ED 060 604

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 041 649

Restaino, Lillian C. R.; And OthersCurriculum Development for Young Deaf Children withSpecific Learning Disabilities: Phase II.New York State Education Dept., Albany. Div. forHandicapped Children.Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education(DHEW/OE), Washington, D.C.7148p.

MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29*Aurally Handicapped; Cognitive Development;*Curriculum Development; *Exceptional ChildEducation; *Learning Disabilities; *MultiplyHandicapped; Teacher Role

Examined are the steps involved in developing acurriculum for young deaf children with specific learningdisabilities; the curriculum is thought to reflect an educational andremedial model based upon findings in previous studies in perceptual,cognitive, and educational psychology. The earlier studies aresummarized briefly to explain the history and foundation for theCREED 5 Curriculum. The prinary goal of the overall project is statedto be development of cognitive processes in the child; the curriculumcontent is described as perceptual and cognitive. At eachdevelopmental level, the curriculum was subjected to evaluation byteachers and supervisors from 12 schools for the deaf in New YorkState. The curriculum focuses on five instructional areas of grossmotor coordination, sensory motor integration, visual analysis,attention and memory, and conceptualization. Implementation of thecurriculum, viewed as comprehensive and developmental, is based onparaprofessional involvement, continual program evaluation, andindividualized instruction. Involvement of a representative group ofsupervisors and teachers in a series of ongoing seminars as part ofthe curriculum development was reviewed to highlight teacher role ineach stage of the curriculum development. (See also ED 046 167 forPhase I: for related documents see also EC 041 647, 648, and 650.)(c.:13)

PROJECT CREED 5(Cooperative Research Endeavors in Education of the Deaf)

E.S.E.A. Title I P.L. 89-313

Lillian C. R. iiestaino, Ph.D. Principal Investigator

. ------ BUREAU FORMANDICAPPED- CHII,DREN_ .

THE -STATE _EDUCATION DEPARTADENT. ALBANY, NEW YORK. 12224

.1971

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Regents of the University (with years when terms expire)

1984 Joseph W. McGovern, A.B., LL.B, L.H.D., D.C.L.,Chancellor New York

1985 Everett J. Penny, B.C.S., D.C.S.,Vice Chancellor White Plains

1978 Alexander J. Allan, Jr., LL,D., Litt D Troy1973 Charles W. Millard, Jr., A.B., LL.D., L.H.D., Buffalo1972 Carl H. Pforzheimer, Jr., A.B., M.B.A., D.O.E.,

H.H D1975 Edward M. M. Warburg, B.S., L H D1977 Joseph T. King, LL.B1974 Joseph C. Indelicato, M.D1976 Mrs. Helen B. Power, A.B., Litt.D., L.H D1979 Francis W. McGinley, B.S., LL.B., LL D1980 Max J. Rubin, LL.B., L.H D1986 Kenneth B. Clark, A.B., M.S., Ph.D.,

L.H.D., D.Sc

1982 Stephen K. Bailey, A.B., B.A., M.A.LL.D Syracuse

1983.Harold E. Newcomb, B.A Owego1981 Theodore M. Black, A.B Sands Point

LL.D.,

Ph.D.,

PurchaseNew YorkQueensBrooklynRo;hesterGlens FallsNew York

Hastings onHudson

Ewald B. NyquigtPresident of the University and Commissioner of Education

Gordon M. AmbachExecutive Deputy Commissioner of Education

Robert D. StoneCounsel and Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs

Louis H. J. IfelchDonald O. Meserve

John Jehu-AssOciEtte Counsel

Office of Counsel

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT FOR YOUNG DEAF CHILDRENWITH SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES: PHASE II

(Ages 4 - 8 in New York State)

Lillian C. R. Restaino, Ph.D., Principal Investigator

Frances Cronin, Administrator

PROJECT CREED 5

September 1970 August 1971

TITLE I ESEA#ED 71-002A

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN-IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POUCY.

Participating Schools:

Cleary School for the DeafLake Ronkonkoma, New York

Lexington School for the DeafJackson Heights, New York

Mill Neck Manor Lutheran School for the DeafMill Neck, New York

Caritas Day School for the DeafRockville Centre, New York

New York School for the DeafWhite Plains, New York

New York State School for the DeafRome, New York

Rochester School for the DeafRochester, New York

St. Francis de Sales School for the DeafBrooklyn, New York

St. Joseph's School for the DeafBronx, New York

St. Mary's School for the DeafBuffalo, New York

School for the DeafJunior High School el7New York, New York

School for Language and Hearing Impaired ChildrenNew York, New York

The Staff of the CREED 5 Project

Administrator:

Principal Investigator:

Curriculum Staff:

Frances Cronin, SuperintendentSt. Joseph's School for the Deaf

Lillian C. R. Restaino, Ph.D.Associate Professor, Fordham UniversityResearch Associate, Research DepartmentLexington School for the Deaf

Penny Axelrod Socher, M.A., Research AssociateResearch Department, Lexington School for the Deaf

Carol Milligan, M.A., Research AssociateResearch Department, Lexington School for the DeafAssistant Professor, Providence University

Beth Greenstein,-M.Ed., Research AssistantResearch Department, Lexington School for the Deaf

Susan Rubenstein, M.S., Research AssociateResearch Department, Lexington School for the DeafSchool Psychologist, Herricks School System

Gay Wilson, M.S.Curriculum CoordinatorNew York State School for the Deaf

Seminar Staff:

Gisa Indenbaum, M.A., Research AssociateResearch Department, Lexington School for the DeafCounselor, Jewish Child Care Association of New YorkAdjunct Instructor, Hunter College of C.U.N.Y.

Rona Kurtz, M.A., Research AssociateResearch Department, Lexington School for the DeafAdjunct Instructor, Westchester Community College

Secretarial Staff:

C. Teresa Maddalena, Assistant to Director of ResearchResearch DepartmentLexington School for the Deaf

Selma Munz, Secretary, Research DepartmentLexington School for the Deaf

Frances Enright, Secretary, CREED, Research DepartmentLexington School for the Deaf

Anne Barber, Secretary, CREED, Researdh DepartmentLexington School for the Deaf

Jean Rowe, Secretary, CREED, Research DepartmentLexington School for the Deaf

PREFACE

Almost five years have passed since the first stepswere taken to initiate a cooperative project among state-supported schools for deaf children in New York State.The objective of that first effort was "to identify deafchildren with special problems in communication and toindicate courses of action needed in curriculum planningand staff training areas." Having met this objective atan early stage, school and project staff - with thesupport of the Bureau for Physically Handicapped Children- began to work on the creation of a curriculum that wouldreflect an educational-remedial model based upon currentfindings in perceptual, cognitive and educational psy-chology. This Final Report relates our combined ex-perience in the drafting and implementation of thecurriculum during the past year.

Several teaching-learning problems - common to bothgeneral and special educators in the state and country -were met along the way. They were not corrected, ofcourse, but attempts were made to suggest ways and meansof ameliorating them for both pupils and educating staff.These will be delimited in another summary volume.

One clear outcome has been voiced repeatedly byc:assroom personnel and curriculum developers: teacherrecognition of the wide range of abilities and dis-abilities, uncovered in the process c)f studying andteaching the young handicapped deaf child, mustresult in an instructional program as close to individual-ized, prescriptive teaching as can be reached outside aclinical setting. All who have been involved in thevarious stages of this first CREED project trust that thenew curriculum will contribute in a large way to thefoundations of that program.

Frances Cronin

6

CONTENTS

PREFACE

CHAPTER I 1Foundations 1The CREED 5 Curriculum Pilot Trial 4The CREED 5 Curriculum 7The Implementation of the CREED 5 Curriculum 8A Sequence for Curriculum Development in theEducation of the Deaf 14

CHAPTER II 17The Structure 17The Content: ObjectivesThe Content: Activities 20The Content: Pilot Trial 20Evaluation 22

BIBLIOGRAPHY 25

APPENDIX AFigure 1 - Rating Scale A-1Table 1 General Assumptions and Objectives -Ratings by Teachers and Supervisors A-3Table 2 - Conceptualization Objectives - Ratingsby Teachers and Supervisors . A-4Table 3 Attention & Memory Objectives Ratingsby Teachers and Supervisors A-5Table 4 - Visual Analysis - Ratings by Teachersand Supervisors A-6Table 5 - Sensory Motor Integration - Ratings byTeachers and Supervisors A-7Table 6 - Gross Motor Coordination - Ratings byTeachers and Supervisors A-8

APPENDIX BCRFPD 5 Curriculum - General Objectives in FiveSubject Areas B-1

CREED 5 Project

Chapter I

A. Foundations

The CREED projects, 1966-1971, have been dev^ted to theimprovement of instruction of the young deaf child withlearning disabilities. In the early phases of the CREEDprojects, the disability areas of the target populationwere contrasted with those of the larger deaf schoolpopulation (CREED 3, 1969). Using information based onthis study, the CREED 4 Staff designed processes of re-mediation specific to the clusters of disabilities foundin thz.: young deaf child with special learning problems.During this 1969-1970 CREED 4 project year, thoseteachers and supervisors who participated in the re-mediation program expressed a critical need for a com-plete instructional program for their children. Theystrongly urged that a curriculum be designed which wouldbe appropriate to their objectives for the young deafchild with special learning disabilities.

