Group Title: differential analysis of curriculum and instructional profiles in high and low achieving urban elementary schools
Title: A differential analysis of curriculum and instructional profiles in high and low achieving urban elementary schools
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098363/00001
 Material Information
Title: A differential analysis of curriculum and instructional profiles in high and low achieving urban elementary schools
Physical Description: x, 120 leaves. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Williams, Thomas Baker, 1941-
Publication Date: 1974
Copyright Date: 1974
 Subjects
Subject: Education, Elementary -- Curricula   ( lcsh )
Curriculum and Instruction thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Curriculum and Instruction -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 116-118.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098363
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000871591
notis - AEG8814
oclc - 014277654

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

differentialanal00will ( PDF )


Full Text











A DIFFERENTIAL ANALYSIS OF

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILES

IN HIGH AND LOW ACHIEVING

URBAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS




By' :
Thomas Baker Wil~liamrs`






A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY







University of Florida


1974



































To Sandie, Julie and Scott















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledges the patience- and

continuing support of his committee, Dr. Thomas Fillmer,

Dr. Caspar Rappenecker, Dr. William Ware, and particularly

the chairman, Dr. William Alexander, through the extended

time period taken to complete this work. He would also like

to thank Dr. Wilson Guertin, for introducing the concept of

profile analysis during graduate study. The idea for this

study originated during a conversation with him,

One must always remain indebted to those from whom he

learns that which he needs to live his own life. The author

will always be grateful to the following for the personal

and professional influence they have had on his life:

Dr. Caspar Rappenecker

Dr. Ned Bingham

Dr. Charles Bridges

Dr. Gene Jenkins

Thanks are also extended to Mrs. Nancy Bear for

assisting in the collection of data.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................. iii

LIST OF TABLES ............................... v

ABSTRACT ...................... ............... vii

I. BACKGROUND OF STUDY .......................... 1
Statement of Problem ............ 7
Curriculum and Instructional Profiles ..... 8
Need ...................................... 14

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................. 18

III. PROCEDURES ................................... 24
Population ................................ 24
Hypotheses .. . . . . . . . 30
Instrumentation and Data Collection ....30
Treatment of Data ......................... 31

IV. FINDINGS .. .. . . .. .. .. 34
Instructional Activity Profiles ........... 34
Classroom Profiles .............54
Curriculum and Instructional Profiles ..... 58

V. SUMMARY,. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ........ 64
Summary ................................... 64
Conclusions ....................;........... 65
Implications .............................. 66

APPENDIX A: Instructional Activity Profiles,
Sorted by Factors IV, V .......... 70
APPENDIX B: Classroom Profiles, Sorted
by Factors I, II, III ...........80
APPENDIX C: .Instructional Profiles by
Subject (Factors IV, V).................... 90
APPENDIX D: Profile Listing by School
by Classroom .............................. 106

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................. 116

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................... 119





IV


I -





LIST OF TABLES


TABLE PAGE

1. Curriculum/Instructional Profiles ............... 9

2. A Sample Curriculum/Instructional Profile ....... 12

3. Instructional Activity Profiles Identified
in Study ..................................... 37

4. Chi Square, Frequency and Percentage of
Occurrence of Instructional Activity
Profiles by School ........................... 39

5. Frequency and Percentage of Occurrence of
Instructional Activity Profiles by School
for Reading .................................. 42

6. Frequency and Percentage of Occurrence of
Instructional Activity Profiles by School
for Math ...........................;.......... 43

7. Frequency and Percentage of Occurrence of
Instructional Activity Profiles by School
for Science .................................. 44

8. Frequency and Percentage of Occurrence of
Instructional Activity Profiles by School
for Social Studies ............................ 45

9. Frequency and Percentage of Occurrence of
Instructional Activity Profiles by School
for Language Arts ............................ 46

10. -Frequency and Percentage of Occurrence of
Instructional Activity Profiles by School
for Music .................................... 47

11.. Frequency and Percentage of Occurrence of
Instructional Activity Profiles by School
for Art ...................................... 48

12. Frequency and Percentage of Occurrence of
Instructional Activity Profiles by School
for Physical Education ...... ................. 49










LIST OF TABLES (continued)


TABLE PAGE

13. Frequency and Percentage of Occurrence of
Instructional Activity Profiles by School
for Other Subjects ........................... 50

14. Chi Square, Frequency and Percentage of
Occurrence of Instructional Activity Pro-
files by School for Language Arts and
Reading .....................................~. 52

15. Classroom Profiles Identified in Study .......... 55

16. Frequency and Occurrence of Classroom Profiles
by School ................................... 56

17. Frequency of Curriculum and Instructional
Profiles by Classroom and Instructional
Activity Subprofile .......................... 59

18. Percentage Distribution of Curriculum and
Instructional Profiles by Classroom and
Instructional Activity Subprofile ............ 63





Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


A DIFFERENTIAL ANALYSIS OF
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILES
IN HIGH AND LOW ACHIEVING
URBAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

By
Thomas Baker Williams

August, 1974
Chairman: William M. Alexander
Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to develop and implement,

for subsequent program evaluation purposes, a procedure for

observing and quantifying curriculum and instructional prac-

tices as implemented within alternate elementary schools and

classrooms.

Procedure

Third grade classrooms in four urban elementary schools,

selected on the basis of high (2 schools) and low (2 schools)

median student performance on standardized tests, were observed

during the spring of 1974 to detect differences in curriculum

and instructional practices. The presence or absence of pre-

specified curriculum and instructional elements was recorded.









Elements were grouped into components and components were

grouped into factors. Curriculum and Instructional (C 4 I)

Profiles were constructed from the patterns of those elements

recorded as present in observed learning situations.

Instructional Activity and Classroom subprofiles were

also identified. Fifteen distinct Instructional Activity

profiles and twelve distinct Classroom profiles were noted.

Frequency distributions of profiles by school were pre-

pared and tabulated in a 12 by 15 matrix. Comparisons by

frequency and percentage between high and low achieving

schools were made.

Results and Conclusions

The study hypothesized: 1) differences among schools

in types and frequencies of profiles, 2) a greater variety

of types of C 4 I Profiles within high achieving schools than

within low achieving schools and 3) a greater frequency per

type of observed C 4 I Profile in low achieving schools than

in high achieving schools.

Results supported hypothesis one in all instances.

Hypothesis two was supported when only Classroom Profiles

or total C 4 I Profiles were considered. It was not supported

when only Instructional Activity Profiles were examined.

Hypothesis three, like hypothesis two, was supported when

only Classroom Profiles or total C E I Profiles were con-

sidered.


Vii









The study concluded that basic components of the cur-

riculum and instructional programs as implemented within

elementary classrooms can be quantified and depicted in a

profile format. These profiles can be used to compare or
contrast the presence or absence of curriculum and instruc-

tional elements for program evaluation or other, purposes.

Basic differences were found to exist between the cur-

riculum and instructional profiles observed within the class-

rooms of the high and low achieving elementary schools

studied. These differences were related to differential

grouping practices within the Classroom Profile. The low

achieving schools used traditional grouping practices of

one teacher/class in self-contained, regular classrooms in

average to poor condition, with heterogeneously grouped

students. The high achieving schools used a variety of

grouping practices including homogeneous grouping by subject,

semi-departmentalized classroom organization, teacher plus

aides, and two or more teachers combining/alternating classes

in team teaching situations.

Few differences, however, were found between high and

low achieving schools in the types of instructional activ-

ity profiles observed, including instructional method, agent,

and types of printed and audio-visual resources. Differ-

ences among individual schools were noted in some profiles

but disappeared when low and high achieving schools were

summated.




lX





The results obtained in this study are exploratory

and observational. No experimental manipulations were

made to determine if student achievement could be in-

creased by altering grouping practices. Further work must

be performed before any sound relationship between these
variables can be established.

Implications for Action and Further Research

A replication of this study involving a substantially

larger population of schools, perhaps the ten high achieving

and ten low achieving schools, is recommended. If results

indicate the same differences in grouping practices as dis-

covered herein, experiments in altering grouping practices

in low achieving schools should be executed to observe any

changes in student achievement.

Public school administrators and evaluators charged

with preparing program evaluation reports can utilize the

C 4 I -Profile Analysis technique to capture curriculum and

instructional process data. Educational planners should be

able to use the technique for establishing instructional

process goals. If it is deemed desirable to reinforce the

occurrence of specific C E I Profiles, the technique can

be used in teacher training as are many other classroom

observation techniques.





CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND OF STUDY


Today, as perhaps never before, members of an "ac-

countability conscious" public are raising basic ques-

tions about what is happening within the classrooms of

American public schools. Typical questions include:

"What are students learning?"

"How are students taught?"

"Which programs are better?"

"What resources are needed?"

"Is public tax money being wasted?"

Americans have long been interested in the status

of their public school system and have generally regarded

it with intense idealism. "The idealism which has its

roots, along with those of the constitution of the

United States, in the founding days of the Nation is

perhaps best expressed in these last years of the century

as a firm belief in the right of all Americans to an

opportunity for an equal education" (15:1). And in the

best of American tradition, the demand is for nothing less

'than the best.

Recent economic events, however, have forced the

-reexamination of methods as well as levels of public





finance for that ideal. In many regions, heavy tax burdens,

coupled with unchecked inflation and increasing pupil enroll-

ments, have caused major taxpayer revolts against school

financing. Consequences generally have included bond issue

failures as well as more demanding questions about account-

ability.

Responding to the political pressures created by the

accountability movement, more and more public school admin-

istrators appear to be turning to educational program eval-

uation. This trend is evidenced by the increasing number

of evaluation and research personnel being added to pub-

lic school administrative staffs. Obviously employed to

fulfill the increased demand for routine information, such

personnel also find themselves being asked such questions

as:

"Which programs really work?"

"What is happening instructionally?"

"Who is not performing adequately?"

"What is the cost effectiveness?"

"Can we get the best for less?"

Precedence for these types of questions has already

been established within federal legislation. Responding

to the national furor created by the Russian launching .of

Sputnik in 1957, Congress enacted the National Defense

Education Act of 1958. This act was subsequently char-

acterized as "the first legislation passed by the United





States Congress that potentially could affect the educa-

tion of every public school child in the nation" (16).

The manual of instruction, written by the staff

of the Bureau of National Defense Education Act as a guide

for school districts submitting projects under Title III,

contained the following Section.

4.66 Plan for Evaluating the Program
a. Describe the evaluation procedures to be
used in determining whether students have
attained the objectives; acquired the
experience, knowledge, and skills; and
developed the attitudes outlined in the
description of this project (16).

This probably represented the first major request by the

government for information dealing with educational evalua-
tion.

Results, however, were somewhat disappointing. A

1963 state evaluation report of Title III activities in

California revealed-that "approximately one-half of one

percent of the responses (to a department questionnaire)

described a research design that evaluated the effective-

ness of a changed program" (12).

In 1967, Congress amended the Elementary and Second-

ary Education Act of 1965 to require an annual evaluation

report by the U. S. Commissioner of Education to measure

the effectiveness of programs funded under legislation' (14).

Most subsequent educational legislation contains

similar requirements. Today U. S. Office of Education

Rules and Regulations require that "Each project shall





include procedures for effective evaluation of the extent

to which project objectives are being met" (10).

The Duval County Public School System (Jacksonville,

Florida) Teceives substantial funding each year under

N. D. E. A. Title III, E. S. E. A. as well as numerous.

other pieces of federal legislation. One of the twenty-

five largest school systems in the nation, Duval County

also receives funding under Follow Through, Emergency School

Assistance Act-, Vocational Educational Act, Educational

Professional Development Act, and others. It receives

special state monies for educational research and develop-
ment as well.

To fulfill the program evaluation requirements, the

administration has employed professional evaluators- to

design and implement evaluation procedures. Generally

these have been restricted to projects whose budgets were

capable of supplying needed resources for evaluation.

Additionally, external evaluation contractors have been

used in some instances.

To coordinate these activities the county administra-

tion has created a program evaluation unit under the direc-

tion of a county paid supervisor. All evaluation personnel

are assigned to this unit and respond administratively to

this supervisor rather than the project coordinator. It

is believed that this procedure adds more objectivity to

the evaluation process. All external evaluation contracts

are also coordinated by this unit.





Other rationales for a centralized program evaluation

unit also exist. By concentrating evaluation talent a well-

balanced evaluation team can be assembled, with each member

supplying selected strengths. Such strengths include dif-
ferentiated backgrounds in statistical analysis, research

methodology, data processing, evaluation design, curriculum

and instructional theory, measurement theory and elementary

and secondary school experience. Evaluation reports can

thus be prepared by qualified staff who are familiar with

local problems and are sufficiently removed from individual

projects to be able to evaluate objectively. Increased ef-
ficiency and lower overhead (travel, management, etc.) are
additional side benefits.

