two primaryobjectivesadc on and subtraction computation and counting- -was very simila in the two schools, with computation allo-cated more time. One school spent a significant time onmeasurement/attributes and some time on geometry, whereasat the other only 31 minutes was spent on measurement withno time being spent on geometry. On the other hand, thatschool spent more time on writing sentences and fractions.Even though DMP is used at both schools there are differ-ences in which objectives are accorded instructional time andin the sequence of instruct:on.

The students at one school began the period of investi-gation at a higher level of achievement on five of the seventested objectives than did the students at the other school; inproblem solving the schools were comparable and in fractionsstudents at the first school were lower.

The patterns of achievement are similar between the twoschools on writing sentences, computes (+/-), counting,inequalities, and measurement/attributes which can be par-tially explained by both schools using DMP. The schoolsdiffered in the increase of achievement on fractions andproblem solving. Overall, the differences in achievementbetween the two schools appear to be related to the dif-ferences in content covered rather than to differences in themeans of instruction.

Grade 5. Very few common features were observed inthe means of instruction at the two schools. Paper and pencilmaterials were the main materials used, although to a muchlarger extent at one school than the other school. Very littleuse vas made of small groups, manipulatives, or games ateither school. The dissimilarities between the grade 5 classesat the two schools are numerous. Self-paced individualactivities were used extensively at one school, but only aboutone-fourth of the time at the other. The teacher at the firstschool spent a large proportion of the allocated time talking tothe whole group of students, whereas only one of the teachersat the other school used any teacher-to-group interactionsand usually for only 5 minutes at the beginning of the classperiod.

Because of the large variance between the schools, thereappear to be no common means of instruction that can berelated to the common curriculum program, DMP. The meansappear to be more a function of the teacher.

;70

The two schools differed noticeably in the content cov-ered during the investigation. At one school instruction wasconfined to two general objectivas fractions and decimals.The teacher commented that ne prefers to teach the topicsrelated to one strand, such as fractions, rather than take thetopics in numerical sequence. In contrast, at the otherschool where two classes participated in the study, instruc-tional time was spent on a range of general objectives.However, one general area received the major part of class-room time early in the study, multiplication and divisioncomputations, and emphasis later shifted to a second area,fractions.

Non-DMP materials, primarily worksheets taken fromother commercial sources or made by the teacher, were usedat both schools. As the school ye.ar progressed the trendwas to use these materials to provide the students morepractice on skills.

The percentage of engagement at both schools wassimilar and averaged approximately 70% of the available time.Thus, the variance in content covered was due more to whattime was allocated to particullr r,:neral objectives than tovariance in the engagert smeents during classes.

Thus, even though both .xhools we!e using DMP as themain mathematics program at grade 5, the use of the programvaried grea.i. This indicates flexibility in the use of WT.At neither so tool was DMP used exclusively.

Achieve lent differences between the two schools reflectdifferences in when instructional time was S spen' on objec-tives. At one school students began with some competency inmultiplication and division and made large increases inachievement first on fractions concepts and computation andthen on decimals-computation. The relatively low scores onmost objectives for test time 1 provide evidence that thestudents were grouped closely in their achievement. Incontrast, the initial scores on objectives for the other schoolwere moderately high, .50 or above, and there was largevaria.oility among students, which suggests that more empha-sis was placed on indiv.dualization at that school, Also,moderate increases in achievement over the periods provideadditional evidence that perhaps not all of the students weregiven instruction on the same objectives at the same time atthat school.

111

17',)

The final levels of achievement are similar for bothschools on fractions-computation, decimals-concepts, computes(x/fl, and problem solving despite the differences at thebeginning of the investigation and the varying instructionalapproaches. The similarities between the two schools instudent outcomes appear to be, at least in part, associatedwith both schools using DMP. Some of the s.me topics wereused at both schools.

The differences in student outcomes between the twoschools appear related to how the materials were used and thesequence in which topics were given. Selected topics wereused at one school allowing more advanced topics to be pre-sented. At the other school a larger number and a widerrange of topics were used. However , studentz did not ad-vance as far on particular topics such as decimals. Thisdifference in the topics covered resulted in the 'argestdifference in achievement between the two schools, whichoccurred on decimals-computation at test time 3.

Summary of theDescriptive Studies

From these studies we believed adequate evidence wasavailable that each of the programs can be effective in gettingstudents to master specific objectives and skills. The evi-dence is more convincing for PRS and DMP than for WDRSD,but steady improvement on some leading objectives was ap-parent.

However, what was more obvious was that how time wasallocated and instruction carried out varied considerablybetween teachers. !n particular the time allocated to dif-ferent content objectives, the sequence of instruction, andthe grouping of studer:.s differed dramatically from class toclass.

THE IGE/WDRSDCOMPARATIVE STUDY

ProcedureThe purpose of this study was to examine three questions:

1. What are the effects on reading skill instruction ofusing the WDRSD in an ICE and a non-ICE school environment?

112

2. What are the effects on reading instruction of usingthe WDRSD and using other reading programs in the IGEschool environment?

3. What are the relationships amon the variablespresented in Figure 8-1?

To arswer these questions, data were gathered from asample of IGE schools using the WDRSG, a sample of non-IGEschools using the WDRSD, and a sample of !GE schools usingother reading programs. A full report of the study wasprovided by Romberg, Stewart, Webb, Nerenz, Pulliam, andSrivastava (1982b).

Data were gathered for this comparative study fromOctober 1978 until May 1979 from studen .s in grades 2 and 5and their teachers. As in the descriptive studies, data werecollected by four means: tests on general objectives ofWDRSD, thservations of specific students during the readinginstruction period, teacher logs for reading instruction ofspecific students, and questionnaires which served as thebasis for structured interviews with school staff.

For each of the three school types--IGE/WDRSD, IGE/non-WDRSD, and non-IGE/WDRSD--schools were matched accordingto community size, socioeconomic level, composition of studentbody, size, and for ICE schools "IGEness.:1 Communitiesrepresented were extreme rural, small place, medium city,and urban fringe. One urban fringe IGE school not usingWDRSD withdrew from the study just prior to the beginningof data collection, bringing the number of schools in thisstudy to 11. Differences in operating characteristics, orbackground variables, among the three types of schools wereanticipated to predict differences in the way instructional timewas used; time use, in turn, was anticipated to predictstudent performance on objective-based assessments. How-ever when schools were compared on the four backgroundvariables which represent IGE characteristics (the first fourschool variables in Figure 8-1), the non-IGE schools provedto have the highest average on two variables and were be-tween the two groups of IGE schools on one variable. Thus,in this sample, schools using the IGE label were not opera-tionally different from schools not using the label.

Data were grouped for analysis at three progressivelymore specific levels, the most inclusive being the content areafollowed by the general objective and the specific objective.In the WDRSD, reading skills with specific behavioral ob

173

181

tives are organic:A into three content areas: Word Attack,Comprehension, and Study Skills. Within each of thesecontent areas, from two to five general objectives were devel-oped for the present study, based on the specific objectivesof WDRSD. The general objectives used in the study forgrades 2 and 5 are shown in Table 8-2. The content aggre-gation for reading skills instruction was used with the teacherlogs, classroom observations, and achievement monitoringtests.

The actual dependent variables used in this study werethe residualized mean gain scores (final scores adjusted fordifferences on initial scores) calculated for 13 variables atgrade 2 and 11 variables at grade 5 (see Table 8-2).

The results of the ICE/WDRSD comparative study aresummarized in terms of six categories of information: timeuse, achievement results, and relationships between time useand achievement for grades *c and 5 separately. Because oftheir size, tables reporting results are in the appendix tothis chant ar, numbered 8A-1 through 8A-4.

Grade 2 ResultsT:rne allocated to reading instruction, the amount of time

as teacher inter ded to spend in various reading instructionis a gross measure of opportunity to learn. The

number of hours allocated overall indicates the relativeimportarce of reading in the elementary curriculum at variousschools. Broken down by objective, allocated time informs usabout the focus of instruction at various schools. In Table8A-1 a summary of the time allocated to content areas ispresented; these data come from teacher logs.

Word Attack skills received the primary instructionalemphasis in reading at grade 2 with most schools allocatingfrom one-half to tiro- thirds of the skill time to that area.Study Skills were taught very little at the non-WDRSDscowls, and not at all at three of the eight WDRSD schools.At three of the non-IGE/WDRSD schools, over one-third ofthe skills instruction time was allocated to Study Skills.There seem. to be two distinct ideas about Lip. teahing ofComprehension skills in grade 2: Three schools, all WDRSDschools, allocated no time to instruction in Comprehensionskills; at 'h^ other eight schools about one-third of the skilisinstruction time was allocated to Comprehension.

114

162

Table 8-2Student Achievement Variables for the WDRSD

Comparative Study

01

02

03

04

Variable Grade 2 Grade 5

Phonic Analysis -- Consonants

Phonic Analyses--Vowels

Phonic Analysis--Silent Letters

Structural Analysis

05 Vocal- lary Meaning

13 Word Attack 01+02+03+04+05 03+04

06 Map Skills

07 Graph and Tab' Skills

08 Reference Skills v.

14 Study Skills 06+07+08 06+07+08

09 Word Meaning Skills

10 Sentence Meaning Skills

11 Passage Meaning Skills

15 (:oiaprehension 10+11 09+10+11

12 General Reading

tote: Variables 01-11 are general objectives; variables 13-15 arecontent areas. VariablL. 12 is for basal reading groupswhich were logged and observed in 4 of the 11 schools.

115

183

Obviously there are no consistencies apparent among theeight IGE schools or the seven WDRSD-users in terms of timeallocat to the content areas of reading. Thcre was consid-erable variation among the schools on each of the time usevariables, and no similarities were found related to either ICEor WDRSD. The only conclusion that is warranted is thatwhat operationally constitutes a reading -togram at grade 2 isdistinct in classroom.

Use of different group sizes, different types of mater-ials, and incidence of teacher- and student-initiated inter-actions were examined in terms of percent of available times.At all IGE/WDRSD schools large gro fps were used extensively,but the schools differed in their use of individual and smallgroups. Similarly, at all ;GE /non -WDRSD schools, individualwork was preJominant, but small and large grOups were usedfor different percentaaes of time at the three schools. In useof miterials no totally consisten: patterns were found.

Achievement data were gathered eight times in eachschool on all specific objectives. The data ware then ag-gregatec: for general objectives and content areas. To simp-'ify this discussion oily the ..ygregate data for the threecontent areas from the first and last administrations arereported h( e. Both actual change and relative change fromtime 1 to time 8 are presented.

The clutual change, course, is an increase during theschool year from time 1 to time 3, an actual gain in achieve-ment. Since scores differed at time 1 and at time 8 and sincethe proportion of change was different among schools, therelative change in achievement differs among schools. Rela-tive change is expressed as residualized mean gain scores, orresiduais; these scores are both positive and negative evenwhen actual achievement increased for all schools. 1 hesummary data for grade 2 reading achievement are shown inTable 8A-2.

For Word Attack and Comprehension, scores at time 1were moderately high, thus lea.,ing littie 'poortunity forsubstantial gains on those tests. Yet, positive actual gainswere exhibited in each school 'n each area. There was verylittle difference among the there groups af schools and muchoverlap in the scores of schools.