The CREED 5 project is the response to the expression ofthis need. While each of the CREED projects is a discreteentity in and of itself, the direction for all of thephases of the ongoing projects has come from certain basicprinciples of human development and learning. Of theseprinciples, that considered the most critical to the con-struction of the curriculum is that, given appropriate en-vironmental opportunities, all human beings progress throughdevelopmental processes in essentially similarrways. Becausewe believe that the sequence of development as described byPiaget and his students is far more productive for theschool learning situation than any other description extant,the staff of the ongoing CREED project has based its workupon Piagetean principles of cognitive development. Theneeds of our children demand, in addition, preciselyarticulated principles of attention and memory; we have re-lied for direction in this area on the work of contemporaryperceptual psychologists such as Gibson (1969) and Kintsch(1970).

Thus, the principles from preceding CREED projects providedfoundation for the Curriculum developed in CREED 5;develop-mental and perceptual psychology provided the basis for the

content of the curriculum, and learning theory providedthe basis for the structure of the curriculum. In ourdesign we hoped to provide appropriate experiences inthe classroom for perceptual-cognitive development; wedecided that the theories of Benjamin Bloom (1971) andRobert Gagne (1970) would be most useful for thesepurposes. Our attempt at ordering objectives andactivities along increasing levels of difficulty isdirectly related to the systems developed by these andother psychologists in the area of the sequential develop-ment of behavioral objectives.

The implementation of aspects from both Piagetean theoryand learning theorists in the curriculum may appear astrange combination; indeed, Lee' Shulman describes a basiccontradiction betweeri--TEF-'camps":

"The latter point reflects Piaget's influence on somecurrent conceptions of readiness. To determine whether achild is ready to learn a particular concept or principle,one analyses the structure of that to be taught and com-pares it with what is already known about the cognitivestructure of the child of that age. If the two structuresare consonant, the new concept or principle can be taught;if they are dissonant, it cannot. One must then, if thedissonance is substantial, wait for further maturation totake place. If the degree of dissonance is minimal, thereis nothing in Piaget's general theory to preclude theintroduction of training procedures to achieve the desiredstate of readiness. However, Piaget seems to prefer the"waiting" to the "training" strategy under such conditionsThough his theory admits of both external and internalsources of developmental change, he seems to favor internalontogenetic mechanisms." (Shulman, 1970a; p. 43-44)

It has been our experience, however, that these two sourcesare not incompatible. Oescribing a sequence of develop-ment in terms of the expected behavior of the child need notrequire that one adhere to the tenets of behavior theory.It is quite possible to use the structure of ordered,sequential objectives, with a program based upon theprinciples of environmental transaction, such as those ofPiaget. Indeed, Kamii, who has developed an exciting pre-school curriculum in Ypsilanti, Michigan, describes thestructure in terms of ordered objectives. In explicationof this structure, she states:

2

ala4 Jo aaAaAoll 'axems uaaq sSsmTe aAsq aM 'aAT4Tu2oo _Isti4daoaad `PaapuT sT mu1noTaall0 assao 9'114 Jo 411941100 8114

p-c aqq- uT sassaooad ail.Tq.TTISoo Jo 4u0mdoTaAap-9q4 Ueeq ssq Tea SasmTad ano '40aPoad aaaao DuT02110 aqq. 4notr2noatu

(631 'd `6961 4unH) uaaDus uT apoIdxa ao asaJ Ut msaPTI4TA TTTA aLl 'P1TtI e jo llonm oo4 pusmap

Pawasead saous4smnoaTo 9114 jI 'moPaaoq LIT Nreap114Tm o4 sT all pus doTaAap 04 -Ere; ITTA PITI40 8144 asTITurej

o04 PUs aTdmTs o04 aas s80us4gmnoaTo 9'44 ;I 'asTadans PiTm 4saaa4UT jo s80U9DTAa aas sa04s0TPu1 'aoTAsTaaq TsuoT40ma uT aAaTTaq AOU / ss `Pun(); eq. 04 axe 1104-em

a4sTadoadds Ire jo sa04soTpuT 4saq 9114 `STTasuTP-10 4ssd 8144 uT paaa4unooua saous4smnoiT0 moaj sassaooad 11-reaq Ts.1411GO

s1p-C-1'10 8114 'Puoms panaoos u0T4smaojuT aq4 04 4usA8Taa eq. 4snm pa4uasaad saous4sturnoaTo aq4 apTs eAT4Tu2oo 8114 uo

'.1944sm Sssa ou sT 4uamdoTaAaP 1ZsTnoT4-red aTal-14 aa4s0J ITTP1 2u TIoTTIA samie4gmnoaTo 114T1 uaap-rguo as1n0 T418581id

Jo maTqoad :saoutqoanoaTo 114Tm sao4unooua snoTAaad sTla moaj 82'ea04s is4uam sITETTI0 a 4 14111a0tamnO,°.e SPsaare uo T4smao.PIT 9114 04 dTqsuoT4s1aa 94STadOaddS UAVII 4gnta

saous4smn0aTo 8s8q4 `PIT110 9114 uT 4uamd0TaAap IsoT20T01-134sd aonpuT 04 sT seous4smn0aTo JO 4es uaAT2 -8 2uTaa4un00ua

:p.'llammooaa ssq 41211H aalIDTAOK *2 140Tqm uT aauusm 8144 uT mnInz;Taxn0 CEEED 8114

asn -ETTA aallosa4 9114 4s114 9doq ano sT 41 '4uamdoTaAap jo TaAaT sTI1 04 a4sTadoadds saT4TAT4 0-8 pus saAT4oaCqo

8s0q4 40aTas pInom u8ll4 pus STaATsua4uT Pus STInjaaso PTTI10 gosa allaasqo pinom aatIosa4 110"ea 4s144 uoT4s4oadxa

a114 II4Tm pauDTsap ssm mnInoTaano g QaaHo 9'14 csTasITturcs

-TaAaT Tcye 4s S4Ia4ssm Pavmo4 saT4TAT40s 9144 149n0a114 saAaul tu0T4s4TITosj aatlosa4 114Tm cPITI40 9114 4s114 os pazTue2

-ao sT 4li8muoaTAti8 8111 -caninoTaano uusmaT2ua-aa4Taaag j0 q.nduT pa40aaTp-aellosa4 aq4 4ou sT maq4 2uT4uasa1Xd a0j poq4am 9114 4nq caallosa4 8114 aoj saAT409Pqo asToaad

sapTA0ad msa2oad sITTmsX csrultl a'aal4osa4 9'14 Sq pasodmT aq 4ou PInotls saT4TTTqs asati4 4nq csaT4TITcre a4TsTnbaa -aad 1/T-84a8o 401a4suo0 04 padTall aq PTfloqS PIT110 9114 4'8114

J9-flag 9114 uo s3laom cus9T140TW 'T4treTTsd.A. uT mninoTaano Toollos-aad passq-4a9sTd .212TuoT4TPuoo 4us1Xado

Liana Pus cDuT4sa22ns csuoT4T4adaa csuoT4streidxa 114Tm 411211,4 aq treo op 4outreo pIo-reag- s slCss 4akeTd aaAa4sqm

4s114 Tea; saa1140 camaaqxa a4Tsoddo 9'14 4y 'ao'eTd 931s4 o4 DuTplojun 5T114 ao; 47em sT oP Treo .19110894 9'114 ire 4s144 pue

I2uTpiosuni jo ssaooad s sT 4uamdoTaAap 4s144 110T4s0T-EduIT G144 msaP aTdoad amos cSaoaq4 aAT4d-caosap si4a2sTd m(Dajil

affective needs of our children. We selected thestructure of our Curriculum precisely for the purposeof providing children who have failed over and overagain with opportunities for success. Our decisionto design sequences of behavioral objectives alongincreasing levels of difficulty was dictated not bycurrent fashion, but bY the recognition of the need toprovide for the motivation of the children served bythe CREED 5 Curriculm, as well as for their erceptual-cognitive development. The sequences are designed sothat they begin with very simple objectives andactivities, and progress slowly to more difficult levels.The teacher can select a level at which she knows thechild will succeed, and work with him through the sequenceof objectives- In addition, an attempt has been made toprovide several activities for the fulfillment of eachobjective, so that the child will be given the opportunityto work at different tasks in mastering an objective- Inother words, we have attempted to motivate the childthrough designing a structure that will provide him withopportunities to demonstrate competence. We agree withHunt (1969) and Gordon (1969) that competence in per-formance is a strong force for self-motivation and positiveaffect. Unfortunately, we know that the corollary is true,viz., that failure in performance is a strong force for thechild to avoid further attempts. Thus, while we have de-signed no objectives or activities specific to the en-couragement of achievement motivation, we believe that thehierarchy of objectives and the variation of activities forthe mastery of each objective should provide the teacherwith numerous opportunities for building a positive imageof competence in her children.

