ED 125 967

LUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTE

DOCUMENT RESUME

Rhodes, Gregory;Inservice Needsin Indiana.Ball State Univ.7530p.

SO 009 258

Smith, Victor A.Assessment: Social Studies Teachers

, Muncie, Ind. Dept. of History.

EBBS PRICE ME-20.83 HC -22.06 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Course Content; Educational Assessment; Elementary

Secondary Education; Inservice Courses; InservicePrograms; *Inservice Teacht,r Education; *NeedsAssessment; Professional Training; *Program Content;Released Time; *Social Studies; State Surveys;*Teacher Attitudes

IDENTIFIERS *Indiana

ABSTRACTDesigned to improve inservice teacher training, this

report surveys the kinds cf inservice activities needed by socialstudies teachers in Indiana during 1975. Nearly 40 percent of thestate's social studies teachers responded to the qUestionnaire whichfocused on how inservice activities should be designed, when theyshould be held, and what the content or suptance should be. Theresults indicate that regional meetings add self-initiated teachertraining kits were the lost popular form of inservice training.Release time during the school day was the most popular time period.Classroom techniques, content/materials/current curriculum, andalternative classroom approaches were the most popular subjects fortraining. Within the category of classroom techniques, studentreading problens, lezplorirg controversial issues, and inquirytechniques were deemed most necessary by the social studies teachers.Current problems and issues were the most popular areas in thesubject-content category while phase elective iniccurses,independent study, and individualized learning packets were threealternative approaches about which most teachers wanted to know more.Regional differences and grade-level differences in the needsassessment results are aIsc included. (Author/DE)

***********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished

* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal *

* reproducibility are often encountered and thit affects the quality *

* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductiont ERIC makes available *

* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. ************************************************************************

4 IN-SERVICE NEEDS ASSESSMENT

SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHERS IN INDIANA

A

JOINT PROJECT

OF

DIVISION OF CURRICULUM

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

BALL- STATE UNIVERSITY

S awaWITSIasar orr-salas.aa.avecarslis allILWEC

wornlwiaPOlisirATION

Told 000ureestmoS sate aimOWs&

.,CEO ENACT Lir AS ECIMW PTHE Minor Oa

owrowozaT low OltsGsw-

amwG roans or voIEW on

vivito 00 sag asECESSanworraoOr s sOoN seSTaaE

WPM OFs OSITaPOLICYI0uCaadi O

INDIANA COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIAL STUDIES, INC.

MID-AMERICA CENTER

FOR

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES IN EDUCATION

1975

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INDIANA SOCIAL STUDIES EDUCATORS

A special note of appreciation is extended to the many teacherswho responded to the In-service Needs Assessment Questionnaire.The survey could not have been completed without their professionalcontributions.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

James K. BeckerMid-America Center*forGlobal Perspectives in Education

Lee H. EhmanSchool of EducationIndiana University

John A. Harrold, Chairperson,Division of CurriculumIndiana Department ofPublic Instruction

Richard"F..KraftSocial Studies Development CenterIndiana UniVersity

Ray M. MaudlinDivision of Information SystemsSciencesIndiana Department of PublicInstruction

Joan E. SchreiberDepartment of HistoryBall State University

David D. VictorSocial Studies DevelopmentCenterIndiana University

STATISTICIAN

John-P. HesemannDiv:.sion of Educational Informationand ResearchIndiana Department ofPublic-Instruction

ASSESSMENT ANALYSTS AND REPORT WRITERS

Gregory RhodesSchool of EducationIndiana University

Victor A. SmithSchool of EducationIndiana University

INITIAL FIELD TESTORS

Marie EdwardsSocial Studies Supervisor'sOfficeSchool City of Gary

Max E. GecowetsSocial Studies Supervisor'sOfficeFort Wayne Community Schools

3

Jane W. MountsSocial Studies Service CenterLoogootee Community Schools

Donald TruexSocial Studies Supervisor'sOfficeSouth Bend Community Schools

INTRODUCTION

In the spring of 1975, an in-service needs assessment questionnaire

was mailed to all Indiana Social Studies teachers in grades six to

twelve. The purpose of this assessment was to, determine what kinds

of in-service activities are most needed by teachers. These findings

could assist state,-regional, district, and departmental designers

of in-service meetingi in planning. more relevant and useful meetings.

The information generated through this questionnaire clearly

indicates certain preferences regarding the nature of in-service

instruction. We strongly urge those who plan and conduct in-service

training to carefully study these results so that they can better

address the important issues is defined by their constituents, the

Social Studies teachers of Indiana.

Nearly 407. of the state's teachers (39.97) responded to the

questionnaire, a very sizeable response to a mailing of this type.

It would appear that teachers do consider'in-service important to

their professional development and desire to add their voice in

designing these meetings.