Equally important for the public school system, this

approach is providing a research setting for examining the
evaluation process itself. The development and implementa-

tion of alternate evaluation strategies (at federal expense)

can provide useful data to the district regarding the feasi-
bility and cost effectiveness of implementing similar or

modified procedures within regular school settings. Can

experimental models work within a public school environment?
To what degree can school-based evaluation models be de-

signed and implemented like those in special projects? Can
educational program audits, so useful in special projects

evaluation, also be adapted to regular district programs?

Questions of this nature have become of great concern to

program evaluators in this district. They realize that the










ultimate value of program evaluation, as a process, will be

measured in terms of its internalization in the system.

One of the key problems encountered in this process has

been designated as the focus of this study. Before an ex-

tensive set of program evaluations can be implemented with-

in all schools, one must be able to accurately describe what

is happening instructionally.

The complexity of this problem is deceptive. On the

surface, all it appears that one need do is to observe class-

rooms.. But how are the observations to be quantified? As

will be discussed in the review of the literature, much re-

search has been conducted on classroom observation. But for

purposes of comprehensive program evaluation this work has

been too narrowly focused, dealing primarily with verbal

interaction. This limitation is not to underrate it's im-

portance, especially for teacher training, but .as a measure

of overall instructional activity, it will not /suffice.

By way of analogy, if one desires to make it comprehen-

sive study of nature in a given area, he will not be con-

tented to limit his observations to one particular set of

animals such as birds. He must also observe other animals

and plants. He should examine the soil, note climatic con-

ditions and record time intervals. He must do .this system-

atically and in such a fashion that ecological relationships

can be observed. For it is the recognition of these relat-

ionships and the resulting power of explanation and predic-

tion that is the scientific payoff.





Likewise, in making classroom observations for pro-

gram evaluation purposes, one is interested in identifying

the patterns of relationships to be found among the instruc-

tional and curriculum elements. Furthermore, for this type

of research, one does not necessarily need to postulate

hypotheses prior to making observations, although in this

study it is being done. It is very unlikely that Charles

Darwin made his observations to verify his theory of evo-

lution. Quite to the contrary his theory emerged from his

observations. But one must have an adequate procedure for

making systematic observations. The significance of this

fact should not be underestimated.


Statement of Problem


The problem of this study was to identify and quantify,
in a systematic, comprehensive, and simple manner, the com-

ponents of the curriculum and instructional programs as

implemented within the elementary classrooms of low and

high achieving schools in a large urban school district.

This was accomplished through the identification

of Curriculum and Instructional Profiles. Each profile

characterizes the curriculum and instructional (C E I) ele-

ments found within an instructional setting in much the same

manner that a personality profile characterizes psycho-

logical traits of an individual. All profiles indi-

cate the presence or absence of selected C FI elements





(see Table 1). A specific pattern of presence (or absence)
of these elements constitutes a Curriculum and Instructional

Profile. If the same pattern is identified in separate

situations, both situations share a common profile.

The basic tasks accomplished within the purview of

the proposal included: (1) the identification and classi-

fication of unique C 8 I Profiles observed within selected

third grade classrooms, (2) a detailed description and anal-

ysis of each unique C fr I Profile observed and (3) an analy-

sis, by school, of the distribution and frequency of alternate

types of observed profiles.

Curriculum and Instructional Profiles


As presently conceived, a Curriculum and Instructional

(C E I) Profile may be defined as a basic pattern or sil-
houette of identifiable curriculum and instructional elements

that are or are not present in a given instructional setting.

Elements are classified into components and components into

factors. The factors, components, and elements to be ex-

amined in this study are presented in Table 1. The factors

are labeled by Roman numerals, the components by letters,

and the elements by Arabic numerals.

Using Table 1, an observer can identify which elements

are present in a given classroom and thereby identify a

specific C 4 I Profile.

For example, an observation might be recorded as in




























E


Cf
p O~
S~ ~Xa~
l~ourr
~3Ua3CI
C9V)UXVIYI
pp rp XW~~~
4rrrswuaou


rlNn~ v,







M~Nm~~~~m~O~N
~rlr(

d;N~ddd~dd;,
rlrl~l



C O
U VI
O 1
Y)
039
LUY F:
rlU L
~~-C, *
mo ror
~ Lrl'u~

S~~dec,
*EO m
a ru~~
a~olsP*o
~e~~as
~*EoE
xo~a *
~eOMaag
~,~.= ~a~~
~maocc
T~~PclO


~NY)

d
c,
o
u uu
o~ ct
ae4E u
aOrlO~
5~ OUO~
B30 ~~U*O*~E
~~ a co
o~rkl~nc~~ug
*o~*v~cDn vr *
a~*~~rao~o*
n~o*~~~aoao~
~P~~,~O~~*CU
~lm;~xmL~e,~ue
u~-l~ouq aO ao u


rlNm~r~~cl~ m pt





u

f t
rl
ca**
uocoa
xo~om
wu~am


~himsvr


~Jli-6 ~aJ a
ar***~ **~ c w
oouuu ooE z a
CIYS~~n uoo, ~
UV)UC~*
op~~*~g~~c ~
~i~c)rc~ o~r
rrvrucr~o v, rs

u
9 Y) CI


7, o



~611
rg
IICN
cy~
~r 10
al~U
r~C
Cag
86r
ur~ re p,
~Enr


V1
V)


O V)V~PO
2 r uuFil

N rt~Mt



4
o Ux
a UP

~9h
o oana a c
c. "" P B
c ~qpCO
~~=" e
C IXO~ 00 C:
V] U 3r(~ H
Z Z Oa~nv~u
03~~~~lrl r
co ourmis w
o~o~omcl
u MerlZT)~a c)
I ~o~u
~or 00 L VI > U
P)m~
P~OVIOBCO~ V1

a
d a
~N r) dV1 ct
I
L9

h
f ~3
a
ul~u
oviu
a~Y
o~ur
*rlv,
w acY~*a
N T( 00rl
ct Ov)U r*
~O r~n .~Bp,
*ssa 5
,,.,
-IUV)ZciO

U
~INM~Y)\O





B
,**,
v, a80''C~
~P M~~p)~
~C~r108
~r~Ea~
ao a, o c rl c
Uc~ ee~3l~f,
wu ~F~urooo a,

~Nn~ u, 5 8 B

d "*5 ." "
o~~ ur C*
ca Bca ~ ord 4~
gF~ ~O
i ma o F~ ~O a*ZC
au~o ~o9~u
W VIVI YIO~Cla~a~~~ CCIr(v
uW ~e~u ru~ P~
~ ~ ~y ~WCcco~ Co~~ *~ 0~
~O~ UY*n*C~OY*En*Y
~.recoua.~~oecu
p)~ b O O O)m c ~a~ c~ru
g la~ c~s6arnarr~csazop,

~Nn ~ ~~~m~ c~
U

6
aeg
o E
P)a C,
VIU *vlc~C~ rlvr
V) g YC I ~om~ c~
our aEBVao aia
r p~ 00 *
ruor~~auarm~
>~4~ eo*u, aN rl vl ~ v,~e
1 K*60XSMa01~~~
ZO FOrl*P)~d~0~0e,~
u~ FXarZBmeuFg~ Z
ar+
r;N'~~ f d
er
J C4
'i: iov,
re
8,

a % ia a
r C H.O~ ..
cce ao
~, ~ *"I"~
d~OFwC9)~9, $
P)aVOr(*Sf
CZ ~~U~IPD*.
~aOEFqaaOO rs


h
II
B
E

8
U


tr


J9
;N'n'bu;\o ~m'o;

h
h~ U
OUC,
P,

1
E ~~,,, 8
v, ~ r\~
6 '" '"BrY=
foaYI
o~ caa
~ ~ ~m oV
*o ~~e -*
9 ~ ~EiD M~~O"e~M M
.oU ,*
i: Ic~ua ~p~~am~a
ro~~ ~a~r,a~Jlync~
P ** *~~rlOC~~
YB~.~PfDnOe.*

P s8op L4C4CaU vlP~ CI d O
u ~Nn~~~~~h O~Nnt
r(r(r(~lr(

u


I


a
a


L,

rl~ EJ
rc~o~
., U ~~ "
Ed x3
oulvlo
u~av,

~Nn~












ct
p~r
~crl

u~oon
um~~pr
vi*a c
~O pc9
a.~*oe
C**re
O~QIC)CI
oC4~';1:
Zlsubn
rl
OC
~N~9~ r10

ur o~
., r
t~i
~ar
e~ id
ag Cc~
M O M om
,.,,
cc~u ~3 ~
~COrtM.~ IDV)P)
a *r.~oe vlro Xe
p$UOmD*OC~
r~roclr~>aO

rlrunsm~ohooo~o





Table 2. Here one finds a regular size class (IA2), hetero-

geneously grouped (IBl), in a self-contained situation (IC1),

with one teacher (ID1). The condition of the facility is

good (IIA2), the class is meeting in a regular classroom

(IIB1) that is adequate for the purposes being made of it

(IIC2). It should be noted that as long as one remains in

this classroom these factors are not likely to change. They

may be different however, when one enters another classroom.

Therefore, these factors may be considered as a subprofile

which can be labeled a classroom profile.

Continuing with the observation, one notes that the

students are first graders (IIIAl) and regular students

(IIIBl). The students being observed (which may not in-

clude the entire class) are having an instructional demon-

stration (IV2). The teacher (VA1) is making the demon-

stration and mimeo sheets (VB3) are being used also. A

blackboard (VC2) and science lab equipment (VD4) .are being

used to teach science (VIA3). Behavioral objectives (VIB2)

have been written within the cognitive domain (VIC1).

Factors III through VI describe what is happening with

specific learners within the classroom. This subprofile

may be labeled the Instructional Activity Profile. Since

a profile is to be prepared for each teaching-learning inter-

action, many different profiles may be present in one class-

room, particularly in individualized learning settings.

Comprehensive profiles of this type can supply maswers

to many of the questions posed herein. They appear capable


















4M
EC
~ a~
.,~,
~1er7,
W B~OP~~P)
%L~vlO XYIYI
mxwr.~
rswu~oo

rs
~Nn~o
X


~ y~Nno~~~~ao~N


O d;N~;~d~~~d~N

i X

d"

5
9, 1
F~ ~CJ
O Q
"~~ J
1
rr*
aooo oct
~ C YI.~
I~OC,
a?, c~u
v, ola* e~o
a ul+r.~o
p ""o .
POO '~*a
E:O a4
jru be
Xorao*
1 -1. ~el aso
at: C C~'~ae
M~'d~~ mr(
O~~ rlvlO~CO
~3~8ue


~INn
x
u

Eo
~ 00
U U
P,
aB~Ei -B
M O~ Orl O
89P ooo~o
.,.. I ~U*0*4~
~~ ar
oC~~~*ac~ouc
I~D(OCIO1V) V1 U
~~ ~r~oarso*o*~
a~o*gc~~~ag~
Oct e~u~yf*F*
maPpX~~7rlrp,
-1 ~34
ff~r uq--r-lou~ac aOul

rlrunavru~h a, o,
X
1




o
" i
Zg~L~
a

- Ilt~P
ola
wu~a~s


r(N*I~Y1
X


r(N ~ Y)
X


7)


c~I
laa
oc
aeN


~*cl
rrdE

IfB
Yl.~dO
c~BeC
P~Our
V)V)PO


~INn~
X
r
UX
OP
r,
7)~F)a
P)PP)
D"D "
e i
xmsoo

Y s~~ ~

o es~:i,
9, P)~O aa
Ma 5:~ ~:O o~0
00 P)rl P) r(
MY o0 C VI
OU)OP)VI.~
eroa
:U~a xoci*a
~E Mr h r O U *



X


h
f ~3
u,~N
ornu

C~~s~
rz:el
~ ~p~
cmo ~~
C" ~"'""
~saao~a
sl~~rr~o
~UV)XcO


~IN ~~~ Y1 V)
X





~a ~r*1
,8~"'
~a~4 c~c

OP P) U P)'~ O
P~:1'3~C
o, ~r
cuvico ur
~nS 8
01 B
rlNM~ ~O
~3 X ~i4

Y, ~~
~O r(O
ga ~0*8~
ri~ao* auoo ~oou
~nv, ~,o~~ra ~C ~'U3V
rej ~e~u ~a~~ ru>
>~Ccco~ co~o ~^
I a ~ o c.,. cr o P, U3 6 h3 O
c~ ~~p~~uua~a~oeco
3 Cl-( e~ C1
~, ~"r*"""~F~~aro~
~s oaz^e:


~Nn ~ ~~h~~ O~
r(rl
O X


2
Y, 2m~F~
*
er m p
ri~ C
aQ8 ~urCCil ~a
rr~cp ccorl *~
~ ooae aeEvM am
atfl oo rd rdrlU E: rl
P, oocr a ~ ar a cr u c z
n", ~~ o c v, aNr(yl.i y)* C.
Y eoXPmaolicr
ZO C~ O~ O O m r o rl c cr ~
~zarea~~ucoE
aB B

r(N~~ ~O V) hOO
~9 X -1
5
U

P
"S
z r err
" %rlE:

