ED 090 725

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUS DATEGRANTNOTEAVAILABLE PROM

EARS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 061 767

Thiagarajan, Sivasailam; And OthersInstructional Development for Training Teachers ofExceptional Children: A Sourcebook.Indiana Univ., Bloomington. Center for Innovation inTeaching the Handicapped.National Center for Improvement of EducationalSystems (DHEW/OE), Washington, D. C.740EG-0-9-336005-2452(725)192p.Council for Exceptional. Children, 1920 AssociationDrive, Reston, Virginia 22091 (single Copy, $5.50)

MP-$0.75 HC-$9.00 PLUS POSTAGECourse Objectives; *Exceptional Child Education;Handicapped Children; *Instructional Materials;Material Development; Performance Based TeacherEducation; Task Analysis; *Teacher DevelopedMaterials; *Teacher Education; *Teacher Educators

ABSTRACTPresented in the sourcebook for the teacher rduCgtor

is the Four -D model (define, design, develop, and disseminate) to beused for developing instructional materials for training teachers ofexceptional children. Listed at the begOning of chapters areinstructional objectives; included when-appropriate are guidelines,checklists, and flow charts. Given for use of the book areinstructions such as reading chapter 1 for an overview, choosing atopic, and checking chapter objectives for essenttalnese to taskaccomplishment. Noted in the introdUction are the transition inspecial education that requires teachers to demonstrate competency,the efficacy and validity of special training programs, and the roleof the Four-D model. The stage categorized as "define" is describedto be analytical and to involve five steps: front-end analysis(problems facing the teacher trainer), learner analysis, taskanalysis, concept analysis, and the specifying of instructionalobjectives. The next stage is seen to involve the design of prototypeinstructional material and to comprise four steps: construction ofcriterion referenced tests, media selection, format selection, andinitial design for presentation of instruction through media such astests, textbooks, audiotutorial models, and computer assistedinstruction. The developmental stage is said to comprise modificationof the prototype material through expert appraisal and developmentaltesting. Described for the final stage (disseminate) are summativeevaluation, final packaging activities such as securing copyrightreleases, and diffusion. (MC)

U I DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONIH$S DOCJMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCE D EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM1HE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

4

t.(1 instructional developmentCNI for training teachers1%. of exceptional childrenCDO A sourcebook

0

Sivasailam ThiagarajanDorothy a'. ,ammelMelvyn I. Somme!Center for Innovationin Teaching the Handicapped

Indiana UniversityBloomington, Indiana

Instructional developmentfor training teachersof exceptional children

A sourcebook

A joint publication of the Leadership TrainingInstitute/Special Education, University of Minnesota;The Center for Innovation in Teaching the Handi-capped (CITH), Indiana University; The Council forExceptional Children (CEC), and The TeacherEducation Division of CEC.

Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1974

The project presented or reported herein was performedpursJant to Grants from the U. S. Office of Education,Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Writing ofthe Sourcebook was oupported in part under subcontractwith the Leadership (raining Institute by Grant No. OEG-0-9-336-005-2452(725) from the National Center forImprovement of Educational Systems, USOE, and in partby ne Center for Innovation in Teaching the Handicappedunder Grant No OEG-0242178-4149-032 from the Bureauof Education for the Handicapped, USOE. Publicationwas performed under Orr It No. OEG-0-9-336-005-2452(725). The opinions expressed herein are those of theeuthorS and do not necessarily reflect the position orpolicy of the U. S. Office of Education, and no officialendorsement by the U.S. Office of Education should beInferred.

Th" use of the masculine gender or any titles that connotemasculine gender in this material is merely for convenientreference to people of both sexes and should not beconstrued as implying sex limitations.

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 73-620230

Copies may be ordered from The Council for ExceptionalChildren, 1920 Association Drive, Reston, Virginia 22091,Single copy 85.50. Discounts on quantity orders shinpedto one address: 2-9 copies (10 %);10 or more copies (20%).Orders totaling less than $7.50 must be accompaniedby remittance.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the many persons whocontributed their assistance, counsel and judg-ment during the writing, field testing, and revisionof the Sourcebook.

Our special thanks to Dr. Maynard Reynoldsof the Leadership Trainiag Institute (LTI) for thesustained encouragement and support he provided,from initiation of the project through publication.Members of the LTI staff were also most helpful.We wish to thank Karen Lundholm, LTI Ad-ministrative Assistant, for her effort ; in organizingthe 1973 Chicago Conference, in which the Source-book was submiVed to a jury of our peers inspecial education and instructional development,for critical evaluation; and Sylvia W. Rosen, LTIPublications Editor, for getting us into print.

Welcome encouragement also came from theTeacher Education Division of CEC, and we thankDr. Herbert Prehm for his leadership role in thiseffort.

Appreciation is extended to Drs. Susan Markle,James Okey, and David Gliessmann, and to ArthurBabick for their contributions to the instructionaldevelopment model presented in the book; to Dr.James Russell for editorial work on the earlier

version; to the staff of the Southwest RegionalMedia Center for the Deaf at Las Cruces, and theparticipants of the ;972 Summer Institute in Pro-gramed Instruction and Instructional Systems, forformative feedback on various sections of the book;and to Dr. Gary Borich for his comments ar4dsuggestions on evaluation.

To our co-workers at the Center for Innovationin Teaching the Handicapped (CITH), our manythanks for their -ooperation, professionalism andgood will Barbara Senden, Gretchen Jones, andLeta Picklesimer, typists, Jan LaChappelle andKathy Quirk, CITH editors, Diane Golob, secretary,and Cherry Heffernan, administrative assistant, arebut a few of the many at CITH whose assistance isgratefully acknowledged.

Foreword

As its name implies, this book is a source cf ideasand procedures for the development and dis-semination cf instructional materials for teacherpreparation programs. Although it focuses onneeds in the field of special education, this workcan be used productively in other fields that lacksufficient or adequate instructional tools. Theauthors have brought together and graphicallysystematized a number of theoretical constructs andpractical skills. Step by step, they have taken thereader from the determination of the need for newinstructional materials, through the processes ofcleating and evaluating module. of instruction,to the mass production and distribution of thefinished module. The purpose of the Sourcebookis to help the teacher educator use his hard-wonexpertise to produce instructional modules whichcan be shared with colleagues for the improvementof the field. The Sourcebook may well be the firstresource of its kind in any area of education.

The emphasis on the dissemination of productiveideas was not included idly. It is a partial responseto the paucity of processes in education for sharingideas and procedures. Over the past two decades,many universities and other educational agencieshave had substantial federal support for projectswhich, it was hoped, would reach a highly visibleand exemplary state and produce "ripple effeds"in other service centers, both near and far. Un-lot tunntely, many programs, although highly in-novative and rewarding, culminated in poorly edited,iargely unread "final reports," or in not-quite-Finished audio-visual or graohic materials, which

only be used t,y their producers. Altfioughcl; Qsemination was an early goal for most of theprojects, widespread sharing never seemed tomaterialize. Persons who have gone searching for"modules" or even minor products from handsomely

vi

supported projects almost uniformly netted nothingthat they could use.

The failure to share the results of developmentalwork is particularly disastrous in relatively smallfields such as special education. The absence ofa mass audience does not encourage commercialinitiative and, consequently, only a thin trickleof materials is produced for the market. Since unitspreparing special education personnel tend to besmall, their resources tend to be limited. Further-more, the resources that do exist in special edu-cation are unevenly distributed. As a result, somecolleges have been able to afford lavish instructionalmaterials while other colleges have struggled tomaintain quality teaching with minimal tools. Oneof the reasons that resources and materials forteacher education have not been shared in the pastis that colleges and universities were virtuallyforced to compete for federal funding. Thus, ideaswere hoarded for grant possibilities rather thanshared for instructional improvement.

Happily, this situation is changing. The federalgovernment is increasingly stressing the co-ordination of plans among training centers andstate agencies to meet carefully documented needs.In addition, teacher education in general is movingtoward the explication of specific goals and a re-cognition that, for accreditation purposes, out-comes are more important than processes. As aresult, the demand is growing for teaching modulesthat correspond to specific objectives in teachereducation. Just as important, perhaps, is the moveby the Office of Education to bloc training grantswhich may accelerate the improvement of teachereducation.

Another obstacle in times past has been the lackof systems for recognizing and reinforcing goodand generous performances in teacher education.

Research professors have had clear access to high-status channels for the dissemination of the pro-ducts of research, mostly through peer-juriedresearch journals and monographs. No comparablechannels exist for teacher educators. Researchpublications have been given much weight Lidocumenting faculty performance, which has ledto Individual promotions and other rewards. Onthe other hand, outstanding performances in teachereducation have been difficult to document and havebeen given only cursory recognition. Obviously,some system for the dissemination of trainingmaterials is needed if excellent teaching abilitiesand innovations are to be given their due as alegitimate basis for professional rewards.