The emphasis in this study was on identifying instruc-tional patterns that are particularl- zffective in raising

achi, ement. There were no distinct instructionalpatterns ii the schools that had high achievement gains. We

116

teel that instruction ' the relatively less effective programswas not well targeted; that is, instruction seems to have beenprovided less on the basis of individual instructional nerdsthan on the basis of skills customarily taught at grade level.

The contrast between school 476 and school 493 forsecond grade instruction in Word Attack provides a strikingexample of the effect of targeted instruction. School 476had the highest score at time 1; all of the reading skillinstructional time was allocated to Word Attack; the score attime 8 was above average but the score gain was less thgaverage. School 493 had a nearly average score at time 1;about two-thirds of the reading skill time was allocated toWord Attack; the score at time 8 was the same as that atschool 476; the score gain at school 493 was half again ashigh as the average.

For Comprehension skills, achievement at time 8 wasquite high at all schools and outstanding at school 451.Again, at this school, the emphasis on comprehension skillinstruction was no -eater than at most other schools and theinstructional pattern did not differ from other less effectivepatterns. We conclude that instruction was well targeted.

Grade 5 ResultsIn Table 8A-3 a summary of the allot- time to content

area is presented; these data came from teacner logs.

Word Attack skills were taught at grade 5 in only twoWDRSD schools and in all three non-WDRSD schools. Theseresults are consistent with the developers' expectations; theWord Attack eleme.-it of the WDRSD was designed to end formalskill instruction between thin and fifth grade, with rein-forcement and application con. g during basal readinggroups.

The five schools that provided Word Attack skill in-struction allocated a relatively smaller proportion of theirreading time to Stud ' Skills than did other schools. Atschool 903 no time was allocated to Study Skills duri j theskill period. In contrast, at schoo. 900 virtually all skillinstruction time was allocated to Study Skills.

In 9 of the 11 schools, about halt of the grade 5 skillinstruction time was allocated to Comprehension skills. Thetwo exceptions differed not only from the other schools butalso from one another. At school 90-.1, nearly all of the skillinstruction focu.-3ed on Comprehension; at school 900, no skill

111

1S

time was allocated to Comp`retiension. The importance of Com-prehension skills at 10 schools is the .past consistent time usefinding.

Observational data on time use are reported in detail inthe complete report. The percentage of nonapplied timevaried among schools, averaging 19% of the allocated time.Extreme deviations occurred at schools 446 and 902, wherenearly one-third of the allocated time was nonapplied time,and at school 410, where only 3% of the allocated time wasnonapplied.

Students were engaged in instructional activities nearlytwo-thirds of the time, on the average. School 466, wherestudents were engaged only 50% of the time, and school 410,where students were engaged 89% of the time, were againexceptional. At school 900, where the percentage of non-applied time had been average, engaged time was only 55$ ofthe allocated time.

Finally, for the means of instruction variables--groupsizes, primary types of materials, and incidence of teacherand student interactions--no consistent patterns were apparent.

At grade 5 the same strategy of reporting proportioncorrect at times 1 and 8 with actual and residual mean gainscores was followed (see Table 8A-4). As at grade 2, formost objectives average scores were at a moderately high levelat time 1. Most scores for all objectives increased fromtime 1 to time 8.

The group of non-IGE/WDRSD schools showed more posi-tive average change on all three aggregate objectives thaneither of the groups of IGE schools. IGE/WDRSD schools hadhigher positive gains than IGE/non-WDRSD schools on bothWord Attack and Stud., Skills. The average differences areslight; score ranges for all three groups overlap considerablyon both Word Attack and Comprehension.

Large achievement gains in Word Attack skills occurredat two of the schools that allocated no time to formal skillinstruction in Word Attack, schools 1151 and 902. Only sillinstruction and not the total reading program was studied inthese schools so knowledge of the reasons for the improve-ment is not available.

118

1S6

In Study Skillsibove average achievement gains weremade A schools 900, 902, and 901. These gains were notextremely large and did not lead to impressivel. high achieve-ment at time 8. No distinct instructional pattern was ob-served at these three schools.

In Comprehension, the achievement gain was dramatic atschool 410 and large at schools 507, 902, and 901. At school410, the total reading period was logged and observed; per-haps the small groups were a particularly effective mechanismfor improving Comprehension skills at that school. Becauseonly skills instruction was observed at other schools, whereno instructional pattern emerged, we cannot draw any conclu-sions about the effectiveness of the basal reading groups inincreasing achievement on specific Comprehension skills.

THE IGE/DMP COMPARATIVE STUDYProcedure

As in the WDRSD study, the purpose was to examinethree questions:

1 What are the effects on mathematics instruction ofusing the DMP mathematics program in an IGE and a non-IGEschool environment?

2. What are the effects on mathematics instruction ofusing DMP and using other mathematics programs in the IGEschool environment.

3. What are the relationships among the variablespresented in Figure 8-1?

To answer these questions, data were gathered fromthree samples of schools: IGE schools usir I DMP, non-IGEschools using DMP, and IGE schools using other mathematicsprograms.

Data were ()Altered during the 1978-79 school year fromstudents in gr-ides 2 and 5 and their teachers. As in theother studies data were collected by four means: tests ongeneral objectives of DMP, observations, teacher logs, and,,tru(tured interviews based on questionnaires. More detail isdvail.4)1e in Romberg, Stewart, Webb, Nerenz, Pulliam, andSrivast.p.-.1 (1982a).

119

1 8

Table 3 -3Student Achievement Variables for the IGE/DMP

Comparative Study

General Objective Grade 2 Grade 5

01 Writing Numbers V

02 Inequalities V

03 Other Place Value or Numeration V

Place Value and Numeration (16) 01+02+03

04 Addition/Subtraction V

05 Multiplication V

06 Division

Operations (Whole Numbers) (17) 04+05 04+05+06

07 Concept V V

08 Fractions Computes V

Fractions (18) 07 07+08

09 Decimal Concept

10 Decimal Computes

Decimal Fractions (19) 09+10

11 Measurement V v'

12 Word Problems V

13 Applications V V

'-Jblem Solving (20) 12+13 12+13

14 Geometry

15 Miscellaneous

IS110

For each of the three types--IGE/DMP, IGE/ron-DMP, andnon-IGE/DMP--schools were matched as in the WDRSD study.Communities represented were extreme rural and small place,medium city, and urban fringe. One medium city IGE schoolusing DMP withdrew from the study just prior to the beginningof the data collection, bringing the number of schools in thisstudy to eight.

As before, differences in operating characteristics amongthe three types of schools, background variables, were anti-cipated to predict differences in the way in which instruc-tional time was used; time use, in turn, was anticipated topredict student performance on objective-based assessments.As in the IGE/WDRSD comparative study, when schools werecompared on the four background variables which representIGE operating characteristics, the distinctions between groupswere not apparent. For %wo of the variables, the non-IGEschools averaged slightly above one of the groups of IGEschools and had ranges that overlapped those of both groupsof ICE schools. The overlap also occurred with one group ofICE schools on a third variable. Thus for these IGE-relatedscores, the label ICE school was not useful in groupingschools.

To aggregate the data the basic strategy used in theIGEIWDRSD comparative study was followed. Pupil perform-ance data on specified program objectives were gathered andaggregated into 23 general content objectives. These generalobjectives were organized into eight content areas: placevalue: arid numeration, operations (whole numbers), fractions,decimal fractions, leasurement, problem solving, geometry,and miscellaneous. While the same content areas are used forboth grades the general and specific objectives differ asshown in Table 8-3. Results are tabulated in the appendix tothis chapter in Tables 8A-5 through 8A.8.

Grade 2 ResultsThe total hours of mathematics instruction per child and

the assignment of those hours to the 11 general objectives foryr.i.le 2 ,ire givcn in Table 8A-5. Overall, hours allocatedduring the 25-week study ranged from just over 140 at school33 to over 90 at schools 593 and 906. Clearly, addition andsubtraction of whole numbers is the heart of the second-grademathematics program, regardless of curriculum program used.At the DMP schools, writing numbers anc: Nord problems bothhad a substantial proportion of time allocated. At the non-IGEIDNIP schools, over 10% of the time was atiocateci to frac-tions. At the various sellouts, different general objectives

lel

183

had been identified fur ddditioriai emphasis: geometry atschools 440 arid 762; misceildneous topics at schools 593, 428,421, and 333; and other place value also at school 421. Atschool 906, tune was allocated to only 7 of the 11 generalobjectives; at other schools, time was allocated to 9 or moreof the objectives.

Each of the IGE/DMP schools allocated over three-quarters of the mathematics instruction time to three basicobjectives: writing numbers, addition and subtraction ofwhole numbers, and word problems.

Also, at two of the three non-IGE/DMP schools, aboutthree-quarters of the time was allocated to the three basicobjectives; at the third, nearly two-thirds. At least 11% ofthe time at each of these three schools was allocated tomeasurement of length and capabity, much more time than atother schools.

At the three IGE/non-DMP schools, addition and subtrac-tion was the only basic objective to be scheduled for a largeproportion of time and the proportion was larger than in theother two types of schools. The miscellaneous topics such astime, money, and graphs were allocated a fair proportion oftime at two schools, one or which also allocated considerabletime to place value and numeration. At the third school inthis group, the relatively little time not allocated to additionand subtraction was spread among four other objectives includ-ing the miscellaneous topics.

Thus overall there was a distinct difference in whatconstituted the mathematics program at grade 2 dependingupon whether DMP was the program or riot.

In contrast, the aggregated observational data on timeuse show that there is no consistent pattern of how instruc-tion proceeds in the groups of schools at second grade.Observations were made during the time period in whichmathematics instruction was scheduled in each school. Al-though there was variation among the schools on nonappliedtime, available time, and engaged time, it is not consistentfor groups. For two of the means of instruction variablesthere was a hint of a pattern. At four of the five DMP-userschools there was a more balanced use of grouping patternsthan at the non-DMP schools wnere instruction was predomin-antly individualized with paper and r ncil materials.Similarly. manipulatives were used only in DMP schools. Whatis surprising is that at two DMP schools (one IGE and oneriot) there was little use of manipulatives.

182

1' ;J

As in the [(if /N/DfiSD comparative study, achievementdata were gathered eight times for the specific objectives.To simplify comparisons only the data from time 1 and time 8are presented with both actual and relative change. Thesummary data for grade 2 mathematics achievement are shownin Table 8A-6.

In general, there was little variance in proportion cor-rect at test time 1 and greater variance at test time 8. Thethree non-IGE school!: !cifa .y scored lowest of the schoolgroups while the two groups of IGE schools alternately hadthe highest average. Gains were generally very high posi-tive. In spite of the instructional emphasis on addition andsubtraction at all schools, average gains were greater than.20 for four additional objectives.

In the following paragraphs, results for each of the fouraggregate objectives in mathematics are discussed in relationto time and means of instruction. The emphasis is on identi-fying instructional patterns that are particularly effecth inraising children's achievement.

For place value and numeration, students in schoils 440,593, and 906 made above average achievement gains. Studentswere observed to be engaged more hours at these threeschools than at the other five.

