DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · 2013-11-08 · Mr. David Christian IBM Systems Engineer, Athens, Georgia....

ED 042 722

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCY

BUREAU NOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

24 SP 004 171

Johnson, Charles E., Ed.; Shearron, Gilbert F., Ed.The Feasibility of the Georgia Educational Model forTeacher Preparation--Elementary. Volume I; BasicReport. Final Report.Georgia Univ., Athens.Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,Washington, D.C. National Center for EducationalResearch and Development.BR-9-0477Jan 70OEC-0-9-200477-4043347p.; Phase 2, Feasibility study, CETEMSupt. of Documents, Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C. 20402 (Vol. 1, HE 5.87:G29/V.1,$2.75)

EDRS Price MF-$1.50 HC-$17.45Comp9ter Programs, *Educational Development,*Elementary School Teachers, Evaluation Techniques,*Feasibility Studies, Learning Activities,Management Systems, Program Costs, *ProgramDevelopment, Program Evaluation, *Teacher EducationCETEM, *Comprehensive Elementary Teacher EducationModels

This first volume of a three-volume feasibilityreport on the Georgia model for elementary teacher education ouCkinesthe procedures used In conducting the study, and presents thetheoretical considerations involved. The engineering strategyproposed for a 5-year development program is summarized, theessential characteristics of the program in relation to selectedtheoretical considerations are described, and the proposedimplementation strategy is presented through a series of flow chartsand timelines. chapters 4, 5, and 6 briefly summarize the componentsof the subsystems, followed by the results of investigations designedto estabiish their feasibility, and the strategy proposed for thedevelopment of the subsystems is presented. Chapter 7 deals witheconomic feasibility, explaining how this was detereined, summarizingthe cost for development dnd sustained operation, and exploring thefeasibility of development and operation costs. It also explores thepossibility if the number of alternate paths for learning activitiesshould be reduced, and investigates the cost of each phase of theprogram model independently. The conclusions of the study indicatethat strategy presented is feasible provided that the necessary fundsare made available. An appendix contains related data. (See also SP004 182.) (MHM)

FINAL REPORT

CNJ Project No. 9-0477Contract No. OEC-0-9-200477-4043

ti

CD THE FEASIBILITY OF THE GEORGIA EDUCATIONAL MODEL FOR

La TEACHER PREPARATION -- ELEMENTARY

Volume I Basic Report

Editors

Charles E. Johnson, &d.D.Gilbort F. Shearron, Ed.D.

University of Georgia

Athens, Georgia

January, 1970

U.S. CEPA IMMO Of HEWS. EDUCATION111 114111 ARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONMS DOCUMENT HAS SRN IMPROWExACTtY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON ORORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OfVIEW OR OPINIONS SIFTED DR NOT NEM-SAARI REPRESENT Of KIM. Of FeZE OF TCT.FCATION POSITION OR PC4ICT

The research reported herein was performed pursuant to acontract with the Office of Education, U. S. Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare. Contractors undertakingsuch projects under Government sponsorship are encouragedto express freely their professional judgment in the conductof tho project. Points of view or opinions stated do not,therefore, necessarily represent official Office of Educa-tion position or policy.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Office of EducationNational Center for Educational Research and Development

Foe tak.6

by gh* Skitiletioneedeat rf Domaeses, U S. 00/ISIbeet Perth* OdliceIVrIbl000s. /0001 hid WS

Preface

A feasibility study in education represents a signifi-cant and forward step by the profession. For the first timean effort has been made to design a blueprint for a teachereducation program. (Phase I, U.S.O.B. Model Teacher Educa-tion Program--Elementary) Now the feasibility of developing,implementing, and operating the program has been studied.These first generation efforts will provide the basis for amore scientific and systematic approach to teacher education.

The study done by the University of Georgia has estab-lished the feasibility of developing, implementing and oper-ating the Georgia Educational Model at the University ofGeorgia. The University Administration regards the resultsof this study as significant. The Georgia model can andwill become the elementary teacher education program in thisinstitution.

The staff members involved in this study have workedlong hours in its preparation. The University is indebtedto each of them. Special acknowledgements should be made toDean Joseph A. Williams, College of Education, Dr. Gilbert F.Shearron, Chairman, Division of Elementary Education, Dr.Charles E. Johnson, Director, Feasibility Study, Dr. JeroldP. Bauch, Associate Director, Dr. Michael L. Hawkins, Asso-ciate Director, and Dr, Jerry B. Ayers, Associate Director.

41Pe(//00.4. -t,Ifi,-1Fred C. DavisonPresidentUniversity of Georgia

University of Georgia Staff MembersResponsible for Conductinythe GEM Feasibility Study

Directors

Dr. Charles E. JohnsonProfessor of Education,Director, GEM FeasibilityProject

Dr. Gilbert F. ShearronChairman, Elementary Edu-cation Division,Director of Program Imple-mentation

Associate Directors

Dr. Michael L. HawkinsAssociate Professor,Associate Director forInstructional Component&

Dr. Jerold P. BauchAssistant Professor,Associate Director forEvaluation Components

Dr. Jerry B. AyersAssistant Professor,Associate Director for.Management Components

Systems Engineers

Mr. Gunter Zietlow, B.S. Mr. Jim B. Grant, IR R-I 4-

Research Assistants

Gloria A. Bohler, M.A.John H. Cochran, Jr., M.A.Glenn E. Duncan, B.S.

Robert J. Finnegan, B.S.Peter Rowe, M.Ed.

Production Personnel

J. Edwin Sailers, A.B.J.Editor

Prances M. WileySecretary

Martha M. PhillipsStatistical Clerk

iv

John L. Homick, B.S.Ed.Draftsman

Mildred T. Simons, B.M.Ed.Secretary

Deborah B. BondTypist

GEM Feasibility Study ConsultantsOutside University of Georgia

*Prof. Cecil G. JohnsonDept. of Industrial Systemsand Engineering, GeorgiaInstitute of Technology,Atlanta, Georgia

*Mr. David L. TharpSystems Engineer,Atlanta, Georgia

Mr. Charles P. ReedDirector, Management Infor-mation System, GeorgiaInstitute of Technology,Atlanta, Georgia

Mr. M. MAcDougalIBM Field Systems Center,Atlanta, Georgia

Mr. Ralph B. SlayArchitect, Bothwelland Associates,Decatur, Georgia

Dr. C. W. StricklerConsulting Physician,Atlanta, Georgia

Mr. John M. NickensAssistant Registrar,Florida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

*Dr. Duane C. ShawMarketing Program, Educa-tional Technology, UnivacSperry Rand Corp.,Orange, New Jersey

*Mr. G. William DarwinManager, Data ProcessingDivision, Univac, Sperry RandCorp., Louisville, Kentucky

Dr. B. Burton BrownProfessor of Education,University of FloridaGainesville, Florida

Mr. David C. EnglishIBM Marketing Representative,Athens, Georgia

Mr. David ChristianIBM Systems Engineer,Athens, Georgia

Mr. Ken MillenIBM Systems Engineer,Athens, Georgia

Mr. Al Nickle'PM Advisory Systems Engineer,Athens, Georgia

Mr. Bud EstesSystems Engineer,Orlando, Florida

*Consultants who worked continuously with the projectthroujhout its duration.

GEM Feasibility Study Administrative and TechnicalConsultants Within the University of Georgia

Dr. George S. ParthemosVice President for Instruction

Mr. John L. GreenVice President forBusiness and Finance

Dr. James L. CarmonAssistant Vice ChancA.lor forComputing Systems, andDirector, Computer Center

Dr. Britian J. WilliamsAssociate Director,Computer Center

Dr. James B. KenneyAssociate Dean,Graduate School

Dr. John G. BolinAssociate Director,Institute of Higher Education

Mr. Walter N. DannerRegistrar

Mr. John L. TempleBusiness Manager. ."

Mr. Vance L. CecilDirector, Engineering andPlanning, Physical PlantDivision

Mr. Comer WhiteheadAssistant to the Vice Presi-dent for Business andFinance

Dr. Richard C. ArmstrongDirector, Housing

Mr. David G. ClementsAssistant DirectorCampus Planning and Develop-ment

Dr. Lee SprowlesProfessor If EducationalAdministration

Mr. Guy W. SmithSupervisor,Central Duplicating Services

piLejilibilltzaLyDidInstructioProgram Consultants Withinthe University of Georgia

Dr. Elizabeth AchesonAssistant Professor,English Education

Dr, Ingemar V. AhnellAssistant Professor,Assistant CoordinatorSeconda:y Student Teaching

vi

hr. James E. AkensonInstructor,Social Science Education

Dr. Frank R. AsburyAssistant Professor,Cnuc'elor Education

Dr. Lehman Barnes, Jr.Assistant Professor,Science Education

Dr. Frank R. BowersAssociate Professor,Health & Physical Education

Dr. A. Byron CallawayProfessor,Reading Education

Dr. Harold A. CohenAssociate Professor,Economics

Dr. Oliver M. ColemanAssistant Professor,Art, Visual Art

Dr. Nicholas V. CostantinoAssistant Professor,Counselor Education

Dr. Janes L. DickersonProfessor & Coordinator,Professional LaboratoryExperiences

Dr. Earl E. PalesProfessor,Health & Physical Education

Dr. Richard M. GrahamProfessor,Music

Dr. Fred D. HoltAssociate Prof essor,Counselor Education

vii

Dr. Michael L. MahaffeyAssistant Professor,Mathematics Education

Dr. Marilyn MathewsAssistant Professor,Language Education

Dr. W. R. NixAssistant Professor,Art, Visual Art

Dr. D. Keith OsbornProfessor,School of Home EconomicsCollege of Education

Dr. Kenneth S. RickerAssociate Professor,Science Education

Dr. Hope T. M. Ritter, Jr.Professor,Zoology

Dr. Robert N. SavelandProfessor,Social Science Education

Dr. Juanita R. SkeltonAssistant Professor,Audio-Visual Education

Dr. A. John StaufferAssociate Professor,Educational Psychology

CONTENTS OF VOLUME ONE

Chapter I

Purpose of the Study and BackgroundC. E. Johnson

Page,

1

The Objectives of the Study 1

Background of the Study 1

The Products 3

Georgia Educational Models 3

Definitions of Terms 6Some Theoretical Observations 9Organization of the Report 11References 13

Chapter II

Feasibility Study Procedures. 14C. E. Johnson

Procedural Assumptions 14Essential Operational Principles 14Some General Criteria for DeterminingFeasibility 16A Limiting Assumption 17Procedures for Investigating the Feasibilityof the Model in Sustained Operation 17Procedures for Developing a Strategy toEffect the Model into Operation 19Techniques for Determining Technical andSocio-Psychological Feasibility 21

Consultation With Experts 21Assessment Based on Selected Criteria . 22Simulated Demonstration 22Operational Demonstration 23

Computer Program 23Project Management 24List of Events and Activities 29References 34

viii

Chapter III

Strategy for a Five Year Development ProgramLeading to Sustained Operation 35

C. E. Johnson

Proposed Project Management Techniques . . . 35Complexities of Program Management 37Sequential Induction of Phases 40Strategic Stages of Development 41

Planning and Designing 41

Development of instructional ProgramPhases 43Piloting Phases of the Instruct.:)nalProgram 44Initial Operation 45

Sustained Operation 46Time Relationships 46Illustrative PERT Chart Diagrams 47

Chapter IV

Feasibility of the Instructional Subsystem 56M. L. Hawkins and G. F. Shearron

The Instructional Subsystem in SustainedOperation 56

Teacher Performance Specifications, . . 57

Feasibility of the TeacherPerformance Specifications 59

Learning Activities and Materials . . . 60Feasibility of Learning Activitiesand Materials 66Instructional Procedures 71

Feasibility of the InstructionalProcedures 75

Instructional Program Sequence 78Feasibility of the InstructionalProgram Sequence 90Student Advisement Procedures 91Feasibility of Student AdvisementProcedures 93Evaluation of Student Achievement . . 94Faculty Orientation . . . . . 95

ix

CONTENTS (con't.)

Feasibility of the Faculty Orientation. . 96Illustrative Operational Activities . . 98

Operation of PMs 98Revision of PMs 99

Strategy for the Development of theInstructional Subsystem 99

Selected Elements in the Design ofthe Strategy 100

Faculty Orientation 100Teacher performance specifi-cations 101Designing PMs 101Drafting PMs 106Testing PMs, 107PM Revision 112

Illustrative Developmental Activities . 113Faculty orientation 113Teacher performance specifications 113Design and development of PMs. . . 116Drafting PMs 116Testing PMs 118Revising PMs 118

Summary 120References 121

Chapter V

Feasibility of the Evaluation Subsystem 123J. P. Bauch and G. F. Shearron

Evaluation Subsystem in Sustained Operation. . 124Candidate Selection and Admission . . . 124

Recruitment 125

Application 127Physical examination 127Tests and personal interviews. . . 128The candidate review committ'e 148Evaluation and decision 129Early decision and notification. . 130Orientation and induction 132

Feasibility of Candidate SelectionComponent 134

CONTENTS (con't.)

Evaluation of Student Performance 139Standard tasks 141Teaching performance guides 144Products of performance 144Related criterion measures 144

Progress review 145Feasibility of Student PerformanceEvaluation Procedures 148Program Evaluation Procedures 154

Target concerns 155Computer simulation in programevaluation 159

Feasibility of Program EvaluationProcedures 163

Strategy for the Development of theEvaluation Subsystem 165

Development of the Evaluation SubsystemImplementation Strategy 165Illustrative Development Activities . . 166Illustrative Operational Activities . . 171

Summary 178

References 179

Chapter VI

Feasibility of the Management SubsystemComponentsJ. B. Ayers and G. F. Shearron

181

Organization and Administrationduring Sustained Operation 182

Institutional Change 182Year-round education 182Staggered registration 183Tuition 184Credits 185Grades 187Student activities 188

Scholarships 188Housing 189Public school districts 190

xi

CONTENTS (con't.)

Teacher corps 191Certification 192Accreditation 193

Management 194Scheduling 198

Program and file description. . . 199Mutual Arrangements (Collaborations)within the Profession 207

Field experience and internship . 208Portal school 210The on-the-job track 213Professional participation 214

Organization and AdministrationDuring Development 216

Management Component During Development 216Development of InstitutionalChange and Mutual Arrangements 219Development of Scheduling Component. . 223

Summary 225References 226

Chapter VII

Cost Data and Their Effect on the Feasibility ofDeveloping and Operating the Model Program . . . . 228J. B. Ayers, C. E. Johnson and G. F. Shearron

Some Theoretical Considerations 228The Analytic Method 228Subsystems of Cost Analysis 229

Procedures 232Cost Resource Categories 232Resource Cost and Time Estimation. . . 234Projected Cost Increases 235Assumptions Affecting Estimated Costs. 239Data Processing 240

Estimated Costs 243General Information ConcerningTables and Figures 243Estimated Total Costs forDevelopment and Operation 244Estimated Costs for Development and Opera-tion by Fiscal Years (1971-76) 244

xii

CONTENTS (con't.)

Estimated Costs by Fiscal Years forDevelopment and Operation of Each Phaseof the Model Program 245Estimated Costs for Development andOperation by Stages 245Estimated Proje,:t Costs for Developmentand Operation by Fiscal Years 245Estimated Costs for Facilities forDevelopment and Operation 246Estimated Costs for Development,Operation and Facilities 277

Economic Feasibility for Development andOperation 279

Per Student Cost During SustainedOperation 280Per Student Cost for Development 281Economic Feasibility for Developmentand Operation at the University ofGeorgia 282

Costs for Alternate Plan Based onLimited Available Funds 283

Combined Preprofessional andProfessional Phases Alternate 284Combined Professional and SpecialistPhases Alternate 285One Phase Alternate 288Reduction of Learning ActivitiesAlternate 291Extended Time Alternate 293

References 295

Chapter VIII

Summary and Conclusions 296C. E. Johnson and G. F. Shearron

Objectives 296Procedure 296Strategy for Development andImplementation 298Estimated Costs 299

CONTENTS (con' t .)

Conclusions Regarding Feasibility 301

Development 301

Instruction 302

Evaluation 303

Management 304

Cost 305

A Closing Note 306

Appendix A 308

Appendix B 313

xiv

FIGURES

Figure Title Page

1 Administrative organization of feasi-bility project 4

2 Weekly information 25

3 PERT network for feasibility project . 27

4 Three dimensional relationshipsamong operational components andinstructional phases 38

5 Stages of the development strategy . . 42

6 Time :sequence for the developmentstrategy 48

7 PERT network for the preparationphase (initial planning) 50-1

8 PERT network for the development ofthe preprofessional phase of the in-structional program 52-3

9 PERT network for the piloting (testing)of the professional phase of theinstructional program 54-5

10 Flow chart of procedures for useof a PM. 72

11 Preprofessional program subjectarea emphasis 79

12 Diagram of PM requirements for studysequence for the preprofessionalprogram 81

13 Professional program subject areaemphasis .. 83

xv

Figure Title Page

14 Diagram of PM requirements for theprofessional sequence. The numberin a student's area of competencywill differ according to the re-quirements of the particular sub-ject matter area chosen 85

15 The specialist program subjectarea emphasis 86

16 Diagram of PM requirements for studysequence for the specialist program. . .

17 Paths in the teacher career field. . . .

88

89

18 Activity POD06-01 in relation to theprofessional phase (PE) and modelprogram network 102-3

19 Activity PED10-02 in relation to thepreprofessional phase (PE) and modelprogram PERT networks 104-5

20 Activity POD11-02 in relation to theprofessional phase (PO) and model pro-gram PERT networks 108-9

21 Activity PET13-02 in relation to thepreprofessional phase (PE) and modelprogram networks 110-11

22 Activity P0015-02 in relation to theprofessional phase (P0) and model pro-gram PERT networks 114-15

23 Likert scale. . 131

24 Staggered admission of studentsby month 136

25 Standard task rating scale. 143

26 Plot of significant learnings 146

xvi

Figure Title Page

27 Apprentice teacher progress review. 147

28 Typical sequence of evaluationevents 168-9

29 Activity POD11-17 in relations tothe professional phase (P0) and modelprogram PERT networks. 172-3

30 Flow chart of events in candidateselection components 175

31 Administrative structure in relation tothe University of Georgia and to theState of Georgia 195

32 Student record file flow for testingthrough file updating. 201

33 File relationships in the testingprogram 202

34 File relationships in the evaluationprogram 203

35 File relationships in the schedulingprogram 204

36 Master file updating and reportgeneration. . 206

37 Flow of information into model pro-gram and resulting changes 217

38 PERT network: Overall management (OM) 220-21

39 A conceptual diagram depicting therelevant subsystems included in esti-mating and control 230

40 Resource estimation sheet foractivity PPD15-10 235

xvii

Figure Title Page

41 Illustration of how types of personneland resources cost numbers are listed. . 237

42 Average annual percentage increase inConsumer Price Index and facultysalaries.

43 Interrelationships of PMS/360processors.

44 Estimated costs by stages

238

241

272

45 Estimated total costs for project,program and facilities compared 278

TABLES

NO. Title Page

1 PMs by Type and Area 65

2 The Combination of Learning ActivitiesUtilized and the Number of Studentsthat Utilized Each Combination 68

3 Preprofessional Phase PM DevelopmentTeams by Time (days) Allocated Per PM 117

4 Student Effort Unit Distribution 186

5 Summary of School System Survey 209

6 Estimated Total Costs for Fiscal Years 1971through 1976 for the Development and Operationof the Georgia Educational Model for the Prep-aration of Elementary School Teachers 247

7 Estimated Costs During Fiscal Year 1971 forthe Development and Operation of the GeorgiaEducation Model for the Preparation ofElementary School Teachers 248

8 Estip -d Costs During Fiscal Year 1972 forthe i)uv,lopment and Operation of the GeorgiaEducatio, Mcdel for the Preparation ofElementary School Teachers 249



11 Estimated Costs During Fiscal Year 1975 forthe Development and Operation of the GeorgiaEducation Model for the Preparation ofElementary School Teachers

xix

252

NO. Title Page


13 Estimated Costs for Fiscal Years 1971 through1974 for the Development and Operation of thePreprofessional Phases of the Georgia Educa-tional Model for the Preparation of ElementarySchool Teachers 254

14 Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1971 for theDevelopment and Operation of the PreprofessionalPhases of the Georgia Educational Model forthe Preparation of Elementary School Teachers . 255




18 Estimated Costs for Fiscal Years 1971 through1975 for the Development and Operation of thePKofessional Phases of the Georgia EducationalModel for the Preparation of Elementary SchoolTeachers 259

19 Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1971 for theDevelopment and Operation of the ProfessionalPhases of the Georgia Educational Model for thePreparation of Elementary School Teachers . . . 260

xx

NO. Title

20 Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1972 for theDevelopment and Operation of the ProfessionalPhases of the Georgia Educational Model forthe Preparation of Elementary SchoolTeachers



Page

261

262

263

23 Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1975 for theDevelopment and Operation of the ProfessionalPhases of the Georgia Educational Model forthe Preparation of Elementary SchoolTeachers 264

24 Estimated Costs for Fiscal. Year 1971 through1976 for the Development and Operation of theSpecialist Phases of the Georgia EducationalModel for the Preparation of ElementarySchool Teachers 265

25 Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1971 for theDevelopment and Operation of the SpecialistPhases of the Georgia Educational Model forthe Preparation of Elementary SchoolTeachers

26 Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1972 for theDevelopment and Operation of the SpecialistPhases of the Georgia Educational Model forthe Preparation of Elementary SchoolTeachers

xxi

266

267

NO. Title Page

27 Estimated Costs for Fiscal Yea:: 1973 for theDevelopment and Operation of the SpecialistPhases of the Georgia Educational Model forthe Preparation of Elementary SchoolTeachers 268

28 Estimated Costs for Fiscal ?ar 1974 for theDevelopment and Operation of the SpecialistPhases of the Georgia Educational Model forthe Preparation of Elementary SchoolTeachers 269

29 Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1975 for theDevelopment and Operation of the SpecialistPhases of the Georgia Educational Model forthe Preparation of Elementary SchoolTeachers 270

30 Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1976 for theDevelopment and Operations of the SpecialistPhases of the Georgia Educational Model forthe Preparation'of Elementary SchoolTeachers

31 Estimated Project Costs for Fiscal Years 1971through 1976 for Development of the GeorgiaEducational Model for the Preparation ofElementary Teachers

32 Estimated Total. Cost for Facilities Neededto Develop and Operate the Georgia Educa-tional Model for the Preparation of Ele-mentary Teachers (by Fiscal Years)

33 Estimated Total Cost fox Facilities Neededto Develop and Operate the Georgia Educa-tional Model for the Preparation ofElementary Teachers (by Stages)

34 Summary of Sustained Operation Costs forthe Preprofessional, Professional andSpecialist Levels

271

273-4

275

276

277

4

NO. Title Page

35 Estimated Costs for Development andOperation of the Preprotessional andProfessional. Phases of the ModelProgram Combined 286

36 Estimated Costs for Development andOperation of the Professional and SpecialistPhases of the Model Program Combined.

37 Estimated Costs for Development andOperation of the Professional Phase ofthe Model Program

38 Estimated Costs for Development andOperation of the Preprofessional Phaseof the Model Program

287

289

290

39 Estimated Costs for Development andOperation of the Model Program WithReduction in Number of Alternate PMLearning Activities 292

40 Estimated Costs Assuming Ten toFifteen Years for Development 293

4

CONTENTS OF VOLUME TWO A

Page

Part One: PERT Network Diagrams andActivity List 1

PERT Network Diagrams 3

Activity List 25

Part Two: PERT Time (Network Processor) 57

Section At PERT Time Data 59Job Control Language forNetwork Processor 59Activity Time Cards 59Time Calendar 63Input Data Cards 65

Section B: Activity Time Statusreports 137

Activity Time Status ReportSorted By:Predecessor-Successor 139Activity Time Status ReportSorted By:Expected Date 165Activity Time Status ReportSorted By:Slack (Critical Path List) 191

CONTENTS OF VOLUME TWO B

Part Three: PERT Cost (Cost Processor) 217

Section A: Ulla Cost Data 219Job Control Language for CostProcessor 219Work Breakdown Structure 219Organizational Analysis Table . . . 222Cost Category Codes 222Activity Cost Cards 228

xxiv

4

Page

Input Data Cards 233

Section B: PERT Cost Reports 519Organization Status Reportby Performing Organization andCharge Number for Facilities . . . . 521Organization Status Report ByResponsible Organization, ChargeNumber, Performing Organization andResource Code for Resources . . . 551Financial Plan and Status By4ccounting Period and by ChargeNumber for Resources 751Organization Status Report byPerforming Organization and ChargeNumber for Resources 785

List of References 815

CONTENTS OF MOLUME THREE

Part One: Summary of the Investigation 1

The Problem 1

Procedures 2

Findings 2

Limitations 3

Conclusions 3

Part Two: Job Descriptions 5

Introduction to Job Descriptions . . . . 5

Section A: Key Personnel 7

Index to Key Personnel 9

Job Descriptions 11

Section B: Supporting Personnel . . . 53Index to Supporting Personnel . . 55

Job Descriptions 57

!,i.st of References 199

xxv

Chapter I

Purpose of the Study and Background

C. E. Johnson

This is a report of an investigation which sought todetermine the feasibility of developing and operating amodel and exemplary program for the preparation of elemen-tary school teachers. The model educational program whichis the concern of this report is fundamentally described bythe specifications contained in the University of GeorgiaFinal Report entitled, Georgia Educational Model susia-cations for the Preparation of Elementary Teachers (Johnson,Shearron, & Stauffer, Oct. 1968). However, the study dreview of that teacher education program which was requiredin carrying out this feasibility study resulted in certainextensions and modifications. These adjustments were deem-ed advisable in the light of the criteria which were estab-lished as essential to determining the conditions of feasi-bility, and are contained in the chapters which follow.

TTieou tjmsnxid

The objectives of this study are: (a) to validatewithin reasonable limits of confidence the feasibility ofthe Georgia teacher education model as projected in sus-tained operation, (b) to provide a strategy for the de-velopment and implementation of the model into sustainedoperation, and (c) to provide estimates for both the costof development and the cost of operation.

A seemingly hidden product of this investigation isone which may ultimately prove to be of greater value toprofessional education than the study itself. It is thecreation of a system, more efficient than any now exis-tent, designed to develop and put into operation exemplaryeducational programs.

Background of the Study,

In the fall of 1967, the United States Office ofEducation, Bureau of Research (USOE) published and distri-buted widely to concerned educational institutions Requestfor Proposal Number 0E-68-4 (USOE, 1967) which called for

educational specifications for a comprehensive undergradu-ate and inservice teacher education program for elementaryteachers. The purpose for this action was stated to bethe utilization of new knowledge, materials, and methodolo-gies produced by research and development activities inthe creation of a variety of sets of detailed educationalspecifications which could be used as guides in developingsound teacher education programs.

Among approximately ninety proposals submitted byinterested institutions and organizations was The GeorgiaPlan for Devploping a Model System of Teacher Education- -Elementary (Johnson, 1967). Its goal was "to produceteachers wita the common characteristics of optimum effec-tiveness" (Johnson, 1967, p. 5), and its objective was todescribe "a system which if implemented would over a periodof seven months produce documents containing the specifi-cations for one model of a comprehensive undergraduate andinservice teacher education program for elementary teach-ers" (Johnson, 1967, p. 1).

On March 1, 1968, USOE announced that the Georgiaproposal was among nine which had been funded. For approxi-mately seven months the staff under the supervision :f theDean of the College of Education pursued its objectives.The project was aided by an executive committee of out-standing educational specialists from the University ofGeorgia and an advisory board composed of representativesfrom the University cl Georgia, the State of Georgia, andthe nation. The product was a final report containing thepromised detailed specifications for a comprehensive edu-cational program for the preparation of elementary teach-ers. It was published in October, 1968 under the title,Georgia Educational Model Specifications for the Prep-aration of Elementary Teachers (Johnson et al., 1968).

On October 31, 1968, the USOE circulated a requestfor proposal for what was called "Phase It of the Bureauof Research Elementary Teacher Education Project." Thiswas to be a study of the feasibility of undertaking thedevelopment, implementation, and sustained operation of amodel educational program. On February 28, 1969, theUniversity of Georgia submitted a proposal entitled, AFeasibility Study for Developing the Georgia EducationalModel for Teacher Education -- Elementary (Johnson, 1969.)

2

The Georgia proposal along with seven others was acceptedand funded by the USOE. All eight projects began on or aboutMay 1, 1969. The assigned date for submission of the finalreport was January 1, 1970.

The Products

This final report is the product of the contract be-tween the USOE and the University of Georgia resulting fromthe aforementioned proposal. As promised in the proposalit describes procedures by which the feasibility of levelop-ing the model teacher education program were determined.Also, it is designed to be used by institutions wishing toimplement the model program or parts thereof: (a) to esti-mate the resources, plans, and strategies necessary for car-rying out a major program for the Sevelopment of the speci-fications, (b) to estimate the resources, plans, andstrategies necessary for the development (over a five yearperiod) and sustained operation of the specifications asproposed, and (c) to estimate the cost of such developmentand sustained operation with attention to those variableswhich might provide alternate cost estimates.

In addition, should the described procedures of thisreport be successfully implemented iL a third phase, theproduct of that effort would be twofold: the specifiedobjective of the sustained operation of an exemplary modelprogram for the preparation of elementary teachers wouldhave been reached and a by-product of equal, or perhapseven greater, importance would be provided--a system orstrategy for engineering into sustained operation a care-fully designed educational program.

Georgia Educational Models

Georgia Educational Models (GEM) is the research anddevelopment organization which carried out this feasibilitystudy. This organization also prepared the specificationsfor the educational model. Only a few changes in key per-sonnel were made when the present study was initiated. Fig-ure 1 shows the administrative organization of the projectstaff. It should be noted that the Dean of the College ofEducation served as administrative head of the entire

3

COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONDEAN

! 4IL.

moommow...o.Lswww

EXECUTIVECOMMITTEE

DIRECTOR PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION(CHAIRMAN. ELEMENTARY

EDUCATION DIVISION)

I

ADVISORYCOMMITTEE

0. mom

1

LEDUCATIONALCONSULTANTS

r---Imli lime 41MIN I IMMin

100%

.0%60. %

ASSOCIATE DIRECTORINSTRUCTION SUB-

SYSTEM TEAM,1=1.1

ie.

limin il illmm 41I.411.

DIRECTORFEASIBILITY PROJECT

TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS(SYSTEMS ANALYSTS,

COMPUTER SPECIALIST,ETC)

6.j °-

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOREVALUATION SUir

SYSTEM TEAM

ASSOCIATE DIRECTORMANAGEMENT l ORGAN.

IZATIOV ritSYSTEM

KEY: INDICATES THE DIRECTION OF LEADERSHIP AS REGARDS CHARACTERISTICS

OF THE MCOEL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM IN SUSTAINED OPERATION.

ISM io &nob 111 *ODINDICATES THE DIRECTION OF LEADERSHIP AS REGARDS THE ACTIVITIES

OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY.

* INDICATES PRIMARY ADVISORY OR CONSULTANT RELATIONSHIP.

Fig. 1. Administrative organization of feasibility project.

4

operation. To advise him were the aforementioned executivecommittee and an advisory board. The Director of the Feasi-bility Project and the Director for Program Implementationof the model program worked cooperatively with varying con-cerns and obligations. The Director of the FeasibilityProject was concerned primarily with feasibility study man-agement and operations and with the broad applications ofthe findings of the project and their implications. TheDirector of Program Implementation was concurrentl, Chair-man of the Elementary Education Division of the College ofEducation and will manage the model program as it reachessustained operation. His concerns centered in the educa-tional program outlined in the model specifications and itsoperation within the State of Georgia and particularly atthe University of Georgia. When problems arose regardingprocedures to be used in studying feasibility, final de-cisions were made by the Director of the Feasibility Proj-ect. When problems arose regarding refinements in the na-ture of the educational model, decisions were made by theDirector of Program -iplementation.

The three associate directors headed three separateteams, each with special concerns for what are defined assubsystems of the program. The associate director in chargeof the subsystem for instruction with his team of co-workerswas concerned with learning activities and materials, in-structional procedures, program sequence, teacher perform-ance specifications, student advisement, and staff prepa-ration. The associate director in charge of the evaluationsubsystem worked with his team in studying the feasibilityof candidate selection, orientation and induction, studentperformance behaviors, and program evaluation. The associ-ate director of the subsystem for management components andhis team focused concern on personnel and facilities, sched-uling, legal concerns, and mutual arrangements with otherprofessional units.

The core staff of GEM made extensive use of consultantsboth from within professional education and outside pro-fessional education. The skills of colleagues within pro-fessional education were enlisted primarily in developingand testing prototypes of the innovative educational mate-L-ials required by the model program, and providing time andcost estimates for specified professional activities. Con-sultants outside of professional education were called upon

5

4

to recommend and develop strategies for development of themodel, to provide information and services for computer pro-grams and to supply selected cost data. These consultantsincluded systems analysts who had been involved in designingprograms for industry, space and military operations who,for the first time, were applying their expertise to eo.:ineer-ing curriculum change in an institution of higher learning.In addition to these systems analysts were consultants oncomputer usage from both Univac and IBM.

Definitions of Terms

Initial planning seminars revealed the need for defi-nitions of terms. This became increasingly evident as con-sultants who had been advising industrial, space, and mili-tary operations began applying their technological expertiseand vocabulary to the problems of this project. Wheneverfairly well established definitions could be found in ref-erences that fit the needs of this particular project, thesewere used. However, in some instances such definitions couldnot be found and had to be developed. The definitions in-cluded in this section of the report are judged the most im-portant for the reader in order to understand the contentof this report. Others will be found in the appendix.

Feasitility. The extent to which an occurrence orspecific condition is possible or likely to take place.

Theoretical feasibility. The possibility of the attain-ment of a specific condition or occurrence prior to its dem-onstration in reality. A hypothesis based on iy:inciple.(Example: Some scientists maintain it is feasible for manto travel at a speed exceeding the speed of light.)

Technical feasibility. The extent to which technology(both systems and mechanical) is available to accomplish acondition or occurrence which is regarded as theoreticallyfeasible of being accomplished. (Example: Although theo-retically feasible it was not technically feasible for manto travel in space until the rocket had been developed andperfected.)

Socio-psychological feasibility. The extent to whichthe people involved in accomplishing an occurrence or con-dition (which is theoretically and technic-Uy feasible)

6

are ready or can be made ready to carry out the occurrenceor maintain the condition when consideration is given tosuch socio-psychological factors as values, education, ex-perience, and emotion. (Example: A social or politicalrevolution is usually successful when it is designed toprovide the people with conditions identical to those whichthey are seeking provided the people have knowledge, skillsand values to maintain themselves in these new conditions.)

Development phase. The period of time during whichthe sustained operation model of the instructional programor a particular phase of it is being made ready for opera-tion. Also defined as a period during which the modeleducational program or a phase of it is being engineeredinto operation. It includes activities of planning, de-signing, preliminary piloting, revising initial designs,final piloting, initial or trial operation and final re-vision. It concludes at the "turnover point" which is thedefined dividing point between development and sustainedoperation.

Sustained operation. Refers to an indefinite and con-tinuous period (after the development phase) when all sub-systems and components of the instructional program, or aselected phase of the instructional program, are function-ing as intended by the specifications of the model forsustained operation.

Proficiency module (PM). A published guide which isdesigned to direct individual student learning toward ac-quiring desirable behaviors associated with a particularset of related skills, an area of learning, topic, orsystem of values.

Preservice phase of model program. The segment of thesustained operation model of the instructional programwhich provides the students with competency for parapro-fessional service as assistant teachers in elementaryschools. It is normally accompanied by the associate'sdegree and the prereqlisites for admission to the pro-fessional program. It is sometimes referred to as theparaprofessional program.

Professional phase of the model program. A segmentof the sustained operation model of the instructional

7

program which follows the preprofessional phase and pro-vides the student with competency for professional serviceas a general elementary teacher, with a teaching area ofcompetency and the bachelor's degree. Satisfaction of therequirements of this phase usually provides the individualstudent with the opportunity to be admitted to the special-ist phase of the model program.

Epecialisfsphaseoftn. A segment ofthe sustained operation model of the program which providesthe teacher with competency for professional service asa specialist in elementary education, and the specialist'sdegree. The speciality may be in the teaching of any sub-ject commonly taught in the elementary school sequence orin elementary education services such as pupil personnel,curriculum, school community relations, evaluation, humandevelopment and learning, educationPA media, and profes-sional development.

General education. Sometimes called liberal educa-tion. A composite of those learnings which prepare thestudent as an adult to better unders°,:and and adjust tohis social and physical environment, and to meet his obli-gations as a member of society. It is assumed that thiscomposite of learnings is also basic to effective instruc-tion in the elementary school.

Profqssional education. A composite of subject mattez,thought processes, skills, and attitudes which are directlyand primarily concerned with pedagogy and the teachingprofession.

System. A network of interrelated and interdependentobjects or Activities united by a common function or pur-pose. It is characterized by inputs which are affected orchanged by the dynamics of the environment. The productsof a system are the outputs. The parameterd of any systemrequire definition in relation to the function or purposeof the system.

Subsystem. An identifiable network of interrelatedand/or interdependent objects or activities within a systemwhich has function and purpose both in itself and in thesystem of which it is a functioning part.

8

Component. An identifiable network of interrelatedand interdependent objects or activities within a sub-system which has function and purpose both in itself and inthe system of which it is a functioning part.

Some Theoretical Observations

The request for proposal and other guidelines whichwere furnished to direct this study avoided providing con-cise definitions of the terms feasibility and feasibilitystudy. Although there is no explanation for this omissionit is very likely that, since this was a first large scaleventure with feasibility in an educational setting, thosewho drafted the request for proposals felt confident thatthose who earned contracts would provide definitions withsufficient variancies among them so as to make contribu-tions to knowledge of the applications of feasibility anal-ysis to education.

Feasibility may be regarded as a quality of an occur-rence or condition that is capable of being effected. Takinginto account the objectives to be achieved and available re-sources a phenomenon is regarded by experts as feasible ifit is attainable and there is a practical course of actionfor its attainment. It would seem to follow then that afeasibility study would be an examination of the extent towhich something is capable of being produced or effected,and the extent to which it is practical. When the tasks re-quired of this project are examined, however, it becomesobvious that the nature of feasibility varies according tothe complexity of the system being examined.

To fully comply with the contract there are two dis-tinct tasks at hand. The first and most obvious; is to cleardoubt regarding the practicalness or feasibility of the modelin sustained operation as originally described. That is, toanswer such questions as: Assuming that the model could beengineered into sustained operation, would it work satisfac-torily? Would its subsystems and components coordinate?Wouid the students 'cam better than they would in a moretraditional program? Would there be sufficien talent tomaintain the program? Would the program be reasonable inits demands on finances?

9

The other task iscan be used to developThis recond task is anas such.

to design a practical strategy whichthe model into sustained operation.en7ineering function and is treated

The feasibility study began with a conceptual model ofa system (the model program) in operation which by reasonof the acceptance of the proposal could be declared satis-factory and judged theoretically sound. This model is ablueprint of a system in operation, but at the time of itscreation little attention had been given to how that systemcould be engineered into existence. This has been a fre-quent occurrence throughout the history of education --contributions of ideas for the improvement of educationalprograms have been numerous and it is likely that many ofthem would have been effective if there had been a way toput them into operation. That educators have been poorengineers of change should not be too sharply criticized.Engineering a large scale curriculum change is a tremendousundertaking which involves the manipulation of as many ormore variables than the designing of systems for the equip-ment which carries man into space;. We have not had thetechnology and the tools to accomplish such change in thepast. Today, however, by borrowing from the applicationsof systems analysis in industry, military, and space oper-ations we have the available technology and tools we needto do the job. We may anticipate that, as a result ofstudies such as this one, within a few years education willhave its engineers of social change who will be able tosuccessfully put approved exemplary educational program sys-tems into operation.

Five major broad operations of a systems approach tocurriculum engineering in sequence may be listed as follows:(a) designing a model which will satisfy existing needs(creating a blueprint of an intricate system of specifi-cations), (b) validating the feasibility of the model inoperation keeping projected available resources in mind,(c) designing an engineering strategy to move the desiredsystem from a blueprint into a secure operation, (d) vali-dating the feasibility of the engineering strategy, and(e) implementing the strategy allowing provisions for pre-viously unforeseen problems and difficulties which will re-quire modification of the strategy.

10

Organization of the Report

There are three voltmes to this report. Volume Icontains eight chapters. Chapter II outlines the procedureswhich were used in conducting the feasibility study. It

first presents the theoretical considerations essential tothis investigation and then, by means of PERT charts andtimelines, outlines the procedures which were carried outbetween May 1, and December 31, 1969. Chapter III summa -rizes the engineering strategy proposed for the five yeardevelopment program. After describing the essential char-acteristics of the program in relation to selected theo-retical considerations the proposed strategy is presentedthrough a series of PERT charts, flow charts, am- ',melines.

Chapters IV, V, and VI present evidence of the feasi-bility of the model teacher education program subsystemswithout consideration to costs (economic feasibility). In

each chapter the components of the subsystem being dealtwith are briefly summarized followed by the results ofinvestigations designed to establish their feasibility.Next, the strategy proposed for the development of the sub-system is presented.

Chapter VII deals with economic feasibility. It ex-plains how economic feasibility was determined, and summa-rizes the cost for development and sustained operation,and explores the feasibility of both development cost andoperation cost for the model teacher education program.It also looks kt the economic feasibility of alternateswith consideration to limited available funds. For ex-ample, it explores what the cost for the development andoperation of the teacher education model would be if thenumber of alternate paths for learning activities was re-duced, and investigates the cost for the development andoperation of each phase of the model program separate fromthe others.

Finally, there is a presentation of conclusions follow-ed by an appendix containing data and information which isrelated but not essential to the content of the chapters.

Volumes II and III present detailed information rel-ative to areas of concern without which other institutionswishing to use the same or a similar strategy for develop-ment and operation would be seriously handicapped. Volume II

11

presents lists of all activities contained in the variouscomponents, subsystems and systems of the total developmentand operation programs. Accompanying each is a detailedlist of the co:As attached to activities with reference tospecific items such as personnel, facilities, and materials.In addition, a time schedule showing the precise dates up-on which various activities are scheduled to begin and endover a five year period is provided. Volume III containsdetailed job descriptions of all essential personnel in-volved in the comprehensive development and operation pro-gram. These job descriptions become necessary items ofreference in understanding the kinds of activities to beundertaken, and for purposes of revising or adjustingpersonnel cost for particular localities.

12

References

Johnson, C. a. (Initiator). A feasibility study for devel-oping the Georgia educational model for teacher edu-cation--elementaa. Athens, Ga.: College of Edu-cs.tion, University of Ga., Feb. 28, 1969. (A proposalto Bur. Res., OE, US Dept. HEW.)

Johnson, C. E., Shearron, G. F., & Stauffer, A. J.Final Report: Georgia educational model specifi-cations fog the preparation of elementary teachers.Washington, D. C.: Bur. Res., OE, US Dept. HEW,Project No. 8-9024, Contract No. MC-0-089024-3311(010), Oct., 1968.

Johnson, C. E. (Initiator). The Georgia plan for develop-1E9 a model system of teacher education--elementary.Athens, Ga.: College of Education, University of Ga.,Dec. 28, 1967. (A proposal to Bur. Res., OE, USDept. F:W,)

USOE., Request for Proposal No. 0E-68-4. Washington, D. C.:Bur. Res., OE, US Dept. HEW, Oct. 16, 1967.

USOE., Information for institutions preparing proposalsfoi phase two of the elementary teacher education pro-ject, and letter signed by J. Boyan, Assoc. Commissionerfor Research. Washington, D. C.: Bur. Res., OE, USDept. HEW, Oct. 31, 1968. (A request for proposals.)

13

Chapter II

Feasibility Study Procedures

C. E. Johnson

This chapter summarizes the rationale underlying theprocedures used in the feasibility study and describes theprocedures as they were carried out.

Procedural Assumptions

There were certain seemingly obvious assumptions under-lying the procedures used in carrying out the feasibi:;itystudy. These included: (a) that the instructional programin sustained operation represented by the Georgia educationalmodel is theoretically sound, (b) that the implementation ofthe model into sustained operation is essential if a mean-ingful base for the educational needs of our society is tobe provided, (c) that through the application of modern tech-nology the Georgia educational model can be developed andengineered into operation within a period of five years, and(d) that, since a comprehensive feasibility study of thismagnitude hLs never before been undertaken in professionaleducation, the development of innovative systems designs forthis pxvject is essential to its successful completion.

Essential Operational Principles

The proposal which led to the undertaking of this proj-ect (Johnson, 1969) described the theoretical foundation uponwhich this investigation was to proceed. This theoreticalbase was maintained through the use of operational princi-ples or rules for making decisions regarding proceduralaction. The following is a summary list of these principleswhich, when regarded in an interactive system of investiga-tion, provide the rationale for procedures:

1. Dynamic ordering of the network of events for thefeasibility study as the project progresses isessential in order to provide a flexible workingcontrol that can be maintained to supply informa-tion as to where effort must be applied or com-ponents shifted in order to accomplish the

objectives within the budgeted voney, time and re-sources.

2. The necessity for designing an innovative and dy-namic control subsystem does not preclude the useof standard management technology where applicable.

3. Any available scientific approach to establishingfeasibility may be used so long as provision is madefor its compatibility in its interaction with otherapproaches.

4. Operations research methods which deliberately seekdifferent points of view in their deliberations areeffective in resolving problems and developing strat-egies.

5. Throughout the development of any model, whether itbe for operation or development, each major andminor subsystem component and module of the systemshould be subject to separation, identification,articulation, and evaluation (analysis).

6. After analysis of the individual subsystems, com-ponents, and modules of the system has proven themto be operative, the system should then be synthe-sized and again evaluated (synthesis).

7. To avoid specious varieties of the systems approach,operations should be sufficiently flexible to in-corporate the highest level thinking from the phil-osophical, theoretical, structural, conceptual, andpragmatic aspects of the emerging systems method-ology.

8. Characterizations of a model which may be challengedbecause of their uniqueness or deviation from dem-onstrated practice should be vale dated for feasi-bility.

9. Investigators undertaking a feasibility study whoare convinced that the model they are testing istieoretically sound and worthwhile are justifiedin proving their assertions.

15

10. Wherever alternative paths are available for ac-complishing a particular objective of a model, thealternate paths should be explored and the onewhich will furnish the most effective design withconsideration to available resources should beselected.

11. Before investigating the technical or socio-psychological feasibility of any component of adynamic model in sustained operation steps shouldbe taken to be certain that all essential partsof the component have been reviewed and that thecomponent appears to be theoretically operative.

12. If a component of the instructional program onfirst investigation is not sound to be feasiblefor some particular reason, it should then be soredesigned as to become feasible. After theredesigning of any component it should be retestedwithin the total system in order to determine theextent to which additional designing is necessaryin order that all components are compatible.

Some General Criteria for Determining.Feasibility

Feasibility has been defined simply as the extent towhich an occurrence or specific condition is possible orlikely to take place. This definition although objectivelycorrect fails to take into account the functional qualityof feasibility. That is, if something is feasible it hasto be feasible in relation to a criterion. If model M isfeasible in that it effectively fulfills criteria X and Y,but will not fulfill criterion Z, then model M is feasibleif either X or Y is the criterion. For this reason theinvestigators tiarified their procedures by establishingcriteria for the operation of the components with whichthey were dealing bepre attempting to validate them.

More will be said concerning the use of specificcriteria for validating feasibility at a later point. How-ever, in order for the reader to grasp the rationale forprocedures, he must be aware of the general criteria usedin this study for validating feasibility. The two first

16

order general criteria were: (a) the model program shouldproduce better teachers than traditional programs; (b) thestrategy for developing and engineering the model programinto sustained operation should be effective in accomplish-ing its goals.

Illustrations of second order general criteria are:(a) the instructional program should be reasonable in itsdemands of time on all personnel (students, teachers,administrators, etc.), (b) the cost of the instructionalprogram should be within reasonable limits of costs fortraditional education, (c) the instructional program shouldbe adaptable to man's environment or be such that man canadapt to it, (d) the materials and equipment required forthe operation should be obtainable and capable of servingthe progAm as intended by the model, and (e) the instruc-tional program or components thereof should be capable ofbeing transported to colleges and universities other thanthe one at which it was developed.

A limitirig_Assumption

Feasibility is also affected by the specific policiesand established practices which are peculiar to a selectedenvironment. What may be feasible in one setting may notbe in another. The present study has validated the feasi-bility of the model instructional program in what is assum-ed to be a typical university community located in a stateeducational system which is not unlike those in whichcolleges and universities seeking to develop a model pro-gram might be located. It is to the extent that this en-vironment may be duplicated by other institutions that tnevarious components of the model instructional program de-clared feasible herein may be regarded as feasible else-where.

Procedures for Investigating the Feasibilityof the Model in Sustained Operation

Graphic representations of the technology and systemsused in carrying out a project are sometimes too detailedto provide the reader who is not concerned with detailedanalysis with an overall understanding of the general

17

nature and structure of the research and development effort.Thus, risking criticism for oversimplification, the follow-ing list of events involved in determining the feasibilityof the sustained operation model is presented for readersseeking a broad rather than detailed understanding:

1. Selection, orientation and training of new staffmembers for their feasibility work assignments.

2. Critical examination of the original model of theinstructional program in sustained operation inorder to complete all details of design and toidentify characteristics likely to be challenged.

3. Investigation of the technical and socio-psycho-logical feasibility of each component of theinstructional model in sustained operation, andverification of feasibility where necessary.

4. Modification and/or redesignation of the specifi-cations for the sustained operation model of theinstructional program on the basis of the feasi-bility investigation findings where deemed nec-essary in order to establish the quality of feasi-bility.

5. Examination of the system representative of themodel instructional program in sustained operation(including each module and component) to deter-mine the extent to which all systems are compati-ble and consistent with the basic intent of theoperation.

6. Revision of the design of the sustained operationmodel where necessary to validate feasibility re-quirements. That is, to establish that allsystems are compatible and consistent with thebasic objectives of the project.

7. Chart the systems network of the instructionalprogram in sustained operation, attach detailedtime and cost requirements (personnel, facilities,materials, etc.) for each identifiable activityand store in computer memory for later retrieval.

18

8. Investigate, determine and store projected costsfor the standard or traditional teacher educationprogram were it to continue into 1976.