The questionnaire focused on three general areas of concern:

1. How should inrservice activities be designed?

2. When should in- service training be held?

3. What should the content or substance of in-servicetraining be?

Consequently our report is divided into three main sections:

"How?", "When?", and "What?".

All three sections are analyzed on a state-wide'basis: Section

three, concerning the content of in-service training, is also

analyzed to indicate regional and grade-level preferences that deviate

from the general state-wide pattern.

4

page 2

Before moving-to the analysis on the data, we should add a

cautionary note. This survey is probably an accurate reflection of

the needs and interests of teachers in the spring of 1975. However,

these concerns may, change over time and it is likely one could find

some shifts in in-service preferences. This observation seems particu-

larly relevant to the "What?" section. We find a large number of

teachers responding very favorably to such content areas as US

Government, values and issues, current problems and economics.

Post-Watergate events and a serious recession were important issues

during the early part of 1975 and this may have been partly responsi-

ble for the high ratings of these content areas.

However, because this is not a longitudiriai study it is difficult

to substantiate such influences. Ideally, apother similar survey

should be conducted to detect any significant shifts in teacher's

interests. Keeping this aution in mind, this survey should still

provide helpful planning inormation.

5

-page 3

HOW?

The survey asked: "What form of in-service training do you

prefer?" Teachers had to rank-order seven options,.the last being

- an "other" category which received minimal use. It was discarded

for, analysis.

WHAT FORM OF IN-SERVICE TRAINING DO YOU'PREFER2-

1 ,.0.2

50.9

Departnenral SeIi"Meetings Initiated(School. Level) Independent

TeachingTraining

RegionalMeetings

- -District -WideMeetings

1

1--

:State --ConventionMeetings

- 1st rurntrisa OSLY

- MICR PRIORITY (lstand 2nd PREFERENCESCOMBUTD)

State-WideTV With

Telephonefeedback

e I -

- LOW PRIORITY (Sch andith PREFERENCES COMM=

The graph should be read as follows:

51.87. of those responding to the Department Meeting optionranked it high priority (1st or 2nd choice); 16.77. rankedit low pricrity (5th or 6th choice). Since the number ofrespondents varies for each option, the percentages will notAdd up to multiples of 1007.. The next two graphs should beread similarly.

page 4

eo")(

Looking at first choice preferences only, regional meetings

and self-initiated teacher training kits drew the most support,

with state-wide conventions and television presentations ranking

very low. A more complete picture is obtained by combining the

first and second preferences of each teacher (for a high priority

rating), and combining the fifth and sixth preferences (for a low

priority rating) and comparing these. This allows us to sees both

an overall positive and negative response to each option.

Clearly, teachers do not prefer state-wide conventions or state-

wide TV presentations. It is possible -hat many teachers do not

consider conventions as in-service training; it is also likely that

the inconvenience and: of conventions does not compare favorably

with the convenience of more local settings. The TV presentations

may be seen as too impersonal or addressing the wrong issues. What-

ever the case, it is clear that the teachers prefer more local and

personal settings for in-service meetings.

The conventional departmental, district and regional settings

all drew solid support. Suprisingly, the self-initiated, independent

teacher training kits also drew considerable support.. This approach

is not widely used in the state, but it appears that teachers would

like this format as much as the more conventional settings. There

is however, a sizeable percentage of teachers (20.47.) who ranked this

item very low. In-service planners need to thoroughly survey their

own constituents before offering extensive training in this form.

7

ea,

page 5

WHEN?

The survey asked: What time do you prefer in-service training

to occur?" As in the "How?" section teachers were asked to rank

order seven options, with the "other" option getting little use.

WHAT TIME DO YOU PREFER-IN-SERVICE TRAINING?

I ! ; I ! I : I : I a 1 1 : . a f

:". ....:.......................................... ......... : i. '.... L-aI i

;. I . I ! I _.____,__:

1 : ! *- i : 1. ; i 1 ! 11

1

r-.7-- ,---.-- ...----- --7.-- ----. --'-

, 1. ; : ' * ! . 1 . i I

I ' I

. I 2 I

i

E7I4

: . i a

... ........ . ......1..... ......... ... i ...... I ... . .}i

' I.

- 1st PREFERENCE ONLY

- HIGH PRIORITY (1st and2nd CHOICES COMBINED)

- LOW PRIORITY (5th and6th CHOICES COMBINED)

7't- r ":" ;

70%

50Z

302,

10%

1' 49.3

58.5

30.6

40.71r.

28.5

. \ 16.5I114.-7 17.7

15.6.1

NO' 'k

8.04

4, 2.6 2.6After Before batirdaysSchool Evenings

School

4.7

Release SummerTime WorkshopsDuring (One orSchool Dig Two Weeks)

8

pages: 6

Looking at first choice preferinces only, the results show

that release time is the strong favorite. Looking at the high piiorfty

and low priority ratings we see a more detailed but essentially

similar pattern.