Fortunately, a new course Is underway which mayresolve some of the past problems and, at the sametime, lead to more effective teacher preparationin The field of speciall:ducation. As part of itsmandate from the National Center for the Improve-ment of Educational Systems, U. S. Office ofEducation, the Leadership Training Institute/Special Education has initiated the publication ofresource material (Reynolds & Davis, 1971, Reyn-olds, 1971) lately in cooperation with the Councilfor Exceptional Children (Deno, 1973). Otherdissemination activities of CEC have been centeredin its Teacher Education Division (TED). TEDleaders, starting with Richard Schofer, WilliamCarriker, and Herbert Prehm, saw their plans. cometo fruition in April 1973 when TED officiallyadopted policies on, and set in motion, a programfor the dissemination of instruction: nodules andmaterials in the field of teacher preparation.

The Sourcebook is the first of what, I hope, willbe a long series of instructional materials sharedamong colleges, universities, and other trainingcenters for special education personnel. Additional

materials are already in the planning stage and,thus, it may not be amiss to celebrate a new spiritof mutual support as well as 2 new surge in qualityin our field. This form of "sharing," it is hoped,will add further strength to the Teacher EducationDivision of CEC and lead to other activities cfequal importance.

It is most fortunate that Melvyn and DorothySemmel and Sivasailam Thiagarajan were willingand able to bring their competencies and commit-ments to this complex of activities. Their conceptionand realization of this Sourcebook are an outgrowthof their involvement in tho BEH-supported Centerfor Innovation in Teaching the Handicapped atIndiana University.

Thiagarajan and the Semmels have created asystematic guide for materials development andevaluation which all of us in special education canbuild upon in constructing a dissemination systemthat eradicates the deficiencies of the past and offersopportunities for the future. The authors haveexemplified the best of "sharing" in developingthis work; they plan to implement it with correlativeinstruction modules in the near future.

I wish to express my appreciation to Don Davies,William Smith, Stewart Tinsman, Malcolm Davis,and Ed Moore, past and present staff officers oftke National Center for the Improvement of Edu-cational Systems, for giving me the opportunity tohelp bring this interesting and valuable Sourcebookto special educators.

Maynard C. Reynolds, DirectorLeadership Training InstitutelSpecial EducationUniversity of Minnesota

vii

Contents

Acknowledgments v

Foreword vi

How to use the sourcehook 1

1 Introduction 3Teacher training in special educationin transition 3A model for Instructional development 5

Stage Define 13

2 Front-end analysis 15When are instructional materials required?Locating instructional materials 16Assessment of instructional materials 17

3 Learner analysts 25Who are the learners?How to conduct a learner analysis 27

4 Task analysts 31Why task analysis? 31How to perform a task analysis 31

5 Concept analysis 43Nature of concepts in the educationof exceptional children 43How to do a concept analysis 44

6 Specifying instructional objectivesWhy specify objectives? 49How to convert task analysisinto behavioral objectives 50How to convert concept analysisinto behavioral objectives 52

Stage Ii: Design 57

7 Construction of criterion-referenced tests 59Why construct criterion-referenced tests? 59When to construct tests 60Three levels of criterion-referenced testing 61

8 Media selection 67Aspects of media selection 68Introcfuction to media facts 73

9 Format selection 77Protocols 77Trrilning materials 79

15 10 Protocol materials 81Concept analysis as the basefor preparing protocols 82Alternative formats for preparing protocols

11 Resource-management formats 87Objectives outline 87Resource lists 90Field training 92

12 Mastery-learning formats 93Adjunct programming 93Repeated testing 96Personalized system of instruction 98

13 Self - Instructional print formatsTextbooks and directives 1U1

49 intcrmation mapping 102Programed instruction 104

101

85

ix

14 Self-instructional multimedia formals 107Audiotutorial modules 107Multimedia modules 109Minicourses 110

15 Formats for small-group learningRoleplay 113Instructional games 115Simulations 118

20 Final packaging 163Obtaining releases 164Copyright considerations 165Production standards 166

113 21 Diffusion 169Dissemination 170Demonstration 174Facilitating adoption 178

16 Computer-based formats 121Computer-assisted remedial education(CARE) 121Computer-assisted repeated testing (CART)Computer-assisted teacher training system(CATTS) 122

Stage HI: Develop 126

17 Expert appraisal 127Technical review 129Instructional review 131Effectiveness 133Feasibility 134

18 Developmental testing 137Initial developmental testing 138Quantitative developmental testing 139

otal-package testing 142

Stage IV: Disseminate 145

19 Summative evaluation 147Three phasas of validation testing 147Selection of evaluation design 150Constructing and collecting tests 158

x

Glossary of Instructional developmentterms 183

122 References 189

index 193

Now to usethe sourcebook

The objective of this sourcebook is to assist thereader in the design, development, and disseminationof instructional materials for training teachers ofexceptional children. Specific instructional objectivesare listed at the beginning of each chapter. Sinceit is anticipated that the instructional developmentcompetencies of readers will vary considerably, thechapters have been organized in modular form topermit their use at any appropriate stage of thedevelopmental process. The following steps aresuggested for maximizing the usefulness of thesourcebook:

I. Read Chapter I for an overview of the in-structional development process.

2. Put the sourcebook aside and choose a topicon which you would like to develop an in-structional material for teacher training.

3. Check the objectives for each chapter and decidewhether they are essential to acc,,nplish the taskyou have undertaken. For example, it is extrerralyunlikely that you will need to work throughChapter 16, "Computer-based formats," duringan initial reading.

4. Compare your competencies with the objectiveslisted for the chapter. For example, you mayalready know how to state behavioral objectivesor construct performance test items. Skip anychapter for which you have the competenciesdiscussed.

5. Upon completing each chapter, apply the tech-niques to the design of your instructional material.This procedure provides an opportunity to usethe recently acquired skill and also preparesyou to make maximum use of the next chapterin your self-selected sequence.

6. Because the major objective of the sourcebookis to provide a comprehensive introduction tothe entire instructional development process,each chapter covers only the fundamentals ofthe various development techniques. However,each chapter is laced with selected references,most of which are practical rather than theo-retical. Use these references whenever necessary.

7. Review the suggestions in Chapter 9, "Formatselection," and choose a suitable format for yourinstructional material. Depending upon the formatyou select, you will need to read only one ofthe seven format chapters.

8. At the end of stage 3, Develop, you may feelthat the instructional development job is done.However, it is suggested that you go on to Stage4, Disseminate, to learn the essentials of ton-eluding an instructional project.

9. After you complete your first project, we hopeyou will find the sourcebook a valuable referencefor future instructional development projects.

Objectives1. Provide a rationale for instructional development

for special education teacher training.2. Trace the lour stages in the development of an

instructional material and list various steps ineach stage.

3. Adapt the instructional development process tosuit the limited support available to a teachertrainer on an initial small-scale project.

4. Explain how the transfer of instructional develop-ment skills to classroom instruction ultimatelyresults in positive impact on the growth of handi-capped children.

Chapter 1Introduction

Aspects of three fields of practice in education havebeen integrated in this sourcebook. They are (a)instructional systems technology, (b) teacher educa-tion, and (c) special education. Our major objectiveIs to stimulate the use of alternative instructionalmethods in the preparation of special education per-sonnel through the introduction of the concepts,methods, and practices used by instructional de-velopers. It is not our contention that the field ofspecial education has unique potential for improve-ment through the adoption of the instructional de-velopment procedures outlined in this book. Rather,we believe that this field, like others in education,has a strong need to re-evaluate current methods fortraining personnel at the preservice and iuservicelevels to assure preparation that is meaningfully rtlated to the education of handicapped children inour schools.

Teacher training In special educationIn transition

As in other fields of teacher training, special edu-cation is undergoing significant changes. In additionto the growing need to supply the nation with suf-ficient numbers of teacheig to meet the demand forspecial educational services, there is an increasingemphasis on improving the quality of the teacher-training process and product. Teacher preparationprograms, like the personnel they train, are beingheld accountable for their methods through the ef-fects they produce; hence, the trend toward compe-tency-based teacher certification. We are no longersatisfied that the successful completion of a list oflecture, recitation, and practicum courses is primafacie evidence of a teacher's competence in educat-

3

ing exceptional pupils. Just as significant, probably,is the growing tendency among trainees to questionthe value of course offerings, the validity of the,skillsand knowledge expected of them by training pro-grams, and the competencies of their trainers. Inmany cases, student challenges to existing trainingprograms have stimulated departmental evaluationsof program goals and practices. Throughout thenation we find faculties examining current practiceswith an eye toward altering programs to effect aqualitative change in the education of exceptionalchildren by improving the knowledge, skills, andattitudes of the personnel they train.