For operations, although addition, subtraction, and mul-tiplication were included in objectives for instruction, onlyaddition and ; ubtraction were tested and very little time wasallocated to multiplication at any of the schools. Initial scoreswere above average at schools 593, 42i, 333, and 906. Atschools 593 and 906 achievement gains were above average; atschools 421 and 333, below. At schools 421 and 333, studentsworked individually over 80% of the time. Individual workoccurred a stnal!e, proportion of the observed time at schools593 and 906 where large groups were more frequently observed.At school 906, extensive use of small groups was also observed.Paper and pencil materials, or worksheets, were in use abouthalt the time at schools 593 and 421 and nearly 90% of thetiric! at school 333 and 906; both schools 593 and 906 usedadditional materialsprimarily printed materials at school 593and entirely manipulatives at school 906 - -for nearly the sameamount of time worksheets were in use. In addition, therewere more interactions at schools 593 and 906.

For fractums, the two schools in which students madesubstantial gains, sc hools 440 and 904, were the two in whichmanipulatives were in use for a large proportion of the avail-obit: time.

113

191

For problem solving, only in the five DMP schools was asubstantial proportion of time formally allocated and observed.The achievement gains at schools 428, 421, and 333 suggestthat problem solving is an integral part of instruction onother mathematics objectives. Achievement gains were low forall three non-IGE/DMP schools, particularly so in school 906where over 40% of the mathematics instruction time was allo-cated to problem solving. The instruction& pattern in thisschool was not different from the effective patterns at schools440 and 593. It seems possible that both allocations andobservations did not include a clear distinction between theoperations of addition and subtraction and the application ofthose skills in problem solving.

Grade 5 ResultsIn Table 8A-7 a summary of the time allocated to the

general objectives is presented. Overall hours allocatedduring the 25-week study ranged from nearly 70 at school 593to ver 90 at school 440. There was no general pattern ofinstruction ditferentiating the groups of schools, although thenon-IGE/DMP schools were more similar than the other twogroups. Division was the only general objective to which allschools allocated d substantial proportion of time. All schoolsexcept school 593 also allocated at least 10% of the time tocomputing with fractions. At school 593, a third of the timewas allocated to computing with decimals, much more than atthe other schools.

The very small proportion of time allocated to wordproblems and applications is disappointing. These objectivescomprise the angregete objective problem solving which, formost adults, is the primary application for mathematics.

The observational data present somewhat the same pic-tore; the percentage of nonapplied time, and of course avail-able time, did not very greatly among schools. The largestpercentage of nonapplied time was observed at the two iGF;DMPschools which were similar to each other. The non-IGE/DMPschools also were similar.

Variability d o n g schools increased for engaged time.IGEInon-DMP schools were similar to one another and had ahigher average engagement rate than the other groups ofschools.

For the means of inct-uction variables, four interesting(inferences were noted. rst, in use of the three groupsilos 'he two nonlGE/DMP schools were similar to each other

114

and different from the other two groups of schools; only inuse of small groups, however, is there no overlap in therange of individual school scores. Second, the IGE/DMPschools had a much higher rate of teacher-initiated inter-actions than the other two groups. Third, in spite of DMP,manipulatives were rarely used in any school. And finally,school 333, an IGE/non-DMP school, is unique: All instruc-tion is directed to individuals; absolutely no large groupinstruction is provided; paper and pencil materials pre-dominate; acid there were virtually no observed teacher-pupilinteractions.

Achievement results are shown in Table 8A-8 which in-cludes, for each objective, proportion correct at times 1 and8, actual gain, and residual gain score.

The most striking finding is the slight but consistentdecline on addition/subtraction; only school 428 had a higheraverage at time 8 than at time 1. At both times 1 and 8,scores were highest for this objective. Scores were high atboth times 1 and 8 for multiplication.

The IGE/DMP schools had the highest average on six ofthe nine general objectives and three of the four aggregateobjectives. However, differences among the three groups ofschools were small except for decimal computing and itsaggregate.

At grade 5, the identification of particularly effectiveinstructional patterns is very difficult. For example, atschool 905 instruction in operations was very successful; theachievement gain was more than double the average gain andwas sufficient to bring the time 8 score very close to theaverage. At school 906 the instructional pattern observedwas nearly identical to that observed at school 905; however,at school 906 the achievement g yin was slightly less thanaverage. For operations at schools 440 and 333, whereachievement changed very little from time 1 to time 8, theoverall rate of materials use was much lower than at otherschools.

For fractions, the rise of manipulatives seems to enhanceachievement. The only other apparent effect is of relativeemphasis on fractions in the overall mathematics curriculum asindicated by proportion of allocated time.

115

Only at school 593 was instruction on decimal fractions amajor portion of the fifth-grade mathematics curriculum.Achievement gains were very large at this school and atschool 906, although achievement levels at the two schoolswere very different.

And finally, at no school was instruction in problemsolving a significant portion of the mathematics instructionalprogram, as shown by percentage of allocated time. At allschools, achievement gains were small from an initial levelthat was uniformly low. Instructional patterns were verysimilar at the three schools where problem solving instructionwas observed. The small gains are consistent with the disap-pointingly low percentage of time allocated to problem solving.

CONCLUSIONSThe information presented in this chapter is from five

studies conducted as Phase IV of the IGE Evaluation Study.The four primary purposes of the Phase IV Evaluation Projectreflect on our attempt to describe in considerable detail theactual operating characteristics of a sample of schools thatwere using the curriculum materials designed to be compatiblewith IGE. Based on these studies three primary conclusionsare warranted.

1. There is no obvious pattern by which the differentlearning environments at each grade level can be appro-priately grouped; one cannot confidently argue that any twoclassrooms (or units) operated in the same way. It appearsthat each learning environment is unique. The demographyof the school, the way in which it is organized, the degree ofImplementation of var ous components of IGE, whether or notIGE-compatible materials are used, the way in which time isused in classrooms, the way in which instruction is actuallycarried out, and the level of achievement on different objec-Lives present an interesting descriptive picture about eachlearning environment. However, there is little common fromsituation to situation.

2. Whether a school calls itself IGE or not is not impor-tant. The label difference is not a good indicator of operat-ing differences in the schools.

ICE was not developed or disseminated as a simple newidea. Rather IGE is a synthesis of ma.iy existing ideaswhich, implemented together, represent a comprehensivealternative to traditional schooling. It is not surprising,

116

1;I

then, that schools not using the 1GE label have characteris-tics that one would expect in an IGE school. Similarly, it isnot surprising that there are "nominal" 1GE schools, asdescribed in chapter 4, which differ little from traditionalschools.

3. Whether schools use IGE-compatible materials (PRS,WDRSD, or DMP) is important if the content of those materialsdiffers from traditional materials. The key here is allocatedtime. If other content of programs differs, then time isspent differently and achievement differs. This appears tobe the case for both PRS and DMP. However, for WDRSD, whichis basically a skills management system, the differencesbe aen WDRSD users and WDRSD nonusers were not generallyapparent.

In addition to these general conclusions the followingseven findings need to be noted.

1. If time is reasonably allocated to objectives, thenstudents' performance does improve. Also, if little time isallocated to instruction (such as fractions at second grade),then little change in achievement is shown. However, eventhough a lower bound of allocated time is needed to increaseachievement in any area, the relationship of allocated time toperformance is not linear. For example, at second-gradereading, the variability in time allocated to Word Attack skillsis not related to achievement, since all schools spend a lot oftime on these skills. In fact, some schools are probablyspending too much time for the relative payoff.

2. Particularly in reading instruction, while much timeis allocated to reading, what is actually taught--relativeemphasis o' specific objectives--differs greatly across classes.This varia,,upi might be appropriate if the differing emphasisretiected the needs of the students and was in turn reflectedin improved performance. However, a great deal of time wasallocated to specific skills with little apparent gain in per-formance. Part of the lack of gain occurred because achieve-ment at time 1 on most objectives was fairly high. Pact isdue to the fact that items for a general objective were notnecessarily related to all the subskills, and time may havebeen spent on untested subskills. However, the most likelyexplanation is that teachers seem to have chosen to basereading instruction in their classes on what they customarilycover at each grade level rather than on individual needs,arid what they customarily cover is idiosyncratic.

lei

195

3. At grade 2, the non-DMP users did not allocate timeto solving word problems. This objective is emphasized inDMP. The differences in problem-solving performance be-tween DMP and non-DMP groups clearly favors the use ofDMP. Similar differences at grade 5 were not found sincelittle time was allocated to problem solving in any class.

4. An unanticipated finding in grade 2 mathematics wasthat there was no pattern of differences favoring the non-DMP users on the operations of addition and subtraction untilthe beginning of third grade, the activities at grade 2 aredesigned to develop the concepts underlying those skills.Thus, the amount of time allocated for addition and subtrac-tion sht uld have been less at DMP schools, and performance,in turn, should have been lower. Neither was the case.DMP users seem to have modified the program so that the timeallocated to computation was similar to that allocated bynon-DMP users. For all schools, we believe an inordinateamount of time is spent on addition and subtraction skills atgrade 2, with not enough time allocated to other importantparts of mathematics.

5. Totally individualized instruction with childrenworking independently on worksheets is detrimental. Forexample, in school 333 at grade 5 in mathematics, where thisis the only way in which instruction is carried out, theapproach produced low achievement.

6. For some of the mathematics objectives (fractions,place value and numeration, for example) the use of manipul-ative materials in instruction is a very effective means ofimproving achievement.

7. Some Interactions of children with other children orwith teachers are needed. Again, in grade 5 mathematics atschool 333, there are almost no interactions, and the chil-dren's performance is disappointing.

On reflection, it is now clear that self-declaration as"IGE school" or "WDRSD user" or "Dtv't3 user" is not anadequate basis for testing either the use of IGE's instruc-tional programming model or the use of the particular in-structional materials. For both, a school's use of the label isno guarantee that the ideas associated with either the in-structional programming model or the program are beingfollowed. In fact, what seems to be the case is that theunderlying conceptual ideas which guided the developers ofIGE or WDRSD or DMP are not clearly reflected in the way in

118

which instruction Is carried out. This conclusion may be anartifact of the samples chosen or It may be more pervasive.In fact, it may be unreasonable to expect people to change asmuch as was expected in an IGE/WDRSD or IGE/DMP setting.

ReferencesMarliave, R., Fisher, C., Filby, N., & Dishaw, M. The

development of instrumentation for a field study ofteaching (Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study, TechnicalReport 1-5). San Francisco: Far West Laboratory forEducational Research and Development, 1977.

Nerenz, A. G., Webb, N. L., Romberg, T. A., & Stewart,D. M. IGE evaluation phase IV: WDRSD descriptivestudy final report (Technical Report No. 559). Madison:Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Indi-vidualized Schooling, 1980.

Otto, W. The Wisconsin Design: A reading program. In H.J. Klausmeier, R. A. Rossmiller, & M. Sally (Eds.),Individually guided education: Concepts and practices.New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Otto, W., & Askov, E. Rationale and guidelines. Minneapolis,Minn.: National Computer Systems, 1973.

Romberg, T. A. DMP: The elementary mathematics prograrri'.for Individually Guided Education. In H. J. Klausmeier,R. A. Rossmiller, & M. Sally (Eds.), Individually guidedelementary education: Concepts and practices. NewYork: Academic Press, 1977.

Romberg, T. A., Harvey, J. G., Moser, J. M., & Montgomery,M. E. Developing mathematical processes. Chicago:Rand McNally, 1974, 1975, 1976.