We view the CREED 5 Curriculum, then, as a resource forthe teacher, from which she selects objectives andactivities for her children, considering their currentlevel of development, her aims for their future progress,and the kinds of experiences that are appropriate for ful-fillment of these aims. In addition, it is a valuablesource for the encouragement of a positive self-conceptthrough the development of perceptual-cognitive skills.

B. The CREED 5 Curriculum Pilot Trial

Unfortunately, a sound foundation in educational anddevelopmental PsychologY alone does not insure the successof a curriculum. psychologists involved in curriculumdesign very often forget that the success of the end Pro-duct is a direct function of the nature of the teacherIs

4

involvement in it. Thus, a curriculum must be designedwith both a psychologically sound and an educationallypracticable structure. Toward this end the CREED 5Curriculum was subjected at all stages of its developmentto evaluation by teachers and supervisors from twelveschools for the deaf in New York State. While the CREED 5Staff designed the objectives, bi-monthly seminars ofteachers and supervisors were held for the evaluation andmodification of these objectives. When activities for themastery of the revised objectives were being designed, theseminar participants were encouraged to provide appropriateactivities from their classroom experience. When the firstdraft of the curriculum was completed, fifty-five teachersin ten schools for the deaf subjected different parts of itto trial and evaluation in their classrooms. They discussedtogether in the seminars their experiences with specificaspects of the curriculum. Two members of the CREED 5 Staffwere responsible for the leadership of these seminars; theymet periodically with the CREED curriculum staff to reportupon the comments, recommendations and decisions of theseminar participants. A full report of the seminars ispresented in Chapter II.

In addition, ratings at various points in the sequence ofdevelopment of the Curriculum, were requested from partici-pating teachers and supervisors. As we indicated in theCREED 4 Project Report (1970), we believe that importantinformation for the modification of a curriculum may beobtained from subjective and objective sources, i.e., fromboth seminar discussions and objective ratings. The RatingSchedule included variables considered to be of singularimportance to the successful implementation of the Curriculumin the future. Figure 1 in Appendix A presents a sample ofthe Schedule used in rating all the General Objectives ineach of the five instructional areas, and the GeneralAssumptions and Objectives in the initial section.

Tables 1 through 6 in Appendix A report the results of thetabulation of these rating schedules. It is apparent that,in general, the teachers and supervisors strongly approvedthe first draft of the objectives. In addition, an im-portant finding was the dissatisfaction expressed byteachers with the facilities cuirently available to themfor fulfilling important educational objectives.

These ratings were studied carefully by all members of theCREED Staff, and where changes were indicated, changes weremade. For example, in Table 2 it is apparent thatObjective 3 was not clear to a number of the participants;

C. The CREED 5 Curriculum

The CREED 5 Curriculum is divided into six parts --an initial section covering General Assumptions andObjectives, and a separate section for each of fiveinstructional areas -- Gross-Motor Coordination, Sensory-Motor Integration, Visual Analysis, Attention and Memoryand Conceptualization. The format for the initial sectionis designed to present Assumptions and Objectives in termsof expectations for teacher behavior. The format for thefive instructional areas consists of a number of broadobjectives, and their subordinate specific objectives, allin terms of the child's behavior. Activities andmaterials for helping the child to master these objectivesare included under each subordinate specific objective.

It is doubtless very apparent to the reader that theseareas are by no means discrete; for purposes of conveniencefor the user we have separated into five areas what areessentially overlapping and interdependent behaviors. Wehave chosen to isolate them only so that the teacher maybecome familiar with the most critical behaviors in eacharea.

As we have presumed a hierarchy of objectives within eacharea, so we have presumed a hierarchy among the five areas.While the relationship of Attention and Memory to the otherareas is a unique one, there are interrelationships amongall. We believe that the earliest levels of Gross-MbtorCoordination must be mastered before the finer skills ofSensory-Motor Integration can be performed with any success.Higher levels of Visual Analysis will be dependent upon theearlier development of Gross-Motor Coordination and Sensory-Motor Integration. And higher levels of performance on allthe areas must precede the mastery of many Conceptualizationskills.

Those responsible for designing a curriculum area were re-quired to present, in a comprehensive introduction to thatarea, basic information about the psychological foundationsfor the objectives and activitiesland recommendations forimplementation.

7

13

Because of the basic philosophy of the principal in-vestigator, the objectives and activities for the in-structional areas of Attention and Memory are includedwithin the other four instructional areas.

The Appendices provide teachers and schools with in-formation about the sources of materials and activitiesappropriate to the fulfillment of the objectives in thefive instructional areas. In addition, the Appendicesinclude an extensive bibliography of titles consideredby the CREED 5 Staff to be important to the optimalfunctioning of a teacher working with young children.

The CREED 5 Staff consider all sections of the Curriculumto be critical elements of an integrated whole. TheCurriculum cannot be implemented "piece-Me-EIT' TheGeneral Introduction, General Assumptions and Objectives,each of the five instructional areas with their intro-ductions, and the Appendices -- each section adds to thedevelopment of both a competent child and a competentteacher. (We present in the Appendix of this report theGeneral Objectives of the CREED 5 Curriculum.)

D. The Implementation of the CREED 5 Curriculum

While it was the goal of the CREED 5 Staff to make thecurriculum both psychologically sound and educationallypracticable, it is only potentially so. In our ob-servation and evaluation of instructional programs, wehave become aware of certain elements common to thosethat are most successful. We consider the following tobe among the most critical for successful Implementationof any program:

1) the active involvement of paraprofessiona3sinthe instruction of children in a class;

2) the ongoing planning and evaluation of in-structional programs for children through thecooperation, collaboration and interaction ofa team, consisting of teacher, paraprofessionaland supervisor;

3) the individualization of instruction through thesystematic observation of the child's performance,diagnosis of his program and the development ofexperiences appropriate to his needs.

8

1. The active involvement of paraprofessionals in theinstruction of children.

Ten years ago, the introduction of assistants for class-room teachers would have been opposed as strongly by theteachers themselves as by their administrators. Althougheconomic considerations dictated their entrance intoeducation, both teachers and administrators now fullyappreciate the importance of the role of the para-professional to the functioning of the school, the class,the teacher and the child. The teacher aide, when herservices are used appropriately, can help the teachertransform a classroom from a place where children losetheir unique identity, where objectives appropriate totheir individual abilities and disabilities are sub-bordinated to objectives appropriate to a conglomerategrouplto a place where each child's singular profile ofstrengths and waknesses is carefully considered, whereinstructional objectives are designed to meet his specificneeds. If we genuinely accept the philosophy of individualdifferences, then we must accept the responsibility for se-lecting individual programs of instruction to meet theneeds dictated by such differences. To expect that oneteacher will be able to individualize instruction for agroup of children is, at best, to be misinformed, at worst,it is to court failure for both teacher and child.

Any curriculum can be used in ways other than as a re-source for the selection and design of individual programsof instruction; for the optimal education of the childrenfor whom the CREED 5 Curriculum was constructed, however,the objectives and activities contained within it must bematched to the levels and needs of individuals. Thus, itis expected that the active involvement of teacher aideswill be an Important element in the appropriate im-plementation of the Curriculum..

2 The continuous, ongoing planning and evaluation ofinstructional programsthrough the cooperation, collabo-ration and interaction of a team consisting of teacher,paraprofessional and g-tipervisor-..--

It has become increasingly clear that no instructionalprogram, including the CREED 5 Curriculum, can be success-implemented by a teacher in isolation from her colleagues.If one studies carefully the successful team teaching andopen classroom approaches, one becomes immediately awareof the systematic and intensive interaction of all teachersand supervisors involved in these programs. While the

9

15

;.;

mythology of the inviolability of the teacher and herclass behind the closed door dies hard, once teachers andsupervisors experience the support, the insight, and theprofessional growth produced through such interaction,they are unwilling to function without it.