9. Establish criteria for determining cost or eco-nomic feasibility for the operation of the modelinstructional program in sustained operationthrough 1976.

10. Retrieve costs for both the standard and the modelins'iauctional programs in sustained operation andcompare.

11. Present cost feasibility findings based on costdifferential in relation to established criteria(see 9 atove).

12. Explore the cost for various possible modifications(reductions) of the instructional program sustainedoperation model in relation to limited availablefunds and report findings.

Procedures for Developing a Stnatevto Effect the Model into Operation

To investigate and establish that the model program insustained operation is feasible was an essential firstundertaking. But no model of an operating system, nomatter how perfectly feasible it appears, can be regardedas truly feasible unless there is a means of developingand engineering it into operation.

In 1950 a prominent group of educators concerned withcurriculum change wrote, "What is needed at the presenttime, however, is . . . a rationale of educational engi-neering by which to attack the problems of curriculumchange more systematically and in terms of which to selectand to contrive additional procedures and techniques."(Smith, Stanley & Shores, 1950). It was not until thedevelopment of systems technology and the computer that wehad a means to accomplish curriculum change effectively.Details of the strategy designed to develop and engineeror implement the model into sustained operation are con-tained in Chapter III where specific development activities

19

are delineated in PERT charts. However, again riskingcriticism for oversimplification, the following list ofactivities involved in developing and refining the strate-gy for effecting the model educational program into opera-tionis presented for the reader who is concerned with thebroad structure of the operation rather than a detailedanalysis:

1. Design a detailed and efficient strategy which istheoretically sound and will engineer the modelinstructional program into sustained operation.(This activity requires the involvement of con-sultants and other specialists with expertisein designing strategies and engineering designsin such fields as industry, military operations,space technology and sociology.)

2. Prepare a comprehensive PERT model of the strategywhich identifies each activity essential to thedesign.

3. Investigate the technical and socio-psychologicalfeasibility of the strategy and modify wherenecessary.

4. Assign time estimates to each activity and preparea PERT time chart for the various components ofthe comprehensive strategy.

5. Review the time relationships of the activities ofthe strategy and determine time feasibility. (Afive year limit was established.) If necessary,modify strategy until the limiting criterion issatisfied.

6. Attach cost estimates (personnel, facilities,equipment, technology, materials, etc.) to eachactivity or component in the strategy and computerstore for later retrieval.

7. Retrieve and report costs for the five yearperiod of developing the model of the instruc-tional program and engineering it into sustainedoperation.

20

8. Explore cost of the development and engineeringinto operation of various possible modifications(reductions) of the model giving consideration tolimited available funds.

Techniques...for Determining Technical andSocio-Psychological Feasibility

Since this project is one of the first extensiveapplications of feasibility investigation to program de-velopment in education, it was necessary to locate and/ordevelop the tools to accomplish the objectives. Thus, anattempt was made to identify, construct where necessary,and classify the numerous methods and techniques whichwere regarded as possible approaches to establishing dif-ferent kinds of feasibility. This was accomplished andmade available to the investigators. However, in using thetechniques contained in this classification, investigatorsnoted that while these tools often appeared to be discreteit was seldom if ever that one could be used in isolationfrom the others.

It must be recognized that in the selection and use ofthese techniques there were definite time restrictions onthe investigators, and that frequently an investigator'spreference to apply a particular technique in place ofanother was made impossible by time limitations.

The investigation seeking techniques for determiningfeasibility revealed that there are at least four basicactivities which in different combinations yield effectivemethods. These are: (a) consultation with experts, (b)assessment based on selected criteria, (c) simulated dem-onstration, and (d) operational demonstration. This dis-cussion provides only a general overview. Later chaptersdemonstrate specific applications.

Consultation With Experts

There are a variety of ways to validate feasibilityby use of consultation. For example, an investigator mightsimply ask a specialist to judge an activity or componentin relation to a particular objective on the basis of hisexperience. This might be done by direct interview or by

21

questionnaire. In some instances this method is extendedto involve a group of specialists in order to obtain theircollective judgment concerning the activity or component.This group inquiry method may require a judgmental state-ment from each of the participants. In some instancesmultiple choice questionnaires designed to obtain forcedjudgments of specialists are used. An extension of theaforementioned ways of obtaining expert advice is theDelphi technique (Helmer, 1966) which begins by havingspecialists consider the features of a target operation andmake their judgments independently. They are then pre-sented with the responses of other specialists who are inopposition to their judgment. Finally they are asked toreconsider and make another judgment.

Assessment Based on Selected Cri..eria

In using the criteria approach the initial step is todevelop a list of characteristics which when combined willyield feasibility for an object or operation. These areregarded as criteria to assess particular activities, com-ponents, objects or operations. The extent to which theoperation or object reflects the ideal condition containedin the original list of characteristics (criteria) is theextent to which it is feasible. For example, if the taskwere one of judging the feasibility of a design for man-agement of instruction, and one of the essential charac-teristics for the design were that it provide adequatelyfor the scheduling of student learning activities, theninsofar as this characteristic is concerned, other factorsbeing equal, only those management systems which provideadequately for this kind of scheduling would be regardedas feasible.

Simulated Demonstration

Simulation has a breadth of meaning. It may he re-garded simply as a process of observing the performance ofa system or its model (Mize & Cox, 1968). For example,at an unsophisticated level it might include role playingof a process in order to judge its effectiveness. The useof flow diagrams, program evaluation and review technique(PERT) charts, and similar graphic representations of pro-cesses are other illustrations of the tools and techniquesof simulation. At a high level of complexity are

22

4

computerized multi-dimensional programs which assign timeand cost values to each activity and provide opportunitiesfor the investigators to trace the paths of inputs withreasonable qualities through a simulated operation andjudge the quality of the outputs comparatively.

Operational Demonstration

The most common use of operational demonstration ispiloting. In this case, piloting refers to performing thetarget operation with a sample population in order to ob-serve its effectiveness. However, it might also refer tothe observation of an "outside" operation which is verysimilar in nature to the target operation. By judgmentallyevaluating similarities and differences between the "out-side" operation and the target operation an estimate of theeffectiveness of the target operation may provide evidenceto validate its feasibility. The ultimate level of opera-tional demonstration of feasibility is to initiate theoperation on full scale and judge its effectiveness.

Computer Program

The search for an appropriate computer program for thefeasibility study included a review of available programsand consultation with computer specialists who had dealtwith program development and management systems. After thecharacteristics of the available programs were matched withthe needs of the investigation, Project Management System/360 (360A-CP-04X) Version 2 (PMS/360) was selected. De-tailed information regarding its application to the tasksof this project will be found in later chapters. Thefollowing brief general description is quoted here tojustify to the reader its appropriateness for this investi-gation:

PMS/360 is a highly modular set of computer programroutines, each performing one function common to manymanagement applications. It is open-ended -- that is,the number of functions under PMS/360 can be expandedand added to. It is versatile -- that is, the usercan control program logic without resorting to repro-gramming. Output reports can be defined with a singleset of procedural statements and can be revised withever). computer run if required. The computer code

23

itself is written in a way that simplifies modifi-cation, if this ever becomes necessary. At present,PMS/360 contains the following three modules: a

Network Processor, a Cost Processor, and a versatileReport Processor. In suitable combinations theseprocessors will accomplish the data processing re-quired in critical path analysis, PERT, and PERT Cost.(IBM PMS/360, 1968, p. 1)

Project Management

To carry out the various project activities a PERTchart with a timeline was designed to guide the operation.Although a tentative PERT chart was provided by the pro-posal (Johnson, 1969, p. II-) it was not until after theinitial period of filling staff vacancies, staff orienta-tion, providing facilities, and assigning tasks, that thefirst operational PERT chart was constructed.

Construction of this chart began when team concernswere defined. Each team leader was asked to review initialplans with his team and to list each essential activityin the network of the subsystem with which he was working.He was also asked to relate (a) how long it would take tocomplete the activity (maximum, minimum and normal time),(b) the kinds of information which would have to be ob-tained in order to complete it, and (c) the activityquence relationship or its place in relation to the orderin which all activities would have to be undertaken.

After these reports were completed, they were reviewedby the project director in conference with the associatedirectors and systems technicians. Following this reviewthe systems technicians prepared the PERT chart. After itwas reviewed by the directors and corrections and adjust-ments were made, operation of the system was begun.

arasl_sLcin was an essential feature of the procedure.Once operations utilizing PERT charts were begun the teamleaders (project directors) were required to submit weeklyreports of the achievements of their teams. These reports(see Figure 2) required the team leader to describe theextent to which his team had accomplished that which ithad intended to accomplish during that week, to report on

24

WEEKLY INFORMATION SHEET

Name: Date:

In the following week I can be reached on the followingdates At the telephone numbers (besides the usual telephonenumber)

Date: Telephone Number:

. Activities progress (% complete) and hours spent on eachactivity:

111=1.

Do you think that the time estimations for the present andfuture activities still hold?

1111111111.

Fig. 2. Weekly information sheet.

25

any previously unanticipated activities that would have tobe carried out, and to indicate the extent to which theteam as a whole was on schedule. These reports were care-fully reviewed and, whenever a critical situation arose,changes in plans were executed. For example, if a teamleader found that for some reason (such an unanticipatedprerequisite activities, delay of materials, unavailabilityof consultants, or illness of a team member) his team wasfalling behind schedule to the extent that it was likelyto seriously affect the timing of the project, immediatesteps were taken to remedy the situation. Sometimes thismeant reallocation of project staff; other times the hiringof supplementary personnel;still ether tines substituting.Substituting refers to such occurrenk,es as an extensivephone call in lieu of a consultant visit, utilizing avail-able materials with some modification instead of more suit-able ones which were unavailable, and borrowing equipment.

As the project progressed it became evident that al-though the initial planning had been detailed and thorougha sufficient number of problems arose so that it was ad-visable to make periodic revisions of PERT carts and time-lines a part of the project routine.

Figure 3 presents a summary network of events for theactivities which took place between May 1, 1969 when theproject was initiated and December 31, 1969 which was thedate for completion. The network is composed of eventsand activities. An event represents the initiation orcompletion of an activity and is shown in a circ'e. Anarrow with a solid line indicates an activity in progress.An arrow with a with a broken line represents a "dummy"activity which is not an activity at all but an indicationof the flow of events where an activity is not required.A detailed list of the activities by predecessor and suc-cessor events accompanies the network on the pages immedi-ately following it. The initial numeral for each eventindicates the working team or group which undertook thatactivity. The following key is provided to guide thereader in relating working groups to activities:

Group 1: Project management subsystemGroup 2: Svaluation subsystemGroup 3: Instructional suhsystemGroup 4: Feasibility study management

26

NAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER AsOVEM3ER DECEMBER

1 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 II 18 23 1 9 15 22 29 6 13 20 2? 3 10 17 29 I 8 IS

L

row, TJ 505

eT 11,2

.

be 1

Pig. 3. PERT network fca feasibility project.2?

Group 5: Program management subsystemGroup 6: Implementation managementGroup 9: Combined groupsGroup 0: Combined groups

28

List of Events and Activities

0

UU

U)

Descriptionof

Activity

001 002002 101

002 102;002 1031002 104002 105002 201002 301002 315

002 400002 401002 402002 404002 406

002 407

002 501

002 504

002 601002 602002 603002 605002 606002 607002 608

002 609

Staff Orientation and Management OrganizationActivity List & Design of PERT Chart forFeasibility StudyDummyDummyStudy of Available COST/PERT ProgramsActivity List & PERT Chart for 5-year ProgramAnnual Leave of Director of Evaluation SubsystemOrient Staff of Instruction SubsystemSelect PMs, Orient Teal); b Determine Cost ThruOperationDummyEdit Article for Systems Development CorporationDummyOrient Research AssistantPrepare Article for Journal of Research &DevelopmentPrepare Outline for Preliminary Cost EstimateReportCollect Data on Cost and Enrollment at theUniversity of GeorgiaInvestigate Commitments of Institutions to GEMProgramDecision on Faculty Orientation and TrainingDesign of Laboratory ExperienceBuilding PMsDesign for Student AdvisementDecision on CertificationDecision on Selection of StudentsDecision on Administrative Arrangements withinCollege of EducationDummy

29

101 901102 931103 901104 106

105 107106 10810? 109108 110109 112110 111111 112112 120120 121120 122121 122122 123122 901123 901201 202201 205

201 213

201 214

201 216201 220

202 220205 225205 410213 225214 215

214 216215 225216 225220 225225 226225 227

226 227227. 228

Update PERT Chart for Feasibility StudyCost ControlDesign Simulation ModelFamiliarization with COST/TIME Program PMS/360from IBMOrganize Tine & Resource EstimatesPreparation for Run of Time ModuleRough Versions of Resource EstimationsFirst Runs of Time ModuleDummyPreparation for Run of Time & Cost ModuleFirst Runs of Time & Cost ModuleOrientation of New StaffDummyDevelopment of Cost ProgramRefinement of Time ProgramPullout of Subsystems from ChartRefinement of Cost ProgramDevelopment of Materials for Final ReportOrient Staff of Evaluation SubsystemDesign & Determine Feasibility of CandidateSelection Evaluation SystemDesign & Determine Feasibility of CandidatePerformance Evaluation SystemDesign & Determine Feasibility of ProjectEvaluation SystemDetermine PM Evaluation StructureDesign & Determine Feasibility of ProgramEvaluation SystemDummyDummyDummyDummyProject Evaluation: Establishment of SelectionCriteria & ReviewPlan Activities - Sept. 8 to Nov. 17DummyDummyDummyDummyWriteup of Components of Assessment Subsystemin OperationRevision of All Cost gstimatesDummy

30

227 229

228 229229 230

230 901

301 302301 305301 306301 307302 305305 312305 316

306 316307 316

312 315315 316316 318318 319318 323318 326318 327

319 327323 327326 329327 328327 329

328 329329 330

330 901

400 901401 410402 405404 408405 41.406 409407 410408 410

Writeup of Feasibility of Assessment Subsystemin OperationDevelop Criteria for Evaluation ProceduresWriteup of Systems Design for Development ofcomponents of Assessment SubsystemWriteup of Conclusions Regarding Feasibility ofOperation of Assessment SubsystemTim,? Estimations for Feasibility Study PERT ChartRefine Specifications & Start Draft of PMsDummyDummyDummyDummyComplete Draft, Sequence for Retrieval & RevisePMsWrite Description of Phases & OperationsWrite Description of Development, Implementation& OperationPilot Test of Target PMDummyDummyDummyEdit Target PM'sDetermine TimeWriteup of Components of the Instruction Sub-systemRevise and Refine Cost Estimate on PMDummyDummyPlan and Coordinate for Testing of Target PMsWriteup of Feasibility of the Instruction Sub-system in OperationDummyWriteup of Systems Design for Development ofComponents of InstructionWriteup of Conclusions Regarding Feasibility ofOperationGeneral Planning & Coordinating ActivitiesDummyWrite First Draft of Part I of Final ReportSurvey 8 Feasibility Proposals & Prepare ReportDummyDummyDummyrummy

31

409 410410 411411 424424 425425 426

426 427427 428

428 429

429 901501 503

503 507504 506504 514

504 515

504 516504 517

505 507

506 530507 530514 518515 518516 518517 518518 410530 531

530 532530 533530 534531 533

532 533533 535533 537

534 901535,536

Write Preliminary Cost Estimate ReportPrint Preliminary Cost Estimate ReportMewWrite Preface to Final ReportWriteup of Purposes & Background of the GEMStudyWriteup of Procedures for the Feasibility StudyWriteup of Comprehensive Strategy for a 5-yr.Development PXanWriteup of Economic Feasibility of Model ProgramAlternatesWriteup of ConclusionsCalculate Cost of Educating Elementary Teachersat University of Georgia & Project Next 5 YearsDummyDummyReciprocal Agreements with School Systems &Other AgenciesInvestigate Use of Non-professional Personnel inManagementInvestigate Implementation of 12-month School YeaInvestigate Problem of Continuous ScheduleRevisionWork out Specifications for Laboratory Facilities& ExperiencesMiscellaneous Management Components of SystemDummyDummyDummyDummyDummyDummyWziteup of Components of Management System inOperationReview Reciprocal Commitments & AgreementsRevise Cost EstimateCompile Job DescriptionsWriteup of Feasibility of Management System inOpe?ationDummy12-month School YearWriteup of System Design for Development ofComponent: of ManagementDummyRevise Laboratory Spt0ifications

32

536 537537 538

538 539

539 901601 410602 410602 505603 604

604 312604 410605 410606 611607 611608 611609 610610 611611 901901 902902 903903 904

DummyWriteup of Conclusions Regarding Feasibility ofOperationStart Writeup of Feasibility of Development &Operation of the Comprehensive Model ProgramFinish WriteupsDummyDummyDummyDecisions on Testing Pilot PMs in Summer & Fallof 1969DummyDummyDummyDummyDummyDummyDecision on Reciprocal CommitmentsDummyWrite Final ReportEdit Parts I-IV of Final ReportConfer on Conclusions and Write Part VPrint Final Report

33

References

Cook, D. L. Program evaluation and review technique appli-cations in education. Washington, D. C.: OE, US Dept.HEW, 12024, No. 17, 1966.

Helmer, 0. The use of the Del hi technique in roblems ofeducational innovations. Santa Monica, Calif.: RandCorp., Dec., 1966.

IBM. Prole9tjsnanaementssten______IapIpj.cati.oriclescrip.-Uon manual.International Business MachinesPublications Department, 1968.

360A - CP -04X Version 2White Plains, N.Y.:Corporation, Technical

Johnson, C. E. (Initiator). feasibility devel-22ingrheGeorgia educational model for teacher edu-cation--elementarE. Athens, Ga.: College of Edu-cation, University of Ga., Feb. 28, 1969. (A proposalto Bur. Res., OE, US Dept. HEW.)

Mize, J. H. and Cox, J. G. essentials of simulation.Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.

Moder, J. J., & Phillips, C. R. Project man222nept withCPM and PERT. New York: Reinhold Publishing, 1964.

Novick, D. (ed.) program budgeting, program analysis andthe fedeuLITIRel. Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, 1967.

Smith, B. E., Stanley, W. 0., & Shores, J. H. Fundamentalsof curriculum development. Yonkers-on-Hudson, N.Y.:World Book Co., 1950.

34

Chapter III

Strategy for a Five Year Development ProgramLeading to Sustained Operation

C. E. Johnson

This chapter summarizes the findings of the investi-gation as regards the strategy which is recommended for theimplementation of the model instructional program in sus-tained operation. Although some attention is given in thischapter to maintaining the program in sustained operationit is the following chapters that provide the details forthat final stage.

Fro posed Project Management Techniques

The management of program development efforts differsfrom that appropriate for maintaining the program in opera-tion. Once the model with its specifications is firmlydefined and efforts are undertaken to implement a strategywhich will make the model a realization, the various com-plex interrelated activities which were undertaken indeveloping that model are no longer needed. Thereafter,different management techniques must be used. For example,during the development stages considerable effort must bedirected toward planning and designing instructional mate-rials. Once these are planned and designed they must bewritten, piloted, tested, revised and duplicated. Theywill reach initial operation and finally after a finaltesting be put into the program in sustained operation.These activities are much different than those which willbe occurring during sustained operation. Then materialswill already have been developed and will be in use bythe students in learning laboratories. The focus of atten-tion then will turn to maintaining them through correction,modification, extension and substitution.

Initial development will require considerable effort,but little or none of this is directed toward actual in-struction of students. On the other hand, during sustainedoperation the system's major focus of attention is uponinstruction. Similarly each of the various components tobe dealt with reveals a contrast between those activities

which will happen during development and those which willhappen during sustained operation.

During development activities related to candidateselection will include the preparation of manuals, theselection of appropriate tests from among those which areavailable, the designing of devices for recording infor-mation about candidates, and the setting down in detail ofthe entire recruitment program. Also, new devices suchas check lists, observation sheets, tests not currentlyavailable, and the devices to be used for data storage suchas computer cards and selected computer programs must beinvented or selected so that ultimately sustained operationis realized.

The nature of activities concerned with institutionalorientation, dissemination, and staff training will alsobe different during development than in sustained operation.Fox example, the training of staff members during the dewl-opment period will mean preparing teams to design and pro-duce the initial PMs. These persons will have to learn howmodules are constructed, organized, written, and published.They will have to learn about format, editing, languageusage and program sequences. Later, during sustainedoperation when these materials are available, the stafftraining objectives will be concerned with preparingprofessors and instructors to manage the use of thesestudy guides with students. During development, education-al media specialists will serve as consultants in helpingto design materials, whereas during sustained operationtheir attention will be turned to helping studentsutilize these media for learning purposes. They will alsoassist those in the process of continually updating PMsto utilize new equipment appearing on the market that showspromise of improving the educational program.

As regards the continual monitoring of progress inimplementing the strategy for development considerably moreflexibility is essential to a program development operationthan is necessary in maintaining a program in sustainedoperation. For example, although this proposal presentsa strategy which at the present time appears to be a neatand progressive system which will ultimately realize asustained operation of the model instructional program, it

36

is not only likely but expected that there will be numerousproblems arising during the period of educational engineer-ing. There will be unavoidable delays in, accomplishingcertain activities on the one hand and unexpected slacktime on the other. Thus, it is essential to a developmentoperation that periodic redesigning of the operationalnetwork of activities pattern is undertaken. This up-dating procedure was described in Chapter II in a discussionof the procedures used in the feasibility study where itwas necessary to frequently redesign the PERT network, re-allocate time, adjust expenditures, and bring in new forceswhere efforts were delayed.

As contrasted with program development proceduresthose in sustained operation are relatively well regulated.When the point of sustained operation is reached the objec-tive becomes one of production rather than creative inven-tion. During sustained operation the focus is on producingexemplary elementary school teachers through the continualupdating, improvement, and increased efficiency of thenetwork of events associated with the production process.

Complexities of Program Management

The complexities of the management of the develop-ment strategy or system become seriously evident whenone considers that there are not only numerous components ofthe model instructional program but that each of these com-ponents must pass through various operations. In additionthere are three sequential phases to the instructionalprogram.

Figure 4 shows a three dimensional representationof the relationships among operations, components andinstructional phases. For the most part, the terms areself-explanatory and the sequence is evident. For example,the first instructional phase is the preprofessional pro-gram. That is to say, when the student enters the pro-gram for his first university or college level experiencehe will enter the preprofessional program which uponcompletion of particular requirements will prepare him forentrance into the professional program. From there he willprogress to the specialist.

Each of these three instructional phases is by defin-ition separated into components. The components are

37

OP

ER

AT

ION

S

AD

EV

ELO

PIN

GPPL

AN

NIN

Ga

PIL

OT

ING

INIT

IAL

OP

ER

AT

ION

SU

ST

AIN

ED

OP

ER

AT

ION

CO

MP

ON

EN

TS

PR

OJE

CT

CO

NT

RO

L

PE

RS

ON

NE

L A

ND

SE

RV

ICE

S

CO

ST

CO

NT

RO

L.

TE

AC

FE

R P

ER

FO

RM

AN

CE

SP

EC

S.

INS

TR

UC

TIO

NA

L M

AT

ER

IALS

INS

TR

UC

TIO

NA

L S

EQ

UE

NC

E

INS

TR

UC

TIO

NA

L P

RO

CE

DU

RE

S

ST

UD

EN

T A

DV

ISE

ME

NT

ST

AF

F T

RA

ININ

G

CA

ND

IDA

TE

SE

LEC

TIO

N

DE

SIG

N

ST

UD

EN

T O

RIE

NT

AT

ION

IND

UC

TIO

N A

ND

EN

RO

LLM

EN

T

ST

UD

EN

T E

VA

LUA

TIO

N

PR

OJE

CT

EV

ALU

AT

ION

DA

TA

ST

OR

AG

E

SC

HE

DU

LIN

G IN

ST

RU

CT

ION

LEG

AL

CO

NC

ER

NS

MU

TU

AL

CO

MM

ITM

EN

TS

INS

TIT

UT

ION

AL

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

DIS

SE

MIN

AT

ION

Fig. 4.

Three dimensional

relationships among

operational

components and instructional

phases.

listed on the face of the three dimensional figure, Forexample, it will be necessary to have a project control sys-tem for each of the three phases of the program, and eachwill need personnel and services; the available money tocarry out each phase of the program must be subjected tocontrol; there will be particular teacher performance speci-fications assigned to the preprofessional phase, and so onthrough to concern for mutual commitments, institutionalorientation, and dessemination.

These various instructional phases each with twentyor more separate components must pass through a process ofoperation from the earliest stage of planning throughdesign, development, piloting, and initial operation.Planning requires considerable time in conferring to developa strategy for accomplishing the desired end. Designingdiffers from planning in that planning refers to the devel-opment of strategies while designing is concerned withsuggested features of a product. Developing means puttingthe plan into operation or actually creating the productsuggested by the design. Such would be the case in pro-ducing a study guide, a set of examinations, an evaluationcheck list, or a computer program. Developing usuallyincludes testing in order to provide a sound product.For example, an evaluation check list which has beenplanned, designed and produced must also be tested andrevised before the process of developing is completed.Next in the sequence of operations is piloting. Pilotingmeans trying out a procedure or a product in a life situ-ation on a limited scale. Piloting requires a preliminarystrategy, its application, and the process of evaluationto determine the extent to which the object or system func-tion in its intended manner. The fourth and final step indevelopment is initial operation. Up to this point,components may have been treated only in isolation or insmall related groups of components. However, in initialoperation the purpose is to see the extent to which allcomponents are interacting effectively within an instruction-al phase. This is a caution against the situation inwhich one might note separate and isolated components allworking in efficient timing but when combined are found tobe incompatible. This is related to the principle ofqueueing.

The principle of quemeing is concerned with the

39

extent to which all components are functioning efficientlyin relation with one another. Thus, it is concerned withregulating the scheduling of inputs in relation to outputs.For example, it may be reasonable to assume that if thecomponent of student evaluation is viewed in isolationfrom the other components within one of the instructionalphases it may be regarded as a properly functioning com-ponent. However, the magnitude of the provisions withinthat component may be insufficient to provide for thedevelopment of more than a relatively small number oftests when it is intended that the component in operationshould provide a sufficient number to accommodate the needsof the PMs being developed concurrently. Unnecessary delaycould result if provision in the evaluation component wasinsufficient to provide for the number of instructionalmaterials being produced.

It was noted that Figure 4 listed twenty components.Actually, there are many more. In this figure they werereduced to twenty by combining some related components.The figure shows five operational steps, from planning anddesign through sustained operations Also, the three in-structional phases are indicated. Each of the listingsunder the three dimensions is interrelated within thedimension as well as with the items listed in the otherdimensions. Thus, literally thousands of possible relation-ships must be considered in detail. Also, it should beobserved that if adjustments are made in any one combinationof concerns it is likely that there will be an effect onnumerous other related concerns within the three dimensions.

Se uential Induction of Phases

The concept of sequential induction as a fundamentalprinciple for the strategy of the development of the modelprogram was arrived at after considerable examination ofalternatives. This concept requires that the program bebuilt and implemented from the point of initial entry andthat development activities continue sequentially throughto the highest level of proficiency required by the speci-fications for teacher performance. This means that attentionis first given to the development of the preprofessionalphase, next to the professional phase and finally to thespecialist phase. Furthermore, it means that when sustained

40

operation occurs it will occur first with the preprofession-al Pase, followed next with the professional phase andfinally with the specialist phase. Thus, the attainmentof the condition where all phases of the instructional pro-gram are in sustained operation is not complete untilthe specialist phase leaves its final stage of development.Illustrative of a considered alternative is a situationin which development of all phases of the instructionalprogram is undertaken concurrently. Such would be the caseif three teams set about concurrently to develop the entireinstructional program, each concerned with a separate phase.Exploration of this alternative revealed that the finalproduct would lack continuity and the desired sequentialand integrated characteristics. In addition, tha cost forthe preparation of the staff and their demands upon facil-ities and materials would be uneconomical. In other words,if the core staff charged with the development of the pre-professional phase participates on the basis of theirexperience in developing the professional phase and nextthe specialist phase, there is much saving in cost asrelated to the training and preparation of the staff.

Strategic Stages of Development

The results of the investigation designed to providea strategy for a development system designed to implementthe model program into sustained operation are briefly out-lined in the graphic representation in Figure 5. Sixstages are shown leading from preliminary planning to sus-tained operation. In examining this figure, the reader iscautioned that although each stage is represented by anequal allotment of space not all stages represent equalallotments of time. The total amount of time representedin Figure 5 iz approximately six years. Time allotmentsand critical dates will be shown in other representations.

Planning and Designing

Planning and designing are the concerns in the firstthree stages. In stage 1, the planning and designing of theoverall program begins, and concurrently attention is givento planning and designing the development of the preprofes-sional phase. In stage 2, while continuous attention isgiven to planning and designing the overall program specialattention is given to the development of the professional

41

ST

AG

ES

TA

GE

I I

ST

AG

E

111

ST

AG

E

IV

ST

AG

E

V

ST

AG

E

VI

MIS

SIO

N

CO

MP

LET

ED

OV

ER

ALL

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

AN

D C

ON

TR

OL

CE

VE

LOM

EN

T

PR

E-

PR

OF

.

PH

AS

E

PIL

OT

ING

PR

E-P

RO

F.

PH

AS

E

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

L

PH

AS

E

INIT

IAL

OP

ER

AT

ION

PR

E-P

RO

F.

PH

AS

E

PIL

OT

ING

SS

ION

AL

PH

AS

E

PLA

NN

ING

MD

DE

SIG

N.

PR

E-P

RO

F.

PH

AS

E

PLA

NN

ING

MD

DE

SIG

N.

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

LP

HA

SE

PLA

NN

ING

AN

D D

ES

IGN

.

SP

EC

IALI

ST

PH

AS

E

FU

TU

RE

PLA

NN

ING

AN

D O

F-S

IGN

.

ST

AG

ES

TA

GE

I I

ST

AG

E

III

i101

1M

DE

vE_O

PN

EN

T

SP

EC

IALI

ST

PH

AS

E

ST

AG

E

I

SU

ST

AIN

ED

OP

ER

AT

ION

PR

E-P

RO

F.

PH

AS

E

ft

INIT

IAL

OP

ER

AT

ION

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

L-"

PH

AS

E

Fig. 5.

Stages of the development strategy.

PIL

OT

ING

SP

EC

IALI

ST

PH

AS

E

ST

AG

E

V

ALL

PH

AS

ES

OF

INS

TR

UC

TIO

NA

LP

RO

GR

AM

INS

US

TA

INE

DO

PE

RA

TIO

N

SU

ST

AIN

ED

OP

ER

AT

ION

PR

OF

ES

SIO

N A

L7''

PH

AS

E

INIT

IAL

OP

ER

AT

ION

SP

EC

IALI

ST

PH

AS

E

ST

AG

E

VI

SU

ST

AIN

ED

OP

ER

AT

ION

SP

EC

IALI

ST

PH

AS

E

MIS

SIO

N

CO

MP

LET

ED

,1-11(11

phase of the instructional program. Stage 3 continuesactivities concerned with planning and designing the overallprogram while it focuses attention upon planning and des3gn-ing the specialist phase.

There is a wide range of activities involved in plan-ning and designing. All such activities recommended for thedevelopment strategy are listed in detail in Volume II ofthis report. These include: the selection of professionaland non-professional staff; organizing and orienting thestaff; planning facilities, equipment and materials; de-signing a simulation model of the operational phase; testingand revising that model, and many others.

Develo ment of Instructional Program Phases

Stage 1 which involves the staff in planning and de-signing the overall program and in preparing activitiesfor stage 2 leads directly Into stage 2 where the firstdevelopment activities take place. Here, the preprofes-sional phase of the instructional program is developed andmade ready for piloting. Concurrent with the developmentof the preprofessional phase is the planning and designingof the professional phase of the program which moves intodevelopment in stage 3. Similarly the planning and design-ing of the specialist phase which occurs in stage 3 andinformation and data collected during the developmentof the professional phase of the instructional program instage 3 leads in the direction of assisting in the develop-)ment of the specialist phase of the instructional programwhich occurs in stage 4.

As was the case in the networks associated with theplanning and designing of the overall program and each phaseof the instructional program the network for developmentactivities is a complex interrelationship of hundreds ofactivities, all of which are listed and coded in Volume IIof this report. In examining such a list the reader willnote a great variety of activities which have been classedas development activities. These activities include plan-ning PM development teams, selecting staff for these teams,organizing these teams and orienting them to their purposeand objectives. It provides for the planning of each PMand the activities that will be undertaken as they are de-signed, for the coordination of design of numerous PM

43

groupings, and for the revision of personnel groups aswell as the testing of PMs. Also included here are activi-ties associated with planning facilities, equipment, andmaterials for instruction as well for testing these materi-als. In addition is the provision for the writing of roughdrafts, their editing, their revision and finally theirpublication.

This brief presentation of activities is only illustra-tive. Inasmuch as there are numerous additional compon-ents for which revision is made on the basis of the illus-tration, the reader can duplicate the same operations asregards development of the evaluative materials for thevarious blocks and program sequence and provisions forselecting and obtaining staff and facilities to carry outthese activities.

Pilotin Phases of the Instructional Pro ram

The term piloting, as was the case with the termsdevelopment and planning and design, is a term inclusiveof many varieties of activities. Piloting does not referto the first testing of the materials. Materials and pro-cedures have been evaluated, tested and revised many timesbefore they reach the piloting stage. However, it isduring piloting that a sample group of students is carriedthrough the model instructional program in a fashion fairlyrepresentative of that which will occur during the sustainedoperation.

Considerable attention in carrying out piloting oper-ations must be given to planning facilities and equipmentand materials for the testing of PMs. However, even beforethese facilities, materials and equipment can be selected,attention must be given to the selection of students fortesting, organizing and orienting them to the program. In

addition to the selection of students, additional speciallytrained staff must be made ready for carrying out the instruc-tional aspects of the piloting program. This means that spec-ial attention must be given to the selection of persons toguide student learning, and to consult with students on theproblems which they experience as they pursue the activitiessuggested by the PMs. For the first time elaborate provisionsmust be made for computer storage of data and the testing ofthe programs designed to accomplish that end. Here again

44

numerous activities are involved, all of which are listedin Volume II of this report.

Piloting begins in stage 3 for the preprofessionalphase. The activities of planning and designing, and de-velopment have led to the piloting activities. Pilot-ing of the preprofessional phase of the program lays thefoundation for the piloting of the professional phase instage 4 and ultimately the specialist phase in stage 5.Much will be learned in the initial undertaking of pilotingoperations which will become useful as the investigatorsmove from one stage to another, and it may be assumed thatthe results of experience will gradually shorten prepara-tion activities.

Initial OperationMum

The initial operation period is the first time thatthe model program is in operation under what may be regardedas projected normal condition'; for sustained operation.Initial operation of the preprofessi:Anal program begins instage 4. Preparation for this network of activities wasthe result of planning and designing, developing andpiloting which occurred in stages 1, 2, and 3. Hele againis a matrix of interrelated activities arranged in a logicaland sequential network of events, all of which are presentedin detail in Volume II of this report. These activitiesbegin again with planning personnel and selecting Andorganizing them as well as orienting them to the taskswhich they are to perform. Next is the selection andorganization of students. This is followed by planning forfacilities, equipment and materials and the procurementof these concerns in order to provide the setting in whichthe piloting will be undertaken. Next begins the actualoperation of the piloting of the PMs with their evalua-tion activities and finally the evaluation of the entireprogram as it appeared during the initial operation. Thisof ccurse will be accompanied by continual evaluationand revision of the various materials and proceduresinvolved in the preprofessional phase of the instructionalprogram. Similarly the initial operation of the profession-al phase which takes place in stage 5 and the initialoperation of the specialist phase which takes place instage 6 will have appropriate activities.

45

Sustained Operation

After any phase of the program has passed through thestringent tests, evaluation and revisions which are rep-resentative of the initial operation phase of the program,it passes on to the condition of sustained operation. Thisbegins with stage 5 Nhen the preprofessional phase of theprogram having been planned and designed, developed, piloted,and fully tested is ready to be regarded as fully implementedand ready for consumer usage.

Experiences in carrying out the initial operationof the preprofessional phase of the instructional programare used in performing similar experiences in stage 5with the professional phase and in stage 6 with the special-ist phase. At the end of stage 5 the professional phaseof the instructional program will pass into sustainedoperation and at the close of stage 6 the specialistphase of the instructional program will pass into sustainedoperation. Thus at the close of stage 6 all phases of theinstruction program will be in sustained operation and themission of the development strategy will have been completed.

Time astlaIllastliaThe specifications for the development strategy

which require the application of research and developmentprocedural principles provide for flexibility in the manage-ment of time. However, this flexibility is within aframework of defined limits. For example, the startingdate for the project is assumed to be July 19 1970.The period of funding by the contractor is limited tofive years. Because of these limitations the strategy isdesigned so that all components of all phases of theinstructional program will have been developed and pilotedby July 1, 1975. It should also be noted that the endorse-ment of the principle of sequential induction, combinedwith the fact that the instructional program employsindividualised instruction, creates particular schedulingconcerns. For example, it is estimated that while theaverage qualified student will require 18 months to completethe preprofessional phase of the program, a highly qualifiedstudent may complete it within 12 months. Since the

46

student who completes the first phase of the program sixmonths earlier than the norm will be ready to move immed-iately into the second or professional phase of the pro-gram, the latest allowable date for initiating the pro-fessional phase is 12, rather than 18 months after initiat-ing the proprofessional program. A similar overlapping mustalso occur between the professional and the specialistphases.

With reference to the duration of activities associatedwith initial operation of these phases of the instructionalprogram, the terminal dates are subject to variation. Forexample, it is assumed that the initial operation phaseof the preprofessional program will transform itself intothe sustained operation phase after 90 students havesatisfied its requirements. Since the students willbe inducted into the program at a rate of no more than40 in any one month, it is estimated that total transforma-tion from initial operation to sustained operation will notbe completed in less than 24 months.

Volume II of this report provides a detailed timeanalysis for the five year development strategy. For eachof the hundreds of activities involved, it sets forthestimates of the maximvm, expected and minimum timedurations for activities, and the expected and latest datesfor their occurrences. For readers who are not interestedin studying the highly technical data provided in Volume II,Figure 6 was designed to depict graphically on a broadconceptual base the time relationship amollg the varioussystems associated with the development and operation ofthe model instructional program over a six year period.

Illustrative PERT Chart Dia rams

PERT chart diagrams for the entire system of pro-gram development and sustained operation were designedduring the feasibility study. These charts, all of whichappear in Volume II, show the entire flow of events fromthe point of initial operations to the point where allphases of the instructional program are in sustainedoperation. Illustrations of these detailed charts arethose shown in Figure 7. At the top of Figure 7 is a

47

INITIALPLANNING

PREPROFESSIONALPLANNING-DEVELOPING-PILOTING I OINITIAL

SW

PROFESSIONALI INITIAL SI'STAINED OPERATIONPLANNING-DEVELOPINGPILOTING I

OPERATION 1

PHASESUSTAINED

I1 #4"PHASE

4

OPERATION

SPECIAL I STPLANNING-DEVELOPING-PILOTING

INT lArPHASEonmoN wan

'4W

FIVE YEAR FUNDING PERIODNM IN My. 0011

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

Fig. 6. Time sequence for the development strategy.

representation of the total network which has been photo-graphically reduced to the point where it has lost much ofits legibility. It is included only to assist the readerin noting its relationship with the network at the bottomof the figure. That is to say the circled portion ofthe network at the top of Figure 7 is magnified to legibleproportionc in the network which appears at the bottom ofthe page. The enlarged network depicts the flow of eventsfor just the initial planning or preparation phase.There is a cost, time and date assigned to each activity.Should the reader care to know what a particular activitycalls for in terms of persons involved, materials needed,equipment required, or the date on which the activity islikely to be taking place, he can find this informationin the technical tables in Volume II which follow thecomplete set of PERT chart diavrams.

Figure 8 illustrates the network of events for thedevelopment of the preprofessional phase, and Figure 9the network of events for the piloting of the professionalphase.

In studying Figures 7, 8, Plid 9 the reader will notethat the style of the PERT charts differs from that whichappeared in Chapter II. This is due to the differencesin the application of parting techniques. The purpose ofFigure 7 is to show component and activity relationshipswith less concern for the time scale. The diag,am for thefeasibility study had as its purpose the time orienteddescription of activities for the various teams of thefeasibility study. One advantage of PERT techniques isthis flexibility of charting styles.

49

1.,..rI

(INN1 (11111(10

04))))111$

iiIniih 1111111114:191

wIi1Q40 I 01#111)) lin IIIjHI

ipro101!

I iluito1 1p9111111

trtte;90

IF

I

0114)111)11

144tIPUIP

tJl

1.7

LA

I 22

at!

-

011.

..21

0 91

LS

of,

0` -

QS

"Z

ION

- 1

'1hr

/.1

4O

a: 3

DIU

/Ir

rtt

OD

a4

IS*

09*-

010

D04

-11

0*-0

20

DO

-Of

Fig. 7.

PERT network for the preparation phase (initial planning) .

;,

I

iiitipT11101111141Tpf

11140 Itt(y)Oltil

1/1r1101 11fr!)1irM11 11(1

1i

PI.P!gr!WWII) )111101,911

loop! prf4pooho IN 10

pifitiplut

p,!.

p

tt

Fig. 8. PERT network for the development of the preprofessionalphase of the instructional program.

11.161111in)

N4010001 ))101iiiill

o,111 110/110111 iii(t119111

I oittitionit

4.,1141,71;

Fig. 9. PERT network for the piloting (testing) of the professionalphase of the instructional program.

Chapter IV

Feasibility of the Instructional Subsystem

M. L. Hawkins and G. F. Shearron

This chapter is concerned with the feasibility of theinstructional components of the model program as they willoperate when the model is in sustained operation and withthe strategy designed to implement them into sustained op-eration. A detailed description of all operations can befound in Volume II of this report. The components of theprogram described here are those that bring student, pro-fessor and program content together in a process of individ-ualized interaction that produces an elementary teacher pre-pared to function with optimum effectiveness in the publicelementary schools.

The teacher performance behaviors form the core of theinstructional program. The components described in theparagraphs that follow are parts of the schema that make itpossible to translate the teacher performance specificationsinto a program to prepare elementary teachers. Ther'dore,the teacher performance specifications provide the base ofcontent for the program. The learning procedures and ma-terials components provide the methodology. The instruc-tional sequence component insures logical and psychologicalrouting through the program. The evaluation of studentachievement comp,,nent insures the mastery of the content,skills, and attitudes specified in the teacher performancespecifications. The faculty orientation component pro-vides inservice education and communication training forthe professors, while the student advisement section makescertain that the student has a base to return to in anindividualized teacher education program.

The Instructional Subsystem inSustained Operation

The instruction component is concerned with the teach-ing-learning aspects of the model program. The instruc-tional program is divided into seven components in this re-port. Each is regarded as an important part of theinstructional component and the interaction of these

components will determine to a great extent the success ofthe model program.

The components of instruction are: learning activi-ties and materials, instructional procedures, instructionalprogram sequence, evaluation of student achievement, teach-er performance specifications, student advisement and facultyorientation.

The feasibility of the instructional program in sus-tained operation has been established in several differentways. Perhaps the most significant of these has been thedevelopment and piloting of selected learning experiences.This has provided an opportunity to observe faculty andstudents in real situations under conditions prescribed inthe original specifications. In addition, the various col-lege committees that deal with instruction have approvedthe proposed procedures. These committees include: Com-mittee on Undergraduate Teacher Education Programs, Ele-mentary Education Advisory Committee, and Faculty ExecutiveCommittee.

Perhaps the most diffi3ult area in which to establishfeasibility is what has been referred to earlier as "psycho-logical feasibility." The strategy has been to involvelarge numbers of faculty members in both the designing ofthe model and in this present study of its feasibility.This provides a base on which to build. Although the modelhas been well received by other faculty members it remainsto be seen how they will react when they are asked to be-come involved. It is anticipated that most of those individ-uals to be involved in the sustained operation of the pro-gram will have participated in the development stages.

Teacher Performance Specifications

Teacher performance specifications (also referred toas teacher behaviors) are statements which describe compe-tencies which a teacher should possess in order to operateat optimum effectiveness. These specifications incorporatecharacteristics for the development of cognitive learnings,attitudes, and skills.

Performance specifications are classified into threeareas: teaching assistant, general elementary teacher, and

57

specialist. The job description contained in the final re-port (Johnson, Shearron, and Stauffer, 1968) reveals fourgeneral categories into which the teaching function is or-dered in the model. Performance specifications fox thefourth category, the teacher aide, have not been developedin the Georgia model. The reason for this is that the de-signers of the model take the position that the job as de-fined can be performed without university training andshould not lead to the bachelors degree. Tasks for aidesare listed, however, in the report which provides speci-fications for the model.

Operational definitions determined by the Georgia Edu-cational Model's staff are:

A teacher's aide is a person whose function is to per-form routine and other paraprofessional activities inthe classroom.

A teaching assistant is a person who has the competen-cies of a teacher aide and in addition has completedthe equivalent of an associate of arts degree, has abasic knowledge of human development, and has met re-quirements for admission to the professional programfor general elementary teachers.

A general elementary teacher is a proftzcisionally pre-pared person regarded as competent to assume the re-sponsibilities for the general instruction of childrenprimarily within the age range of 3 years through 15years, or any defined age group within this totalchronological age range. General means that the per-son possesses paraprofessional knowledge and skillsfor working with children within the defined age rangeplus professional competency to guide children in ac-quiring new learnings in all areas of content normallypresented within the elementary school range.

A specialist elementary teacher is a professionalworker who possesses all of the qualifications of ageneral elementary teacher but is also prepared withadditional professional and supervisory competenciesin a particular subject area of professional servicesuch as curriculum, educational media, human develop-ment and learning, evaluation, pupil personnel (guid-ance), professional development and school community

58

relations. (Johnson et al., 1968, pp. 15-19).

These definitions were used in determining the speci-fications and criteria for what will be included in eachtype of module in each area. Teacher performance speci-fications (Johnson et al., 1968, pp. 42-155) were writtenby experts in each content area. On the basis of the op-erational definitions, the specifications were grouped intopractical sequences for development of each PM in each con-tent area.

In order for the model program to meet and to continueto meet the needs of public school districts for competentteachers, constant program revision will be necessary. thisrevision will take place in a planned sequantial fashionwith regular examinations of projected societal and educa-tional trends identified by experts then translated byspecialists in subject matter and professional educationalfields into revised job descriptions of the elementaryteachers. Then, as the description of the teachers' workchanges, the staff and faculty of the project drawn fromthe many cooperating institutions review the present teacherperformance specifications and revise the specifications andthe proficiency modules in their areas of academic specialty(Hawkins, 1969a).

Feasibility of the Teacher Performance See2ifications

The report which provided the specifications for themodel also presented the projected needs of American soci-ety and described the characteristics of the kind of ele-mentary school which might fulfill these needs. From theseneeds and characteristics criteria were drawn which havebeen applied to the teacher performance specifications. Tobe feasible in terms of the Georgia model, the teacher per-formance specifications must continue to provide for:

1. Teachers who have liberal education sufficient toallow them to assume their responsibilities asleaders in our society.

2. Teachers who have both the will and the ability toassume responsible leadership in our society.

3. Teachers who have the subject matter, skill, proc-esses and attitudes needed to guide children from

59

three through fifteen years of age and to guidechildren of all races, creeds, and socioeconomicstatus toward acquiring the behaviors reflected inthe projected needs of our society.

4. Behaviors that are arranged or classified intovarious levels which represent stages in a careersequence, such as teacher aide, assistant teacher,certified general elementary teacher, and special-ist.

Since the teacher performance specifications form thecol:e of the model program, considerable care has been de-voted to examining the specifications in light of theirapplicability to the job description of the elementaryteacher of the 1970's. The specifications were drawn byexperts in academic and professional education on the basisof the projected job description of the elementary teacher.A recent report (Hawkins, 1969b) contains an example of thesocial science and social science education specificationsgrouped into levels of the career sequence for PM develop-ment. However, prior to the PM development phase, thespecifications will be re-examined by specialists in ele-mentary education and by academic professors$ then re-classified, if necessary, by levels in the teacher careersequence.

Further evidence of feasibility is found in the factthat as presently drawn the teacher performance specifica-tions as a component of the model program have been approvedby the College of Education's faculty Committees on instruc-tion, the University administration, the University SystemChancellor and Board of Regents.

Learning Activities and Materials

Performance specifications will be acquired throughtasks contained in proficiency modules (PMs). Instructionwill be individualized; thus each student will proceed athis own most efficient rate through series of PMs. Eachsubject area will provide an instructional unit where stu-dents will find the materials and equipment needed for com-pleting the module in that subject area. Staff members willbe available to assist the students and arrange both groupand individual sessions.

60

A proficiency module is defined as a published guidewhich is designed to direct individual student learningbehavior in studying particular subjects or topics or inundertaking particular activities in laboratory situations.The PMs are a means of organizing content for instructionin such a manner that it is assured that the student eitherhas acquired the content, skills, and attitudes of that mod-ule, or that he will do so by carrying out the learning taskscontained in it.

The content for any PM is a selected cluster of re-lated teacher performance behaviors, including not onlydefinitions, facts and concepts, but, where appropriate,thought processes, motor skills and attitudes. The coreof the PM, insofar as the student is concerned, is a seriesof learning tasks prepared by specialists. These tasks arecarefully designed and arranged in such a manner that theyare regarded as an effective means of guiding students to-ward the acquisition of the performance behaviors. Thesetasks provide alternate tracks for the attainment of thedesired ends in such a manner as to make them adaptable tothe students' Individual differences in characteristicssuch as rate of learning, sensory sensitivity, and cogni-tive styles.

When properly constructed, PMs avoid duplication ofcontent among offerings and permit the student to movethrough the program at a pace which is challenging to him.In meeting the specific requirements a qualified studentmay move as rapidly as he is capable of moving or as slowlyas is necessary (Johnson et al., 1968, p. 190).

Four assumptions were basic .o all proficiency modules:

1. The model program is designed to prepare teachersof children ages three through fifteen, plus var-ious subgroups of American society.

2. There are alternate paths to mastery of content,skills, and attitudes.

3. Student time spent acquiring behaviors is de-termined by his performance rather than by arbi-trary time or course units.

61

4. All learning activities are directly related toone or more teacher performance specifications(Hawkins, 1969b).

Each PM follows the same format, including:

Classification: A brief indication of the specificsubject or behavioral area of concern and the sequence blockto which It belongs.