~P)
aoo


sb
m
[13
c*
o
v,









c
v,
m


a
o,


r
o
u
v


N

3


O
OOr
>20
3rl E
C~YOrl
3 U~ m
e~u.3
MYI XU
O'HYIO
U~av,


~Nn~
x








c
c
rlu
3 ~( ~I
EF2~1
crroov,
Ud~MY
~n*a E:
~ooeu
a~ ~06
C~ro,
umorr
CCUI~ m
OOC~CI
Zrncrbvr


rlNn~
x


ue
3 O
C3

ca cu
3 Y C7
CI*
1~ ~o
u m
up, Erl
M O ~O OrO
C u~m i u
3 CIO1U CI3*
aCOrlM3 4V10
~~~UC~YUXC
rdUOrd3~0Cr
P~U)-IX~~CI~O


~N1~6111~0h00010
X


C V)~O~CI m~
u dyer
:C 5 Cr( e~C~*
'Z ~j P)CL4 C O, DP)
c~u o~L~CF
:o ri ~~~ocm err
~P~OE I9 aa o o


r(NC)gyllO hOOOL
X
-6
rl EIO
YI O Y rl
u.
""&x~ e~

cc r
OO a ~ ~auuri
rl3 rl e~0 e~ ~rl
cle~ zaa u~o~crul
mvr ~~o ma ov
*P, acg -~
orl ~:cuBMrMC~M ~
*R~ rOEUCU
re ~va~3o~cm
cro~~ ~ ~Pe~.,a Pe r ~a c
3 e ~ o vl o ~ i m ~~
C*4rlCs*rlU* UC1
~90~~~~CPU~P~~CLO


~NnO~Oh~~ Q~Nnb
rl~rl~rl


Y

c
m
z



i

















p





of describing, on a massive scale, nowt~ students are taught,

what resources are being used and what is happening in-

structionally. When coupled with measures of student out-

comes (achievement, attitudes, etc.) and descriptions of

program context, they can supply input for answers to ques-
tions of program performance and efficiency. Within a
structured evaluation design, C G I Profiles may also sup-

ply answers to questions of program effectiveness~.
The identification and analysis of specific C 4 I

Profiles and the frequencies with which they occur in given
situations can thus assist educational administrators in

evaluating on-going regular programs.
Need

Any type of educational program evaluation must de-
scribe the program being implemented. This description is

readily completed in situations where program components

are narrowly defined and/or where sufficiently monitoring

personnel' are avai-lable for extensive observations and re-

porting. However, if the task becomes one of evaluating
and therefore describing, in some intelligible manner, the

educational program of a school system employing more than

6,000 teachers teaching some 106,000 students, one must
seek alternatives, to the extent of invention if necessary.
All large school districts interested in program

evaluation must inevitably face this problem. Some help









is available, but seldom in a form of greatest utility.

Substantial material exists in curriculum literature defin-

ing, describing, delineating, and classifying alternate

curriculum and instructional efforts (20, 24, 27). In-

genious methods for planning and implementing these alter-

natives have been developed. But a methodology for readily

identifying curriculum and instructional elements that has

been implemented does not appear to have been developed

and widely disseminated.

As previously indicated, more and more public school

systems are becoming interested in educational program

evaluation. The Duval County School System in particular

is very interested as evidenced in Board minutes by requests

from Board members for program evaluation reports. The

administration, as evidenced by official requests to pro~-

gram evaluators for process evaluation data, is vitally

interested in a methodology for identifying curriculum and

instructional activities occurring system wide.

Current plans are being made to expand the scope of pro-

gram evaluation in the district next year. These plans in-

clude the formulation of program effectiveness indices for

all special projects and all schools. Through statistical

regression analysis techniques, expected achievement scores

will be computed for each program or school. Socio-economic

indices and other student factors not under the control of

the school will be used as independent variables for pre-

diction. The population base to be used in the regression









formula will include all students in the district with

similar characteristics to those being studied. By con-

trasting observed achievement scores to expected scores

an index of effectiveness will be computed.

Where high or low indices of effectiveness occur, the

question will naturally arise as to what is happening in the

school to account for noted differences. A methodology will

then be needed for identifying and quantifying this infor-

mation. By identifying instructional patterns through C E I

Profiles, relationships between educational outcomes and

specific profiles might be observed. If, for example, inner

city schools receiving a rating of high on effectiveness are

identified as having a variety of specific instructional

patterns (C E I Profiles) while those rated low have only

three or four basic instructional patterns, useful con-

clusions can be drawn. Specific recommendations could then

be made for improvement. Concentrated research studies could

be implemented on the statistical relationships between

specific sets of C FrI Profiles and educational outcomes.

Recent Florida legislation dealing with educational

accountability (Chapter 73-338, Section 26-32) has spurred

interest in the reporting of instructional activity. This

bill mandates an annual report to be submitted to the

community-at-large by each principal describing selected

characteristics of his school. It seems reasonable to as-

sume most principals would be interested in a procedure for

identifying and quantifying educational activities occur-





ring in their schools.

In summary, some school systems are desirous of con-

ducting educational program evaluations of regular class-

room instructional programs. To do so will require some
means of adequately reporting curriculum and instructional

elements as implemented within the classroom. The C 4 I

Profile is one alternative to fulfilling that need.















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Considerable effort has been expended by educational

researchers during the last three decades in describing and

maalyzing certain aspects of classroom behavior. Most of

the data in this effort has been collected through direct

classroom observation using one or more techniques gener-

ally classified as systematic observation. In a classic

article, Medley and Mitzel (21) traced the development of

systematic observation from 1929 through 1963. Indepth re-
view of instrumentation used in these studies and extensive

analyses of outcome are provided for the reader. Six key

articles in the history of classroom interaction analysis

are reprinted in their entirety in a comprehensive pub-

lication (4) dealing exclusively with interaction analysis.

These articles dealt with studies of teacher domination (5),

student aggressive behavior in created social climates (19),

social-emotional climate in classrooms (28), teacher-pupil

interaction (9), group problem solving (6), and teacher in-

fluence in the classroom (12).

These and other efforts have been classified on the

basis of their conceptual foundations and traced historically

in a perceptive analytical article by Neujahr (22).









Exploring the conceptual foundations of classroom obser-

vational researchers from social psychology, philosophy,

sociology, developmental psychology and psychoanalysis,

Neujahr concluded: "Most evident is that no one satis-

factory way has been found for describing what takes place

in the classroom" (22:224). This conclusion is reinforced by

the sheer magnitude of studies that continue to be re-

ported dealing with classroom observation in general (23) and/

or verbal interaction in particular (13). Continuing, Neujahr

characterized classroom observational research as "a pre-

paradigm science," in need of a guiding focus or paradigm

before substantial progress can be made.

In a study of the "hidden curriculum" Cowell (10:v)

identified a three dimensional matrix of school curriculum.

Agent Dimension who/what does the teaching

I. Methodology Used in Formal Teaching~/
Learning
II. Personal Interaction with Peers/Students
III. Personal Interaction with Adults/Teachers
IV. Structure and Organization of the School

Content Dimension what is taught

1. Knowledge
2. The Self
3. Social or Intergroup Interaction
4. Proper Action Moral or Ethical Principles

Location Dimension where the teaching
happens

A. Academic Settings to which Students are
Formally Scheduled

B. Non-academic Settings to which Students
are Formally Scheduled









C. Connecting or General Area in Schools
to which Students are not Formally
Scheduled

D. Areas Immediately around the School to
which Students are not Formally Scheduled

Although its focus is somewhat different, Cowell's

study is exceedingly helpful in identifying the parameters

and delimitations- within the present study. "Me tho dology

Used in Formal Teaching/Learning," within the Agent Dimen-

sion will be the primary focus for this study.

The C 4 I Profile references, indirectly, all of the

elements within the Content Dimension (through identification

of types of learner objectives). Like Cowell, the present

study is delimited to Section A of the Location Dimension,

"Academi'c Settings to which Students are Formally Scheduled."

If C 4 I Profiles can be identified within these parameters,

conceivably other profiles could be identified in other cells

of Cowell's matrix. Only a few .identified studies have

dealt with classroom observation items other than verbal

interaction and teacher behavior (21, 26, 10). Cornell,

Lid'dvall, and Saupe (1952), as reported by Medley and Mitzel

(21) attempted to "measure differences in classrooms as a

means of characterizing differences of school systems."

The dimensions to be measured included:

A. Differentiation . .the extent to which
provision is made for individual differ-
ences among students...
B. Social Organization . .the type of group
structure and the pattern of interaction
among individuals...
C. Initiative . the extent to which pupils
are permitted to control the learning
situation...










D. Content .. the source and the organi-
zation of the content of learning...
E. Variety . the extent to which a variety
of activities or techniques are used...
F. Competency .. differences in the tech-
nical performances of teachers (in)...
a few selected behaviors...
G and H. Classroom Climate .. social emotional
climate .. as it is reflected in the
behavior of the teacher (and) .. the
behavior of pupils.

The "Code Digest" describe the items used in Dimension E.

E. Variety

1. Teacher lectures or reads.
2. Teacher gives demonstration.
3. Teacher shows movie or .slides.
4. Pupils read text at seat.
5. Pupils read other books -at seat.
6. Pupils work with workbook at seat.
7. Pupils work problems (not text or work-
book) at seat.
8. Pupils study materials other than books
at seat.
9. Pupils draw or paint at seat.
10. Teacher questions pupil maswers.
11. Class engaged in discussion.
12. Pupil gives talk or report.
13. Pupils work at blackboard.
14. Pupils read aloud from book.
15. Pupils study charts, drawings, maps.
16. Pupils work experiment.
17. Pupils construct things.
18. Pupils decorate room.
19. Pupils engage in role playing or present
play.
20. Class goes on trip.
21. Pupils go to another room to work.
22. Pupils work in small discussion groups.
23. Pupils write test.

However, when scored, each dimension, except E, yielded

a single score. Two scores were reported for E: (1) nnu-

ber of different activities -seen during a visit and (2) aver-

age number of five-minute periods during which an activity





was observed. The collapsing of those dimensions probably

resulted in valuable information being lost. Had a class-

room profile technique been applied, the study might have

been more productive.

In 1955, Medley and Mitzel (21) developed an instrument

known as OScAR, designed to "provide quantitative data

regarding behaviors of beginning teachers." However, the

data herein were also collapsed. The items were combined

into keys and the keys factor analyzed into three factors.

One can only speculate as to whether the usefulness of this

instrument might also be heightened through profile analysis.

One other study (Jersild, 1939) dealing with non-verbal

behavior as well as verbal was reported by Medley (21).

A search of the ERIC system, the Education Index,

Dissertation Abstracts, and CIJE has failed to identify

any studies targeted upon the specific problem of identi-

fying curriculum and instructional profiles. Specific

descriptors searched included: (1) Classroom Observation

Techniques, (2) Classroom Research, (3) Curriculum Design,

(4) Curriculum Evaluation, (5) Curriculum Planning, (6) Cur-

riculum Research, (7) Evaluation Techniques, (8) Evaluation

Procedures, (9) Formative Evaluation, (10) Instructional

Design, (11) Profile Evaluat~ion, (12) Program Evaluation,

(13) Teaching Methods, (14) Teaching Techniques. However,

as already indicated, many studies dealing with classroom

observational research were located and reviewed (1,7,17,









26) A large number of these studies dealt with analysis

of cognitive and affective verbal interactions(8112

21), and a smaller number with non-verbal actions of teachers
and students (18,21). Many studies also were made com-

paring one method of teaching with another, or one set of
materials with another (20,27).

An examination of Mirrors For Behavior (25), an an-

thology of seventy-nine observation instruments, revealed

that only a few (Jason, Herbart, Janson) had categories

that deal with general teaching methodologies (discussion,

lecture, etc.).

In summary, although there is considerable research

activity in classroom observation, no studies appear to

have been made dealing with how to identify and classify,

through profile techniques, what is happening instruc-

tionally in the classroom.















CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

Population

Third grade classrooms in four elementary schools with-

Ln a large urban public school system were used as the prime

target population. Each elementary school with a second and

third grade (77 schools) was ranked in order of student a-

chievement on the reading and math subtests of the Stauford

Achievement Test. The lowest ranked school was not used in

this study because special school-wide field trips had

been planned during the observational period. The next two

lowest and two highest ranked schools were selected. Rank-

iags were made on second grade scores reported in the the

spring of 1973, since third grade classrooms were to be
observed in the study.

Three third grade classrooms were observed in each of

the schools. Each class was observed four times thirty min-

utes each. Two observations were made in the morning and

two in the afternoon. Two observers were used. Each obser-

ver observed each class once in the morning and once in the

afternoon. These classrooms represented the total third

grade population in three of the schools (A, B, D). School
C had four third grade classrooms. The teachers selected

for observation were chosen randomly by the author.








Third grade classrooms were selected in hopes of

obtaining a wide variety of instructional activities that

would be somewhat representative of grades 1-5. A Duval

County report (2) provides a detailed description of each

selected school. Schools A and B are the low achieving

schools -and Schools C and D are the high achieving schools.

School A is located on a 2.5 acre site. The
site is below legal minimum size for a school of the
present membership. The school consists of a masonry
two story building, a portable classroom and three
houses, containing twenty-two intermediate class-
rooms, five undersized classrooms, one multipurpose
classroom, one portable classroom, a library, a cafe-
teria, an auditorium, administrative offices, storage
and toilet rooms.
Instructional space is inadequate. The 1970 Sur-
vey-of School Plants recommended, among other things:
removal of houses from the school site; waterproofing
of the masonry; conversion of some classrooms to kin-
dergarten and special education use; and expansion of
the library space.

This school ranked second lowest in student achievement.