It should be apparent that the seminars described hereare something other than the traditional "grade-level"meetings, at which supervisors dictate and teacherslisten with varying degrees of apathy and hostility. Tobe of any value, these seminars must be genuinely collabo-rative, with teachers, teacher-aides, and supervisors allencouraged to consider and solve the problems generated byimplementation of a new program. The tasks of such seminarsmay range from the consideration of a new book in child de-velopment helpful to the appropriate implementation of theprogram, to the selection from the program of a set of ob-jectives and activities to meet the disabilities of an in-dividual child, as determined by the observations of histeacher, teacher-aide and supervisor.

These seminars are not the impracticable idea of an ed-ucational psychologist musing in the confines of her ivorytower; early in the trial phase of the CREED 5 Curriculumproject, the participating teachers and supervisors re-cognized the need for such meetings independent of anyrecommendation by members of the CREED 5 Curriculum Staff.

4,

The systematic consideration of all phases of the im-plementation of any curriculum (including the CREED 5Curriculum,) through the cooperative interaction of allthose involved in it, is considered a critical element inits successful implementation.

s

i

i

3. The individualization of instruction through the systematic :

,observation of the child's performance, the diagnosis ofi,his abilities and disabilities, and the development of -4,

experiences appropriate to his needs.

The CREED 5 Curriculum is the culmination of a five-yearproject directed toward the improvement of the educationof the young deaf child with special learning disabilities.Unfortunately, the construction and dissemination of acurriculum, however superior, does not insure its impacton the well-being of an individual child. The way inwhich it is implemented in the life space of the childdetermines the level of its effectiveness in changing thehistory of his education. A curriculum may always be im-plemented in ways other than those recommended; some may

10

16

improve upon the original; some may well be inimical tothe expectations and goals set by its designers. We setforth here the processes by which we believe that thiscurriculum should be introduced into the life of a child.

(a) We believe that teaching must be a process ofhypothesis derivation and hypothesis testing. Thesedecision-making responsibilities must he assumed, however,on the basis of hypotheses generated from observation ofthe child's behavior, diagnosis of his disabilities andabilities, and selection of objectives and activitiesto meet his needs. Thus, the teacher makes decisionsabout the child at each step of this three-step process --and each step is crucial to the optimal education of thechild.

(b) The first of the three -- observation of theindividual child's behavior in a variation of activities --is basic to the others. Unfortunately, few teachers designopportunities in their school day for such observations;yet, without direct observation of the child as he performson tasks demanding different abilities, the teacher in-structs him with only a minimal amount of the informationnecessary. During the three and a half years of our workwith teachers involved in the CREED project, they repeatedagain and again that their expectations for their children'sperformance on testing tasks and curriculum tasks were, inmany cases, not fulfilled. In some cases, the child's per-formance far exceeded the teacher's expectation; she had noidea that he was capable of succeeding on certain tasks.On the other hand, some teachers overestimated a child'sability, finding that he failed repeatedly on tasks theyhad assumed were within his repertoire of skills. Ineither case, the teacher's assumptions and presumptionswould have resulted in the development of "mis-matched"educational experience for the child.

Careful observation of the child in all stages of hisattempts to master a task can provide a wealth of in-formation for the teacher's future use in developing in-structional experiences. Educational psychologistsspecializing in all areas of instruction - reading,mathematics, psycholinguistics - are urging teachers, morespecifically, to observe the child's errors in the per-formance of a task. His errors are a demonstration bythe child of his process of hypothesis testing, as hedevelops a plan for mastering the task. Therefore, theteacher can learn a great deal about a child from theerrors he makes in working at any task. Errors should notbe viewed as dismal failure, but as a positive attempt on

11

the part of the child to relate to the elements of thetask set before him. We view the CREED 5 Curriculum asboth instructional and diagnostic; task mastery will aidthe child in the process of perceptual-cognitive develop-ment. In addition, as he moves to mastery his errorswill help the teacher to refine her knowledge of hisneeds.

When the teacher assigns tasks to the group or the in-dividual, he must observe each child as he engages inthe process of learning and in the solution of the tasksset before him; if he does, not take the opportunity toobserve the child as an individual, then he will not havea firm basis for diagnosis of the child's abilities anddisabilities.

In our reports on the earlier CREED projects i.e.,CREED 3 Report, 1969 5 we have often criticized the useof one-hour testing sessions by a psychologist as a basisfor the diagnosis and remediation of a child with speciallearning disabilities. We would be less than candid ifwe did not criticize equally strongly the diagnosisand remediation of the problems of the child with speciallearning disabilities by teachers who have seen him per-form asen individual on only a few limited occasions, andon only a few tasks, all similar in range and nature.

The child should also be observed as an individual as heperforms in a group. The differences found in hiscognitive, affective and social behavior in groupsituations, as compared with one-to-one situati-ms, shouldbe carefully studied. From such observations, it shouldbe possible to develop a description of the child's uniquerange of behavior.

(c) Observation by teachers, teacher-aides andsupervisors should provide a firm basis for the generationof hypotheses about the child's abilities and disabilities.The most valuable descriptions of the child's abilitiesand disabilities, may well be those arrived at throughmeetings of a team of teachers, teacher-aides and super-visors, all of whom have kept themselves well-informed bytaking advantage of the services available to them. Atsuch meetings the group should not only describe the child'sabilities and disabilities at different points in time,but should also develop hypotheses about alternative in-structional techniques and materials that will meet hisneeds.

12

18

The hypotheses that are formulated at such meetings,however, must be generated by informed personnel; thoseresponsible for the education of children must be asassiduous about increasing their professional knowledgeand skill as are other professionals. There is much thatwould be of great value to education in the new andexciting research in educational psychology, developmentalpsychology, perceptual psychology, physiology and medicine.Unfortunately, these results take years to reach educators.School personnel must find some means of keeping them-selves informed; there must be channels of communicationwith other disciplines.

Current dissemination facilities of the Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare, such as ERIC and ResearchRelating to Children, should help educators to capitalizeupon research in allied fields, implementing whatever mightbe of benefit to their children.

(d) It is at the point at which the team designsexperiences to meet an individual child's needs that theway in which a curriculum is used becomes of criticalimportance. The team must consider carefully the levelof functioning of the child in the areas covered by thecurriculum and "match" him with appropriate levels ofcurriculum objectives. In the CREED 5 Curriculum, such'matching" must be effected through a careful selectionof appropriate objectives from within and among the fivecurriculum areas. A child must not be subjected to alockstep presentation of the objectives in this Curriculum,nor should the objectives and activities be presented in a"testing" atmosphere where total success is expected onfirst trial. Indeed, it is the belief of the CREED 5Staff that any curriculum that provides for a "lock-step"movement of a child, with little provision for individualdifferences makes an automaton of both pupil and teacher.

Both cognitive and affective goals may be fulfilledthrough the use of the objectives and activities in theCurriculum. Many of the activities can be used with smallgroups as well as with individuals, so that the team mayplan instruction for groups where it is appropriate to thesocial, affective and cognitive goals under consideration.

It should be quite clear, through these recommendations,that the expectations of the CREED 5 Staff are that theeducators who use the CREED 5 Curriculum will carefullyselect from among its areas and objectives a "match" forthe well-defined needs of their children, and that theywill implement the tasks fulfilling the objectives asexperiences rather than tests.

13

19

E. A Sequence for Curriculum Development in theEducation of the Deaf

As we have stated in the preceding pages many times,the CREED 5 Curriculum is the end product of a seriesof projects -- all with discrete goals, but all movingtoward the final goal of a comprehensive educationalprogram for young deaf children with special learningdisabilities. We on the CREED Staff believe that wehave met with a considerable amount of success inreaching both the short-term and long-term goals setfor our project. We believe, too, t'lat the processof development is one that might well recommend itselfto others who enter upon the pursuit of curriculumdevelopment for deaf children, or for other specialgroups.

The process as we see it must include the followingfactors:

1. Delimitation and description of the areas to beincluded in the curriculum.

Whether the prospective curriculum is to be small orlarge scale, the goals must be clearly structured.Current work in the development of behavioral andperformance objectives and in the application ofsystems analysis to education is a valuable sourcefor fulfilling this requirement. Specifying thegoals clearly should facilitate the fulfillment ofsubsaquent steps in the process of curriculum develop-ment.