General Directions: A general explanation to the stu-dent as to how to proceed in undertaking the PM.

Prerequisites: A list of the essential subject matter,thought processes, skills, and attitudes which the studentmust possess in order to undertake the PM.

Pre-evaluation: A diagnostic evaluation unit developedon the basis of the content which contains appropriate de-vices (paper-pencil tests, checklists, performance scales,etc.) designed to determine the student's initial status inrelation to the content to be learned. It is not containedin the student's edition of the PM.

Objectives: The teacher performance specificationsapplicable to the particular PM. A matrix depicting theobjectives and the supporting behaviors and activities isincluded.

Supporting Behaviors and Activities (Learning Tasks):A multiple series of learning activities adjusted to indi-vidual differences designed to be completed by the students.They are prepared by specialists as the most efficient knownmeans for guiding students toward the acquisition of theperformance behaviors. Learning tasks are grouped by alter-nate paths, such as reading and/or viewing and listening.The student, with the advice of his advisor, may choose thepath that he considers most appropriate for his own learn-ing style.

Postevaluation: A diagnostic evaluation unit basedon the content which contains appropriate devices (paper-

pencil tests, checklists, performance scales, etc.) de-signed to determine the student's status in relation tothe content after he has completed particularly assigned

62

4

learning tasks. It is not contained in the students'edition of the PM, but directions for arranging for theposttest are included.

Each PM will be developed in the same way. Teams com-posed of content specialists, learning specialists, subjectmatter education specialists, and an editor will have pre-pared the PMs during the developmental stages. These wouldhave been reproduced, made ready for student use, and dis-tributed through the instructional units of each suojectarea.

During sustained operation the staff will be concernedwith reviewing, revising, and re-testing the specifications,contents, and procedures in each PM. The five major oper-ations involved are: (a) assignment of teacher performancespecifications, (b) review and revision of the specifica-tions, (c) review and revision of learning procedures bycontent area, (d) testing of learning procedures by contentareas, and (e) planning for the revision of learning pro-cedures (Hawkins, 1969a).

It should be noted that all PMs will not be developedby faculty of the University of Georgia. When thoughtappropriate by the model staff, PMs will be contracted forwith other units of the University System of the state orby cooperating institutions outside the state. For example,preliminary arrangements are being made to subcontract thePMs in black history and teaching disadvantaged childrento institutions with particular strengths in these areas.

There are eight types of PMs. The term types refersto classes of PMs which group themselves around commonfunctional relationships. These types are:

Type A A sequence of basic PMs required for all stu-dents in the preprofessional program (includes orientationPMs which acquaint the students with the nature of the pro-gram) .

Type B A sequence of basic PMs required for all stu-dents in the professional program.

Type C A sequence of special PMs required for stu-dents electing the PM grouping as a teaching area of com-petency.

63

Type D A sequence of basic PMs required of all stu-dents in the inservice program.

Type E A continuing sequence of PMs in one area ofspecialization for all students enrolled in the specialistprograms.

Type F A group of exploratory PMs in subject areasnot selected as a teaching area of emphasis during the pre-service program.

Type G A group of special purpose PMs designed tomeet local conditions or needs.

Type H PMs which are developed by a learner (or groupof learners) rather than by specialists which the student(s)proposes to his (their) advisors for acceptance either asspecial enrichment or as a reasonable substitute for a re-quired PM.

Proficiency modules have been developed in sixteen areas.Table 1 shows the number of PMs by type and area. These 582PMs include both laboratory and non-laboratory instruction.

64

Table 1

PMs by Type and Area

PM Area Group

Types of PMs

Preservice

Inservice

AB

ETotal

Language Arts

34

34

14

031

76

1127

Social Science

17

26

19

030

11

10

1114

Science

12

20

60

12

45

160

Mathematics

410

50

92

11

32

Fine Arts

34

8C

10

42

132

Foreign Languages

00

30

015

63

155

Health Education

45

12

017

42

145

Human Growth

27

44

42

01

24

Pupil.Personnel Services

23

01

52

21

16

Media

12

01

31

11

10

Professional Development

68

05

42

11

27

School Community Coordination

00

00

52

11

9Evaluation

11

02

31

11

10

Social Foundations

23

01

52

11

15

Internship

01

00

00

00

1

Laboratory Experiences

23

00

00

00

5

Total

90

127

98

14

153

50

36

14

582

Feasibility of Learning Activities and Materials

The feasibility of this component has been establishedthrough the development and testing of PMs. Eight targetPMs were developed. They represent different types and pro-gram phases. Those tha. were developed are listed below.

Type A - "Linguistics in Language Arts""Elementary Economics - The Market System""Basic Physical Geography""Physical Fitness for Elementary TeacherAssistants"

Type B - "Graphic Representation in Social StudiesInstruction""Magnetism, Electricity, Heat, and Micro-scopic Viewing in Science Instruction"

Type E - "Skill Development in Reading Instruction""Physical Fitness for Elementary EducationSpecialists"

Three of these have been tested during the summer andfall sessions of 1969. The faculty involved in testingthese modules are enthusiastic about the success of theseendeavors. Student reactions are reported on one of theselearning experiences (Ricker & Hawkins, 1969a). This mod-ule was entitled "Magnetism, Electricity, Heat and Micro-scopic Viewing in Science Instruction."

Since determining psychological feasibility was thepurpose of the testing of the PM, subjective rather thanobjective evaluations were requested from the students.Three questions were asked each of the seventeen partici-pants.

1. How many of the lab activities degcribed in thehandbook did you carry out?

Fifteen of the seventeen students completed all ofthe activities in the PM. The two remaining stu-dents found it unnecessary to complete all theactivities because they had previously acquiredthe competencies, but they did complete some ormost of the activities. This provided a base for

66

establishing feasibility as far as the time fcc....toris concerned.

2. How much reading did you do?

About seventy per cent of the students found itnecessary to read material other than the labhandbook. 'Three students read extensively; ninestudents read some; and five students found it un-necessary to utilize this learning activity.

3. How many small group instructional sessions did youattend?

Students were not required to attend the sessions,which were provided for those who may have feltthat they needed them. Every student attended atleast one session. Ten students attended allthree sessions, while seven students attended onlyone session.

It was possible for students to combine learning activi-ties in various ways. Table 2 lists the combinations thatwere 2..sd.

67

Table 2

The Combination of Learning Activities Utilized and the

Number of Students that Utilized Each Combination

Combinations of Learning Activities

Lab Activities

Completed

Reading

Done

Small Group

Sessions Attended

Numbers of Students That

Used the Combination

All

Some

Thr.,''.

5

c mAll

Some

One

3

All

None

One

3

All

None

Three

2

All

Much

Three

1

All

Much

One

1

Most

Some

Three

I

Some

Much

Three

1

Almost fifty per cent of the students selected a combi-nation of learning activities that consisted of doing allthe lab activities, some reading, and attending either oneor three of the small group instructional sessions. Aboutanother thirty per cent of the students used a combinationthat consisted of doing all the lab activities, no reading,and attending either one or three of the small group ses-sions.

Students were asked to respond to three questions inreference to the organization of the instructional program.

I. What do you think of this means of organizing aninstructional program? What are some of its ad-vantages and disadvantages?

Sixteen students responded favorably to the programand one was neutral. Most of the students madefavorable comments about the individualized in-struction and the participatory learning situations.Individual differences were met in this learningexperience. Students worked at their own rate ac-cording to their abilities and/or desires.

2. What do you think should be the size of a learningstation? Why?

Two students felt that a learning station should bedesigned to enable more than two students to worktogether; fourteen students suggested two studentlearning stations would Le best; and one studentexpressed the desire for individual learning sta-tions. Working together was regarded as beneficialand pleasant.

3. What is your reaction to the organization of theItab handbook?

Favorable responses were given by all seventeenstudents. Most students expressed an appreciationfor having to think through the answers and havinggained a better understanding by doing so. Re-sponses also indicate more empathy for studentsencountering learning situations in elementaryclassrooms as a result of their experiences in theexperimental program.

69

The total results of the testing were considered satis-factory. Reactions of students to a social scier.se PM wereapproximately the same (Akenson & Hawkins, 1969). Thetesting of these modules also provided a base for revisingand making recommendations for sustained operations.

Original materials can be developed by the Learning Re-source Center, Center for Continuing Education, or the Col-lege of Education Media Department when commercially de-veloped materials are inadequate for the learning tasks.Available materials have been carefully selected to providestudents with oppor,unities to become familiar with alltypes, ranging from printed to realia. The materials willbe contained in the instructional unit in the College ofEducation Building now under construction. Each area fa-cility will be staffed by specialists, most of whom arepresently employed by the University of Georgia.

Frequent evaluations and the resulting revisions willprovide current materials and insure that learning activi-ties are theoretically and practically feasible.

During the feasibility investigation attention was givento the preparation of criteria which would establish thefeasibility of this component. In evaluating and revisingthe activities for this element of the model in sustainedoperation special attention was given to these standards.

1. The activities and materials must be organized inaccordance with what is known regarding how thecontent is most effectively learned (rather thannecessarily in accordance with the scholarly systemof classification of subjects within separate dis-ciplines).

2. Program operation must be sustained by interdisci-plinary teams of specialists who have a soundunderstanding of the performance behaviors to beacquired, and who utilize these behaviors to pro-vide an adequately balanced system of learning ac-tivities and materials.

3. Development of learning activities and materialsmust be so structured that practical applicationsand basic theoretical concepts are introduced con-currently, with stress being given to their

70

interrelationships. (More complex theoretical con-sideration should be undertaken only after basicpractice and theory have been assimilated.)

4. Learning activities and materials must take intoaccount significant subgroups of the elementaryschool population such as the culturally disadvan-taged, the poor, and the non-English-speaking, witha view toward ultimately helping these childrenachieve a positive self-image and hig'a motivationto deal with social problems.

5. Learning activities and materials must be designedto prepare the student or trainee to teach par-ticular target age groups of elementary schoolchildren within the age range of from 3 through 15.

6. Students or trainees must be involved in the devel-opment of learning activities and the selection ofmaterials.

7. Learning activities and materials must provide forindividualized instruction.

8. The program must have as an integral element a sys-tem of continuous follow-up evaluation so as toprovide for its continuous revision.

It is the opinion of the investigators that insofar ascontinued provision is made for the above criteria duringImplementation that the feasibility of the component gillbe assured.

Instructional Procedures

The preceding section described how learning experiencesare to be organized into PMs. Instructional procedures arethe next concern. These might be referred to as the inter-actions between the student and his learning activities.The model program is both clinical and individualized.Figure 10 is a graphic representation sketching a student'smovement through any module.

71

S Satisfies

Prerequisites

to cart FM

Did S

Exhibit All

Behaviors

Required for

Mastery?

Pmra

ls

Did the

Evaluation

Reveal Other

Deficiencies

in S?

S Referred to

Remedial Clinic

yes

SStudent

PM Proficiency Nodule

S Moves on to

Seat PM in

Sequence

Is S

Roo Able to

Undertake

the

PM?

S Undertakes the

Specific Learning

Tasks Needed to

Remedy his Specific

Deficiencies in

Mastery

odIl

lmm

m

pig. 10.

Flow chart of procedures for use of a PM.

S Directed to

Another Program

Before LndertakIng a PM the student must provide hisinatructor with evidence that he has satisfactorily met thePM prerequisites. The student is then evaluated on a pre-test which consists of a sampling of the behaviors whichthe PM is designed to help him acquire. In conference withthe subject area specialist, the PM pretest is analyzed anda mutually agreed upon plan of action is prepared. It mayby decided that the student's performance on the pretestindicated that there was no need for him to undertake thelimrning tasks contained in the particular PM, or to under-take only specific parts.

Pretests will be devised for each PM. If the resultsof the test warrant exemption from the tasks of the PM, thestudent moves on to the next PM. If not, the student pro-ceeds through the PM.

PM pretests for those PMs designed to guide students inpractical laboratory experiences are administered after thastudent is judged to have had sufficient time in the labora-tory setting to exhibit those qualities reflected in thecontent of the PMs. However, were he to have suet the pre-requisites for beginning a PM in practical laboratory ex-perience, he would not receive the pretest until he had hada short period of on-the-job activities in the laboratorysetting.

It is also possible for a student to propose his ownobjectives and learning activities, if they are found to bein keeping with the goals of the program aid are approvedby his advisor.

The clinic (nee Figure 10), is a separate component ofeach instruction31 unit and has as its responsibility thedevelopment and implementation of programs to provide reme-dial and/or background experiences necessary for satisfyingthe requirements of the PMs. Clinic experiences are inde-pendent of PM requirements and are administered on an indi-vidual basis. Students referred to the clinic are assignedto professional personnel who can give the assistance theyrequire.

The final major part of instructional procedures arelaboratory facilities designed to help students through theinstructional procedures. These are:

73

General Resources Laboratories include facilities whichare used by students and staff of universities, colleges,and schools for learning activities.

Instructional Unit Central Resources Laboratories are apart of the facilities of each instructional unit in theprogram. They house and provide all learning materialsand equipment essential for the undertaking of PMs ofthat instructional unit which are not readily and con-veniently available in General Resources Laboratories.

Instructional Unit Field Laboratory Facilities are pro-vided by each Instructional Unit through the manager incharge of laboratory services who employs a coordinatorwhose primary job is to obtain the needed field facili-ties and arrange schedules as required by students en-gaging in learning tasks contained in PMs.

Each Instructional Unit provides laboratory experiencesin group interaction learning. The unit manager ofthese services sched$41es such activities as lectures,seminars, workshops, debates, recitals, art shows, andpanel discussions as they are required by the PM learn-ing tasks or especially requested by instructors orstudents.

Two practical laboratory experiences are required duringthe preprofessional program. The first focuses on para-professional classroom activities and is carried outwith children in early childhood. The second focuseson paraprofessional activities and is carried out withchildren in later childhood. The laboratory experienceswill last a minimum of 5 weeks or until the student cansuccessfully perform the behaviors listed in the PM.

Three practical laboratory experiences are requiredduring the professional program. The three practicallaboratory experiences which occur in the professionalprogram focus on professional activities and are carriedout with children within the student's target age group.children younger than those within the student's targetage group, and with children older than those within th-.student's target age group.

Placement in practical laboratory experiences is suchthat the students have the opportunity to work with

74

children of various socioeconomic and ethnic character-istics.

The preservice internship, a ten week period, is car-ried out with children within the intern's target agegroup and the intern is given the opportunity to givespecial emphasis to providing instruction in his teach-ing area of competency.

Feasibility of the Instructional Procedures

The feasibility of the instructional procedures speci-fied in the Georgia instructional model has been establishedthrough the piloting of target PMv. The results of thisactivity have been reported earlier in this chapter. Theprocedures used in this study included the following:

1. Each student was required to acquire each perfor-mance behavior specified in the module.

2. Each student selected the learning activities tohelp him acquire the specified competencies.

3. The instructor's role was one of guiding rather .,h,ntelling.

4. Each student was given a mimeographed guide in whichall procedures were outlined.

As has been indicated previously fifteen of the seventeenstudents achieved all of the desired behaviors (Ricker &Hawkins, 1969b).

Computer assisted instruction on a large scale is notfeasible at this time. The programs available are limitedin their scope and are not based on the performance speci-fications developed in the Georgia model. The developmentof specific programs for use in this model is not economi-cally feasible at this time nor is it projected to be fea-sible during the first few years of sustained operation.These conclusions were reached by the GEM Feasibility Studystaff after careful study of the existing programs and con-sultations with experts in the field (Shaw & Hawkins, 1969;Shaw, Darwin & Hawkins, 1969; Brann, 1969; and Lopez, 1969).

75

Literature reporting CAI programs and research relates.some favorable findings but also some negative comments.Equipment and program costs are but one aspect. Most seemto stress the need for refinement of the total program be-fore results can be reliably measured. It has also beenrecommended that CAI not be used when other methods areequally effective (Bitzer, 1968-69). The existing gaps inknowledge about CAI, time and skills involved in preparingthe specific programs needed to meet the unique specifica-tions, and the prohibitive costs make consideration of CAIimpractical at this time as part of the Georgia model(Charp, 1969; Goodman, 1968; and Hickey, 1968). Much hasyet to be learned; a continuing study will be made of theuse of CAI and when it is considered to be economicallyfeasible it will be incorporated as an instructional pro-cedure.

The instructional procedures provide benefits not foundin traditional programs. In addition to individualized in-struction, more laboratory experiences, and more carefullyselected materials, the procedures follow an organized andlogical pattern that allows students to participate activelyin the learning process and work in real situations. Theprocedures also include the techniques advocated for im-proved collet" teaOling and teacher training as describedby Cooper (1958) and Estrin and Goode (1964).

Since each PM has alternate paths for learning, differ-ences in sensory sensitivity as well as rate of learningand cognitive styles are provided for. Including alternatepaths recognizes that students learn differently. This hasbeen recommended in the past but traditional programs havenot put theory into practice. Having experienced the alter-nate paths themselves should sensitize the students to theneed for providing alternate learning situations when theybecome teachers (Smith, 1964).

Clinical and individualized instruction can be provided.Clinics, patterned somewhat after the already existing Uni-versity speech clinic, for each instructional unit will pro-v!.de both remedial and/or background experiences. Eachclinic will be staffed by trained personnel to insure max-imum student benefits. Laboratories will also be availablefor each instructional unit in which a student may partici-pate in various activities at a rate suited to his ability.

76

Operational activities associated with the instructionalprocedures component as they appear in sustained operationare described in detail in Volume II. All activities weredesigned to provide for the following criteria:

1. That the student's accumulation of experience andhis capabilities provide the basis for determiningthe specific behaviors which he is to acquire andthe methods, materials, and procedures by which heis to acquir.

2. That a student's performance be evaluated by com-parin_ his achievement with the behaviors he is toacquire, rather than with the achievements of others.

3. That the extensiveness of the student'squired to acquire a particular behaviormined by his performance in relation torather than by standard units of time.

time re-be deter-that behavior,

4. That students be clearly aware of their objectives,have important roles in determining them, and beinvolved in selecting the means by which they areachieved.

5. That the learning activities and materials be soarranged as to provide alternate paths designedto guide the student toward the acquisition of par-ticular behaviors and assist the student in se-lecting those most effective for him.

6. That students be encouraged to develop individualobjectives beyond those established for the edu-cational program, which are compatible with, andcomplementary to, the goals of the program.

7. That students evaluate their own progress towardthe objectives and be assisted in doing so. (Thisdoes not mean that self-evaluation is the onlyevaluative procedure to be used with students inthe program.)

8. That learning activities be designed so as toeffectively lead the student toward behaviorswhich reflect positive skills and attitudes in

77

terms of human or interpersonal relations. (Some

behaviors can only be acquired through ac.ivities

which stress human interaction.)

9. That the extent to which the student has satisfied

the prerequisistes for undertaking new learnings be

systematically determined.

The feasibility of this component is regarded as assured

by the investigators if continued provision for these cri-

teria is maintained in sustained operation.

Instructional Program Sequence

The model program provides for three levels of pro-

fessional competency. The design of the three levels pro-

vides a definite break in the student's preparation at

which time he is prepared to accept a public school position

or continue in his preparation program.

The first phase--preprofessional--is equivalent to the

first two years of the undergraduate program and upon com-

pletion provides the student with the beginnings of a lib-

eral education, preparation of paraprofessional service as

a teaching assistant and the associate In education degree.

Figure 11 is a graphic illustration of the distribution of

emphasis among subject areas for students in the prepro-

fessional program.

The student progresses through the performance behaviorsspecified in the structure of the PMs. All PMs are classi-fied into types and blocks. The term types refers to a classof PMs that group themselves around common functional re-lationships, such as basic PMs required fur all students en-rolled in the preprofessional program or PMs required of allstudents enrolled for a particular teaching area of compe-tency. The term blocks refers to clusters of PMs which aredesigned to be taken in sequence. In Figures 12 and 14 thereare six PM blocks in the preprofessional program ,Jnid ten PMblocks in the professional program. The student is normallyexpected to meet the level of proficiency required in allof the PMs of any one block before he moves on to the next.The PMs required in each general education and professionaleducation area are identified within Figure 14.

78

Language Arts

20%

10%

HealthSafety &

PhysicalEducation

Fig. 11. Preprofessional program subject area emphasis.

79

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

PMs 1-8

Language Arts

PM 1

Laboratory

Experience

Preprofessional

Approximately

5 weeks

.s _1

Language Arts

PMs 1-3

Social Science

PMs 4-6

Social Science

PMs 1-3

Natural Sciences

PMs 4-7

Natural Sciences

PMs 1-2

Music

PM

1

Art

PMs 1-2

Health Education

PM

3

Health Education

Para- and Professional Education and

Advisor-Advisee Seminars

PMs 1-14

01

23

45

67

89

Months

Block 4

Block 5

Block 6

PMs 15-20

Language Arts

PM 2

Laboratory

Experience

Preprofessional

Approximately

5 weeks

I

PMs 21-27

Language Arts

PMs 7-11

Social Science

PMs 12-15

Social Science

PMs 8-9

Natural Sciences

PMs 10-11

Natural Sc:_ences

PM

1

Mathematics

PM 2

Mathematics

PM 4

Health Education

PM 5

Health Education

Para- and Professional Education and

Advisor-Advisee Seminars

PMs 15-23

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Months

Fig. 12.

Diagram of PM requirements for study sequence for the preprofessional

program.

The second phase is the professional phase. This isequivalent to the last two years of college and preparesthe student for a professional elementary certificate, theBachelor of Science in Education degree and satisfies theprerequisites for admission to the graduate program. Figure13 is a graphic illustration of the distribution of emphasisamong subject areas for students in the professional program.

Figure 14 illustrates the proportion of work the stu-dent will complete in his third and fourth years in the pro-gram. This figure delineates the required PMs in each ofthe ten blocks.

The area of competency PMs are selected according tothe student's major interest. Here he is at liberty to pur-sue the subject area that will be comparable to a minor ora "field of concentration."

The model program provides fox considerably more lab-oratory experience than the traditional program. During thepreprofessional phase two periods of approximately 5 weekseach are set aside for laboratory (on-the-job paraprofes-sional) experiences working with children. The professionalprogram provides three laboratory (on-the-job preprofessional)experiences of approximately 5 weeks each, plus a 10 weekinternship. Specifications contained in the GEM Final Re-port (Johnson et al., 1968, pp 39-42) insure that thetraining has a variety of professional experience, i.e.,working with children of differing chronological ages, races,and cultural backgrounds.

The specialist phase is approximately equivalent totwo years of graduate study and provides the student withthe Master of Science in Education and the Fifth Year Cer-tificate at the end of the equivalent of the first year ofthe program and a Specialist in Education Diploma and theSixth Year Certificate at the end of the program. Figure15 is a graphic illustration of the distribution of emphasisamong subject areas for students in the specialist program.

82

Subject Areaof competency

Language5% Arts

Professional Education

Fig. 13. Professional program subject area emphasis.

83

Block 1

PMs 1-23

General

Education

PM 1

Laboratory

Experiences

Approximately

5 weeks

PMs 24-25

General

Education

PM 2

Laboratory

Experience

Approximately

5 weeks

u....."..A. J

PMs 46-47

General

Education

Area of

Competency

Area of

Competency

Area of

Competency

Professional Education and Advisor-Advisee Seminars

PMs 1-43

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 1

R

E

C

S

S

PMs 8 -83

General

Education

PM 3

Laboratory

Experience

Approximately

5 weeks

Area of

Competency

PM 1

Internship

Approximately

10 weeks

Area of

Competency

Area of

Competency

Professional Education and Advisor-Advisee Seminars

PMs 44-62

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

F1g. 14. Diagram of PM requirements for the professionalnumber of PMs !:1 a student's area of competencyaccording to the requirements of the particulararea chosen.

sequence. Thewill differsubject matter

Area ofSpecialization

50%(Type E)

Core of PMsRequired of All

40%

(Type D)

(Type G)

Fig. 15. The specialist program subject area emphasis.

86

Since the model program is predicated on a masteryprinciple and students are restricted by neither courseunit credits nor arbitrary time units, it must be notedthat the references to two years to complete each phaseof the program is approximate based on an estimate ofwhat the average qualified full-time student will accom-plish. A student may progress through the model programat the rate appr&priate to him. The program itself isconstructed so that the student is bound by the least num-ber of time restrictions as is possible to build into theprogram.

Figure 16 illustrates the approximate distribution ofeffort of the graduate student through his two years ofstudy and delineates the required PMs--those that form thebasic core of content.

Traditionally, the route to teaching has been directlyfrom high school to college and into teaching. This pathwill be maintained and, hopefully, improved in this model.An alternative proposal allows the student to enter teach-ing directly from high school as an aide, attend college ona part-time basis, advance to teaching assistant, become ateacher, and finally move toward becoming a specialist. Athird route allows non-education majors to enter as aides,or as teaching assistants, and complete their professionaltraining.

The program prepares students to be economically se-cure at the end of each phase of the program. Each phaseof the sequence is a building block to the specialist pro-gram. Thus, students may have a sense of security andecenl.)mic well-being throughout the sequence of the program.

87

PRESERVICE

PROGRAM

1.

Specialized Training Related

to Local Conditions

20%

20%

40%

40%

2.

Instructional Improvement and

Professional Development

60%

3.

Common Core of Basic Content

PNs 1-9 (PEs requirci in first

year of study)

PMs 10-19 (PkIs required in second

year of study)

20%

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

4D

41

42

43

44

45

46

4i

4t

Fig. 16.

Diagram of PM requirements for study

sequence for the specialist program.

HIGHSCHOOL

3RADUATION

TEACHINGAPPRENTICE

2-6 Years

TEACHERWITH AREA

OFCOMPETENCE

2-6 Years 1 3 Years ormore

A.S. in Ed.B.S. in Ed.

Georgia Educational Model ProgramContinuous progress through the phases

of the model program

Fig. 17. Paths in the teacher career field.

89

Feasibility of the Instructional Program Sequence

The feasibility of the instructional sequence had to beestablished in several ways. Again it was necessary to gainapproval of the various faculty committees. We have re-f erred to these committees earlier in this chapter. Sec-ondly it was necessary to have scholars from the variousdisciplines examine the proposed sequence. They were askedto respond to such questions as these: Does the proposedsequence follow some logical order within your discipline?If not, what sequential organization would you recommend?Learning specialists were asked to respond to questions suchas: From your point of view does the proposed sequence offerproblems? If so, what would you recommend? Comments madeby this group of specialists gave the staff information thatallowed decisions to be made concerning feasibility.

The feasibility of the laboratory experiences within thesequence was determined again by asking questions of knowl-edgeable people in the field of teacher education, publicschool personnel, and students in the current program at theUniversity of Georgia. All three of these groups recommendedearly and more frequent laboratory experiences. It was alsonecessary to establish the physical feasibility of this com-ponent. A survey reported in Chapter VI shows that there areenough public school facilities to accommodate students inthe proposed sequence (Ayers, 1969).

Criteria for insuring the feasibility of the instruc-tional sequence in sustained operation are listed below.

1. That the learning activities be arranged on a con-tinuum, extending from the student's lowest levelof familiarity with the area of learning to thehighest level of behavioral performance specified.

2. That at defined points along the continuum oflearning, provision is made for the prospectiveteacher who does not finish the entire program, tobegin his career. (Examples: teacher aide, assist-ant teacher, certified general teacher.)

3. That, insofar as the preparation of the prospectiveteacher for professional pursuits is concerned,clinical practical laboratory and on-the-job ex-periences begin with the first period of instructionand are continuous throughout the entire program.

90

The feasibility of instructional program sequence isregarded as assured by the investigators if continued pro-vision for these criteria is maintained as the component isimplemented into full-scale operation.

Student Advisement Procedures

Each student in the model program is under constantadvisement and counseling from his entrance as a beginningstudent to completion of the requirements for the specialistdiploma. The student program advisement service directs thelongitudinal sequence of advisee-advisor relations in theprogram. Within each phase of the program, this servicemaintains records necessary for student accounting, servesas a communication link with other units, and assigns ad-visees to faculty members.

Attention is drawn to the proportion of time allocatedto the Advisor-Advisee seminars in Figures 12 and 14. Theproportion of time devoted to group advising reflects theconcern of the program stesff for assuring that each stu-dent has not only a peer group with whom he can identifybut a faculty advisor that he knows well.

The seminar is a heterogeneous group of approximatelytwenty education students. Some wi:1 have been in theseminar for almost two years and are near completion oftheir paraprofessional work while others are just beginning.Before entering the seminar the student will have been pre-pared by having been introduced informally to the seminarparticipants in a social setting and by having conferredwith his seminar leader who is also his faculty advisor.During this conference the advisor explains to the studentthat initially he is not expected to participate activelyin the seminar; as time passes, he will find himself com-fortably joining in and making his contributions to the pro-ductiveness of these sessions. Thus, when he enters theseminar the student is somewhat prepared for it and beginsthe process of identifying himself with a group of indi-viduals with common concern for professional education.

The student will stay in this seminar until he ac-quires the behaviors and knowledges he must have to functionas an assistant teacher. It may take some less than a year,and others in excess of two. The content for discussion in

91

the seminar has great range. Some days are devoted to open"complaint sessions," others to special professional prob-lems which are of timely importance and not likely to becontained in the prepared learning materials. There willbe occasional field trips to places of professional interest.Whenever necessary program changes and scheduling problemswill consume a portion of the session. From time to time,as students "graduate" from this preprofessional phase ofthe program, there will be social events to celebrate theoccasion.

There will be times when the group attendance will bereduced considerably from the normal maximum of twenty.These will be times when members of the seminar are en-gaged in five week field experiences working in elementaryschool classrooms off campus. However, on returning fromtheir field experiences, these students will prepare re-ports )n what has happened, present them to the seminar,aid discuss issues nd problems which were encountered.These seminars will be managed, not lead, by the advisors.Leadership in carrying out seminar activities will mostoften be assumed by students as an interested group ofindividuals seeVilg self-improvement in their profession.Further, all advisors provide schedules of office hourswhen students may consult with them concerning matters whichare not of general concern during the regularly scheduledmeetings.

As illustrated in Figures 12 and 14, when the studententers the preprofessional program he is assigned an ad-visor who is a staff member in elementary education. Thisperson remains his advisor as long as the student remainsin the preprofessional program. When the student entersthe professional program he is advised by a professor inelementary education whose specialty is related to thestudent's selected teaching area of competency. At thespecialist level the student is assigned to an advisor whois a professor with a specialty in the area which the stu-dent has chosen for specialisation.

This advisement program is designed with a major concernfor the program's investment in the probable academic andpersonal success of each student.

In a teacher preparation program that is designed to

92

care for individual differences in students, a major con-cern of the model program staff is that the student is notworking in isolation but has many opportunities for contactwith both his peer group and the academic and professionaleducation profeL ors from whom he receives instruction. Theprogram of advisement described in the previous paragraphsprovides for each student a home base populated with peerswho have common successes and frustrations and professorswhn function as integrative elements for the dimensions ofthe students' academic and professional education prepara-tion.

Feasibility of Student Advisement Procedures

Feasibility of the student advisement component is basedon three factors: acceptance of this procedure by the vari-nus faculty committees and the administration of the Collegeof Education; the cost factor, and the development of cri-teriP that will provide a program beneficial to students.

The cost factor was examined and found to be feasible.Cost figures can be found in Volume II of this report.

The criteria which would establish invectigation iden-tified the feasibility of the student advisement componentin sustained operation. They are:

1. All advisors will have participated in the facultyorientation sessions to establish familiarity withthe philosophy of the model program, role expect-ations of the advisor, and the operations of theprogram.

2. During the student orientation phase, students willbe appraised of the advisor-advisee program and be-gin to participate in the weekly sessions.

3. Advisors will be appointed for each student in thethree levels of the model program on the basis offamiliarity with the program and specialization.The advisor's familiarity with each level will in-sure completion of all requirements and assist insolving individual student problems. Subjectmatter specialization fog the professional andspecialist levels will be of assistance in advising

93

students in selecting elective proficiency modulesin addition to the required ones.

4. Individual and group sessions will be an integralpart of the student advisement program. Regularseminars will be conducted and individual sessionsmay be scheduled as needed or desired.

5. Delegation of staff duties will include provisionfor advising. This will make it possible for staffmembers to schedule regilar hours for advising ses-sions and provide hours for individual sessions.

It is the opinion of the investigators that insofar ascontinued provision is made for the above criteria duringimplementation that the feasibility of the component willbe assured.

Evaluation of Student Achievement

In the instructional component the evaluation of stu-dent achievement is carried out with the pretests and post-tests which are integral parts of all PMs and by performanceduring field experiences. The procedures by which pre-and posttests will be constructed begin with categorizedsubsets of behaviors. The nature of the evaluation instru-ments is dependent upon the behaviors to be evaluated. Forthis reason a variety of evaluation devices are revired.Acquisition of subject matter will be evaluated with suchinstruments as objective and performance tests. Evaluationof the cognitive processes will employ means such as writ-ten essays and problem solving situations.

Skills evaluation will be accomplished through observa-tions and through appraisal of the products of effort andvalues will require self-evaluation scales and observationaltechniques. In general, wherever deemed effective, technol-ogy will be used as a tool to obtain, store, assimilate, andretrieve data related to student achievement.

While the evaluation of student achievement is an inte-gral part of the instructional process, it is of surd im-portance to the student's success that its feasibility isgiven separate attention in Chapter V of this report.

94

Faculty Orientation

Implementation of the model program involves a differentconception of the troditional faculty role. In the modelprogram faculty activities will not conform to the patternof classroom teaching of specific groups of students overa stated period of time. Rather, faculty will teach smallgroups of students and individual students, create and re-vise teaching materials and teaching procedures, and advisestudents. It should be understood that these are activi-ties which faculty have traditionally carried on; however,the manner in which they will be accomplished in the modelprogram will requite a redistribution of faculty time awayfrom the larger praportior, of time spent in teaching stu-dents in traditional patterns to the larger proportion oftime being devoted to advising students and preparingteaching-learning materials.

Enthusiastic endorsement and willingness to participatein the study of those features of the model program withwhich they may be unfamiliar is a prime requisite for fac-ulty participation and the success of the operation of themodel program. The implications under which this componentoperates are= that the operation of the GEM requires modi-fications in the professional behaviors of the faculty, andfaculty orientation is a continuing process. In order toinsure faculty endorsement and cooperation the model speci-fies a comprehensive orientation and inservice trainingprogram for all faculty selected to work in the model pro-gram.

In view of the above, faculty orientation will takeplace in three separate operations (Hawkins, 1969a). Thefirst is orientation to the model program. This phase willbe accomplished through the mechanism of a proficiency mod-ule so that the faculty will not only receive informationrelating to the substance of the model program and theirpossible functions within the program 'out will, during theprocess, become acquainted with the same mode of learningas the students in the program.

Since the model program requires distinct changes infaculty behavior before the program can enter sustained op-eration, the faculty will receive training in human re-lations skills. Each faculty and staff member who comes in

95

direct contact with or has opportunity to influence the prog-ress of the pre- and inservice teachers will have this train-ing. Part of the faculty orientation period will be devotedto facilitation skills training conducted by members of theDepartment of Counselor Education using the Gazda Model(Gazda, 1969).

Gazda has outlined a program based on a preventivephilosophy and incorporating the concepts of developmentaltasks and coping behaviors as guideposts for the teacheror group guidance leader to use for the assesshent of po-tential problem areas. His system has emphasized the appli-cation of appropriate learning principles and the coredimensions of a helping relationship to group procedures inthe elementary school. The program as outlined representsa means for assisting the prospective elementary schoolteacher to acquire and improve his human relations skills.The process proceeds through a series of mothaar exercisesin which module one consists of systematic training in hu-man relations or facilitation skills. Module two is a sys-tematic study and development of a group guidance model;and module three presents reinforcers through two series ofplanned training groups.

The third phase of faculty orientation will be inservicetraining though PMs that are designed to provide or sharpenthe teaching skills of individual professors in the method-ology particularly appropriate to operation within the con-text of the model. Further, during the time the faculty isbeing exposed to methodology, they will be exposed to themedia capabilities that can be used to scoport their teach-ing and will be, insofar as possible, immersed in the col-lections of the most current teaching-learning materialsavailable in the professor's academic area. Lastly, thisinstruction will be conducted utilizing a multimedia approachin an attempt to acquaint the professors with the most ef-fective ways of working with college-age utudents.

As new faculty is acquired each will receive orientationat such a time as enough can be gathered together to makesuch instruction feasible.

Feasibility of the Faculty Orientation

Establishing feasibility for faculty orientation beganwith a committee structure in the present College of

96

Education administrative operation. The Committee on Im-proving Instruction rea,ily endorsed the faculty orienta-tion component as did the Faculty Executive Committee.There is underway at this time a training program based onthe Gazda Model (Gazda, 1969). Thirty faculty members areinvolved in this. The available trainers for this modelare on campus at present.

Part of the overall strategy used in developing theoriginal specifications for the model and in conductingthe feasibility study has been the involvement of facultymembers. A total of approximately 40 faculty members wereinvoi7d. The development phase will provide another op-portunity for faculty orientation.

Faculty members who are to be employed to the future .

will be advised in advance of the orientation.

During the course of the feasibility study, a seriesof PMs were drawn up for cost purposes and testing. Sothat the PM developers could fit their method of operationinto the model specifications, each was given a short ori-entation to the model program prior to beginning work ontheir specific PMs. Of the ten Individuals who contractedto develop target PMs for cost estimation purposes, eightenthusiastically supported the idea of the model program,one rrjected the program out-of-hand, and one supportedthe idea in a half-hearted manner.

The feasibility of this component is assured if thefollowing criteria are applied.

1. That there be an initial intensive inservice pro-gram for the orientation of the staff to the goals,objectives, and procedures of the model program.

2. That there be a continuous inservice orientationprogram through the phases of development, imple-mentation, and on into sustained operation, forthe purpose of continuous orientation and updatingas the program matures and develops through its se-quential evolution and reworking in the light ofevaluative data.

3. That as new members of the model program staff are

97A

4

added, they are provided with special orientationsessions.

4. That only those staff members who enthusiasticallyendorse the modal program's goals and objectives beretained as core staff.

5. That the core staff which develops and implementsthe model :Irogram be retained to administer the pro-gram during sustained operation.

The investigators bk:licve that the feasibility of thiscomponent in sustained operation can be assured if provisionsare made to maintain these criteria.

Illustrative Operational Activities

The major elements of the operation phase of the modelprogram are PM operation and PM revision. In order to de-termine the cost feasibility target PMs were selected, de-veloped and tested. On the basis of their development theestimations for the revision requirements were made; on thebasis of the developed and tested PMs the estimations foroperation requirements were made. The two sections that Iol-low outline basic re.Iirements for operation and revision ofPMs; for complete details see the resource estimation sheetprintouts in Volume II of this report.

Operation of PMs. The activity numbered PO 0 18-02 istitled Operate (teach) Social Scienr.z type B and C PMs. On

the basis of the developed non-laboratory PMs requirementswere estimated for personnel, support personnel, and spaceneeded to operate type 8 and C PMs. For this specific LMgroup (forty eight social science) of the above types, itwas estimated that a student would need approximately three8 hour days to work through the PM and achieve mastery ofthe teacher performance specifications that form the coreof the PM. Twenty-five preparation and instructional hourswould be vlquired for the professor in alternate path one,26 hours in path two and 39 hours in path three. Supportpersonnel, in this instance a graduate assistant, would beneeded for 6 hours in path one, 7 hours ih path two, and 11hours in path three. Space requirements, that is, carreltime of 25 hours would be required in path one, 26 hours inpath two, and 16 hours in path three. ^lassroom-type spacefor each of the alternate paths is 9, 9, and 12 for paths

98

4

one, two and three respectively.

It should be noted that the requirements for carrelspace are related to the number of students in the PM atany one time. However, the classroom-type space, the sup-port personnel, and the basic professor could handle morethan one student per path at any one time.

Revision of PMs. The activity numbered PE 0 15-02 istitled Revise Social Science Type A PMs. On the basis ofthe time requirements for developing the target PMs, esti-nates were made for the requirements to revise the PMs aftertesting. These estimates were in terms of persomel, space,and time. For this specific PM group, seventeen socialscience of type A, it was estimated that 50 percent, 40 per-cent, and 30 percent would need to be revised in the timefrom initial testing until the PM is put into final opera-tion. Under the above activity number it was estimatedthat four PMs would need revision. Personnel requirementsfor this activity parallel the requirements for PM develop-ment, that is, a design person will be needed for one-halfday, the basic professor will be needed 3 days, the elemen-tary and media specialist w11 be needed one-half day each,the learning specialist for one-fourth day, the editor for1 day, and a secretary for 1 day. The requirements forspace include the basic professor's office and secretarialstation and a small conference room for the 1 day in whichthe basic professor and the rest of the development teamconfer.

It should be noted that complete requirements for thesetwo activities explained above are included in Volume II ofthis report.

Stratefajos_thelayllstement of theInstructional Subsystem

The preceding parts of this chapter have dealt pri-marily with validating the feasibility of the components ofthe instruction subsystem. It has been shown that insofaras the feasibility study staff making the investigation isconcerned it is feasible to maintain the model instructionalprcniran in sustained operation. The next point of concernis a plan or 'strategy that can effect the conceptual model

99

into operation. This five year strategy is presented inChapter III of this report as it pertains to all subsystems,components and activities in interaction. Volume II ofthis report presents in detail the hundreds of specificactivities required over a five year period to engineerthe instruction subsystem into full-scale operation. Speci-fications for time, personnel, facilities, materials andsequence are given for each activity. Here, special atten-tion is given to a conceptual understanding of the activi-ties as they relate to the stages of development of theinstruction subsystem.

Diagrams will assist the reader in understanding thenarrative. The relationship of the individual activity tothe whole can be seen in the diagrams preceding the de-scription. Selection of representative samples of the totalnetwork facilitates understanding of each phase since eachactivity will proceed in the same way for each level of theprogram. The reader will note that the subordinate topicsin this section do not appear in the same order as in thepreceding section. The topics are arranged in order of de-velopment in this section so that they appear from PersonnelOrientation to Materials Development through Revision ofMaterials.

Selected Elements in the Design of the Stratey.

In the following pages are narrative and figures ofselected activities showing their relationship to the totalnetwork.

Easley orientation. The ultimate purpose of facultyorientation is to provide students participating in themodel program with professors who are sensitive to the needsof the students, capable of communicating with them, com-petent in the skills needed, and knowledgeable about thephilosophy of the model program. Complete details for thefaculty orientation phase are described in Components attheltalSubsstem. (Hawkins, 1969a)

The initial orientation sessions are designed to ac-quaint the participating staff members with the philosophy,procedures, and materials of the model program. ActivityPO006-01 (see Figure 18 ) will be concerned with humanrelations training. Two types of training will be involved.

100

The Gazda model is designed to improve communication skills,and the sensitivity training follows the recommendationsof the National Training Laboratory. The professor willbe provided a choice of two types.

All faculty members assigned to the model program willparticipate in the orientation sessions. Of those approach-ed for advice or contributions during the feasibility studyapproximately 80 percent of the faculty members respondedfavorably to the program, an indication of the attitudestoward the program;. Only staff members who are interestedin the program will be selected. Orientation will includesessions for acquainting the staff with the philosophy,procedures, and materials of the model program, plus twotypes of human relations training. During activity POD06-01communications and sensitivity training will be conductedfor about 54 hours initially and an additional 50 hours insuccessive quarters.

Teacher perfornance specifications. All teacher per-formance specifications developed durino Phase I of theGeorgia Educational Models will be re-examined prior tothe development of proficiency modules. This will be accom-plished in the design activity. The procedure will followthe same pattern for each set of specifications.

One day has been designated for reviewing teacher per-formance specifications for each module group. The adequacyof this time has been proved by the preliminary grouping ofthe social science professional specifications. One dayfor two people will be spent in carefully examining eachspecification for placement in a specific module. Thesewill then be reviewed for practicality and swluence. Twopeople will be engaged in this process, involving 17 modules.During activity PSD10-02 (see Figure 19 ) the. specifica-tions for each nodule will be given to the basic professorand an elementary specialist for review during the allottedtime.

Desicningg Proficiency modules will be developedfor each area and program phase in the !;AMO way. The onlydifferences will be in the number of people involved, thecontent of the PMs, and the number of PMs produced. Teacherperformance specifications have been divided by content andcompetency levels into groups from whf.ch a PM can bedeveloped. (See Figuxe 19).

)01

"frit '11

1411A1 11)41),

)))

!ifirog!)Ipp*pi1400

i)01 t ) 4,10101

!pflai)j)))) 1)))))1

r (11*.:t

11 I

Ok

POD06-Ca

Orient PM Development Teams

Professional phase (PO)-- development and piloting (testing).

Fig.

18.

Activity POD06-01 in relation to the professional phase (PE) and

model program networks.

%it

Mod

el p

rogr

amal

l pha

ses.

PED10-02

Design PM Group 2

Social Science PMs

Preprofessional phase-7development and piloting (testing).

Fig. 19.

Activity PED10-02 in relation to the preprofessional phase (PE)

and model program PERT networks.

Complete details for the designing of proficiencymodules are contained in Hawkins (1969a). This includesall operations from the initial communication from theGEM Director through the production of the proficiencymodule.

Three and one-half days have been allocated for design-ing and developing a PM. A conference room and/or officespace will be needed. One day will be used by the basicprofessor for study, one-half day with the designer, andtwo half-days with the media, elementary, and learningspecialists. Then the rough PM goes to the editor fordrafting. Only materials for writing and typing will beneeded during the design phase.

It is assumed that seven basic professors will be neededfor the designing of the PMs in the PED10-02 phase. Thenumbers involved in the designing of other groups of PMswill vary, but the procedures followed will remain constant.

The production of target PMs has proved the feasibilityof the projected plans for PM development. One persondeveloped each PM, with the exception of social scienceeducation. An average of three days was spent on these.However, it must be considered that these were experimentalin nature. More precise instructions, plus additionalpersonnel, should result in carefully constructed materials.During the PED10-02 (See Figure 19 ) activity five or sixfaculty members will be participating in the development ofeach social science module. Modules in other areas will bedeveloped in the same way.

As noted in the preceding section, certain PMs will becontracted for with other units of the University Systemand cooperating institutions in other states.

Draftin% PMs. Drafting PMs will follow the design phase.This will be done by an editor from the rough drafts generat-ed from the design phase. Proficiency modules for each ofthe three levels of the program will proceed in the samemanner. (See Figure 20).

Rough drafts of each PM will be submitted to an editorfor drating. The editor will be allotted 2 days to draftthe PM from the material submitted by the development team.

106

A secretary will have 1 day for typing. Then the copy willbe sent to the basic professor and the Associate Directorfor Instruction and Evaluation, to whom 1 day has beenallowed for approval. After making any necessary changes,1 and one-half days will t,e needed for typing, duplicating,and collating the PM.

Five and on: -half days will be needed for drafting eachPM, with space to be provided in the following manner:editorial office, 2 days; secretarial station, 2 days;duplication and collation room, one-half day; and officespace for the basic professor and the Associate Directorfor Instruction and Evaluation, one-half day each. Onlymaterials used for writing, typing, and duplicating will beneeded during the drafting phase.

Time for the drafting of each PM has been estimated onthe basis of experience with the target PMs. Once theeditor has the plans from the development teams no morethan 2 days should be required for the editor and one dayfor a secretary to have copies ready for approval by thebasic professor and the Associate Director for Instructionand Evaluation. Another aspect of the feasibility is thatparts of each PM, the general instructions and transitioliparagraphs, have already been completed and will only needto be inserted in each new PM. Activity POD11-02 (seeFigure 20 ), for example, will include the drafting of45 social science PMs and each drafting phase will proceedin like manner with the exception of the number of PMs tobe drafted.

A total of 9 working days will be needed for the twooperations of designing and drafting each PM, regardlessof the level on which it will be used.

Testing PMs. Testing for each PM will be done withgroups of students with the number of PMs tested at any onetime being determined by available space, materials andfacilities (see Figure 21).

Type A PMs will use 15 students per section with fivestudents per track. It is assur-.ed that a decreasing numberof students will be participating in the professional andspecialist levels, thus limiting the number of experimentalsections and the number of students per path. Each PM will

107

Mod

el p

rogr

am--

all p

hase

s.

POD11-02

Draft PM Group 2

Social Science PMs

Professional phase--development and piloting (testing).

Fig. 20.

Activity P0011-02 in re]ation to the professional phase (PO)


I

Model program--all phases.

PET13-02

Test PMs in Group 2

Social Science PMs

Preprofessional phase--development and piloting (testing).

Fig. 21.

Activity PET13-02 in relation to the preprofessional phase (PE)

and model program networks.

be tested before it is put into operation to assure that itis functioning properly.

Pretest and posttest results, student and staff reactions,and recommendations will be compi!.ed by each experimenter,as well as information about time involved for completion.If two or more experimenters are testing the same PM, re-sults will be compared and evaluated. If the PMs requireno revisions, they will be put into operation as they are.If revision is necessary this process will proceed as de-scribed in the following section.

PM revision. The data collected during the testingphase will be used by the PM development teaws for makingany necessary revisions. It is assumed that about 50 percentof the modules will require some revision after the initialoperation. Provisions have been made for the developmentteams to use the data for revising the modules. This isprovided for in activity P0015-02 (see Figure 22 ) of theoperation. All data collected during the testing phasewill be made available to the PM development teams, includ-ing test results and recommendations. Three days have beenincluded for the revisions, of which one-half day will bedevoted to a combined meeting of the development team toevaluate the data and revise the PMr. Proficiency modulesrequiring no revision will be made available for use asthey are, with test results available for review by thefaculty if desired.

The revision phase will require conference rooms forthe teams. A secretary will be required for producingthe revised modules but no other special materials or spacewill be needed.

Revision for modules in each area and at each level willbe conducted in the same way. The only differences will bein the number of PMs being revised and the personnel. Per-centages are expected to remain constant. Later revisionphases are expected to be required on the basis of 40 per-cent and 20 percent.

Revision time has also been estimated on the basis ofthe target PM testing. Only slight modifications have beenneeded in the tested PMs. It is estimated that during thePEO15 -02 activity approximately 50 percent of the moduleswill need revision. Other revision phases at later periods

112

have been estimated in decreasing proportions of 40 percentand 20 percent in each area. Three days, of which one-halfday will be spent in a joint conference, should be adequatefor the development teams to incorporate any needed revi-sions into the PM.