Total number of pupil stations is 605. The
recommended pupil capacity in the 1970 Survey was 349.
In the 1972-73 school year 89 percent of the
teachers held Rank 3 teaching certificates, which are
indicative of college graduation with a bachelor's
degree. Eleven percent of the teachers had Rank 2
certification, which is based upon a master's degree
and nohe of the teachers had a Rank 1 certificate,
which indicates a doctoral degree. Thirty-nine per-
cent of the teachers have had four or more years of
teaching experience. During the 1972-73 school year
teachers were absent on sick leave an average of 5.0
days out of a total of 196 working days.
The ESEA Title I survey of students in the
spring of 1973 indicated that 81 percent of the stu-
dents were identified as economically disadvantaged.
A student mobility rate of 45 percent indicated that
this school experienced a high rate of change.in school
population during the year. Some interesting facts
about the 1972-73 school year are: 97 percent of the
pupils were approved for free.1unch; white students









constituted 57 percent of the school population; and
none of the students were bussed two or more miles
to school.
During the 1972-73 school year, in addition to
regular classes and course work for students in grades
K through 5, the school offered additional programs
and/or services. In the area of exceptional education,
programs were available for the educable mentally
retarded and students with specific learning difficul-
ties.
Through the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) federal funds enabled the following special
programs or services for students to be offered: Pre
Kindergarten, Improving Communication Skills (ICS),
and Pupil Personnel Services (PPS). Other ESEA funds
(Title II) were provided for the purchase of school
library resources and instructional materials for use
by students and teachers, and for the purchase of
materials for the SWRL pre-school readiness program
(Title III). Through the Economic Opportunity Act,
federal funds were provided for the Follow Through
program. The National Defense Education Act (NDEA
Title III) also provided funds for equipment and
materials.
School A is also a Community School providing
a meeting place for neighborhood groups for afternoon
and evening recreation and education programs.
School B. is located on a 10.6 acre site. The
site is at legal minimum size for a school of the
present membership. The school consists of a perma-~
nent building which contains ten primary classrooms,
ten intermediate classrooms, a cafetorium, an admini-
strative suite, a library, toilet rooms and storage.
Instructional space is adequate. The 1970 Survey
of School Plants recommended among other things: Con-
version of the present library to two exceptional
education classrooms; conversion of one primary class-
room to exceptional education; installation of fluores-
cent lighting in classrooms; construction of a new
library; and construction of three new classrooms for
kindergarten.

This school ranked third lowest in student achievement.

Total number of pupil stations is 600. The
recommended pupil capacity in the 1970 Survey was 588.
In the 1972-73 school year 76 percent of the
teachers held Rank 3 teaching certificates, which are
indicative of college graduation with a bachelor's
degree. Twenty-four percent of the teachers had Rank
2 certification, which is based upon a master's degree





and none of the teachers had a Rank 1 certificate,
which indicates a doctoral degree. Sixty-seven
percent of the teachers have had four or more years
of teaching experience. During the 1972-73 school
year teachers were absent on sick leave an average of
8.9 days out of a total of 196 working days.
The ESEA Title I survey of students in the
spring of 1973 indicated that 46 percent of the
students were identified as economically disadvan-
taged. A student mobility rate of 33 percent indi-
cates that this school experienced a moderate rate
of change in school population during the year. Some
interesting facts about the 1972-73 school year are:
54 percent of the pupils were approved for free lunch;
white students constituted 76 percent of the school
population; and 42 percent of the students were
bussed two or more miles to school.
During the 1972-73 school year, in addition to
regular classes and course work for students in grades
K through 5, the school offered additional programs
and/or services. In the area of exceptional education
programs were available for students with specific
learning difficulties.
Through the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (Title I) federal funds enabled the following
special programs or services for students to be offered:
Improving Communication Skills (ICS), and Pupil Per-
sonnel Services (PPS), and program of support services
for Kindergarten. Other ESEA funds (Title II) were
provided for the purchase of school library resources
and instructional materials for use by students and
teachers, and for the purchase of materials for the
SWRL pre-school readiness program (Title III).
The National Defense Education Act (NDEA Title
III) also provided funds for equipment and materials.
School C is located on a 17.5 acre site. The
site is above legal minimum size for a school of the
present membership. The school consists of a cluster
of nine brick buildings (numbers 1,2,3) each containing
four primary classrooms. Three other buildings [numbers
4,5,6), each contain four intermediate classrooms. A
separate administration building (number 7) contains
a general office, the principal's office, a library,
a faculty room, a book storage room, a media room, a
clinic, and toilets. The cafetorium is housed in a
separate building (number 8), and another separate
building (number 9) contains a custodial storage room
and two toilets. Air conditioning of two quads (eight
classrooms) was completed during 1971-72. Wiring costs
were provided by the School Board. The P.T.A. financed
the purchase and installation of the eight roof-top
mounted air conditioners.

































































~~I~


Instructional space is adequate. The 1970
Survey of School Plants recommended among other things:
the construction of two exceptional education class-
rooms, two intermediate classrooms, four kindergarten
classrooms, a library, painting the exterior of the
building and walkways and repairs to the roof.

This school ranked highest in student achievement.

Total number of pupil stations is 624. The recom-
mended pupil capacity in 1970 Survey was 696.
In the 1972-73 school year 69 percent of the
teachers held Rank 3 teaching certificates, which
are indicative of college graduation with a bache-
lor's degree. Thirty-one percent of the teachers had
Rank 2 certification which is based upon a master's
degree and none of the teachers had a Rank 1 certifi-
cate, which indicates a doctoral degree. Seventy-eight
percent of the teachers have had four or more years
of teaching experience. During the 1972-73 school
year teachers were absent on sick leave an average
of 4.3 days out of a total of 196 working days.
The ESEA Title I survey of students in the
spring of 1973 indicated that 27 percent of the stu-
dents were identified as economically disadvantaged.
A student mobility rate of 28 percent indicates that
this school experienced a moderate rate of change in
school population during the year. Some interesting
facts about the 1972-73 school year are: 29 percent
of the pupils were approved for free lunch; white
students constituted 70 percent of the school popu-
lation; and 27 percent of the students were bussed
two or more miles to school. During the 1972-73 school
year, in addition to regular classes and course work
for students in grades K through 5, the school offered
.additional programs and/or services. Through the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act federal funds
(ESEA Title II) were provided for the purchase of
school library resources and instructional materials
for use by students and teachers, and for the purchase
of materials for the SWRL pre-school readiness pro-
gram (Title III). Through the Economic Opportunity
Act, federal funds .were provided for the Follow Through
program. The National Defense Education Act (NDEA Title
III) also provided funds for equipment and materials.
School D is located on a 14.2 acre site. The
site is above legal minimum size for a school of the
present membership. The school consists of two per-
manent buildings containing eight primary classrooms,

































































_p~


~sixteen intermediate classrooms, administrative
offices, a cafetorium, toilet rooms, a library,
storage and a mechanical equipment room.
Instructional space is adequate. The 1970
Survey of School Plants recommended among other
things: expansion of the administrative suite;
conversion of one classroom for exceptional educa-
tion use; construction of a new library; construction
of five new kindergarten classrooms; and construction
of three new exceptional education classrooms.

This school ranked second highest in school achievement.

Total number of pupil stations is 720. The
recommended pupil capacity in the 1970 Survey was 732.
In the 1972-73 school year 78 percent of the
teachers held Rank 3 teaching certificates, which are
indicative of college graduation with a bachelor's
degree. Twenty-two percent of the teachers had Rank
2 certification, which is based upon a master's de-
gree and none of the teachers had a Rank 1 certificate,
which indicates a doctoral degree. Sixty-seven per-
cent of the teachers have had four or more years of
teaching experience. During the 1972-73 school year
teachers were absent on sick leave an average of
7.0 days out of a total of 196 working days.
The ESEA Title I survey of students in the
spring of 1973 indicated that 8 percent of the students
were identified as economically disadvantaged. A
student mobility rate of 52 percent indicates that
this school experienced a high rate of change in school
population during the year. Some interesting facts
about the 19~72-73 school year are: 7 percent of the
pupils were approved for free lunch; white students
constituted 94 percent of the school population; and
none of the students were bussed two or more miles to
school.
During the 1972-73 school year, in addition to
regular classes and course work for students in grades
1 through 6, this school offered additional programs
and/or services.
Through the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act federal funds (Title II) were provided for the
purchase of school library resources and instructional
materials for use by students and teachers. The .National
Defense Education Act (NDEA Title III) also provided
funds for equipment and materials.





Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were offered:

A. There will be differentials among these
schools in both frequency and types of
C 5 I Profiles observed.

B. There will be a greater variety of types of
C 5 I Profiles within the high achieving
schools than the low achieving schools.

C. There will be a greater frequency per type
of C E I Profile in the low achieving schools
than the high achieving schools.

Instrumentation and Data Collection

The basic instrument for data collection was the

instrument in Table 1. The classroom observer circled the

elements he observed in the classroom. Factors I, II and

III had only to be marked once for each classroom observation

made. A profile sheet for Factors IV through VI was com-

pleted for each teaching-learning interaction observed.

All classroom observations in the four target schools

were made by the author and one other observer. Each third

grade classroom in these schools was observed four times for
one-half hour.

All profile sheets were collected and the results

keypunched. A preliminary examination identified all ele-
ments which had not been marked. These were deleted in

the heading of the computer program and they were not key-

punched. This allowed the total number of elements to be

less than eighty, in order that one card could be used for

each profile. Each element was assigned to a specific card









column. If that element was present in a specific situation

a 1 was coded in the field. If the element was not observed

a blank was assigned.


Treatment of Data

Each profile sheet, upon conversion to a code, had to

be classified. Inasmuch as repetitive profiles were being

sought and since each profile was to be coded on the basis

of presence or absence of elements, identical profiles

would be coded alike. Thus all one needed to do was to

match identical codes.

Each profile code can be conceived something like

this: 00101100. .,0001101. .. By treating the code

as one lengthy number, one could merely sort each card in

numerical sequence and all cards having the same number

would be thrown together. Each unique number represented

a unique C S 1 Profile. Computer listing of card content

allowed one to identify which profiles were present and how

many of each there were.

Originally Factor VI (3) was to have been included in

each C 5 I Profile. However, observers experienced some

difficulty in actually determining the presence or absence

of learner objectives. One could not usually observe their

~presence without conversing with the teacher. Judging

whether the teacher was simply reciting what she thought

the observer wanted to hear or whether she was actually

using objectives in lesson planning was, for practical pur-





poses, not productive. Therefore, although Factor VI was

completed at each observation it was not used in constructing

C 4 I Profiles.

A computer listing of all observations, sorted by

Factors IV and V is presented in Appendix A. In the first

column can be found the school letter. The next three

columns contain an identification number; the first digit

indicating a morning (1) or afternoon (2) observation, and

the last two digits being a unique classroom number. Column

7, under the heading "DA" indicates in chronological order

(1 4) which of the four sequential observations was being

made. Column 8, under the heading "RA" indicates which of

the two raters (1 2) made the observation. The rest of

the columns are labeled according to the elements in Table

1. If an element in Table I was not observed in this

study, it will not appear in Appendix A. In most instances

if an element is present it will be coded as 1. If it is

not observed a blank will appear.

Additional coding became necessary for two reasons.

First, computer programming was greatly simplified by

keeping the total number of columns to eighty or less.

To accomplish this, multiple codes were used in the.

columns labeled I-A-2, II-A-3 and II-B-1. A "O" in I-A-2,

indicates the presence of element I-A-1 and the absence of

I-A-2. A "4'!. in the column labeled II-A-3 indicates the

presence of element II-A-4 and the absence of II-A-3.





A "2" in the column labeled II-B-1 indicates the presence

of element II-B-2 and the absence of II-B-1. A "9" in

column II-B-1 indicates the presence of element II-B-9 and

the absence of II-B-1.

Secondly, in element IV-14 labeled "other"., there

was a sufficient quantity of observations to justify the

delineation of this element into subcategories and a sep-

arate code for each subcategory. These codes include:

2. Singing/playing musical instruments

3. Performing written exercises (text
assignments, mimeo sheets, etc.)

4. Receiving individual help

5. Playing sports (softball, basketball, etc.)

9. Other activity

From this listing can be derived the instructional

activity profiles.

































































__


CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Instructional Activity Profiles

Fifteen major instructional activity profiles have been

identified by the author through careful analysis of the com-

puter listing in Appendix A. A description of each of the