2. Precise description of the performance of thetarget population on measures of the selectedobjectives.

This is a basic preliminary step for all curriculumdesigners. If we accept our commitment to meet individualdifferences, then we must obtain reliable and validmeasures of the extent of these differences. Whilesubjective descriptions can provide a guideline for thedetermination of the level of proficiency (or deficiency)of a group in fulfilling the selected objectives, thesedescriptions must be supported with descriptive measuresof greater precision. This is not to say that such pre-cision cannot be obtained through means of observationand interaction as well as through the usual "standardizedtesting procedures"; however, there must be a standard, ifnot a standardized, procedure with careful structuring,

'14

20

measurement and evaluation of the performance. The aimof measurement at this stage is to direct the curriculumdesigners to the range of performance with which theymust be concerned if they are to meet the needs of thetarget population.

3. Collaboration of developmental and educationalpsychologists with educators.

Within recent years, curriculum development has become'a major occupation of ,developmental and educationalpsychologists. They have taken this coufse as a meansfor implementation and trial of their theories andprinciples. In their application of psychology toeducation, psychologists offer foundations and structuresessential to the construction of a successful program ofinstruction. Such structure is only half a program,however; to develop a practicable program, psychologistsrequire the active collaboration of teaching personnel.Teachers, supervisors, specialists -- all must be involvedin every phase of curriculum development. It is our be-lief that neither profession can develop a viable programin isolation of the other; the psychologist requires thepractitioner to interpret his goals in the real world ofthe child; the practitioner requires the theoreticalfoundations of the psychologist to give a sound structureto his discrete methods and materials.

The means by which this collaboration is effected cantake many forms; we believe that the CREED 5 Seminarswere highly successful in meeting the unique goals ofour project. In all candor, we must admit that suchinteraction is not always comfortable; while meeting asprofessionals with different experience and training,confrontation and disagreement must be expected, evenencouraged. A successful collaboration is one that dealswith the "balancing of polarities", that deals with theconstruction of a new path that permits the strongest ofthe convictions of both parties to remain in a form stillrecognizable. Because we believe that such interaction iscrucial to the successful development of a curriculum, adetailed description of one vehicle for collaboration, theCREED 5 Seminars, is presented in Chapter II.

4. Systematic supervision of the introduction of thetotal program into the classroom over a reasonablylong period of time,

This step should occur in two phases -- an initialshort-term pilot trial, while the curriculum is at

15

21

the design stage, anda Iang-term evaluation over anextended period of time, with systematic measurementof its effect.

In the CREED 5 Curriculum Project, we were able tofulfill only the first phase; it is the hope of thePrincipal Investigator that the CREED Staff, whichwas so successful in past endeavors, will be providedwith the opportunity to fulfill the second at sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Again the first phase is very k.learly described bythe CREED 5 Seminar leaders in Chapter II.

At this point, we ought to state quite clearly that wedo not consider a curriculum that is the product ofthese steps to be a "final curriculum." We do notbelieve that any curriculum is ever "final." Theremust be provision within its structure for constantmodification through the continuous interaction ofthe educators involved in its use -- with a child,with a class, in a school. New ideas, new theories,new principles, new materials -- all must beaccommodated to a curriculum if it is to truly meetevery child's individual needs. We believe that thefour steps described here provide a sound basis notonly for the design of the basic curriculum, but alsofor its continuous modification and acQommodation tothe needs of those for whom it was developed.

16

22

Chapter II

The CREED 5 Seminars:One Approach to Collaboration

Gisa Indenbaum and Rona Kurtz

A. The Structure

The original design of the CREED 5 project hadprojected a series of ongoing seminarslwith a re-presentative group of supervisors and teachers playingan important role in aiding the CREED 5 Staff in develop-ing a curriculum for the atypical deaf child. Because ithad been found that teacher involvement in the developmentof the curriculum is essential to the successful imple-mentation of a program, the seminars were conceptualizedas a vehicle through which an open channel would be createdbetween the researchers (CREED 5 Staff) and the practitioners(supervisors and teachers). Our role was to help facilitatethe process of creating channels of communication.

As professionals with skills in group process and childdevelopment, we saw our function as two-fold:

1. We could use our group process skills to establisha trusting environment, one which would enable theparticipants to communicate openly and freely; and,

2. we could serve as a resource for information inprinciples of child development upon which theresearch staff was building the curriculum.

It was expected that we could clarify and amplify thefoundations upon which the curriculum was based and by sodoing receive richer feedback from the teachers.

Because of time and money limitations only a represent-ative sample of teachers was involved in the seminar groups.We were not able to include the total number of teachers whowould eventually try-out CREED materials. It was expectedthat seminar participants would share with the other teachersand supervisors in their schools what transpired in the groupdiscussions, and that, in turn, they would share with thegroup the suggestions and concerns of the other teachers intheir respective schools.

17

Anticipation and hope was that we would meet regularlyand frequently in order to maximize open flow of informa-tion and establish the kinds of relationships among groupmembers which would be most facilitating.

With this in mind we expected to meet on a weeklybasis with flexible grouping of selected teachers andsupervisors in the Metropolitan area of New York City(including Lexington School, St. Joseph's School, P.S. 47,St. Francis DeSales School and P.S. 158); the New Yorksuburban area (including New York School, Mill Neck ManorSchool, Nassau School and Cleary School); and the UpstateNew York area (including St. Mary's School, Rochester Schooland New York State School at Rome). However, due to avariety of demands on the time of the teachers and super-visors, on distance and different institutional structures,each with its own pressures and commitments, final schedulesemerged which were a compromise effort to meet all demands.We met on a bi-monthly basis with representative groups ofteachers and supervisors from-the five schools for the deafin the New York City area. Supervisors met in the morningand teadhers in the afternoon, with different schoolsacting as hosts. There were joint meetings of teachersand supervisors from the four suburban schools on a monthlybasis. There were also monthly meetings with the threeupstate schools. The suburban and upstate meetings ranfor a full day.

Teachers who were asked to participate in seminarsby their school administrators were those who worked withchildren in the age range of 3 to 7. Supervisors dealingwith this age range were also among those asked to partici-pate by their administrators.

It was the responsibility of the grcup leaders tomeet with the teachers and supervisors and to report tothe CREED staff for the purposes of feedback, communicationsinteraction and collaboration. We,as leaders, were thenliaison between the designers and the users.

The seminars were unique in that teachers and super-visors were involved not only in the final stages ofpractical application but at the earlier more theoreticallevels as well.

B. The Content: Objectives

The initial meetings, from November through January,focused on a discussion of the theoretical assumptionsupon which the curriculum was based. In essence we, as

18

group leaders, elaborated on the principles of childdevelopment from which the assumptions were developed.This then provided a valid base from which the groupmembers could consider and evaluate the objectives (bothgeneral and specific) and how they met classroom needs.

All group members received a copy of all materialsin advance of the seminars. They were asked to evaluateindividually each of the assumptions and objectives.Then, at group meetings, we would collecti7ely discussthe evaluations and incorporate suggested changes,additions, deletions, modifications. A forum was alsoprovided to air any questions or concerns that arose.Thus, for instance, teachers suggested that some of theobjectives did not reach down far- enough for the youngchild. Another suggestion was that the gap betweensome objectives was too big and that intermediate stepswere needed. At other times discussions on broadprinciples of educational philosophy took place, e.g.,individual teaching or group teaChing free explorationof material vs. more structured teacher directed methods.

There were suggested changes in language to makethe Curriculum more in keeping with the vernacular ofthe teachers. In general, teachers tended to bring usdown from our more theoretical, sometimes too abstractlevel; at the sb.me time they attempted to incorporatethe more theoretical implications into their practice.Participants wanted to know about children in general--their fears, how they relate to others, their cognitivecapabilities? There were many questions about theparallel development of hearing and deaf children. Theyconsidered whether teachers of the deaf have unrealisticand inappropriate expectations for their students, andhow a normally hearing three-year-old would behave in agiven situation.

Much discussion centered around the expectationsthat teachers had of themselves in their role as teachersof the deaf as well as the things they expected of theirchildren. Their questions were, for example, "Is a childnot mastering a given skill because I, the teacher, havenot been able to reach him or is he not mastering thetask because of his developmental stage?"

In general, the teachers felt that this phase ofthe seminars was especially difficult for them becausethey were asked to focus on theoretical aspects When theirdaily pressures demanded practical solutions.

19

25

C. The Content: Activities

During the second phase of the seminars (February andMarch) group members were asked to study the objectivesonce again from the standpoint of suggesting activitiesfor fulfilling specific objectives. Such activities werethose that teachers had used with success with certainchildren in their classes or activities they had read inthe literature. These activities would supplement thosedesigned by the CREED staff.

In this stage we began to use tape recorders in orderto capture all the details and flavor of the teachers'descriptions of their own techniques for our reports tothe Curriculum design staff.