In summary the above diagrams and descriptions have in-cluded details about selected activities in the orientation,development, drafting, testing, and revision phases of opera-tions of the model programs. The complete network ofdevelopment is included in Volume II of this report. Select-ed operations have been extracted and enlarged from the totalnetwork to provide a more meaningful understanding of theactivity and its relation to the whole program. Thesediagrams, in conjunction with the narrative descriptions,provide an explanation of each phase. When the total opera-tions are reviewed in sequence, the results are a programthat is feasible in that it can be attained within thespecified time and is theoretically sound.

Illustrative Developmental Activities

Faculty orientation. For illustrative purposes socialscience staff members will be used. They will be groupedinto units of ten people each and proceed through theorientation sessions. The Gazda model requires 30 hours ofinitial training during two quarters, and two hours eachsuccessive quarter for reinforcement. Each session willrequire a professor (the trainee) and a graduate assistant.Sessions will be conducted in conference rooms accommodatingabout 15 people. The sensitivity training will require thesame personnel and space, but the sessions will vary in timerequirements. Twenty-four hours of training will be con-ducted during the first quarter, and three hours of rein-forcements during each successive quarter.

Professors in each area will be oriented the same associal science staff members. The last phase of the orien-tation will occur during the development phase just prior toPM design and development and will be concerned primarilywith materials and learning theory.

Teishel_performaliselpecifications. The PED10-02 acti-vity encompasses the re-examination of the social sciencespecifications at the professional level. At this time the

113

-4/11\'N".

two Npli 01011'fikt000lli

refitm"

4 r.40.:t

'I

P0015-C2

Revise PM Group 2

Social Science PMs

tr9- W

- O

W

tin -

00

110

$0

110-

1:F

M-

13!fi

t- If

r10

6- 6

3

It- 1

0

010

-01

---0

16.4

7201

0'05

0- 0

401

0-05 -06

010

-C:

0,0

-06

010-

0900

0-10

000-

1/01

0 -

000-

14

010-

15

010-

16

014-

0104

.02

p$W

1W00

005,

0r03

- 02

5.03 04

1

\so

:15-

05

\1\,

115-

07

115-

on1H

-09

NS

-10

RO

O74

-01

tt-02

015-

0001

5. 0

501

5 -O

s01

5 -0

7

015-

0901

3-09

0/9-

:01

II01

9- IS

C15

- 04

003'

1501

5- 0

601

5 -1

7

Professional phase -- initial and sustained operation.

Fig. 22.

Activity P0015-02 in relation to the professional phase (PO)


basic professor for each of the 17 modules and one elemen-tary specialist will reviem the ;pecifications carefully.Any changes deemed necessary will be made. For example,specifications for a history PM wi21 be reviewed by thebasic professor assigned to the PM development team and theelementary specialist. One day has been allotted for thisreview, and it can be done in an office and requires nospecial equipment or supplies. The approved specificationswill then be distributed to the development teams for thenext activity. The same procedure will be followed foreach PM in this group, including all the social sciencedisciplines and social science education.

Specifications at each level in all 16 areas will be'reviewed in the manner described above for social science.This review will make it possible to assure the incorpora-tion of the most recent knowledge about the discipline andthe deletion of outdated or less important content.

Design and development of PMs. An example of the waymodules will be developed can be seen by using social scienceas an example in the preprofessional phase, activity numberPED10-02.

The time and personnel required to design and developthe social studies PMs are shown in Table 3.

Teacher performance specifications have been grouped(Hawkins, 1969b) for designing with two PMs in socialscience education, three in history, four in geography,two in political science, four in sociology, one in anthro-pology, and one in economics in the preprofessional phase.Each group of specifications will be given to a developmentteam consisting of the designer, basic professor in thediscipline, an elementary social science education specialist,media specialist, and learning specialist. These specifi-cations will have been sent to the participants for studyprior to a combined meeting in which plans are presented forthe PM.

Drafting_PMs. The social science Pms in the professionalphase have been selected to illustrate the drafting opera-tion, POD11-02. Designing will have been accomplished inthe same manner as described for PEF10-02.

The PMs needed in this phase include eight in social

116

Table 3.

Pre-Professional Phase PM Development Teams by Time (days) Allocated Per PM

Kumoer

of Pms

Asasic

Professor

Designer

Uemezzary

Specialist

Media

Specialist

Learning

Specialist

Total Days

for Task

teiCUCe

Lauc,ztion

2b

1a

11

7b

niutocy

39

11

10

GeoixaeOy

412

22

22

14

Political

bciduce

2a

1M

11

7

:jpociolouy

412

22

22

14

Anti ropoloo

13

3

economics

13

3

aThe basic professoz is a specialist in elementary school social science education.

bThe days are not additive; the specialists' one-half days are part of the basis pro-

fessor's three days.

science education, six in history, two in geography, threein sociology, two in anthropology, two in political science,one in economics, one in philosophy, and one in religion.From the basic information furnished by the PM developmentteam the editor will write the PMs in the form most appro-priate for use.

Testing PMs. Activity number PET13-02 has been selectedto illustrate the testing phase; each testing phase will pro-ceed in the same manner as the social science testing.There are 17 type A social science modules and each will betested in the same way. Copies of the PM drafts will bedistributed to instructors with whom arrangements have beenmade. The content will be part of the conterf- usuallystudied in the course taught by the instructor. Materialsrequired for the PM will have been collected and madeready for use in one area.

A pretest will be administered to each student partici-pating in the experimental situation. Test results willbe analyzed for each student and recommendations will bemade for individualized progression through the paths. Fivestudents in each section will proceed through each path.After completing the module, each student will be given aposttest.

The student posttests for each of the three alternatepaths will be compared with the mastery standard appropriatefor that PM. This comparison will determine whether theprocedures and materials used in that path accomplish whatthey are designed to accomplish and will indicate whererevisions are necessary.

Revising PMs. After initial testing PMs will be re-vised if necessary. Activity number P8115-02 revision ofPM group two, social science, has been chosen to illustratethe revision phase; each PM needing revision after initialtesting will be revised in the same manner as the socialscience PMs. The posttest data with their analyses ofalternate paths will be returned to the PM development teamsconsisting of the basic professor, the media, elementary,and learning specialists. Using the test data this teamwill select alternate procedures and materials to includein the paths where revision is considered necessary. Thisprocess should take one to three days depending upon the

118

number of paths to be revised. When the revision is com-pleted by the development-revision team, the rough draftwill go to the editor for final drafting.

119

Summary

This chapter is a report of an investigation into thefeasibility of the instructional subsystem of the model pro-gram during both development and operation. Different pro-cedures were used in investigating and the six major com-ponents of the subsystem of the program (learning activitiesand materials, instructional procedures, sequence, studentadvisement, evaluation of student achievement, and facultyorientation). Feasibility of learning activities andmaterials and instructional procedures has been establishedthrough the development and testing of target PMs withcollege students during the period of the feasibility studyand through the advice of UNIVAC educational consultants.The feasibility of the sequence of student activities throughthe model has been established through consultation withexperts in the area of elementary teacher education. Thefeasibility of student evaluation has been establishedthrough the testing of the target PMs and through consulta-tions with experts in measurement. The student advisementand faculty orientation components' feasibility has beenestablished through a series of discussions with expertsin the field of human relations training in the departmentsof counselor education and educational psychology, and arepresentative of the National Training Laboratory.

The staff conducting the investigation has concludedthat as far as the University of Georgia and the State ofGeorgia is concerned the feasibility of the developmentand implementation of the model program instruction sub-system may be regarded as validated. It is assumed thatsimilar validation can be obtained by most universitiesif procedures such as those reported herein are applied.

120

References

Akenson, J. B. and Hawkins, M. L. Reactions of collegestudents to a social science education pro. icier ymodule. GEM Bulletin 69-10, Athens, Ga.: College ofEducation, University of Ga., Nov., 1969.

Ayers, J.B. Feasibility of practical laboratory experiences:Report I, GEM Bulletin 69-4, Athens, Ga.: ,College ofEducation, University of Ga., 3ept., 1969.

Bitzer, D. L. Some aspects of design and economics for acomputer-based educational system. Journal of Educa-tione. Data Processing, 1968-69, 6 (1), 9-27.

Brarr, M. D. Vocational computer systems education: alessiner-centered curriculum. Journal of EducationalData Processing, 1969, 6 (2), 75-89.

Charp, S. A computer-assisted instruction system. Audio-visual Zostruction Mar., 1969, 61-62.

Copper, R. M. (Ed.) ,____roer___IIsoftl____IThetvielo: learnincLandteaching in today's college,. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press, 1958.

Estrin, H. A. and Goode, D. M. 92114....aecI universityteams . Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1964.

Gazda, G. Group guidance for prospective elementary schoolteachers: outline of a training program. Paperpresented to the Committee on Human Relations. Aug.,1969.

Goodman, H. J. B. The effects of team learning and of thecounteracting of misinformation upon attitudes towardscomputer instructed learningo, Unpublished doctoraldissertation. University of fc,,,i'fIrnia at Los Angeles,1968.

Hawkins, M. L. zeompts of the instructional subs stem.GEM Bulletin 69-9, Athens, Ga.: College of Education,University of Ga., Oct., 1969. (a)

121

Hawkins, M. L. Social science teacher performance speci-fications and career sequence. GEM Bulletin 69-11,Athens, Ga.: College of Education, University of Ga.,Nov., 1969. (b)

Hawkins, M. L. Target proficiency modules in the instruc-tional program. GEM Bulletin U9 -26, Athens, Ga.:College of Education, University of Ga., Nov., 1969. (c)

Hickey, A. E. (Ed.) Computer-assisted instruction: asurvey of the literature. (3rd e0.! Newburyport,Mass.: ENTELEK Inc., 1968.

Johnson, C. E., Shearron, G. F., and Stauffer, A. J. Finalreport: Georgia educational model s ecifications forthe preparation of eismaLta12bshsri, Washington,D.C.: Btll. Res., OE, U.S. Dept. HEW, Project No.8-9024, Contract No OEC-0-089024-3311 (0)0), Oct., 1968.

Lopez, G. CAI: A new dimension to the teaching-learningact. Journal of Educational Data Processing, 1968-69,6 (1), 40-52.

Ricker, K. S. and Hawkins, M. L. Reactions of coalusstudents to a science education Eroficitasymele,90.GEM Bulletin 69-8, Athens, Ga.: College of it .1.0n,

University of Ga., Oct., 1969. (a)

Ricker, K. S. and Hawkins, M. L. Toting a 5ciPnce educa-tional roficience module with college students. GEMBulletin 69-12, Athens, Ga.: College of Education,University of Ga., Nov., 1969. (b)

Shaw, D., Darwin, W. and Hawkins, M. L. Communicationduring conference on feasibili',1 of developing computer-assisted instruction for GEM. A lAnta, July 10, 1969.

Shaw, D., and Hawkins, M. L., ...oraw,,4eation durin -on-ference on feasibility of developit,j 1-omputer-assistedinstruction for GEM. Athens, Oct. 21, 1969.

Smith. G. K. (Ed.) Underground educations the proceedingsof the nineteenth annual national conference on hi herpducationl April, 19-22, 1964. Washington, D.C.:Association for Higher Education, 1964.

122

Chapter V

Feasibility of the Evaluation Subsystem

J. P. Bauch and G. F. Shearron

The evaluation subsystem of the instructional programmodel has two major interrelated parts. One is studentevaluation which includes all evaluative procedures fojudging the initial characteristics, performance and teach-ing competency of students as they progress through theinstructional program. The other is program evaluationwhich includes all evaluative procedures for judging theeffectiveness of all modules, components, subsystems andphase; of the instructional model.

A key factor considered throughout the designing cZthe evaluation subsystem is the cost effectiveness andoverall efficiency of all aspects of the operation. Thebasic premise which guides all evaluation operations isthe constamt and systematic revision of all model activi-ties in the light of collected and analyzed data. It isupon this premise of systematic renewal that the entiremodel is based.

Assessment data from both areas (student evaluationand program evaluation) are entered and stored throughefficient data processing procedures. The central storageof these data facilitates easy management and s- maticretrieval. Remote terminals are used in both ent.ii andretrieval.

The evaluation subsystem serves to inform thosepersons in administrative and other leadership positicioof the operation of the procedures within their sphereof responsibility. It also informs staff members acrosslines of responsibility and produces reports for use bymajor advisory and controlling groups and individuals.Students and their advisers are served by the evaluationsubsystem through periodic individual progress reports

4

and reviews on which they may base instructional andcareer decisions.

The relationship of the evaluation subsystem withother subsystems and phases of the overall program is bothintimate and aloof. Evaluation is an essential functionand consideration to all PM development or revision groups.The evaluation of all personnel in terms of performanceand effectiveness necessitates direct contact of the eval-uation subsystem with the administrative, instructional,and supportive staffs. At the same time, the evaluationsubsystem analyzes and reports evaluation data in a disin-terested and objective manner on all model subsystems andprocedures. It is an implicit process through the modelprogram as well as the means by which the model revises andrenews itself toward systematic improvement of internal pro-cedures and the quality of the teachers produced.

Evaluation SubsystemSustained Operation

The first part of the chapter describes and establishesthe feasibility of the components of the evalaation sub-system of the model instructional program in sustainedoperation. The seccnd part describes how these componentsthrough the processes of planning, designing, developing,and piloting will first reach initial operation and laterthe dynamic condition of sustained operation.

Candidate cti on and AdmislionThe candidate selection component is concerned with

the recruitment, assessment, selection, admission, orienta-tion and induction of candidates for the instructional pro-gram. it protides the source of students at a determinedlevel of quality and proficiency to supply the entireoperational phase of the elementary teacher training program.Candidates selected for admission to the program will havepersonal, physical, and mental characteristics which areconsidered minimal for satisfying the requirements for theinstructional program. The long-range goals of a qualitycandidate selection procedures component are parallel

124

with the overall goals of the project which provide a posi-tive and growth-producing effect upon the elementary schoolpopulation which it serves. These long-range goals are para-mount to its operation.

As required in the original specifications, instrumentsselected or devised must be valid and reliable, provisionfor continuous revision must be evident, students must beselected on a non-discriminatory basis and the proceduresmust provide adequately for the progression of students inand out of the program.

The career field called for in the original specifi-cations provides for a flexibility not previously enjoyedin elementary education programs. Entry will be accomplishedat many levels: aide, teaching assistant, certified teacher,and specialist. Individuals wishing to enter the teachingprofession will be able to initiate matriculation proceduresbased upon acquired levels of performance. The bulk of can-didates are expected to enter the instructional program atthe presently defined freshman year; however, transfer stu-dents and other individuals who may have temporarily termi-nated their education at some point will bo able to be assessedfor readiness to enter professional training at their levelsof proficiency.

These provisions for entry into the education profession,wh:l.ch rely on the acquired levels of educational background,are equally valid for "regular" college students and forspecial groups entering the field. Multi-level entry pro-visions assure proper beginning points for Teacher Corpspersonnel, Head Start teachers and aides, former teacherswithout recent teaching and college work, and entrants fromother professions.

Recruitment. The two major populations from which can-didates win be drawn are recent high school graduates andrecent graduates from junior college liberal arts programs.The recruitment procedures are not dissimilar for these twopopulations, and the section which follows describes therecruitment plans as applied to recent high school graduates.

Intensive recruitment throughout the State of Georgiawill be accomplished under the following guidelines:

125

1. All secondary high schools are qualified to receiverecruitment materials.

2. Participating colleges, both junior and four year,will participate in the recruitment of candidates.

3. Program presentation materials will be availableincluding items concerned with the nature of theparticipating institutions, the special featuresof the model program and its goals for ultimateimprovement of elementary school education, candi-date choice of entry and latitude of career de-velopment, and cost and time effectiveness forthe candidate.

4. Resource materials for the visitations to secondaryschools and four year colleges will include: com-prehensive applications for admission, printed bro-chures describing the program, slides of variousactivities involving elementary teachers and pupils,and a color/sound film designed to illustrateclearly the elementary teacher education program.

5. Scheduled periodic site visits to Georgia highschools and colleges for caldidate recruitment.

6. Heaviest recruitment will occur in March and Apriland again in November. Periodic procedures willbe followed to coordinate site visits with theCollege Day programs of the participating institu-tions. Major Georgia cities will be sites selectedaccording to types of local institution as well asregional importance of the city as a site. Primeconsideration during initial site visits will begiven to informing school officials and studentsabout the unique qualities of the model programand its differences from the currently operatingprogram. The importance of complete understandingis crucial to .;he operation of staggered registra-tion and multi-level entry.

7. Every effort will be made to recruit students ofdemonstrated superior intellectual abilities asmeasured by high school records, principal and deanrecommendations, and other referrals. The inclusion

126

of honors program students, National Merit Scholars,Governor's Honors Program students, and other recog-nized superior students will add to the strength ofthe program.

Application. Prospective candidates requesting admissionwill receive a packet of information accompanied by applica-tion forms and a medical examination form.

Packet information prepared for this purpose will con-tain instructions regarding application procedures and de-scriptive information in brochure form describing the modelprogram.

Packets will be available directly from the admissionsoffices of various Georgia secondary and higher educationinstitutions.

An application may be submitted at any time during thetwelve month year, and consideration within a month of itsreceipt will be guaranteed. Accompanying the applicationform will be the physical examination report, official tran-scripts from all previous colleges attended or from whichthe prospective candidate was graduated, and letters ofrecommendation from the high school principal and two teach -eLs. In the case of college students, three letters ofrecommendation from faculty members who are familiar withthe student's work will be required.

Physical examination. The comprehensive physical exami-nation must be administered by the student's personal physi-cian or a university physician. It is designed to revealany abnormalities which might preclude a candidate's success-ful performance in teaching. Chronic illnesses which mightinvolve low stamina on the job, obvious gross physical ab-normality or disfigurement, and other predisposing factorsrevealed through examination are cause for the candidateselection committee to consider carefully before admittinga student.

Another purpose of the physical examination is to insurethe student that he meets minimum standards for admissionto a university program, and that he is in good general healthto pursue his education in an uninterrupted fashion, as well

127

as to insure absence of illness or disease which mightthreaten other members of the university community or thecommunity at large.

In view of the fact that many currently availablephysical examinations are inadequate from the standpointof thoroughness as well as from the standpoint of the ac-tual physical examina..ion of the candidate for admission,the examination used with this program will be designedto be as thorough as is economically possible. Medicalconsultants will have designed the exlination from thestandpoints of comprehensiveness and cost effectiveness.Initial emphasis on the medical aspects of admissionavoids unnecessary later attrition due to predisposingdebilitative factors.

Tests and personal interviews. Additional informationconcerning the candidate is obtained through testing andpersonal interviews. Provided the candidate meets theminimum standards for general admissions, a letter confirm-ing this decision is forwarded to him along with a requestfor him to visit the campus of one of the participatinginstitutions to obtain an interview with the CandidateReview Committee and take a series of four tests: TheMinnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, Edwards Personal Pre-ference Schedule, Strong Vocational Interest Inventory(Teaching area) and the School and College Ability Test(SCAT) if the candidate has not previously been administeredthis test.

Minimum acceptable scores for the above instrumentswill be arrived at through consultation with representativesof all participating institutions as will as by inspectionof the normative data included in each of the test manuals.Current empirical use of such instruments at the Universityof Georgia will be an additional index in determining thestandards for review and admission. Special attention willbe given to the reduction of cultural bias in all assess-ment procedures and instruments through simulated and em-pirical research.

The candidate review committee. The functional unit ofpersonnel to make decisions regarding the entrance of pot-ential candidates is the Candidate Review Committee. ThisCommittee consists of the Assistant Director for Student

128

Selections, 1 representative of the Director of TeacherEducation - Elementary, and a career development specialistaffiliated with the university or college administration.Rationale for the composition of this Committee is essentiallyconstructive. In the event that the prospective candidateultimely decides not to enter teacher education, or failsto meet specifications of the model program, this Committeewill be instrumental in assisting the student to redirecthis abilities aid interests to another academic or voca-tional pursuit. Fconomy of time is crucial to the studentat all phases of university work, and it is felt that theconstructive aspects of the Candidate Review Committeefacilitate change for the student moving along in his careerdevelopment. Activities of this Committee complement theentire student personnel orieutation of the universitysystem at large.

The prime function of the Committee is to examine care-fully each of the prospective candidates for such personalcharacteristics which the program feels will (a) assist inpositive pupil gain in elementary schools, (b) facilitateinnovative techniques in teaching while continuing assess-ment of current traditional pedagogical models, (c) predictsuccessful candidate performance in the model program, and(d) predict stable emotional-social health of the candidatewhile he is a student. Such a configuration of goals willallow the Committee to examine each of the candidates fora great deal of nonacademic information, such as affectivequalities of adjustment, and such qualities as openness,flexibility, friendliness, communicative (verbal and non-verbal) skills, and general perceived impression. Alongwith the written test scores, the interview serves to ac-quaint the prospective candidate with the program, to allcwhim to direct questions to the Committee and to receiveanswers directly from them. The interview also allows theCommittee to ask the candidate to expand his autobiographi-cal written statements for the benefit of 4uxther generalinformation.

Evaluation and decision. Following the scoring and---scaling of the test data and after the candidate's personalinterview the Committee will meet and each member will rateeach candidate independently on the checklist of qualitieson instruments such as the Likert scale. The Likert scale

129

is shown in Figure 23. (Scores from written test instru-ments will not have been exanined by the judges until afterthe personal interview has been accomplished to avoid bias.)After the personal interview and after inlependent ratings,profile sheets on the judges' rating will be generated.Discussion of int.0 item point spreads is warranted wherewide differences -xist among judges on ratings of interviewcriteria. Consonance of judges' opinions of each prospec-tive candidate will be one of the substantive features ofcandidate selection. Success on test instruments with con-comitant success in the personal interview will be one ofthe chief predictors of ultimate final selection and appro-val for admission to the mode] program. Caution is insertedhere, however with reference to the prospective candidatewith minor deficiencies. When remediation of deficienciesis viewed as possible and worthwhile, written statementsof conditional admission will be made on the permanentrecord, and the candidate will be made aware of such de-ficiencies for future constructive change. Periodic re-evaluation of candidates on test instruments will be longi-tudinal measure of the success of the program and the effecton the candidates.

Early decision and notification. In the case of posi-tive unanimous or near-unanimous decision in favor of accept-ing a prospective candidate, notification of the decision ofthe Candidate Review Committee will be issued immediatelyafter the psychometric tests have been scored and evaluatedand the personal interview completed. This feature of theprogram will serve to eliminate unnecessary correspondencebetween applicants and the Committee, as well as serve as astronger recruitment tool in cases where the prospectivecandidate has applied to several institutions. Highlyqualified students, actively recruited and positively noti-fied will likely select the model program in which to studyif immediate signs of approval of their qualifications aredemonstrated by the Committee.

130

Candidate Personal Interview Criteria

Low1- - 2-

High4- - 5

Verbal Communication

Sociability

Warmth

Physical Appearance

Grooming

Friendliness

Expression of motivation forentering Teacher Education

Poise

Confidence in self

Dominance-Submissiveness

Fig. 23. Likert scale.

131

Early establishment of rapport, warmth, and positiveregard between candidates and their instructors and super-visors in the model program is a desired high priority goal,whose long-range effects hopefully will carry into enthus-iasm for personal and curricular development. Early de-cision is one aspect of candidate selection which serves toset it apart from traditional models of application. Addi-tionally, the orientation and induction program designedwith the student as the central focus lends a feeling ofself-conficence to the candidate and is a helpful tool inbuilding a healthy self perception for candidates enteringthe teaching profession. Positive feedback is then essen-tial in all aspects of recruitment.

Applicants thought to be particularly unsuited to themodel program are additionally assisted by the CandidateReview Committee when this body assists these individualsin exploring other career development possibilities.

Orientation and induction. Beginning post-high schoolcandidates entering the preprofessional phase of the modelprogram will enjoy the opportunity to participate in orien-tation which includes aspects reflective of new-studentactivities in a small college.

When the candidate receives his notice of acceptanceit will tell him the campus on which he is to begin work,the month in which he will be admitted, and detailed arrange-ments for his housing, registration and enrollment. (Oneach application the students are required to list theirfirst, second and third choices for campus, month in whichto begin work, and housing facilities desired.)

When the student arrives on campus he will have alreadymade arrangements for housing and have been informed withregard to the first orientation meeting. It is likely thathe will arrive on a weekend and be ready to attend his firstorientation session on the Monday following his arrival.However, before he enters the orientation session he willmeet with his "student host" or "big brother," who is anupper-class student assigned to making certain that the en-tering freshman becomes readily acclimated to his new socialenvironment. The student host will also answer immediatequestions and familiarize the neophyte with features of thecampus and its traditions.

132

The student host will guide the entering student tothe first orientation meeting and introduce him to thedirector of orientation. There will be about twenty stu-dents and three or four staff members at the first orienta-tion session. In addition to the director of orientationwill he staff advisors to whom the entering students willbe assigned for severa: months to come.

The orientation program continues as long as is nec-essary to provide the entering student with the essentialdetails of the important venture which he has begun. In-cluded in this program are such concerns as the overallnature of the program; the specific nature of the learningguides called proficiency modules or PMs; the effort unitsystem of grading and scholarships; and developing skillsin the use of computers, teaching machines, projectors, andtape recorders which the student will be required to use inpursuing his studies. Informal spontaneous events such asmorning and afternoon coffee or coke breaks, as well asplanned picnics and evening meetings attended by professorsand sometimes their wives, will provide the social settingfor the new students.

Through the orientation program the students will havelearned many facts and traditions of the campus which theyare attending, they will understand the program in its totalsix year sequence, they will have become familiar withlearning procedures and study routines and will have metthe professors and their assistants who are charged withthe responsibility of guiding them through the learning ac-tivities in which they are to participate. Also, they willhave visited each of the learning centers and referencelaboratories which they will be using during the period inwhich they pursue their studies. As the director of orien-tation becomes satisfied that particular students are readyto move from orientation to seminar assignments, these stu-dents are transferred to the program seminar units.

The seminar is a heterogeneous group of approximatelytwenty education students. Some have been in the seminarfor almost two years and are near completion of their para-professional work while others are just beginning. Beforeentering the seminar the student will have been prepared byhaving been introduced informally to the seminar partici-pants in a social setting and by having conferred with his

133

seminar leader who is also his faculty advisor. During thisconference the advisor explains to the student that initiallyhe is not expected to participate actively in the seminar andthat, as time passes, he will find himself comfortably join-ing in and making his contributions to the productivenessof these sessions. Thus, when he enters the seminar the stu-dent is somewhat prepared for it and begins the process ofidentifying himself with a group of individuals with commonconcern for professional education.

The student will stay in this seminar until he acquiresthe behaviors and knOwledges he must have to be declared anassistant teacher. It may take some less than a year, andothers in excess of two. The content for discussion in theseminar has great range. Some days are devoted to open"complaint sessions," others to special professional problemswhich are of timely importance and not likely to be containedin the prepared learning materials. There will be occasionalfield trips to places of professional interest. Whenevernecessary program changes and scheduling problems will con-sume a portion of the session. From time to time, as stu-dents "graduate" from this preprofessional phase of the pro-gram, there will be social events to celebrate the occasion.

There will be times when the group attendance will bereduced considerably from the normal maximum of twenty.These will be times when members of the seminar are engagedin five week field experiences working in elementary schoolclassrooms off campus. Hcwever, on returning from theirfield experiences, these students will prepare multi-mediareports on what has happened, present them to the seminar,and discuss issues and problems which were encountered.These seminars will be managed, not led, by the advisors.Leadership in carrying out seminar activities will most of-ten be assumed by students as an interested group of in-dividuals seeking self-improvement in their profession.

Feasibility of Candidate Selection Component

Through the use of the described system of candidateselection, the immediate observation from the studentstandpoint is one of clearly regulated procedures. Ambi-guities of the more traditional admissions policies havelargely been eliminated.

134

Support for feasibility of candidate selection emergesfrom the staggered matriculation process throughout the year.This process is technically desirable to keep a constant flowof students in all phases of the model program. A distributedbalance of students within PMs, for example, is noteworthy,allowing for accelerated rates of student progress and evendistribution of resources.

As required in the original specifications it will benecessary to: (a) increase the pool of teacher candidates,(b) increase the input of qualified teachers, and (c) developa teacher career field. An investigation of the feasibilityof staggered admission indicates that continuous operationof the admission process directly assists the implementationof these features. These staggered entrance plans are feasi-ble because they coincide both with the traditional collegeentrance periods (June, September, and October) and also withthe new planned entrance-date periods. Discussions withuniversity admissions officials revealed that a sufficientnumber of students now applies for admission throughout theyear to assure the feasibility of this staggered plan. Dis-cussions with selected groups of students currently enrolledat the University of Georgia, and with certain student lead-ers, revealed an interest in entrance to such a model pro-gram at the convenience of the student rather than only atthe prescribed dates.

The schedule for admissions may be seen in Figure 24which shows the previously mentioned staggered admissionpolicy. Based on current enrollment figures and estimatesof future enrollment, this number was broken down into fourmonths of somewhat heavier enrollment (June through September)and five months of smaller enrollment of twenty students permonth. This added flexibility of staggered admissions allowsfor the smooth entrance of 240 students over a twelve-monthperiod.

An innovative feature of the admissions program allowsthe prospective candidate entrance who has interrupted hiseducation earlier and found it previously impossible to re-turn to college at traditional periods. Exemplary indivi-duals might include qualified momen whose educations wereterminated due to maternity, male service veterans returnedto civilian life, and transfers from other geographical lo-cations who would otherwise be denied admission to college

135

were it not for the flexibility of the present admissionsmodel. Accessibility to education for these qualified in-dividuals is an asset to the student and to the model pro-gram. The entry of persons in these categories is feasi-ble because their competency levels will be assessed priorto entrance, and admission will not necessarily be basedon numbers of courses, credits, or recency of college train-ing.

Month

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

. April

Estimated Number of BeginningStudents to be Enrolled

40

20

20

40

40

0

0

20

20

20

0

May 20

TOTAL 240

Fig. 24. Staggered admission of students by month.

136

The feasibility for implementing the candidate selectioncomponent is also strengthened through the cooperative effortsof all involved pasties. Examination of authoritative struc-tures at the University of Georgia reveals the followingagencies are directly involved: (a) registrar and directorof student affairs, (b) Candidate Review Committee of Ele-mentary Education, (c) university health services, and (d)additional faculty and staff from the Division of ElementaryEducation. Preparatory steps for the transition from con-ventional models to the model program have necessitated ahigh degree of interdependency among the agencies. Elimi-nation of duplication of candidate personal data on appli-cations, pooling of campus divisional resources, and in-creased clarity of procedural steps for application haveassisted in simplifying the application and admissions pro-cedure. These agencies and offices have pledged coopera-tion to the model program for development and implementa-tion of these procedures. Especially noteworthy is the in-creased economy of time involved from the point of prospec-tive candidate application to the decision to accept orredirect the prospective candidate. Early decision is achief feature in insuring the feasibility of this plan.

Additional technical feasibility is supported by theuniform features of participating Georgia institutions whichallow for feeding potential candidates into the program fromthroughout the state. The technical requirements for stor-age, analysis, and retrieval of data for selection are with-in feasible limits using currently existing computers andterminals. The programming and updating the procedures fur-ther contributes to the feasibility of the technical aspectsof candidate selection. The central storage of such datahas been judged a considerable improvement over the repeti-tive questionnaires and other forms currently in use by stu-dents as well as by admissions officials at the Universityof Leorgia.

There is no potential conflict between regular ad-mission standards at the participating institutions sincethe minimum acceptable standards for the institution arealso the minimum standards for entrance to the model pro-gram. As adjustment in minimum standards can be studiedin simulated and real models, the admissions standards canbe modified accordingly. This is feasible through proviAon

137

in the model for continual study of the quality of the in-put (students) in relationship to the quality of teachingperformance.

Clear structure and clear decision points of selectionallow for a psychologically healthy atmosphere for the pro-spective candidate. Arbitrariness in selection proceduresserves only to increase the distAnce between the studentand his program. The present candidate selection componentinvolves the student in rare active phases of his entranceinto the model program. The personal interview, for example,is unusual at the undergraduate level. The decision to in-clude it along with psychological test measures (MTAI, SCAT,Edwards, and Strong Vocational Interest Inventory) providesimportant data for the Candidate Review Committee which makesfinal selections, and is additionally helpful for studentswho have early opportunities to explore the area verballywith interested faculty members who are able to render assis-tance for entrance. The provision for redirection of stu-dents within a counselling framework, a feature omitted inmaly admissions programs, increases the psychological feasi-bility of these procedures.

The feasibility of implementing a comprehensive selec-tion component has been determined through t:e participationof administrative and faculty specialists in admissions,psychometry, and student personnel services. Measurementspecialists were used in reviawinf: and selecting appropriateinstruments, scales, and observation guides.

Prediction of academic success and high quality teach-ing performance from currently available instruments andprocedures is forced to rely on future validation, empiricalverification, revision, and development of alternatives.The assessment battery specified in the model program isjudged to be currently feasible because of the past pre-dictive success of those instruments and procedures selected.The overall network and resource allocation during develop-ment and piloting contain design provisions for this furthervalidation and verification of selected procedures.

The use of the comprehensive candidate selection plan,where final judgement is based on a standardized test battery,candidate personal data, attempts to assess affective factors,and structured interview procedures by the Candidate Review

138

Committee, was finally chosen as the most feasible approach.This decision was verified by specialists in teacher educa-tion, student personnel services, and measurement. Duringthe feasibility study, certain promising findings were notedfrom the literature in support of the comprehensive approach.Smith (1967), for example, demonstrated that academic per-formance was highly correlated with certain personality fac-tors after basic ability was controlled. Also, it has beendemonstrate: that teacher personality characteristics arepredictive of and effective in producing changes in thescores of children in test performance (McNary, 1967). It

was shown that such qualities as friendliness, energy level,emotional stability, etc. are directly related to children'sverbal ability outcomes. The modification, testing, andcontinual monitoring of this and other selection proceduresare provided for in the model program.

Evaluation of Student Performance

The seqince and rate of movement through the modelprogram learning experiences is dependent on the acquisitionof competence in previous learning experiences. This makesit essential that student performance be evaluated almostconstantly and that evaluation data be made readily avail-able to student, advisor, and other components.

The evaluation of student performance also yields themajor data on which all revision and adjustments of the over-all program are based. High quality student performancethroughout the program is one of the prime criteria by whichthe model program will be judged and the assessment of thatperformance is the function of the student performance com-ponent of the evaluation subsystem.

There are various devices and/or procedures specifiedfor the evaluation of student performance. Each is describedbriefly in this report. They are: (a) PM pre and postassessment procedures which determine the eligibility to be-gin a PM and the levels of performance and proficiency gainedupon completion of the PM, (b) standardized tasks which pro-vide measures of the skills, processes, and attitudes of thestudent or inservice teacher as he performs specific activi-ties, (c) teaching_Rerformance guides which are comprehen-sive acts related to the processes of teaching, (d) productsof performance, such as written compositions, scientific

139

explanations, lesson plans, and artistic pieces, (e) relatedcriterion measures, such as the achievement of elementaryschool pupils under supervision and parents' attitudes to-ward the instructional setting and (f) progress review pro-.cedures which are designed to provide long-range evaluationsof students and consequently the program itself.

al_prendpostasseesment procedures. The basic unitof student learning is the PM. Most of the PMs are sequen-tial and successful learning depends on previously acquiredbehaviors. To determine the student's status with regardto the objectives of a PM and the extent to which he hasthe prerequisite behaviors essential for success in the PMlearning experiences, each student undergoes a preassess-ment or pretest. The preassessment has been designed bythe PM development group with technical assistance fromevaluation specialists. GEM Bulletin #69-13, PM EvaluationGuidelines (Bauch, 1969) and GEM Bulletin #69-7, Estimati.1Costs for Development of Candidate Performance EvaluationProcedures (Payne, 1969) gives PM teams a framework for thepre and post assessment.

The level of perforelance on the preassessment directsthe student into one of four actions: (a) if the studentshows outstanding performance on the preassessment indicatingthat he has competency in the specified behaviors, he pro-ceeds to the next PM in the sequence, (b) if the student hasthe prerequisite behaviors specified in the PM, ne is directedto engage in selected PM learning tasks designed to providehim with the specified PM behaviors in which he is deficient,(c) if the student has most of the prerequisite behaviorsbut is not proficient in all necessary behaviors for successin the PM, he is directed to re-engage in selected learningtasks from previous PMs at the advice and direction of theadvisor, and then undergo another preassessment, (d) if thestudent's test behavior indicates serious deficiencies whichare unlikely to be corrected by re- engaging in PM learningtasks, specially prescribed remediation is required beforehe is allowed to engage in this or any other PM. If theremediation is successful the student again undergoes thepreassessment. If the remediation fails, the student iscounseled into a program more suitable for him.

Upon completion of the specified learning tasks in thePM, the student undergoes a post assessment. This assess-ment determines the level of proficiency acquired and

140

verifies the extent to which he has acquired the performancebehaviors specified. The level of performance on the postassessment directs the student into one of three actions:(a) if the student has acquired the specified behaviors atan acceptable level of proficiency, hn proceeds to the nextPM, (b) if the student acquired most but not all of thespecified behaviors, the advisor directs him to re-engagein selected learning tasks in preparation for an additionalpost assessment, and (c) if after repeating the assignedtasks the student has failed to acquire the specified be-haviors, he is referred for clinical assistance in the samemanner as was described for the preassessment.

No credit is given for any PM until an acceptable levelof proficiency has been demonstrated during post assessment.It is anticipated that at least 75% of the students willproceed through the sequence without repeating PMs.

Standard tasks. Standard tasks are relatively inde-pendent performances which are administered at the close ofeach PM block. They are represented by a number of separateinstruments which relate to performances required of all stu-dents and inservice teachers at the close of each particularblock of PMs. The student or teacher is required to carryon an activity under the supervision of a qualified obser-ver who rates the student on a scale as he carries out theactivity. These designated activities are derived from theset of performance behaviors which are of particular concernin developing the learning activities contained in the PMswithin the block. Standard tasks are required in all areasof study (i.e., language arts, social science, natural science,art, health education) as well as paraprofessional., profession-al, and specialist areas of study and performance.

Examples of paraprofessional standard tasks which wouldbe required at the end of PM bock number two which is a para-professional field experience are:

1. Oversees pupils engaged in games familiar to them.

2. Tells a story to a group of pupils for recreationalpurposes.

3. Catalogs and files series of training materialsunder the supervision of the master teacher.

141

4. Makes the height and weight measures of pupils andrecords them.

5. Collects lunch money from pupils and records pay-ments.

The standard tasks are appraised by whatever techniquesare deemed appropriate. For certain tasks, such as writinga poem or preparing a piece of art there are end productsto evaluate. Other tasks follow routine procedures and canhe evaluated by a checklist, such as the tasks of catalogingand filing materials. Some standardized tasks can be checkedfor accuracy; for example, measurement in mathematics andthe use of grammar. Other tasks require ratings. An exampleof the possible rating scale for guiding pupils in preparinga bulletin board is given in Figure 25.

Many of the standard tasks will be stated on "goal cards"such as those used for research by Bauernfeind at NorthernIllinois University (Bauernfeind, 19(i6, 79). The goals statedon the goal cards will have been selected from previous PMsand will combine 321f-evaluation by the student with verifi-cation and/or rating by the advisor.

142

The apprentice teacher is assigned the task of having the pupils prepare a classroom

bulletin board.

A. Teacher provides g4idelines.

b. Apprentice teacher and pupils prepare board.

C. Teacher rates apprentice teacher in the task.

Performance Rating Scale

1I

23

45

pprentice

'pptentice

aacizer prepares

eaz.:Ier directs

..ard Ngth avail- upils in pre-

ble materials.

aring board.

Pupils prepare

board with mae-

rials su^-estr:i

by apprentice

teacher.

Pupils prepare

board with mate-

rials of their

selection.

Pupils are stimu-

lated to design

imaginative and

functional board.

Fig. 25. Standard task rating scale.

Teaching performance guides. Teaching performanceguiddg-6757MT6ria-allirAills which are comprehensive innature and directly related to the student's or teacher'sperformance in a teaching- learning situation. The skillsinvolve organizing acts into sequences, establishing se-quences into procedures, and selecting procedures and mate-rials to achieve objectives of a given system. These instru-ments are administered through observation of the studentor inservice teacher working with pupils near the close ofeach practical laboratory experience, near the end of theinternship, and near the end of the specialist phase of theprogram.

Specifications require that certain performance guidesemploy micro-teaching procedures. After the student "per-forms," the student and supervisor play back the video-taperecording immediately. In conference, the supervisor andstudent together examine the performance to find opportuni-ties for significant learnings which the student did anddid not treat adequately. (Although in this section of thespecifications micro-teaching is utilized as evaluative innature, it ib a significant learning activity for the stu-dent whicil is provided for in PMs undertaken during practicallaboratory experiences.)

Products of performance. Another evaluative procedureis the assessment of the products of performance. This pro-cedure is used whenever applicable, within the PM post assess-ment, to obtain evidence for evaluating a standatd task andfor obtaining evidence from the more comprehesive teacher per-formance evaluations. Examples of products or performanceare a composition, a poem, a comparison of two theoreticalviewpoints, a speech, a painting, a musical composition, alesson plan, or a diagnosis of the background regardinglearning of an underprivileged child.

Related criterion measures. Certain factors in theteaching enrivonment were regarded as highly important inproviding providing a broad evaluative base for teachingsuccess. Thus, an evaluation subsystem was structured toinclude other :riterion measures including pupil achievement,parental attitudes, peer ratings, supervisory ratings, andvideo-tape observations of teacher performance for evaluativepurposes.

144

Achievement of pupils involves such conventional measuresas elementary school achievement batteries. A parental atti-tude scale measures the parents' attitude toward the goals andobjectives of the system. Peer ratings are appraised by in-ventories of what the teacher's contemporaries think of hiseffectiveness as a teacher. Supervisory ratings are obtainedon checklists which reveal the supervisor's judgment of theteacher's effectiveness and proficiency in performing assignedtasks. The video-tape of the teacher performance is evaluatedand scored in a fashion similar to that described in the a-forementioned micro-teaching technique.

Progress_ktyiew. After the student's progress has beenappraised, the advisor normally advances the student intothe next block or phase of the program. However, in the eventof unsatisfactory progress, the student may be advised toenter teaching in a paraprofessional category or transfer toanother program. If the student requires time to remove adeficiency, the paraprofessional route may be recommendedwhile the student receives special clinical attention. If

the student lacks qualities to become a professional teacher,a transfer may be recommended or the student may be droppedfrom the program. A hypothetical plot is presented in Fig-ure 26. The abscissa represents teaching sessions (trials),and the ordinate depicts the number of opportunities for sig-nificant learning which the student did and did not deal withadequately. There are three items cf special interest in theplots. The student, with practice, should eliminate untreatedsignificant learning situations prior to graduation. Theslope of line (1), compated by least squares method, indicatesthe rate at which the student is learning to deal with thesituations. The level (ordinate value) of line (2) depictsthe performance plateau for the student. These data arecollected as possible predictors of success in a teachingposition.

Progress review points and possible routes are depictedin Figure 27. In reading Figure 27, it should be noted thatthe final block represents a period of follow-up evaluationdesigned not only to determine the extent to which the studentwas successful as a teacher, but also to evaluate the in-structional program itself. In other words, the evaluativeprocedures and devices described in this report will be usedto collect data which will reveal strengths and weaknessesin the program, se that continuous improvement of th(% modelbecomes a continuing feature.

145

1

IIMIN

IMM

IMU

OM

MIE

W11

1111

111M

IMM

IIME

1111

1111

1111

1111

1111

111I

NM

ER

1111

11.

1111

1111

1111

1111

.11M

il111

1111

1111

1110

1111

11

1111

1111

1111

111I

MM

I111

111

1111

1111

1111

MN

IIII

1111

1111

1111

1111

1/07

/111

1111

1111

1111

111

111

1111

1111

1111

11PE

NE

1111

1111

1111

1111

1111

EM

I11

1111

1111

1/21

1111

=11

11.1

11 E

RR

1111

111

mm

eatim

mm

mo

TR

EA

T E

D11

1111

1111

awW

ww

ww

ww

ww

ww

ww

wW

111

1111

11M

1111

IIMM

1111

1111

1111

1111

1111

1111

1111

1111

1111

1111

1111

1111

1111

111.

UN

TR

EA

TE

D..1

a. N

nsi

s=m

mnm

asm

um11

1E11

1111

111

11um

ml.

1111

11=

1111

1111

1111

0111

1111

1111

1111

1111

11M

IME

ME

E11

1111

1111

1111

1111

1111

181

IIN11

1111

111M

R11

1111

111

1111

1111

111M

ME

NIN

1111

1E

MIR

ME

III

1111

1111

1111

TR

IALS

Fig. 26.

Plot of significant learnings.

A4Mission

IProficiew:y

(Number

block

Number 1

Progress

standard Tasks,---. Review

nrouo 1

number

Mastery

Attitude

Testa

Interest

Performance

Tests

Motivation

Refer

-ON

-4w

Learning

Proficiency

Module block

bumber

Ltc. for

Proficiency

Module Block(

3-14

Intern Pro-

r.ram Pm

;.lock 15

Final Review

PH block 16

Lvaluation and

Program

Revision

Mastery

Tests

Performance

Tests

::valuation

Sheets

Stanford General

Competence Appraisal

Significant

Plots

Fig. 27. Apprentice teacner progress

review.

Feasibilit of Student Performance Evaluation Procedures

The feasibility of the student evaluation component wasestablished in several ways. First, the theoretical feasi-bility was studied by the staff in terms of the reasons forevaluating student performence in such a model program. Next,the effects of the procedures on students and staff were con-sidered. The technical feasibility considerations includethe availability of techniques, equipment, and competent per-sonnel. Cost and resource allocations completed the determi-nation of the feasibility of this component. The procedureswere verified by specialists at the University of Georgia,considering theory, research, and available technical capa-bilities.

The performance specifications provided the bases forevaluation. Especially strong support for the general planof performance specification was found in recent work con-cerning behavioral objectives. Mager's (1962) work has beenfurther developed and expanded upon by Lindvall (1964),and also by Metfessel and Michael (1967) as they developstragegies for using objectives organized in the taxonomies(Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia, 1964) in evaluation.These sources validated the judgment that the procedures inthe model program were feasible and that they were very prom-ising practices for the improvement of teacher eiucation.

Techniques for administering evaluative measures weretested during the piloting of the three target PMs during thesummer and fall of 1969. Opportunities for informal evalua-tions were also developed in these modules. They includepeer group evaluations, product evaluations, and observationsof individual student beha"ior.

The use of video tapes has been established for evalu-ating some performance behaviors. The equipment and technicalpersonnel are available. Portions of the evaluation in thecognitive domain can be done by computer operations.

The prime theoretical base for student performance eval-uation is also a premise for the overall model: that thepositive growth and achievement of children in tte elementaryschool is directly related to the instructional performanceof their teacher(s). The model was constructed in a mannerwhich gave recognition to the performance of the child, the

148

nature of the elementary school in the immediate future, theperformance of the teacher(s), procedures for attaining thedesired performance in a teacher education grogram, and speci-fications. Such a multiplicity of concerns necessitates pro-cedures for determining the nature and quality of the perfor-mance of the prospective teacher; thus, the student perfor-mance evaluation component of the model. The body of researchand literature on specific techniques of relating teachingperformance to pupil performance pustiz, 1969; Biddle andEllena, 1964, for examples) contains evidence in support ofthese relationships.

Further, the specifications and ordering of the teachereducation model relies on the sequential nature of most ofthe learning tasks and the career sequence. The attainmentof one level of competence (e.g. completing the preprofession-al phase) is proof that the student has attained those com-petencies which are prerequisite to the next grouping of learn-ing tasks. And the data from systematic evaluation of stu-dent performance are the source of the decision-making asindividual students progress through the program.

Systematic and incremental evaluation with feedback isalso a basic concept in a ceneral evaluation model. If per-sons are expected to progress through sequences of learnings,the assessment of their per:ormance is necessary in the track-ing and reporting of their performance. Students and theiradvisers are also expected to make choices of alternate routessuch as those related to PM sequences throughout the model,and these choices are most logically based on data from pre-vious performance.

The technical requirements of the student performanceevaluation component have been determined to be within thefeasible range of the model. Systems engineers and special-ists in data processing from the UNIVAC corporation and. IBMcorporation were consulted and verified the technical feasi-bility of these procedures. One example of procedurescurrently available for organizing specifications into anevaluation framework is found in Payne's (1968) /122Specifi-cation and Measurement of learning Outcomes. Lo,:al specialists in measurement and data processing determine -1 that thetechnical requirements were within the capabilities ofcurrently existing equipment.

149

4

The evaluation of student performance requires some ofthe following activities:

1. selection and/or development of evaluative criteria

2. selection and/or development of evaluative instru-ments, techniques, procedures and procedures

3. administration of assessment procedures

4. data processing, storage and retrieval

5. reporting

In sustained operation, the student performance evalua-tion component is assured of the qualified personnel, tech-nical assistance, hardware and software through provisionfor these during the development stages of the project. Quali-fied personnel are assured from the pool of faculty and staffwho will undergo the orientation and specialized trainingnecessary for their successful participation in the instruc-tional and advisory program. Whether native or newly employedpersonnel, these persons will have been selected on the basisof their qualifications and competencies. Their abilities tospecify effective evaluation procedures in their areas ofspeciality will be of particular interest in selection andtraining of instructional personnel. Technical assistancefor instructional personnel, to assist in the specifying anddesigning of evaluation instruments and techniques, is assuredthrough providion of specialists in measurement and evaluation.After instructional teams and PM developers have prepared thePM, they will call upon the measurement specialist for assis-tance in designing and preparing the evaluation procedures.Artistic and duplication specialists are also provided for,to assist in the layout and format of evaluation instruments.

Data processing systems and equipment are available tosupport the specified procedures, and the model itself pro-vides for the constant revision ofthese procedures. Thestorage and processing of student performance data can beimplemented on either an IBM 360/65 computer or Univac 9200system. In either case, remote terminals will be used.Efficient entry of student performance data will utilize adigitape optical scanner for entry whenever appropriate,especially to reduce the time lag and personnel costs

150

associated with card punching. Optical scanning equipmentis currently in use for recording grades at the Universityof Georgia. While some of the storage and retrieval pro-grams are currently available, most of the analysis and re-porting software will be developed during the early phasesof the project.