major instructional activity profiles identified in this

study is presented in Table 3. Each profile has been la-

beled alphabetically. The top half of each profile contains

the basic or major elements of that profile. The bottom

line contains additional or minor elements. Minor elements

are supplementary and may or may not be present in the pro-

file while major elements must be present.

Examining the major elements of Profile A in Table 3,

one finds that the major instructional activity is lec-

turing by the teacher. The minor elements of this pro-

file indicate that while lecturing, the teachers also use

oral questioning, drill, reading and other activities as

supplemental instructional activities. Printed resources

used periodically include textbooks, workbooks, newspapers/

magazines, and other printed matter. Audio-visual resources

used periodically include blackboards and other resources
















CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL ELEMENTS
19 INSTRUt'-
TIONAL ACTIVITY VI INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES
PROJFILE A. INSTRUC- B. PRINTED C. AUDIO- D. SPECIAL
LABEL METHOD TIONAL AGENT RESOURCES VIISUAL TECHNOLOGICAL
RESOURCES RESOURCES

A LECTURE TEACHER




M ORAL QUESTION- TEXTBOOK BLACKBOARD
I ING WORKBOOK OTHER (MAPS,
N DRILL NEWSPAPER/ CHARTS ,ETC.)
O READING MAGAZINE
R OTHER (5MAP WORK) OTHER PRINTED
MATE RIAL

A ORAL QUESTION TEACHER
J AND ANSWER



M DRILL PEER TEXTBOOK BLACKBOARD
I GAMES MIME0 SHEETS OTHER (MAPS,
N READING SUPPLEMEN- CHARTS, ETC.)
O TARY BOOKS
R OTHER PRINTED
MATERIAL

A DRILL




M TEACHER TEXTBOOK BLACKBOARD
I PEER OTHER OTHER (MAPS,
N PRINTED CHARTS, ETC.)
0 MATERIAL


A IAB MACHINE MIMBO TAPE LANGUAGE
J SHEETS RECORDER LAB



I SUPPLEMEN-
N TARY BOOKS
'R

A PROGRAMMED BOOK (OR PROGRAMMED
J INSTRUCTION PRINTED TEXT
0 MATTER)


I MIMEO SHEETS


TABLE 3: INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY PROFILES
IDENTIFIED IN STUDY





















A ETN
J TESTING
O ACTIVITY

RF~

I TEACHER MIMEO SHEETS
N BOOK (OR OTHER PRINTED
0 PRINTED MATE RIALS
R MATTER)

A PROJECT
J ACTIVITY


-G -M T-- T AChiR- TEXTFBOOK
I AIDE, BOOK OTHER PRINTED
N PEER (OR MATERIALS
O PRINTED
R MATTER)
OTHER AGENT

A VIEWING (FILM MACH INE TE LE VIS ION
J T.V.,ETC.)



I OTHER ACTIVITY OTHER PRINTED
N TALKINGG NOTES) MATERIALS



A GAMES TEACHER OTHER PRINTED
J MATERIALS



I BLACKBOARD
N OTHER (CHARTS,
O MAPS, ETC.]


A READING



J~ Ti TEACBHAC IR TEXTBOOK-
I PEER WORKBOOK BLACKBOARD
N BOOK (OR SUPPLEMENTARY
O PRINTED BOOK
R MATTER)


1_1


TABLE 3: ( continued)
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL ELEMENTS
IV INSTRUC-
TIONAL ACTIVITY V INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES
PROFILE
LABEL METHOD A. INSTRUC- PRINTED C. AUDIO-
TIONAL AGENT RESOURCES VISUAL
RESlOURCES


D. SPECIAL
TECHNOLOGICAL
RESOUloRCE



















TIONAL AGENT RESOURCES


M
A OTHER: TEACHER
J SPORTS AND
0 GAMES








R HL




A S'TIDENTS
J REELING

R HELPCIE

N BOO MDIME SFFEETS
I TBRGN OTHER PRINTED
N MATERIALS


M D'l'HER: ECR


TABLE 3: (continued)

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL ELEMENTS
IV INSTRUC- Vr INSTRUCflIONAL RESOURCES
TIONAL ACTIVITY
PROFILE
LABEL METHOD A. INSTRUC- B.PRINTED C. AUDIO-


VISUAL TECHNOLOGICAL
RESOURCES RESOURCES


D. SPECIAL


OTHER (CLAiSS
DISCUSSION,
TEACHER GIVING
DI REACTIONS,
SHOW AND TELL

TEACHER
PEER
BOOK (OR
PRINTED
MATTER)


MIMEO SHEETS
OTHER PRINTED
MATERIALS


A
J
0
R

ON
I
N
0
R


STUDENTS
SINGING
PLAYING MUSI-
CAL INSTRUMENTS


MIMEO SHEETS OTHER:
OTHER PRINTED PIANO
MATERIAL


OTHER
MUSIC
INSTRUMENTS









(charts, maps, etc.). The reader is encouraged to examine

the major and minor elements of all other profiles.

A frequency distribution of the occurrence of these

profiles by school is presented in Table 4. Columns 1 4

report the frequency of profiles per individual school.

Columns 5.and 6 contain the combined frequencies of low

and high achieving schools and Column 7 reports the total.

Columns 8 and 9 indicate the percentage distribution for

low and high achieving schools over all profiles. This is

obtained by dividing each frequency in columns 8 and 9 by

the total frequency found at the foot of each respective

column.

The data in Table 4 concerning instructional activity

profiles support only the first proposed hypothesis. The

hypotheses are:

A. There will be differentials among- schools
in both frequency and types of C 6 I
Profiles observed.

B. There will be a greater variety of types
of C 6 I Profiles within the high achieving
schools than the low achieving schools.

C. There will be a greater frequency per type
of C Fi I Profile in the low achieving
schools than the high achieving schools.

As seen in Table 4, differentials do occur among schools

in both frequency and types of observed C 8 I Profiles.

Three profiles (D, E, L) were observed only in School A.

Others (H, I, 0) were observed only in two schools. With-

in those profiles appearing in all schools (A, B, C, J, K, N)





4UV3

rzv
> 0



wO








emo





E>O

uv


RPPD@IPPPILP"


M
E







o
OS
U -H

Ma



on
a0
00


00
ce,
Ok



OO


*H *

uu
66
000r
Ol



WE


=PPPPPPPPFl~l


[mb ~


l|HMW


one
HNN



D 6
4 0
N


Obb


=Phothh" 1


~1~101o~p~


SP" PICII"P lc"


PPPPPPPPPPPM l""1"~1~


K ~u


& %b





frequencies vary considerably, ranging from 1 in profile
A to 34 in profile B. A Chi Square analysis was performed
on the frequency distribution of individual schools across

the Instructi'onal Activity profiles. Those profiles with
cells containing computed expectancies of less than five

(D, E, I, L, M) were omitted from the analysis. The com-

puted Chi Square value of 110.01 is significant beyond the
.001 level for eighteen degrees of freedom.

Within the high achieving schools there are four pro-
files (D, E, I, L) not observed. However, the low occur-

rence of these profiles among the low achieving schools

produces a low discrepancy when compared with the zero

frequency in high achieving schools. Thus there appears
to be a greater variety of instructional activity profiles

within the low achieving schools than the high achieving

schools. These results do not support Hypothesis B when

only instructional activity profiles are examined.

Hypothesis C postulates a concentration of frequencies
in a few profile types within the low achieving schools.

Percentage differentials in Table 4 among high and low

achieving schools range from zero to ten (columns 8 and 9).

In only two cases (A and G) does the difference equal or

exceed even five percent. Three profiles (B, J, N) do

account for greater than fifty percent of the low achieving
school frequencies. However, this is also true for the

high achieving schools.





Although there appear to be no practical differences

between high and low achieving schools in the frequency

observed per type of instructional activity profile, sta-

tistical differences do exist. A Chi Square analysis was

performed on the frequency distribution of high and low
achieving schools across the Instructional Activity pro-

files. Those profiles containing cells with computed

expectancies of less than five (D, E, I, L, M) were omitted

from the analysis. The computed Chi Square value of 29.90

is significant beyond the .001 level for nine degrees of

freedom. This result indicates that both low and high achiev-

ing schools have higher than expected frequencies in some

profiles and lower than expected frequencies in others. But

it does not indicate that low achieving schools in general

have a higher concentration of frequencies per profile than

high achieving schools. Therefore the data do not support

Hypothesis C either, when only instructional activity pro-
files are considered.

To examine the presence and distribution of C G I

Profiles by curriculum subject area, a sort was made by

subject (element VI A). The computer listing is pre-

sented in Appendix C. Tables 5 13 contain the frequency

distributions of instructional activity profiles by school

by subject.

Only two subjects, Reading (Table 5) and Language Arts,

(Table 9) contain sufficient numbers of observations for








OMMO




WO
CNHM


OU

we-i

c0w
8er



bO


Z>O
OuOl



mU
;I

1- 1

>>0




00
0 1-
U
om



O


OO O
O
mm
uu



Um
Um
OM



0




UN
ylU




Z ~
o MM
UHQ ~
Cmu<

Ln
O'
cu m
NZO


I 410 IM n





43








Z>O

O O




O UM>~O
mmDc < o
uu a







oo a


4~ ~O +
w +

Zn




4% E>O +


NO m ew




to o

U3 eo






W MO






A





44










Omo

40





uU~


Um 0
UW

OOr
M 0


<> m>O +

0 H U~ Of
MU



0 ct


CY

u v








ul t
olO




HHcl
M>o






awo






ogu
clL


0f



>10


08

Ov









OH
gua
><0


O'HV
us u)



NZO





Omt

E4UV

zm








Hcl
Omo



E 3

mo


O
zv

E
Ouv
O
OO-
C4 L
FMA



0

UCH

Zum
t4E-
BL
us, ~


=SII


MP


=C I


=lm m
















FrO



zv, t: 40

um
oel
OOH
O %&2
"uB C30



UH



wuO +
mu
Qa I
%< 20
oZ >" +
HU 000 4o




BE o a
med



C4 UN











n ;1






















































































1


4>O3

40






cc20
%>0


Oo


HHZ
3MMU
Uv,





POO
S"


O
UU




Uv
OM
oH
OOC


cuP

ZH

MUc


P4

O
cn

EUH

O'HC

mmN
adZ






















































































~


OZv



rum

04



O ulc>O o

ZV] alozu





Ocl
H

N 0

PO OmO U


WUM
F4 <




WH
mag v













O O



cu~I I I

















W>O
ONO~
020V






OHf
muv
d






Hc


00~~



OmoO
CWHE

CO
00)
c4c


O

UU

20
m l



00






UHV



Sou



U~m



O~HL





judgment. Profile B (teacher conducting oral questioning)

appears more often in Table 5 in the low achieving schools

than the high. Profile J (dealing with reading activities)

appears more often in the high achieving schools. Profile

B in Table 9 also appears more often in low achieving schools

than in high achieving ones. Percentagewise, Profile D

(Lab), G (Project Activity), and N (Written Exercises) ap-

pear more often in high achieving schools.

Since Language Arts and Reading are considered as one

area by some curriculum specialists, a combined frequency

distribution has been prepared. As seen in Table 14, dif-

ferences in instructional activity profiles in high and low

achieving schools are found when reading and language arts

instructional activities are observed. Low achieving schools

have a substantially higher percentage ( )5) of occurrence

of Profile B than the high achieving schools. This indicates

that during the periods of observations involving reading

and language arts instruction, third grade teachers in the

low achieving schools were doing more oral questioning of

students through drill, games, and reading than were teachers

in high achieving schools.

High achieving schools have a substantially higher

percentage () 5) of occurrence of Profiles D, G, J and N

than do low achieving schools. This indicates that during

the periods of observation, the third grade students and teach-

ers in high achieving schools were more involved in language





O




QW
204
CLM
ds0
Z4q 0
0 2
O 4

OO ~





MU 3




00


HUO


1~1~1~


meu




He
cl>O


4


NO<


'1-1-1~


EZv)
OcrcM
4>o
cr O~~


W
cl cl
u W

31
a





labs, project activity, direct reading and completion of

written exercises in reading and language arts instruction

than were teachers and students in low achieving schools.

Returning to the hypotheses, one discovers that Hypoth-

esis A is supported. There are differentials among schools

A, B, C, and D in both frequency and types of profiles when

only reading and language arts instruction is considered. A

Chi Square analysis was performed on the frequency distribu-

tion of individual schools across the Instructional Activity

profiles. Only those profiles with cell expectancies greater

than five (B, J, N) were included in the analysis. The com-

puted Chi Square value of 40.52 is significant beyond the

.001 level for six degrees of freedom.

Hypothesis B is not supported. Within the low achieving

schools twelve profiles were observed, while only ten were

observed in high achieving schools. There are fewer ob-

served profiles in higher achieving schools than low achiev-

ing ones.

Hypothesis C is not supported either. Both high and

low achieving schools have a high concentration of Profile N.

Low achieving schools also have a high percentage of occur-

rence of Profile B. High achieving schools have a compara-

tively high concentration of Profile J. The remaining ob-

servations are distributed widely over the other profiles

for both high and low achieving schools. The observations

in the low achieving schools are not more concentrated than





those in high achieving schools.

Classroom Profiles

Factors I through III comprise the elements of a Class-

room Profile. The twelve classroom profiles identified in

this study may be found in Table 15. In all instances each

profile is school specific. A computer listing of all ob-

servations sorted on Factors I, II, III is presented in

Appendix B. The frequency distribution by school is shown

in Table 16.

School A, a low achieving school has three classroom

profiles (1, 11, 12). Most classes are in Profile 11 which

depicts a regular class, heterogeneously grouped, self-con-

tained, one teacher/class, poor facility, classroom, appro-

priate for use being made of it, grade 3 regular students.

Profiles 1 and 12 are similar to 11, but differ in the type

of facility observed. In Profile 1, a large group in an

auditorium is being observed while classes on the playground

are being observed in Profile 12. These could be classified

as very traditional profiles.

School B, also a low achieving school has only one

classroom profile (10). Profile 10 is like Profile 11 in

every respect except that the condition of the facility is

rated average rather than poor. Thus the low achieving

schools are, for practical purposes, identical in their

classroom profiles.
















Y C

esru
OB
c~ C
~P V)



I
O
ct
C1;
e~YI
80

$Pt~



~
a r


a ~u
c~F9 Y

P r
ZLL~
OOc~
U -1
Z1~
~ OU
" '"d
cl~Cli


ii
o
c~

Y"
-15
Uo
m
P
P W
c~pQ
V)
2
O
v)C
~Ilb



Y"P
c~UO






V)


ua

~LI E:
~F9U

V)
V)

U





SutS
omc~
O~LL
"u~S
mra
w


89















:C7


wO


258
zY







WO






r,






u~s


o




O
oo










mu
U



r**(


;5

































































__


School C, the highest achieving school, has five class-

room profiles (5, 6, 7, 8, 9). These profiles differ in

class grouping, classroom personnel and type of student.

Within this school third grade teachers combined

classes by homogeneously grouping students for two periods

a day, once for math and once for reading. This ability

grouping was based on student achievement in each subject

and regrouping occurred periodically. During the rest of the

day students were in heterogeneously grouped classes for

other subjects. Some observations were made in both settings.

One teacher in the third grade~had an assigned instructional

aide because of participation in a specially funded project.

School D, a high achieving school, has three classroom

profiles (2, 3, 4). These profiles differ in classroom per-

sonnel and type of student. They have more variety than the

low achieving school classroom profiles yet not as much as

those in School C.

One classroom in School D (Profile 3) was a combination

third and fourth grade classroom with two teachers, one being

an intern. Because of the combination the principal as-

signed the more advanced students in the third grade to this

class providing a homogeneously grouped advanced class.

Another classroom (Profile 2) was staffed with a teacher

and instructional aide participating in a special federally

funded project. The third class contained only one class-

room teacher. Most of the students in the latter two









classes were basic with a number of them hyperactive, some

under medication.

Obviously the classroom profiles in the low achieving

schools are similar and may be classified as traditional.