This data confirms what most educators probably would have

predicted. The overwhelming favorite, "Release Time During School

Day" has long been the desired arrangement for most in-service '

meetings. It is not surprising to find it so highly rated. Failing

this opportunity, teachers clearly prefer the after school slot for

normal meetings.

The solid support given to summer workshops may surprise some:

However, there is considerable opposition to this arrangement, and

in-service planners should take into account this high percentage of

teachers (30.6%) who probably would not want to participate under

this arrangement.

410

te e

ti

.t

60%

40%

20%

page 7

WHAT?

a,

Teachers were asked to rank eight areas of in-service training'

in order of itportance to them. For analysis, high priority was ,

considered to be a first or second ranking, and a ranking, of seventh

or eighth was called low priority.

60.4

3.5 '

45.

7

PRIORITY AREAS FOR IN-SERVICE TRAINING

7.4

30.8

E 22'. 9

15.9 ,

22.8 :

-16.6

HIGH PRIORITY (RANKED1st or 2nd)

- LOW PRIORITY. (RANKED'7th or 8th)

143.4'

.o I

48.9

c't c.2. I Ilf °J., t. to 4. 4z. e.

c'eS,)!.46.0 004. e. Oz./( o Co ..te .eil .eea .tc,4fit 0/

. ,

47, IC?'4- 'I'tr 2./7 d

C

4i's.s.P,o). 4*.r. ee 4.e.. .1)

t,7% --, tcye 4

10

., .

e043,4046e44:e.

Nrt,( 04)

.

4,

ear6errede

le,

page 8 .

Three areas of interest are apparent in these results.

Clearly, Classroom Techniques stands out as the area of-greatest

interest for in-service activities. Content/Materials/Current

Curriculum received solid suppOrt as the second area of concern.

Alternative Classroom Approaches was listed high by over 30%,

but the strength of this findingsis tempered by the 15% that ranked

it lo4.

The remaining five areas did"not receive much teacher support. The

best two of these five, Clast,room Interaction and Topics, drew more

`,high marks than ],,ow marks, but the difference was not large. The

three lowest'areas, Use of Objectives, Evaluation, and Departmental

Activities, were each given low priority ratings by over 40% of the

respondents..

-These results indicate that the topics most desiied by teachers

for in.--service workshops shduld be drawn from the top three areas,

mentioned, above. For guidance to planners as to what specific topics

within these broad categories are of most.concern, a more detailed

analysis of these three sections follows.

The eight areas were divided into subtopics in a different part

of the survey., Teachers were asked to indicate the importance Of

each subtopic on scale from 1 (Not Necessary) to 7 (Very Necessary).

MarkS of 6 or 7 were considered to be very positive responses, and

marks of 1 or 2 were considered to be very negative responses. Using

these definitions of positive and negative, the following graphs

and discussions desribe the three top-ranking areas. Also, regional

differences and differences between junior high and senior high .

teachers are noted in hopes that this information,will further assist th

in-serivce planner.

1

s7.

407.

30%

.11

2

rt

66.2

50.5

43.

r

CL1SSROV.4 TECHNIuHES

42.1

36.1

E. 7(10.4 17.2

1 1

6.81

1 .i

---11

1 I 1

1. 1

i

t

ktztaz-:::::.:.Y.....-k..te...Atm:ituat>,...,-: sommor...rxr--mok7--......:42:-.,.....-.11:r.: -varefanc-wav:s ueinstosabcorp,..:A. ,2 0 p

l) ts0- n ,0./ A -r4, ,s, e A ej,_(0 Q' ps'Oti 0 ., 2" 90

0, .. , ..e 'th °Os 10 Op ' .211, 0 -. '41? cle

.Z.061t7-Z..e.

c, Ay.,s,°8.1c..".0;,"1245. -.?,.;71:

<,<Z, 0 7' , '1.-Z. .. t?i'eic <,.., 412 C ; ". A ' -C .2 4c ' ..7

(5' ; 1, ,t, Z: j .j. tr -t' C' t7./.34.... 4.. tZz....."..s..

.14?./1,6:cst *zio.fc °..s',z077

) %IS' -...toi, ,r,-.,4,-.C/ .% 04,` /? ) OA OA v,

REGIONS IHICHEP.: ' f

5,l"7, , 6, =11

-' f 0 s4 -4-0" , 2,- -.6 2,.

',..s, t "Oes14

SHOWING) 10, 13 13 11

NOTABLE ). - 11._ _ _ _ _ _ __ .2 __ __

11 7' 5,\

71

4,WER:2 1 :EXTREMES LO 14

it I

L

12 . 7 %5;

10.3

HIGHLY RESPONSE(ANSWERS 6 and 7ON A SCALE OF 7)

- HIGHLY Rzsr-asc(A.T;swERs 1 and 2ON A SCALE OF 7)

33.6

17.3

28.