The procedures for assessing student performance andstoring and reporting these data have definite psychologicaladvantages over procedures currently in use. In the firstplace, the student and his adviser are systematically informedof quality and rate of progress. This procedure is feasi-ble because of the provision for weekly entry and retrievalof progress data and reports. The structure is provided toincrease the accuracy of the students' perceptions of them-selves and of their competencies.

The systematic provision of progress reports to the stu-dents will significantly reduce the uncertainty associatedwith occasional examinations separated by large blocks of timeand will also close the communications gap between studentand adviser. Next steps in the sequer' ;: are based on previousaccomplishments, and students are highly unlikely to be pre-sented with learning tasks where their probability for successis low. Some of the psychological considerations associatedwith programmed instruction will have positive impact in thesequential and incremental learning tasks. When the studeatknows the level of expectation in advance, energy and effortcan be directed toward those competencies. The positiveeffect of this situation on the mental health of the studentcontributes significantly to the psychological feasibility ofthe performance evaluation procedures.

In the evaluation subsystem of the Georgia instructionalmodel, the operation of evaluation procedures will be guidedby operational criteria. These criteria have been derivedfrom the literature, developed from the project activities,and specified to guide the model operations. Evaluativecriteria, the evidence framework against which the operationswill be judged, have also been specified in this way. Thus,the evaluation operations are guided by criteria and judgedaccording to criteria. The criteria assure a degree of ob-jectivity; however, they are subject to revision as are allother parts of the model.

151

Selected operational criteria for the evaluation of stu-dent performance are presented as illustrations:

1. That student behavior and knowledge be evaluated interms of replicative measures of adequate reliabilityand validity at each essential stage of progress.

2 That the student achievement evaluation instrumentsand/or procedures be selected or developed toaccount for all aspects of the behaviors requiredof the student (cognitive, psychomotor, and affec-tive).

3. That the student achievement evaluation proceduresutilize efficient information storage and retrievalequipment.

4. That the student achievement evaluation proceduresinvolve an effective personalized student advise-ment and/or guidance program.

5. That the extent to which the student has satisfiedthe prerequisites for undertaking new learnings besystematically determined.

6. That students evaluate their own progress towardthe objectives and be assisted in doing so. (Thisdoes not mean that self- evaluation is the onlyevaluative procedure to be used with students inthe program.)

7. That the student's accumulation of experience andhis capabilities provide the basis for determiningthe specific behaviors which he is to acquire andmethods, materials, and procedures by which he isto acquire them.

8. That a students performance be evaluated by com-paring his achievements with the behaviors he is toacquire, rather than with the achievements ofothers.

9. That the program have as an integral element asystem of continuous follow up evaluation so as toprovide for its continuous revision.

152

The application of "outside" criteria to the evaluationsubsystem is one means of determining feasibility. One suchset of criteria is contained in the 1967 Yearbook of theAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development Evalua-tion as Feedback and Guide (Wilhelms, 1967). Five questionsare asked of any general evaluation system. These questionsare answered as they relate to the instructional model eval-uation sitbsystem.

1. Does the system facilitate self-evaluation?

Provision is made for self-evaluation by the studentthroughout the program, especially through self-ratingwithin PMs. Much of thc, assessment done on other a.spectiof the evaluation subsystem relies on a degree of self-evaluation, since operations are judged against criteria.For example, the learning materials developed by teamsof staff members can be self-evaluated by those teamsthrough the application of the specified criteria. Thesame is true of all components of the subsystem.

2. Does the evaluation encompass every objective?

The evaluation subsystem is comprehensive, and eachobjective (specification) stands as its own evaluativecriteria, since it is stated in behavioral terms andthus can be assessed. Every operation in the model isevaluated on a systematic schedule, as well as allevaluation operations themselves.

3. Does the evaluation facilitate learning and teaching?

This crucial question lies at the heart of the effec-tiveness of the evaluation subsystem. The expressedpurpose of the evaluation subsystem is to provide feed-back for constant revision of the model. The intent ofthat revision is to always improve the quality of teach-ing and learning, and to incrase efficiency as well.The purpose of careful candidate selection and theevaluation of student performance is to allow for thebest and most efficient learning. The evaluation ofinstructional personnel is also aimed at systematicallyimproving the instruction.

153

4. Does the evaluation produce records appropriate tothe purposes for which records are essential?

The central storage of all evaluation data, withcentral and remote retrieval provision, is the mechanismfor keeping records. These records are readily availa-ble to students, advisers, and other personnel as needed.Since data are collected to provide for systematic re-vision of the model, recoru-keeping is highly appropriate.

5. Does the evaluation provide continuing feedback intothe larger questions of curriculum development andeducational policy?

Since the evaluation subsystem is itself a feedback,then the provision exists for basing curriculum decisionsand broad policy on this feedback. The procedure forreporting to outside groups (e.g. advisory boards, policymakers in other agencies such as teacher certification,and professional organizations) assures feedback to boththe model itself and to those persons, groups, and in-stitutions externally associated with some aspect ofthe model.

Program Evaluation Procedures

Program evaluation is concerned with all activitiesassociated with determining the overall effectiveness of theeducational model. Although candidate selection and theevaluation of student performance described previously inthis chapter receive little attention in this discussion,the reader must keep in mind that data from selection andperformance evaluation are utilized in program evaluation pro-cedures where appropriate.

All coponents and phases of the educational model areassessed, evaluated and provided with feedback from programevaluation processes. All feedback loops begin and end withprogram evaluation, and the systematic revision of the modelis accomplished through these procedures.

The functions of program evaluation are: (a) to gatherdata relative to the program's effectiveness, (b) to analyzeand interpret data, and (c) to provide objective r...ports ofthe findings to serve as a basis for program revision. The

154

4

process is circular and constant, allowing for the systematicevaluation so vital to the continuing success and improvementof the model.

Target s12ELE221 It is the concern of program evalua-tion to systematically assess all facilities, personnel, pro-cedures, and functioning components of the instructional pro-gram in sustained operation. The following is an illustra-tive list of concerns:

1, facilities, equipment, and materials

2. personnel

3. management systems

4. survey of society and relevant research findings

5. simulation program

6. student personnel services

7. revision procedures

8. faculty orientation and training

9. clinical procedures

10. r(lciprocal agreements and institutional change

11. scheduling program

12. overall model program

The assessment of any of the aforementioned concernsfollows a general sequence of events of which the highlightsare:

1. Accumulate data in accord with time aLd cost limi-tations.

2. Subject data to analysis.

3. Apply operational and evaluative criteria.

155

. Prepare objective report of findings.

5. Deliver report to persons or agencies concerned.

6. Resume data accumulation.

Program evaluation is dependent on the central storagesystem and the operational units of the instructional pro-gram as its source of data. Objectivity is approached throughthe application of operational and evaluative criteria whichdetermine the expected quantitative and qualitative perfor-mance. Selected operational criteria to guide the programcomponent require:

1. That the program evaluation instruments and/or pro-cedures be selected to account for not only all as-pects of the teacher performance behaviors (cog-nitive, psychomotor, and affective), but also allother components of the program (candidate selection,instruction, program evaluation, staff orientation,and administrative organization).

2. That the program evaluation procedures are indef-initely continuous throughout sustained operation.

3. That progranevaluation procedures utilize efficientinformation storage and retrieval equipment.

4. That the program evaluation procedures have a com-prehensive systematic system for analysis and feed-back.

5. That the overall design of the model program besufficiently flexible to insure the possibility ofincorporating new but compatible practices asneeded.

6. That the procedures and instruments for programevaluation provide for continued investigation ofcost effectiveness of operations.

In addition to regular and systematic evaluation pro-cedures, the program evaluation component has responsibilityfor conducting special studies, and for assessing the costeffectiveness of the instruction model. Special studies are

156

assessment and evaluation activities which are not a regularpart of the evaluation processes as described in previoussections. These studies are initiated by any functionalunit within the operational framework and/or by individualsor groups (e.g. Dean of the College of Education) outsidethe model framework. The studies are conducted by the pro-gram evaluation personnel and reported to the source of therequest.

In the model educational program two major factors areconsidered in determining cost effectiveness. They are theteacher education program and the elementary school program.The behavioral specifications are for the student who tobecome the teacher; however, the teacher, in turn, is measur-ed by the improvement in achievement of the elementary schoolpupil. Thus, the cost effectiveness study involves a broad-ly conceived system which extends beyond the immediate con-cerns of teacher education.

In a cost effectiveness model there are three items ofinterest: inputs, outputs, and their relationship. The in-puts are those for which money is spent. The outputs arethe benefits which are received from the expenditures. Therelationship predicts how the output will change for agiven input change. Unfortunately, the difficult tasks ofmeasuring effectiveness and defining relationship combineto render predictions which, at their best, are only esti-mates. Simulation models will be of special value in study-ing cost effectiveness.

One of the most desirable outputs is an increase inoverall achievement. This increase is measured by conven-tional achievement batteries, performance tests, and scales.The increase in achievement is equally appropriate as aneffectiveness measure for both the student in the collegeprogram and the pupil in the elementary school. The in-crease in achievement covers the entire range of content:knowledge, performance, and attitudes.

The effectiveness measure for equality of educationalopportunity can be estimated from a lack of statisticalsignificant correlation between the socioeconomic level asobtained in the biographical information blank and achieve-ment in content. The measure is equally appropriate forthe apprentice teachers and the pupils.

157

A measure of productivity can be estimated initiallyfrom the starting salaries offered to the student teacher atgraduation. During the folow-up, inquiry is made into theincrease in salary of the teacher. Productivity is probablynot an appropriate measure for the pupil, unless the elemen-tary school is the terminal educational institution for him.

The school variables are appropriate measures of effec-tiveness for the student teacher and the pupil. Extensiveschool records have been maintained for such items as atten-dance, attrition, graduation, and continuing higher education.Measures of these items for the student teaching program areappropriate to use in appraising the effectiveness of theselection and training procedures for the apprentice teacher.Again, the same statistics computed for the elementary schoolconstitute one measure of the improvement affected by the edu-cational model program.

The increase in utilization of facilities and equipment,if accompanied by an increment of achievement, reduction inlearning time, or the like is an indication of usefulness ofthe item in the program. The utilization is an indicationfor both the teacher education and elementary school programs.

After the inputs and outputs are measured, the alleged,relationship existing between them is estimated. The esti-mations are achieved in various ways, and usually by whatevermeans is possible. In certain cases, an item is added tothe program and an increment of achievement is hopefullyrealized. In this case, the experiment is controlled so thatthe item is the cause for the change and the increment ofachievement is the result. Another estimate of relationshipbetween inputs and outputs involves factor analysis. Theprincipal components are identified and the weighting of cer-tain measures on those components are computed. If the pro-gram measures happen also to be effectiveness measures, acomparision of their relative effectiveness is obtained fromthe weights. When the effectiveness data are analyzed, otherestimates might be feasible. As a final consideration, pro-fessional judgment is necessary for making decisions in sit-uations lacking complete information or procedures for thoroughanalysis. As the content of the cost effectiveness analysisshifts from the more routine and exact, such as changing ofattitude; the role of professional judgment based on available

158

information becomes increasingly critical in selecting theinputs to finance for desired outputs.

Computer simulation in program evaluation. To fulfillthe specifications presented in the original design of theinstructional model a computer simulation model of the in-structional program in sustained operation becomes a basictool for carrying out program evaluation procedures. Thiscomputer simulation model provides for each of the hundredsof specific activities which are required for the operationof the instructional program and is characterized by bothversatility and flexibility. Each activity is assigned costsfor personnel, facilities, materials, and equipment as wellas a minimum, norm and maximum time factor. Data collectedduring the period in which the model is to be implemented in-to sustained operation were first verified and then assignedto these activities as quantitative elements. As the in-structional program continues in sustained operation, pro-blems will arise which may be quickly resolved on the basisof the findings resulting from simulated adjustments basedon considered judgments. For example, serious losses mightbe alleviated by a simple rearrangement of a sequence ofevents.

Also, a computer simulation model provides valuable in-formation regarding such concerns as: adjustments of theprogram to changing student enrollments, cost control re-lated to instructional innovation, and feasible steps tocost reduction through adjustments in sequencing.

The use of computer simulation as an engineering strategyin an area (education) where the underlying science is notclearly explicit and the hard data are not completely avail-able must be viewed with cautious enthusiasm. The difficul-ties of the application of sophisticated simulation modelsin such fields have 'seen discussed by Hartley (1969),Oettinger (1969), Silvern (1965), and Forrester (1961).The general scientific paradigm which directs the applicationof simulation models in the instructional model programcalls for repeatable hard data first, then tentative mathe-matical models of the known real phenomena, then analyticalexperiments with these models, then real experiments withselected cases, then continual improvement through continualinteraction of all the four previous steps ad infinitum or

159

until a satisfactory steady state or an insurmountable ob-stacle is encountered.

The study of feasibility and the planning for futuredevelopment of the model program have been closely guidedby this paradigm. As the first step of the paradigm reachesa certain stage of completeness, the first mathematicallytrivial models become useful for studies of allocation, uti-lization, and scheduling, for the optimization of cost effec-tiveness, and for the determination of critical areas oftiming and resource competetion. Here a computer becomesuseful not only because of complexity of the simulation model,but, also because of the large amount of data, the large num-ber of cases which must be examined, and the number of timesthe calculations must be repeated as conditions change anddata becomes more precise. This project has now reached thisstage of development and has a PERT/COST model (PMS/360)operating on the University of Georgia IBM 360/65 computerfor investigation and management of costs and activity sched-uling. Many of the results of this feasibility study havebeen obtained through use of this model and it will be usedin the future on a continuing basis.

In general the creation of simulation models and com-puter programs will be for coordinated use both in manage-ment and in continuing research and development. It will becarried through three further stag?s: development of mathe-matically sophisticated dynamic models of processes and sub-systems; interrelating of these processes and subsystems toform a computerized, adaptive, self-improving overall sys-tem simulation model; and continuing operational use of thisoverall system model, both as a management information, dataprocessing, and control system and as a tool in research forcontinually improving the system itself and all its processes,components, and subsystems.

As a tool in evaluation, the simulation model proceedswith the ability to enter dependent variables while allowingother independent variables to remain constant. In quasi-experimental and experimental manipulations, simulation iscarried into reality to test out the feasibility of certainbehaviors, methods of technical operations, and student per-formance behaviors. The simulation also provides a model inwhich error may occur without any real danger to ongoingsystems.

160

In addition, the creation and operation of the overallsystem model will aid conceptualization, help to assure con-sistency and completeness of design and smoothness of oper-ation, enable immediate transferability to other institutions,and facilitate rapid investigation of consequences and im-plementation of changes due to revised goals, technologicalbreakthroughs, changes in community environment, etc. Somemodeling of the environment and some forecasting will alsobe done, but with emphasis on such practical factors as beingprepared to handle children already born or exploring ad-vantages of possible cooperative arrangements rather than onsuch highly speculative factors as attempting to detail thecourse of the future or being prepared to utilize likelytechnological breakthroughs.

The guiding philosophy in these developments will be toincrease the power, the flexibility, the rate of improvement,and the stability of operation of the present system as rapid-ly as possible through gaining and utilizing new knowledgeand understanding while simultaneously striving to lower coststhrough more effective and efficient techniques, better or-ganization and management, and increasing use of cooperativearrangements and automation -- guided always by ultimatehuman and social goals, cost effectiveness considerations, anda meticulous insistence on an empirical basis for every fea-ture of the system model and a feature of the system modelfor every important empirical factor.

As the next stage of model design begins to provideviable models of individual processes, new studies will beadded to the present cost, allocation, and scheduling in-vestigations and these investigations themselves will bedirected toward the outlining of cost,effectivenesses trade-offs and the formulation of policies. For instance, newstudies can begin on the concurrence of the empirically-basedportions of various models of the teaching-learning prodessfor design purposes while areas of conflict and omission inthese models can be documented for research purposes. Mean-while, use of the first-stage models can be directed towardoutlining cost effectiveness tradeoffs for such alternate pro-crsses as paper-and-pencil vs. computer-console evaluationof student performance to aid in formulating policies forthe implementation of automation.

161

As the overall system model becomes operational, studiesinteraction effects and system dynamics can begin, both on

interactions among components within the system and on inter-action of 1:he system with its environment. For instance,within the system there are obvious cost-effectiveness in-teractions between candidate recruiting procedures, candidateselection criteria, remedial PMs for entering candidates,number of pathways and degree of development of each withinthe curriculum PMs, elaboration of facilities in remedialclinics, etc. In the environment there are obvious advan-tages to cooperative arrangements with other institutions indeveloping and testing PMs, both in combining expert knowledgeand in sharing the cost of work or of engaging private con-tractors where contractors would be more efficient.

In summary, the project will proceed to utilize com-puters and simulation to their fullest cost-effectivenesspotential simultaneously in operation and in research whileavoiding both the restrictions and duplications which comefrom doctrinaire insistence on maintaining an artificialseparation between management and research uses of computersimulation models and the omissions and "illusions ofadequacy" which come from to little interaction with empiri-cal facts and goals. The fundamental scientific paradigmwhich has guided development and management thur far hasproven itself practical, effective, and economical and hasdemonstrated itself to be definitely feasible for carryingforth the further development, the implementation, and thesustained operation of the system through creation and useof a computerized overall system simulation model.

162

Feasibility of Program Evaluation Procedures

The overall framework and guiding principles of any"systems" approach to the planning and management of com-plex activity necessitates systematic evaluation of pro-gram components. Systematic evaluation is an absolutenecessity if this approach is to maintain the system in thedynamic state of self-renewal. Decision-making and re-vision rely directly on collected data as reported by theprogram evaluation component. The collection, interpre-tation, and dissemination of information is theoreticallyjustified on this basic point. There exist no theoreticalconflicts because the operation and evaluation of all modelprogram activities are formally bonded together in thetotal systems and management approach.

The technical feasibility of program evaluation pro-cedures was established by identifying the necessarypersonnel, techniques, and resources for carrying out theprogram evaluation component. Since all data collectedthroughout the model program from all sources is storedand available (within certain restrictions) for immediateretrieval, the regular and systematic evaluation and re-porting is feasible. Central storage also allows for thespecial evaluation studies called for in the specifications.

The collection, storage, retrieval, evaluation, andreporting procedures called for in the program evaluationwere also judged feasible by the midel program staff throughthe specification and description of each particular activ-ity. Bach activity during sustained operation and each'ent during the development and piloting of program evalu-ation has been accounted for in the overall PERT networkin Volume II. These activities and events have been assign-ed the necessary resources for their successful operationand completion. They have also been coordinated and inte-grated with all other activities in the overall instruction-al program and management system. This careful specifica-tion of resources and coordination with other componentswas checked by key staff and verified by consultants inthe field to assure the feasibility of the program evalua-tion procedures.

To further verify the feasibility of the programevaluation component, operational criteria ave used to

163

guide the procedures. To insure continual improvement,evaluation criteria are used to evaluate the program evalua-tion procedures.

Data processing for program evaluation is well withinthe capabilities of currently-available hardware and facili-ties. The entry of data, wherever appropriate, is donedirectly from recording forms. An optical scanner willeliminate the card-punching step and increase the efficiency,and such a scanner is currently in effective use for entryof student grade reports and other data at the University ofGeorgia. Technicians at the University of Georgia ComputerCenter, as well as faculty specialists in data processing,confirming, confirmed that the addition of several remoteterminals and the direct connection of an additional opti-cal scanner are definitely feasible at the present time.Current use of computers within the uni',ersity setting dem-onstrates the wide flexibility and feasibility of retriev-ing student information for a variety of reasons. An ex-ample of such retrieval currently used at the University ofGeorgia is in the registration process, where personal dataon students is periodically reproduced for immediate use byregistration officials. The ability of the computer inadding and deleting information on students is additionallyhelpful.

The continual study of cost effectiveness in the pro-gram evaluation component is feasiblE because systematicmonitoring and/or computer simulation of all subsystems andcomponents is implicit in the overall systems design. Theuse of PMS/360 (Program Management System) composite com-puter program to determine the original cost calculationsincreases The feasibility of cost effectiveness studies.PMS/360 has the capability of providing cosg effectivenessdata throughout the development and during sustained oper-ation of the model program.

The feasibility of using computer simulation as a toolfor program evaluation at the carrent time is sufficient,as judged by systems analysts, for beginning the simulationof certain variables within certain components and subsys-tc,ms. Simulating the variation of entrance requirements,for example, can be done to identify the effects of thevariations on rate of progression, percentage of PMsskipped or failed, and other variables. As the simulationwithin components and subsystems becomes more sophisticated,

164

the interaction between and among components and subsystemscan also be simulated. The ultimate goal is to subjectthe entire project to a simulation model as the projectreaches sustained operation. And since a number of simu-lation models are currently available in education as wellas other fields, the feasibility of this approach is as-sured.

Strategy for the Development ofthe Evaluation Subsystem

The overall feasibility of the evaluation subsystemof the instructional model in sustained operation has beenvalidated to the satisfaction of the investigators and/.)pefully to that of the reader. However, this subsystemis still conceptual rather than real. In order to realizefull-scale operation available materials must be obtained,equipment procured and new materials must be designed,drafted, tested, revised and piloted. Staff must be se-lected and trained to carry out the program. All com-ponents )f the subsystem must be tested for both internalcompatibility of modules and efficient interaction withinthe subsystem as well as among the subsystems. The planor strategy for moving from the conceptual subsystem tothe operational subsystem is therefore as important asvalidating the feasibility of the conceptual subsystem insustained operation.

Chapter III presented a broad overview of the strategyfor implementing the instructional model into sustainedoperation. Volume II contains detailed descriptions of thehundreds of activities which have become a part of thisstrategy along with PERT charts showing the sequence andrelationships of events over the five year developmentperiod. In this part of Chapter V an attempt is made toprovide the reader with a summary and illustrative in-formation specifically concerned with the strategy forimplementing the evaluation subsystem into full-scaleoperation.

Develogmtatof the Evaluation Subsystem ImplementationStrategy

The first step in developing the strategy for imple-mentation was designing a broad conceptual model to

165

accomplish the mission. This evolved through conferenceinteraction of project directors with specialists insystems design, management and engineering. This overallsystem was studied and revised. The result of that re-ViSiOA was an increased specificity. For the evaluationsubsystem, for example, some single activities from theconceptual model expanded into over fifty activities whenthe detailed PERT network for the operation was completed.Figures 28 and 29 are PERT networks associated with theevaluation subsystem modified from Volume III of this re-port to illustrate the complexity of the proposed proceduresand the detailed planning which is characteristic of thisstudy.

Figure 28 presents the overall PERT network and theconfiguration of a typical sequence of eveluation events.To illufitxate that sequence, the path of one event isfollowed. Activity PPD09-18 is entitled Plan and procurepersonnel, facilitiest equipment and material for evalua-tion of student personnel services. When this activityis completed, it is immediately follo%2d by PPD11-18,Desiem and dr4ft student personnel services evaluationproceiures. These procedures are then coordinated withall other procedures in this part of the network, revise,and begin the testing path. PPT09-16, Plan and procurepersonnel, facilities e_g_uipmentandr WstaLstortest-ing the evaluation of student personnel services is followedby PPT13-15, Test student personnel services evaluationprocedures. The sequence ends, in this illu3tration, withPPT15-02, Coordinate and revise all tested procedures.

Illustrative Development Activities

The designing and costing of the activities forfacilities, personnel, equipment, and materials in relationto time factors required considerable st1ff effort despiteexpert consultant assistance. For example, each activityshown in the PERT network had to be designed through theconceptualization and development of sutactivities. Toillustrate the relaticnships between activities as shownin the PERT networks and subactivities, the specific lis%of subactivities for activity FET13 -03, Test studentjuo-0112_2rocedures, in usr.d.

1. Retrieve pretest and posttest data on 15 randomly

166

selected students who have completed a block ofat least 10 PMs.

2. Compile data in summary form including profilesof progress and identifying recurring areas ofstrength ani/or difficulty.

3. Deliver accumulative evaluative report to student.

4. Student meets with adviser to discuss accumulativeevaluation.

5. Following discussion, student completes reactionZorn) on accumulative evaluation procedures. Ad-viser also completes an evaluation forN of theproCedures.

6. Tabulation and analysis of reaction forms fromthe 15 students and the evaluation forms from theadvisers.

7. Interpretation and evaluation of results.

8. Preparation of recommendations for revision ofaccuzulative evaluation procedures.

This list of subactivities has been accounted for inthe development strategy by the allocation of resources tothe activity. In this case, the information retrieval,time of staff advisers, space needed for advisement, mate-rials needed for reports, development of reaction forms,and other resources were considered in determining the costand time factors. These resource allocations, byvidual activity, were then grouped and tabulated to de-termine the overall resource needs for this activity inthe evaluation subsystem and eventually the emire system.

The resource allocation was recorded on resourceestimation sheets, and one of these sheets was completedfor each activity appearing in the detailed PERT chartsdeveloped during the feasibility study. The activitynumber was recorded, and the person or team responsiblethen estimated (with consultant assistance) the resourcesnecessary for completion of that activity. A referenceguide listing the most common resources (faculty time,professional services, space, equipment, etc.) and the

167

lo

r I

, ,

Ita Ifi1f

II

ASi

e

Pig. 28. Typical sequence of evaluation events.

4

unit costs for these resources was provided. After thesubactivities had been conceptualized, the type and amountof resource allocation was determined.

To illustrate this procedure for determining the costper. activity, PED11 -l7 is used as an example. This activi-ty is entitled Design and draft candidate pretests andposttests and refers to those actions which will producea pretest and posttest for each of the PMs in the prepro-fessional phase. Figure 29 shows the relationship of thisparticular activity to the subnetworks preceding and follow-ing this activity. The position of these subnetworks inthe overall PERT network is also shown.

The designing and drafting of the candidate pretestand posttest will be done after the PM has been drafted.Since the PM will have designated the content and compe-tencies required for satisfactory completion of the PM,the assessment must coincide with the content and compe-tencies at the level of proficiency stated in the PM. Theinstructional staff, assisted by a specialist in proficiencyassessment, will select and organize the content and com-petencies to be assessed. A production specialist willassist in setting the format and layout of the assessmentforms, and these will be duplicated.

The resources necessary for these tasks are as follows:

One assistant professor one day

One proficient assessmentspecialist

One production specialist

One graduate assistant

One secretary

One one-man office

One two -man office

One secretarial station

170

two hours

four hours

two days

one day

one day

two days

one day

Paper, stencils, duplication materials necessaryfor pretest and posttest.

When the unit costs for these resources are calculatedand summed the total cost for this activity is approxi-mately $300.00. Since there are 90 PMs in the prepro-fessional phase of the model which require this activityfor their development, the total cost for designing anddrafting the 90 assessment instruments for this phase is90 times that sum.

The costs for each of the activities in the evaluationsubsystem were determined in this way. The total cost ofthe model was made up of the costs of the total activitiesin the subsystems, plus the cost of major equipment utilizedin more than one subsystem. Data processing equipment, forexample, will be used in storing assessment data as well asscheduling of student PM sequences.

It is recognized that the cost for designing and draft-ing the assessment instruments for each PM is not likelyto be the same (i.e. exactly $300.00 for each). The fluc-tuations in costs among them, however, will likely cancelthemselves over 90 PMs.

During this study a system was developed (Payne, 1969)so that the actual costs for design and development of theassessment measures for a particular PM can be predictedwith considerable precision. But such prediction is onlypossible after the PM itself has been designed. Thissystem for predicting actual costs will be useful in allo-cating and balancing resources during the development andrevision stages of the model.

ustrative Operational Activities

During the sustained operation of the model, the cer-tain activities specified in the overall activity listand on general PERT charts will be taking place. To illus-trate the nature of these activities and the more specificsteps which will take p:Ace, examples from the candidateselection component are described in this section.

Under activity 0M018 -19, entitled Operate candidateselection and orientation, the following describes specific

171

11 r 111111111y1i 1

I

iiiiirv101!!!!!!iingi.1!iWywil )1QvilOnnil

0)0 iiiktaippl!

111°441'1k

10100) tik10)911 ill tii)51i1

a1111111P,

ait, (01`

F

111K01.11114111! 1

111

for(*)10%100 I

POD11-17

Design and draft candidate

pre and post tests.

Fig. 29.

Activity POD11-17 in relation to the professional phase (P0)


events which will take place.

Recruitment activities will occur within the state ona rotating basis following operational guideiines createdduring the development phase of the project. The maximumamount of time for one complete site visit encompassing allparticipating institutions (both secondary and college)should not exceed ten working days. Cycling of site visitsincludes two to four per year in order to communicate clear-ly the purposes, methods and procedures of the model pro-gram. Decreasing the number of site visits during sustainedoperation will occur as information dissemination becomeseffective in making information available to the generalpublic, participating institutional officers, and to highschool students themselves. Figure 30 presents a flowchart of the recruitment-admission processes.

multi-media information dissemination activities re-quire the revision of the tapes and films designed duringdevelopment to update content and to include suggested re-visions made by participating staff members and audiences.Close approximation of media products to the reality ofthe model program is an implicit assumption for sustainedoperation.

Staff time allocation for all participating members ofthe Candidate Selection Committee may best be seen in thefollowing activities:

1. Participation in site visits.

2. Contribution of ideas and suggestions for mediapresentations.

3. Appointment to Candidate Review Committee to se-lect new students.

4. Continuous evaluation of psychometric instrumentsused to review the affective qualities of pros-pective candidates.

5. Presentation of ideas for replacement of psycho-metric instruments and the addition of newinstruments as needed.

174

n!!OvitMent staff

makes site visit

end disseminates

in/emotion

1Pr.upe._tive

andidate applies

for admiusitn

committee

schedules tests,

evaluation L

interview

Proepective

oandidete submits

school L other

records

Prospective

candidate come

pletes physlcac

examination L

submits records

,111

.1

Candidate takes

tests 4 is

evaluated

:Committee ap-

Committee ere

,--..i proves outstand-

proem other

in

candidates

canCidates i. so

Committee inter-

!so notifies thee

notifies them

via.. L evaluates

candidate

Fig

. 30.

Flo

w c

hart

of e

vent

s in

can

dida

te s

elec

tion

com

pone

nts.

Committee counsel

and redirects

macceptalle

randidaurs

Candidate accepts

and resisters or

ithdraws

application

4

Candidata partici-

pates in orienla-

tiOn and induction

6. Revi:,w of the process of candidate selection toassign relative weights to the various componentsof selection. These include test scores from pre-viously attended insitutions, recommendation tothe program of a prospective candidate by theprincipal, the personal interview, and candidatepersonal interview criteria. A scale will be de-vised for this purpose.

7. Instructional and advisement duties as relatedto proficiency modules and student advisers.

8. Receiving feedback from currently enrolled studentsto determine whether recruitment procedures ac-curately reflect the overall procedures of theModel Program.

9. Continuous updating and revision of candidateselection procedures.

10. Participation in regular staff meetings.

11. Consulting opportunities with other institutionswhich are in research and development activitiesfor their own candidate selection procedures.

Participating members of the Candidate Review Committeecharged with the responsibility of selecting model programstudents should enjoin one sixth time for those responsi-bilities directly involved with the mechanics of actualselection. Site visit team members who are also a part ofcandidate review should enjoin one quarter time asidefrom instructional duties. Continuous processes of reviewwill be accomplished by all members of the instructionalfaculty and require no predetermined time to be reserved,except as the program requires periodic meeting.

Rotating schedules of participation as a member ofrecruitment and candidate review will be determined on ayearly basis. In all cases, no less than two members ofthe review committee will be old members, assisting in con-tinuiry of thcl procedures.

A further task accomplished during sustained operationwill be evaluation of the admissions process by level ofentrance into the model program. This task specifies there-fore the methods of attracting students to the following

176

levels: teacher's aide, teaching assistant, general ele-mentary teacher, and specialist. Selection procedurescommon to all levels will be examined collectively. Pro-cedures indigenous only to a specific level will be evalu-ated separately. Such methods may include: evaluation ofthe predictive data of successful candidates who have beengraduated from the institution; feedback obtained fromcandidates themselves immediately after admission and thenat the end of their program to test differences in the per-ception of the process; scrutiny of admissions policies ofother institutions offering elementary teacher educationcurricula.

177

Summary

This chapter is a basic report of an investigationinto the feasibility of the subsystem for evaluation ofthe model program during development and operation. Themajor components of this subsystem which were studied arecandidate selection, the evaluation of candidate perfor-mance, and overall program evaluation. The feasibility ofthese evaluation procedures was validated through the care-ful conceptualization of these procedures in the systemsdesign of the model program and through discussions withappropriate officials at the University of Georgia. Of-ficials at other institutions and specialists in the fieldwere also consulted. Study of selected literature andresearch findings, cost estimation, and various other pro-cedures were employed to validate the feasibility of theevaluation subsystem.

Upon completion of these studies, the evaluation sub-system has been judged to be feasible for development andimplementation of the model program at the University ofGeorgia. The procedures used in determining this feasi-bility can be used at other universities outside of theState of Georgia as well.

178

References

Bauernfeind, R. H. 'Goal Cards' and future developmentsin achievenent testing. Proceedings of the 1963Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. Prince-ton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1966.

Biddle, B. J. & Ellena, W. J. (Eds.) Contemporaryon teacher effectiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart,and Winston, 1964.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) A taxonomy of educational ob'ectives:Handbook I The co nitive domain. New York:Longmans, Green, Co., 1956.

Hartley, H. J. Limitations of systems analysis. Phi DeltaKappan, 1969, 50, 515-519.

Justiz, T. B. A reliable measure of teacher effectiveness.Educational Leadership, 1969, 27, 49-55.

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. A taxonomy ofeducational objectives: Handbook II, The affectivedomain. New York: David McKay Co., 1964.

Lindvall, C. M. (Ed.) Defining educational objectives.Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964.

Mager, R. F. Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto,Calif.: Fearon Publishers, 1962.

McNary, S. R. Final report: The relationship betweencertain teacher characteristics and achievement andcreativit of ifted elementar school teachers.Washington, D. C.: Bur. Res., OE, US Dept. HEW,Project No. 8-348, Contract No. OE-5-10-399, April30, 1967.

Metfessel, N. S. and Michael, W. B. A paradigm fordeveloping valid measurable objectives in the evalu-ation of educational programs in colleges and uni-versities. Educational and Psychological Measurement,1967, 27, 373-383.

179

References. (conit.)

Oettinger, A. G. & Marks, S.mythology. of educationalCambridge, Massachusetts1969.

Run comnuter run: Theinnovation - -An essay.

: Harvard University Press,

Payne, D. A. Estimating costs for develo ment of candidateperformance evaluation_procedures: PM entry and exitassessment: GEM Bulletin 69-7, Athens, Ga.: Collegeof Education., University of Ga., Nov., 1969.

Payne, D. A. The s ecification and measurement of learninoutcomes. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Publishing Co.,1968.

Silvern, L. C. The evolution of ustems thinking in edu-cation. Los Angeles: Educational Training Consul-tants, 1965.

Smith, G. M. Personality correlates of academic per-formance in three dissimilar populations. Proceed-ings of the 77th Annual Convention of the AmericanPsychological Association, 1969.

Wilhelms, F. T. Evaluation of feedback.In F. T. Wilhelms (Ed.), Evaluation as feedback andguide. Washington, D. C.: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development, NBA, 1967.

180

Chapter VI

Feasibility of the Management Subsystem Components

J. B. Ayers and G. F. Shearron

The purpose of the management subsystem is primarilyone of facilitating the operation of the instruction andevaluation subsystems already described. That is, thecomponents of either the instruction or evaluation sub-systems no matter how theoretically sound and practicallydesigned cannot function effectively unless the managementsubsystem provides the vehicles by which their objectivesmay be met. Thus, the management subsystem focuses con-cern on necessary modifications in university procedures,

--staff organization, control of project functions, and theallocation, control and accounting of all resources.

The task of investigating the feasibility of the com-ponents of the management subsystem is twofold. On theone hand is concern for the feasibility of the instructionalprogram in sustained operation and on the other hand isconcern for the feasibility of the five year strategy de-signed to implement the model into a program in sustainedoperation.

The investigation of the feasibility of the managementsubsystem began with an examination of the specifications.While they were sufficient to provide the conceptual model,numerous details of concern necessary to validating thefeasibility of the model were required For example, theoriginal specifications called for the abolishment of theconventional grading system but no steps had been taken todetermine whether this could be done, and if so how itwould be accomplished. Specifications also called foryear-round education or the discontinuance of quarters andsemesters, individualized instruction with an effectivescheduling system, monthly or staggered registration,portal schools collaborating efforts with the university,a staff organization radically different from tradition,and a systems approach to management. These were regardedas desirable specifications, but they had not been vali-dated or examined sufficiently at the time the model ofthe instructional program was presented to be regarded asfeasible. It is the purpose of this chapter to supply the

details and provide evidence of the feasibility specifi-cations for the administration and organization of themodel as regards its functioning during the sustainedoperation of the instructional program, and to describewhat are regarded as feasible activities designed to im-plement the model program into operation.

Organization and Administrationduring _Sustained Operation

This discussion of the organization and administrationof the model program in sustained operation is concernedwith institutional change, management systems, schedulingtechnology, and mutual arrangements with other professionalagencies.

Institutional Change

For the model program to be successfully developedand implemented numerous changes in policies and procedureswill have to take place in most university settings as thespecifications for the operation of the model program arenew to most college campuses. Thus, the administrationmust be made aware of these specifications and the benefitsto be accrued by the institution if they are implemented.Also of importance to institutional change are the specificchanges that must be made in the legal and administrativeorganization of the institution. Specific areas of concerninclude: orientation of faculty and administration to thenew methods of operation (see Chapter IV), year-round edu-cation, staggered registration, tuition, credits, grades,student activities, scholarships, student housing, relationswith public school districts, certification and accredita-tion.

Year-round education. The model program encouragesinstitutions of higher learning to be operative 12 monthsa year. With this program there is no need for semesters,quarters, summer vacations or spring recesses. Such a planobviously provides for more continuous use of the student'stime. It will also provide for increased utilization ofthe professional staff, many of whom are "vacationed" 3months out of the year. Similarly, physical facilities andmaterials which are partially used at times and overloaded

182

..1s-Inetri""

at others will be provided more uniform attention withconsiderable savings.

Year-round education with individualized instructionwill also provide in other ways for the conservation ofhuman resources. For example, the capable student withlimited financial assistance might well be able to keep apart-time job and continue learning activities throughwhat are now lengthy vacztion periods, and the student wholoses 6 weeks through illness will be able to resume hisresponsibilities without the serious losses which are evi-dent under the conventional semester or quarter system.

The University of Georgia presently operates on afour quarter basis with the usual recesses. Discussionswith administrators at the University of Georgia have ledto the conclusion that no problems are likely to developin extending the University's present program to meet theneeds of the model program. It seems therefore feasiblethat other institutions would be able to adopt a year-roundschedule for operation of the model program

Staggered registration. Each fall, winter, spring,and summer long lines of students are seen on campusesacross the nation waiting to enroll in colleges and uni-versities. Thousands of students must be registered, ad-vised, enrolled, and accounted fo all at once. They mustbe processed through dormitories, lunch rooms, clinics,book stores and ticket desks. The efforts of all admini-strative, instructional, technical, and clerical personnelare extended long hours in preparation for the event.Technological equipment from pencils and typewriters tocalculators and computers are all required on an overloadbasis. The University of Georgia is no exception to thisrule.

The model program is designed to encourage the prac-tice of staggered registration. That is, insofar a; en-rollment in the model elementary teacher preparation pro-gram is concerned, registration of beginning studentscould take place whenever a suitable number (for example,25 to 30) were ready and facilities were available. Speci-fications require that registration take place monthly.Thereafter, each student will enroll in the next PM blockas soon as he has completed the prerequisites.

183

Discussions with tYs registrar of the University ofGeorgia have led to the conclusion that staggered regis-tration is feasible for the model program.since it is al-ready policy to permit students seeking credit for inde-pendent study to enroll on any desired date and completethe enrollment when course requirements have been satisfied.A more complete discussion of the aspects of schedulingare discussed later in this chapter.

Tuition. At present most students at colleges and uni-versities are assessed a fixed charge for tuition and otherfees. For example, a full-time student at the Universityof Georgia is required to pay a maintenance fee quarterly.In addition, he is assessed fees for student activities,student athletics and health. If the student is a non-resident of Georgia, he must pay additional fee. If astudent takes less than a full lc. (less than 12 quarterhours of credit) he is assessed a fee based on the numberof quarter hours of credit for which he is registered.

The model program as modified by its feasibility in-vestigation will require each student to pay a fixed chargeeach quarter plus an amount for each PM that he undertakes.The amount assessed for each PM will be based on the com-plexity of the work in terms of time, materials and equip-ment required. For example, a PM that requires consider-able use of computer assisted instruction will probablycost the student more than one which requires less costlymaterials and equipmelt. The fees to be paid by each stu-dent will be established during the initial ope..!ation phaseof the model program.

It is assumed that all students will pay the usualstudent activities, student athletics and health fees on aquarterly basis. If a student is a non-resident of thestate, he will pay any additional fees on a quarterly basisas set by the laws of the state.

Special dispensation fall be made for students enroll-ed in the on-the-job track of the model program. In thiscase the student will pay a fixed charge each quarter pro-portional to the overall amount of credit for which he isregistered, plus the charges fixed for each PM.

184

Based on consultation with the registrar of the Uni-versity of Georgia, this plan is feasible. However, duringthe development and initial operation phases of the programmore detailed plans must be made for implementing the feesystem through the Vice President for Business and Finance.

Credits. The model program proposes that the normalsystem of credits in terms of quarter or semester hours beabolished. However, in order to account for students whofind it necessary to transfer to other schools or uni-versities and to account for problems associated withelection to honor societies and graduation with honors itis necessary to establish a basis for credit.

The feasibility investigation led to the developmentof the Student Effort Unit (EU) system for establishingcredit. An EU is defined as a quantitative approximationof the amount of effort required of an average student toacquire a defined set of specific behaviors. The totalnumber of EUs in the model program is 3,000. Of this totalthe first 1,000 RUs represent the preprofessional phase,the next 1,000 BUs the specialist phase. Table 4 showsthe specifications for the distribution of BUs among areasof study and types of PMs by instructional program phases.The equivalents for an EU are defined as follows:

1 EU = 2 clock hours of effort

10 EUs m 1 quarter hour of credit

tS EUs = 1 week of effort (30-45 hours)

150 BUs = 1 academic quarter (10 weeks of work or 15quarter hours of credit).

In turn this system can be converted to a semesterhour equivalent by multiplying by a fantor of 2/3. Thatis 10 BUs a 1 qtr. hr. = 2/3 semester hour.

The proposed system of credits will allow fnr the com-putation of a grade point average if desired for eachstudent. This is more fully explained under the sectionentitled Grades.

185

Table 4

Student Effort 77zit Distribution

Prepro-

P1

fessional

/111E11111111E1111tssional

Specialist

CD

EF

G

Language Arts

Social Science

Natural Sciences

Mathematics

mg Arts - -Art

Fine Arts - -Music

Foreign Language - -Spanish

Foreign Language - -French

Foreign Language--German

Health, Safety, and P.E.

Gen. Pareprof. C. Prof. Educ.

Internship

Human Oevel.

C. Learning

Instructional Media

Pupil Personnel Serv.

Prof. Dev. & Curs. Plan.

.5 eh oo I, -Comtnunity Coordination

Evaluation

Soci,1 Foundations

200

200

200

100

50

50 0 0 0

100

100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

50

50

SO

sO

25

25 0 0 0 0

300

150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(300)

(300)

(300)

(300,

(300)

(300)

(300)

(300)

(300)

(300)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

50

100 0

100 0

110050

(500)

(500)

(500)

(500)

(500)

(500)

(500)

(500)

(500)

(SOO)

0 0

(300)

(500)

(500)

(500)

(500)

(500)

0

(50)

(50) 1

(50)

(50)

(SO)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(30)

(50)

0 0

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

0 0

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(50)

0

i,1,;;;'S

(A10

,?',.';',

/..

.-1-0

g 0

e;.0

o-:::gc:

...I 2 f,

:..-

1 ...

40.

:c

p.,

0E-

mg

..,.s

.

F.m

;-4

. 0x

C 4

-o

0.

o u

-' -4

0.'0

5% C

44

>C

.-0)

90

j 'S

t 4C

0 C

01

0.g.

s0

(6

0 Z

.0 C

O2 tio >,1 0

7,1

c.:;

c 40

01 >

-4

z.0

E _

Z°.

o

I!,

5-s

E>

tE.g

.0

D O

. E. 0

Sub Total

1,000

700

300

400

500

1,000

50

50

Undeter-

mined

Total By Phases

1,000

1,000

The administration of the University of Georgia hasindicated that this plan for credit is within the legalframework of the University and can be adopted on a trialbasis during the initial operation of the program. Adop-tion of this system of credit on a trial basis will re-quire approval by the University of Georgia CurriculumCommittee. Preliminary investigation suggests that thisapproval can be obtained.

Grades. The model program requires that the standardletter grading system be abolished. Under the model pro-gram students are judged to have completed a PM or block ofPMs when they have satisfactorily exhibited the behavioralspecifications set forth for that portion of the require-ments. Therefore, each student must exhibit all of thebehavioral specifications of a particular block before heis allowed to proceed to the next. In order to graduateand be certified at any one of the three career sequencelevels he must have satisfactorily exhibited all of thebehavior specifications assigned to that level.

The model program grading system is based on a passor fail. If u student fails to complete all behavioralspecific-11-.0ns of a PM or block of PMs the first time heundertakes the work, he will be allowed to repeat thework a second time in order to meet the minimum behavioralspecifications. If after clinical assistance and advise-ment a student fails to exhibit the desired behavioralspecifications after attempting a PM or bl.)ck of PMs asecond time his case will be critically reviewed by thestaff with a view toward redirecting him into another pro-gram more suitable for him. If a student does outstandingwork in a particular PM he will be assigned a grade ofPass with Honor. The criteria for a grade of Pass or Passwith Honor will be established for each individual PMjointly by the developers of the PM and the instructor ofthe 3I. Adoption of this system will allow flexibility injudging the competency of each student in relation to otherstudents. This will further allow for distinction to bemade at graduation, that is graduation with honors, andalso for election to honor societies.

For accounting and credit purposes a number will beassigned to each level of grading. A Pass with Honor willcarry a numerical value of 2.0, a Pass a value of 1.0 and

187

a fail a value of 0.0. Calculation of a grade point averagewill be accomplished by standard procedures such as thoseoutlined by the University of Georgia (University of GeorgiaCatalog, 1969, pp. 31-2). The highest possible grade pointaverage is 2.0.

In order to establish the feasibility of the gradingsystem proposed for the model, a survey was made of studentopinion. During October, 1969, an informal survey was madeof 176 juniors, seniors and beginning graduate students en-rolled in courses in the College of Education at the Uni-versity of Georgia. These students were asked to indicatea preference for either the present grading system (A, B, C,etc.) or the system proposed for the model program. A totalof 125 or approximate)" 70% of the students indicated apreference for the model program system of grading. It canbe concluded that the majority of potential students for themodel program will accept the grading system.

In order to validate the legal feasibility for thisgrading system discussions were held with the Registrar andthe Vice President for Instruction of the University ofGeorgia. Both agree that the grading system is feasible andwill be adopted on an experimental basis by the Universityof Georgia Curriculum Committee.

Student activities. Students in the model program willpursue student activities as outlined by the college or uni-versity in which they are enrolled. Stylent activities de-pendent on grade averages (see Grades) will be handled inthe manner prescribed by the institution. No special pro-visions are made for student activities under the model pro-gram.

Discussions with the University of Georgia administra-tion have led to the conclusion that the model program isi7easible with regard to student activities, and that thesematters should be handled by the institution.

Scholarships. Scholarships for students enrolled inthe model program may be handled by the college or universi-ty in the manner set forth in its rules and regulations. Nospecial provisions are necessary in the model program forscholarships.

188

Discussions with the University of Georgia administra-tion have led to the conclusion that the model program isfeasible with regard to scholarships and that these matterscan easily be handled by the college administering the pro-gram without change in policy.

Housing. The model program encourages institutions tobe operative 12 months a year and to pursue staggered regis-tration. In addition, the program requires that studentspursuing the program full-time alternate between work oncampus and practical laboratory experiences in public schools(Johnson et al., 1968, pp. 185228). These requirementsnecessitate students moving in and out of dormitories atirregular intervals and also locating housing in the com-munity in which they will perform their professionallaboratory experiences.

The two major concerns of housing are for on-campushousing or community housing while the student is pursuingwork on campus and for off-campus housing while students arepursuing their paraprofessional and professional laboratoryand internship experiences. After discussions with theDirector of Housing at the University of Georgia it has beenconcluded that it is feasible for students to live in Uni-versity owned housing as needed for their on-campus phaseof the model program. Because of the need for folding roomsvacant for students entering the program at staggered timesand also relocating on-campus at irregular intervals itappears that it will be necessary to increase room rentabout 25% over present costs. This is still lower than forcomparahle off-campus housing.

Placing elementary education students in schools fortheir professional laboratory experiences requires thathousing facilities for these students be made availableduring their five and ten week stays in the centers. Againafter discussion with the University of Georgia Housing Di-rector it does not appear feasible for the on-campus Hous-ing Office to handle these arrangements.

From experience with student teachers and from a con-certed effort to identify housing that is available in theareas of Metropolitan Atlanta, Gainesville and RichmondCounty, Georgia, it is known that adequate housing for indi-viduals desiring a short term arrangement of five or tenweeks is not available.

189

During the development phase of the model program itappears feasible that arrangements for the, provision ofadequate housing facilities will be securad through theavenues of block lease agreements with apartment owners orthrough agreements to lease dormitories newly constructedspecifically for the purpose of housing these students.Such arrangements must be made by the Board of Regents ofthe University System of Georgia which has endorsed themodel program and offered its cooperation. It is believed,therefore, that such arrangements as necessary can be facil-itated.

The University of Georgia Director of Housing has indi-cated that student costs for housing in such arrangementsmay be somewhat higher than comparable on-campus housing.However, these costs will be borne by students and not ab-sorbed by the model program.

Living in University sponsored housing in the centerswill be required of all students for the purposes of accom-modating such arrangements and providing appropriate coun-seling and supervision of these off - campus students.