The classroom profiles in the high achieving schools differ

substantially from those in the low achieving schools.

These data support each of the three hypotheses offered in

this study.

A. There are differentials among these schools
in both frequency and types of C E I Profiles
observed.

B. There is a greater variety of C 6 I Profiles
within ,the high achieving schools than the low
achieving schools.

C. There is a greater frequency per type of C 6 I
Profile in the low achieving schools than the
high achieving schools.

Curriculum and Instructional Profiles

C 4 I Profiles are composed of both instructional activ-

ity and classroom profiles. What are the results when these
two are combined?

Each C G I Profile may be expressed as a conjunction of

an instructional activity profile and a classroom profile.

For example, the C E I Profile 1A contains classroom pro-

file 1 and instructional activity profile A.

An interaction matrix has been prepared using this con-

cept and may be found in Table 17. Classroom profiles form

the abcissa and instructional activity profiles form the































Lo













a a 1 a

'1 "8
c~ m


































































~


ordinate of this matrix. Since each classroom profile is

associated with a unique school, the associated school has

been listed beneath the classroom profile totals for the con-

venience of the reader. Blank spaces in the matrix indicate

that no C 5 I Profiles with the coordinates of that cell were

observed. The numerals in each nonblank cell indicate the

observed frequency of that C E I Profile. For example, C 5 I

Profile 2J was observed nine times in School D.

Using this matrix, one can readily observe patterns of

density. The C Fr I Profile with the largest observed fre-

quency (34) is 10B. Using Tables 3 and 15 this profile can

readily.be constructed. The classroom profile (10) consists

of a regular class, heterogeneously grouped, self-contained,

one teacher/class, in an average condition classroom, appro-

priate for the use being made of it, with third grade regular

students. The instructional activity profile (B) consists

primarily of oral questioning by the teacher. This may be

accompanied by drill, games, or reading. A peer may also

be raising questions. Printed resources used include text-

books, mimeo sheets, supplementary books, and/or other

printed matter. Audio-Visual materials include a blackboard

and/or other other A-V resources not listed in V-C.

The pattern of least density includes those cells in

Classroom Profiles 1, 5, 9 and 12 and Instructional Activ-

ity Profiles D, E, I, L, and M. Highest densities lie along








instructional activity profiles B and N and classroom pro-
files 10 and 11.

Within this matrix it is evident that a substantial

differential exists among schools in both frequency and

types of C I I Profiles observed. School A (Table 17) has
a relatively high concentration () 14) in cell 11N and

medium concentration (10 14) in 10, 11B, 11F, and 11H.

It ha's only light concentration (4 10) in eight other cells.

School B has heavy concentration in cells 10B, and 10N

with medium concentration in 10A, 10J, and 10K, It has

light concentration in five other cells. School C has

heavy concentration in no single cell, medium concentration
in 6J and light concentration in twenty-one other cells.

This school, it should be remembered, has the highest stu-

dent achievement. School D has heavy concentration in one

cell, 2N, medium concentration in no cell and light concen-
tration in eighteen cells. Hypothesis A is supported.

There is a greater variety of types of C I I Profiles

within the high achieving schools than the low achieving

schools. Schools A and B are found in twenty-three cells

while schools C and D are found in fifty-three cells. Hy-

pothesis B is supported.
There is a greater frequency per type of C 4 I Profile

in the low achieving schools than the high achieving schools.

Schools A and B have three cells of heavy concentration and
six cells of medium concentration. Schools C mad D have one





cell.of heavy concentration and one cell of medium concen-

tration. Hypothesis C is supported.

The frequency distribution in Table 17 has been con-

verted to a percentage distribution and is displayed in

Table 18. The frequency in each cell is expressed as a

percentage of the total frequency in the matrix. In cell

2A, for example, 4 is .9 percent of 424, rounded to 1. A

blank indicates no observations were reported in that cell.

Percentagewise, no cell or C 8 I Profile accounts for

a preponderance of the observations. C 5 I Profile 10B

accounts for the highest percentage (8) followed by 10N

(7%). The relative occurrence of each C 8 I Profile can be

readily determined in this manner.






















Ct











a N o





II 1tN~ r1 1O IN 0 0 O IOI


o



QI o a ~

N1 0N 0 1~~N IMrl ll o 10 a o

~I I I I I I I I I I I I IN


~


I~
U)
Y



u,
oB
c~a
crs


Zcl
c~C
ct





a n~B
E:
sn
61


Ci

a



1


mL
C4 MS


< ma aao ~rX





CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS


Summary

Classroom observations were made in the third grade

classrooms of four urban elementary schools for the purpose

of identifying existing Curriculum and Instructional Profiles.

Two schools were classified as low achieving schools based

on comparative student standardized achievement test data

and two were classified as high achieving schools. The

presence or absence of prespecified curriculum elements was

recorded during each observation. Patterns of presence

or absence were transformed into Curriculum and Instructional

Profiles.

Two types of curriculum and instructional subprofiles

were delineated. Classroom profiles depicted instructional

organization, physical environment, and type of students

present. Instructional activity profiles depicted instruc-

tional activity and instructional resources. Fifteen dis-

tinct instructional activity profiles were identified mad

are displayed in Table 3. Twelve distinct classroom pro-

files were identified and are displayed in Table 15.

Differences in C d I Profiles were found to exist

between the low achieving mad high achieving schools





selected for this study. These differences appear to focus

primarily upon differential grouping practices within the
Classroom Profile. The low achieving schools use tradi-

tional grouping practices of one teacher/class in self-con-

tained, regular classrooms in average to poor condition,

with heterogeneously grouped students. The high achieving

schools use a variety of grouping practices including homo-

geneous grouping by subject, semi-departmentalized class-
room organization, teacher plus aides, and two or more

teachers combining/alternating classes in team teaching
situations.

Few differences, however, appear to exist between high

and low achieving schools in types of instructional activity

profiles including instructional method, agent, and types

of printed and audio-visual resources. Profiles A (teacher
lecturing) and G (student project activity) appear slightly

more often in high achieving schools than low achieving

schools. Within schools differences appear in some profiles

but disappear when low and high achieving schools are
summated.

The results obtained in this study are exploratory and

observational. No experimental manipulations were made to

determine if student achievement could be increased by al-

tering grouping practices. Further work must be performed

before any sound relationship between these variables can
be established.









Conclusions

Basic components of the curriculum and instructional

programs as implemented within elementary classrooms can

be quantified and depicted in a profile format. These

profiles can be used to compare or contrast the presence
or absence of curriculum and instructional elements for

program evaluation or other purposes.
Basic differences do exist between the curriculum and

instructional processes as implemented within the class-

rooms of high and low achieving elementary schools studied

herein. Low achieving schools use more traditional instruc-

tional grouping patterns than do high achieving schools.

A study of explanatory factors for this result is not within

the scope of this dissertation. Rather, the development

of a process capable of revealing these differences was

the desired outcome.

Although somewhat consuming in the time needed for

making classroom observations, the process of preparing

C 6 I Profiles appears to be quite feasible. If under-

taken over a period of time by principals or supervisory

personnel the process becomes quite simple. New data

forms can be custom designed containing the profiles

identified in this study as categories to be checked if

any of these profiles are observed. The original curriculum
and instructional element list can be modified and tailored





to the construction of new profiles not observed within this

study.

Implications

The most important implication of this study center's

upon the usefulness of C 4 I Profile Analysis in examining

the instructional process. With this tool serious consid-

eration can now be given to quantifying in some degree the

curriculum and instructional processes as implemented within

the classroom. Generally, only input factors in the form of

allocated resources and output factors such as student

achievement have been entered into accountability equations.

This process should enhance the usefulness of program eval-

uation in providing data for more sound educational deci-

sions by allowing the introduction of quantified process data.

Superintendents, principals, and other educational

administrators/planners can now establish specifications

as to the types of C G I Profiles they wish to implement

as well as the relative frequency desired for each. For

example, a principal, using a blank matrix in the form of

Table 18, can specify which classroom and instructional

classroom profiles he wants to occur in his school perhaps

even within a given grade level. Taking such considerations

as physical plant structure, student characteristics,

teacher backgrounds and instructional leadership, the

principal may set as a goal to increase by 15% the frequency

with which C 6 I Profile 7E occurs. An inservice training









program may be implemented with this objective. Through

.periodic observation, evaluations can be conducted of the

progress being made. When the objective has been met a

program evaluation can provide a cost/benefit analysis,

perhaps on the basis of increased student achievement.

Obviously, further replications of this study must be

made before one can unequivocally correlate high student

achievement with alternate grouping practices. A follow-

up experimental study should be mounted by implementing

regrouping practices in the third grade of one of the low

achieving schools. The other school would be used as a

control. Student achievement would be monitored during the

coming year for improvement in school ranking. In the

event the ranking improves for the experimental school, re-

commendations for altering the instructional grouping prac-

tices would become obvious.

From a program evaluation standpoint, the reader should

bear in mind that a high achieving school or program is not

necessarily an effective one, and vice-versa. Through the

process of differential selection, purposeful or other-

wise, a school can become populated by students performing

relatively well, primarily because of nonschool factors such

as family and socio-economic variables. This possibility

necessitates the previously discussed development of effec-

tiveness indices where such variables can be accounted.





69


When schools are rated with such an index this study should

be replicated in schools with high and low rankings.

For simplicity -and usefulness, it is recommended that

separate Curriculum and Instructional Profile sheets be

prepared for each subject area. Expected profiles for
music would be different from those expected for science.

The desirability of keeping the number of elements to less

than eighty for programming purposes, coupled with potential

use of this technique by subject specialists, reinforces
this recommendation.





APPENDIX A
































~F: ~'~""





=~





"5,0































QNr~r~--)OCOeCO~DOOOQO--L---r--rr-~~~~~-
L Q ~ N r*I r~ N N N NN N N N N N rr rr NN N N ~ r N -'NN N ~ NN N N N ~ ~ -N N N N N ~ ~- N r~ -
r--rrrn~n~~n~OPQOOOONNNNQO~O~OOCOODO--~~
---~r~~0000QQOOOOODI--~ODOr~Q-r----~--r-
6Cocci~~~~cea~o44~4~o~ourrpmoCcOccCPCc90



o~~~~SX5 50"0="-39Y~~~" ~N~~"N~N"N"XE~ N~OOr;~~ P1~~~~~~~====:OQ~g ~.~
XOODOOO~OOODOODOO~QOOOOOOOOOOOOOOeOOOOOO
oooopoooo~ooo~oo j79ljjP1Dl~~~lo~o,300003
ooob~oaooo~ooooooDseoeoooooooooooooooooo



































































































































































































~


OCI
U- ---L --~--

lp
LDO
(DN
m- ---------- ------~-,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,-,


4a


~v, I-e c~- --~--------------- -----e,---L-~~-C-- --


~N
3 Q- L

DY)
YI ~-

D U~-
C 00
U ON ---L-
4 U-
LL
me L- ----cc-~~--~~--,-------
r
I, Ivl
sIrs
D mn ------- ,,,,,,-,,
w mN
c m- -c----------c-c-------C--C-L-L-CL,-----,
IE
C ~IL
LO ~Q --L(-lr---r(--------------------------
~yl
Q*I
QN
Y)
W
-9 OC1Cll**ll*01*CIC100r*I*r*CIOOI**ICIOI**
LCI
.-N


~2t


c
n


e -ro --e-,e ---, ---L~--
u -I1N -~- ~------ --~-~-- -~-----
i
an -~-r-~r--~~L~-----clcl-----^-----L~^----
_I
a -uN cr--rr----c~c~---r -----r------~
Z Im c~ L~cc-c----c~c~---e ------L-----------
c ~n,-~cc-or~o--~---~---~-~-~--~-~------~r

tt c~
u cr
P~U ---L--
Clr ~----------- r~~rcr- --c-rr------~
C -UR
V~ UL --------r-- --CC--L--C-CL --L--L---L~C C----~---~
Z ~~ r ~----- ---~-----

mc c-- c--c~rc,, ,,,-,
~N r---r-~~-~~r~--~-- ---~L~----~-~r~~-r- -
D Q r - --NNNN~N r - ~~ N N NN C~ r ~~UN(YN N N ~N N Nh r - ~ ~ I r - - L --
C ~ ~ ~ ~ CI ~ 3 O *I "I CIN P ~ ~ ~ r~ r ~ CCN N N U ~ L*N N N ~~ O OI N N hR ~ ~'I ii ~ C ~ ~ a ~
nnnrrPlln~n~nCDCOeO~~~nnn~~-eDSONNN~N~s~=
C ------CDOO-OL-rL L----------~L---L-- --~0^05----L-
-------NNNN-NNNNNNNNNNNNN--NNNN------LL
I C m re ~mm~ 4 a ~mu D pp p c~D m m mlele rr m u uce D co~ D c~o 4 ~ a ~ ~ m ~ oc c p c err.
o
vl



-~nOnQLODO-N00~aL000-N00~0hOLO-N~O~QCODO
nnnnnnnnnQQQOQQaQQQLL~~~~~~~~OOoDD~~o~~o
OOOOOOOOOO~DDODODDaODOOODDDDOOOJOOODOOOO
0005000531350000030000051350000150335001
OODOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOODOOOODODOOOOOOOOOOOO





Ur*
U-


~oo -- -e
mN
m- -LC-~-Lr(-C ~--C-~-C- r------

~rtO
D

QQ
9YI ------

3 ~O
9N
3

DUI
VI OL
L1:
D Y--
C OQ
U un-- --- ------ --L--
uc~

9~ -- --~c~
ro
~o In

P L~~
W mN-
C m-
D
sa
S, c--
4yl

(N
R ~---~~~--~-~ ~~~~~-~~-
W
CP ~ O ~ ~ r* r*CI O Clr*~OI*O 1* OOOr* r* CIO CI I*0 r* O CI I*I* I* O ~ 00 O O OP yl yl VI YI YI yl O O O ~~

r Ln
D r



le

c o
n


c I~o
u 19N ------ ------------- ----
ss rp- -~ --~~- ~
~CI -----~-~~~------I-~
J
~ c~yN --~-~~~r~-~~--~~~-~ r~~-~-~~~~r~-~-~~r ~--~-~---r-~-

C QO 9-"~--~r--~0999~~0~-OO~'-O~~---~----c--~

C CO ----
Y Cr* rr
eN
P --- ----
c -VN
V O- ----~- -------- --------- --CC-L-C--L----'- --
mn
mN --
r ----~--
QN C---~rrr-r--~--~~ --r-------c-------
0~ ~ - r - -N NN N r r-- - Cr- NN N -N N N -- L N --- L - I*- - - C 'N N ~ NN
04 NP~~OI~NNNr-r--r----9~~-~~~01--P-~---nd-
~~Oo~~-rr-nrn~~~n~~~O~r-NpsPprrrrN----c4~o
C O - - -O O O C OCIOO O O e oo c o o e -- s - -o o ~c,,-,, D J c ~ o o r -- LD
--C-~NNNNNNNNNNNNNN~NNN---~-NN-NNNNN-rNN
T 4 (E ~Z LP mu uuu~~~~ ~~ ~~ou a ~ ~pr: ~ m~moup ~oc ccac 4 ss c ~ ~o rr m ep
u
u,




-N~P~QCmDO-N~~nOLm~e-N~rnOLOO)~n~9~QLO~~
000000000~----~---"NNNNNNNNNN~0000~~n0~9
~~~--~--~~~~~--~----"-
00003~03300~030000DDPDOD3~33D3DD3D01~~D~
000000000DOODOD00~00O~OO~OObDODODOODeDOO

























