Romberg, T. A. & Stewart, D., Webb, N. L., Nerenz, A. G.,Pulliam, M. , & Srivastava, D. Mathematics instruction inIGE and non-IGE schools (Working Paper 317). Madison:Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 1982. (a)

Romberg, T. A., & Stewart, D., Webb, N. L., Nerenz, A.G., Pulliam, M., & Srivastava, D. Reading instructionin ICE and non-IGE schools (Working Paper 318).Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research,1982. (b)

189

Stewart, D. M., Nerenz, A. G., Webb, N. L., & Romberg,T. A. IGE evaluation phase IV: PRS descriptive studyfinal report (Technical Report No. 568). Madison:Wisconsin Research and Development Center for In-dividualized Schooling, 1980.

Venezky, R. L., & Pittelman, 3. D. PRS: A prereadingskills program for Individually Guided Education. In H.J. Klausmeier, R. A. Rossmiller, & M. Saily (Eds.),Individually guided elementary education: Concepts andpractices. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Venezky, R. L., Pittelman, S. D., Kamm, M. R., & Leslie,R. C. Pre-reading skills program. Chicago: Ency-clopaedia Britannica, 1974.

Webb, N. L. Observation procedures for the descriptivestudy of the IGE evaluation project (Project Papr.r79-32). Madison: Wisconsin Research and Dev,JlopmentCenter for Individualized Schooling, 1979.

Webb, N. L., Nerenz, A. G., Romberg, T. A., & Stewart,D. M. IGE evaluation phase IV: DA1P descriptive studyfinal report (Technical Report No. 558). Madison:Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Individu-alized Schooling, 1980.

190

la3

,

Appendix

Table 8A -1 - Table 8A-8

191

199

Table 8A-1Grade 2 Allocated Hours to Reading InstructionPer Child Over the Total Study Ver lod

Skill instruction )n___.- - -- v.--Word Attack Study Skills Comprehension

% %

Total Total TotalSchool Hours Skill Hours Skill Hours Skill

-..--------- ---------------- -- - --- ---

IGE/W0RSh

466 31.6 71 - - 13.0 29

451 8.7 61 1.3 9 4.2 30

476 24.3 100 - -

507 23.5 57 7.3 18 10.7 26

IGE/non-WDRSD

372 112.0 64 9.8 6 54.3 31

410 15.8 60 .8 3 9.8 37

493

non-IGE/WIMSD

900

36.2

8.7

65

4i

2.1

8.4

4

51

17.3 31

90: 28.5 61 18.6 39 - -

901 38.1 39 33.2 34 25.9 27

90i 12.8 59 - - 8.8 41

aHours of general reading were estimated from reported total alloca-tion to reading and allocation to skills.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

192

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Skill Instruction

Total General Reading--------

HoursTotalHours Hours

TotalHours

TotalHours

44.6

14.224.3

23

15

13

178.4a80.5

a

158.e

77

85

87

a231.094.7

aa

182.341.5 23 141.11 77 182.6a

176.1 76 55.4 24 231.526.4 41 37.9 59 64.355.6 58 40.0 42 95.6

16.6 20 67.9a 80 84.5147.1 25 141.3

a75 188.4;

97.2 68 45.5 32 142.721.6 33 43.28 67 64.88

113

201

t i ft ! ; 1( it 1,' 23 A .

t4.

Table 8A-2Grade 2 Reading Achievement Scores (Proportion Correct)

School

IGE/wniciD

Time

Content Area

Word Attack

1 Time 8 Change Residual

Study-------.Time 1

Skills

Time 8

466 .56 .64 +.08 -.06 .50 .57451 .56 .71 +.15 +.01 .49 .744/6 .67 .78 +.11 -.02 .61 .67507 .6: .74 +.13 -.01 .51 .72

Avvrage .60 .12 +.1? .53 .68

1GFIrimi W.!)

372 .52 .67 +.15 +.00 .47 .60410 .51 .72 +.15 +.01 .52 .65491 .51 .78 +.21 +.07 .45 .56

Average .55 .72 +.17 .48 .60

non-IGE/WI060

900 .61 .73 +.12 -.02 .56 .69902 .65 .81 +.18 +.05 .58 .71901 .64 .74 +.10 -.03 .67 .74901 .54 .69 +.14 -.01 .45 .56

Ave rag, .61 .75 +.14 .57 .68

Grand Mean .59 .73 + 14 .53 .66

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

194

2 '2

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Content Area- -

Study

Change

---------------

Skills-------

Residual-

-------

Comprehension

---

Change

-

-

ResidualTime 1 Time 8

+.07 -.01 .78 .80 +.02 -.02+.25 +.11 .70 .91 +.21 +.08+.06 -.04 .69 .81 +.12 -.02+.21 +.08 .73 .82 +.09 +.00+.15 .73 .84 +.11

+.13 -.02 .71 .84 +.13 +.01+.13 +.00 .78 .84 +.06 +.04+.11 -.04 .71 .81 +.10 -.02+.12 .73 .83 +.10

+.13 +.01 .68 .83 +.15 -.00+.13 +.02 .68 .84 +.16 +.01+.07 -.01 .70 .79 +.09 -.04

+.11 -.04 .77 .77 0.00 -.04+.11 .71 .81 +.10

+.13 .72 .82 +.10

115

2'J 3

Table 8A-3Grade 5 Allocated Hours to Reading InstructionPer Child Over the Total Study Period

Skill Instruction

Word Attack Study Skills Comprehension--------. --- --------------

z z zTotal Total Total

School Hours Skill Hours Skill Hours S ill

ICE/WDRS1)

466 6.6 41 2.4 15 7.1 44

451 - 5.9 60 3.9 40476 9.8 45 11.8 55

ICC/non-1MM)

372 27.1 28 10.8 11 60.3 61

410 16.2 29 15.7 28 24.9 44

493 6.9 22 9.3 30 14.7 48

non-IGE/WURSD

900 .1 0+ 16.6 100 - -

902 - 17.1 46 19.8 54

901 11.7 16 31.9 39 37.6 46

901 .7 3 - - 19.1 96

---__ .---_ _ .- ---- --- - ---- -._____-_--flours of general reading were estimated from reported total alloca-tion to reading and allocation to skills.

BEST COPY AVAILABI

1I

224

fr't

I; .1

Skill Instruction

Total General Reading

Total Total TotalHours Hours Hours Hours fours

16.1 13

9.8 30

21.6 11

98.2 6756.8 5030.9 35

14.7 13

36.9 11RI.2 7/

19.8 31

104.7 87 120.8a

22.8* 70 32.6

172.88 83 187.8

48.2 33 166.456.9 50 113.7

57.9 65 8d.8

94.5a 87 109.273.8a 67 110.724.7 105.9

39.6a 59.4

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

197

2?)5

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Table SA -4Grade 5 Reading Achievement Results

Word Attack

Time 8 ChangeSchool

IGE/WDRSD

Time 1

Content Ares

-

Residual

Study Skills------

Time 8Time 1

466 .59 .55 -.04 -.08 .43 .52451 .48 .70 +.22 +.11 .58 .59476 .61 .59 -.02 -.04 .49 .59507 .61 .60 -.01 -.03 .60 .68

Average .57 .61 +.04 .53 .60

1GE/nun-WDRS0

372 .47 .46 -.01 -.13 .43 .46410 .45 .57 +.12 -.01 .54 .55493 .72 .64 -.08 -.03 .58 .66

Average .55 .56 +.01 .52 .56

non-ICE/WM.0

900 .59 .65 +.06 +.02 .53 .67902 .59 .80 +.21 +.17 .51 .67901 .55 .64 +.09 +.03 .39 .54901 .59 .6? +.01 -.01 .49 .58

Avvrdu .58 .68 +.10 .49 .62

Grand M.an .57 .62 +.0S .51 .59

:4 Vis(Y.

Content Area

Study Skills Comprehension

Change Residual Time

1

1 Time 8 Change. Residual

+.09 -.01 .63 .64 +.01 -.07+.01 -.06 .69 .69 0.00 -.044.10 +."1 .68 .72 +.04 -.01+.08 +.(,/ .67 .76 +.11 +.06+.0/ .56 .71 +.04

+.03 -.01 .62 .59 -.03 -.11+.01 -.07 .54 .74 +.20 +.07+.08 +.01 .72 .77 +.05 +.03+.04 .63 .70 +.07

+.14 +.05 .64 .72 +.08 +.01+.14 +.06 .62 .78 +.16 +.0R4.15 4.04 .50 .63 +.13 -.02*09 +.00 .6/ .75 +.10 +.03+.11 .61 .7? +.11

.63 .71 +.08

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

199

207

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Table 8A-5Grade 2 Average Allocated Hours of Mathematics SkillsInstruction Per Child Over the Total Study Period

SCHOU

LaVOMP

WritingNumbers

01Hours

Inequal-Sties

02Hours

General

X Z2

Objective

Other placevalue or

numeration03

Hours

Additionand

Subtraction04

Hours X

1 Ob

Multi-plication

05Hours 2

440 18.7 31 1.8 5 .5 1 12.2 20

503 14.7 15 1.0 1 1.8 2 39.0 42

Mean 16.5 21 1.4 2 1.2 1 25.6 33

1GE/non-OMP

428 3.2 7 3.9 8 1.5 3 22.2 47 1.4 3

421 .3 1 .0 04' 9.3 17 24.7 45 .5 1

333 .3 1 .2 04 1.8 4 26.5 64 2.3 6

Mean 1.3 3 1.4 3 4.2 9 24.5 51 1.4 3

non-IGE/OMP

904 4.8 10 3.3 7 21.8 44

906 10.2 11 5.3 6 26.4 29 --

762 5.6 9 1.7 3 .4 1 21.6 36 2.5 4

Mean 6.9 10 3.4 5 .1 0+ 23.3 35 .8 1

Grand Mean 7.2 12 2.2 3 1.9 3 24.3 39 .8 1

NOTE; No allocated time is indicated by --; less than .05 hours isindicated by .0. 0+ indicates less than 0.5%.

In developing this table, it was necessary to assume that timefor each objective was allocated equally to all children forwhom logs were maintained; that is, if 18 hours were allocated

200

Jd

Fractions07

Hours Z

Measure-gent11

Hours I

General Objective-------.--Appli-cations

13

2 Hours

Geometry14

Hours 2

TOTAL.

HOURS

WordProblems

12

Hours Z

Miecel-laneous

15Hours I

.7 1 3.1 5 15.0 25 .2 04 6.2 10 2.8 5 60.91.6 2 5.7 6 16.5 18 2.2 2 -- 12.2 13 93.71.2 1 4.2 5 15.8 20 1.2 2 3.1 4 7.5 10 77.3

.5 1 2.3 5 1.2 3 -- 1.6 3 9.1 19 46.93.8 7 3.1 6 .7 1 .9 2 1.9 3 9.4 17 54.62.3 6 1.7 4 -- -- 2.4 6 3.7 9 41.22.2 5 2.4 5 .6 1 .3 1 2.0 4 7.4 16 47.6

5./ 11 .1 04 9.6 19 .8 2 2.1 4 1.7 3 49.69.7 11 34.5 38 3.6 4 2.0 2 -- -- 91.78.1 14 9.9 17 6.6 11 6.6 11 3.2 5 59.87.8 12 .0 04 18.0 27 3.7 5 3.6 5 1.6 2 67.0

4.0 6 1.9 3 10.9 18 1.8 3 2.9 5 5.3 8 62.3

during one period to addition and subtraction (04), that timewould have been recorded as 3 hours per child where logs weremaintained for 6 children, 2-1/4 hours per child where logswere maintained for 8 children, and so on.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

211

209

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Table 8A-6Mathematics Achievement Results for the Grade 2 Schools

ScH001.