Public school districts. The model program requiresclose cooperation between various public school districtsand the college in which the model is implemented. Thereis a need for contractual arrangements between the collegeand the various cooperating schcol systemot A precedent forsuch arrangements has bean established. The Board of Re-gents of the University System of Georgia has for a decadecontracted on a yearly basis with the Clarke County (Georgia)Board of Education to pay an annual cum for the College ofEducation of the University of Georgia to utilize ClarkeCounty's public school classrooms ac pr)fessional laboratoryfacilities.

During the development phase of the model program con-tractual arrangements will be finalised for facilities andother resources, amount and method of payment for servicesof laboratory sponsoring teachers and clinical instructorsand training of these personnel, as well as arrangements forjoint appointments or appointment of public school personnelas professors.

There is a need to clearly identify the legal status of

190

the elementary education students while they participate inprofessional laboratory experiences public schools. Dur-ing the development phases of the model program efforts willoe made to arrange for legislative and State Department ofEducation action which will clarify this matter. It iideemed vital to the success of the model program that pex-ticipating elementary education students be able to functionin professional laboratory experience classrooms free frominordinate threat of lawsuits and with the opportunity togrow professionally without the physical presence of thelaboratory sponsoring teacher or the laboratory clinicalinstructor.

Consultation with administrative and legal staff of theUniversity of Georgia and with school districts presentlycooperating with the University in providing laboratoryfacilities indicates that these legal concerns are feasibleand necessary for the development and operation of the modelprogram.

Teacher corps. The University of Georgia, College ofEducation and Atlanta Public Schools are cooperativelysponsoring a racially integrated Teacher Corps program. Thecandidates for the program have a college degree in somefield, such as arts or science, but lack professional edu-cation and inservice training. Two full years of work andstudy are necessary to complete the program requirements.The first year program consists of two phases, the pre-service preparation program and the inservice program. Dur-ing the preservice programs tie interns live the life ofstudents, and earn 16 quarter hours of academic credit insociology, psychology, and curriculum. During the inservicephase of the program, Teacher Corps interns work in theschools in the morning and attend late afternoon classes.A full summer quarter's academic load and second year ofinternship in the Atlanta Public Schools complete the secondyear of the program and the academic requirements of theMaster of Education degree.

The University of Georgia Teacher Corps project, basedin Atlanta inner-city schools, has had impact on the modelan4 the f2asibility study. For example, Teacher Corps in-terns have evaluated and reacted to selected specificationsfrom the specialist phase of the model. To determine thefeasibility of the provision for local responsiveness, the

191

interns have expanded the "local conditions" specificationsinto details and suggestions for gaining competencies.

The Teacher Corps programs are viewed as special appli-cations of the model, and are expected to serve in thisspecial capacity during piloting of PMs and throughout thedevelopment of the overall project. The administrative andinstructional agreements between Teacher Corps and the Di-vision of Elementary Education already exist to expedite aclose and direct relationship. The Atlanta project willserve as a special-purpose site for the testing and modi-fication of selected professional and specialiat PMs sinceTeacher Corps projects are dedicated to the encouragementof institutional change.

Certification. The model program's effort to definethe job of the teacher began with the establishment of goalsand objectives for the elementary school (Johnson, et. al.,1968, pp. 253-69). From these, pupil learning behaviors andteacher teaching behaviors were derived. Teacher teachingbehaviors were categorized into paraprofessional tasks andprofessional tasks. An examination of these tasks revealedthat different competencies were required and these diffe,:-ences led to job classifications.

Both the teacher pool and the analysis of the job ofthe teacher suggested the need for a career development se-quence for teachers. Therefore, the position of the modelprogram is that such a pattern would necessitate four cate-gories of teaching personnel: aide, teaching assistant,teacher with an area of competency, and specialist (Johnson,et al., 1968, pp. 231-49). For these four categories ofteachers to effectively function in the schools, they mustbe certified by the State Department of Education.

At present certification is provided by the GeorgiaState Department of Education for teachers holding abachelor's degree or higher. There are three certificates,one each for teaching target age groups of 4 to 9 years, 6to 12 years and 9 to 12 years. These mould correspond inthe model program to the teacher with an area of competencyor to a specialist.

The Georgia State Department of Education war consultedby the Chairman, Division of Elementary Education with re-gard to certification, not only for these new career levels

192

of school personnel, but also with rega.'cd to overall certifi-cation of the model program for the preparation of teachers.The State Department of Education has agreed to certify themodel program on an "experimental basis." Therefore, itappears feasible that model program graduates will be certi-fied. It seems Yeasonable to aosume that similar provisionalor experimental certification for the model program can beobtained from any State Department of Education.

Accreditation. The teacher education programs at theUniversity of Georgia are accredited by two agencies. TheNational Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education(NCATB) directly accredits the program of teacher education.Indirectly the program is accredited as part of the overallUniversity accreditation by the Southern Association ofColleges and Schools (SA:S).

In February, 1968, the Faculty Executive Committee ofthe College of Education at the University of Georgia ac-cepted an invitation from the American Association of Col-leges for Teacher Education (AACTE) to be one of eightrepresentative institutions to participate in the AACTB/NCATB Feasibility Project for the purposes of testing anew proposed set of accreditation standards and also seekingaccreditation of the teacher education programs by NCATE.

As a result of an intensive self-study made by thefaculty of the College of Education from March 1 throughNovember 1, 1968 a site visit by teams representing AACTBand NCATE in February, 1969, the teacher education programof the College of Education was accredited for a ten yearperiod (Institutional Report Vol. I, VoA. II, Vol. IIYA &Vol. IIIB, 1968).

The accreditation team recommended certain changes inthe elementary teacher program at the University of Georgia(NCATE Report, 1969). A review of the model program indi-cates that it satisfies the standards of NCATE and that allof the recommendations of the team had been included in themodel program. Therefore, it is anticipated that no prob-lems will arise during the next accreditation which willtake place in 1978, well after the model program is in sus-tained operation. It also seems reasonable that the pro-gram would be accredited if it were placed in operation inanother college.

193

Accreditation of the model program by SACS is alsofeasible. According to SACS (Standards of the College,1968, p. 7), the educational program must be clearly re-lated to the purposes of the institution. This relation-ship between purposes and program must be demonstrated inpolicies of admission, content of curricula, requirementsfor graduation, instructional methods and procedures, andquality of work required of the students.

The model vrogram meets these criteria. Further,"The Commission encourages member institutions to conductexperimental programs." (Standards of the College, 1968,p. 5). In order that the model program be recognized bySACS, the President of the University must submit the pro-gram to the Executive Council of the Commission (Standardsof the Col) ege, 1968, p. 5).

Management

Specifications for the administrative organization ofthe model program were originally specified by Johnson,et al. (1968, pp. 210-222). However, after consultationwith experts in the field of management a modified systemfor management of the model program was developed. Thismanagement system is centered on the assumption that themodel program functions should be the basis for determiningthe administrative organization that will implement andsustain the program. Persons who have achieve'. professionalstatus for their high level of academic or professional com-petency will focus their attention on their area of speciali-zation. Persons trained in business will be employed fornonacademic types of managerial activities.

The management component of the Organization andManagement subsystem consists of the model program's re-lationship to the University of Georgia and to the politicalstructure of the State of Georgia.. The state legislatureand executive branch are the final authority for all branch-es of state government, including tax supportA publicinstitutions. The Board of Regents, appointed by thegovernor and confirmed by the legislature, exercises controlover all public higher education in the state. Control fromthe Regents to the University is depicted in Figure 31.

194

EXECUTIVE AND ttfAtlAMC 111Atftml3 cc

00YINNWtte T

I

IMOD Of IttStNlli

F.--CiatiCtit.01 Of 11000 I

0 A tttodtt

PRts10tw,Oru1ovtt -I PfitliOttert Or 0944WY 0/ ttOOtiA I ,9II tArlf tritt

ertovost

via mums? rotovsott ss r*Atct

VICE PREAOENt FONIt4Stivet1ON

Vitt POE vow tuft Vi't PRESIDENT 101OtStAlltt4 ttOVItt

Ottlf Of COUttetbraCtt1011

CAW*? ?It OfThtittutivtt

ttYstOort MAO 1tt ONtilvtxttfity %AMER to

I0441C ?OA 01 1E4,0 tiR1tOJCIT0014- Et titgtx

tiott t TO 0 OKI *Molt

At WM ft MU tat /01141,11.1t1VolltokuAttly

ISLOPOottrc MUNI tMI Stiff

t3,01/1/ 0wict01 rotstato A:Atton It

AtS4 teet etclo togt MOMS

t000,014 linttlat t00/0/trits* 11)00uit t I[N ONot tt or 't Cott§

ASS4Stlott boactotsrattlit tvkimt

littltort.0411,011 remttuOtht Mort

1

*Statle Netttolt tot Ittkot414t St LI ttoi

Pig. 31. Administrotive structure in relation to theUniversit-: of Georgia and to the State of Georgia.

195

Figure 31 also provides information on the line stafforganization of the University of Georgia and the positionthe College of Education occupies in this framework. TheDean of the College of Education is responsible for allactivities within the College. The model program is apart of the total program. Advising the Dean is the FacultyExecutive Committee made up of associate deans, divisionchairmen, outside consultants, members of the State Depart-ment of Education, and representatives of other institutionsusing the model program. The function of this committeewill be to review the progress of the model program andmake policy recommendations.

The Director of Teacher Education - Elementary (cur-rently called Chairman, Division of Elementary Education)will be the chief executive officer of the model programand will exercise budgetary and policy making control ofthe total operation. Advising the Director will be a com-mittee made up equally of students, public school teachers,and personnel representing the model program staff. TheDirector will appoint a Director of Project Operations whowill handle the day-by-day operation of the development,piloting and implementation phaes of the project. TheDirector of Project Operations will report directly to theDirector of Teacher Education - Elementary.

A supporting staff including systems analysts, costaccountant,,, and additional supporting personnel will pro-vide the technical expertise necessary to develop the feed-back model an3 control costs. The Director of i.:ojectOperations will head this staff.

Job desc.Aptions for the additional positions on Figure31 are found in Volume III, pages 11-51. The two majordivisions in the management subsystem are instruction andevaluation, any student services. This appears to be themost logical :ay to separate staff functions. However,over7apping will necessitate the establishment of closework...g relationships betwcten the two divisions.

196

The division on instruction and evaluation will be re-sponsible for the continuous development and evaluation ofall student learning experiences. The success of the modelprogram depends upon the evaluation of students and pro-grams in such a way that it will provide the feedbacknecessary for continuing program improvement. The com-petencies to be developed in the instructional program arealso the basis for evaivation. Therefore, these elementscannot be separated.

The program's division on student services deals withselection, scheduling and counseling of students. In thisdivision students are brought Snto the model program, sched-uled for their learning experiences, and counseled andguided as a result of the continuous evaluation of studentsin the instructional program.

In addition to personnel, the management component ofthe model program will be respon3ible for the management ofall facilities connected with the project. In order toascertain feasibility a study was made of the facilitiesavailable to the College of Education at the University ofGeorgia (Ayers, 1969c). Based on this study it has beenconcluded that adequate facilities for carrying out thedevelopment and operation of the model program will beavailable. On January 1, 1971 the College of Educationwill move into two new buildings. These structures willprovide the majority of the special facilities requiredfor conducting the program; for examples: closed circuittelevision, a language laboratory, special obsrtrvationfacilities, testing rooms, science laboratories, adequateadministrative offices, and facilities for remote computerterminals.

The management component through utilization of thescheduling component will control all facilities on a one-to-one basis. Scheduling of all facilities will be con-

197

tinuously controlled, i.e., a student will not be assignedto a classroom or other facility unless a work space isavailable.

The management component as described is the resultof work by the model feasibility staff and its managementconsultants. The legal structure in the State of Georgiawill not change nor will the present total University ad-ministrative organization. There will, however, be sig-nificant changes within the College of Education. The de-partmental structure now used in the Division of ElementaryEducation will be replaced by the management subsystem de-tailed above which has the approval of the Dean of theCollege of Education and a Committee of Deans appointed bythe President of the University of Georgia to implement themodel program. This committee includes the Deans of Edu-cation, Arts and Sciences, and Business. The Vice Presi-dent for Instruction, the Provost and the President havealso approved.

Scheduling

An investigation was made in order to determine thefeasibility of the scheduling of all aspects of the modelprogram. This investigation was made by a series of dis-cussions with experts in the fields of computer technologyand systems analysis.

The primary concern of the scheduling component of themodel program is the student. The academic time scheduleshould be arranged so that a student is permitted to begina new area of learning whenever he is ready to do so. Inaddition allowance should be made in the time schedule andcourse load requirements of the program for individual dif-ferences among qualified students in their potential, ratesof learning, health and physical stamina, financial re-sources, and other such variables. Finally, all studentsshould be provided equal opportunity to receive high qualityinstruction (Johnson, et. al., 1968, p. 139).

The basic conclusion of this investigation was that amanually oriented filing system would severely limit the

198

number of students the system could handle. Therefore, acomputer oriented filing system is a mandatory requirementto handle the relatively large number of students (approxi-mately 1500), (Ayers, 1969b) that are likely to be passingthrough the model program by the time it reaches sustainedoperation.

The system of scheduling for the model program isbasically one of establishing and maintaining a computerstorage filing system on the progress of each student, thestatus and capabilities of faculty and staff, and the statusof physical space and equipment. Students in the model pro-gram will be handled on a distributed basis; therefore thefiling system must be capable of continuous daily up-datingand access.

The c:;Ttf-m described in the following paragraphs isbased on the assumption of continuous up-dating and access.The assumption has been made that the system will be imple-mented at the University of Georgia using existing computerhardware. This system can be implemented on an IBM 360/65computer with remote terminals. Comparable computer equip-ment such as the Univac 9200 could also be used. Softwarerequired for this scheduling system must be developed.

Program and file description. Six basic programs willbe required for this scheduling system. These programs are:(1) file maintenance (one for each file program), (2) test-ing program, (3) evaluation program, (4) scheduling program(5) miscellaneous reporting programs and (6) master internalcentral program. These six basic programs supplemented byother programs will operate the system.

The filing system of the operation will require eightbasic files. Each file in the system will contain two typesof basic information: (1) identifying, background, and per-formance history data, and (2) current status data. Theeight basic files are discussed in the following paragraphs:

1. The student record file will contain one recordfor each student in the system. A record willcontain, in addition to technical data, otherinformation relating to his chosen curriculum,performance history and current assignment, andreview schedule. The record will be updated

199

for every testing and new assignment period. Figure32 depicts the relationship of the student re-cord file during testing. The relationships of thisfile to other aspects of the system is shown in thefigures which follow.

2. The testing decision tables will be used to assistin the testing of a student at an assigned reviewperiod. The tables will be developed by the facultyand updated as information is fed back from the fieldvia a reviewing group. Conceptually they can bevisualized as two column tables: assigned taskversus examination question or performance request.

The student will report to the system via aremote terminal at an assigned review period. Thetesting program would assess his student record todetermine his last assignment and issue test ques-tions versus performance inventory per the testingdecision table. Figure 33 shows file relationshipsin the testing program.

3. The evaluation decision tables will be used to as-sist in evaluating a student's performance in atest. The tables will be developed and maintainedby the faculty and staff, using feed-back informa-tion from the field. The taoleG will consist ofquestions or reported actions versus acceptableresponse columns.

The student and/or assigned faculty memberwould report test responses via remote terminalsand the program per the evaluation decision tableswould evaluate the student's response. Figure 34shows file relationships in the evaluation pro-gram.

4. The scheduling decision tables will be two columntables of chosen curriculum and performance dataversus new assignment alternatives. The schedulingprogram using the decision table information as abase can build a CPM network or linear programmingmatrix with faculty, space, and equipment restric-tions supplied by the appropriate fi].es to deter-mine in an "optimum" sense the student's nextassignment. Figure 35 shows file relationships in

200

Test

Students

Evaluate

Student

Response

Determine

Status of

Outside

Romc.trie.tinns

Issue PM

Assignment

to Student

PM Complete

Fig. 32.

Student record file flow for testing through fileupdating.

Update

Student

Record File

StudentRecordFile

TestingProgram

TestingDecisionTables

EvaluationResults

Fig. 33. File relationships in the testing program.

202

/UpdatedStudentRecordFile

StudentResponse

IFacultyResponse

EvaluationResults

Fig. 34. File relationships in the evaluation program.

203

///;tudent

Record

File

Update,2

Student

Record

File

Assignment

Instructions

to Studer.t...--

Fig. 35.

File relationships in the scheduling program.

the scheduling program.

5. The faculty and staff file will contain a recordfor every faculty and staff member. Each recordwill contain, in addition to identifying data,information representing fields of specialization,capabilities, and current load information. Thefile will be updated whenever such informationchanges, particularly each time a new student isassigned to a faculty member. Figures 33 and 36 showthe relationship of this file to testing and otherfiles in the system and also to the master file up-dating and report generation subsystem.

6. The space and equipment files will contain a recordfor each space unit or unit of equipment. The fileswill be updated each time a student is assigned toa space or equipment unit. Figures 33 and 36 showthe relationship of this file to testing and otherfiles in the system and also to the master fileupdating and report generation subsystem.

7. The accounting files consist of information per-taining to budget, expenditures, income, inventory,etc. They will be maintained in the traditionalmanner. The files will be used in conjunction withvarious reporting programs to provide estimates andperformance information to the administration. Therelationship of this file to master file updatingand report generation is shown in Figure 36.

8. The internal central files and programs will beinternal to the computer system and used to facili-tate the handling of the many remote terminalsassociated directly with the operation of the com-puter system.

This same system of scheduling can be used by othercolleges in the State of Georgia using the model programthrough remote terminal connections with the University ofGeorgia.

A scheduling system using existing computers with soft-ware of a kind described here developed in the initial phasesof the project will be adequate to accommodate the number of

205

Mas

ter

File

on

File

s

ilM

isce

lla-

neou

s R

epor

t--v

-R

epor

tin

g Pr

ogra

ms

----

--...

...""

----

-11

Fig. 36.

Master file updating and report generation.

students likely to be enrolled in the model program whetherat the University of Georgia or in other colleges. Thescheduling procedures established in this investigation aretherefore feasible for the model program.

Mutual Arrangements (Collaborations) within the Profession

Specifications for the model program require the in-volvement of numerous local and state agencies for effec-tive development, implementation, and sustained operation.City and county elementary school districts will cooper-atively participate in the training of elementary schoolteachers by providing exchange personnel such as coordina-tors, supervisors, principals, and classroom teachers towork with the model program on a shared basis. They willserve as instructors or program development specialists(visiting professors), as they concurrently assume part-time roles for their specialties in their local school sys-tem. Also, these school systems will provide materials,laboratory settings, opportunities for paraprofessional em-ployment of the students as aides or assistant teachers, andrecommendation and/or sponsorship of certain students forspecial training. In addition, they will open the doors oftheir curriculum libraries and elementary school classroomsfor study, reference materials, elementary school learningmaterials, and for such activities as observation, parapro-fessional participation, supervised teaching field studiesand demonstrations.

As regards state organization involvement, commitmentshave been made by the Regents of the University System ofGeorgia for awarding degrees and by the State Department ofEducation of the State of Georgia for awarding teachingcertificates. Tentative reciprocal agreements have been madeto provide cooperative working relationships with the juniorcolleges of the state and with other interested colleges anduniversities. These agreements will parallel the prepro-fessional phase of the program in those institutions wherelower division students would enter the model sequence inwhat has traditionally been called the "junior year."

Agreements with research and development centers andregional laboratories which are concerned with early child-hood education, education of the culturally disadvantaged,education of non-English-speaking children, and elementaryeducation have been made to share their research findings,

207

programs and facilities to the mutual advantage of theseorganizations and the model program operation.

An Ad Hoc Committee of Educational Materials and Re-sources has recently been appointed by the Dean of the Col-lege of Education. The purpose of this committee is to, "Becertain that no faculty member or student in the College ofEducation misses an important idea that could be availablethrough the use of the best available educational resources."(Ad Hoc Committee, 1969). This committee is investigatingthe educational resources now available to the College andmaking recommendations for the acquisition of such new re-sources such as a computer-based information retrieval sys-tem for education.

Field experience and intumbib The specifications ofthe model program (Johnson, et al., 1968, pp. 222-25) re-quire each student to complete a minimum of five laboratoryexperiences and one internship during the preservice and pro-fessional phe.ses of the program. Provision is made for eachstudent to function as a teaching aide for two blocks oftime for a minimum of five weeks each. Each student alsofunctions as a teaching assistant for three blocks for aminimum of five weeks each. An internship period for a min-imum of ten weeks :n length 4s provided for each student inPM Block 10 of the progessional phase. The six professionazlaboratory experiences together provide for each student toexperience working with age groups tt his projected gradelevel of teaching as well as with age groups above and be-lcw this level. Attention is also given to insuring thateach student works with children of various socioeconomicand ethnic characteristics.

The placement of elementary education students in largenumbers into public school classrooms implies very close co-operation between public school systems and the college.Student enrollment will approximate 1,50d when the model pro-gram reaches the sustained operational level in 1975-76(Ayers, 1969a, 1969b). It is estimated that at this levelof enrollment a minimum of 403 classrooms will be neededduring each year.

A survey was made of the 20 school systems in Georgiathat cooperated closely with the College of Bducation of theUniversity of Georgia during the 1968-69 school year in pro-viding facilities for obs,rvation and student teaching at

208

the kindergarten and elementary levels (Ayers, 1969,). All

school systems surveyed indicated a willingness to continue

and to expand their program of cooperation with the Universi-

ty of Georgia College of Education. For purposes of this re-

port the school systems were grouped into four geographical

areas as follows: area 1, immediate vicinity of Athens, Ga.;

area 2, Metropolitan Atlanta; area 3, Northeast Georgia and

area 4, immediate vicinity of Augusta, Ga. Table summa-

rizes the results of the survey and indicates that a suf-

ficient number of public school classrooms are available

within a reasonable distance of the University of Georgia

campus for the placement of elementary education students

in professional laboratory experiences.

Table 5

Summary Of School System Survey

4111 111

Area1

Area2

Area3

Area4

Total

No. of ElementaryClassrooms in useduring 1968-69 458 7,331 744 744 9,277

No. of ElementaryClassrooms availableduring summer 1969 19 806 75 25 925

No. of KindergartenClassrooms availableduring 1968-69' 11 389 10 0 410

No. of Head Start Classroomsavailable in summer 1969 15 181 34 20 250

.1110010111.

'Includes a limited number of children in other types of pro-grams for children under six years of age.

209

Students entering the University of Georgia from juniorcolleges and other institutions of higher learning will berequired to participate in one professional laboratory ex-perience of a minimum of five weeks prior to continuing withthe remainder of their program.

A student who presents evidence of having had publicschool teaching experience or having served as a teacheraide or other paraprofessional in a public school situationfor at least five weeks will be exempt from the requirementprovided he has acquired the behavioral objectives estab-lished for the preprofessional laboratory experience.

The conceptual vehicle for implementation of the pro-fessional laboratory experience component of the model pro-gram will be the professional laboratory experience center,The center will consist of a cluster of schools identifiedas portal schools (Sowards, 1968, pp. 118-25).

Portal school. The portal school concep% (Sowards,1968, pp. 118-25) is a group of schools teat will be es-tablished in school systems maintaining a close working re-lationghip with the University and indicating a willingnessto participate in the model teacher education program. Por-tal schools will have leadership favorable to innovation,new curricula, differentiated staff, and extensive use ofmedia in the instructional program. The function of theseschools will be to provide: transition from the universitypreservice phase to full-time teaching in the inservicephase, in school situations that operate in harmony with themodel program. Concomitant benefits should accrue to thecooperating school systems through providing a supply ofteachers who would assume leadership in other schools in thesystem. The schools themselves would serve as demonstration...enters for promotioA of change within the system.

Preservice and inservice education is a continuous un-interrupted sequence in the model program. Teacher perfor-mance specifications can be effectively implemented in aportal school setting. Some of the specifications deal di-rectly with the transitional period between the universitycampus and the classroom. Th.: program is a feedback modelwith continuous evaluation of each component. Evaluation inthe portal school will provide valuable data that is easilyaccessible.

210

Each portal school will be equipped wIth adequate audioand video taping facilities for use by the elementary edu-cation students as they function in their various roles ofteacher aide, assistant teacher, and intern, and also othermaterials and equipment for use in PMs that may be takenwhile in these centers.

Each center will be staffed with a manager whose func-tion will be to coordinate placement arrangements for labora-tory experiences, and to make available to elementary edu-cation students currently within the center the resourcesrequired by the students engaged in learning tasks containedin professional laboratory experiences PMs (Johnson, et al.,1968, p. 223).

Initial plans have been made to establish four centersin North Georgia. These centers will be Metropolitan Atlan-ta, Gainesville, Athens, and Augusta. The portal schoolsidentified with a center will be located within a 35 mileradius of each other; however, they must be physically lo-cated in several different school systems.

Portal schools will be identified and selected by theschool system administration on the general criterion oftheir overall adaptability and value to a teacher educationprogram. Some of the criteria to be used in their selectionwill be the quality of the educational program being offeredin the school, the willingness of the administration and themajority of the school faculty to work with the program, andthe ethnic and socioeconomic population of the school com-ounity. Additional criteria for identification and selectioncf portal schools will be specified during the developmentphase of the model program.

In order to insure continuity in services to the portalschools, the professional laboratory experiences componentof the model program will vary somewhat in the length oftime which students work towards completion of the learningtasks in these PMs. All students will be required to re-main in their assigned laboratory experience placement forthe entire five or ten week period in order to allow timefor evaluation of their experiences and to minimize theadministrative problems caused by shorter periods in theclassroom. Students who complete the required learningtasks in a shorter length of time will undertake additionalPMs.

211

It should be noted that in some centers portal schoolsmay be utilized on a revolving basis, whereby those beingused one year may be different from those used in the samecenter another year. This feature will enable local schooladministrators to distribute the impact and benefit of theinflux of elementary education students over a broader base.

Public school elementary classroom teachers in portalschools will function as laboratory sponsoring teachers and/or laboratory clinical instructors. The former will workwith elementary education students serving as teaching aidesand assistant teachers during their five preintern experi-ences. The latter will work with student interns duringtheir ten week internship. Special preservice orientationand inservice training sessions will be provided for theseinstructors to insure their effectiveness. Adequate andreasonable renumeration will also be provided.

Identification and selection of the laboratory sponsor-ing teachers and the laboratory clinical instructors will beaccomplished jointly by local school system administratorsand an appropriate college representative. Specific criteriafor selection will be established on the development phaseof the model program. These will relate to current teachingeffectiveness, teaching experience, professional certifi-cation and educational qualifications.

Within each center provision will be made to identifycertain better qualified laboratory sponsoring teachers andlaboratory clinical instructors. These will be designatedspecifically for working with individual students who can-not complete the required learning tasks within the estab-lished five or ten week period and will need further timeand assistance.

Additional personnel assigned to the cer..cers will beknown as clinical professors. They will work with the ele-mentary education students and the laboratory sponsoringteachers and clinical instructors of one or two portalschools. Mention of these personnel is made here to empha-size the facts that 10 to 15 elementary education studentswill be assigned to each portal school and that the utili.zation of college personnel in this manner will provide formaximum efficiency and effectiveness. The center conceptwith portal schools will enable one clinical professor tobecome extremely well acquainted with portal school staff

212

4

members and the school community, and will enable this per-son to function effectively as a resource person for theschool and the elementary education student by being con-stantly on the scene. It will provide the opportunity forcontinuous appraisal of students' progress and the conduct-ing of seminars on a continuing basis, both for preserviceand inservice personnel.

Clinical professors may be drawn from college or pub-lic school personnel, or employed on a joint appointmentbasis. Past experience with supervisory personnel workingwith student teachers under similar appointments has shownthat such arrangements are possible and effective.

The on-the-job track. The on-the-job track of themodel program is designed for those individuals who mustwork in order to complete their college education. Theindividuals who enter the model program through the on-the-job track will be employed on a full-time basis in a schooldistrict at their appropriate level of competency and willpursue college work in tho model program on a part-time basis.

For example, a student may enter the on-the-job trackdirectly from high school, working full time as a teachingaide and taking preprofessional PMs on a part-time basis.At such time as the student desires, he may leave full-timeemployment in the school district and pursue work on a full-time basis toward his college degree. As part of the on-the-job track a student will engage in a continuing seminarwith an advisor from the model program. The student in theon-the-job track will be exempt from the paraprofessionallaboratory experiences provided he has demonstrated the be-havioral competencies specified for the experiences.

The student entering through the on-the-job track willbe subject to the same screening devices, testing, etc., asthose students who are pursuing work in the program on a full-time basis.

Initially students enrolled in the on-the-job track willbe confined to areas around portal schools. However, it isanticipated that, as the program becomes larger, the trackwill be expanded to include school districts located through-out the state.

213

Students will take their PMs at junior and senior col-leges in the state that are participating in the model pro-gram (see Mutual Arrangements (Collaborations) Within theProfession). Special material:, and equipment will be avail-able at these portal schools in order that PMs can be com-pleted within the school. The PMs that are completed inthis manner will necessarily be of an individual nature.

Professional participation. Numerous professional or-ganizations will take part in the model program during sus-tained operation. These organizations will participate di-rectly in the operation of the program or indirectly byproviding consultative service, legal advice, or methodsfor the implementation and operation of the program.

The Board of Regents is the governing body of the highereducation system in the State of Georgia. All units of theUniversity System, including 16 senior institutions and 11junior colleges, are controlled by this body. The Board ofRegents will facilitate the model program by providing ulti-mate authority in all matters associated with colleges anduniversities using the model program. The Board of Regentswill be the liaison agency in all matters that require legis-lative action for operation of the model program. The Boardof Regents has endorsed the model program.

The Georgia State Department of Education has endorsedthe model program and has agreed to issue certification tostudents graduating under this program. During the sus-tained operation phase of the program this agency will giveadvice and support wherever possible. Members of the StateDepartment of Education will serve on the Committee ofExecutives of the model program.

Bachelor's degree granting institutions and junior col-leges in the state will participate in the program duringsustained operation. Initially it is anticipated that sev-eral junior colleges and at least one senior college otherthan the University of Georgia v0,11 adopt the model programfor use in their institutions.

After each phase of the program has been in sustainedoperation for one year, the satellite institutions will be-gin implementation of the program. The administrative or-gani2ation of each of these institutions is similar to that

214

of the University of Georgia; therefore no problems with re-gard to implementation should be experienced.

As the program is successfully tested in these insti-tutions the model program wi:1 be made available to all ofthe institutions in the Stat. of Georgia.

Other institutions in the state have agreed to cooper-ate with the program by providing facilities for students totake PMs while they are working (see On-the-job-track).

Letters of interest in the model program from thesevarious institutions are on file. Representatives of theseinstitutions will serve on the Committee of Executives.

The preprofessional phase of the model program closelyparallels the core curriculum adopted for junior collegesin the State of Georgia (Regents of the University Systemof Georgia, 1967). The major difference between the juniorcollege core curriculum and the preprofessional phase of themodel program is in the requirement of paraprofessional lab-orator experience. Therefore, it is anticipated that noproblems will arise with the tralsfer of students from jun-ior colleges. Provisions have been made for laboratory ex-periences for these students (see Field experience and in-ternshi2).

During sustained operation other organizations such asprofessional societies, research and development centers andregional educational laboratories will participate in themodel program. Liaison will be maintained with these or-ganizations and recommendations and results of research willbe utilized for modification and improvement of the modelprogram.

For example, the Research and Development Center inEducational Stimulation at the University of Georgia iscurrently supporting a variety of research projects. Theseprojects are exploring the basic hypothesis that early andcontinuous intellectual stimulation of children three throughtwelve through structured sequential learning activities willresult in higher levels of ultimate achievement than wouldotherwise be attained. The Research and Development Centerhas agreed to make its research results known for possibleincorporation into the model program.

215

The Southeast Regional Education Laboratory is currentlyengaged in a Amber of projects in the early childhood edu-cation program. Again this organization has agreed to pro-vide information and assistance to the model program insustained operation by providing facilities for observation,laboratory experiences, and research findings.

Numerous other professional organizations have agreedto provide information and support to the model programduring sustained operation by consultation.

Figure 37 presents a diagram of the flow of informationfrum these various organizations into the model program andthe resulting modification.

The feasibility of professional participation in themodel program has been established through direct consulta-tion with the various agencies involved. Letters of agree-ment between these agencies and the staff of the model pro-gram at the University of Georgia have been exchanged. It

seems feasible that these organizations would provide thesame assistance to any institution that adopts the modelprogram in sustained operation.

Organization and Administration During Development

This chapter has been concerned primarily with thefeasibility of the management subsystem of the model in-structional program while that program is in sustainedoperation. However, for any dynamic model to reach a con-dition of sustained operation there must be a feasiblestrategy for its attainment. Chapter III outlines thatoverall strategy and Volume II provides detailed reportsof all development activities. However, for this reportto be considered complete it must contain reference to thespecific management development activities provided inthe strategy. Attention is given to three major areas ofconcern: management of personnel and facilities, manage-ment of institutional change, and scheduling.

Management Component Durinc, Oevelmoent

Throughout the development stages of the model pro-gram the management component of the model program will besimilar to that proposed for sustained operation (see

216

Impr

oved

Mod

el.

Prog

ram

Fig. 37.

Flow of information into model program anl resulting changes.

Figure 31 Administration and organization chart). However,during the early stages of development of each instructionalphase of the program the Division of Instruction and Evalu-ation will be concerned primarily with the development ofPMs, instruments for student evaluation, and the evaluationof the instruction program. Concurrent during this initialperiod the Division of Student Academic Services will beconcerned with the development of criteria for student se-lection, scheduling and evaluation. As the various phasesof the program progress from stage to stage (see Figure 5 )

the emphasis of these two divisions will gradually shiftfrom planning and developing materials to working directlywith students.

A complete list of the activities, resources and costsfor the overall management of the development phases of themodel program is contained in Volume II of this report andjob descriptions of essential personnel are included inVolume III The overall management activities during thefive year development phase have been designated with thesymbol OM and include some 55 separate activities. Fig-ure 38 taken from Volume II shows the relationship of theoverall management activities to the total project. Theseactivities fall into four major categoriest planning andprocuring of facilities, equipment and materials; revision;evaluation; and operation of the various components of themodel program. All activities are continuous throughoutthe duration of the five year development period.

One activity illustrative of overall management activ-ities is Activity 0M-018t 922attzro ctrLnarsLIaement. Thisactivity is concerned with the overall management of theproject during the six stages of development. This activ-ity will require key and supporting staff and office space.The key personnel for this activity are the Director, Di-vision of Elementary Education and the Director of ProjectOperations. These staff members will be supported by anadministrative assistant, the project business manager, twoexecutive secretaries and a clerk typist. These staff mem-bers will devote essentially full time to this activity.Another activity illustrative of overall management isActivity OM-015-021 .Revision of facilitiellemannt_Indmaterials. Here attention is centered on the revision ofspecifications for the overall facilities, equipment andmaterials needed for the development of the project. It is

218

estimated that during each year of the five year develop-ment the Director of Project Operations will devote one day,while the two associate directors will spend five days en-gaged in conferences and visiting other projects to gatherideas and evaluate equipment and materials for possible in-clusion in the development of the model program. These keypersonnel will be supported by the project business managerfor 15 days and an administrative assistant and a secretaryfor 71/2 days each. Office and conference space and travelcosts are included in the resources for this activity.

These activities are only illustrative of the 55 activ-ities that overall management will carry out during the fiveyear development of the model program. The majority of theactivities follow the pattern outlined above. All activ-ities were developed by educators in consultation with ex-perts in the field of management and are regarded as notonly feasible but integral parts of the activities of themodel program.

Development of Institutional Change and Mutual Arrangements

For the model program to be successfully developednumerous changes in policies and procedures will have totake place in most university settings as the specificationsfor the model program are new to most college campuses.Thus, the administration must be made aware of these speci-fications and the benefits to be accrueti by the institutionif they are implemented. Also of importance to institution-al change are the specific changes that must be made in thelegal and administrative organization of the institution.Concurrently with changes in policies and procedures in theuniversity setting, mutual arrangements (collaborations)within the profession must be made.

Volume II of this report lists all activities, re-sources, and cost necessary during the five year developmentperiod of the model program to finalize the necessary in-stitutional changes and mutual arrangements within the pro-fession. Tentative arrangements for institutional changeand mutual arrangements were made during the developmentand feasibility study of the model instructional program.A more detailed explanation of the necessary institutionalchanges and mutual arrangements is presented in previoussections of this report.

219

JULY

AU

GU

ST

7070

.e"

SE

PT

EM

BE

R71

72SE

PT

EM

BE

R

WP

001

-01

X01

JPP

ors-

01

- 03

laz.

cpll

fl

a -

ez

o14.

02

SEPTEMBER

JPE

019-

1N

M-

_IM

Oco

t%

la--

---,

......

......

....

oli..

:17

°L.:A

)0'

l -O

a- 1

0M01

9-01

01- .1

2i'3

atii-

811

013

- 1

7

4 -

JPE

I19-

01

Fig. 38.

PERT network:

Overall management (OM).

014-

0a

The majority of the activities to effect institution-al change and to develop the needed mutual arrangements willrequire conferences between various staff members of themodel project and representatives of the various institu-tions such as the University of Georgia, school districts,research and development centers and other professionalorganizations. These activities occur at various points ofthe model program.

Activit PP-D15-07: Revise reci r,cal a reements com-ponent criteria is illustrative of an activity concernedwith the development of mutual arrangements. It is centeredon the revision of the criteria for reciprocal agreementsand will occur during Stage I of the development phase.This activity is primarily an internal project matter andwill involve very little consultation with outside sources.Included in this activity will be a revision of all criteriarelated to mutual arrangements with organizations outsideof the University. It is estimated that this activity willrequire about 20 days for completion and will involve theChairman, Division of Elementary Education and the Directorof Project Operations for one day each. The associate andassistant directors will devote about three days each tothis activity. Supporting this activity will be a half-time secretary and resources for a nominal amount of travel.The facilities for this activity will include office andconference space.

Another activity which focuses on mutual arrangementsis Activity PP- D11 -02: Desi n and draft reci rocal a ree-ment procedures. It follows the previously described ac-tivity. It involves conferences between the model staffand representatives of various agencies to deign and draftnecessary reciprocal agreements for the development of themodel. At this same time initial agreements necessary forsustained operation will be made. It is estimated thatthis activity will require about 35 days and will involvethe Director, Division of Elementary Education and the Di-rector of Project Operations for two days each. Each ofthe associate and assistant directors of the project willbe involved in this activity for five days each. A secre-tary will support this activity for the duration of 35days. Resources for travel and conferences have been pro-vided. Facilities necessary for this activity include of-fice and conference space. This activity will finalizeagreements among the various participating agencies.

222

These activities are only illustrative of the activi-ties that must be completed during the development of themodel program. All activities were developed by profes-sional educators in consultation with experts in the fieldof management and are regarded as not only a feasible butan integral part of the development of the model program.

Develo ment of Scheduling Component

During the development stages of the model program thescheduling component for sustained operation will be de-signed, developed, piloted and put into initial operation.The development of the scheduling component will be car-ried out during six stages as outlined in Figure 5. Theassumption has been made that the system will be implementedat the University of Georgia using existing computer hard-ware (an IBM 360/65 system) with remote terminals. Thesoftware required for this scheduling system will be a ma-jor concern during development.

A complete list of the activities, resources, and costsrequired for the five year development and subsequent op-eration of the scheduling component is contained in VolumeII of this report. Volume III contains job descriptionsfor the personnel required to develop the scheduling com-ponent during its various phases. During Stage I (seeFigure 5 ) an applications systems analyst supported by asecretary will make initial plans and designs for the var-ious program files of the scheduling component. In StageII the systems analyst supported by two senior programmers,a secretary and a key punch operator will develop the sched-uling component for the preprofessional phase of the modelprog-am. At this same time initial rental of remote ter-minaLs will be made for student use in the preprofessionalphase of the program. During Stage III this group willpilot test the scheduling program with the preprofessionalstudents and begin development of a program for the pro-fessional phase. The development of the scheduling com-ponent will continue until the total program is developedfor all phases of the model program. It is anticipated thatby the erd of the final stage the complete scheduling com-ponent w.al be developed and that only a senior programmerwill be needed for maintenance and updating of the systemduring sustained operation.

223

Based on a series of discussions with experts in thefield of computer technology and system analysts, this planis feasible. Sufficient time, personnel and resources havebeen allocated for the development of the software for thescheduling component using existing computer systems, inparticular the IBM 360/65 system maintained at the Universi-ty of Georgia.

224

Summary

This chapter is a basic report of an investigationinto the feasibility of the subsystem for organization andmanagement of the model program during both developmentand operation. A variety of procedures were used in in-vestigating the three major components of the subsystem ofthe program (institutional change and mutual arrangement,administration, and scheduling). Feasibility of institu-tional change and mutual arrangements has been establishedthrough a series of discussions with the administrativeand legal staffs of the University of Georgia, publicschool districts and other agencies such as the Board ofRegents of the State of Georgia, research and developmentcenters, regional laboratories, junior colleges, and othersenior colleges. The feasibility of the administrativeand scheduling components has been established primarilythrough consultation with experts in the fields of manage-ment and systems analysts and computer technology, re-spectively. Other activities leading to the validationof the feasibility of these components include directquestioning of students, and questionnaire investigationsof various professional groups. The major investigationsare summarized in GEM Bulletins 69-2, 69-4, and 69-5 (Ayers,69 a.b.c.).

The staff conducting the investigation has concludedthat in so far as the University of Georgia and the Stateof Georgia is concerned the feasibility of the developmentand implementation of the model program may be regardedas validated. It is assumed that similar validation canbe obtained by most universities if procedures such asthose reported herein are applied.

225

Chapter VI

References

Ad Hoc Committee on Educational Materials and Resources.Generating and using knowledge. Athens, Ga.: Collegeof Education, University of Ga., Oct., 1969.

Ayers, J. B. Feasibilit of ractical laborator e eri-ences: Report I, GEM Bulletin 69-4, Athens, Ga.:College of Education, University of Ga., Sept.,1969. (a)

Ayers, J. B. Selected data on teacher-pupil personnel forGEM feasibility study: Report I, GEM Bulletin 69-2,Athens, Ga.: College of Education, University of Ga.,July, 1969. (b)

Ayers, J. B. Specifications for new colle e of educationfacilities. GEM Bulletin 69-5, Athens, Ga.: Collegeof Education, University of Ga., Oct., 1969. (c)

Institutional resort Vol. I Basic ro rams. Athens, Ga.:College of Education, University of Ga., Dec:., 1968.

Institutional report, Vol. II, Advanced programs. Athens,Ga.: College of Education, University of Ga.,Dec., 1968.

Institutional report,Ga.: College ofDec., 1968.

Institutional report,Ga.: College ofDec., 1968.

Vol. IIIA,Education,

Vol. IIIB,Education,

Program summaries. Athens,University of Ga.,

Program summaries. Athens,University of Ga.,

Johnson, C. E., Shearron, G. F., & Stauffer, A. J. FinalReport: Georgia educational model specifications forthe preparation of elementar. teachers. Washington,D. C.: Bur. Res., OE, US Dept. HEW, Project No.8-9024, Contract No. OEC-0-089024-3311 (010), Oct.,1968.

226

NCATE visiting team report, Report submitted to Dean J. A.Williams, College of Education by NCATE Visiting Team,April, 1969.

Regents of the University System of Georgia. Report of theUniversily_astem Committee on transfer of credit.Atlanta: RUSG, Sept., 1967.

Sowards, G. W. A modql for the preparation of elementaryschrol teachers. Washington, D. C.: Bur. Res., OE,US Dept. HEW, Project No. 8-9021, Contract No. OECO-8-089021-3308 (101), Oct., 1968.

Standards of the colle e dele ate assembl, of the SouthernAssociation of Colleges and Schools. Atlanta: South-ern Association of Colleges and Schools, Dec., 1968.

University of Georgia general catalog. Athens, Ga.:University of Ga., 1969.

227

Chapter VII

Cost Data and Their Effect on the Feasibilityof Developing and Operating the Model Program

J. B. Ayers, C. E. Johnson and G. F. Shearron

The purpose of investigating costs is to provide costestimates for both the development and sustained operationof the model instructional program and, on the basis ofthese estimates, to determine the extent to which it may beregarded as feasible to develop and operate the model pro-gram.

This chapter begins with a discussion of the theoreticalconsiderations that formed the basis for estimating costs,then describes the actual procedures used. Next, thefindings of the cost investigation are presented objectively.The chapter ends with a discussion of the feasibility ofproceeding with the development of the instructional progrargiving consideration to alternatives based on availablefunds.

Some Theoretical Considerations

The systems approach, fundamental to the proposedmanagement of the instructional program in operation as wellas its proposed strategy for development, is equally funda-mental to the strategy for determining estimated costs.However, particular attention must be given here to theanalytic method since it is not only basic to the utiliza-tion of the systems approach in general, but its applicationin determining costs varies somewhat to its applicationsin other chapters of this report.

The Analytic Method

Throughout the design, testing, and subsequent opera-tion of the overall model it is concluded That each majorand minor subsystem and unit of the overall system wouldbe subjected to separation, identification, articulation,and evaluation. From these analyses which occur both beforeand after utilization of the units in the system, the goal

of optimum design is more likely to be reached. It must berecognized that the primary design objective, the modelprogram itself, has as a theoretical base a parallelismwith analytical methodology. In addition, contemporarymanagement control systems are built and manipulated usingsubcomponents that can be measured and rearranged much likemechanical, electrical, or chemical processes of design.This approach to structuring and controlling a system isbasic to the intelligent application of the new techniquesand the new technologies such as computers. Therefore,from the very start, the prime system has been approachedwith a homogeneous design philosophy. This must be reflect-ed in the cost estimation procedures through the selectionand designing of relevant subsystems.

Subsystems of Cost Analysis

To avoid specious varieties of the systems approach,the design for estimating costs has incorporated thinkingfrom the philosophical, theoretical, structural, concep-tual, and pragmatic aspects of systems methodology. Theapproach that is reflected in this report is structured oninterlocking program components of the educational modelas the prime product. This primary objective is supportedby a number of structural subsystems for cost analysis asis shown in Figure 39 which provides a conceptual diagramdepicting the major relevant subsystems which were con-sidered in estimating costs.

The power or control function. The power function isnormally implied in the organizational subsystem. It hasa specialized control function or an overall authorityseparate and distinct from the other subsystems. The or-ganization and communication subsystems closely complementthe power function. Since the power function inherentlyis the responsible intellectual nucleus of this program,it contains the authoritative thrust in order to close thesystems loop in a meaningful manner. Recognition of thisfunction is fundamental to estimating and controlling thebehavior of the myriad of subunit3 that must be directedtoward the final goal. Any gross malfunction in this sub-system disrupts the discipline necessary to the design andoperation of a management control subsystem.

Organization. The configuration of the various people,

229

//

Comnuni-cations

Fig. 39. A conceptual diagram depicting the relevantsubsystems included in estimating and control.

230

machines, buildings, money, and communications into a mean-ingful working whole is the main thrust of the organiza-tional subsystem, While there is some relationship to thestandard notions of organizations of people, it is muchmore comprehensive because it configurates all the parts- -people being only one of the parts. It is ;Thrther concernedwith a Gestalt-like effect that comes with an integratedsystem.

Communications. Parts of the system such as facilities,product, time, dynamics, and value must be superimposedwith a communications subsystem that links them all togetherin a meaningful way. This concept is usually best describedwith a subordinate network similar to electrical devicesthat relate and describe the functioning of complexmechanical systems. Within the communications networkthere are likely to be system hierarchies.

Value. In designing and operating a system, each com-ponent should be able to produce an output more useful thanits input. The notion that the overall system is function-ing in an optimal manner is best approached by being con-cerned with the usefulness ratio of each part. Modeling ofthis part of the system is usually approached by givingeach input And output value a numeric monetary assignment.It is the conceptual base for the application of techniquessuch as benefit-cost analysis, critical path method, andothers.

Time. In pragmatic systems modeling, the time functionis a basic conceptual part. For example, by applying moremoney to parts of .a design, the time vector can usually beshortened. Contrariwise, time can usually be added andless money used. Assimilating the time function into theoverall model is usually coupled cicsely with the valuefunction, but it is also the key part of coupling all themodes, components, and subsystems into an efficient workingsystem.

Facilities. The facilities subsystem incorporates thephysical parts of the system under numerous subheadingssuch as buildings, equipment, and supplies, all of whichare accounted for in costing procedures.

Technology. A peculiarity of systems design pertains

231

to the state of development of each component in relationto the others as well as the classical past, present, andfuture of the design. For example, in this research tradi-tional and futuristic educational methods and managementmethods must be carefully put together, tested, andevaluated. Therefore, it is proposed that each componentbe given an analytic evaluation for its state of technology.

Products. An instructional program reflective of theeducational model in its entirety is the expected outputand its effectiveness will be reflected by the productswhich are the students educated by the instructional system.Their effectiveness, in turn, will be determined by theirability to direct the learning activities of children insuch a manner that the educational objectives are achieved.

Dynamics. The conceptualization, development, evalua-tion, and operation of the system on a real time scale isan inherent part cf the model. The proposed managementcontrol system incorporates the movement, the intrasystemdynamics and the subsystem interfaces in such a way thatthe overall model is integrated on a real time basis.Traditional concepts such as scheduling, estimating, plan-ning, production, and cost management are all used, but ina dynamic system configuration.

Legal. In general this systems design will be generat-ed and used within the existing legal framework. Finalnegotiations with state and other .nstitutional organiza-tions regarding such matters as certification, degree re-quiremants, credit hours, grade point averales, classattendance time, tuition, scholarships, and costs forlearning materials must be made. In addition, there areroutine matters of a contractual nature that must be con-sidered as the program progresses.

Ethical and moral. The overall goal of this enterpriseappears well within accepted domains of ethical and moralbehaviors. The basic viewpoint underlying the conceptionof the model program gave considerable attention to thisaspect. However, concern for this subsystem is includedhere to exhibit thoroughness and to reassure the sponsorsof the research that this subsystem has been given sys-tematic treatment as an implicit part of the managementcontrol system.

232

Procedures

The procedures used to obtain cost estimates fo:c thedevelopment and operation of the instructional programwere comprehensive and detailed. Cost data were estimatedfor the various resources needed for each of the hundredsof activities required. These detailed costs items werereviewed, validated and computer stored. The data werethen retrieved to provide time and cost estimates for eachactivity of each component (i.e. student selection, per-formance behaviors, learning materials, etc.) through eachphase of the instructional program (i.e. preprofessional,professional, and specialist), and through each phase ofprogram development (i.e. planning, developing, piloting,initial operation, and sustained operation). Volume II ofthis report presents these detailed time cost data. It wasfrom these voluminous technical reports that the summaryfigures and tables of cost estimates presented in thischapter were prepared.