UO



DP
mo
PN
m~ c-~
-r


00


00
On


40 ~--




mo
0-

Oc-
UO
00




00
on
~os
mo
m~u
r-





~n L--~




rO 0000(
rO
~N


0


___



__
C
______ __

____ C_


C





-------- ---


______________L___L__


DOOCDDOCOODCPDOODOODPD


___ _C__ ____CL_ ____
______ ____C_ __ _____ ___
C___
___________________CCC___C______________


______________________C___L_
_______________________________C_____CL_
-r-~~~-~r~~~-~~~-~-~~--~~-~C~L~----OOr~L

-~LL L ----L
C-r(C L-C
-~C
-----C~-- C--

---r-----
---
C-LI
CC-
--~-~CL~~~-~-IL~----C--L-~-~~~--~-C-~L-~
N N~N ~ N NN N N N N ~NNN NNN N NNe N -- - -- N NN N N NN 1\1 Nn! N NN N n -N N-
N NN C1- -N ~i N Pr R ~'----~ ~ hNC( n NcO ~nO r* ~ p~ ~ ~ rr o r ~ r a p~ m m n a r r*.
- r N n mn o n n o Nnammrn n ~ -L n ~ n o oo p o r m n a -L --L op n m ~ -e
0000--000000c---r~0~--~O--~rc-D3L--OOOCa
NNN-NNNNNNNNNhNNNN------N---------~---C~
UUUUIOUUUU4UlOml~PUO~Ca4SDCCODQQ~C~OU000







-Nn~nOLOOD-Nn~nOLODOLN"~n0~0DO~NOPnOLIOD
nnnn~nnnnQOOQQQOQPOLL~~~~L~~L~P~mPOOOODO
~~-~~~~~-~~-~~~~~-~-~~~~-~~-------r--rr-
ODOOD0510DDOJOOODP~OODDO1ODOOOODOOO1)D1)
ODOOOOOOOOOOOOOQ100000000000000000000000



































0"






-----------~-----------~--






sa

'~~
t~




=SI

aopoo












-----------90 PIO~~---~~~00009--- --~PC~PO---O~CO-~~








%~ ;~~=~~~~~~=~~~~~~1~~~11~======~~14======
cnn~nnn~~ohnn~nncooN--,-nn~~~~nnNNo
L~r-~~r--~-00000----000000D00~r~~-0
-9h-~-~~~~-NNNNN~~--'---NNhNNNNNNN~NNNNN
PmmODLODCQIC(ODCOUVUUP444(Dlm00Q99~4QOC~



-NnPndLODO-N~~nQ~mDO-NOln~~ODO~Nn~naLOOO
D 00 O 000 O D ~- -~ --- - -NNNN NnN NNNn nno n n n nn n p r o Pp ~ ~ O 00 YI
~BS~~BFB~~B~~I~BSI~B%"""NN"""""""""""""
OD000000600PDjjOj6000jDODDjj
00PDDOOOOOOOOOOOOD0000000000000000000Q00





VCI
U- ---I ---C----~ --

OP
P~ ~---c- c-
ON --
----r--- -----c-

)~O -r
~01
P~ c-
PQ
Pn -- --~-- --ce
49
3 c~-
(N
5 ----c-

OYI
V) Or
IL
O Y-L -- ~C
c UQ re
u UN
V-

00 c-c- --
DIO ~c
m ~n
s~o c~
o ~n

,,,,,,,,,,

D ~O -------~~
n 4Q ----~-~ -~c-e
---
40

--,,,-,,,

~
,,
IL -N

e ~
P ---~~~~~--~cCC-

t ~n
c
n


-~n --
u -~N -cc ---- ~~~c---~~-~c~~e
~---
CI c-~-----~---C-~~C~- -rC----~-~-~----~-- r~c--
-I
~1UN -----~i~--~c~r-
Z -m----~~c~c~c,-c-,- -e--,----~~LI------ -~~r cc
C ~CI ----~~-~-~-C-r---- ~Q 9~~~~~~~----~~"--~~ ~~4~~~~~~~~-

C P1 ~-- --
Y
3 IN
D- r ---- ~~~~c-----r~- cr------rc-----r-
-0(* --- -----~r~re c
U~ --- rr r--
Z mel -- --
~N ---
(E- --- r-rr r----~-rrr-
4N ----r--r-,----~------~rr--------~-c-----
~~ NNNNNNNNNc--NNNNNNNNNNNIUnNNN-----Nc-rNN
PQ ~Nrr~~~NhNnnn~q~QIII~n~m~~~~n~nN~Onn~~~cl
~~000~~4~---NnNhOO~Cn~nnn~~nnnnOn~NNnc4~
O C O D - -O 00 00 O O OD O ~00 O D Oe oo o o- ~cco oo p po o o o o o J D o oo o
NNN---NNN-~-"---~ccNNNNNNN~N-NN~-N-~~-~C
I UUVCDmUOUVOUVUUUO~U4~4~(~QIIO~OYUQUUm~q~
U
U)



~ NCI~ IIQL ~O e-No~vl o~ Io oo ~Nn ~ ~n ocoao-Nn~n of loa I -N o~v~:o ~~ D o
n~~nnnnnnQOOOOQQQQOLL~~~cCCLL00op~D00000
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

D000003DOOOOO~XDOD00OJODDOOODDO~OOOOOODJ
OODDOOOOOOOOO ODOODOOOOOODODD00000OOOOODOOOOOeeOO





un
u-


mo
mN


~-O



410
4VI ----

44
4N



om
0-

U--
ug
UN
U

mm -~~c~
io
mu~
~oo
mo
mru
m-


_ __ ____ _C_ __ __C_ __C______


__ _
___ __


-O
rCI
r(N
r-
O

L
VI
P
Ct


~mn

-De
~CI

VN
m-
4n

cs
cc
ON

-un
uc
mo

m-
rru



c


___
__ __ _C___C_ _______ ___e
C_ ____ __
__C_________________________C__

_________C___C____C__________________CCC
_____C____________C_______________C__C__
---~-~~-~c~-~~---~--9--~~--~--CO~Cc~c-c-

---~ --c -CICCI -L--~
C -- CI-

__ ___ ~~CCC~~C-- ------~-~ ~ C---~
--
C---- ---C

C-
_____~~
___CC-----------~-~~-~~-CC---~-
NNNNN--NN~------r-N~~NNNNhNNNNcN~-NNNN~NNrrN~rNrN~-
~9~0P--N~N~O-0rr-Nh9~~OnL-cNN00-~~00--N49
~Nnhr--N~~N~NO~-~PNO~nnnn~--~N~00nP09~n0
OCOOOOOOO~OOOO~C-~~rD----cDOD000--~~-050
-----NNNNNN-N~NNNN~NN--NNNNN--NN~-INNN--
OUOVUUUUUmYOU~mOCmUm(mmmmDVUUU(QmmmmmUUU