We hope to demonstrate in the chapters of thissourcebook that logical, creative, and empiricallytested alternatives can solve some of the problemsof providing more effective training for special edu-cation teachers, Inherent in systematic instructionaldevelopment is a focus on the characteristics of thelearner, the nature of the skills and knowledge thelearner must acquire, the stipulation of objectives inbehavioral terms, and the ways in which the attain-ment of objectives can be measured and certified.The approach also requires the trainer to analyzeand evaluate the behaviors and concepts to be taughtin the training program. Perhaps most importantly,the approach directly leads to assessable alterna-tives to traditional methods of training teachers. Thereader is introduced to different media and shownhow they are relevant to the instructional process,and he is furnished with a variety of instructionalformats which, if utilized, should measurably alterthe form and practices currently found in mosttraining programs. Finally, the sourcebook is con-cerned with the methods by which successful in-stniaional innovations can be exported to andadapted by the larger community of teacher educa-tors in special education.

The efficacy and validity of training programsIn special education

It is important to distinguish between the effec-thews of a teacher preparation program and thevalidity of the attitudes, skills, and knowledge de-rived from the program. in our view, a preparationprogram is effective if one can demonstrate that ithas been instrumental in generating a relativelypermanent change in the behavior of its trainee:i,and that this change is a function of the experi-ences the program has provided. To meet this cri-terion of effectiveness, the objectives of th., programmust be stipulated in behavioral terms, and the ob-jectives must be appropriate to the entry behaviorsof trainees. The program must describe and/ordemonstrate the critical defining attributes of thetraining procedures so that replication can be as-sured. Further, the program should produce objec-tive evidence for trainee attainment of the objectives.In other words, a program is deemed effective if itcan be demonstrated that it has met its objectives asa function of a set of clearly definable experiences.

Program effectiveness is a necessary but not suf-ficient criterion for improving speelal educationthrough the teacher's behavior. We can clearly de-fine our training objectives in behavioral terms andmeet them through effective training proceduresbut the objectives may have little or no relation tosuccessful work with exceptional pupils in theschools. For example, a training program may focuson providing a trainee with all necessary knowledgeof the symptoms that identify a dyslexic child. How-ever, this knowledge is of little use if the traineenever learns how to teach the child to read.

This sourcebook does not focus on the aptness orutility of the attitudes, skills, or knowledge which

training programs establish as their objectives.Rather, it assumes an existing or evolving commit-ment to what is important to transmit to trainees.The book may, however, offer the reader consider-able assistance in clarifying the ways programsmight approach the difficult task of selecting trainingobjecthes that can be validated against teacher ef-fects with exceptional children. A primary concern`here is to provide teacher trainers with a method-ology thersupports the development of effectivetraining programs.

A model for Instnrct Ionel development

in recent years, a number of models for instruc-tional development have employed the commonsteps of analysis, design, and evaluation (TWelker,Urbach, & Buck, 1972). The systemsapproachmodel around which this sourcebook is organized isbased upon these earlier models and upon actualfield experience in designing, developing, evaluating,and disseminating teacher-training materials in spe-cial education. We have called our systems-appioachthe FourD Model because it divides the instruc-tional development process into the four stages ofDefine, Design, Develop, and Disseminate (Fig.1.1). A brief description of each stage follows:

DefineinatrUctiOnal requirements

DesignPrototypical Instructional material

DevelopTrainee-tested end reliableinstructional material

DisseminateInstructional material amongspacial educational teachertraining programs

Figure 1.1Four-D model

5

Stage it Define

The purpose of this stage is to stipulate and de-fine instructional requirements. The initial phase ismainly analytical. Through analysis, we prescribeobjectives and constraints for the instructional ma-terials. The five steps of the stage are shown inFigure 1.2.

Front-end analysis is the study of the basic prob-lem facing the teacher trainer: to raise the perform-ance levels of special education teachers. Duringthis analysis the possibilities of more elegant andefficient alternatives to instruction are considered.Failing them, ksearch for relevant instructionalmaterials already in circulation is conducted. Ifneither pertinent instructional alternatives or ma-terials are available, then the development of in-structional material is called for.

Learner analysis is the study of the target studentsspecial education teacher trainees. Student char-actedstics relevant to the design and developmentof instruction are identified. The characteristics areentering competencies and background experiences;general attitude toward the instructional topic; andmedia, format, and language preferences.

Task analysis is the identifying of the main skillto be acquired by the teacher trainees and analyzingit into a set of necessary and sufficient subskills.This analysis ensures comprehensive coverage of thetask in the instructional material.

Concept analysts is the identifying of the majorconcepts to be taught, arranging them in hierarchies,and breaking down individual concepts into criticaland irrelevant attributes. This analysis helps toidentify a rational set of examples and nonexamplesto be portrayed in protocol development.

Specifying instructional objectives is the convert-ing of the results of task and concept analyses into

Figure 1.2Stage I: Dellne

behaviorally stated objectives. This set of objectivesprovides the basis for test construction and instruc-tional design. Later. it is integrated into the in-structional materials for use by instructors andteacher trainees.

Stage 111 Design

The purpose of this stage Is to design prototypeinstructional material. This phase can begin afterthe set of behavioral objectives for the instructionalmaterial has been established Selection of media andformats for the material and the production of anInitial version constitute the major aspects of thedesign stage, The four steps in this stage are shownin Figure 1.3.

Constituting criterionreferenced tests is the stepbridging Stage 1, Define, and the Design process.Criterion-referenced tests convert behavioral objec-tives into an outline for the instructional material.

Media selection is the selection of appropriatemedia for the presentation of the, instructional con-tent. This process involves matching the task andconcept analyses, target-trainee characteristics,production resources, and dissemination plans withvarious attributes of different media. Final selectionidentifies the most appropriate medium or com-bination of media for use

Format selection is closely related to media selec-tion. Later in this sourcebook, 21 different formatsare identified which are suitable for designing instructional materials for teacher training. The selec-tion of the most appropriate format depends upona number of factor,' which are discussed.

Initial design is the presenting of the essentialinstruction through appropriate media and in asuitable sequence. It also Involves structuring vari-ous learning activities such as reading a text, inter-viewing special education personnel, and practicingdifferent instructional skills by teaching peers.

0.21/44

(` " 0\ev1/40 ;1/40 '40

00' 00 00 0 I

015" 4"--.-

Figure 1.3Stage Design

Stage 111: Develop

The purpose of Stage 111 is to modify the proto-type instructional material. Although much hasbeen produced since the Define stage, the resultsmust be considered an initial version of the instruc-tional material which must be modified before itcan become an effective final version. In the de-velopment stage, feedback is received throughformative evaluation and the materials are suitablyrevised. The two steps in this stage are shown inFigure 1.4.

Expert appraisal is a techrique for obtainingsuggestions for the improvement of the material. Anumber of experts are asked to evaluate the materialfrom instructional and technical points of view. Onthe basis of their feedback, the material is modifiedto make it more appropriate, effective, usable, andof high technical quality.

Developmental testing involves trying out thematerial with actual trainees to locate sections forrevision. On the basis of the response 3, reactions,and comments of the trainees, the material is modi.,lied. The cycle of testing, revising, and retesting isrepeated until the material works consistently andeffectively.

-4*

\o a.4 4eP ill

Figure 1.4Stage III: Develop

Stage IV: Disseminate

Instructional materials reach their final produc-tion stage when developmental testing yields con-sistent results and expert appraisal yields positivecomments. The three steps in this stage are t hownin Figure 1.5.

Before disseminating the materials, a summativeevaluation is undertaken. In its validation testingphase, the material is used under replicable condi-tions to demonstrate "who learns what under whatconditions in how much time" (Markle, 1967). Thematerial is also subjected to professional examina-tion for objective opinions on its adequacy andrelevance.

The terminal stages of final packaging, diffusion,and adoption are most important although mostfrequently overlooked. A producer and a distributormust be selected and worked with cooperatively topackage the material in an acceptable form. Specialefforts are required to distribute the materials widelyamong trainers and trainees, and to encourage theadoption and utilization of the materials. Figure 1,5

Stage IV: Disseminate

9

The teacher trainer is an instructional developerSmall scale instructional development

Many teacher trainers do not have the time, inclination, or resources to mount an ambitious in-structional development project involving all thestages described. However, the process is not s.complicated as it initially appears. As a teachertrainer, you have undoubtedly undertaken an in-formal analysis of your subject-matter area and thecharacteristics of your trainees, and probablyyouhave designed a number of test items, class assign-ments, and reading lists. With this head start, youare in a position to bypass or rapidly complete theDefine stage. In the Design stage, several simplebut effective formats are available for the part-time,instructional developer. A reading list is an exampleof such a format. Its design merely requires the spe-cification of instructional objectives and the compilation of a list of various textual materials, hand-outs, journal articles, and other existing documents,which can be duplicated in any one of several waysand given to the trainees.

More comprehensive instructional packages canbe effectively developed over an exterded timeperiod. If, during each semester, we concentrate onpreparing instructional materials for one small unit,we can gradually accumulate enough materials tomake the course self-contained. Working in this way,we do not need to assemble a special group of teachertrainees for the developmental testing of the ma-terials. During the first semester, the materials aretried out with the trainees already enrolled; the nextsemester is spent in revising the materials; and thesemester after that is reserved for the validationtesting of the materials.