Cost Resource Categories

The cost categories used in this study were determinedafter careful review of the literature and recommendationsof management consultants. It was concluded that costsestimation should be based on six resource categories: keypersonnel, supporting personnel, facilities, travel,materials, and equipment.

Key personnel refers to the academic, research, andmanagerial personnel required to develop and operate themodel progral. Supporting personnel refers to the personsassisting key persrirrnel in the development and operationof the model and includes such personnel as researchassistants, consultants, technicians, artists, draftsmen,editors, stenographers, and clerks. Job descriptions forthese individuals are contained in Volume III of thisreport.

Facilities refers to overhead costs essential to theoperation of institutions of higher learning such as sites,buildings and furniture and to basic central equipment suchas typewriters, dictaphones, tape recorders, duplicatingequipment, calculators, and projectors. It also includesthe general services available in most institutions of

233

f

higher learning such as janitorial, maintenance, security,and library.

Travel costs are included in such activities as thosedesigned to establish the model program at colleges anduniversities other than the one which is sponsoring theproject, staff to visit other exemplary programs, travelassociate with the establishment of reciprocal agreementswith ag..dies outside the sponsoring institution, anddissemination activities.

Materials refers to both expendable items and instruc-tional materials needed for the development and operationof the model program. For example: office supplies; curri-culum guides; maps, charts, and globes; science laboratorymaterials; taped lecture series; duplication supplies;video and audio tapes for recording new instructional series;printed instructional guides; student orientation bulletins;tests and evaluation checklists; and staff orientationworkshop items. In consolidating data for the summary ofdevelopment and operation costs for this chapter, travelcosts and computer time costs were assigned to the materialscategory as the methods budgeting and cost control at theUniversity of Georgia follow this policy.

Equipment refers to wor mechanical devices needed todevelop and operate the model program in its entirety. It

includes items such as computer instruction consoles,teaching machines, projectors, recorders, closed circait TVinstallations, listening stations and portable TV equipAent.

Resource Cost and Time Estimation

In order to determine an accurate cost for each activityit was necessary to estimate specific resources, thequantities needed, and the time that the resources wouldbe used in carrying out the activity. In addition anestimate was made ce the time (in days) necessary to con-plete all aspects of the activity. Three time estimateswere made for each activity. These include an optimisticor minimum time, a median or most likely time and a pessi-mistic or maximum time to complete the Activity. Figure40 shows a completed cost, estimation sheet for activityPPD15-10 (Revise facilities, equipment, materials compo-nent criteria.) This activity occurs during the preparation

234

RESOURCE ESTIMATICN SHEET Estimator JBA

Activity Number JW14-10 Activity Same As

Factor to Multiply Activity By -

Time*(days)

Resources Needed(Type, Quantity, Time)

EstimatedCosts ($)

(For Officeuse only)0 M P

20 30 40 Personnel (Key)

1 Full Professor 2 da.2 Associate Professors 10 da. each

Personnel (Supporting)

1 Administrative Assistant 30 da.1 Secretary 15 da.

Facilities

1 Executive Office 2 da.

2 Offices 10 da. each1 Office 30 da.1 Secretarial Station 15 da.

Travel

Travel to visit exemplary projects.Est. at $400

Materials - None

Equipment - None

* 0 = Optimistic Time, P 2 PessimisticP4 2 Median Time

Pig. 40. Resource estimation sheet for activity PPD15-10.

235

for the development phase of the project and is centeredon the revision of the criteria for facilities, equipmentand materials. The resources for this particular activityare different from all other activities in the network.However, the resources for some activities in the networkare identical to others, and still others differ only by aconstant factor. The median time estimate for the illus-trative activity is 30 days; however, the person preparingthe estimation sheet indicates that it might be possibleunder ideal conditions to complete this activity in 20 days.On the other hand, it is indicated that under difficultconditions it could take up to 40 days. The resources forthis activity are key and supporting personnel, office space,and travel. No special materials or equipment other thanthose normally provided such as office supplies, desk, andchairs were judged to be required for this activity.

An examination was made of all proposed activities inorder to provide 1 list of specific resources which wouldbe needed to carry out the activities. This list wasanalyzed, duplications eliminated and a cost determinedfor each item by searching current catalogues, consultationwith experts (i.e., on the development of audio visual aidsand other instructional materials), and searching financialrecords. A cost was established for each item as of July 1,1969, and a number assigned to each item for use in com-puter computations. Figure 41 illustrates how types ofpersonnel and resource cost numbers are listed. Salariesfor all levels of personnel are based on wages paid by theUniversity of C ?orgia to its staff during the 1968-69 fiscalyear. A complete list of the resources used for computa-tional purposes is shown on pages 225-227 of Volume It ofthis report. All data were recorded for later computerusage.

projecIldnallnreases

In order to compute the cost of personnel during thefive year development and subsequent sustained operationperiod of the model program it was necessary to adjustsalary rates to reflect increased cost due to inflation(Consumer Price Index) and raises in alary. The averagepercentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (Bureau ofLabor Statistics, 1969, p. 279) for each year for theperiod 1962-1968 is shown in Figure 42 along with the

236

Resource Number Description

1.3.1 Educational Media Specialists

1.3.2 Librarians

1.3.3 Computer Programmers

1.3.4 Consultants (According to SalaryGroup)

1.3.4.1 Consultants $300 per day

1.3.4.2 Consultant $200 per day

1.3.4.3 Consultant $100 per day

1.3.4.4 Consultant $ SO per day

1.3.5 Production Personnel (DevelopMaterials, Transparencies,A-V Tapes, etc.)

1.3.6 Artists

Fig. 41. Illustration of how types of personnel andresources cost numbers are listed.

237

14

13

12

I I

10

9

N4

V ?

it 6

4

3

2

1

01/62 16!63 1/64 1163 1/66 1/61 1/66 1/69 1/10 1/71 1/72 1/73 1/14 1/15

YEAR

1321 AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

0 AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE (NOMINAL) 1N UNIVERSITY OFGEORGIA SALARIES (ALL ACADEMIC RANKS)

.11111,

41.1110

Pig. 42. Average annual percentage increase in ConsumerPrice Index and faculty salaries.

238

average percentage increase in salary (nominal) for allacademic personnel at the University of Georgia for thefiscal years 1962-1963 through 1968-1969. Extrapolationbased on the opinion of management and economic consul-tants provided the estimate that the Consumer Price Index will

increase at an average yearly rate of 3.0% and the averageannual increase (nominal) of faculty salaries will be 7.5%or a real increase of 4.5%. These data were coded forcomputer usage in constructing rate tables.

Assumptions Affecting, Estimated Costs;

All cost data were computed on the assumption that whenthe program is in full operation the total student enroll-ment will be 1,200. Both the preprofessional and theprofessional phase were assumes to have enrollments of 480each, and the specialist (inservice) phase 240. On amonthly basis this would mean that an average of approxi-mately 20 students would be admitted to each the prepro-fessional and the professional phases each month and 10would be admitted to the specialist phase. Similarly, 20students would exit each month from the preprofessional andprofessional phases, and 10 from the specialist phase.

It was further assumed that because of the individual-ized nature of the instructional program that some excep-tionally well qualified :students might complete the require-ments of the phase in which they were enrolled in half thenormal time while others might require one and one-halftimes the average. For example, it was estimated that theaverage student would require 18 months to complete therequirements of the preprofessional phase and that the majorportion of the students would take from 13 to 1 months. Arelatively few students would meet the requirements in from9 to 12 months, or require more than 24 months.

Another assumption which affects cost estimations andshould be kept in mind in interpreting tablet and figureswhich appear later in this chapter was that costs formaterials, equipment and personnel at the University ofGeorgia (and in the colleges, universities and publicschools to be associated with the model program) approachthe national average. A preliminary investigation failedto reveal any firm index. However, a small random samplerevealed wide variances across the nation. It was concluded

239

that this study should provide precise data in a technicalreport and that institutions which varied considerably oncost indices would then be able to convert the reportedcost estimates into more exact ones for their institutions

Data Processing

Data processing involved the use of Project ManagementSystem/360 (PMS/360) Wiich is a comprehensive set of com-puter data processing programs that make available some ofthe more advanced management techniques used by bothgovernment and industry. The system provides critical pathand general cost analyses as well as PRRT and PERT-Costcapabilities. It has a flexible add on and substitutioncapability that allows for the addition of other managementoriented routines.

PMS/360, as used in this project, has employed threecomputer program modules to generate the data found inVolume II of this report. Figure 43 shows the interrela-tionships of the three computer program modules (processors).Following is a brief description of these three applicationtechniques, or processors.

The network proc.ssor is the key program module forexecuting the PERT and other critical path analyses. Thismodule includes a work-sequencing operation that treats theproject as a series of interrelated activities, some ofwhich are done in parallel while others are done serially.When displayed graphical-y these activities represent thenetwork for the project. These networks are found in VolumeII of this report. The longest path through this networkdetermines the time required to complete the project and iscalled the critical path. All other paths through the net-work have some sla.:k with respect to this critical path.The job of project management during the development andoperation of the model program then becomes one of soscheduling both critical and non-critical Work that it takesbest advantage of available relources while making thecritical path as short as feasible. Special features ofthe network processor include: variable size data fields;variable ordering of input elements on data cards; a calen-dar capable of specifying holidays and vacation periods;optional use of master files; networks may contain up to 254subnets ranging in size up to 32,000 activities; ability to

240

( PERT TINELDATA

NETWORK

PROCESSORMODULE

PERTTHE DATA

REPORTPROCESSOR

MODULE

L1ERT COST

DATA

REPORTPROCESSOR

MODULE

PERT TIMEREPORTS

PERT COSTREPORTS

Fig. 43. interrelationships of PMS/360 processors.

241

accept time durations in days, weeks, or months; and ninelevels of milestone summarization.

The cost processor module is a collection of projectoriented manpower, material and cost planning control sub-routines which can be used in conjunction with the networkprocessor or in a separate application. The cost pro-cessor has been used in conjunction with the network pro-cessor in this project application of PMS/360. Specialfeatures of the cost rrocessor include: an accountingcalendar for variable cost reporting periods; rate tablesfor budgets, actuals, estimates, commitments and obliga-tions; charge number rate tables for application of factorssuch as general and administrative fees; nine level workbreakdown structure for product oriented cost reporting;nine level organization breakdown structure for functionoriented cost reporting and others.

The report processor for the PMS/360 system is designedfor use in output report preparation for the network andcost processor modules, or as an independent module withinthe framework of PMS/360. Its special features include:a set of PERT network reports, selected PERT-Cost reportsand statements that allow the user to define his ownspecial reports.

Xn order to implement PMS/360 with any project the usermust be familiar with the fundamentals of critical path,PERT and PERT-Cost techniques. References on criticalpath, PERT, PERT-Cost and oreration and applications ofPMS/360 are contained in publications prepared by /8M(1968a, 1968b). In addition, users must have access topersonnel thoroughly familiar with PMS/360 and OS/360 jobcontrol language to install the system in their organiza-tion. The programming language of PMS/360 is written inOS/360 assembler language and operates under the controlof 06/360 and uses the QSAM data access method. The systemconfiguration for PMS/360 requires a MAXiAUR of 44K databytes of core storage over and above the requirements ofOS/360. Larger core size will permit increased datacapacity including network size.

Volume II of this report contains additional informa-tion on PMS/360 including job control language, PERT andPERT-Cost data, and computer results obtained in thisfeasibility study.

242

Estimated Costs

Summaries of estimated costs for the development andoperation of the instructional program are presented inthe tables and figures which follow. They arc based oncomputer analyses of the detailed cost data reported inVolume II.

General Information Concernin Tables and Fi ures

All terms which are used in summarizing the cost datahave been previously presented in this report. Definitionsfor the cost categories which appear in the top row of themajority of the tables (materials, equipment, key personnel,and supporting personnel) were defined earlier in thischapter. The phases of the instructional program (prepro-fessional, professional, and specialist or inservice) aredefined in Chapter I. The components (planning; candidateselection; instruction, education; instruction, arts andsciences; evaluation; training of university staff, andmanagement) Have all been dealt with in detail in ChaptersIII through VI. Planning is the first stage of the develop-ment strategy and is described in Chapter III. Candidateselection is dealt with as a component of the evaluationsubsystem in Chapter V. Instruction, education means thesame as professional education, and instruction, arts andsciences means the same as general education; both areTritierin Chapter I and discussed in detail in Chapter IV.Evaluation refers primarily to the student evaluation andprogram evaluation components of the evaluation subsystemdescrited in Chapter V. LEaii:2ti.tesilinofurlitiaty. isthe same as the staff orientation and induction programcomponent described in Chapter IV, and management refersto the activities of the components reported in Chapter VI.

To maintain simplicity in summarizing cost data bothcomputer processing costs and travel costs were assignedto the materials category. This is in keeping withbudgeting and cost control policies maintained at theUniversity of Georgia. Persons desiring to single outthese and other specific costs are referred to Volume II.

As regards the rounding of numbers, in all instancesthe costs are rounded to the nearest five hundred dollars.Also except where specifically noted costs for facilitiesor capital are not included.

243

In examining the tables the reader must keep in mindthe difference between development costs and operationcosts. In general, development costs, sometimes referredto as program costs, are those costs required to designand implement the model into sustained existence. Theseinclude activities classified as planning, developing, andpiloting. Operation costs, sometimes referred to as pro-ject costs, are those costs which maintain the ongoingprogram, and in the case of sustained operation is the totalamount assigned. As regards initial operation, part of thecosts are operation costs, but because of particularspecial effort associated with the initiation of a newprogram for such activities as evaluation and revision,a portion of the cost of initial operation must be consider-ed developmcmt costs. The reason for this differentiationbetween development and operation costs is that in mostinstances institutions seeking to implement a model pro-gram would require supplementary funds only for develop-ment.

Estimated Total Costs for Development

Table 6 presents the estimated total costs for thedevelopment and operation of the program model over thefiscal years 1971 through 1976. Table 6 is read asfollows: The total estimated costs for the six yearperiod is $18,370,000. Of this total $4,737,000 will berequired for materials, $796,500 for equipment, $8,746,000for key personnel and $4,089,500 for supportive personnel.The components are reported by rows. One row provides abreakdown of costs for the training of university saffduring this period: $17,500 will be needed for materials,$3,000 for equipment, $31,000 for key personnel, and$15,000 for supportive personnel. The total needed forthis component is $66,500.

Estimated Costs for Development and Operation by FiscalYears /1.971-76)

Tables 7 through 12 are breakdowns of Table 6. Theypresent estimated total cost for development and operationby fiscal year from 1971 through 1976. These tables areread the same as Table

244

Estimated Costs by Fiscal Years for Development and Opera-tion of Each Phase of the Model Program

The following tables present estimated development andoperation costs for each phase of the program by fiscalyears.

Preprofessional phase. Table 13 presents the totalestimated costs for development and operation of the pre-professional phase of the model program over the fiscalyears 1971 through 1974. Tables 14 through 17 are break-downs of Table 13 by fiscal years. They are read thesame as Table 6.

Professional phase. Table 18 presents the totalestimated costs for development and operation of the pro-fessional phase of the model program over the fiscal years1971 through 1975. Tables 19 through 23 are breakdownsof Table 18 by fiscal years. They are read the same asTable 6.

Specialist phase. Table 24 presents the total esti-mated costs for development and operation of the prepro-fessional phase of the model program over the fiscalyears 1971 through 1976. Tables 25 through 30 are break-downs of Table 24 by fiscal years. They are read thesame as Table 6.

Estimated Costs for Development and Se eration b Stages

Figure 44 presents the estimated costs for developmentand operation by stages. Figure 44 is read as follows:The estimated cost for overall management and control(referred to previously as management) is $2,430,000;$226,00 will be required for development of the prepro-fessional phase, $1,945,000 for piloting of the prepro-fessional phase, etc.

Estimated Project Costs for Development and Operation byFiscal Years

Table 31 presents the estimated total project costs forthe fiscal years 1971 through 1976 for development andoperation. Project costs are the same as developmentcosts and program costs are the same as development costs.

245

Table 31 is read as follows: the total estimated cost fordevelopment and operation is $18,746,000. It is estimatedthat the total program cost is $5,880,500 and the totalproject cost is $12,499,500. Of this total $4,112,500 willbe required for materials, $694,000 for equipment,$5,402,500 for key personnel and $2,279,00 for supportivepersonnel. One row provides a breakdown for fiscal year1975. For example, during this year it is estimated thatthe total cost for materials will be $342,000; howeverprogram costs are estimated at $209,500. Therefore, anadditional $132,500 will be required for materials. Anotherrow provides a breakdown for fiscal year 1976. Forexample, during this year it is estimated that the totalcost is $1,415,000, which includes only the cost for thefirst year of sustained operation of the specialist pYase.As previously defined these costs are for operation.Therefore, no project funds will be needed.

Estimated Costs for Facilities for Development and Operation

The following tables present the estimated total costsfor facilities. The cost estimates reported here e.re basedon the estimated rent that would be paid for facilities inthe new College of Education buildings on the campus of tl,eUniversity of Georgia (Ayers, 1969).

Estimated costs for facilities for development andoperation by fiscal year. Table32 presents the estimatedtotal cost for facilities for each fiscal year 1971 through1976. Table 32 is read as follows: the total estimatedcost for facilities is $881,000. Of this amount $233,000will be required in fiscal year 1971, $346,000 in 1972, etc.

Estimated costs by stages. Table 33 presents the esti-mated costs for facilities by stage and phase. The costsfor facilities for the preparation and overall managementstages have been combined on a prorated basis with thevarious stages of each phase of the program. Table 29is read as follows: the total estimated cost for facili-ties is $881,000. Of this amount $233,000 will berequired for the development stage of the preprofessionalphase, $28,000 for the development stage of the professionalphase, etc.

246

Table 6

Estimated Total Costs for Fiscal Years 1971 through 1976 for the Development and Opera-

tion of the Georgia Educational Model for the Preparation of Elementary School Teachers

Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Planning

127,000

23,000

95,000

40,500

285,500

B.

Candidate

Selection

27,500

5,000

64,500

36,500

133,500

C.

Instruction,

Education

530,000

199,000

1,604,000

608,000

3,241,000

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(761,000)

(183,000)

(902,000)

(492,000)

(2,338,000)

2.

Practicum

(35,000)

(14,000)

(417,000)

(79,000)

(545,000)

3.

Internship

(34,000)

(2,000)

(285,000)

(37,000)

(358,000)

D.

Instruction,

Arts & Sciences

2,475,000

258,000

1,764,000

1,021,000

5,518,000

E.

Evaluation

689,000

41,000

4,305,500

1,869,000

6,904.500

1.

Student

(646,000)

(40,000)

(4,101,000)

(1,628,000)

(6,415,000)

2.

Prcgram

(43,000)

(1,000)

(204,500)

(241,000)

(489,500)

F.

Training of

University Staff

17,500

3,000

3i,000

15,000

66,500

G.

Management

571,000

267,500

883,000

499,500

2,221,000

Totals

4,737,000

l

796,500

8,746,000

4,089,500

18,370,000

Table 7

Estimated Costs During Fiscal Year 1971 for the Development and Operation of the Georgia

Education Model for the Preparation of Elementary School Teachers

Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Eouipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Plannin:

115,000

21,000

85,000

36:000

257,000

B.

Candidate

Selection

8,000

2,000

9,000

4,000

23,000

G.

Instruction,

Education

4,000

12,000

41,000

19,000

76,000

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(3,000)

(12,000)

(39,000)

(18,000)

(72,000)

2.

Practicuni

(1,000)

(--

)(2,000)

(1,000)

(4,000)

3.

Internship

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

D.

Instruction,

Arts & Sciences

3,000

12,000

75,000

30,000

120,000

E.

Evaluation

5,000

39,000

13,000

19,000

76,000

1.

Student

(1,000)

(39,000)

(10,000)

(17,000)

(67,000)

2.

Program

(4,000)

(--

)(3,000)

(2,000)

(9,000)

F.

Training of

Universit

Staff

11,000

3,000

19,00C

9,000

42,000

G.

Management

23,500

12,000

34,000

19,500

89,000

Totals

169,500

101,000

276,000

136,500

683,000

Table 8

Estimated Costs During Fiscal Year 1972 for the Development ana Operation of the

Georgia Education Model for the Preparation of Elementary School Teachers

Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Support_pg

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Planning

12,000

2,000

10,000

4,500

28,500

B.

Candidate

Selection

8,500

2,000

11,000

5,000

26,500

C.

Instruction,

Education

289,000

73,000

141,000

82,000

585,000

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(284,000)

(60,000)

(133,000)

(79,000)

(556,000)

2.

Practicum

(4,000)

(13,000)

(6,000)

(2,000)

(25,000)

3.

Internship

(1,000)

(--

)(2,000)

(1,000)

(4,000)

D.

Instruction,

Arts 6 Sciences

1,064,000

120,000

258,000

112,000

I1,554,000

E.

Evaluation

17,000

2,000

133,000

93,000

245,000

1.

Student

(13,000)

(1,000)

(120,000)

(82,000)

(215,000)

2.

Program

(4,000)

(1,000)

(13,000)

(11,000)

(29,000)

F.

Training of

University Staff

2,000

--

3,000

1,500

6,500

G.

Management

34,500

16,500

54,000

31,000

136,000

Totals

1,427,000

215,500

610,000

329,000

2,581,500

Table 9

Estimated Costs During Fiscal Year 1973

for the Development andOperation of the

Georgia Education Model for the Preparation of

Elementary School Teachers

Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Pe rs o nn el

Tot als

A.

Initial

Plannin

--

--

--

B.

Candidate

Selection

5,500

1,000

13,500

7,500

27,500

C.

Instruction,

Education

449,000

10,000

358,000

176,000

1,087,000

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(444,000)

(101,000)

(302,000)

(164,000)

(1,011,000)

2.

Practicum

(4,000)

(1,000)

(37,000)

(8,000)

(50,000)

3.

Internship

(1,000)

(2,000)

(19,00J

(4,000)

(26,000)

D.

Instruction,

Arts 6 Sciences

1,355,000

111,000

510,000

(272,000)

2,248,000

E.

Evaluation

198,000

--

570,500

297,000

1,065,500

1.

Student

(188,000)

(--

)(533,000)

(255,000)

(975,000)

2.

Program

(10,000)

'")

(_

N-

(37,500)

(42,000)

(80,500)

F.

Training of

Universi

Staff

1,500

--

3,000

1,500

6,000

G.

Management

95,000

47,000

141,000

72,500

355,500

Totals

2,104,000

263,000

1,597,000

826,500

4,790,500

Table 10

Estimated Costs During Fiscal Year 1974for the Development andOperation of the

Georgia Education Model for the

Preparation of Elementary School Teachers

Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Plannin:

--

--

--

--

--

B.

Candidate

Selec4-ion

2,500

--

16,000

11,000

29,500

C.

Instruction,

Education

51,000

10,000

573,000

170,000

504,000

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(21,000)

(10,000)

(241,000)

(117,000)

(389,000)

2.

Practicum

(14,000)

(--

)(200,000)

(37,000)

(251,000)

3.

Internship

(16,000)

(--

)(132,000)

(16,000)

(164,000)

D.

Instruction,

Arts & Sciences

46,000

15,000

562,000

300,000

923,000

E.

Evaluatim

269,000

--

1,968,000

509,000

2,746,000

1.

Student

(255,000)

--

(1,908,000)

(439,000)

(2,602,000)

2.

Program

(14,000)

--

)(60,000)

(70,000)

(144,000)

F.

Training of

Universit

Staff

1,500

--

3,000

1,500

6,000

G.

Management

181,000

77,500

281,500

157,530

697,500

Totals

551,000

102,500

3,403,500

1,149,000

5,206,000

Table 11

Estimated Ccsts

During Fiscal Year 1975 for theDevelopment and Operation of the

Georgia Education Model for the


Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Eauinnert

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Planning

__

__

.--

--

--

B.

Candidate

Selection

2,0

--

11,000

7,000

20,000

C.

Instruction,

Education

34,000

--

427,000

120,000

581,000

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(6,000)

(--

(123,000)

(73,000)

(202,000)

2.

Practicum

(12,000)

(--

)(172,000)

(31,000)

(215,000)

3.

Internship

I(16,000)

--

(132,000)

(15,000)

(164,000)

D.

Instruction,

Arts E Sciences

4,000

--

268,000

215,000

487,000

E.

Evaluation

145,000

--

1,157,000

676,000

1,978,000

1.

Student

(137,000)

--

)(1,085,000)

(604,000)

(1,826,000)

2.

Program

(8,000)

--

(72,000)

(72,000)

(152,000)

F.

Training of

Universit

Staff

1,000

--

2,000

1,000

4,000

G.

Management

156,000

75,500

245,000

146,000

623,500

Totals

342,000

1 175,500

2,111,000

1,165,000

3,693,500

Table 12

Estimated Costs During Fiscal Yea x

1976 for the Development and

Operation of the

Georgia Education Model for thePreparation of Elementary School

Teachers

Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Fersonnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Plannin

__

--

--

B.

Candidate

Selection

1,000

--

4,000

2,000

7,000

C.

Instruction,

Education

3,000

--

64,000

41,000

108,000

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(3,000)

(--

)(64,000)

(41,000)

(108,000)

2.

Practicum

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

3.

Internship

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

D.

Instruction,

Arts

Sciences

&3,000

--

91,000

92,000

-186,000

E.

Evaluation

55,000

--

463,000

275,000

793,000

1.

Student

(52,000)

--

)(445,000)

(231,000)

(728,000)

2.

Program

(3,000)

(--

)(18,000)

(44,000)

(65,000)

.Training of

University Staff

SOO

--

1,000

500

2,000

G.

Management

81,000

39,000

126,500

73,000

319,500

Totals

143,500

39,000

749,500

483,500

1,415,000

Table 13

Estimated Costs for Fiscal Years 1971 through 1974 for the Development and Operation

of the Preprofessional Phase'', of the Georgia Educational Model for the Preparation of


Estimated Costs

Components

Materials

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

w.

Initial

Planning

60,000

10,000

41,000

16,000

127,000

,Candidate

Selection

10,500

2,000

25,000

1,000

52,500

C.

instruction,

Education

386,000

82,000

196,000

179,000

843,000

.Proficiency

Modules

(377,000)

(69,000)

(135,000)

(166,000)

(747,000)

2.

Practicum

(9,000)

(13,000)

(61,000)

(13,000)

(96,000)

3.

Internship

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

D.

Instruction,

Arts & Sciences

1,253,000

128,000

360,000

243,000

1,9E4,000

Z.

Eva1uation

266,000

39,000

985,000

561,000

e

1,851,000

1.

Student

(250,000)

(39,000)

(949,000)

(523,000)

(1,761,000)

2. P' am

(16,000)

(--

)(36,000)

(38,000)

(90,000)

F.

Training of

University Staff

5,500

2,000

14,000

8,000

29,500

G.

Management

113,000

58,500

165,000

94,000

430,500

Totals

2,094,000

i321,500

1,786,000

1,116,000

I

5,317,500

Table 14

Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1971 for the Development

and Operation of the ?repro-

fessiona1_Phikse of the GeorgiaEducational Model for the Preparation of Elementary

School Teachers

Estimated Costs

Components

Materials

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

PIanrAng

60,000

10,000

41,000

16,000

127,000

Candadate

Selection

8,000

2,000

9,000

4,000

23,000

truction,

Education

4,000

12,000

41,000

19,000

76,000

.Proflo

Modules

(3,000)

(12,000)

(3C,000)

(18,000)

(72,000)

2.

Practicum

(1,000)

(--

)(2,000)

(1,000)

(4,000

3.

Internship

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

.Instruction,

Arts E. Sciences

3,000

12,000

75,000

30,000

120,000

E.

Evaluation

'

5,000

39,000

13,000

19,000

76,000

1.

Student

(1,000)

(39,000)

(10,000)

(17,000)

(67,000)

2.

Program

(4,000)

--

)(3,000)

(2,000)

(9,000)

F.

Training of

University Staff

4,000

2,000

11,000

6,500

23,500

G.

Management

15,000

8,000

21,000

12,000

56,000

Totals

99,000

85,000

211,000

106,500

501,500

Table 15

Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1972 for theDevelopment and Operation of the Prepro-

fessional Phases of the Georgia EducationalModel for the Preparation of

Elementary

School Teachers

Components

Estimated Costs

-

Materials

Eouioment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

77-17Xilal

Planning

--

--

--

--

--

B.

Candidate

Selection

500

--

2,300

1,000

3,50C

C.

Instruction,

Education

280,000

70,000

45,000

54,000

449,000

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(277,000)

(57,000)

(42,000)

(53,000)

(429,000)

2.

Practicum

(3,000)

(13,000)

(3,000)

(1,000)

(20,000)

3.

Internship

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

D.

Instruction,

Arts & Sciences

1,056,000

116,000

123,000

53,000

1,348,000

C.

Evaluation

7,000

--

100,000

41,000

148,000

1.

Student

(6,000)

--

(95,000)

(35,000)

(136,000)

2.

Program

(1,000)

--

(5,000)

(6,000)

(12,000)

.Training of

Universit

Staff

500

--

1,000

500

2,000

G.

Manacement

17,500

8,500

25,000

15,000

66,000

Totals

1,361,500

,194,500

1

296,000

164,500

2,016,500

Table 16

Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1973 for the Development and

Operation of the

Preprofessional Phases of the Georgia Educational Model forthe Preparation of


Estimated Costs

Coal meets

Materials

Equinment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

17--Iliiilal

3.7,-222EVEL

Selection

1,000

--

7,000

5,000

13,000

C.

instruction,

Education

96,000

--

59,000

68,000

223,000

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(93,000)

--

(31,000)

(63,000)

(187,000)

2.

Practieum

(3,000)

--

(28,000)

(5,000)

(36,000)

3.

Internship

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

)(

)

D.

Instruction,

&Arts

Sciences

189,000

--

83,000

102,000

374,000

E.

Evaluation

176,000

--

362,000

198,000

736,000

1.

Student

(170,000)

--

)(347,000)

(183,000)

(700,000)

2.

Program

(6,000)

--

(15,000)

(15,000)

(36,000)

F.

Training of

University Staff

500

--

1,000

500

2,000

G.

Manwament

58,500

30,000

88,000

50,000

226,500

Totals

521,000

30,000

600,000

423,500

1,574,500

Table 17

Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1974 for the Development and Operationof the

Preprofessional Phases of the Georgia Educational Modelfor the Preparation of


Estimated Costs

Components

Materials

Equinment

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Planning

--

--

--

--

--

_

D.

Candidate

Selection

1,000

--

7,000

5,000

13,000

C.

Instruction,

Education

6,000

--

51,000

38,000

95,000

1.

Aulficiency

Modules

(4,000)

(--

(23,000)

(32,000)

(59,000)

2.

Practicum

(2,000)

(--

)(28,000)

(6,000)

(36,000)

3.

Internship

()

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

D.

Instruction,

Arts 8. Sciences

5,000

--

79,000

58,000

142,000

E.

Evaluation

78,000

1

--

530,000

303,000

891,000

1.

Student

(73,000)

(--

)(497,000)

(288,000)

(858,000)

2.

Program

(5,000)

--

(13,000)

(15,000)

(33,000)

raining of

University Staff

SOO

--

_

1,000

500

2,000

G.

Management

22,000

12,000

31,000

17,000

82,000

not ols

112,500

, !12,000

679,000

421,500

1,225,000

Table 18

Estimated Costs for Fiscal Years 1971 through 1975 for the Development and Operation

of the Professional Phases of the Georgia Educational Model for the Preparation of


Estimated Costs

Components

Materials

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Planning

42,000

7,000

32,000

15,000

96,000

.Candidate

Selection

10,500

2,000

25,000

15,000

52,500

C.

Instruction,

Education

411,000

85,000

961,000

279,000

1,736,000

Z.

Prof c ncy

Modules

0351,000)

(82,000)

(320,000)

(176,000)

(929,000)

2. Practice

(26,000)

(1,000)

(356,000)

(66,000)

(449,00u)

3.

Internship

(34,000)

(2,000)

(285,000)

(37,000)

(358,000)

D.

Instruction,

Arts 8 Sciences

1,173,000

95,000

746,000

496,000

2,460,000

E.

Evaluation

284,000

2,000

2,143,000

614,000

3,043,000

1.

Student

(268,000)

(1,000)

(2,056,000)

(516,000)

(2,841,000)

2.

Program

(16,000)

(1,000)

(87,000)

(98,000)

(202,000)

V.

Training of

University Staff

8,000

1,000

9,000

3,500

21,500

6.

Management

201,000

96,500

309,000

174,000

780,500

Totals

2,129,500

288,5::v

44,225,000

1,546,500

8,189,500

Table 19

Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1971 for the Development and Operation of the

Professional Phases of the Georgia Educational Model for the


Estimated Costs

Components

Materials

Eouinment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Planning

42,000

7,000

32;000

15,000

96,000

B.

Candidate

Selection

--

--

--

--

--

C.

Instruction,

Education

-_

--

-_

__

--

1.

Proficiency

Modules

__

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)C

__

2.

Practicum

(--

)(

--

)(

--

):

--

)(

--

)

3.

Internship

(--

)(

)(

--

)(

--

)(

)

D.

nstructIon,

Arts & Sciences

__

__

__

__

__

E.

Evaluation

--

--

--

--

1.

Student

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

)

2.

Program

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

F.

Training of

Universit

Staff

6,000

1,000

5,000

1,500

13,500

G.

1.:anagement

6,500

3,000

10,000

6,000

25,500

Totals

54,500

11,000

47,000

I22,500

135,000

Table 20


Professional Phases of the Georgia Educational Model for the


Estimated Costs

Components

Materials

Eouioment

Key

[Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Planning

--

--

__

__

--

.Candidate

Selection

8,000

2,000

9,000

4,000

23,300

C.

Instruction,

Education

9,000

3000

96,000

28,000

136,000

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(7,000)

(3,000)

(91,000)

(26,000)

(127,000)

2.

Practicum

(1,100)

(--

)(3,000)

(1,000)

(5,000)

3.

Internship

(1,000)

(--

)(2,000)

(1,000)

(4,000)

I).

r-struction,

Arts & Se:lances

8,000

4,000

135,000

59,000

206,000

E.

Evaluation

10,000

2,000

33,000

52,000

97,000

1.

Student

(7.000)

(1,000)

(25,000)

(47,000)

(80,000)

2.

Program

(3,000)

(1,000)

(8,000)

(5,000)

(17,000)

F.

Training of

Universit

Staff

500

(--

)1,000

50C

2,000

G.

Management

15,000

7,000

26,000

14,000

62.000

Totals

50,500

18,000

300,000

157,500

526,000

Table 21

Est

imat

ed C

osts

for Fiscal Year 1973 for the Development and Operation of the

Professional Phases of the

Educational Model for the


Components

Estimated Coots

Materials

I

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Farsonnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Planning

--

--

--

--

--

B.

Candidate

Selection

500

--

2,000

1,000

3,500

C.

Instruction,

Education

343,000

82,000

177,000

83,000

585,000

.Proficiency

Modules

(341,000)

(79,000)

(149,000)

(76,000)

(645,000)

2.

Practicu

I(1,000)

(1,000)

(9,000)

(3,000)

(14,000)

3.

Internship

(1,000)

(2,000)

(19,000)

(4,000)

.

(26,000)

D.

Instruction

Arts & Sciences

1,152,000

91,000

245,000

124,000

1,612,000

E.

Evaluation

14,000

--

169,000

30,000

213,000

1.

Student

(13,000)

1

(--

(156,000)

(15,000)

(184,0005

2.

Program

(1,000)

(--

(13,000'

(15,000)

(29,00;)

r.

Training of

University Staff

500

--

1,000

500

2,000

G.

Management

17,000

8,000

26,000

15,000

66,000

Totals

1,527,000

181,000

620,000

253,500

2,581,500

Table 22

Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1974 for the Development and Operationof the

Professional Phases of the Georgia Educational Model for

the


Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Equipment

Ke"

Pers=nel

SupportIng

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Plansling

--

--

,

--

--

I.

Candiate

Selection

1,000

--

7,000

5,000

13,000

C.

Instruction,

Education

29,000

--

359,000

97,000

485,000

.Proficiency

Modules

(1,000)

(--

)( ;%1000)

(50,000)

(106,000)

2.

Practicum

(12,000)

(--

)(172,000)

(31,000)

(715,000)

3.

Internship

(16,000)

(--

(132,000)

(16,000)

(164,000)

D.

InatructIon,

Arts & Sciences

12,000

--

235,000

158,000

405,000

E.

:;valuation

170,000

--

1,232,000

140,000

1,542,000

1.

Student

(163,000)

--

(1,200,000)

(102,000)

(1,465,000)

2.

Program

(7,000)

--

(32,000)

(38,000)

(77,000)

n .g of

University Staff

SOO

--

1,000

SOC

2,000

6.

Management

112,500

54,000

172,000

97,000

435,500

Totals

325,000

54,000

2,006,000

497,500

2,882,500

Table 23

Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year l)75

for the Development and Operation of til.c

Professional Phases of the Georgia EducationalModel for the


Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Equiomant

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Ellening

--

--

--

--

B.

cirialaiig

Selection

1,000

--

7,000

5,000

13,000

C.

Instruction,

Education

30,0%.:0

--

32u,000

71,000

439,000

1.

ProfIc

.y

Modules

(2,000)

(25,000)

(24,000)

(51,000)

2.

Practicum

(12,000)

(--

)(172,000)

(31,000)

(215,000)

3.

Internship

(15,000)

(--

(132,0J0)

(16,000)

(164,000)

D.

Instruction,

Arts & Sciences

1,000

--

131,000

105,000

237,000

E.

Evaluation

90,000

--

709,000

392,000

1,191,000

1.

Student

(85,000)

(--

(675,000)

(352,000)

(1,112,000)

2.

Program

(5,000)

(--

(34,000)

(40,000)

(79,000)

F.

Training of

University Staff

500

--

1,000

500

2,000

G.

Management

50,000

24,500

75,000

42,000

191,500

Totals

172,500

24,500

1,252,000

615,500

2,064,500

Table 24

Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year1971 through 1976 for the Development

and Operation

of the Specialist Phases of the Georgia

Educational Model for the Preparationof


Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initral

Pnirmlan

date

Selection

II'

25,000

6,000

22,000

9,500

62,500

6,500

1,000

14,500

6,500

28,500

C.

Instruction,

Education

33,000

32,000

447,000

150,000

662,000

1.

Proficiency

Nodules

(33,000)

(32,000)

(447,000)

(150,000)

(662,000)

2. Practicu

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

3.

Internship

(--

)(

_-

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

D.

nstructIon,

Arts t Sciences

49,000

35,000

658,000

332,000

1,074,000

E.

Evaluation

139,000

--

1,177,500

694,000

2,010,500

1.

Student

(128,000)

--

(1,096,000)

(589,000)

(1,813,000)

2.

Program

(11,000)

(--

(81,500)

(105,000)

(197,500)

r.

Training of

Universit

Staff

4,000

--

8,000

3,500

15,5;)

G.

Management

257,000

112,500

409,000

231,500

1,010,000

Totals

513,500

186,500

2,735,500

1,427,000

4,863,030

Table 25


Specialist Phases of the Georgia Educational Model for the


Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Eouioment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Planning

13,000

4,000

12,000

5,000

34,000

B.

Candidate

Selection

--

--

--

--

- -

C.

Instruction,

Education

__

--

--

--

__

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

)(

--

)

2.

Practicum

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

3.

Internship

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

(--

)

D.

Instruction,

Arts & Sciences

__

_-

- -

_

E.

Evaluation

__

__

__

__

_-

1.

Student

--

)--

)(

--

)t

--

)(

--

)

2.

Program

()

,--

(--

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)

F.

Training of

University Staff

1,000

--

3,000

1,000

5,000

G.. Management

2,000

1,000

3,000

1,500

7,500

Totals

16,000

5,000

18,000

7,500

46,500

Table 26




Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Iersonnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Planning

12,000

2,000

10,000

4,500

28,500

B.

Candidate

Selection

--

--

--

--

--

C.

Instruction,

Education

--

--

--

--

--

1.

Proficiency

Modules

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

2.

Practicum

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

3.

Internship

--

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

D.

Instruction,

Arts & Sciences

--

__

__

__

__

E.

Evaluation

__

__

__

__

__

1.

student

(--

)(

__

(--

)(

--

)--

)

2.

Program

(--

)(

__

(--

)(

--

(--

)

F.

Training of

University Staff

1,000

--

1,000

SOO

2,500

G.

Management

2,000

1,000

3,000

2,000

8,000

Totals

15,000

3,000

14,000

7,000

39,000

Table 27

Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1973

for the Development and Operation

of the

Specialist Phases of the Georgia EducationalModel for the

Preparation of Elementary School

Teachers

Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Emuinment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Planning

- -

--

--

_-

B.

Candidate

Selection

4,000

1,000

4,500

1,500

11,000

C.

Instruction,

Education

10,000

22,000

122,000

25,000

179,000

1.

Froficiency

Modules

(10,000)

(22,000)

(122,000)

(25,000)

(179,000)

2.

Practicum

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

3.

Internship

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

D.

Instruction,

Arts & Sciences

14,000

.20,000

182,000

46,000

E.

Evaluation

8,000

(5,000)

--

(--

)

40,500

(30,000)

69,000

r(57,000)

117,500

(92,000)

1.

Student

2.

Program

(3,000)

--

)(10,500)

(12,000)

(25,500)

F.

Training of

Universit

Staff

500

--

1,000

500

2,000

G.

Management

19,500

9,000

27,000

7,500

63,000

Totals

56,000

52,000

377,000

149,500

634,500

Table 28




Estimated Costs

Components

Materials

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Planning

--

--

__

--

--

B.

Candidate

Selection

500

--

2,000

1,000

3,500

C.

Instruction,

Education

16,000

10,000

163,000

35,000

224,000

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(16,000)

(10,000)

(163,000)

(35,000)

(224,000)

2.

Practicum

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

3.

Internship

(--

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

D.

Instruction,

Arts 6 Sciences

29,000

15,000

248,000

84,000

376,000

E.

Evaluation

21,000

--

226,000

66,000

313,000

1.

Student

(19,000)

(--

)(211,000)

(49,000)

(279,000)

2.

Program

(2,000)

--

(15,000)

(17,000)

(34,000)

F.

Training of

University Staff

500

--

1,000

500

2,000

G.

Management

46,500

11,500

78,500

43,500

180,000

Totals

113,500

36,500

718,500

230,000

1,098,500

Table 29

Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1975 for the

Development and Operation of the



aNim

i.y1F

...im

Components

112:0:0:1111

Estimated Costs

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Plannin

--

--

--

--

.Candidate

Selection

1,000

--

4,000

2,000

7,000

C.

ction,

Education

4,000

--

98,000

49,000

151,000

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(4,000)

(--

)(98,000)

(49,000)

(151,000)

2.

Practicum

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

3.

Internship

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

D.

Instruction,

Arts & Sciences

3,000

--

137,000

110,000

250,000

E.

Evaluation

55,000

--

448,000

284,000

787,000

1.

Student

(52,000)

(--

)(410,000)

(252,000)

(714,000)

2.

Program

(3,000)

(--

)(38,000)

(32,000)

(73,000)

F.

Training of

Universit

Staff

500

--

1,000

500

2,000

G.

Management

106,000

51,000

171,000

104,000

432,000

Totals

169,500

i51,000

859,000

549,500

1,629,000

Table 30

Estimated Costs for Fiscal Year 1976 for theDevelopment and Operation of the

Specialist Phases of the Georgia Educational Model for

the


Components

Estimated Costs

Materials

Equipment

Key

Personnel

'

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

A.

Initial

Planning_

--

--

--

__

--

B.

Candidate

Selection

1,000

--

4,000

2,000

_ _

7,000

C.

Instruction,

Education

3,000

--

64,000

41,000

108,000

1.

Proficiency

Modules

(3,000)

(--

)(64,000)

'

(41,000)

(108,000)

2.

Practicum

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

3.

Internship

(--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)(

--

)

D.

Instruction,

Arts & Sciences

3,000

--

91,000

92,000

186,000

E.

Evaluation

55,000

--

463,000

275,000

793,000

1.

Student

(52,000)

(--

)(445,000)

(231,000)

(728,000)

2.

Program

(3,000)

(--

)(18,000)

(44,000)

1(65,000)

F.

Training of

University Staff

500

--

1,000

500

2,000

G.

Management

81,000

39,000

126,500

73,000

I

319,500

Totals

I

143,500

C

39,000

749,500

483,500

1,415,500

.

ST

AG

ES

TA

GE

I I

ST

AG

E

I I I

ST

AG

E

IV

ST

AG

E

V

ST

AG

E

VI

MIS

SIO

N

CO

MP

LET

ED

OV

ER

ALL

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

AN

D C

ON

TR

OL

$2,4

30(0

00D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T

PR

E-

PR

OF

.

PH

AS

E

$226

,000

11

PIL

OT

ING

PR

E-P

RO

F.

PH

AS

E

$1,9

45,0

00

DE

VE

LOP

IVE

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

L

PH

AS

E

INIT

IAL

OP

ER

AT

ION

PR

E-P

RO

FP

HA

SE

$461

,000

PLA

NP

ING

AN

D D

ES

IGN

.

PR

E-P

RIX

PH

AS

E

PLA

NN

ING

AN

D D

ES

IGN

.

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

LP

HA

SE

PLA

NN

ING

AN

D D

ES

IGN

.

SP

EC

IALI

ST

PH

A S

E

$171

,000

ST

AG

E

UT

UR

E P

LAN

NIN

G A

ND

DE

SIG

N.

1133

,000

ST

AG

E$7

6,00

0S

TA

GE

III

1,33

3,00

0

PIL

OT

ING

SS

ION

AL

PH

AS

E

$2,4

34,0

00

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

SP

EC

IALI

ST

PH

AS

E

"-$5

53,0

00S

TA

GE

Fig. 44. Estimated costs by stages.

IV

SU

ST

AIN

ED

OP

ER

AT

ION

PR

E-P

RO

F.

PH

AS

E

1,12

8,00

0

I NIT

IAL

OP

ER

AT

ION

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

LP

HA

SE

SU

ST

AIN

ED

OP

ER

AT

ION

PRO

FESS

ION

AL

'P

HA

SE

$2,5

11,0

00\

$1,8

81,0

00

PIL

OT

ING

SP

EC

IALI

ST

PH

AS

E

$913

,000

ST

AG

E

V

INIT

IAL

OP

ER

AT

ION

SP

EC

IALI

ST

PH

AS

E

ALL

PH

AS

ES

OF

INS

TR

UC

TIO

NA

LP

RO

GR

AM

!NS

US

TA

INE

DO

PE

RA

TIO

N

1111

1

$1,1

88,0

00S

TA

GE

VI

SU

ST

AIN

ED

OP

ER

AT

ION

SP

EC

IALI

ST

PH

AS

E

51,0

8'1,

000

MIS

SIO

N

CO

MP

LET

ED

Table 31

Estimated Project Costs for Fiscal Years 1971 through 1976 for Development of the

Georgia Educational Model for the Preparation of Elementary Teachers

Fiscal Year

Estimated Costs

Materials

Equipment

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Tr%als

1971

Total Costs

Program Costs

Pro ect Costs

169,500

101,000

276,000

136,500

683,000

---

---

---

---

___

169,500

101,000

276,000

136,500

683,000

1972

Total Costs

Program Costs

Project Costs

1,427,000

---

215,500

610,000

329,000

2,581,500

---

---

---

---

1,427,000

215,500

0610,000

329,000

2,581,500

1973

Total Costs

Program Costa

Project Costs

2,104,000

101,000

263,000

6.000

1,597,000

117 000

826,500

82,000

4,790,500

306,000

2,003,000

257,000

1,482,000

744,500

4,484,500

1974

Total Costs

Program Costs

Project Costs

551,000

170,500

102,500

22,000

II

3,403,500

1 038 000

1,149,000

510,500

-...-

.--,

-1--

638,500

..,

5,206,000

1,741,000

380,500

80,500

--.1

1---

1.--

2,365,500

3.465,00

-4

Table 31

(con

,t)

Fiscal Year

Estimated Costs

Materials

E ui meat

Key

Personnel

Supporting

Personnel

Totals

1975

.

Total Costs

342,000

75,500

2,111,000

1,165,000

3,693,500

Program Costs

500

35,500

1,439,000

734,500

2,418,500

&sleet Costs

132 500

40,000

672,000

430,500

1,275,000

1976

Total Costs

143,500

39,000

749,500

483,500

1,415,000

Program Costs

143 500

39,000

70,599_

483,500

1,415,000

Project Costs

1971-1976

Total Costs

4,737,000

796,500

1,746,000

4,089,500

18,370,000

Program Costs

624,500

102,500

3 343 500

1,810,500

5,880,500

fsolect Costs

4,112,500

694,000

5,402,500

2 279 00

12 499 500

Table 32

Estimated Total Cost for Facilities Needed to Develop andOperate the Georgia Educational Model for the Preparation

of Elementary Teachers (by Fiscal Years)

Fiscal Year Estimated Costs

1971 233,000

1972 346,000

1973 114,000

1974 115,000

1975 55,000

1976 18,000

Totals 881,000

275

Table 33

Estimated Total Cost for Facilities Needed to Develop and

Operate the Georgia Educational Model for the Preparation

of Elementary Teachers (by Stages)

Stages

Estimated Costs

Preprofessional

Professional

Specialist

Totals

Development

233,000

28,000

27,000

288,000

Piloting

318,000

36,000

43,000

397,000

Initial Operation

26,000

66,000

17,000

109,000

Sustained Operation

31,000

38,000

18,000

87,000

Totals

608,000

168,000

105,000

881,000

Estimated Costs for Developments Operation and Facilities

Figure 45 presents a graph showing the relationshipbetween cost for development, operation and facilitiesfor each fiscal year 1971 through 1976.

Per student cost durinEsustained operation. The perstudent cost during sustained operation is dependent uponthe number of students enrolled in the program. As thenumber of students enrolled in the program increases, theper student cost will decrease to some extent as certaincosts are fixed regardless of the number of students en-rolled in the program.

Table 34 presents a summary of the per student costper month during the first ye&r of sustained operation foreach of the three phases of the model program.