While there were many valuable ideas and creativesuggestions which they did share, many of the participantsfound this an uncomfortable and burdensome task becausethey were not convinced that their own methods were suf-ficiently novel or valuable beyond the needs of their ownchildren.

1. Ir general, during this phase3discussions againcentered around their Concern with implementation.

2. They provided a forum for airing these concernsand enabled participants to be supportive ofeach other and to share strategies for solvingsome of their difficulties.

3. Teachers expressed a need for explicit instructionon how to motivate children, on everyday classroommanagement, and on handling handicapped childrenwith very sever problems.

D. The Content: Pilot Trial

The pilot trial of Curriculum elements was introducedby a Workshop for all participants, including seminarmembers. The enormous amount of materials and activitiesthat had been accumulated for the fulfillment of curriculumobjectives was on display. They were arranged accordingto content areas and in sequence coinciding with theCurriculum objectives. From the exploration of thesematerials and an interchange with the entire CREED 5 Staff,participating teachers and supervisors gained an overallsense of the working copy of the Curriculum in its entirety.

After the Workshop, parts of the Curriculum weredistributed to selected schools for the last phase of theevaluation--a pilot trial within the classroom. Teacherswere assigned selected objectives and given the appropriatematerials designed to lead to their fulfillment. They were

20

_ 26

asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the materialsand procedures in fulfillment of the objectives in usein their classroom.

Teachers were also requested to modify the activitieswhen necessary to meet the special problems of individualchildren. They were urged to implement their own ideasin novel ways of using the materials to fulfill theobjectives.

The seminar time was used to share experiences withthe materials, to suggest modifications, and to haveprocedural questions answered. In the use of materialsunforeseen situations arose, the discussion of whichprovided valuable feedback. For instance, commerciallymade materials were sometimes found inadequate becauseinstructions were unclear; some materials, althoughadequate in meeting content objectives, were criticizedfor their impracticality in terms of expense, storageor complexity.

It became clear to many teachers that the Curriculumwas truly developmental in nature and that at times theywere unable to complete assigned tasks because theirchildren were at earlier developmental stages.

There was general excitement about the final Curri-culum and much time was spent in discussing its futureuse in classrooms. Final format of the finished Curriculum,illustrations, photographs, work sheets, etc., were suggestedby teachers and supervisors. Participants expressed a needfor an "evaluation form," or "progress report," for use witheach child. Rough guidelines for these were worked out inseminar.

Seminar participants reported that their colleagueswho had not participated in the seminars raised manyquestions about the use and evaluation of the materials.Seminar participants found that they had a better graspof the underlying principles and were therefore able touse the materials in freer, more creative and adaptivefashion. They were also able to help their co-workers bybringing to them information gathered at the seminars.They strongly urged future workshops as crucial to thesuccessful implementation of the Curriculum. Because theybelieved that for many atypical children the acquisitionof new skills is a slow process, they urged that onlyafter working with the Curriculum for an extended periodof time should a more sophisticated evaluation be made.

21

In addition, the accuracy of the developmental sequenceof the Curriculum whould be assessed. Since a curriculumis a living, changing process, rather than a finishedproduct, it was strongly suggested that there by afollow-up project.

E. Evaluation

When we were approached about participating in thisproject we were very excited because it brought togethertwo of our main interests: group processes and childdevelopment. In addition, we believed strongly ininclusion of teachers in the planning stages of a curriculum.We saw that the final product of the project, the CREED 5Curriculum, would be the result of a truly cooperativeenterprise with input from many disciplines. Since it isour belief, however, that a group cannot form a cooperative,cohesive, productive unit without the opportunity toexpress feelings and attitudes when these are presentamong group members, we envisioned our early meetings asfocusing on the establishment of group cohesiveness throughthe exploration of our own reactions and interactions, inan atmosphere of increasing openness and trust.

The necessity of meeting deadlines and schedulingdifficulties, however, resulted in a curtailment of meet-ings and necessitated a shift in the focus of seminars.The content became more narrowly focused in the variousaspects of the Curriculum, greatly minimizing attentionto group interaction.

In addition, as in other groups, we found that formaximum involvement and participation one must have voluntarycommitment to membership in a group. Assigned attendancedoes not really work. Because of the nature of the researchproject, group members were assigned to seminars by virtueof the age group they were teaching, thus largely negatingthe principle of voluntary attendance.

It also became apparent that while we all shared thecommon commitment of providing input to the Curriculum,many group members did not share a similar belief in theimportance of an examination of group interaction as ameans toward that final goal. To the extent that we didnot have the opportunity to work out, to the mutualsatisfaction of everyone, an acceptable compromise, theproductivity and potential richness of the seminars fellsomewhat short of our initial very high expectations,which include the development of greater sensitivity andawareness of participants toward themselves and others,

22

28

leading to an enrichment of the learning-teaching climatein the classroom.

While all these factors impinged on all four of theseminar groups, nevertheless, each group had a verydifferent climate. Those groups meeting on a full daybasis seemed to have an advantage although they met lessfrequently (about once a month). Because we had biggerchunks of time the groups were able to focus first onthe members' professional needs, concerns and questions,and then still had time to deal with the task at hand.The full day meetings also provided more opportunitiesfor group cohesion to form. Shared lunches made a greatdifference in climate. Members were able to communicateinformally, to share experiences and get better acquaintedwith the staffs of other schools. When members came backto the formal group setting, there was a carryover fromthe closer ties formed over these informal exchanges atlunch.

In contrast, groups meeting on a half-day basiswere constantly operating ander a more pressured climateand had greater difficulty resolving group differences.There was much greater difficulty in arriving at a-satis-factory balance between the task of evaluation of theCurriculum and other professional concerns. In essence,the all-day groups seemed to have a sense of getting theirneeds met as well as giving to the research project, andwere therefore able to contribute more freely. On theother hand, the half-day groups had more of a sense ofbeing pressured and were less able to focus on the taskat hand.

Despite these limitations, the groups were quiteproductive in making substantial contributions to thefinal Curriculum. Furthermore, seminar members feltsufficiently involved and motivated to want to continuemeeting with each other and strongly recommended thecontinuation of the CREED project. As mentioned previouslythey recommended follow-up evaluations, study groups andworkshops for experienced as well as new teachers. At thevery minimum they wanted to have meeting time set asideat their annual State conventions to share informallytheir experiences with the Curriculum.

In conclusion, we believe that a high level ofsuccess in such teacher seminars may be expected ifconsideration is given to the following factors:

23

1. Pursuit of both affective and task goals

It becomes important to understand that a groupis a special entity--anlnot merely a "sum of itsparts." The process of group interaction is adirect function of its qualities and its nature.These qualities are built from the permutationsand combinations of the individual elementswithin a group and, thus, quite unpredictable.Therefore, the affective level of group inter-action must be recognized in the pursuit of thetask goal. These affective processes are there--whether the group directs attention to them ornot, so that the task goal will be influencedby them. Feelings can not - should not beignored. Consideration of their influence onthe interaction in a teacher seminar, may wellprovide further insights into their influencein pupil-teacher interaction.

2. Voluntary attendance

It is our belief that if we want to deal withboth affective and task goals, voluntaryparticipation is a necessity.

3. Sufficient periods of time to pursue all goals

While the many demands upon a teacher's timeleave only limited periods for such group meet-ings, the commitment to the goals of such groupmeetings must not be made without seriousconsideration by both school administrators andteachers about providing sufficient periods oftime for the fulfillment of these goals.

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Educational Research Association. "Curriculum."Review of Educ. Research, 1969, 39 (3)

Athey, I. & Rubadeau, D. Educational implication ofPiazet's theorL. Boston: Ginn, 1970.

Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. Handbookof formative and summative evaluation of studentlearning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Furth, H. G. Pia et and knowled e: Theoretical foundations.Englewood C iffs N. J.. Prentice Hall, 19 9

Furth, H. G. Piaget for teachers. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:Prentice Hall, 1970.

Gagne, R. Conditions of learning. (2nd ed.) New York:Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1970.

Gibson, E. J. Principles of perceptual learning anddevelopment. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1969.

Ginsburg, H. & Opper, S. Piazetts theory of intellectualdevelopment: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:Prentice Hall, 1969.

Gordon, I. The beginnings of self: Problems of thenurturing environment. Phi Delta Kappan, March 1969,50, 375-78.

Hunt, J. M. Intelligence and experience. New York:Ronald Press, 1961.

Hunt, J. M. The challenge of ircompetence and poverty.Chicago': University of Chicago Press, 1969.

Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. Therow-calthiinknfrom childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books,1958.

Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. The early growth of logic in thechild: Classification and seriation. London, England:Routledge and Kegan, 1964.