10

Large-scale Instructional development projects

Although the steps in the development processare the same for large-scale as for small-scale proj-ects, time and manpower requirements increaseaccording to the compleXity and length of instruc-tional content.

The first step in large-scale development is theassembly of an instructional development team,Assuming that you are primarily a special educator,the first team person you will need is an Instructionaldeveloper or a media specialist. For certain steps ofthe developmental process, you will also need anevaluator, In addition, you will need a target-traineePopulation for testing, other teacher trainers forexpert appraisal, graphic artists and writers fordeAigning the prototype version, and a data analyst.In planning a large-scale project, it Is easy to over-look the first and last stages (defining instructionalrequirements; disseminating the finished product).As each stage plays a vital role in the developmentprocess, it is important to allot time and resourcesappropriately,

The selected bibliography at the end of thischapter provides an overview of current instructionaldevelopment literature; it should be a useful intro-duction to the varied aspects of instructional systemstechnology for both small- and large-scale develop-ment projects.

The teacher trainer as a model

One of the more effective means of maximizinglearning is to provide students with appropriatemodels of the terminal behaviors that define ourobjectives. Teacher educators too frequently ignorethis principle in the conduct of their training pro-grams although'they support it in the abstract.

In working with exceptional pupils, the teacher isusually expected to establish his objectives carefullyand to plan an instructional Program only after hehas completed an analysis of the learners and theorganization of the content to be taught. He is expected to furnish the children with a psychologicaland physical environment that will maximize bothintrinsic and extrinsic motivations for learning; tocarefully select and develop` materials that will matchthe learners' characteristics; and to provide appro.priate instructional formats for the children. Thenhe is expected to evaluate the progress of his pupilsboth formatively and summatively Unfortunately,these expectations are not generally reinforced bythe models which are provided by the teachertrainers.

Another way to approach the contInts of thissourcebook is as an outline of a training programmodel for special education teacher trainees toemulate. The following diagram (Fig. 1.6) illustratesthe hypothesized process by which the adoption ofthe instructional development model of this bookcould operate to produce meaningful effects in ex-ceptional pupils.

The synthesis of the principles and practices ofinstructional programing with teacher training inspecial education may be expected to result in (a)improving the effectiveness of the training programin meeting its objectives, and (b) showing a positiveimpact on the growth of exceptional pupils throughthe trainee's application of the instructional modelprovided by the training program.

l0F1,s

* 6

:

e0 . 2, 4 ,

5

,f4 1 0

0\*eC,0 (eO%

0P e.014 0

0.6 Pi, 4" **.c % Obil 6klb O 46' 0Asb A

,eltA4,0

.0 w es,0 ec.0`re 40 t 44T

Selected blbllographyon Inettuottonal development

American Institutes for Research. The technologyfor developing Instructional materials. Pittsburgh,Pa.: American institutes for Research, 1973.

Anderson, R. C., Faust, G. W., Roderick, M. C.,Cunningham, D. J., & Andre, T. Current researchon Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hail, 1969.

Baker, R., & Schutz, R. E. Instructional productdevelopment. N.Y.: Van Nostrand Reinholt, 1971.

Briggs, L. J. Handbook of procedures for the designof Instruction. Pittsburgh, Pa.: American Institutesfor Research, 1970.

Cavell, C. E. An approach to the design of mediatedInstruction. Washington, D. C.: AECT Publi-cations, 1972.

Caved, C. E. Procedural guidelines for the designof mediated instructiona workbook. Wash-ington, D. 0,: AECT Publications, 1972.

Davies, I. K.. Competency-based learning: Manage-ment technology citd design. N. Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

DeCecco, J. P. (Ed). Educational technology, read-ings In programed instruction. N. Y.: Holt,Rinehart & Winston, 1964.

12

Friesen, P. A. Designing Instruction. Ottawa, Ont.Canada: Friesen, Kaye & ASsoclates, 1971.

Glaser, R. (Ed.) Teaching machines and programedlearning 11: Data and directiOns. Washington,D. C.: National Educational Association, 1966.

Johnson, H. B., & Johnson, S. R. Assuring learningwith self-Instructional packages, or . . up theup staircase. Chapel Hill, N, C.: Self-InStruot-lonal Packages, 1971.

Kemp, J. E. Instructional design: A plan tor unit endcourse development. Belmont, Calif.: Fearon, 1971.

Langdon, D. G. Interactive instructional designsfor Individualized learning. Englewood Cliffs,N. J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1973.

Merrill, M. D. (Ed.). Instructional design: Readings.Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971.

Popham, W. J., & Baker, E. L. Planning an In-structional sequence. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:Prentice-Hail, 1970.

Popham, W. J., & Baker, E. L. Systematic instruction.Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hail, 1970.

Objectives

1. Analyze performance problems in teachingex-ceptional children in terms of a discrepancybetween the criteria and the actual behaviorsof teachers.

2. Identify those performance problems whichlend themselves to instructional solutions.

3. Locate available instructional materials bysystematically searching for appropriate refer-ences.

4. Review Instructional materials by using Check-list 2.1, and decide whether to adopt, adapt,or reject.

5

Chapter 2Front-end analysis

Succeeding chapters of this sourcebook deal withvarious stages of the Design, Development, andDiffusion of instructional materials. This chapterasks a preliminary question: Is this instructionalmaterial really necessary? Teacher trainers havebeen known to coierteach on occasion, a tendencythat may extend also to the preparation of Instruc-tional materials. We know that the development ofsuch materials is a time- consuming job requiringconsiderable resources and energy. Hence, it isextremely wasteful to design materials which arebased on questionable content or which simplyreplicate existing materials that are acceptablt inboth form and substance.

In this chapter, therefore, we shall attempt toplace instructional development in its proper per-spective as one of the various problem-solvingtechniques available to the teacher trainer in specialeducation. This point of view builds on Hariess's(1971) concept of "front-end analysis" and Magerand Pipe's (1970) principles of performance problemsolving.

When are Instructional materials required?

When does the need for an instructionatriaterialarise? For that matter, when does the need for in-struction arise in the field of teacher training? Theanswer is, when a teacher trainee's performance isbelow a defined criterion level,

If a trainee can already perform adequately in agiven job, instruction in that area is totally super-fluous. When a discrepancy is found between thecriterion and the actual performance, we naturallyassume that the trainee must be taught the absentskill or concepts. But performance discrepancies in

15

trainees do not necessarily indicate deficient skills orknowledge. Indeed, performance discrepancies some-times result from lac), of motivation or fromIhepresence of physical or psychological obstacles(Harless, 1971), problems which have nothing to dowith instruction.

If, for example, a teacher of educable mentallyretarded (EMR) dildren fails to make use of in-dividual standardized reading test scores, the teachertrainer or supervisor may identify a performancediscrepancy. Thus, in this example,

Criterion performance Actual performanceEffective use of Lack of use of standard-test scores ized test scores

the difference between criterion and actual per-formance is the performance discrepancy. It could bethe result of one or more of the folly Ning causes:

Environmental causes. The teacher is alreadyoverworked. The task of obtaining standard testprofiles is arduous and full of red tape.

Motivational causes, The teacher might not likethe complicated computations required to interpretthe standardized reading test data He may notbelieve that standardized testing is appropriate forhis exceptional pupils and he may think it inadvisableto establish an expectancy based on reading assessment.

Lack of skills and knowledge. The teacher mightnot know how to interpret test profiles.

In both preservice and inservice teacher-trainingsituations in special education, the cause of a per-formance discrepancy can be traced to an interactionof various factors. Each type of discrepancy requiresa different solution. Basically, a motivational prob-lem will need effective management of contingencies,and an environmental problem will lend itself to a

16

re-engineering of the situation and conditions. At-tempting to solve these problems through Instructionmay actually create additional problems.

Even when instruction is strongly suggested, it Isnot always necessary to begin Immediately to de-sign and develop instructional materials. A numberof alternative instructional approaches can be triedfirst to find the one that optimally suits the givenneeds and condition& Using already available in-structional materials is obviously the most efficientapproach. Yet in the field of teacher training, wefrequently "reinvent the wheel." Unfortunately, atthis time, no Comprehensive guide to Instructionalmaterials for special education teacher training isavailable and we are dependent on word-of-mouthinformation from colleagues, serendipitous selec-tions from publishers' catalogs, and guides andbibliographies geared to 'related educational pursuits.

Locating instructional materials

Many promising developments are occurring inthe field of special education today. One possibleoutcome of these developments may be the central-ization of information on special education teachertraining product development in the near future.Until such efforts are fully realized, however,alternative techniques for ferreting out usefultraining materials are necessary.

