The in-service evaluation instrument, The Criteria for Evaluating Teacher In-service Programs, was based on a review of research in in-service education and drew heavily on work done by Donn V. Kaupke. The four major items of this evaluation instrument include: (1) Knowledge of the field of group dynamics is necessary to create changes in a school via a teacher in-service education program; (2) Planning is an essential ingredient of a successful teacher in-service education program; (3) Seven operational techniques facilitate group decision-making; and, (4) Adhering to four administrative policies governing the operation of a teacher in-service education program is prerequisite to a successful program.During the in-service program, the author behaved in an observer-consultant role. He met with the principal to suggest agenda for each meeting and to present data from previous meetings. The observer-consultant was present to observe and record the activities of the Instructional Improvement Committee as it worked with the recommendations. The observer-consultant also helped with the operational processes of the meetings.The principal, after consulting with the observer-consultant, decided that the Instructional Improvement Committee would become the first group to deal with the recommendations. Working with the recommendations became the major part of the weekly Instructional Improvement Committee meetings. The principal chaired the Instructional Improvement Committee and directed its attention towards the objectives he judged it needed to attain.The data used to describe the execution of the Instructional Improvement Committee in-service program were collected by tape recording the ten in-service sessions and analyzing the recordings later, and by interviews and questionnaires completed by the Instructional Improvement Committee members following the completion of the ten meetings. The data were organized under the four major items of the Criteria for Evaluating Teacher In-service Education Programs. They led to the following conclusions:1. The Instructional Improvement Committee, with the leadership of the principal, can work toward curricular improvements of its school.2. The group digressed when the leadership function was not performed by a memberof the Instructional Improvement Committee.3. A curricular evaluator acting as an observer-consultant can facilitate the efforts of the Instructional Improvement Committee of an Individually Guided Education school.4. In-service training provided for personnel of Individually Guided Education schools does not prepare adequately the Instructional Improvement Committee in group processes.5. A curriculum evaluation can provide adequate data on which to base an in-service education program for the Instructional Improvement Committee of an Individually Guided Education school.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BSU/oai:cardinalscholar.bsu.edu:handle/178124 |
| Date | January 1973 |
| Creators | Maudlin, Ray M. |
| Contributors | McElhinney, James H. |
| Source Sets | Ball State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Format | v, 130 leaves ; 28 cm. |
| Source | Virtual Press |
Page generated in 0.0018 seconds