16.9

29.627.6

24-6

1

0

7

1 Higher thSn the state percentage of poditive responst See

.page'll for exact percentages.

2 Lower than the state percentage of positive reponse: See

page 11 for exact percentages.

12

edy

13

5

.page 10

I. CLASSROOM TECHNIQUES

State Pattern

Teacher responses in this highest ranking area show a clear

mandate for assistance with student reading problems. Over 64%

gave this subtopic a highly positive rating. Not only was it rated

higher than other subtopics in this area, but it received a higher

rating than an subtopic in any area on the entire survey. The impor-

tance of this finding should not be overlooked. In- service workshops

dealing with student reading problems appear to be the top priority

concern of Indiana social studies teachers.

Other topics in this area also showed solidpositiire support.

Exploring Controversial Issues (50.5%), Inquiry Techniques (43.5 %),

Group Instruction (42.1%), and In and Out of Classroom Experimental

Activities (36.1%) all received minimal negative response. The

remaining four topics (Simulation Games, Value Analysis, AV/Audio

Tutorial Uses, and Role Playing), had sizeable numbers of detractors,

although all had more positive responses than negative.

Regional Extremes

To assist more specific planking in each area of the state,

extremes were noted when a region was either more positive or less

positive than the state pattern expressed in the graph. Only positive

responses were considered here; it was thought that such responses

would dominate decision-making, and a region which was either

more positive or less positive about ceitaih'topics would pro-

bably need different programs than the state pattern would indi-

cate. Therefore, a brief regional summary follows. Please refer

to the map on page 21 for regional boundaries. Regions not

mentioned followed the state pattern. Regions with fewer than 2013

page 11

responses were omitted from this analysis.

Region 2 - High on Simulation Games (42.17.)

Region 4 - Low on Controversial Issues (38.07.), AV/AT Uses (21.67.),and Value Analysis (11.8%)

Region 5 - High on Student Reading Problems (74.1%)

Low on Role Playing (13.5%), Experimental Activities(26.6%), and Value Analysis (19.0%)

Region 6 - High on Inquiry Techniques (50.87.) and Role Playing(36.47.)

Region 7 , High on Controversial Issues (67.97.)

Law on Inquiry Techniques (34.57.), ExperimentalActivities (25.9%), Simulation Games (17.2%),and Value Analysis (20.67.)

Region 10- High on Student Reading Problems (72.4%)

Region 11- High on Group Instruction (56.87.) and SimulationGames (52.07.)

Low on Student Reading Problems (53.07.)

Region 12- High on Student Reading Problems (77.87.)

Low on Controversial Issues (37.07.)

Region 13- High on Inquiry Techniques (64.6%), Role Playing (35.47.),and Controversial Issues (60.37.)

Region 14- High on Value Analysis (39.37.)

Grade Level Differences

The only sharp difference between junior high and senior high

.16

teachers was on the topic of Student Reading Problems. A very positive

response was given by 72.47. of respondents teaching junior high compared

to 56.0% among senior high. This finding does not remove student

reading as a concern of senior high teachers, but serves to emphasize

even more its importance among junior high teachers.

14

6.1.8

55.652.3

13.6

!1..54

°1

4

1!i

1

M,* ..11'

,

1W

OO

.:714:

94

v.

4... m0

inu

a0.-

0c

*v

nn

aC

...I

cu.

11

Fi..-

VI

WI

mo

tei

can

o

Ai

11

fi

1

/A

pla:trni7,

10,

7i

`1i .;',;:n10,

13,10,

;:;',N

n13

1413

:* T..

1'

.',7'`

........,.

....... ....- -

min

ND

lale

0N

o V. ao

tono

to

\I1',mn:2

42

A

CONTENT /MATERIALS /CUMNT CURneUhUM

41.7

394;

39.2

37.6

ril

r13q

1

1.-.6..1 . .) I 6

41.16....i ., C

E11. 1

, 1- 1.1 ,...0.1

!2: 8

12.1

1Ile".

1ii

.1

t'

I"

i...go..

1,1

§ (I0

)tit

t4.a....

t.a

CA

9V

9P

.n

m2.

na

L.

".0

00,-w

",,.1i;

gc.

1A''ti

o'1

Itt

M.

mci

A4,.

nr

1.1

o.

u

1

:aIt1.$ '

I;111...

0n.1L.

..1

t

7,

10,

4,

12

II,

10

13

7,13

13

34.11-11;

32.?.

0HMI.? POSITIVE

RE

sponsn(answers of 6 and 7 on a

ncalo of 7)

';11101ILY 11LVAT/VE RCSPO::SE

(..74nmwora of 1 and 2 on a

ncale of 71

.

31.41

21.5R

8.378 0

1li...): till

t

t .1I -1

r 1 5i

1.1

iI

ttt

I.!,

.,"1

1

11

1.