Many standard references, if used creatively, aregood sources of information on new developments.The ERIC System may be queried systematically byusing the Thesaurus of ERIC Descriptors (1969) toobtain the specific terms that describe your interests.For example, if you need instructional materials fortraining teachers of physically handicapped children,

use synonyms from the Thesaurus for terms such as"disabled," narrower terms such as "amputees" or"orthopedically handicapped," and related termssuch as "perceptual handicapped," "physical therapy,""prosthesis," and "special health problems," Selectthe terms that come closest to identifying your areaof interest and review the abstracts cited for them,as well as the citations for "teach.er education." Com-puter searches of the ERIC System can be mad. atseveral universities and through the main CEC/ERICCenter (Washington, D.C.). Since the search is morethan likely to yield information on some universityand R & D Center demonstration projects, the nextstep is to write to the original developers for infor-mation on the availability of materials.

Numerous secondary reference works can be usedin a similar manner. In the annotated bibliographyat the end of this chapter, some of these works arelisted along with sources that abstract completedand available training materials.

Assessment of instructional materials

If your search has yielded materials that appear tobe suitable for your specific needs, review them forquality as well as appropriateness. Checklist 2.1 isd'Aigned to help identify the critical elerrients of suchmaterials.

Checklist 2.1Assessment of instructional materials fortraining teachets of exceptional children

Directions: In multiple-choice items, check as manyas are appropriate. In other items, Indicate the ap-proximate position of the Instructional materialsalong the seven-point scale.

Objectives1. Is the material accompanied by a list of objectives?

( ) Yes2. The objectives are stated In:

L_____1 I I 1 I I1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ambiguous Specificglobal behavioralterms terms

( ) No

3. These objectives appear to be derived from ananalysis of:

the special teachers' tasksthe needs of handicapped childrencurrent trends In special educationthe demands of the subject-matter area

4. These objectives:I

1 2 3coincide withrealities ofteachingexceptionalchildren

6 7are totally

Irrelevant 10teaching excep-tional children

5. Overall evaluation of objectives:L .L 1 1.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7appropriate inappropriate

17

Tests and evaluation

1. The material Is accompanied by:entry knowledge testfinal criterion testpretesttransfer testother

2. These tests emphasize the measurement of:cognitive skillspsychomotor skillsaffective outcomesother

3. Types of test items and measuring instruments:paper-and-pepcil, objectivepaper-and-pencil, essayscales and questionnairesperformance teststransfer assignmentsobservation systemsother

4. Now validly does the test measure the statedobjectives of the material?

veryvalid

/ II2 3 4 5 6 7

aue

5. Overall evaluation of tests:

1appropriate

18

3 4 5 6 7inappropriate

Subject-matter content1. The treatment of content Is;

L I I1 2

IheOretica llysound

1115 6 7

theOrelicallyunsound

2. Usage of terms and conventions:LI1111 2 3 4 5

current

3. Examples used in the material:I /

1 2 3 4.authentic

6Out of dateIII

5 6 7artificial

4. Instructional objectives are covered by the content;L I1 2 3 4 5

adequately6 7

inadequately

5. Overall evaluation of subject-matter content:

1 2appropriate

IJIII3 4 5 6 7

InapprOprlate

Relevance to teacher trainees

1. Level of litnguage:1111111 2 3 4 5 6 7

appropriate Inappropriate

2. Teacher trainee is required to participate:activelypassivelyindividuallyIn small groupsIn large groupsother

3. Difficulty level:1 1

2 3 4106 simple appropriate

'4, Sequence:logicalpsychological

_ rigidflexiblo; under (earner controlother

1

6 6 7loo difficult

5. Amount of practice and review:I

1 2 3too much

4appropriate

6 6 7too lane

8, Overall evaluation of relevance:/ I I I 1 1.1 2 3

high4 5 7

to*

Packaging1. Type of materials:

I I I I I 11 2 3 4 5 6 7

Instructional

2, Adequacy of packaging:

1 1 I1 2 3 4

packageIncludes allrequirements

leacherdependent

I_ I5 6 7

package is notSelf-Contained;

essential materialsmissing

3. Package contains these adjunct materials:Ilst of referencesfollow-up activitiesinstructor's manual

- tests and measuring Instruments4. Overall evaluation of packaging:

1 2 3 4 5elfective

Recommentloei procedure for use1, Flexibility:

6 7Inelfective

I' I 1 I 11 2 3 4 5

-.

6 7too rigid optimal too unstructured2. Training:

I I I I I1 2

CAA Co usedby any leachertrainer

3 4 5 6 7special training

necessary foruse of materials

3. Equipment:/____ 1 I 1 1 1 11 2

no specialequipmentnecessary

3 4 5 6 7special

equipmentnecessary

4. Logistics:

1 1 11 2

no specialarrangementsnecessary

3 4 5 6 7special

arrangementsnecessary

-_19

5. Overall evaluation of recommended procedure To develop or not to develop? Making a finalfor use: decision.

1 1 1 1 I 11 2 3 4 5 6 7

efficient inefficient

Final recommendation

... Adopt. The material Is usable.Adapt. The material may be used with some

modifications.Reject. The material is not usablo.

20

Based upon your critical appraisal of the material,you may make any one of the following decisi9ns:

To Adopts if the instructional materials meet yourobjectives.

To .adapts if the instructional materials can bemodified to meet your training needs.

To Rejects if none of the available instructionalniaterials meet your training requirements. You willhave to develop your own materials.

Although the instructional development procedureoutlined in this sourcebook is designed to be of maximum use in the development of new materials, itmay also be of help in adopting or adapting existingmaterials: For example, if you decide to adopt existing instructional materials, you will still need aninstructional analysii, a design (%f an instructlbnal-management format (e.g.; providing the learner witha hierarchy of objectives keyed to various instruct-ional materials or constructing a sit of criterion tests),and formative and summative evaluations. ewe-dutch for formative evaluation, which are outlinedin two of the later chapters, are useful for pinpointingweak areas and making revisions, if you decide toadapt existing materials.

The processes and stages of front-end analysisare illustrated in Figure 2,1.

Re-engineer the environment

Ill I there

a discrepancy

between

criterion

and

actual

performance

of

teacher

trainees

L Whet

is the major

cause

of this

discrepancy

A: 0 9/ 0 o 1? % % Are

there any

instructicnal materials

available

Develop

your

own

instructional

materials

Adopt

Exit

Manage

contingencies

more

effectively

Selected bibliography ofinstructional develOpment refei once sourcesand media references

.1. General and special education referencesCouncil for Educational Development and Research,

CEDAR Catalog. center for Educational Develop-ment Ad Research, Denver, Colorado, 2 vols.,1972,

A two-volume compilation of selected researchand development programs and products fromten national educational laboratories and nineuniversity-based research and development cen-ters. Both available and anticipated productsore listed. Areas covered include school organi-zation and administration, early childhood, ele-mentarY, secondary, higher education, teachereducation, urban, vocational education, andbasic research.

Current Index to Journals in Education (CIJE). NewYork: CCM information Corp. Montily since 1969.An Index to over 600 education and education-related journals. Indexed with subject descriptionsfrom the Thesaurus of ERIC descriptors.

Research in Educetion. National Center for EducationCommunication. U. S. Department HEW, Officeof Education. Monthly since 1966.

A monthly abstract journal announcing recentlycompleted research and related veports In thefield of education. RIE is Indexed with subjectdescriptors from the Thesaurus of ERICdescriptors.

How to Conduct a Search Through ERIC, ED 036 499,microfiche 65c, hardback copy $3.29. Available

through the ERIC Document ReproductionService.

22

Exceptional Child Education Abstracts. CEO infor-mation Center (CEO, ERIC Clearinghouse),Arlington, Va. Quarterly since 1969.A quarterly, Indexed publication of abstracts ofspecial education documents that are stored inthe CEO information Center, Indices cumulateannually by subject, author, and title,

2. Instructional materials for teacher trainingreferences

Berger, A. O., Ionise, M. J.0 Abbott, A. & Spin,W. 0. Florida Center for Teacher Training Ma-terlali Annotated Catalog of Teacher TrainingMaterials. Coral Gables, Florida. Florida Centerfor Teacher Training Material*, University ofMiami, 1972. 321 pp,

An annotated catalog of competency -basedteacher training materials. Alt materials areclassified under one of 29 teacher competencles,e.g., generic teaching skills, language arts,reading, etc. Source index lists materials byproducer or developer.Information provided for each module annotatedin the catalog includes title, author, publisher ordeveloper, teacher competenclea emphasizedIn the module, brief description of the material,intended consumer, cost, number of pages,estimated time to completion, and nature of theaudio-visual materials included.

Houston, W. R., et al. (Eds.) Resources for Per-formance-Based Education. Albany, N.Y.: StateEducation Dept., University of the State of NewYork. March, 1973.

Probably the most useful catalog of instructionalresouces for teacher education to date. It is anindexed and annotated listing of instructionalmaterials In all media and formats, excepttextbooks.

Korba, W. L., Cawley, J. F., & Pappanikou, A. J.Catalog of Decision System Films, University ofConnecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, 1972.A Catalog of special education training filmsproduced at University of Connecticut. Each filmpresents a problem area in general and specialeducation and Is intended to provide a commonbasis for a discussion and study which shouldfollow viewing. Some topics: academic freedom,superintendent selection, special education andthe law, special education budget cut, teachers'union, special education placement, and others,

Blatt, B. (Ed.) Selected Media Reviews 1970-1973.Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children,1973.