Table 34

Summary of Sustained Operation Costs for the Prepro-fessional, Professional and Specialist Levels

..Phase

FiscalYear Total Costs N

Per StudentCost

Per Month

Preprofessional 1974 $1,225 000 480 $213

Professional 1975 $2,064,500 480 $358

Specialist 1976 $1,415,500 240 $491

277

S

4

a

t 8

04

I

rag'

Facilitios Costs Project Costs

Program Costs

n Pt 71 74

FISCAL MR

71 PI

Fig. 4S, Estimated total costs for project, program andfacilities compasmd.

279

Economic Feasibility for Development and Operation

The costs for development and operation of the modelinstructional program presented in the preceding tablesand figures are provided as a foundation for decision-making. They provide data which may be used in answeringthe question: Should any institution of higher learningconsier developing and implementing the Georgia modelprogram for the preparation of elementary school teachers,what would be the estimated costs? Estimated costs forsuch action at the University of Georgia are given, andthese costs with adjustments can be applied to any insti-tution which graduates over 100 general elementaryteachers each year and maintains a two-year graduate pro-gram. However, the costs are only objective data. It isthen necessary to decide whether or not to ',ake such action.Fundamental to this decision is the availability of fundsboth for the five to six year development program and forthe indefinite period of sustained operation which follows.

If an institution has unlimited funds available, thereis no question but that insofar as costs are concerned thedevelopment and operation of the model is feasible. How-ever, it is not likely that any institution of higherlearning is in so fortunate a position that unlimitedfunds are available. Thus, institutions consideringundertaking the project must ask themselves, "Under whateconomic conditions would it be feasible to undertake thedevelopment and subsequent operation of the model program ?"

Of first concern in answering this question is the costof sustained operation. It would be uneconomical todevelop any program if there were not sufficient funds tomaintain it. The most direct mct....ns of determining thefeasibility of maintaining the model program is to findthe difference between the per student cost for the modelprogram in sustained operation and the per student costfor the present program. If this difference favors (isless) the model program there is no question of thefeasibility of maintaining it On the other hand, if thedifference disfavors (is more) the model program, then thedecision must be made on the basis of the difference, theavailability of operational funds to care for the difference, and the extent to which the difference providesa more worthwhile product.

279

If cost to sustain the model program iv the same orless than for tile present program or if, after consideration,additional costs to maintain the model program are deemedreasonable and funds are found, then the next concern isfor development costs. Here again, the most direct answeiis found through per student costs. To determine a perstudent cost for development it is necessary to establishan assumed period of sustained operation, and to estimatethe number of students who would complete the program dur-ing that period. The total cost for development dividedby the number of students benefiting from the programyields the per student cost for development.

All estimated per student costs are reported on thebase of average cost for one month of instruction. Thisis necessitated because the model program is individualizedand specifies that the facilities will be in operation 12calendar months of the year. Since semesters, quarters,and credit hours could not be used for computations,estimations of per student costs for the presently opera-tive instructional program were made on the assumptionthat one academic year is the equivalent of 9 calendarmonths.

Per Student Cost During Sustained Operation

Estimated cost data reveal the projected per studentcost during sustained operation of the model prograrA forthn fiscal period 1974 through 1976 to be $213 per monthfor the preprofessional program, $358 for the professionalprogram and $491 for the specialist program. These figuresare based on the assumption that the enrollment in the pre-professional and professional phase is 480 each, and inthe specialist phase is 240.

Findings of an investigation into current per studentcosts for elementary education students at the Universityof. Georgia during 1967-68 (Ayers and Finnegan, 1969)yielded a per student cost of $223 per month for lowerdivision tudents (freshmen and sophomores, or the equiva-lent of students in the preprofessional phase) and $283per month for the upper division students (juniors andseniors, or the equivalent of students in the professionalprogram). These estimates of monthly costs were based ona total average lower division enrollment of 375 and atotal average upper division enrollment of 585. Applying

280

a correction of 3% for inflation, these estimated perstudent monthly costs for the fiscal year 1974 become$274 per month per lower division student and $339 permonth per upper division student.

Because of the small number of students in the graduateprogram and the lack of reliable cost data no estimatecould be made which would be comparable for the specialiststudents costs.

It should be noted that the projected per student costper month in sustained operation for the preprofessionalphase in the model program ($213) is at least the same orless than that projected for the same year for the presentprogram ($274). The projected per student cost per monthin sustained operation for the professional phase of themodel program is $358, and under the present system is$339. However, the per student cost per month under thepresent system was computed on an assumed enrollment of585 whereas the model program cost was computed on anassumed enrollment of 480. If it is assumed that as thenumber of students enrolling in the program increases,the student cost deczvases, and if it is assumed that thedecrease is approximately 6% for the first 100 enrolledstudents over the 4A0 base, then the estimated per studentcost per month for students enrolled in the professionalphase is $339 or the same as the per monthly cost forstudents enrolled in the current program.

That the per student cost for both the preprofessionalphase and the professional phase of the model program arenot found to be in excess of the per student cost formaintaining the present instructional program is attributed

.

to the application of improved management techniques andthe use of modern technology. The model program with itsmany innovations and extended opportunities for learningwould undoubtedly be more costly than the present instruc-tional program were it not for the applications of theseimprovements in organization and planning.

Per Student Cost for Development

detexmine a per student cost for development it wasassumed that the period of sustained operation followingdevelopment would be at least 20 years. Twenty years may,to some, seem on first consideration to be a lather lengthy

281

period for a model program to be in operation. However,this model program has a built-in self-improvement or re.generative feature whir.,:h operates through long-range evalua-tion, feedback, and revision activities. Thus, whenproperly implemented the instructional program will be ina constant state of change in keeping with changing condi-tions of society. One might well expect that the modelprogram in a period of twenty years might in some respectshave been modified through systematic revision to theextent that many of the core behaviors, much of the sub-ject matter, and many of the learning activities would havebeen radically changed from their original forms.

As regards the number of students to be affePted bythe program in that 20 year period, it is likely that theUniversity of Georgia itself will graduate approximately12,000 students prepared to teach in elementary schools(Ayers, 1969). The investigating staff estimates that whenthis program is developed it will eventually be implementedinto operation in at :east 25 institutions of higher learn-ing, each graduating an average of 250 students a yearfor a period of at lest 20 years. Those affected at theUniversity of Georgia plus those affected at collaboratinginstitutions will thus total 137,000. Since the estimatedcost for development is $12,499,500, then insofar as thepreparation of elementary school teachers is concerned theper student development cost over a period of 20 yearswould be $91 for the total three phase instructional pro-gram (60 months for the average qualified student) or$1.50 per month of instruction. Thus, the per student costfor program development is estimated at $1.50 per month ol!instruction. Should the model be applied to other fields(Ayers and Finnegan, 1969) or become the basis for therevision of all higher education, the per student cost fordevelopment would be drastically reduced.

Economic Feasibility for Development and Operation at theUniversityadGeorgia

Insofar as the University of Georgia is concerned,developing and maintaining the model program in itsentirety is feasible provided special funds fov developmentcan be obtained. Once the program is implemented the costfor sustained operation can htt handled completely withinthe anticipated university budget.

282

Costs for Alternate Flan Based onLimited Available Funds

All estimated costs presented in the preceding tableshave assumed that when the model is developed and imple-mented the entire program including all subsystems, compo-nents and phases would be undertaken and the final productwould be a high quality six-year equivalent teacher educa-tion program which provides certification and degrees atthree critical points on a career ladder: assistant teacher,general elementary teacher, and specialist. Ideally, thisshould be the case. However, alternate plans based onlimited available funds must be considered in the lightof practical conditions.

In considering alternates the basic structure of theGeorgia model must be maintained. Certain essentialcharacteristics must be evident at all times or the productcould not be regarded as reflective of the model. Forexample: the core of the program from which learning con-tent, methods and activities are drawn must be performancebehaviors; individualized instruction must bq maintained;evaluation must be based on mastery criteria; the regenera-tive feature associated with continuous program evaluation,feedback and revision must be ever present; wide professionalcollaboration must be evident; and systems technology mustbe the basis for all planning and other functions ofmanagement. These essential characteristics demand otherswhich oven more clearly distinguish the G..orgia model fromother models. They include: provision for a careersequence, PMs, a continuous seminar, learning laboratories,extensive field experiences, a personalized guidance pro-gram, alternate learning activities, year-round educationalopportunities, and staggered registration.

Insistence upon maintaining the essential and dis-tinguishing characteristics of the model prohibits extracting isolated components (such as the components for studentselection, instructional materials, or staff inservicetraining and orientation) and treating their development asalternate plans for the development and implementation ofthe Georgia model. To do so under certain circumstancescould prove profitable, but should be regarded as incor-porating an innovation feature of the Georgia model intoan existing program.

283

The determination to maintain the essential and dis-tinguishing characteristics of the Georgia model in select-ing alternate plans based on limited available fundsconsiderably restricts the number of alternates which maybe considered. In exploring possibilities the staff gavespecial attentioa to the cbservation that each of the threephases of the model, if drawn from the total system, couldbe regarded as a model reflective of the total. That is,each phase of the instructional program apart from theothers reflects all of the essential and distinguishingcharacteristics of the Georgia model. From this observa-tion three alternate plans were considered! (a) develop-ment and operation of the preprofessional and professionalphases combined without provision for the specialist orinservice phase, (b) development and operation of theprofessional and specialist phase combined without pro-vision for the preprofessional phase, and (c) developmentof any one of the phases without provision for the othertwo.

Two other alternate plans were regarded as feasiblein that they did not disturb the basic characteristicsof the model. These were (a) the development and operationof all, two or only one of the phases with a reduction inthe number of alternate learning activities provided inthe PMs, and (b) the development of the model program overan extended period of time utilizing volunteer assistancefrom both staff and students. The extension of timefactor to some extent disqualifies the last mentionedalternate as the provision of the contract which gave riseto this investigation specifies a five year developmentperiod.

Combined Preprofestional and Professional Phases Alternate

Combining the preprofessional and professional phasesof the model program provides a practical alternate plan.Such an alternate would allow for the early recruitment ofquality students and provide them early on-the-job fieldexperiences, It would also cover the most crucial periodof teacher preparation for the majority of the teachers,and provide a basis for planning, developing and imple-menting a specialist program at a later date.

284

Table 35 shows the estimated costs for developing andoperating the combined preprofessional and professionalphases program alternate. The total estimated project ordevelopment cost is $9, 395,500. This is the differencebetween the total development and operation cost of$13,507,000 and the program or operation cost of $4,111,500.It is a $3,104,000 reduction of estimated cost for thedevelopment of the complete program which is $12,499,500.

The estimated costs shown in Table 35 are based onadjustments of cost data previously reported. The develop-ment and operation costs of the preprofessional andprofessional phases are interdependent and not dependentupon the specialist phase. Therefore, the assumption hasbeen made that the costs for development and operation ofthe preprofessional and professional phases will be thesame as for development and operation of these two phasesif they were developed as part of the total program.

Combined Professional and S ecialist Phases Alternate

The advantages in combining the professional andspecialist phases to provide an alternate center aroundthe fact that professional (as contrasted with parapro-fessional) development does not begin until the professionalphase. That is, since this is regarded as a model teachereducation program, project cost reductions should be suchas to provide emphasis on those phases of the model programwhich give most direct attention to professional prepara-tion. However, there are certain disadvantages. Such aprogram would not allow for early recruitment of qualitystudents, early practical field experiences with children,or articulation between lower division curricula and theprofessional sequence of the model.

Table 36 shows the estimated costs for.developmentand operation of the combined professional and specialistphases program alternate. The total estimated project ordevelopment cost is $8,840,000. This was determined bysubtrac.ing the program or operation cost of $4,478,500from the total development and operation cost of e13,318,500.It is a $3,659,500 reduction from total development costsfor the complete model program ($12,499,500).

285

Table 35

Estimated Costs for Development and Operation ofthe Preprofessional and

Professional Phases of the Model

Program Combined

cocr

Development

Piloting

Initial

Operation

Sustained

Operation

Total

Preprofessional

Total Costs

Program Costs

Project Costs

501,500

2,016,500

1,574,500

306,000

1,225,000

12225t000

5,317,500

1,531,000

501,500

2,016,500

1,268,500

.-- _--

3,786,500

Professional

Total Costs

Program Costs

Project Costs

661,000

2,581,500

2,882,500

516,000

2,064,500

2,064,500

8,189,500

-1081z12.

5,609,000

661,000

2,581,500

2,366,500

Totals

Total Costs

Program Costs

Pro act Costs

1,162,500

4,598,000

4,457,000

822,000

3,289,500

3,289,500

13,507,000

4,111,500

1,162,500

4,598,000

3,635,000

9,395,500

Table 36

Estimated Costs for Development and Operation of the Professional and

Specialist Phases of the Model Program Combined

Development

Piloting

Initial

Operation

Sustained

Operation

Total

Profess/coal

Totals Costs

Program Costs

Proj

ect C

osts

696,

000

2,65

1,50

02,

872,

500

516,

000

2,06

14,5

002

oe4

500

8,28

4,50

02,

580,

500

696,

000

2,65

1,50

02,

356,

500

4,70

14,0

00

sa 02

Specialist

Total Costs

752,

000

1,168,500

1,699,000

1,415,000

5,03

4,50

0Pr

ogra

m C

osts

483,

500

1,41

5,00

01,

898,

500

Project Costs

7.7M

-375

61,

215,

500

3,13

6,00

0

Totals

Tot

al C

osts

1,44

8,00

03,

820,

000

4,97

1,50

03,

479,

000

13,3

18,5

00Program Costs

999,500

x,47

9,00

04,

478,

500

Proj

ect C

osts

1,44

8,00

03,

820,

000

3,57

2,00

08,

840,

000

The estimated costs shown in Table 36 are based onadjustments of cost data previously reported. The costsfor development and operation of the preprofessional phaseof the total program include certain costs for materialsand equipment that are used in the professional andspecialist phases of the program. It was therefore necessaryto adjust the total amount of material and equipment neededto develop only the professional and specialist phases ofthe program. It was estimated that an additional $500,000would be required for materials for development of boththe professional and specialist phases. It was also esti-mated that an additional $300,000 would he required forequipment for development of both phases. The estimatedcosts for operation remain the sarre.

One Phase Alternate

To develop one phase only of the three phase or totalmodel program is regarded as a comparatively unIesirableventure. However, in the face of extremely limited fundssuch a venture would provide an alternate which representsthe basic characteristics of the Georgia model and aquality segment of a,total educational program. tosses ineffectiveness would be primarily the result of the lackof articulation, such as duplication of content and reducedteach-as-taught benefits. Of the three choices most insti-tutions would elect to develop the professional phase inpreference to the others. However, it is likely that somejunior or senior colleges would elect to develop the pre-professional phase because of special concern for thepreparation of aides and assistant teachers.

Table 37 shows the estimated costs for developmentand operation of the professional phase alternate. Thetotal cost for development is $5,895,500. This is a costreduction of $6,604,000 from the estimated total develop-ment cost of $12,499,500. Table 38 shows the estimatedcosts for development and operation of the preprofessionalphase alternate. The total cost for development is$3,818,500. This is a cost reducticn of $8,681,00 fromthe estimated cost for the development of the completemodel program ($12,499,500).

The estimated costs shown in Tables 37 and 38 arebased on adjustments of cost data previously reported.

288

Table 37

Estimated Costs for Development and Operation of the Professional

Phase cf the

Program

Initial

Sustained

Development

Piloting

Operation

Operation

Total

Total Costs

710,000

2,751,000

2,950,500

2,064,500

8,476,000

Program Costs

WIR

M516,000

2,064,500

2,580,500

Project Costs

710,000

2,751,000

2,434,500

5,895,500

%) o

Table 38

Estimated Costs for Development and Operation of vhe Preprofessional

Phase of the Model Program

Initial

Sustained

Development

Piloting

Operation

Operation

Total

Total Costs

501,500

2,016,500

1,574,500

548,000

4,640,500

Program Costs

274,000

548,000

822,000

Project Costs

501,500

2,016,500

1,30C,500

3,818,500

In Table 37 an additional $250,000 was added to provide formaterials for development, and an additional $225,500 wasadded for equipment. This was necessitated because in theoriginal cost estimates much of the equipment and a con-siderable amount of materials to be used in the professionalprogram was assumed to be purchased during the prepro-fessional phase, which is non-existent in this alternate.

The preparation of Table 38 was based on the assumptionthat this alternate would most likely be selected by juniorcolleges. The cost of development remained unchanged as itwas assumed that the total cost for development of the pre-professional phase in a junior college would be comparableto development costs in a senior college. Operation costs,however, were affected. As a result of a survey of juniorcolleges in the State of Georgia (Ayers, 1969) it wasfound that the average number of students listed as pro-spective elementary or early childhood teacher educationmajors was approximately 240. Because this was one-halfof what was estimated for senior colleges, sustained opera-tion estimates were adjusted accordingly.

Reduction of Learning Activities Alternate

The specifications of the model call for each PM toinclude at least three suggested alternate learning acti-vities for each cluster of behaviors tc be acquired. Thisis one means of providing for individual differences inthe students' styles of learning and sensory sensitivityto learning media. Howeve,:, it is a costly item becausefor each learning activity provision must be made for thematerials, equipment and evaluative devices associated withthat activity, and in the total program there are thousandsof activities. To reduce the number of alternate activitiesfrom three to two for each cluster of behaviors couldseriously affect the efficiency of the program. However,facing practical circumstances of limited funds such actionmight be necessary with a view toward readjusting the num-ber to three over a period of time duriag sustained opera-tion. Provision is already made in the model for thecontinual revision and updating of all PM learning activi-ties.

Table 39 provides data on how a reduction in thenumber of PM alternate activities from three to two wouldaffect program development and operation costs. Total

291

cv

Table 39

Estimated Costs for Development and Operation of the Model Program With

Reduction in Number of Alternate PM Learning Activities

Develo ment

Piloting

Initial

0 eration

Sustained

Operation

Total

Preprofessional

Total Costs

Program Costs

Project Costs

383,000

1,518,500

1,387,000

240,000

1,152,000

1,152,000

4,440,500

1,392,000

383,000

1,518,500

1,147,000

3,048,500

Professional

Total Costs

503,500

1,947,500

2,638,000

1,930,000

7,019,000

Program Costs

804,000

1,930,000

2,734,000

Project Costs

503,500

1,947,500

1,834,000

4,285,000

Specialist

Total Costs

542,000

824,500

1,417,000

1,257,000

4,040,500

Program Costs

628,500

1,257,000

1,885,500

Project Costs

542,000

824,500

788,500

2,155,000

Totals

Total Costs

1,428,500

4,290,500

5,442.000

4,339,000

15,500,000

Program Costs

1,672,500

4,339,000

6,011,500

Project Costs

1,428,500

4,290,500

3,769,500

9,488,500

development costs for the model program with three alternateactivities for each cluster of behaviors is estimated inpreceding tables as $12,499,500. By reducing the number ofactivities to two the estimated cost for development shownin Table 39 is $9,488,500. This alternate plan would thenreduce overall development costs by approximately $3,011,000.

The estimated costs shown in Table 39 are based on ad-justments of cost data previously reported. It is assumedthat reduction of the number of alternative activities fromthree to two for each PM will decrease the cost for develop-ment of PMs by 25%. With the reduction in the number ofalternatives, it is assumed that the cost for operation ofeach phase of the model will be reduced by about 15%.

Extended Time Alternate

This alternate plan proposes the development of themodel program over an extended period of time utilizingvolunteer assistance from both staff and students. If

carried out it would maintain the basic specifications andcharacteristics of the Georgia model. However, there isserious doubt that the motivation and energy of any staffcould be sustained ten to 15 years in a volunteer situationto the extent that the goal could be reached. Table 40presents a rough estimate of potential development or pro-ject costs if the extended time alternate were implemented.Dividing the total amount by 10 years the estimated costwould be $637,700 per year. Dividing by 15 years wouldyield an estimated cost of $425,133 per year.

Table 40

Estimated Costs Assuming Ten toFifteen Years for Development

Cost Categories Costs

Materials 2,196 000Equipment 300 000Key Personnel 2,400,000Supporting 1,481,000

Total 6 377 000

293

Underlying the adjusted estimates in Table 40 is theassumption that the materials and equipment needed fordevelopment and operation can be purchased as needed bythe developing institution for replacement of obsoleteitems. It is assumed that this will reduce the estimatedcosts for materials and equipment by at least 50%. Sincethe majority of the development of learning activities willbe done in conjunction with course work it is estimatedthat the costs for personnel will be reduced by at least50%. Therefore, the total cost for development of thethree phases of the program will be reduced by at leastone-half.

294

References

Ayers, J. B. Selected data on teacher-pupil personnelfor GEM feasibility study. GEM Bulletin 69-2,Athens, Ga.: College of Education, University ofGa., July, 1969.

Ayers, J. B. and Finnegan, R. J. Selected cost data onelementary education students at the University ofGeorgia. GEM Bulletin 69-3, Athens, Ga.: College ofEducation, University of Ga., Sept., 1969.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Economic report of thePresident. Washington, D.C.: Department of Labor,Jan., 1969.

IBM. Project Management System/360 (360A-CP-04X) version2 application description manual. White Plains, N.Y.:IBM Corporation, Technical Publications Department,1968. (a)

IBM. Project Management System/360 (360A-CP-04X) version2 program description and operations ianual. WhitePlains, N.Y.: IBM Corporation, TechL,.cal PublicationsDepartment, 1968. (b)

295

Chapter VIII

Summary and Conclusions

C. E. Johnson and G. F. Shearron

This is a report of an investigation which sought todetermine the feasibility of developing and operating theGeorgia model program for the preparation of elementaryschool teachers.

Objectives

The objectives of this study are: (a) to establishthe feasibility of the teacher education program model inproj xted sustained operation, (b) to provide a strategyto implement the educational program model into sustainedoperation, and (c) to provide cost estimates for the develop-ment and operation of the instructional program with atten-tion to alternate paths based on limited resources.

This investigation also provides a product which islikely to be of greater value to professional educationthan the findings of the study itself. It is a system,more efficient than any now in existence, designed todevelop and maintain exemplary educational programs.

Procedure

The investigation began with the selection, orienta-tion and training of new staff members for their work assign-ments. Next, a critical examination was made of the origi-nal instructional model as it reflected sustained operationto be certain that all details of the design were filled inand to identify those features which should be investigatedfor feasibility. When the design was completed investiga-tion of the technical and socio-psychological feasibility ofeach component was undertaken and validated where necessary.In some instances this led to the modification and/or re-designing of the specifications for the sustained operationof the model. That is to say, in order to establish feasi-bility within reasonable limits of confidence, it was nec-essary to modify some of the original specifications. Anychanges that were made in the specifications necessitatedre-examination of the system to determine whether these

changes demanded revision in other components of the design.If so, revision followed by additional re-examinationoccured.

When the investigator3 were satisfied that the modelwas theoretically, technically, and socio-psychologicallyfeasible and that all systens appeared to be compatibleand consistent with the bas:x intent of the operation, aPERT chart diagram of the systems network of the instruc-tional program in sustaineo, operation was designed. Foreach activity detailed ti..ae and cost requirements (personnel,facilities, materials, etc.) were attached. Utilizing IBMPMS/360 comrlter programs the data were fed and stored.

Investigation of cast feasibility fo-r the model in-structional program in sustained operation was then begun.The primary criterion for determining cost feasibility wasthat the per student cost for instruction in the model pro-gram should be reasonable for an institution to maintainwithout supplementary financial assistance. Finally, anexploration was made of the cost for various possible modi-fications (reductions of the instructional program in sus-tained operation in relation to limited available funds).

Concurrently with determining the feasibility of themodel program in sustained operation the investigators de-signed a detailed and effective strategy which would imple-ment the instructional program into sustained operation ina period of five years. This activity required the in-volvement of consultants and other specialists with exper-tise in designing strategies and engineering designs insuch fields as industry, military operations, space tech-nology and sociology. When the conceptual model for thisstrategy was completed, detailed activities were designedand a PERT chart diagram for the strategy was prepared.Next, time estimates were assigned to each activity and,again utilizing IBM PMS/360 computer programs, the timedata were fed to determine: the extent to which time es-timates were such that the strategy could accomplish themission within the five year period. Some adjustments werefound necessary and were made.

When investigators were satisfied that the strategywas sound ani the mission could be accomplished within thefive year limit, cost estimates for personnel, facilities,

297

equipment, travel, technology, materials, etc. were attachedto each activity in the strategy and computer stored. Costswere then retrieved for purposes cr reporting and an exami-nation was made of the cost of developing and implementingthe model program into operation. Finally various reason-able modifications (reductions) of the model based on limit-ed available funds were considered.

Strate for Develo ment and Im lementation

The specifications for the development strategy re-quire the application of research and development proceduralprinciples providing for flexibility in management of time.However, this flexibility is within a framework of definedlimits. For example, the starting date for the project isassumed to be July 1, 1970. The period of funding by a con-tractor is limited to five years. Because of these limita-tions the strategy is designed so that all components of allphases of the instructional program have been developed andpiloted by July 1, 1975.

The concept of sequential induction of instructionalphases %as fundamental to the strategy for the developmentof the model program. This concept requires that the in-structional program be built and implemented from the pointcf initial student entry and that the learning activities bedeveloped sequentially through to the highest level of pro-ficiency required by the specifications of teacher perfor-mance. This means that attention is first given to the de-velopment of the preprofessional phase, next to the profess-ional phase and finally to the specialist phase. Further-more, it means that when sustained operation occurs it willoccur first with a preprofessional phase, followed nextwith the professional and finally with the specialist phase.Thus, the attainment of the condition where all phases ofthe instructional program are in sustained operation is notcomplete until the specialist phase leaves its final stageof development.

There are six stages for development leading from pre-paration and planning of the preprofessional phase to sus-tained operation. Stage 1 provides for preliminary planningwith special attention being given to the preprofessionalphase of the instructional program. Stage 2 begins and ends

298

the development of the preprofessional phase and providesfor the planning and designing of the professional phase.During stage 3 the preprofessional phase is piloted, theprofessional phase is developed and the planning and de-signing of the specialist phase is completed. During stage4 the preprofessional phase is tested in initial full-scaleoperation. At this same time the professional program ispiloted and the specialist phase is developed. In stage 5the preprofessional program begins sustained operation whilethe professional phase is being tested in initial operationand the specialist phase is piloteci. During stage 6 the pro-fessional phase joins the preprofessional phase in sustainedoperation and the specialist phase engages in initial oper-ation. At the end of stage 6 all three phases of the in-structional program are in sustained operation and themission is thus completed.

Application of the principle of sequential inductioncombined with specifications related to individualized in-struction and accompanied by the feature of staggered re-gistration creates particular scheduling concerns whichcause all stages to overlap.

Estimated Costs

The overall cost for the fiscal years beginningJuly 1, 1970, and extending through June 30, 1976 for bothdevelopment and operation of the Georgia educational modelfor the preparation of elementary school teachers is es-timated at $18,370,000, not inclusive of facilities. Ofthis total $12,499,500 is required for program development(project activities) and $5,880,500 is required for sustainedoperation (maintaining instructional program activities).During the first fiscal year the development costs are rela-tively low ($683,000), during the second and third years theyrise sharply ($2,581,500 and $4,484,500 respectively), andin the remaining two years they gradually diminish.($3,465,000 and $1,275,000 respectively). In general thehighest costs for development are for key personnel to de-velop and pilot the instructional materials (PMs) and to pre-pare the evaluation instruments.

In 1976, when all phases of the instructional programhave been developed, piloted and passed through the initial

299

period of operation, it is estimated that the cost per yearfor sustained operation will be $4,841,500. Assuming a to-tal population of 1200 students distributed throughout thethree phases of the instructional program the average perstudent cost per year may be estimated as $4,035, yieldinga per student cost per month of $336.

Since the student population varies from phase to phaseand year to year, and since the cost for instruction isgreatest at the graduate level and declines in the directionof first year students, a special investigation was made toestimate the per student cost per month during each phase ofsustained operation of the model program. These costs werethen compared with what the estimated cost of the currentprogram at the University of Georgia would be at the sametime. In 1974 the per student cost per month for studentsin the preprofessional phase of the model program is esti-mated to be $213, whereas the student cost per month of thecurrent program at the University of Georgia if extended tothat date would be $274 (this includes a 3% per year in-crease for inflation). In 1975 the per student cost permonth for students in the professional phase of the modelprogram is estimated to be $339. At that same time the perstudent cost per month for the current program at theUniversity of Georgia if extended to that date would be$339. In 1976 the per student cost per month for studentsin the specialist or inservice phase of the model programis estimated to be $491. Because of the dearth of data onthe 5th and 6th year elementary education programs no soundestimate of the per student cost per month for graduate stu-dents could be obtained. Thus, no comparative figures forthis category are available.

Estimating per student cost per month for developmentis dependent upon the assumed period of sustained operationduring which students would be affected by the model pro-gram and upon the number of students which would be affected.Because of the self-improvement or regenerative nature ofthe model it was estimated that the life of the program wouldbe at least 20 years, and because of provisions for coali-tions and dissemination it was estimated that over the 20year period approximately 137,000 students would be affected.Calculations based on these assumptions yielded an estimateddevelopment cost of $1.50 per student per month.

300

The total cost for facilities for the fiscal years be-ginning July 1, 1970, and extending through June 30, 1976,for both development and operation of the educational modelis $881,000. This total includes all required facilities(classrooms, lecture halls, libraries, tables, desks, lab-oratories, television facilities, etc.). The activitiesassociated with development and piloting phases account forapproximately $685,000 of the total cost for facilities dur-ing sustained operation and approximately $87,000 for 1975or approximately the same as cost would be were the presentprogram continued.

Conclusions Regarding Feasibility

The following conclusions, drawn from this investigation,are presented as generalized findings which summarize thehighlights of the study as regards to the feasibility of de-veloping and implementing the Georgia model for the prepara-tion of elementary school teachers. These generalizatiwsare classified and reported under the same headings used todescribe the subsystems of the model program in sustainedoperation and are taken primarily from Chapters IV throughVII of this report.

The reader must keep in mind that these conclusionsare based on an investigation made primarily on conditionsand facilities peculiar to the State of Georgia on theassumption that similar conditions and facilities are avail-able or can be acquired in other localities.

Development

Underlying the specifications for the educational modelis an assumption that in a period of approximately five years,it is feasible to develop and to implement an instructionalprogram representative of the model and that once implementedit can be maintained in sustained operation. This studypresents such a strategy for which, on the basis of thejudgment of specialists in systems design and management, isregarded as feasible provided necessary funds are made avail-able.

301

Instruction

1. Teacher performance behaviors can be so classifiedand organized as to serve as a core or basic sourcefor the development and operation of a model teachereducation program.

2. Students learn more effectively and efficientlythrough the use of PMs than through more conven-tional means of organizing, sequencing and pre-senting learning activities.

3. Students enthusiastically endorse the instructionalprogram of the model in all its various aspects.

4. The management and scheduling of the instructionalactivities of the model program can be achievedthrough the use of currently available computerequipment. Also, computer programs can be designedto meet these scheduling needs.

5. Equipment for computer assisted instruction (CAI)is available, but there is a dearth of appropriateinstructional programs available to warrant largescale use of CAI in the initial stages of the oper-ation of the model program.

6. PMs are so designed that they provide for the useof available CAI instructional programs and can beeasily adjusted to accommodate more such programswhen they become available.

7. Learning activities for PMs can be so designed thatstudents acquire target skills and attitudes as wellas the intended subject matter.

8. Provision can be made for learning laboratorieswhich contain the majority of the tools and materialsneeded for undertaking the PM activities in selectedareas of learning.

9. A large number of staff members in all affectedcolleges and departments of the University endorsethe principle of individualized instruction throughthe use of PMs, are willing to receive in-service

302

training to prepare themselves for the task, andare capable and willing to proceed with the taskprovided working conditions are reasonable andthat they work in teams.

10. Specifications for extended student practicuumexperiences can be accommodated. Also, there areschool districts which have exemplary elementaryschool programs willing and able to serve as por-tal schools.

Evaluation

1. The teacher performance behaviors which form thecore of the model program can be evaluated andthe competency levels of the teachers in relationto these specified behaviors can be determined.

2. The specifications of thewhich provide for studentby immediate verificationwill facilitate effectivelearning time.

evaluation programself-evaluation accompaniedcan be implemented andlearning and conserve

3. The evaluation procedures of the model programwhich delineate and specify particular levels ofattainment for teacher performance are stronglysupported as desirable by students in teachereducation.

4. There are qualified personnel, computers, andcomputer programs available to conduct the dataprocessing procedures specified for the modelprogram.

5. Student selection and performance evaluation de-vices are available to satisfy the majority of theobjectives of the evaluation subsystem. Devicesfor the evaluation of certain affective behaviorscan be developed.

6. Evaluation specialists and supportive personnel canbe oriented and trained so that they possess thespecial skills needed for the efficient and

303

4

effective functioning of the evaluative subsystemof the model program. Also, their performancescan be evaluated.

7. Specifications which call for the constant evalua-tion, feedback and self-renewal processes designedto provide the regeneration necessary for maintain-ing the model program in dynamic existence may bemet to a large extent with devices, techniques andresources currently available. Those not currentlyavailable can be developed.

8. There is a sufficient pool of persons eligible forconsideration for admission to the model programthat those selected will have high probability ofsuccess in completing at least the requirements ofthe professional phase of the program.

9. Student personnel services of the model program(i.e., orientation, periodic progress reviews,career advisement, clinical services, etc.) canbe implemented and provide a supportive systemfor the instructional subsystem of the instruction-al program.

10. The evaluation subsystem has the capability ofsystematically assessing the management of allproject operations. The computers, computer pro-grams, other equipment and trained personnel canbe made available to implement these procedures.

Management

1. The specifications of the model program which callfor the extensive use of modern management tech-nology in carrying out project operations can beimplemented in institutions of higher learning witheffectiveness.

2. Specifications which call for institutional changesin policies and practices (abolishment of gradepoint system, semester and quarter; institution ofthe calendar year for the academic year; substitu-tion of individualized instruction for requiredclass attendance; accrediation, etc.) can be satisfied.

304

Cost

3. Adequate provisions have been made in the designingof the program for students desiring to transferinto or out of the instructional sequence.

4. Existiag computers will adequately care for the in-tricate scheduling and other management needs ofall subsystems of the model program, and computertechnology can produce programs which will accomplishthe scheduling objectives.

5. The specifications which require that professionaleducational organizations participate cooperativelywith institutions of higher learning in the de-velopment of the model program as well as in itsoperation were found to be reasonable and enthusi-astically endorsed by all concerned.

6. The model program requires personnel with skillsnot normally required in program development andimplementation in higher education. Personnel withsome of the special abilities are already avail-able and others can be treined.

7. Coalitions between developing institutions andpublic school districts required for successfuloperation of the model program can be arranged.The notion of such alliances is net with enthusi-astic endorsement with implied commitment by bothgroups of educators.

1. The per student cost for maintaining the model pro-gram in sustained operation is the same or lessthan the per student cost for maintaining the pre-sent teacher education program for elementary schoolteachers.

2. Provided there are available funds for development,the per student cost for development of the entirethree phase program is sufficiently low in compari-son to the assumed cost benefits to be acquired towarrant undertaking the entire development project.

105

3. If only limited funds are available for programdevelopment there are other reasonable paths ofaction which would maintain the basic structuresand specifications of the model but would re-quire less cost. These include: (a) the develop-ment and operation of the preprofessional and pro-fessional phases without provision for the special-ist or inservice phase, (b) the development of theprofessional and specialist phases without pro-vision for the preprofessional, (c) the developmentand operation of either the preprofessional or theprofessional phases without provision for the othertwo, (d) the development and operation of all, twoor only one of the phases of the program with aredaction in the number of alternative learningactivities provided in the PMs, and (e) the develop-ment and operation of all three, two or only oneof the phases of the program but over a longerperiod of time utilizing volunteer assistance ofboth staff and students.

A Closing Note

In interpreting these conclusions the reader must befully aware that their validity is based on numerous assump-tions. For examples; the total number of students accountedfor by the computer model is 1,200, the assumed inflationrate for the next six years is estimated at 3% per year, thesalaries for key and supportive personnel were estimated onthe basis of a university level operation, and the facilitieswere estimated on the costs of facilities representative fora new structure. Any institution seriously considering de-veloping and operating an instructional program representa-tive of the Georgia model must adjust costs to local condi-tion. This report and the reference volumes which accompanyit provide a systematic procedure and cost data for under-taking such an adjustment.

Special attention in undertaking any feasibility pro-ject based on thi; one should be given to the fact thatin general this study assumed that the operations, facili-ties, and policies of the university system of Georgia andespecially the University of Georgia were reasonably typicalof conditions in other localities.

:106

$

The key note of feasibility is the extent to which in-stitutions of higher learning are willing and able to changetheir policies and practices. Commitment such as that pro-vided by the President of the University of Georgia in thepreface of this report is the foundation for institutionalchange.

307

Appendix A

List of GEM Bulletins

Jo84o9

The following is a list of bulletins which were pre-pared as working papers and are regarded as an integralpart the project's operations preparatory to the develop-ment of final report entitled, THE FEASIBILITY OF THEGEORGIA EDUCATIONAL MODEL FOR TEACHER PREPARATION-ELEMEN-TARY.

GEM Bulletin 69-1 Johnson, C. E., and Shearron, G. F.Selected Teacher Performance Speci-fications Generally Applicable toTeacher Education Curricula, 1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-2 Ayers, J. B. Selected Data on Teacher -Pupil Personnel for GEM FeasibilityStudy, 1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-3 Ayers, J. B., Finnegan, R. J. SelectedCost Data on Elementary EducationStudents at the University of Georgia,1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-4

GEM Bulletin 69-5

Ayers, J. B. Feasibility of PracticalLaboratory Experiences, 1969.

Ayers, J. B. Specifications for NewUniversity of Georgia College of Edu-cation Facilities, 1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-6 Ayers, J. B., Johnson, C. E., andShearron, G. F. 1AnExeelaryEragram

in Higher Education for Chemists,

ElaiamaliJibEnatalsashasa, 1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-7 Payne, D. A. Estimating Costs forDevelopment of Candidate PerformanceEvaluation Procedures, 1969.

GAM Bulletin 69-8 Ricker, K. S. and Hawkins, M. L.Reactions of College Students to aScience Education Proficienc Module,1969

GEM Bulletin 69-9 Hawkins, M. L. Components of the

Iallaaal2212ILILtra, 1969.

.5/a/311

GEM Bulletin 69-10

GEM Bulletin

GEM Bulletin

Akenson, J. E. and Hawkins, M.L.Reactions of Colle e Students to aSocial Science Education ProficiencyModule, 1969.

69-11 Hawkins, M. L. Social Science TeacherPerformance Specifications and CareerSequence, 1969.

69-12 Ricker, K. S. and Hawkins, M. L. Test-ing a Science Education ProficiencyModule with College Students, 1969.

Bauch, J. P. PM Evaluation Guidelines,1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-13

GEM Bulletin

GEM Bulletin

GEM Bulletin

69-14 Duncan, G. E. and Bauch, J. P. The Useuf Computers and Simulation in theDevelopment and Management of GEM, 1969.

69-15 Johnson, C. E. The Model Program fromthe Student's Viewpoint, 1969.

69-16 Johnson, C. E. Techniques of Valida-ting Technical and Socio-PsychologicalFeasibili+y of an Educational Program,1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-17 Reed C. P. A Proposed Program forScheduling, Project Management, Con-trol and Instruction, 1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-18 Johnson, C. E. and Johnson, C. G.Theoretical Considerations for ProCosts, 1969.

ect

GEM Bulletin 69-19 Shearron, G F. and Johnson, C. E.Specification Worksheets for LanguageArts Behaviors, 1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-20 Shearron, G. F. and Johnson, C. E.Specification Worksheets for Behaviorsin the Arts and Sciences 1969.

312

GEM Bulletin 69-21 Shearron, G. F. and Johnson, C. E.Specification Worksheets for BehaviorsDrawn from Educational Principles, 1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-22 Shearron, G. F. and Johnson C. E.Specification Worksheets for CognitiveProcesses and Afiective Behaviors, 1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-23 Bauch, J.P. and Shearron, G. F. TheElementary School of the Late 170s,1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-24 Johnson, C. E. Criteria for Validating.Feasibility of the of

a Model Teacher Education Program, 1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-25 Johnson, C. E. and Duncan, G. Biblio-graphy of Selected References Concernedwith the Application:: of Systems Tech-nology in Education, 1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-26 Hawkins, M. L. Target ProficienaModules i 1 the Instructional Program,1969.

GEM Bulletin 69-27 Rowe, P. J. and Bauch, J. P. CandidateSelection Criteria for a Model TeacherEducation Program, 1969.

313

Appendix B

Definitions of Terms

.1/41/1/j"

The definitions which the authors regarded as most im-portant for an understanding of the content of the basic re-port are listed on pages 6 through 9 of Chapter I. Thefollowing are definitions of other terms which may be neededfor clarification of intended meanings:

Affective objectives. Objectives which express inter-ests, attitudes, appreciations, and values with an emotionalbias.

Area of learning. In a defined set of learnings maybe a conventional elementary school subject or a classifiedcollection of subject matter, processes, skills, and/orattitudes.

Behaviors. Statements which describe observable humanactivities. Sometimes called action patterns. May be usedto describe learning or teaching patterns of action such aslearning behaviors or teaching behaviors.

Benefit-cost ratio. The dollar estimate of benefits,advantages, or gains from a project divided by the dollarcost of the project. (Williams, p. TM-3).

Clinic. An orga..ization designed to provide specialhelp for students who have difficulties in pursuing par-ticular learnings. Clinics may or may not be allocatedspecial space and facilities. For example, a speech clinicmay require apace and technical equipment, whereas one inEnglish composition would not.

Cognitive objectives. Objectives which require re-membering facts, definitions, concepts or other elementsof knowledge, as well as those which involve performing in-tellectual tasks such as analysis, synthesis, and problemsolvinc,. Cognitive objectives may vary from simple recallof knowledge to highly original and creative ways of com-bining knowledge in synthesizing new ideas and materials.

Control system. An administrative system that has asits primary function the collection and analysis of a feed-back from a given set of functions for the purpose of con-trolling those functions. Control may be implemented bymonitoring and/or systematically modifying parameters orpolicies used in those functions, or by preparing control

reports that initiate useful action with respect to sig-nificant deviations and exceptions (Williams, p. TM-4).

Content. The definitions, facts, concepts, thoughtprocesses, motor skills, and attitudes to be acquired bythe student through the instructional program. It is broadlyinclusive of the elements which represent the cognitive,cycle-motor, and affective domains of educational objectives.Sometimes referre, to as performance behaviors, learnings,or curriculum content.

Continuous instruction. Instruction based on the prin-ciple that for every area of learning there is at least onecontinuum which represents a progression from little or noacquaintance with the area of learning to a defined condi-tion of possessing knowledge, skill and/or attitudes in thatarea of learning. It also reflects the notion that eaci,point on that continuum represents readiness for the rextdefined point on the progression,

Critisalpan. That sequence of events and activitiesthat has the greatest negative or lead positive slack, orthe longest path through the network (Cook, 1966, p.89).

Data processing. Operations performed on, or with,facts or figures by manual or machine methods. In more re-stricted usage, may refer only to electronic data processingor to automatic or semi-automatic machine processing(Williams, p. TM-4).

Directed date. The date of a specific accomplishmentformally directed by the contract authority (Moder &Phillips, 1964, p. 90).

Economic feasibility. The extent to which an occurrenceor condition is regarded as desirable when the cost of ob-taining it (development) and/or maintaining it (operation)is considered in relation to available funds.

Element. A short, relatively homogeneous portion ofa work cycle that may be specifically described and identi-

fied. Usually suitable for convenient time and/or motionstudy (Williams, p. TM-5).

318

Elementary school. An institution which is concernedprimarily with the education of children from 3 through 15years of age.

Event. A specific, definable accomplishment in a pro-gram network which is recognizable at a particular instancein time. Events do not consume time or resources. Theyare usually represented on the network by circles (Cook,1966, p. 90).

Feedback. Information (data) extracted from a pro-cess or situation and used in controlling (directly) or inplanning or modifying immediate or future inputs (actionsor decisions) into the process or situation (Williams,p. TM-5).

Flowdi2ay.am. A representation of the location ofactivities or operations and the flow of materials betweenactivities on pictorial layout of a process. Usuallyused with a flow process chart (Williams, p. TM-6).

Gantt chart. A graphical representation on a timescale of the current relationship between actual andplanned performance (Williams, p. TM-6).

General education. Sometimes called liberal education.A composite of those learnings which prepare the student asan adult to better understand and adjust to his socialand physical environment, and to meet his obligations asa wember of society. It is assumed that this composite oflearnings is basic to effective instruction in the elemen-tary school.

General elementar teacher. A professionally pre-pared person regarded as competent to assume the responsibil-ities for the general instruction of children primarilywithin the age range of 3 years through 15 years, or anydefined age group within this total chronological age range.

Goals. Far-reaching, abstract aspirations for edu-cation which have their origin in the hopes, values, socialrealities, philosophical orientation and historical refer-ence of society.

Group instruction. The procedure of instructing twoor more pupils in a group at the same time. May or may not

319

4

be individualized.

Health education. Includes content traditionallyassigned to such areas of learning as health, safety,cecreation, and physical education.

Individual instruction. The procedure of instructingone pupil apart from a group of pupils.

Individualized instruction. Instruction based on theprinciple that all individuals differ from others innumerous characteristics related to learning, and that foreffeclive learning these differences must be recognized andaccounted for in all aspects of instruction. May be eitherindividual inst.ruction or group instruction.

Information retrieva].. Selection, location andpreselinT1=11717Torm comprehensib]e to the human sensesof stored information (Williams, p. TM-7).

Instruction. The act of attempting to change a learn,er's behavior in the direction of pre-selected objectives.

Internship. A comprehensive on the job practical lab-oratory experience for prospective teachers during which theprospective teacher not only continues to acquire profession-al characteristics but is expected to demonstrate his compe-tency for full professional responsibilities.

Job. The combination of tasks, duties and responsibil-ities assigned to an individual employee and usually con-sidered his normal or regular assignment (Williams, p. TM-7) .

Learning laboratory. Facilities with sufficient spaceand appropriate materials and equipment to provide the toolsfor learning needed by students as they pursue particularmodules of study.

Life--economic. That period of time after which amachine or facility should be discarded or replaced becauseof its excessive cost or reduced profitability (Williams,

p. TM-8).

Life--service. The period of time that a machine orfacility will satisfactorily perform its functions without

major overhaul (Williams, p. TM-8).

320

4

Memory -- computer. The medium and the reading and writ-hardware used to store data within a computer system.Usually refers only to general data storage accessible tothe processor unit of the computer without human assistanceor intervention (Williams, p. TM-9).

Model. A conceptual representation. May also meanexemplary.

Network. A flow diagram consisting of activitiesand events which must be accomplished to reach the programobjectives. The flow diagram shows the planned sequences ofaccomplishments, interdependencios, and interrelationshipsof activities and events (Cook, 1966, p. 91).

Objectives--educational. Statements which interpreteducational goals into the school setting.

O erationsresearch. A process of investigationwhich begins by observing and formulating the problem andthen constructing a scientific model that abstracts theessence of the problem. It is then hypothesized that thisabstract model is a sufficiently precise representation ofthe essential features of the problem, so that the conclu-sions obtained from the model are also valid for the realproblem. This hypothesis is then modified and verifiedby experimentation (Hillier & Lieberman, 1967, p.5).

Practical laboratory. An educational setting in whichinstruction is being implemented with learners of a kindwith which the prospective teacher intends to eventuallywork in a teaching-learning assignment.

Principle. A generalization which is used as a basisfor taking action or making a judgment concerning an action.

Professional education. A composite of subject matter,thought processes, skills and attitudes which prepare thestudent with the competencies needed for teaching.

Proficiency module (PM). A published guide designedto direct individual student learning behavior in studyinga particular subject, area of learning, or topic, or inundertaking particular learning activities in a laboratory.

321

PsychomotorEtactims. Objectives which emphasizesome muscular or motor skill, some manipulation of materialand objects, or some act which requires neuromuscular co-ordination (Krathwohl, 1964, p.7).

Simulation. The process of conducting experiments ona model of a system in lieu of direct experimentation witha system itself, or direct analytical solution of someproblem associated with the system (Mize & Cox, 1968, p. 1).

Slack. The difference between the latest allowabledate and the earliest expected date for an event. It isalso the difference between the latest completion date andthe earliest completion date of an event (Cook, 1966, p.89).

Specialist elementary teacher. A professional workerwho possesses all of the qualifications of a general ele-mentary teacher but is also prepared with additional profes-sional and supervisory competency.

Specification. A statement of a requirement to besatisfied as a significant aspect of the educational model.

Target age group. A limited age range for learnerswhich is the focus of professional concern of a teacher.

,Teacher's aide. A person who performs paraprofessionalactivities in the classroom so as to relieve the teacher tofocus concern on the profession.

Teaching area of competency. A group of content (seedefinition of content) classified under a subject headingcommonly used for the organization of learnings in theelementary school curriculum in which a general elementaryteacher has more knowledge, understanding, and skill thanothers.

T2Lchialiassistant. A person who has the competenciesof a teacher's aide and in addition has completed the equiva-lent of ah Associate of Art's degree, has a basic knowledgeof human growth and development, and has met requirements foradmission to the professional program for general elementaryteachers.

322

References

Cook, D. L. Program evaluation and review technique appli-cations in education. Washington, D. C.: OE, UnitedStates Department of Health, Education and Welfare,12024, No. 17, 196b.

Hillier, F. S. and Lieberman, G. J. Introduction to oper-ations research. San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1967.

Krathwohl, D. R. (Ed.) Taxonomy of educational objectives:Handbook II: affective domain. New York; David Mc-Kay, 1964.

Mize, J. H., and Cox, J. G. Essentials of simulation. En-glewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.

Moder, J. J., and Phillips, C. R. Project management withCPM and PERT. New York: Reinhold Publishing Co., 1964.

Williams, R. L. (Ed.) Industrial engineering terminology.manual. Athens, Ohio: Auerican Institute of Engineer-ing Terminology, Journal of Industrial Engineering, 1962.

* U.S. COVIIIMMthT PK IN ING (MICE 1 0-7 0 0-91 7-400

323

DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · 2013-11-08 · Mr. David Christian IBM Systems Engineer, Athens, Georgia....

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · 2013-11-08 · Mr. David Christian IBM Systems Engineer, Athens, Georgia....