Kamii, C. K. Evaluating pupil learning in pre-schooleducation: Socio-emotional,perceptual-motor andcognitive objectives. In B. S. Bloom, J. T. Hastings& G. F. Madaus, Handbook of formative and summativeevaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill,1971.

25

Kintsch, W. Learning, memory and conceptual processes.New York: Wiley, 1970.

Light, R. & Smith, P. Choosing a future: Strategies fordesigning and evaluating new programs. HarvardEducational Review, 1970, 40, 1-28.

Lindvall, C. M. & Cox, R. Evaluation as a tool of curriculumdevelopment: The IPI evaluation program. AERAMonograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation. Chicago!Rand McNally, 1970.

Piaget, J. The origins of intelligence in children.New York: International Universities Press, 1952.

Piaget, J. Piaget's theory. In P. Mussen, Carmichael'smanual of child psychology. New York: Wiley, 1970.

Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. The psychology of the child.New York: Basic Books, 1969.

Restaino, L. C. R. & Socher, P. A. Psycho-educationalassessment of young deaf children. Project CREED 3(Cooperative Research Endeavors in Education of theDeaf - P. L. 89-313). Albany, N. Y.: Division forHandicapped Children, The State Education Department,1969.

Restaino, L. C. R. & Socher, P. A. Curriculum developmentfor young deaf children with specific learningdisabilities (ages 4-6). Project CREED 4 (CooperativeResearch Endeavors in Education of the Deaf - P. L.89-313). Albany, N. Y.: Division for HandicappedChildren, The State Department of Education, 1970.

Shulman, L. Psychology and mathematics education. InMathematics education, Sixty-Ninth Yearbook of theNational Society for the Study of Education, Part I,NSSE. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1970.

Shulman, L. Reconstruction of educational research. Reviewof Educational Research, 1970, 4o, 371-398.

Shulman, L. & Kessler, E. R. Learning by discovery: Acritical appraisal. Rand McNally Education Series,TB 1059 S4i3. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.

4

26

Sullivan, V. Piaget and the school curriculum: A criticalappraisal, Bulletin No. 2. Toronto, Canada: OntarioInstitute for Studies, 1967.

32

Tyler, R. & Sciven, M. Perspective of curriculum evaluation.AERA Monograph, Series on Curriculum Evaluation, 1967.

Voyat, G. Minimizing the problems of functional illiteracy.Teachers ColleGe Record, 1970, 72, 171-187.

Wohlwill, J. F. The place of structural experience in earlycognitive development. Interchange, 1970, 1 (2), 13-27.

APPMTDIX A

34

Figure 1

Rating Scale

The objectives are to be rated on four levels. In yourevaluation, you are asked to respond to four questions,for each of the General Objectives. We have placed thequestions in the frame which appears on the next page,so that it will be more convenient for you to refer tothem as needed.

Your responses will be analyzed by the Curriculum staffand used as the basis for modification of the objectivesso that they:

- -are easily comprehended by other teachers(Questions I and II)

- -are made appropriate for different agegroups (Question III)

--are implemented in the final Curriculumwith sufficient activities for mastery(Qxiestions II, III, IV)

In addition to your ratings, we request that you includecomments specific to an item next to that item, and makegeneral comments on separate sheets of paper.

A-1

35

Rating Scale

EVALUATION QUESTIONS

I. Is the objective presented so that you are able tounderstand what the child is expected to master?

Yes4Clear /7 Not clear /-7

II. Do you agree that there is an important relation-ship between this objective and future academicactivities?

mpor an omew a impor an Important

Teachers:Do you think that this objective would be helpfulin achieving the educational goals you have setfor the age range of the children in your class?

/Helpful/ Somewhat helpful/ Not helpful/

Supervisors:Do you think this ob,jective would be helpful inachieving the educational goals you have set forthe age range of the children under your super-vision?

/Helpful/ Somewhat helpful/ Not helpful/

IV. Are you satisfied with the materials and activitiesyou are now using to fulfill this educationalobjective?

Yes satisfied /7 Not satisfied /7

Supervisor

Teacher

Age range of childrenunder your supervision

Age range of class

A-2

w\I

Table 1

General Assumptions and Objectives - Ratings by Teachers and Supervisors (N = 30)

III

III

IV

Ob ectives

Clarity of

Evnressing

Importance to

Education

Helpful to

Teacher

Satisfied

Current Facilities

A.

Assumptions

a H m P 11

0 c+ 0 H I

P 11

H ,c, 0 )1 c-4- c+

H C

D 0,z

i1E

1

0 (D

c+ 0

" c+c+

0 c+ H 5

M (D 1-1

hd 1-1) Z FJ

,01

CD

(D 0

I-1

1E1

hd (

D1-

1) 5.-1

.H

P c+

0 c+ M m H ,zi

W P c+ P.

w 1-v3 M P4

'4 o c+ W P .

1.

All children move

hrough

same sequence of development

oo

2.

Special deaf children re-

quire deliberate structuring

of the environment

27

O

1

25

20

2L1.

30

15

8

3.

Special deaf children must

be helped to adapt to

changes and to act in-

dependently

24

.

127

00

2L1.

10

17

8

4.

Nature of the interaction

26

027

00

26

00

22

2of teachers wlth special

deaf children is critical

5.

Cognitive learning must be

a basis for remotivation

through success

26

026

00

26

00

17

6

6.

Wide range of differences in

affective and cognitive be-

havior must be recognized

25

125

00

25

00

13

9

B.

Objectives

.

J.

Skill development through

hierarchial sequencing

25

125

00

24

15

2.

Independent activity in

performance of tasks

25

025

00

24

00

16

6

3.

Recognition of unique cog-

nitive and affective needs

26

024

00

23

10

16

4

4.

Enhancement of self-image

through mastery of tasks

25

025

00

24

00

15

3

a): I

v-A

I,

Table 2

Conceptualization Objectives

- Ratings by Teachers and Supervisors

(N

= 30)

III

III

IV

SatisTied

Current Facilities

Clarity of

Expressing

Importance to

Education

Helpful to

Teacher

Objectives

a H m P il

o ci- 0 H M P 1

-1

H 0 frzi 0 1-i

cl- P c

i-

CD

00

'd E

l0

ML. ct

- ;I

T'

P P

ic±

ci-

0 c+ H 1E1 'd

M M H td I-13 0 H

M1M

C D

OH

0tti

MI-

434

0 H P

0 0 W M H .

M P c-1-

p. w 1-13 m PL

o c-I- m P

1, Serial Ordering

2. Classification

3. Symbolization, coding

4. Structuring

space

5. Logical foundations

of number

6. Logical

sequence

across time

2729

2326

30

28

3 1 7 4 0 1

29

29

242929

27

1 1 3 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 0 0

27

27

20

2225

24

3 3 6 6 4 4

0 0 o 1 1 0

914

121114

13

20 14

1616

14

13

Table 3

Attention & Memory Objectives

- Ratings by Teachers and Supervisors

N. 0

Objectives

11

Clarity of

Importance to

Expressing

Education cr

.

III

Helpful to

Teacher

IV

Satisfied

Current Facilities

Teacher's Role

1. Learning situation

2. Learning strategies

3, Structure

Task Factors

4. Length of presentation

5 Sensory systems

6, Number of units

7. Level of representation

8. Ordering of recall

9. Methods of recall

10. Level of activity

242627

2427

27

2827

2524

3 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1

24 2727

272725

2626

2223

10

O0

10

10

10

O0

O0

26

2626

2626

24

21

22

2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 0

910

1211

1211

12

12 7 9 9 9 9 8 7 8 5

Table 4

Visual Analysis

- Ratings by Teachers and Supervisors

N30

I

,

II

III

IV

Clarity of

Expressing

Importance to

Education

Itelpful to

Teacher

Satisfied

Current Facilities

\

Objectives

0 H m P 11

0 0-

! 0 H al P 1-1

H rci 0 li cf P cf

1-1

(i)00 td

1E

10 CD

1-i

c-f- PP cf

-c+

0 cf- 4I qi

M a) H qi H) H

,--

M C

D()

0I-

1 iE

l'CI

CD

1-4) 0 0-

'H

P c+

0 c+ M a) H '-ci

.

m P c+ 1--"

(1) H)

I" m ra,

o c+ CO P c+ .

,

1. Match 3 dim. objectives

30

028

20

28

20

21

82. Match 3 dim. objectives

with 2 dim. objectives

30

028

20

27

30

20

8

3. Match dim. objectives

30

026

20

26

30

17

12

4. To reproduce 3 dim.

model

25

520

70

19

81

14

13

5. To match colors

30

025

41

25

31

20

76. To match positive with

negative forms

17

12

25

21

25

40

15

12

7. To match Kinesthetic

perception with visual

perception

23

517

43

20

32

13

10

8. To match sets of pictures

30

0.26

21

26

30

15

13

9. To locate imbedded figures

22

520

81

17

81

717

10. To match printed forms

26

326

11

23

31

13

11

11. To match sets of printed

forms

28

122

41

20

52

13

9

12. To match outlines with

their printed forms

27

323

51

21

61

17

8

13. To locate symbols in

an

array

27

223

14

22

34

18

5

.