01 -Writ lug Numbers 02--Inequal1t1es16--Place Valueand Numeration

1 8Resid-

Change ual 1 8Resid-

Change ual 1 8

ICF/DMP

440 .49 .73 +.29 +.07 .24 .57 +.33 -.06 .44 .74593 .58 .87 +.29 +.07 .40 .84 +.44 +.14 .54 .86Mean .54 .83 +.29 .32 .70 +.38 .49 .80

10E/non-DMP

428 .48 .71 +.23 +.01 .31 .60 +.29 -.06 .45 .69421 .49 .71 +.22 -.30 .43 .78 +.35 +.06 .48 .72333 .6? .77 +.15 -.07 .36 .79 +.43 +.10 .57 .77Mean .53 .73 +.20 .37 .72 +.35 .50 .73

noo-IGE/DMP

904 .51 .73 +.22 -.00 .41 .72 +.31 +.01 .49 .73906 .62 .84 +.22 +.00 .27 .73 +.46 +.08 .55 .8216? .45 .60 +.15 -.07 .41 .44 +.03 -.27 .44 .57Mean .53 .72 +.19 .36 .63 +.27 .49 .71

Grath! Mean .53 .75 +.22 .35 .68 +.33 .50 .74

StandardDeviation

.01 .08 .0? .14 .05 .09

202

16--Place Valueand Numeration

1 I . p

04/17--+/- Operations 07/18-Fractions

Resid-Change ual 1 8

Resid-Changl ual 1 8

Resid-Change ual

+.30 4.01 .32 .44 +.12 -.08 .34 .54 +.20 +.02+.37 +.07 .40 .78 +.38 +.14 .51 .56 +.05 -.00+.11 .36 .61 +.25 .42 .55 +.13

+.24 +.01 .32 .46 +.14 -.06 .41 .41 .00 -.13+.28 +.00 .35 .53 +.18 -.04 .59 .67 +.08 +.08+.20 -.06 .43 .61 +.18 -.08 .57 .53 +.01 -.04+.23 .37 .53 +.16 .51 .54 +.03

+.24 -.00 .31 .54 +.23 +.04 .30 .60 +.30 +.09+.2/ +.01 .37 .63 +.26 +.03 .38 .59 +.21 +.064.11 .10 .24 .44 +.20 +.04 .38 .43 +.05 -.10

.31 .54 +.23 .3S .54 +.19

i.24 .34 .55 +.21 .43 .54 +.09

.06 .12 .10 .09

(Continued)

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

203

211

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Table 8A-6 (continued)

11--Measurement 12--Word Problems- ----

SCHOOL.

ltd../6mP

1 8Resid-

Change ual 1 8Heald-

Change ual

440 .56 .57 +.01 -.16 .26 .48 +.22 +.13X93 .56 .75 +.19 +.02 .46 .71 +.25 4.05Me an .56 .66 +.10 .36 .60 +.24

Ica- /non -IMP

428 .88 .91 +.09 +.15 .31 .43 +.12 +.00421 .25 .88 +.53 +,7 .33 .48 +.15 +.02331 .70 .83 +.13 4.06 .34 .49 +.15 +.01Mean .61 .89 +.28 .33 .47 +.14

non-It:H/1KP

904 .11 .80 +.59 +.19 .28 .33 +.05 -.05906 .38 .32 -.06 -.37 .32 .47 +.15 +.02762 .28 .53 +.25 -.13 .33 .28 -.05 -.18Mean .26 .55 +.79 .31 .36 +.05

Crand Mr.ui .47 .71 +.24 .33 .46 +.11

Standar,1 .26 ..2 .06 .13Dev I at ion

204

212

13-- Application' 20--Problem Solving

1 8Resod

Change ual 1 8 ChangeReald-ual

.36 .46 +.10 -.00 .30 .47 +.17 +.10

.28 .62 +.34 +.23 .39 .67 +.28 +.10.11 .54 +.22 .35 .57 +.22

.40 +.12 +.01 .30 .42 +.12 +.05.46 .65 +.19 +.10 .38 .55 +.15 +.0°.41 .44 +.01 -.08 .38 .47 +.09 -.08.39 .50 +.11 .35 .48 +.13

.44 .54 +.10 +.01 .34 .41 +.07 -.05

.16 .10 -.06 -.16 .34 .40 +.06 -.06

.22 .24 +.02 -.10 .29 .26 -.03 -.08

.14 16 1..02 .32 .36 +.04

.1') .46 +.11 .34 .46 +.12

.09 .14 .04 .12

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

205

213

Table 8A-7Grade 5 Average Allocated Hours of Mathematics SkillsInstruction per Child Over the Total Study Period, byObjective

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

_ -Addition/Subtraction

04

ScHooi. Hours %_.. _ ....

IGE/OtiF

Multi-plicatino

05Hours %

. . .

FractionsComputes

08

% Hours %... . .... _. ...........

Decimal DecimalConcepts Computes

09 10

Hours 2 Hours 2... ... .. . _. . __ .-

General Objective

Division

06Hours %

FractionConcepts

07

Hours

440 2.7 3 11.0 12 16.7 18 28.0 31 13.3 15 .3 04 .5 1

593 3.0 4 -- -- 18.9 27 13.8 20 4.7 7 1.1 2 22.9 33

Mean 2.9 5.5 17.8 20.9 9.0 .7 11.7

luE/non-DMI,

4?8 .9 1 8.5 10 16.7 20 17.7 22 8.5 10 2.8 3 6.5 8

113 -- 6.4 8 13.0 15 5.6 7 17.6 21 3.0 4

Mean .5 7.5 14.9 11.7 13.1 1.4 4.8

non-ICE/DMP

905 .6 1 22.0 29 14.6 19 8.4 11 40.0 26 .3 Of 2.3 3

906 1.. 2 18.0 21 20.1 24 12.9 15 14.5 17 4.5 5 1.5 2

Mean 1.0 20 17.4 10.7 17.3 2.4 1.9

Claud Mean 1.4 11.0 16.7 14.4 13.1 1.5 6.1

(fontiaued)

NOTE: Ho allocated time is indicated by--; less than .05 hours is indicated by .0. 0+ indicates less than 0.5%.

L.

Table 8A-7 (cortinued)

.7

Stli001.

Measurement11

Hours Z

WordProblems

12

Hours-

- _ - - ......

General Objective--------_-_-____-_-_-_-_-.--

Applica-tions Geometry

13 14

Hours 2 Hour:, 2

Miscerl-

la3e,..s

15

Hours 2

TOTAL.

HOURS7

440 4.9 5 2.4 3 1.8 2 3.7 5.6 6 90.0593 4.9 7 69.3

^DCD /loan

liT/nt.,n-OP

2.5 1.2 .9 1.9 5.3 80.1

428 3.2 4 3.2 4 1.1 1 3.7 5 9.4 11 82.2313 -- 4.8 6 19.5 23 15.7 18 85.1Mean

nun 1CLIOMP

1.6 4.0 .6 11.6 12.3 83.7

905 3.6 5 4.7 5 .9 1 76.9906 6.- 8 1.6 2 1.0 i 1.5 2 1.6 2 85.7Mean 3.4 2.6 .5 2.9 1.3 81.1

Grand Mean 2.5 2.6 .65 5.4 6.3 81.6

215BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Table SA-8Mathematics Achievement Results for Grade 5 Schools

-----.--04--Additloa/SubtractIon 05-Multiplication.... . -

Resid- Resid-SCHOOLS 1 8 Change ual 1 8 C!,ange ual

it:F/hM1'

440 .81 .74 -.09591 1.00 .96 -.04

Mean .92 .85 -.07

It.1../non.0:tV

428 .78 .81 +.03

311 .92 .88 -.04Mean

non-1U./0MP

905

.85

.89

.3'.

.85

-.01

-.04906 .86 .82 -.04Mean .88 .84 -.04

Wand Mean

t;tan011.4

Deviation

.88

.08

.84

.07

-.04

1) I

-.06 .62 .63 +.01 -.12+.02 .71 .86 +.15 +.11

.66 .74 +.08

+.05 .5 .76 +.18 +.02+.00 .73 -.06 -.02

.6.1 .74 +.06

-.00 .39 .16 +.31 1.0.

-.00 .65 .74 +.19.52 .75 +.23

.62 .75 +.13

.14 .0/

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

201

1

.11

.31

.14

.36

.60

.48

.11

.36

.24

.16

06-Division-

Resid8 Change ual

.48 4.11 -.11

.8"/ +.21

.65 4.11

.54

.61+.18 -.064.0!, -04

.59 4.11

.52 +.41 -. 01

.60 +.24 -. 00

.56 4.32

.1?

1

.S5

.66

.61

.54

.75

.64

.38

.59

.49

.58

.12

17-Operations

8

.60

.86

.73

.70

.73

.12

.70

.71

.71

.72

.08

-

Resid-Change ual

07-- Fractions Concepts

1 8

Resid-Change ual

+.05+.20+.12

+.16

-.02+.08

+.32+.12+.22

+.14

-.11+.12

-.01

-.01

+.04

-.00

.50

.40

.45

.31

.40

.36

.28

.70

.49

.43

.1';

.76

.58

.67

.55

.60.58

.48

.85

.66

.64

.14

+.26+.18+.22

+.24

+.20+ 22

+.20+.15+.17

+.21

+.06-.03

+.02-.01

-.02-.02

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

209

217

(Continued)

Table 8A-8 (continued)

08-Fractions------.SCHOOL 1 8- ...--------.-__1(.4./DMP

Computes-- - -Resid-

Change ual 1

18-Fractions

8 ChangeResid-ual

440 .18 .40 +.22 +.07 .37 1.62 +.25 +.07593 .22 .29 +.07 -.08' .33 .46 +.13 -.05tleAn .20 .34 +.14 .35 .54 +.19

1(1E/6.6 UHP

428 .11 .33 +.22 +.06 .23 .46 +.23 +.04311 .19 .23 +.04 -.IL .32 .45 +.11 -.05

.15 .28 4.13 .28 .46 +.18

non-10E/HHP

905 .11 .26 +.15 -.01 .21 .39 +.18 -.01906 .32 .51 +.19 +.06 .55 .71 +.16 -.00Me.in .22 .38 +.16 .38 .55 +.17

Gr aild M... in .19 .34 +.15 .14 .52 +.18

St.o.Lit,1.08 .10 .12 .12

D,v(atIon

BEST COPY AVAilAbLL

210

213

09--Decimal Concepts

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

10-- Decimal Computes

- - _ -

19--Uer boa: Fractions

1 8 ChangeRes',1-

us,1 1 8

Resid-Change ual 1 8

Resid-Change ual

.21 .42 4,19 +.09 .78 .43 +.15 -.03. 27

+.16 -.0016 .43 4.07 4,02 .54 .84 +.30 +.15

. 50 .24 +.24 +.12.30 .4? +.1' .41 .64 +.23 .39 .59 +.20

.25 .11 -.0? -.11 .44 .59 +.15 -.01 .39 .50 +.11 -.03

.31 .),1 ).06 .00 .4/ .4/ 1.00 -.16 .1.4 .45 4.01 -.12

.24 ." +.01 .46 .51 +.07 . 42 .48 +.06

.11 .2. 4.15 +.00 .11 .42 +.11 -.07 .26 .38 +.12 -.05

. 28.36 +.08 .)U .2, .54 +.31 +.12 .24 .50 +.76 +.09

.20 .11 +.11 .21 .48 +.21 .25 .4'. +.19

.1M .55 +.17 .35 .50

.0q .1) .16 .11 .11

(Continued)

.