Ii

hi

.t

°

1It

.-..

L'

Po. O,

nen....

VM

Ir..0

,

to1,

Sr

11

r:. V..

r.4

...P.%

E., ,

,, ..... rt

CU

.ts

b0.O

rtC

. 0C

W.

C C

IV

I P.C

/...

(A0..

s..r.:.

'.6....in

47:4r:

^1 o,,a

....ft

I.:.

.,

I...

'

0 ;

0..

Au

,-,

,..,

v.

,..

A,

-E

nn'..:

An

n

AI,

A;i

...

t1

F

t14

12

6.

47,

8,

4,

1

7.

7,

12.

12

13

)n,10.

13

I

124

b11

5,

'23.611

A. $1,0h,r Ora the avato porcentain of positive "osponse.

St

pace 13 ter

I0%

1V' V

V.I.C

l.nl'aq(n.

2. La.= than tha ntatt prntnaq at wuitito, rspanuO.

Se' p.m! (3 'or

as.,;! percent/1,a.

page 13

II. CONTENT/MATERIALS/CURRENT CURRICULUM

State Pattern

The graph of this second-ranking area shows a pattern of

pairing related topics. "Current Problems" and "Values and Issues"

received the most positive ratings and are clearly related. A similar

link can be seen between "U.S. Government" and "U.S. History,"

between "Economics" and "Civics," and between "World/Geography"

and "Global/International Studies." These pairs constitute the

eight highest rated topics.

The remaining ten topics, which include area studies and the

behavioral studies of sociology, psychology, and anthropology,

received a mixed response. Only anthropology received a response

more negative than positive.

The influence of post-Watergate concerns and an economic

recession might easily be read into these results when the top six

subjects are noted. Whether these are temporary or'enduring concerns

can not be detected without additional surveys.

Regional Extremes

The same approach as described earlier on page 10 was used in

noting regional extremes.

Region 1 - High on Latin American Studies (41.07.)

Region 2 - Low on Citizenship/Civics (30.17.)

Region 4 - High on World Civilization History (35.37.) and World/

Geography (47.97.)

Low on Ethnic/Minority Studies (13.77.) and Values and

Issues (32.47.)

Region 5 - Low on Latin American Studies (11.0%) and Urban Studies

(17.0%)

16

page 14

Region 6 - High on Ethnic/Minority Studies (40.1%) and 1P-ban

Studies (39.1%)

Region 7 - High on Current Problems (75.9%), Economics (62.0%),Ethnic/Minority Studies (55.1%), Psychology (37.9%).

. U.S. History (65.5%), Urban Studies (51.7%), andWorld/Geography (48.2%)

Low on Modern World Civilization (21.4%)

Region 8 - High on African Area Studies (34.5%)

Region 10- High on Citizenship/Civics (54.2%), Current Problems(74.0%), Economics (56.1%), Ethnic Minority Studies(41.3%), U.S. History (61.7%), U.S. Government (68.81),

Urban Studies (42.8%)

Region 11- Low on Latin American Studies (4.0%) and World Civiliza-tion History (18.3%)

Region 12- High on African Area Studies (37.5%), Asian AreaStudies (52.2%), Ethnic/Minority Studies (50.04),Modern World Civilization (45.9%), Psychology(53.9%), Sociology (58.3%), Urban Studies (50.0%)

Region 13- High on Citizenship/Civics (51.3%), Current Problems(72.8%), Psychology (40.7%), Sociology (44.2%),

U.S. History (62.2%), U.S. Government (65.4%),

World Civilization History (45.6%) and World/Geography

(56.4%)

Region 14- High on U.S. Government (61.7%)

Grade Level Differences

Several differences appeared in this area between junior high and

senior high teacher interests. Most differences are not surprising in

view of the subjects that are commonly taught at each level.

Senior high teachers gave more positive responses than junior

high teachers for Economics (52.2% to 36.4%), Psychology (33.4% to

20.7%), Sociology (38.9% to 25.7%), U.S. Government (56.81 to 49.1%),

and Urban Studies (38.2% to 31.4%).

Junior high teachers were more positive toward African Area

Studies (37.9% to 21.9%), Anthropology (28.4% to 20.7%), Asian

Area Studies (44.2% to 31.3%) and World/Geography (47.01 to 33.21).

17

46.4

307.

;

;

A 17i Fr: *.7.' s : CZ: ?1,:Z:C!:"..17.

43.1 42.7

33.4

0 HIGHLY POSITI7E RESPONSE(answers of 6 and 7 on ascale of 7)

HIGHLY NEGATIVE RESPONSE(answers of I and 2 on ascale of 7)

. 1- 30.3iiI I I

15.B 1

! j 22.5

1

i

1

17.9

1:7774:7-14

:.'ii!:e: 1tx,..6.41

!1

i

I

1

II 17741

7,''' ;

1 i 12.2.7ft I 1L 3 ...77 I ,4%1

I1- : 1!6."-.. -1';

I.