,

Table 5

Sensory Motor Integration

- Ratings b

Teachers and Supervisors

N=

30)

.

III

III

IV

Clarity o

Expressing

mpor ance

oEducation

Help ul

o

Teacher

a is ie

Current Facilitie

Objectives

0 H a) P F1

o ct- a H M P F

1

H 0 tri

0 F1 ct P cF

HU

)0 o

I'd 0

0 (D

F1 ct P P ct

cF

o c+ H 0 rd

,

M 'M

C')

mI

i-J qi Ft 0 H

H 0

qi (

DF

-I)

H P cF

o cf M m H

m P ct 1-4

W P.

P,

o cl-

M O-

1. Manual strength, minimal vision

29

127

30

25

41

21

52. Coordination of eyes with

one hand

30

028

10

28

10

21

53. Coordination of eyes, both hands

30

028

00

29

00

20

74 Use of tool to pick

up and place object

30

027

11

25

31

18

9,5. Sustain a rhythmical activity with two

29

025

21

24

31

20

61'

arms

6. Sustain

a rhythmical activity with one

arm

30

024

40

25

30

20

7

7. Sustain rhythmical movement, integration

of two arms

29

026

30

27

20

21

6

8. Awareness of body boundaries

30

028

10

27

20

22

49. Tactile-kinesthetic awareness of body

with tactile stimulation

29

025

41

26

40

20

6

10. Tactile-kinesthetic awareness of body

with visual stimulation

29

027

30

26

40

22

5

11. Awareness of spatial relation of body

parts

29

027

20

25

40

18

8

12. To hold and manipulate specific tools

30

028

20

28

20

22

513. To manipulate a tool within

a template

28

123

31

21

60

19

17

14. To manipulate

a tool to fill in an area

28

225

10

22

40

20

315. To manipulate a tool between lines

30

022

71

20

72

24

316. To span

a space graphically with a tool

25

524

30

21

60

17

617. To manipulate a tool around

a template

24

420

32

18

61

17

518. To manipulate

a tool in tracing

29

122

42

22

42

22

1119. To reproduce a drawing

29

025

30

22

32

24

2

Table 6

Gross Motor Coordination - Ratings

by Teachers and Supervisors

N = 29)

Objectives

Clarity of

Expressing

CD

1-1

0 ci-

(D

Bilateral motor acts

26

0Unilateral motor acts

26

0Integrated lateral motor acts

25

0Bilateral eye-hand coordination

26

0Unilateral eye-hand coordination

24-

0Integrated eye-hand coordination

23

0

Importance to

lielpfurto

Education

Teacher

INT

Satisfied

Current Facilities

0 ci- H

0 c+ (D cj

24

222.

3-25

1

25

0

23

122

10

21

40

22

31

22

40

24

20

22

10

19

50

1919

20181617

1 5 3 5 3 2

C43

CREED 5 CURRICULUM

GENERAL OBJECTIVES IN FIVE SUBJECT AREAS

1. Attention and Memory

For the teacher:

General Objective I: To present materials or events thatthe child is expected to remember clearly apart fromother materials and events.

General Objective II: To provide the child with experiencein the grouping of events and materials to increasehis success in remembering them.

General Objective III:To provide a carefully developedstructure for all materials and events the childis to remember.

General Objective IV: To provide a model for the childwith which to compare his completed task.

For the child: ATTENTION

General Objective I: To focus on one distinct featureof one object.

General Objective II,: To scan by systematically focussingon more than one distinct feature.

General Objective III: To sustain attention for increasingperiods of time.

B-1

44

For the child: MEMORY

General Objective I: To develop the ability toremember material and events after a long exposure(for more than 5 seconds). To develop the abilityto remember material and events after a shortexposure (for less than 5 seconds).

General Objective II: To develop the ability to remembermateriaas and events that are presented visually. Todevelop the ability to remember a tactile-kinestheticstimulus. To develop the ability to remember anauditory stimulus. To develop the ability to remembera stimulus through a sense modality other than thatthrough which it was presented.

General Objective III: To develop the ability to remember2 or 3 objects or events. To develop the ability toremember 4, 5, 6 or 7 objects or events.

General Objective IV: To develop the ability to rememberobjects and events in his environment. To develop theability to remember pictures of materials, events,geometric shapes or colors. To develop the abilityto remember abstract symbols (letters, digits,mathematical notations or nonsense forms). To developthe ability to remember materials or events at a levelof repreeentation other than the one in which it waspresented.

General Objective V: To develop the ability to remember acollection of materials or events in any order. To de-velop the ability to remember a collection of materialsor events tn a sequence.

General Objective VI: To develop the ability to rememberby recognition. To develop the ability to rememberthrough reproduction.

General Objective VII: To develop the ability to rememberevents through gross-motor involvement; e.g., to re-produce a series of actions performed. To develop theability to remember objects or events through per-ceptual motor involvement; e.g., to remember a groupof objects through manipulation of these objects.

2. Visual Analysis:

General Objective I: To develop the ability to matcha single three-dimensional object with anotherthree-dimensional object.

General Objective II: To develop the ability to matchcolors.

General Objective III: To develop the ability to matchtwo-dimensional representations; photographs,drawings and figures.

General Objective TV: To develop the ability to match athree-dimensional object with a two-dimensionalrepresentation of that object.

General Objective V: To develop the ability to assemblea three-dimensional model from three-dimensionalmaterials.

General Objective VI: To develop the ability to match apositive form with its matching negative.

General Objective VII: To develop the correspondencebetween a tactile perception of an object and itsvisual representation.

General Objective VIII: To develop the ability to locateembedded figures.

General Objective IX: To develop the ability to matchprinted forms.

General Objective X: To develop the ability to matchprinted representations with their outlines.

General Objective XI: To develop the ability to duplicatethe spatial organization of shapes and symbols.

3. Conceptualization

General Objective I: To develop the ability to seesimilarities between objects and to classify onthe basis of such similarities.

General Objective II: To develop understanding ofprinciples of serial ordering.

B-3

46

General Objective III: To develop the ability tointerpret and use different ways of representing,coding and symbolizing objects, actions and events.

General Objective IV: To develop the ability tostructure space, and to understand and usespatial concepts.

General Objective V: To acquire understanding oflogical sequence across time.

General Objective VI: To develop the logical foundationsnecessary for comprehension of concepts of number andmeasurement.

4. Sensory Motor Integration

General Objective I: To develop manual strength anddexerity with mlnimal use of vision.

General Objective II: To develop the ability tocoordinate the use of the of the eyes and one handin performing manipulative tasks.

General Objective III: To develop the ability tocoordinate the use of the eyes and the integrateduse of both hands.

General Objective TV: To develop the ability to utilizea tool to pick up and place objects.

General Objective V: To develop the ability to sustaina rhythmical movement.

General Objective 'LE: To develop an awareness of thebody boundaries in relation to external objects.

General Obive VII: To develop tactile-kinestheticawareness of the body.

General Objective VIII: To develop the awareness of thespatial relationship of body parts.

General Objective IX: To learn to hold and manipulatebroad point and fine point tools.

General Objective X: To develop the ability tomanipulate a tool within a template to producean unbroken line.

B-4

z17

General Objective XI: To develop the ability tomanipulate a tool to fill in a designated area.

General Objective XII: To develop the ability tomanipulate a tool to draw a line between two

General Objective XIII: To develop the ability toline between two points to connect them.

lines.

draw a

General Objective XIV: To develop the ability tomanipulate a tool around the outside of a templateto produce an unbroken line.

General Objective XV: To develop the ability tomanipulate a tool on top of (tracing) apreviously drawn line.

General Objective XVI: To.develop the ability toreproduce drawings and symbols from a model.

5. Gross Motor

General Objective I: To develop the ability to performbilateral motor acts smoothly, with proper bodyalignment and control.

General Objective II: To develop the ability to performunilateral motor acts smoothly with proper bodyalignment and control.

General Objective III: To develop the ability to performintegrated (cross) lateral motor acts smoothly withproper body alignment and control.

General Objective IV: To develop the ability to performbilateral eye-hand coordination activities smoothlyand with control.

General Objective V: To develop the ability to performunilateral eye-hand coordination activities smoothlyand with control with the preferred hand.