2" 219

Table 8A-8 (continued)

1 \ 11/1y A..

SCHOOL 1

12--Word

8

Problems

Resid-Change ual

20--Problem

1

Solving

1

13--Applications

Resid-8 Change ual 8

Resid-Change ual

IGE/DMP

440 .39 .51 +.12 +.05 .17 .23 +.06 -.02 .28 .39 +.11 +.03591 .50 .55 +.05 -.00 .23 .26 +.03 -.02 .37 .41 +.04 -.03Meat .44 .51 +.09 .20 .24 +.04 .33 .40 +.07

1G1. /non hMP

428 .28 .38 +.10 +.01 .20 .21 +.07 +.01 .24 .33 +.09 +.01311 .4% .54 +.06 +.01 .23 .27 +.04 -.01 .36 .41 +.05 -.02Mean .18 .46 +.08 .22 .27 +.05 .30 .37 +.07

non.I(.1../DMP

905 .43 .42 -.01 -.07 .07 .17 +.10 -.03 .25 .30 +.05 -.03906 ..)8 .63 +.05 +.02 .15 .31 +.16 +.07 .37 .47 +.10 +.03Mean .50 .52 +.02 .11 .24 +.13 .31 .39 +.08

Grand Mcan .44 .51 +.07 .18 .25 +.07 .31 .39 +.08

StandamaDevlati.s

.10 .09 .06 .05 .06 .06

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

212

22k)

IMPLICATIONS ABOUT IGEPart 3 AND ITS EVALUATION

In the overview to Part 2, we stated why evidence aboutthe effects of planned change is important. A second reasonfor establishing evaluation procedures for a large reformproject is to share with practitioners and scholars what islearned, in this case about IGE and evaluation, and hcw thatknowledge relates to the general literature on schooling andchange. For example, the recent history of education in theUnited States is in large part characterized by massive ef-forts, sponsored by foundations or the federal government, toengineer and implement changes such as team teaching, pro-grammed learning, individualized curriculum programs, modernmathematics, modern science, open multigraded schools, andso forth. But several authors, Good lad (1976), Bel lack(1978), and recently Wilcox (1982), have argued that it isdifficult to find evidence that significant changes have indeedoccurred in spite of these efforts. Schools seem to be verystable institutions which are inherently resistant to suchchanges. Since we observed the same phenomena in thisproject, some of the things we learned might be useful toothers who are studying why schools resist change or howone might produce change.

When this project began, we planned that the members ofthe evaluation team would try to interrelate ideas from each ofthe different phases of the study and discuss them in light ofspecific problems associated with schooling. Unfortunately,that did not happen. Large projects are embedded in thesocial reality of the times. Interest in IGE and its evaluationwhich had been paramount in 1973 had waned by 1978.

Thus, we conclude this book about IGE with a single,brief chapter. However the staff of the project did attemptto convey our findings to :ride audience of educators.Following chapter 9 is a partial list of presentations andpapers by staff of the IGE Evaluation Project.

213

221

CHAPTER 9

A CENTER GOES TO SCHOOLThomas A. Romberg

IGE AND ITS EVALUATIONThe Center's program of Individually Guided Education is

a product of the curriculum-school reform of the 1960s. Itaddressed the problem of directing elementary schoolingtoward the individual child. Traditionally, instruction isprovided to groups, not individuals, with the groups formedby age (third graders) or by ability subgroups (slow fifthgraders). Instruction under these conditions was seen asboth ineffective and inefficient: ineffective in that theparticular learning needs of many children were not beingmet, and inefficient in that time and resources were beingwasted or poorly used.

In attempting to solve this problem, notions from thethen current ideology in educational psychology (e.g.,systems analysis, behavioral objectives, learning hierarchies)were merged with the intellectual bases of the "new" curriculabeing developed. The contrast between the existing typicalelementary school and the school of the future was summar-ized by Klausmeier, Morrow, and Walter in 1967. (See Table9-1.) As the ideas were given form in cooperating classroomsand schools, what emer '-ted was a set of procedures schoolscould use and adapt to >r instruction to the needs ofindividual children. Thu comprehensive program that evolvedwas hailed as "one of the most powerful and flexible sets ofapproaches yet devised for the continuing renewal of educa-tional institutions and the facilitation of teaching andlearning" (Chase, 1970, p. 2).

By the 1975-76 school year, nearly 3,000 elementaryschools in the U.S. were identified with IGE. The IGEevaluation project began in May of that year to portray theextent of the impact of !GE on elementary schooling. Datacollection was completed at the end of the 1978-79 schoolyear; analysis and reporting of results continued from thattime. The basic results of the evaluation study were pre-sented in chapters 4-8 of this volume and are briefly sum-marized here.

215

222

Table 9-1Sumalary of Functions of an Elementary School

Today and in the Future

Functions of the Elementary School Today Functions of the Elementary Schoolin the Decade:. Ahead

(1) Attempting to execute a system-wide standaruinstructional program designed by others

(2) Accepting sporadic attempts by otheragencies to update the teaching staff

(3) Accepting some innovations recommended byothers without systematic tasting

(4) Accepting pre-student teachers, studentteachers, and interns without adequateprovisions for their instruction in theschool and without adequate supervisionby college or other personnel

(5) Permitting others to use students and in-structional staff as subjects for short-term studies that are usually unrelated toinstructional improvement

(1) Developing and executing an effective totalsystem of education within each building

(2) Initiating and performing inservice educa-tion of teachers and other instructionalpersonnel within each building as part ofsystematic statewide program

(3) a. Selecting carefully and testing innova-tions prior to acceptance wiJkin eachbuilding

b. Developing and testing new procedures andmaterials

(4) Conducting preservice education of teachersand other instructional personnel withinsome buildings as part of a systematic state-wide program

(5) Initiating small-scale development-based re-search on instruction and participating withother agencies in descriptive research, con-trolled experimentation, and comprehensivedevelopment -based research

(From Klausmeier, Morrow, & Walter, 1967, p. 2.) 2 2 3

1. While responses to an ICE implementation questionnairewere received from over 900 schools, in many of those schoolsIGE was never truly adopted. The degree of implementationof IGE components was low. Nearly 60% of the sample couldat best be called "nominal" adopters of IGE, and only about20% could be called true implementers.

2. The staff and student survey (Phase I) conducted inOctober 1977 in over 150 schools using the IGE label showedthat the variation in implementation of certain IGE organi-zational components had no relationship to variation in studentachievement in reading and mathematics. However, theimplementation of ICE components was found to be directlyrelated to level of teacher job satisfaction. Participation in alarger IGE movement and satisfaction with the effectiveness oftheir instructional program seem to oe the key aspects ofteachers' job satisfaction.

3. Phase II, a validation study of the Phase I survey and anextensicn in the area of implementation, substantiated thesurvey results of Phase I for the sample of 30 schools drawnfrom the Phase I sample. A key finding of Phase II relatesto variation in IGE implementation among the schools, re-flecting differential understanding of the ICE components; themore successful IGE schools were those in which the programhad been installed in a well planned fashion, with prior staffcommitment and parent approval and provision for sufficienttraining. This phase was conducted in spring 1978 by Re-search Triangle Institute under a subcontract with theCenter.

4. Phase III , a case study carried out during the 1977-78school year in six schools, focused on institutional life ascharacterized by work, knowledge, and occupational ideol-ogies. Three institutional configurations were identified- -technical, constructive, and illusory. Different assumptionsabout teaching, learning, and schooling in the three types ofschools determined the form that !GE took in those schools.All six schools had been nominated by regional ICE leaders asexemplars of !GE schooling. Thus, even in schools reportedto be exemplary IGE schools, quite different patterns of usewere observed.

5. Phase IV was conducted to study the implementation andeffectiveness of the Center's curriculum programs: DMP,WDRSD, and PRE). In the DMP descriptive study, instruc-tional time was found to predict student achievement on someof the instructional objectives; that finding did not hold for

211

22i

the WDRSD and FRS descriptive studies. Interrelationshipsexamined in the comparative studies failed to find majordifferences wt''ch could be attributed to either IGE or thecurriculum pr. jrams. We found that each classroom or Unitis unique, with differences in what content is taught and howmuch time is allocated to the content; what operationallyconstitutes an instructional program differs among classes,particularly it reading; and IGE and non-IGE schools did notsystematically differ on content or time variables.

Both the Center's system of Individually Guided Educa-tion and the Ford Foundation's Comprehensive School Improve-ment Program (CSIP) were begun in the 1960s to "change thetraditional habits of school systems" (Ford Foundation, 1972,p. 40). Both used the same R --irD (centerIP-periph-ery) strategy for change. The Ford Foundation approachedchange through the process of teacher development, a "pro-fessional" approach based on its research experience of the1950s; the Center's approach was based on research onindividual student differences and needs. Both saw the needfor bringing "new ideas and techniques together to achievenot just a patchwork of improvement, but a coherent designof advancement" (Ford Foundation, 1961, p. 105). The sameanalysis of results can be applied to both programs.

The limited outcomes . . . strongly suggest that aprogram aspiring to be "comprehensive" thust lookbeyond the manipulation of variables within theschool, and reckon more directly with outsidefactors such as financing, parent expectations, andlocal social and political pressures. Tile morefundamental the changes conceived, the more cen-tral such issues become. (A Foundation Goes toSchool, Ford Foundation, 1972, p. 40)

WHAT WE LEARNEDBY GOING TO SCHOOL

To summarize all that we learned by examining IGE insct ools is impossible. Many important findings h-ve alreadybeen discussed. Here I would like to emphasize ideas thatillustrate what we learned about evaluation, about schools andreform, about IGE and its implementation, and about ther & d center program and federal efforts to change education.

About EvaluEtion DesignGathering data from several different perspectives about

the same program in schools provides a more complete, andmore complex, picture of how the program is given meaning in

21$

rr

schools. The combination of self-report survey data, inter-view validation data, field study data, and time-on-taskobservational data provided a more complete picture of ICE inpractice than any one of the procedures would have by itself.

Some of the methodological details used in this studywarrant the attention of other researchers and evaluators.For example, the use of causal modeling in Phase I was veryhelpful both in conceptualizing the problem of relationshipsand in testing relationships. The validation-interview pro-cedure used in Phase II should be used in similar studies.In Phase III, the selection of a sample of exemplary IGEschools using a "reputational" survey and the socio-politicalframework for the field study of those schools should be ofconsiderable interest. And finally, in Phase IV, the repeatedmeasures of primary objectives, the. use of teacher logs andextensive observations of pupils and teachers should beattended to by other scholars.

About Measuring Achievement OutcomesWhen designing the study, we recognized that there

were problems with the measures of student outcomes. Scoresfrom standardized tests (adjusted for aptitude) were used asoutcome variables in Phase 14 and scores from matrix-sampledobjective-referenced tests were used in Phase IV. Thenscores were aggregated to form unit or class means. Thereare both conceptual-validity problems and unit-of-analysisproblems associated with these procedures.