-r. -,..

: ..;,..;.;;;.-"..-167:I

1:',,c-Y i !"'":--":4: ".t.:- I

Ite-%-:' i...9.;;: ,...(5,

I.,% I s-,_. II r... t.:::-.-- I

...-,:-.../.....

..t''...5r:,.'7:5-zi v-

If.

.I %.....

Pr.....4. - .7.7.-.E.r.-- ' . .::,....t..-:-..-...:-.4........ _:...7.---z.-.1.....=.....-..... ...:,...zt.vice7A.L4-z....aar--eriors.c.-xwi:Nrcmwasse.ii-

38.5

:- ..1' .r. .0, -..,-

,-,..Q.: ,0 . f I`''. A .:- t.> A .<1. 4 4-

..t. 0 teo A Neo s'<e,, Ns. .fr,- .e.. 0 .7 ..>

1* .1

0 0 .? 0c .1s'?,,,., c'e%.,

I

< ,, 41.Q '00,,it 00

0e.S

't 0--P* (4

REGIONS HZ'HER:1 4, 4, 11,2, 14 lb,

e12 5, 12

6, -1

SHOWING,. 12

.1 11,NOTABLE /g.t.

AI

-- - 41 ,-- 4.EXTREMESIL-,-- ---- - - --jam

7 7 7

7,11

1 Higher than the state percentage of positive response. See page 15

for exact percentages.

2 Lower than the state percentage of positive response. See page 16

for exact percentages.

1.8

4,.

7

page 16

III. ALTERNATIVE CLASSROOM APPROACHES

State Pattern

In this third-ranking area, three sub-topics (Phase Electives,

Independent Study and Individualizing Learning Packets) received

very positive ratings from over 407. of all respondents. If negative

as well as positive responses are considered, differences in interest

among these top three are minimal. The next two approaches, Grouping

Techniques and Team Teaching, received sizeable negative responses but

still had more positive than negative response. The majority of teacher

are clearly not interested in Open Classroom or Alternative Social

Studies Schooling as topics of in-service training.

Regional Extremes

Regional extremes were again noted as described on page 10,

Region ,2 - High on Team Teaching (38.17.)

Region 4 - High on Independent Study (56.97.), Phase Electives (58.87.),

and Grouping Techniques (40.87.)

Low on Alternative Schooling (6.07.)

Region 5 - High on Independent Study (50.87.)

Low on Team Teaching (13.37.)

Region 6 - High on Team Teaching (42.17.)

Region 7 -

Region 10-

Region 11-

Low on Team Teaching (17.27.), Individualized LearningPackets (31.0%), Independent Study (25.0%), AlternativeSchooling (6.97.), and Grouping Techniques (22.2%)

High on Alternative Schooling (27.17.)

High on Individualized Learning Packets (58.97.), andIndependent Study (54.97.)

Low on Team Teaching (22.07.)

19

page 17

Region 12- High on Team Teaching (40.70 , Individualized LearningPackets (51.8%), and Phase Electives (70.30

Region 13- High on Independent Study (50.60

Region 14- High on Open Classroom (32.87.) and Alternative Schooling(26.6%)

Grade Level Differences

Some interesting differences between junior high and senior

high teacher interests emerge4 in this area. Junior high teachers

were more positive toward in-service training about Team Teaching

(36.27. to 27.80 and about Individualized Learning Packets (48.6% to

37.87.). Senior high teachers, however, were more positive toward

.Phase Electives Mini-Courses (49.47. to 42.47.).

IV. OTHER AREAS

While the overall rankings placed the three areas reviewed

above at the top of teacher interests, some planners may be interested

in positive interest expressed toward subtopics in the remaining five

areas. The five are listed below in order'of their ranking along.

with the subtopics within each area which received very positive

ratings from at least-407. of all respondents.

CLASSROOM INTERACTION

Slower Learners 58.47.

Gifted Learners 54.07.

Active Listening 49.27.

TOPICS

Law/Justice 57.57.

Scarcity (Energy/Food) 54.67.

Global/InternationalProblems 51.07.

Conflict 49.17. 20

page 18

EnvironmentalProblems

Change

USE OF OBJECTIVES

47.67.47.57.

How to Assess Effectiveness of ObjectivesHow to ImplementPerformance/Behavioral Objectives

EVALUATION

49.47.45.0%41.4%

Evaluating Effectiveness of ClassroomInstruction 61.17.

Alternative Forms of Student Evluation 57.37.

Evaluating Curriculum Materials 44.37.

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

None over 407.Highest: Techniques for Revising Curriculum 39.47.