Reprints of Media Reviews appearing in Excep-tional Children. Includes mainly book reviews,with some reviews of films and other media.Reviews are detailed, some with authors' com-ments on the review. CEC updates these re-prints periodically.

Meierhonry, W. C. (Ed) ) mediefed reacher EducationResources: Supplemental Media Resources forPre-service and in-service Teacher EducationPrograms. Washington, D.C.: American Associ-ation of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1970.

An annotated bibliography, prepared by theMOTE Subcommittee on Education TechnologyIn Teacher Education. The references are classi-fied by media only. There is no breakdown of

listings by subject me& it is a good source forselecting mediated teacher training matwiaiscurroritly in circulation.Zuckerman, D. W., & Horp, R. E, The guide to

simulation games for education and training,Cambridge, Mass.: Information Resources, 1970.An extensive informational guide to games andsimulation games indexed by subject, author,title, and producer. The index for each subjectdivision contains Information on target population,number of players, and time required for eachgame.

3. Media references

N10EM Indexes. National Information Center forEducational Media (NICEM), University of SouthernCalifornia, University Park, Los Angeles, Cali-fornia 90007.

An audio-visual reference series. Each indexcovers educational materials In six differentmedia. Vocational and technical education,psychology, and health and safety educationare covered in three separate multimedia Indices.All entries are annotated and a subject headingoutline is included. Detailed and relatively ex-pensive, the series is suitable as an A.V. libraryreference source.

Westinghouse Learning Corporation. LearningDirectory. 7 Vol. New York, 1970. 6700 pp. $90.A comprehensive guide to teaching materialsat all levels, including print and nonprint materials.

Oblectives

1. Identify various types of target trainees for whommaterials for teaching exceptional children areto be developed.

2. Describe the process of learner analysis and re-late it to other steps in instructional development.

3. Analyze characteristics of the target populationrelevant to instructional development.

Chapter 3Learner analysis

Learner analysis is the preliminary stage of instruct-ional development in which the characteristics ofthe target students which are relevant to the designof materials are identified. It is important for train-ers to remember that target students are not ex-ceptional children but their teachers, either pre-service or inservice trainees. The target studentsalso may be other important persons involvedin the education of exceptional children: adminis-trators of special education programs, resourceteachers, consulting teachers, school principals,teachers' aides, and parents. Training materials canbe designed for groups of any of these persons pro-viding their relevant characteristics are taken intoaccount.

Who are the learners?

Ideally, instructional materials should be tailor-made for the individual trainee. However, the idealmay result in over-individualization as the morematerials are individualized the less appropriatethey are for other students. Thus materials designedspecifically for one teacher trainee may be relativelyineffective in meeting the needs of other trainees.At the other extreme are materials which are de-signed for all actual and potential teachers in specialeducation. The effectiveness of such materials maybe less than desirable because to be suitable for sobroadly defined an audience, the material is neces-sarily very general in nature. Hence it is essentialthat the definition of the target students be broadenough to permit some generalization of the materialbut not so broad as to reduce the material's ef-fectiveness. The more carefully the target studentsare identified, the greater the number of them who

25

will find the material effective, although not neces-sarily each to the same extent,

Any given set of target students shares a numberof unique characteristics that differentiates it fromother groups, Yet, within this group, there can bedistinguished subp,toups differing from each other,Therefore, an analysis of a group of learners mustfocus on not only the similarities but the differencescharacterizing the group. Analysis should indicateboth the "average" set of characteristics and its"spread." If, for example, we identify two clear-cut subgroups in the target population, the develop-ment of two different forms of training materialsmay be useful. If the group differs on only onecharacteristic, variety of background experience, forinstance, the training materials can still be usefulfor the whole group if additional and more variedexamples are added.

Why learner analysis? Learner analysis directlyaffects all succeeding stages of instruction develop-ment. Learners' preferences determine media andformat decisions and learner characteristics dictatesuch factors as language, style of presentation, choiceof examples, size of learning steps, and nature ofsequence. Learner analysis helps to insure that cri-terion tests are not contaminated by irrelevant factors.To a large extent, final packaging and disseminationalso depend upon the characteristics and preferencesof trainees.

What is to be analyzed? Although thousands ofcharacteristics differentiate individual students andtarget groups, many are of trivial importance insofaras the design of instructional materials is concerned.The variables in the following learner-analysischecklist for teacher training materials in specialeducation were selected on the basis of extensivedevelopmental experience.

26

Checklist 3.2Learner-analysls for the development ofteacher-training materials In *peels! education

Subject-matter competence

1. At, what levels are the trainees' current knowledgeand skills In the subject-matter area?

2. What background experiences do the traineeshave in the subject-matter :sea?

3. Are the trainees likely to have any major mis-conceptions in the subject-matter area?

Attitudes

4. What are the general attitudes of the traineest.)ward the instructional content? Are there anysubtopics within the content toward which thetrainees are likely to feel very positive or verynegative?

5. What preferences for Instructional format andmedia do the trainees have?

Language

6, What is the language level of the trainees? Howmuch of the specialized terminology Is In theirvocabularies?

7. What preferences for style of language (e.g.,conversational or scholarly) do the trainees have?

Tool Skills

8. Do the trainees have any sensory-perceptualdeficiencies that will require special attention?

9. Can the trainees handle the instructional ma-terials and equipment?

How to conduct a learner aneysls

Learner analysis is the identification of thelearners' actual entry characteristics as opposed tothe ideal (or prerequisite). When the target studentsare enrolled, the following informal techniques maybe employed to perform a learner analysis.O Recall. It is extremely likely that, as a teachertrainer, you have considerable experience with tar-get students. Systematic use of the checklist shouldaid in the recall and listing of various relevant learnercharacteristics.O interviews with other teacher trainers. Tap theexperiences of other teacher trainers by Informallyinterviewing them. By carefully selecting a variety ofspecial educators, a better picture of the diversity ofthe target students can be obtained.O Research literature. Selected studies on the char-acteristics and attitudes of special education teachertrainees are listed at the end of this chapter. Thesestudies may help interested trainers to obtain data-based listings of tra!nee characteristics.O interviews with the learner. Through face -to -faceinterviews or by administering a self-report question-naire to trainees, a list of their relevant character-istics may be obtained.O Criterion test. Perhaps the most important learnercharacteristic in the preparation of instructionalmaterial is the extent to which the terminal behaviorhas already been acquired. To pinpoint exactly thelevel of the learner on the continuum of objectives,a criterion test is administered to a random sampleof the target students.

Sample learner analysis

The following is an example of the applicationof the learner-analysis technique outlined in Check-list 3.2 to preservice teacher trainees enrolled ina typical methods course. It is from a trainingmoduli un instructional games entitled, Let's DesignGames that Teach Handicapped Children (Thia-garajan, 1970),

Subject-matter competence. Trainees have a consider-able theoretical knowledge of different types of handi-capped children and special classrooms. They areknowledgeable enough In specific curricular areas towork with a topic for instructional game dettign. Theyhave heard about instructional games and have seenthem being used in special classrooms. HoweVer, veryfew of them have considered the possibility of designinga game. Their conceptiOn of Instructional games Is mostlylimited to fun activities and "busy work."

Attitude& The trainees' general attitude toward de-signing instructional games is positive, although they aresomewhat skeptical as to the games' uses. Most of thembelieve that a came could be designed very easily, andthe amount of timelequired for the design, tryout, andmodification of a game will increase their skepticism.

These trainees do not like a textbook-leOture approach.They will respond positively to a self - instructional mediapackage.

Language. Specialized instructional-design and game-design terminology Is not part of the trainees' vocabu-laries. They can, however, handle fairly sophisticatedterminology about handicapped children and specialeducation. Trainee preference is for a conversational,rather than a "textbookish," style.

Tool skills. Trainees do not have any malor handi-capping conditions. They will be able to handle mediaequipment with some Inatructlons.

27

Selected studies on thecharacteristics and attitudee ofspecial education teachers and teacher trainees

Badt, M. Attitudes of university students toward ex-ceptional children. Exceptional Children, 1957,23, 286-90.

Compared college education majors with non-majors. Found negative attitudes prevr led Inboth groups. Reactions to speech, hearing, andvisual handicaps were more positive than tointellectual and emotional disabilities.

Bullock, L. M., & Whelan, R. J. Competencies neededby teachers of emotionally disturbed and sociallymaladjusted: A comparison, Exceptional Children,March 1971, 37, 485-489.

A comparison between teacher responses in theMackie (1959) study with a group of similarteachers In 1970. Significant changes reportedin teacher perceptions about competencies re-quired and ratings of own proficiencies.

Gottfried, N. W., & Jones, R. L. Career choice factorsin special education. Exceptional Children, 1964,30, 218-23.