A standardized test score is not sensitive to variationsin need and instruction. Similarly, objective-referencedtests, while more sensitive to instruction, would only capturegroup growth if there were considerable common instructionwithin groups. The data in Phase IV (see chapter 8) clearlyshow this is not the case. There is not a "common core" ofinstruction in either reading or mathematics. What is clear tous now is that scores from norm-referenced and objective-referenced tests, no matter how adjusted or aggregated, wereinadequate.

The ideal outcome measure would have been an index ofhow well the planned variations in instruction met the needsof each individual. Thus, the student would be the unit fordata collection, and the index would relate student needs,instructional intent, and pupil performance. For example,one student may need to learn how to group and partition

219

226

sets. The index would indicate the match between this need,the related instructional activities, and how much the studentlearned.

About Schools and ReformThe rational procedures which evolved in school settings

to solve a particular problem were adopted and adapted asprocedures which could be used to solve other problems.Changes in schooling frequently occurred to meet practi-tioners' short-term needs, rather than to adopt the com-prehensive system of ICE.

As stated earlier, the primary problem IGE addressedwas how to shift instructional planning from the group to thechild. In making such a shift, the key step was identifyingthe intellectual needs of the child; instructional planning wasto proceed from that point. It was assumed that schoolsagreed with this goal and that practitioners would see the IGEprocedures as means to be used to reach the goal.

In most schools that used the IGE label, there wasneither understanding of nor agreement with this goal. Theprocedures were used for other ends. Very often the labelwas used symbolically to justify the maintenance of currentpractice, as in the nominal or illusory IGE schools. In otherschools adopting IGE, the goal became to increase efficiencyof current practices (as in the technical schools), or to havea different administrative organization, or to increase stu-dents' sense of community and cooperation (as in /I/D/E/A/!GE schools). However, the procedures of !GE were notdeveloped to foster independent-individualized instruction orto provide an open learning environment; the multiunit schoolwas not devised as a new administrative arrangement to beused with conventional instructional goals. It is obvious thatthe label IGE school does not have a clear and consistentmeaning. We now believe the impact of !GE was limitedbecause most schools did not identify meeting individualstudent learning needs as their goal and did not see theprocedures which had been developed as means to that end.

Further, the grouping and regrouping of students forinstruction seemed to be the most misunderstood and poorlyimplemented aspect of !GE. The assumption made in IGE wasthat students should be grouped for instruction according toneed; instruction should proceed for two to three weeks; thennew groups should be formed. The determination of need wasto be based on test data, motivation procedures, and profes-

220

sional judgement about ea, h student. Data particularly fromPhases II and IV of this study show this was not the case.The age-graded, self-contr.ined classroom was still the norm;grouping was done anno-Jily, often on general ability notneed; motivational 1.:r;icedures were not followed; and shareddecision-making about grouping and regrouping was rare.Basic changes in the traditional classroom structure simplywere not made in most schools.

There was little evidence of change in instructionalhabits--and where change was made it was inappropriate. Asstated in chapter 1, content traditionally is segmented andsequenced with little possible variation. Students in classescompete among themselves on the lessons within each segment;evaluation is based on within-group standing; and control ismaintained through behavior constraints unrelated to instruc-tion. The intent of instructional programming in IGE was tochallenge this set of habits by expecting variations in whatstudents were taught, having students compete against objec-tives rather than peers, evaluating students on objective-referenced tests, and stressing goal setting and othermotivational procedures as the basis of group control. Inmost schools, the old habits remained. Changes from thetraditional practices were evident in some schools, but mostoften behavioral objectives, related testing, and pacing wereemphasized. What became important was that all studentsmaster the same set of objectives, and variation in pace wasassumed. Variations in need, grouping and regrouping,motivation, and so on were replaced by independent-individualinstruction, a most inefficient instructional procedure.

The idea that there is a monolithic American educationalsystem is a myth. While there are common traditional charac-teristics of schooling that are hard to change, change is seenas important. However, the focus of that change is morelikely to reflect local social and political pressures than granddesigns for fundamental reforms of the system. Thus, it isnot surprising that the procedures of IGE were adapted tothe pathology of the urban environment in the illusory schools,or that reading became no more than a set of procedures formastery of objectives in rural and working class schools.

About IGE and Its ImplementationThe limited positive outcomes of IGE are to some extent

due to the program itself. The eclectic basis for the pro-cedures meant practitioners could select what they wantedfrom the components, and the issues and problem-solving

221

orientation which surrounded the development of IGE werelost in the implementation strategy utilized.

Because IGE was developed in an eclectic manner, itlacks a strict ideological structure. The problem beingaddressed dealt with organizing instruction for student -learning, but there was never adoption of one theory oflearning. IGE, because of its functional evolution, drew onideas from hoth the behavioral and constructive psychologicaltraditions. Constructivist activities which allow students toexplore and discover, ac in DMP and PRS, are organized viatask analyses and assessed via tests related to behavioralobjectives. The management and administrative proceduresare based on notions from systcvs analysis where knowledgeto be acquired is fixed, yet instructional procedures remainedflexible. The original notion of student needs thus was opento different interpretations.

The centerwout implementation strategy adopted wasinconsistent with the problem-solving history from which IGEhad developed. In the message that was disseminated, theissues were lost. The early dissemination materials empha-sized children ("Think Kids"), the contrast between age-graded, self-contained classrooms and instruction in I & RUnits, enthusiasm for innovations and experimentation (theoriginal notion of a facilitative environment), and optimismabout reform ("Away with Tradition"). In later disseminationmaterials the emphasis shifted to procedural rules and per-formance objectives- The learning child was hardly men-tioned, discussion of motivational procedures and professionaljudgments was omitted, and facilitation became associated withthe supportive network of other IGE schools.

About University-Based R & D CentersThese centers have a role in educational reform that is

special in two often contradictory ways. First, because ofthe talent located at major universities and the stable struc-ture of faculty tenure, the setting is ideal for carrying outlong-term research and development. The scholarly interestsof a particular professor in generating knowledge about aphenomenon are not apt to be affected by varying socialconcerns. For example, it is hard to see how research-basedprograms such as Individually Guided Motivation or Develop-ing Mathematical Processes could have been produced inanother setting.

222

223

Second, as a consequence of this role of universities,many people overestimate the utility of both the knowledgebase and the programs produced. As new knowledge isgenerated, the basis of the program is eroded. For example,today, as a result of extensive research, our knowledge ofhow students learn has expanded exponentially. Hence, thefundamental problem of "student learning needs" today wouldbe approached quite differently than it was in the 1960s.(See Case & Bereiter, 1982, or Romberg & Carpenter, inpress, for details of this evolution.) Also, school staffs (andfederal funding agents) fail to see that programs developed toproduce long-term fundamental changes in school practices areof little use in dealing with short-term operation& problems.

About Long Term R & D Effortsto Change Education

It has been 20 years since the federal government estab-lished r & d centers; the !GE program, the major product ofthe Wisconsin Center in its initial dozen years, has been heldup as an example of the impact such centers can have oneducation.

Long-term research arid development activities are diffi-cult to carry out in periods of varying social concern. Thefederal r & d center program a:id IGE are products of thepost-Sputnik curriculum reform era when the intellectualgrowth of students was of prime concern. By the time initialelements of IGE were being produced in 1969-71 (the word-attack management materials in reading and the multiunitschool), U.S. involvement in Vietnam, racial unrest, environ-mental awareness, arid inequality of educational opportunitywere the concerns. It is not surprising then that schoolssow the IGE procedures as techniques to address these socialconcerns. In particular, the /I/D/E/A/ implementation effortsfor IGE were clearly focused on social concerns. Next, bythe time the WDRSD and DMP programs were completed and anextensive set of IGE implementation materials was prepared in1975, there had been a conservative retrenchment. Forexample, in reaction to the controversial elementary socialstudies program Mon: A Course of , funds to developand implement curriculum programs were stopped. Thus, justat the time a concerted and coherent implementation effort forIGE could have been mounted, concerns about the role of thefederal government in school reform were paramount. TheICE evaluation effort was started in response to this concern,to document the impact of IGE on schooling practice.

223

230

New and different social concerns are regularly drawn tothe attention of policy makers and school staffs. Each con-cern reflects a problem and, in most cases, a different con-ception of student needs. Federal funding agencies find itdifficult to allocate resources for long-term efforts. Federalsupport is closely tied to political needs and social pressures.Also, in the period of 1963-83, there have been severalchanges in administration and bureaucratic reorganization.Each change brought in new people with new interests whoexpected new and different products. And, given that theadministration may change every four years, results must beproduced in that period.

A FINAL WORDIn today's political discussions, identifying features of

"effective" schools has gained prominence (Purkey E Smith,1983). In one sense, we have come full cycle with concernagain on student learning; but in another sense, the currentconcern is quite different. Curriculum engineering has givenway to identifying organizational features and policy actions.The notion of "effectiveness" is still very fuzzy. Thereshould be open debate over such questions as What consti-tutes the knowledge that students should acquire? and Howdoes one decide whether that knowledge has been acquired?Improved scores on standardized tests are not adequateevidence.

It is important to remember that procedural changetakes place only at the school level. Policy changes at thefederal or state level may influence change but are likely toresult only in ameliorative, nominal, or symbolic changes.Change at the operating school level will only happen whenthe problem is identified, staff are committed, and traditionsopenly challenged. Changed outcomes are not enough todemonstrate that change has taken place. One must be ableto see changes in what students and teachers do.

ReferencesBe ;lack, A. Competing ideologies in research on teaching

(University Reports on Education, 1). Uppsala,Sweden: Department of Education, University ofUppsala, 1978.

224

231

Case, R., 6 Berelter, C. From behaviorism to cognitivebehaviorism to cognitive development: Steps in theevolution of instructional design. Paper presented atthe Conference for Educational Technology for the 80s,Caracas, Venezuela, 1982.

Chase, F. S. In B. J. Underwood, Minutes of the annualmeting of the National Evaluation Committee. Madison:Wisconsin Research and Development Center for CognitiveLearning, 1970.

Ford Foundation. A foundation goes to school. New York:Author, 1972.

Ford Foundation. Decade of experiment. New York:Author, 1961.

Good lad, J. I. Schooling and education. In R. M. Hutchins(Ed.), The great ideas today. New York: EncyclopediaBritannica, 1976.

Klausmeier, H. J., Morrow, R. G., 6 Walter, J. E. Themultiunit organization and elementary education in thedecades ahead. Madison: Wisconsin Research andDevelopment Center for Cognitive Learning, 1967.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. Effective schools: Areview. Elementary School Journal, 1983, 83, 427-452.

Romberg, T. A., & Carpenter, T. P. The teaching of mathe-matics. In M. L. Wittrock (Ed.), The third handbook ofresearch on teaching. New York: Macmillan, in press.

Wilcox, K. Ethnography as a methodology and its applicationto the study of schooling: A review. In G. Spit' _ler(Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educationalanthropology in action. New York: Holt, 1982.

225 2 3

PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONSPRESENTATIONSAMERICAN EDUCATION RESEARCH ASSOCIATION (AREA)ANNUAL MEETING, Boston, April 190,

A Study of Schooling and School Reform: An Evaluation of!GE (Symposium, Division H)

CH /CRITICArno Bel'ack, Teachers College, Columbia University

PARTICIPANTSEvaluating a Structural Model Implicit in ICE: Can the

Variables Be Wrung from Questionnaire Responsesand What Can the Approach Say About anEducational Program? Gary G. Price.