21

page 19

RECOMMENDATIONS

What are the specific implications of this report for your

in- service' planning? The analysis of the data leads to several

specific recommendations for designing meetings. It should be

clear, however, that following these guidelines will not necessarily

produce successful in-service sessions. The organization, the

quality of the presentations, and the enthusiasm brought to the

task are all crucial variables in producing effective and exciting

meetings. Nonetheless, it is quite useful to begin planning with

some relevant information regarding the needs of your constituents.

This data, then, can be a useful first step towards preparing quality

in-service meetings.

1. Departmental, district and regional meetings all seem favorable

to many teachers.

2. Self-initiated, independent training kits should be seriously

considered as a method of conducting in-service instruction.

3. Do not rely heavily on state-wide TV presentations or conventions

to attract a large audience. If you do decide to conduct

such meetings, you would probably need to organize them to

take advantage of some of the other positively reported findings

in this survey. For example, you may wish to arrange for release

time and/or aim the presentations at highly crucial topics such

as student reading problems.

4. Try to secure release time during the school day for your meetings.

If you are unable to do this, plan your meetings after school.

5. Summer workshops appear to be a good means for reaching a signi-

ficant number of teachers.

22

page 20

Design in-service sessions around the-substantive topics of

Classroom Techniques, Content/Mateiials/Current Curriculum,

and Alternative Classroom Approaches.

7. The single most important topic for.in-service training in the1

eyes of Indiana SOcial Studies teachers is Student Reading

Problems.

8. If an in-service program is being planned regarding subject area

content, topics related to current problemg and issues are rated

the most important.

9. Phase Electives Mini-courses, Independent Study, and Individualized

Learning Packets are three alternative approaches that many

teachers would like to know more about.

10, Planners working in specific regions should note the important

regional differences listed in this report.

11. Area Studies, World Geography, Team Teaching and Individualized

Learning Packets are of greater interest to junior high teachers,

whereas senior high teachers show more interest in social science

subjects and in Phase Elective Mini-courses.

23

IN-SERVICE ASSESSMENT FOR-SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHERS IN INDIANA

SURVEY REGIONS

(EcOnomic Plannitig Regiont)

24

STATE INDIANAwernawir-

Dr Hlrold H. Nrgicy SuperinrcndencSTATE _DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

ROOM 229 - STATE HOUSEAREA CODE 217-6316610

INDIANAPOLIS 46204"loon=mannommommmmmmo==

MEMORANDUM

TO: Social Studies Educators

FROM: Harold H.-Negley, SuperintendentDepartment of Public Instruction

RE: ,Inservice Needs Assessment

DATE: Mafch 25, 1975

The Indiana Department of Public Instruction in cooperationwith the Indiana Council for the Social Studies and the Mid-American Center for Global Perspectives in Education is in theprocess of assessing the inservice training needs of Indiana

'social studies teachers.

The enclosed questionnaire is a part of this assessment andits results will be used to determine the nature of futureinservice training prograds provided for the local schoolsby the Department of Public Instruction and the various institutionsand professional groups in Indiana.

Please take the time today to respond to this instrument. It hasbeen aesigned for your convenience: after marking your responsesfold, staple and mail it. No postage stamp will be necessary.

Let me take this opportuAity in advance to thank you for yourcooperation-

,

Encic:vra

25

1N-SERVICE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FORSOCIAL STUDIES TEACHERS IN INDIANA

April, 1975

Circle the grade level(s) below which youare now teaching:

7 8 9 10' 11 12

Subjects Now Teaching:

1

2

3

PART ONE

DIRECTIONS

1. Review the list of in-service interest areas in each of the following sections. In spaces provided atthe end of each list add (specify and/or give examples) any areas you feel should be included inan in-service effort.

2. To indicate the degree of need or the importance of obtaining in-service training in a given area,mark an "X" in the appropriate box to the left of each interest area. Please make thesejudgments in terms of the training YOU would like to receive to become amore effective social-studies teacher.

3. After completing the questionnaire please fold it to expose the return address on the back ofthe questionnaire, staple the pages together and drop it in the mail.

SAMPLE:

o wZ Z ccco Z1.;

1 2 3 4 5 6 -7 III.

0 0 IS 0 0 0 0

) 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 jd0 kj 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 751

0, 0 0 0 JS. 0 Q

American History:Teaching TopicsA. Civil War and

ReconstructionB. IndustrializationC. Great DepressionD. Cold WarE._ VietnamF. Other

26

NOTE: The responses made in the samplesection to the left indicate that theteacher felt a strong need or desire forin-service help in the areas of the "GroatDepression" and "Vietnam." The samplealso shows the teacher had little interestin the "Civil War and Reconstruction"area and no interest in"Industrialization." "Indian Culture" waswritten in by the respondent and markedas an area needing emphasis, but`not highpriority; whereas the teacher indicated aslight interest in the area of "Cold War."