Studied factors influencing choice of a careerIn special education. The most frequent reasonsstated for entering the field were previous con-tact with the handicapped, desire to help others,and the challenge of the work.

Jones, R. L. Teacher education: Preferences forteaching intellectually exceptional children.Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded,February 1971, 8, 43-48.

Teacher trainees and practicing teachers werestudied to determine how grade teaching prefer-ences were related to preferences for teachingexceptional children.

28

Jones, R. L., & Gottfried, N. W. Psychological needsand preferences for teaching uxceptional chil-dren. Exceptional Children, 1966, 32, 313-321.

Used Edwards Personal Preference Schedule andTeacher Preference Schedule. Identified a num-ber of personal variables related to preferencesfor teaching certain exceptional ities.

Mackie, R. P., & Dunn, L. M. Teachers of childrenwho are blind. Office of Education, HEW, Wash-ington, D. C., 1955.

Study is part of a nationwide survey on the quali-fications and preparation of teachers of except-ional children. Reports on the distinctive com-petencies and experiences needed by teachersof blind children.

Mackie, R. P., Williams, H. W., & Dunn, L. M. Teachersof children who are mentally retarded. U. S.Department A.E.W. Office of Education, HEW,Washington, D. C., GPO Bulletin No. 11, 1957.Part of series on teachers of exceptional children,based on nationwide survey of preparation andqualification of teachers of exceptional children.

Mackie, R. P., Kvaraceus, W., & Williams, H. Teachersof children who are socially and emotionallyhandicapped. Office of Education, HEW, Wash-ington, D. C., 1957.

Survey of teachers in the area of emotionally andsocially disturt ed children as to competenciesrequired and ratings of own proficiency.

Mackie, R. P., et al. Teachers of crippled childrenand teachers of children with special healthproblems. Office of Education, HEW, Washington,D. C., 1961

Survey of teachers in areas of crippled andspecial health problem children. Includes teacherself-appraisal, special abilities, and experienceneeded.

Meisgeler, C. The Identification of successful teach-ers of mentally or physically handicapped chil-dren. Exceptional Children, 1965, 32, 229-235.

investigated five dimensions of human behavior.Found three characteristic patterns of successfulstudent teachers: (a) they were well-adjusted,emotionally stable, (b) possessed physlcal energy,vitality, and enthusiasm, (c) obtained high scoreson measures of scholastic achievement ability,

Rudloff, Joseph S. Descriptive profile of teachersof exceptional and non-exceptional children withimplications for recruitment. Journal of Educa-tional Research, November 1969, 63, 130-135.

Examination of personality profiles of teachers ofhard of hearing and regular classroom teachers.

Semmel, M. I. Teacher attl.ides and informationpertaining to mental deli .iency. American Journalof Mental Deficiency, 19f,9, 53, 566-74.

Investigated the relationship between the amountof information teachers have about mental de-.ficiency and their attitudes toward mentaldeficiency. Found special education teachershad more knowledge of mental deficiency thanelementary teachers but did not differ signifi-cantly on attitudes.

Semmel, M. I., & Dickson, S. Connotative reactionsof college students to disability labels. Except-ional Children, 32, 1966, 443-450.

Investigated reactions of elementary and specialeducation majors to various disability labels.Found significant differences toward differentdisabilities, and differences as a function of var-ious social- psychological situations. Specialeducation majors had higher mean attitude scorescompared to elementary education majors. Nosignificance between mean attitude scores forfreshmen and seniors of either group.

Semmel, M. I., et al. An exploratory study of therelationship between the training, experience,and selected personality characteristics ofteachers and the progress of trainable mentallyretarded children. Final report, Wayne CountyIntermediate School District, Detroit, Michigan,June 1969, 665 pp.

A study of the relationship between certainteacher characteristics and TMR pupil growth.Examined teacher characteristics, attitudes, icidpreference for teaching various types of childrenand grade levels.

Willman, C. E. A comparison of prospective special'education and elementary teachers on selectedpersonality characteristics. (Doctoral disser-tation, University of Michigan) Ann Arbor,Michigan, University Microfilms, 1966. No.67-8367.

Investigated differences between special edu-cation and Eriqmentary teachers on the EdwardsPersonal Preference Schedule, MTAI, the Studyof Values, and biographical data. Found smalldifferences among special education majors inthe various areas of exceptionality, but signifi-cant differences in basic needs, attitudes, andinterest between prospective elementary andprospective special education teachers.

29

Objectives

1. Describe the task analysis procedure and relateit to other steps In instructional development.

2. Given a statement describing an instructionaltask, perform a task enalysis and list varioussubtasks in a hierarchy.

3. Evaluate and revise the outcomes of task analysisSo that they are complete and Include no irrele-vant, trivial, unnecessary, or redundant subtasks.

Chapter 4Task analysis

Task analysis is a preliminary step in instructionaldevelopment. it is the means by which the instruc-tional task is broken down into various componentsubtasks.

Why task analysis?

Task analysis form the basis for both the con-struction of measuringinstruments and the designof instructional materikls. The type of instructionaltask, as determined by his analysis, helps to deter-mine the media to be used. For example, a basicallynonverbal task such as visual prompting lends itselfto the use of film or video tape, while a verbal tasksuch as questioning may be taught primarily throughaudio tape. The type of task, also suggests the in-structional format: A complex interrelated set oftasks will lend itself to the use of a simulation game.The sequence of subtasks suggests the sequence ofinstruction. In the editing stage of instructionaldevelopment, a subject-matter specialist need gothrough only the task analysis (rather than theentire package) to check the adequacy of coverageand the suitability of sequence. Finally, in the dis-semination stage, the task analysis enables a potentialuser to get a quick overview of the content of thepackage.

Now to perform a task analysis

Basically, task analysis involves the study of amaster performer's behavior and the identification ofits components. In the case of a psychomotor per-formance (e.g., how to fix a hearing aid), task analysis

31

may involve primarily the observation of a skilledperformer, In addition, the instructional developermay also try his hand at performing the taskdoinghis analysis while learning the task. With cognitiveskills (e.g., how to write teacher-made readingmaterials), the analysis depends more upon interviewswith subject-matter experts than upon observation.In addition, textual materials, test items, curricularguides, and other references can be used to addgreater depth and generality to the analysis. In thecase of innovative techniques for teaching, when noexpert performers and reference materials areavailable, a useful technique is to imaginc a hypo-

$14.44.ic410,4=f4s.X.:4;',:-V

. -

Figure 4.1Task analysis: step 1

32

thetical performer and analyze his "behavior."Because task analysis is a step-by-step process,

any of which may require rewriting several timesbefore it is in final form, a chalkboard is a veryefficient teaching aid.

Steps in an actual task analysis follow:1. Specify the main task. This step requires a

comprehensive statement of the task's objective. Itshould indicate the skill the trainee is expected toacquire upon the completion of instruction and thesituation In which the skill will be used. On the topcenter of the board, a main task may be stated asfollows:

2. identify subtasks at the preceding level ofcomplexity. This step is accomplished by asking,"What skills should the trainee possess in order toperform the main task?" Obviously hundreds of skillscontribute to any performance but, at this stage, weare interested only in identifying those that immedi-ately contribute to our main task. The sample main

Figure 4 2Task analysis: step 2

task (Fig. 4.1) logically breaks up into the subtasksof administering the test and interpreting its results.As shown in Figure 4.2, these two subtasks are placedbelow the main task and lines are drawn to indicatetheir relation to the main task.

.5:1Kin.1WW75-WIWIt

33

3. Treat each subtask as a main task and repeatthe analytic procedure. We took each of the twosubtasks in our illustration (administering test andinterpreting test results) and identified the tasks atthe preceding level of complexity which are necessaryfor its performance. Thus the task of administeringthe test broke down into the four elementary sub-

Figure 4 3Task analysis: step 3

34

tasks of (a) choosing a suitable book, (b) choosingpassages for reading from this book, (c) having thechild read the passages, and (d) counting the numberof errors he makes. The chalkboard would now looklike this:

4. Terminate analysis when subtask reaches theentry level of the teacher trainees. Analysis of thetask can be halted at a logical point. In our illus-tration (Fig. 4.4), at the third level, the task brokedown into two subtasks: finding the highest gradelevel from the child's records and choosing a basalreader. We stopped the analysis here as both skillswere within the trainee's entry level (determined

re,,

by an earlier instructional module on selection ofbooks at different grade levels and identificationof reading errors). Had we carried the analysisdown, we would have had to include counting off100 words and deciding if a number is greater thanfive, skills obviously within a trainee's repertoire.

The completed task analysis is shown in Figure4.5. The value of a chalkboard should now beobvious.

1

Figure 4.4Task analysis. step 4

km;NA

35

Completing the task analysts. When the analysisis complete, prepare a list of all major and minortasks and carefully review it to make sure that suf-ficient and necessary subtasks have been included.Checklist 4.1 should be useful for this purpose. Inaddition to using the checklist, it is a good Idea forthe analyst to get opinions of the analysis from col-

Figura 4.5Task analysis: step 5

36

leagues. They too may use the checklist or they mayclassify the task analysis items in terms of "irrele-vant," "relevant-but-trivial," and "essential"categories.