What Can be Learned from Validation of Seif-ReportData? Roderick A. Ironside.

Linking System Variables and Pupil Performance ViaCore Curriculum. Norman L. Webb.

A Methodological Approach to the Study of EducationalReform. B. Robert Tabachnick.

The Social Context of Schooling and the Planning ofChange. Thomas S. Popkewitz.

The Social Meaning of School Reform. Gary Wehlage.

Los Angeles, April 1981.Change as Stability; Individually Guided Education from

a Political Science Perspective. Thomas S.Popkewitz.

Context and the Sociology of Educational Knowledge.Tom Popkewitz.

New York, March 1982.The Problem of Curriculum Research Possibilities and

Pathologies of a Science of Schooling. TomPopkewitz.

NA TIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS.

Boston, April 1979.Instructional Time: Implications to the Teaching of

Mathematics. N. Webb.

Seattle, April 1980.The Relation of Instructional Time and Classroom

Process Variables to Achievement: An Evaluation ofDMP. N. Webb,

221

233

NIE CONFERENCE ON ISSUES RELATED TO THE IMPLEMEN-TATION OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS.

Washington D.C., February, 1981.Assimilation of Innovations into the Culture of Schools:

Impediments to Radical Change, Thomas A. Rombergand Gary G. Price.

PUBLICATIONSPhase IKlopp, P. M., Buchanan, A. E., Stewart, D. M., &

Romberg, T. A. Conduct of the study: Phase 1 of theICE evaluation project (Working Paper 258). Madison:Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Indi-vidualized Schooling, 1979. (ED 180 099)

Price, G. G. Sampling for Phase 1 of the 1GE EvaluationWorking Paper 223). Madison: Wisconsin Research andDevelopment Center for Cognitive Learning, 1977.

Price, G. G., Janicl,i, T. C., Howard, J. A., Stewart, D.M., Ruchanan, A. E., & Romberg, T. A. TechnicalReports 475-489. Madison: Wisconsin Research andDevelopment Center for Individualized Schooling, :978.

475 Overview of school and unit variables and theirstructural relations in Phase I of the ICE evaluation.(ED 177 736)

476 Procedures used in Phase I of the ICE evaluation toscale the variable interorganizational Relations.(ED 182 332)

477 Procedures used in Phase I of the ICE evaluation toscale the variable Procedures Fostering Coordinationand Improvement of thf; School Program. (ED 182 335)

478 Procedures used in Phase I of the ICE evaluation toscale the variable General Staff Background. (ED182 329)

479 Procedures used in Phase I of the ICE evaluation toscale the variable Interorganizational Structure. (ED182 333)

228

234

480 Procedures used In Phase I of the IGE evaluation toscale the variable Belief in Individual Differences.(ED 182 327)

481 Procedures used in Phase I of the IGE evaluation toscale the variable View of Learning: Constructivismvs. Behaviorism. (ED 182 339)

482 Procedures used in Phase I of the IGE evaluation toscale the variable School's Demographic Setting.(ED 182 336)

483 Procedures used in Phase I of the IGE evaluation toscale the variable General Implementation of theInstructional Programming Model. (ED 182 328)

484 Procedures used in Phase I of the IGE evaluation toscale the variable Teacher Job Satisfaction. (ED 182337)

485 Procedures used in Phase I of the ICE evaluation toscale the variable Utilization of CurriculumResources. (ED 182 338)

486 Procedures used in Phase I of the ICE evaluation toscale the variable Information Acquisition. (ED 182331)

487 Procedures used in Phase I of the IGE evaluation toscale the variable Individualization of InstructionalDecisions. (ED 182 330)

488 Procedures used in Phase I of the ICE evaluation toscale the variable Management of Grouping and ofInstructional Continuity. (ED 182 334)

489 Procedures used in Phase I of the IGE evaluation toscale the variable Allocated Learning Time. (ED 182326)

Price, G. G., Janicki, T. C., Van Deventer, H. C., &

Romberg, T. A. Organizational features of IGE schools ascorrelates of teacher job satisfaction (Technical Report512). Madison: Wisconsin Research arid DevelopmentCenter for Individualized Schooling, 1979. (ED 166 426)

229

235

Price, C. G., Janicki, T. C., Van Deventer, H. C., &Romberg, T. A. Organizational and instructional featuresthat affect grade 2 and grade 5 math achievement in IGEschools--a causal model analysis (Technical Report 511).Madison: Wisconsin Research and Development Center forIndividualized Schooling, 1980. (ED 199 084)

Price, G. G., Janicki, T. C., Van Deventer, H. C., &Romberg, T. A. Organizational and instructional featuresthat affect grade 2 and grade 5 reading achievement inIGE schools--a causal model analysis (Technical Report510). Madison: Wisconsin Research and DevelopmentCenter for Individualized Schooling, 1980. (ED 185 538)

Price, G. G., Romberg, T. A., & Janicki, T. C. IGEevaluation Phase I summary report (Technical Report 578).Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 1981.

Price, G. G., Van Deventer, H. C., Janicki, T. C., &Romberg, T. A. Procedures used in Phase I of the IGEevaluation to scale, adjust, and aggregate reading andmath achievement in grade 5 (Technical Report 509).Madison: Wisconsin Research and Development Center forIndividualized Schooling, 1979. (ED 183 597)

Price, G. G., Van Deventer, H. C., Janicki, T. C., &Romberg, T. A. Procedures used in Phase I of the IGEEvaluation to scale, adjust, and aggregate reading andmath achievement in grade 2 (Technical Report 508).Madison: Wisconsin Research and Development Center forIndividualized Schooling, 1979. (ED 183 598)

Stewart, D. M. Results of IGE evaluation: Phase I. Report2: Scores and results of the in-depth analysis (WorkingPaper 291). Madison: Wisconsin Research and Develop-ment Center for Individualized Schooling, 1980. (ED 196850).

Stewart, D. M., Klopp, P. M., & Buchanan, A. E. Resultsof IGE evaluation: Phase I. Report 1--Descriptive sta-tistics for staff questionnaires and student tests.Madison: Wisconsin Research and Development Center forIndividualized Schooling, 1978.

230

clrj1/4)t)

Phase IIIronside, R. A. , 6 Conaway, L. Assisted by Ward, L. A.,

Harris, E., McAdams, K., 6 French, A. Foreword by T.A. Romberg. IGE evaluation, phase II--on-site evaluationand descriptive study: Final report (Technical Report499). Madison: Wisconsin Research and DevelopmentCenter for Individualized Schooling, 1979. (ED 175 135)

Phase IIILandsness, R. M. Sample selection for Phase ill of the ICE

evaluation project (Working Paper 269). Madison:Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Individual-ized Schooling, 1979.

Popkewitz, T. S. Educational reform and the problem ofinstitutional life. Educational Researcher, 1979, 8(3),3-8.

Popkewitz, T. S. The social contexts of schooling, change,and educational research. Journal of Curriculum Studies,1981, 13, 189-206.

Popkewitz, T. S., & Tabachnick, B. R. (Eds.) The study ofschooling: Field-based methodologies in educational re-search and evaluation. New York: Praeger, 1981.

Popkewitz, T. S., Tabachnick, B. R., & Wehlage, G. G.The myth of educational reforio: A study of school re-sponses to a program of change. Madison: The Univer-sity of Wisconsin Press, 1982.

Popkewitz, T. S. & Wehlage, G. Schooling as work: Anapproach to res -irch and evaluation (Working Paper 196).Madison: Wisconsin Research and Development Center forCognitive Learning, 1977.

Phase IVNerenz, A. G., Webb, N. L., Romberg, T. A. & Stewart, D.

M. IGE evaluation Phase IV: WDRSD descriptive studyfinal report (Technical Report 559). Madison: WisconsinResearch and Development Center for Individualized School-ing, 1980. (ED 196 904)

231

237

Romberg, T. A., Stewart, D. M., Webb, N. L., Nerenz, A.G., Pulliam, M., & Srivastava, D. Mathematics instructionin ICE and non-IGE schools (Working Paper 317).Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research,1982.

Romberg, T. A., Stewart, D. M., Webb, N. L., Nerenz, A.G., Pulliam, M. & Srivastava, D. Reading instruction inICE and non-IGE schools (Working Paper 318). Madison:Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 1982.

Stewart, D. M., Nerenz, A. G., Webb, N. L., & Romberg,T. A. ICE evaluation phase IV: PRS descriptive studyfinal report (Technical Report 568). Madison: WisconsinResearch and Development Center for Individualized School-ing, 1980. (ED 196 909)

Webb, N. L., Nerenz, A. G., Romberg, T. A., & Stewart,D. M. IGE evaluation Phase IV: DMP descriptive studyfinal report (Technical Report 558). Madison: WisconsinResearch and Development Center for Individualized School-ing, 1980. (ED 196 903)

Phase VPopkewitz, T. S. The sociological bases for individual

differences: The relationship of solitude to the crowd. InG. G. Griffin (Ed.), Staff development: Eighty-secondyearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa-tion (Part II). Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1983. Center not acknowledged.

Romberg, T. A. A common curriculum for mathematics. InG. D. Fenstermacher and J. I. Good lad (Eds.),Individual differences and the common curriculum:Eighty-second yearbook of the National Society for theStudy of Education (Part I). Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1983.

Romberg, T. A., & Price, G. G. Curriculum implementationand staff development as cultural change. In G. G.Griffin (Ed.), Staff development: Eighty-second yearbookof the National Society for the Study of Education (PartII). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.

132

0ju

-16:=EMMEMININPF--.'-wsommissiVo"Hooks of Related Interest

hf! Aelrninistrutor and PAW ilfirM(11 hi(Jack Davis, Western Nevada community College: E.E

University of Nevada at Las Vegas

Guidon( e ond :ounseling Around the tVi aidEdited by Victor J. Drapela, University of South Florida

Curriculum Books: The First Eighty Ye'firtiWilliatti Henn/ Schubert. University of Illinois at Chicago Circle

Logical and Conceptual Analytic Techniques for :ilticiitionol Re-searcher.;

Elizabeth Steiner. Indiana University

Progioni Eyaltaition and Review et-Jun(0w. ApplicutionsBurt

Desmond I.. Cook. Ohio State University

Cullege StUtiellt Atifill111Strffil()11. (111(1 0)1111-

M`ling. Se( ()MI EilitionEdited by JolittEddy, Joseph U. Dameron and David T. Borland,

North Texas State University

duciition in the Technological Society- The VociitionolLherolStudies (;ontrovers-y inothe Early Twentieth Century

Arthur G. Wirth. Washington University

Theory and Poctice in the History of American Education: 13ook ofRoutings (Reprint)

Edited by James W. Hillesheim. University of Kansas. and GeorgeD. Merrill. El Camino College

Freedom urid Education: The ljeginning of a New PhilosophyRichard L. Hopkins. University of Maryland

Perspectives on Education as Educologyla MEN E. Christensen, Riverina College of Advanced Education

Wagga

Sou'rces of Progressive Thought in AIIIVFIC(111 EdlICO bonPhilip L. Smith. Ohio State University

Teaching and Philosophy: A Synthesis (Reprint)Marie E. Wirsing, Un"sity of Colorado. Denver Center

The Renewal and Improvement of Secorlry Educo bonHerbert J. Klausmeier. James M. Upham, and John C. Da resli.

University of Wisconsin