2

zz

if it

E3>iz t

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. CLASSROOM TECHNIQUES

0 0 0 0 0 0 A. Inquiry Techniques0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Role-Playing Activities0 0 0 C. Exploring Controversial Public issues0 D 0 0 0 0 D. Developing In and Out of Classroom Experimental

Activities0 0 0 0 0 0 E. Group Work/Group Projects/Small and Large

Group Instruction0 0 0 0 0 0 F. Audio-Visual/Audio Tutorial Uses

0 0 0 0 0 G. Use of Simulation Games0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H. Value Analysis Clarification0 0 0 0 0 0 I. Student Reading Problems0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J. Other

0 0 0 0 0 0 K. Other

II. DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

0 0 0 0 0 0 A. ,Departmenial Coordination/CommunicationCharnels and Techniques

O 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Techniques for Revising CurriculumO 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. Curriculum Development ProceduresOaoa aa D. Departmental Evaluation/AssessmentO 0 0 El 0 0 0 E. In-service Training Program Development0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F. Other.

G. Other.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

111. ALTERNATIVE CLASSROOM APPROACHES

O 0 0 0 0 0 0 A.' Team TeachingO 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Individualized Learning Packets

0 0 0 0 0 0 C. Open ClassroomO 0 0 0 0 0 D. Independent StudyO 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. Alternative Social Studies Schooling/"School

Without Walls"aabaaaa F. Phase Electives Mini Courses/Interim CoursesO 0 .0 0 0 0 G. Grouping Techniques0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H. Other.

0 0 0 0 0 1. Other

IV. 0^.CLASSROOM INTERACTION'

O 0 0 0 0 0 O. A. Active ListeningO 0 0 '0 0 0 0 B. Slow LearnersO. 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. Gifted Learners0, 0 0 0 0 '0 0 D. Group DynamicsO 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. Antecedent Conditions (Student/Teacher/Resources/

Environment)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F. Other:

G. Other:O 0 0 0 0

27

z- z-2 ij 2

si Ai 3 1> r,

z z1 2 3 4 5 6 7 V. CONTENT/MATERIALS/CURRENT CURRICULUM

A. African Area StudiesB. AnthropologyC. Asian Area StudiesD. Citizenship/CivicsE. Current ProblemsF. EconomicsG. Ethnic/Minority StudiesH. Global/International StudiesI. Latin American Area Studies3. Modern World CivilizationK. PsychologyL SociologyM. United States HistoryN. United States Government0. Urban StudiesP. Values and Issues0. World Civilization HistoryR. World/Geography/General GeographyS. OtherT. Other

VI. TOPICSA. ChangeB. ConflictC. Environmental ProblemsD. Global/International ProblemsE. Law/JusticeF. Multinational Organizations (Economic/Political)G. NationalismH. Population StudiesI. PowerJ. RacismK. ReligionL. Scarcity (Energy/Food, Etc.)M. SexismN. Urban Development0. Other:P. Other:

VII. USE OF OBJECTIVES

0 - A.. Performance/Behavioral Objectives0 B. Cognitive Objectives0 C. Affective Objectives0 D. How to.Write Objectives0 E. How to Implement0 F. How to Assess Effectiveness of Objectives0 G. Other

Other0 H.

0

I

3sz z

a2>z

1 2 3' 4 5 6 7 VIII. EVALUATION

0O

O

0

OOO0OOO

A. Evaluating Effectiveness of Classroom InstructionB. Alternative Forms of Student EvaluationC. Test ConstructionD. Reporting SystemsE. Evaluating Curriculum MaterialsF. OtherG. Other-

PART TWO

DIRECTIONS

Rank in order of your preference all of the items following each of the two questionsbelow. Place 1(one) before the item you most prefer, 2 (two) for your second choice, and so on.

I. What form of in-service training do you prefer?

A. Self initiated, independent' teaching training using readings, tapes and audiovisual

kits.

B. Departmental meetings (school level).

C School district-wide social studies faculty meetings.

D. Regional (within 50 miles of your school) meetings conducted by a state or national

level training team.

E State convention type meeting.

F State-wide television with telephone feedback.

G Other: (please state)

II. What time do you prefer in-service training to occur?_A Summer workshops (one or two weeks in length).

B After school (starting within 30 minutes after the dismissal of the last class).

C Before school.D Evenings.

E Saturdays.

F Release time during school day.

G Other (please state)

29

J

El

PART THREE

DIRECTIONS

Rank below the importance to you of each of the eight sections of Part One. Place 1 (one) in frontof the most important section or most needed to be emphasized iman in-service program, 2 (two)for the second most important, and onto 8 (eight) for the least important.

A. Classroom Techniques

B Departmental Activities

C Content / Materials / Current CurriculumD TopicsE. Alternative Classroom ApproachesF Classroom Interaction

G Use of objectivesH Evaluation

Comments:

Thank you for takirig time to help us serve you better!

30