Additional examples of task analysis. The followingillustrations are taken from actual instructional ma-terials for training teachers of exceptional children.Note that each analysis begins with the terminalperformance and works backward through differentlevels of prerequisite skills. All task analyses areterminated at the entry level of the target trainees.Some divergence among entry levels can be seentwause each analyst worked with his specific targettrainees.

Figure 4.6 shows a fairly simple analysis of apsychomotor skill. It is part of an instructional

package on the use of cameras in deaf educationclassrooms to enhance the children's visual literacy(Stallings, 1972). This analysis was made LI)serving photographers' performances and by examin-ing instructional manuals (on camera usage).

The next analysis deals with the tasks of develop-ing Instructional materials for parents to use withtheir handicapped children and training parents touse the materials. The analysis Is based on a seriesof journal articles and class handouts written bydifferent special education instructors. The contentsof the materials were analyzed and the subtasks were

...4\.-b. o

.4o...4" .s

e4

arc0

.4%

No4.06*

os

s.04t./. .lo 1

Figure 4.6Analysis of using a camera

a

37

2,04' e -,

X00,P0 t.\A 00

4eV09 c.e q'

;..p.j,,4 4k.44

ec"

cA 4 02,.a -

:

I MI e

J oJOr4 kte iaq

ec%\lb

"'

No, 044 0 ticti c00,00be

Figure 4.7Analysis of task of leaching handicapped children through parents.

38

derived from them. Figure 4.7 shows only part ofthe analysis; all tasks shown is the boxes with anopen line need further analysis into more elementarysubtasks.

The main task for the special education teacherin Figure 4.7 is involving parents in the teaching oftheir handicapped children. The task requires thatthe teacher prepare instructional materials that needlittle or no instructional decision-making by parents.Three bask types of such materials are identifiedin the analysis: programed tutoring materials, in-structional games, and specific lesson plans. Thepreparation of each involves a number of subtaskswhich sere not shown. Another aspect of the parentinvolvement is to train them to use these instructional

materials and to provide them with relevant practice.Such practice involves the subtasks of arrangingsimulated situations in which the teacher and theparent can play the roles of parents and children,classioom situations in which parents can practicetutoring under the supervision of the teacher, andhome situations in which parents function on theirown. The training task is analyzed into the threesubtasks of writing a parent's manual, demonstratingspecific teaching skills, and getting parents to teacheach other. Figure 4.7 shows further analysis ofonly one of the three subtasks, "Training throughdemonstrhtion." In order to give a demonstration,the teacher must have the skills to show the parentsproper seating arrangements and how to point outspecific items for the child to observe, ail( ap-propriate questions, and reinforce the chld's re-sponse. The analysis of this branch is ten. inatedat this level because the learner analysis indicatesthat the target trainees (experienced special teachers)are able to perform these tasks.

The last sample is an analysis of a more complextask for less sophisticated target trainees (Fig, 4.8),

The task is the use of an observation coding systemin a classroom for emotionally disturbed children.This particular system (Fink & Semmel, 1971) isconcerned with deviant classroom behaviors man!Tested by children and the control techniques usedby teachers. The target trainees were a heterogeneousgroup of substitute teachers and aides who had beenhired as coders for a research project. Since eventhe originators of the system could not code all rel-evant behaviors with absolute reliability over a longperiod of time, the analysis was based on the per-formance of a hypothetical perfect coder.

The task required of this ideal coder was to observea classroom and record, once every five seconds, theoccurrence of relevant categorie4 of behaviors (e.g.,student physical aggression and teacher controlthrough punishment). The task was analyzed Intothe subtasks of the ability to discriminate betweendifferent categories of behavior (e.g., between verbaland physical hostility) according to the system, work-ing under external pacing (i.e., recording every fiveseconds), tolerating noisy distractions in the class-room which did not come under the domain of thesystem, working without any feedback on the ac-curacy of coding, and efficiently using a specialmachine-readable recording sheet. Figure 4.8 showsthe further analysis of the last of these subtasks intothe more elementary subtasks of locating boxes andcoloring bubbles on the coding sheets.

39

Figure 4.8Analysis of the task of coding reliably.

40

4.06ee tb 03N

(44 \esb 0 e'0c) e 4\

Checklist 4.1Analyzing teacher tasks In special education

Relevance. Is the main task relevant to the ef-fective performance of a teacher in a real-worldclassroom with handicapped children?

Completeness. Are enough subtasks listed tocover the performance of the main Osk? Has anyessential subtask been omitted?

Triviality. is any subtask included which is simplerthan the entry level of the target trainees?

Necessity. Is each subtask necessary for theperformance of the main task? Are any of the sub-tasks unnecessary?

Redundancy. Is any subtask repeated more thanonce with or without minor changes in wording? Isany set of subtasks an alternate for the performancescontained in another set of subtasks?

The first item in the checklist is included so thatthe trainer will seek other opinions. Familiaritywith a task may lead one to take certain skills forgranted and omit them. For example, in the designof a training module on grouping EMR childrenfor instruction, we assumed that all teacher traineesknew how to estimate the mental age of a child, givenIQ and chronological age. It turned out to be a poorassumption; the trainees had to be taught (or retaught)the procedure. One way to check the completenessof task analysis is to train a naive student on thelisted subtaslis and see if he can synthesize the maintask.

Inclusion of trivial tasks is an error at the otherextreme. A trivial task is one below the entry be-havior of the trainees. In the same module on group-ing EMR children, we included a segment on com-puting the mean of two scores. Such a task, thoughessential, was already in the trainees' repertoires; theyrequired only to be told when to do it not how to do it.

The trainer is frequently tempted to list unneces-sary tasks merely because of tradition. All taskssomehow seem relevant to all other tasks and it isvery difficult to be objective. In our module ongrouping EMR children, although we did not includesuch obviously unnecessary items as knowledge ofa history of grouping in classrooms, a few question-able items escaped detection. The major problemwith irrelevant tasks is that they are readily detectedby trainees and may evoke student negativism.

A comprehensive task analysis takes up consider-ably more time than dashing off an outline. A quicktask analysis may appear to save time but it canresr,lt in an inadequate design that will necessitateexpensive modifications in later stagrs.

4 l/

Oblectives

1. Briefly describe the process of concept anal) sisand relate it to other steps in the Instructionaldevelopment process.

2. Given a set of related concepts, arrange thorn ina concept hierarchy.

3. Given a concept, analyze It Into critical and ir-relevant attributes and specify different types ofexamples and noexarnples to be used for In-struction and testing.

Chapter 5Concept analysis

The technique of concept analysis is similar to thatof task analysis except for the content to which it isapplied. Task analysis is used when skill developmentis the goal of Instruction. Concept analysis is usedwhen the acquisition of knowledge is the goal. Sincethe basic framework of acquiring knowledge is con-ceptual, the use of task analysis for such knowledgewould result in the identification of trivial tasks likethe ability to recite a definition. By using conceptanalysis, however, the instructional developer cananalyze a set of concepts which are pertinent to theteaching of exceptional children, arrange them inhierarchies, and identify the critical and it relevantattributes of each.

Nature # tIoncepts In the education ofexceptional children

Before discussing concept analysis, we will try toclarify the concept of concept itself, From an in-structional point of view, a concept may be definedas a collection of stimuli (and their relations) whichevokes a common response. In more general terms, aconcept is a category with a set of criteria for deter-mining what to include or exclude from that category.The characteristics shared by all objects or events ina concept category are termed "critical attributes."They are the essential criteria for membership inthat concept category. Characteristics which areshared by some but not all members of the conceptcategory are "irrelevant attributes." Related conceptsbelong to a "superordinate category" or a "concepthierarchy." The relations of these terms are graph-ically depicted in Figure S. I.

The concepts frequently encountered in the edu-cation of exceptional children share two major

43

characteristics: (a) They are usually categories ofevents rather than objects and they involve behavioralattributes of pupils and teachers, often in interactionwith each other. (b) l'ese concepts are systematicallycreated out of analyses of behaviors and interactionsof pupils and teachers and unlike the more open-ended ordinary language concepts, they have rigidlydefined beundarics.

I

NY"

044oc

0,o 1111

e

Ic et

C .1% 0 c.'61> 1,0

(P

How to do a concept analysis

Contrary to the implications of Figure 5.1, conceptanalysis seldom progresses deductively from thesuperordinate category through individual conceptsto subordinate attributes. Rather, it is a backand-forth movement =toss various levels. The endproduct of the autlysis may be a chart like Figure5.1, which lists critical and irrelevant attributes.The starting point is usgally a collection of real orimaginari exar rples and alternative definitions ofconcept categories.

S'

eb4/4 ,Itt04,0 NO0

Figure 5.1Relationship between conceptual hier