-NaOn0~000-N~O~OL90D-NnOnOLm00-N00~0"903
OD0000000-~"~-~~-~'NNNNNNN~NNOnOn00~nnnP
~noonn~~~~~oon~nnnon~Onnon~~~nnn000ononn
070)ODa0030aO~~P0000OD00000000303DOD010~
00000DDDOODOOOOP00000000000DODOOODODe000











78























3"1


==





8"







'$~


=f
=r

""'~'~'~~~~-'------~----~-------------











~"'~~"""",,,~,,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

'I ~~~~~~~~'~'~"""~-~~--I---------------
~'~"~~~~""""'~r~~~-~-~-------------
-~~~c~c~c~~-por----c-rOa0-rr-~~-I-I-----


X"




~= ---c----c~l-I---------------------------
--n-~~~NNNNN~~r-~~I~-N--rrr-~~N~~~-r~~~-
n n r ~ n n o o nn r ct ~~ ~ t I C~ O P - -- a n o p ~ n NN r* N n ~ ct r* n r ~ n r, n m lu
~C9--~~nPnnOnnnnnn~0r~nnnnnnn-pnnoprrann
OO-~O~------O~D-~~r-0~0000010---LO-r--r-
~-N-NN~~----nN~r-~~-~~NNNNN--N----NN~NNr
UYmOUPmC~OOCIIPmlm~0UY~~COUPUDOmPUPmO~O~



-N~~nd~D09-N~~~Q~DDO~N~PnOCIDO-N~enQ~~OO
n~nnnnnnnaoooo~aaaoLL~~~~ccc~aa~ccc~~oca
~~O~oo~~~onnnono~~l~O ~~000~~0~0~0~~~~~~~1n0
oooooo~oJo~oooJsoooooooododdooooJoooJJoo
OOOOO~O~OOODOOOOOODD000~000000000~000000





UI*


IDP I
~n

Or ""





~tn LI
~P LI~~
(O
(N -
I-

on
ol

uc~r CLLILIC-
UO
YN r-


LDID

P~

~CI
ON
I~ I



=Qn

(N
tr -r-----r

000
-CI
-N


=L


S Lc--
n ~ILI


I~n
-P* -rr-
10- L~ -Lr



-LDr rr-----i
~O --~~--~~

CP r --II-~
O~ rr-
ON
I- -r -Ic
IYN Lri~rr
Y-
~CI
ON r -r-
Dr r-r-
~~* rr------
O~L -~---NNN
09 -9---NNW~
hlP00~nNNI
D Or000C001
r N-NNNNN(II
I VOUUVYUUI

~


I~ CIC


1

eLI 1CI


C~LILI~~~

LIICI ~

CIC


Y1

X


~



t

D


D





n

~

















~


__


I~ee~~~~CLL~~~LC








ce



r cr

rr


--~-~--~rirr~-~-
I-~----~r~cr~~~r


r
-r





C


--NN-NNNNcrirr-r

nn~rNrc~~---OO~~

rrrNNNNNNr---INN
DOIPUOUPIUOODOVO


rNnPnQL~OOCN~PnOLBODINO1
0000000 bi~iri~~rr-NNNN~
rrTllorrrroorr94gosX~~~
OO'goeXoooooiooooXgX~go~
ooo oo oooooDoooo





APPENDIX B












81



























un
uc




(D- ---~-r--c-~~rrr~- -~~-~----------LL -cr. -cc-c~~e r~~--




00 ~---- ----~~c
---- ,,,,
00
~N
I -c-c-r

Pn


occ c---c--------,
r oo
uh -,,~,,,,,,, ,,,,
u-

c-~--- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Po
on

~ 'go,

P,
V
~o ,,,,,,,,
Il 00 --c- Cc-Cc--LccccC cc
00
00
m ~h
~L LcC--L-ccccccL ----

~ ,0 N N h N N N NN N Nh N Nnn o non n n n nnn onn no n n n on n o o 0
c -n ,,,,,,,,,,
P -N



","





Ic~n
a --on ---~-L-cc-c-cr
"o ~"'
,, -~-----,,,,,,,,,,

-,, ~--c-c-----,-,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
coc ~NNNNNNnn~NNNN-c--LcccccLr~c-~-rr--~c-rr
On 0 00 ~~ 0 00 0 00 0 0 ~- --- ccrC cc L cc -rrc LL-- L-c
II:
V1 CP
0 PC r-~r---r-r---r----- --------r~--

Pc --L--C---LCC-L
U -YN
Y- r-rr--~--rrrr rrr-r-rr-r-----~-~~ -~r~rr---
~O
oh

Oh 00000000000000----r--LL-rcrrr-
~~ NNN~nnnNNNNNNN-----NNNLNNhNN------NNNNN-
01 NN1NNNNINNNNINO~nOn09I999NNN------~NNNln
nnnhh~n0000000C00000OCOOCC00000000SEaODa
0 QOOOOOOQOe0000r--~---~-~-~-----r--r-r~r-
---~-------L ~--cL----rNNNNNNNNNNNNN--r~~---rr-
= ~ ~Q~~ ~~(~(~ 00 ~e P cco o~ce Pa cco o~ocp PaD a Pce o 0 fcP P PPc c




-~01nOC900-NnPR~*000-NnO~QL100-Nnp~OC000
O O O 00 Q 00 O cc c cc c cc c N NN N NN N NN Non n O 00 n n nn 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 CI
0000000000Q000e0000000000000000000000000
OooooooooooooeoooeooOoocoooooooooooaoooa
000000000000000Q0000OOaOOOOaOOOOaOOOOOOO





82



















8=















b '3~


=~
















Pr



~=~~~~====~~~~~==== ====~=====~~==T:~Z: ,==Z:=~rr=~~~~~~~~
"e ~ ~:"o"o"o"o"-~~"r== =~ OP999r = = = == =O,'V NP=='- =" ~~ E:~ ~~ ~ Z ~ X ~ I ~ ~

c c p C C C~eC d PC CIO bODC P ~ C D C f C CC~ O oede cc~ cc o PCC C C C'O E C C C


-N~~~OL0~0-Nn~~OL000~Nn9n0~~00~~n~~CL000
nnnnnn~nn~644404060*LLLLCCLL10000000~90D
0000000000006000000000000000D0000~0~0~00
000000000~000000000000000Q00000000~~~0~8
0000000000000000000000~0000000000000~0





83


UCL
U"

mo
mo
PN



Ig


oVI






Cln


0--
UO
ON
0-

mo
mo
mvl

mo
mtu





4yl


o" -r







C


F


O


-LD~
ClmN
Im-


loiu

~CI


Cr
ON
CI-
C~Oh
0-
Pr
LDN

4N






I
Y
n


_____ I __r_



CIOOOCIC)OOOP


____ ________________________________
______

_C_______C____________________________r_

C__C___________C____CCL___CCC__CCCCr
--~C~~---~--C-L---C-~~~-L--rr-
~~--~--~-~--L~-----~~~~-~~~~-~----~-~C--



CC


--r-
-~rrCC-rC-
C--CI-~C---
~_---~C~-----l-~-~----CCC--~-C-LL---~

-C----C-----~-~~-~~-r
hnrrh-L-Nr~,,,~~~--NNNNnhNNNNNhhhhrr~-NhNN
99N~---N-00nn~~On0991NNhNNNN1P1000~0101P
rrnNhhnnNnh~n~O~~~~L---rr
L-~----c-~r-aOOtD~OOOCCOeCOOCOOCCeOEFOCC
--~NNNNNN~~~-----~--~NhNhNNN~----~~-----
CCDCCCfOCOOCOUUUOUUUOUUVOUUUUOOVUOOOOOUO






=p='"X~~oo~Nn,~~~coo-NOlnoLoo~y~~py~~~~p
000~00000~~~~---'~~NNNNNNNNNNnOn~nnnO~n~
"L-~----"-~~----"~-~~---~~~~----~"-~~~~-
0000~0000000000000000~00000~~00000000000
DOOOOOOOOD0000000000OOOOOOOO~OOOOODOODDD





84

































on
o- --e -------~,~,-,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,_,

ms
mn ,-- --,
mN --
P- -

2-0 ,,,-
40
PL
40
40 ~
40
40 1~--
4N ----I --~~-L-
4

CIY)


U'- -- -rt
VO
ON -~-- r
U-

ma ,-,,
Leg
ma
zms
mn
mN
m- --L CI- L(-

90 ~~----



40


-----,--
LI OClDa n0000 00
~*I
-0

) 0 C---r--~


0

-rc-- -- --
n -r~

~-------

ImN
-m-
40 ---~---~~----~-r-~r~---~~rl----~----

CUh -rr~----~-----r----~-----r~------r~-~~--
-Cr rrrr----------~l-r------r~r~~-----r-~--~
40 -~r---~~~r--~-~~r---~-~--r~r------

CI c-~r~~-r--rrr--rrr--r~-r-----rr----~

r----~-r------~~-r~ r
PN
0-
-c~n -,---,ccc--
C-
10
PN -~r-~--~-----~r-----~-----
Lr -~--_~~^--__--I-
~~-~-~----~~~------ - ---~~~-r-r~~~----~~ -I--
~ I rr -- -N IN N -- --- ---rr~- -01 ~ I\--n nN- -Nh nn N nN NNNn 00 ruNN ~N-r
PI Nn00~cqNO~~n~O~nNn~~NnNrNrrN--ryrnNNNN~NN
~--L-~~~-'~nNn~nrrnnnh~rr~nrrn~nnrncnonro~r
C COCCCCOCCOOOCOCOOCCOCOfCaaCCnnCCOOOOOOOC
~r--rr--NN-NN~~---NNNNN-~NN~NNN-NNNNNNRNN
I VUOVUUOOOUUVUCUUVVVUOUUOVOUUOOUUOYUYUUOU
U
Y




r~~~FaLr00-N~~n0~~00-NOI~~LeOE-NOO~OLCDO
YL am a n vln 0 n a a a oo a a a a sie Ic r r.~ ~ r.t.le r P 0 0 00 P P n mapo a a 0 00 a a 00
I----~~~----~~-----I~----~------c~-~--~-
00000000000000000000DOOOOOOOJOOD000aaOQO
OOOOOOOODOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOOOaOOO





85






























,o
,e c~c~~c~c.


~n -L--~ ,,
IDN
I- ~~~~--~-~-----------C~-~-~ ~--~ ------~~-~r
r
2-0

~C1

~n ----------~~~~~~~-~,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,





r
u
uo
o~u
u-

mc --- LL C-CL--~ L~
mo
ovl
ur ,o~
P m0
O ~N
C m
u
ao --- ,,,,e
re ----~~-------,-LC-L~

PCI ~~

--
C:
CO~D nnnonnooo~ooo~oo~nno~gnonn~~~
c -o
~ -N

L--
O
CI
Y,

" =I ==' "'~


I. r~n
o -mru -c---
c Im- ----~~-~--~-~~~
D ~o -L--------,----,-,-~,CICIL---~----

'"' """'r"-'cc"'~--~c-

,o -- ---LLC--
C
V CP-----r--rr--r-
YI C"
P ON
O~ -~~~--~--r---r-c----L--~r----cr-~--r--L~
C' 1UN -rrrr~r
V- -r---r-rrr------~--r-rrr~~--
~CI
DN
~--~-~--~rr~-~r~-~~ rr~~rrrrr-------~-- ~---------r--
~h -rr--~r~-~~r~-L~r-rC~r-~~-~~-~~~~--r~r--
P~ -----Nn~nNNNNNNnNNNNNNNN~~-r~~~-NNhN~-~~
C ~ L r - PP P ~ O ~ P ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~ ~ ~ P n o n n p ~ ~p ~ pru ~ L ~r rr N n p p p p r ~ ~ ~ ~n 9
"OOnnnh~hnnnnn~nhn~NN~n9~9vnRp~onnnrnrar
E COOOOOCOOQOOCe000DOQO---r-rr~r--
nnhNN~-~~--~-~~------rr--r---r-NNNNNNnN-
I U U U UU OUO UO O U U 00 000 UU UD O ~ ~ e cs~p ~ Ir~ o ~~r~ ~ c ~~ ~ r r ~ p r pc IE
u
n



N *1~ Y-1'C ~ ~ O O ~ N n ~ VI O L.~ O O N n ~ VI O ~~ O O IN CI p L~O CI IC D O - N CI P r ~ C ~O O
QOQOQOODO----------NNNNNNNNNN0~0nnnnnn00
NNNNNNNNNnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~NNNNNNNNNNNN
0~000~0~0QD000000000OaOOOOOOOaOOOOOOOOOO
0~0000~00000000000000000QODQOPOOOOOQOODO





86




























un
o- -- ---r--r ~-~-----~~~~--~---- --

o~
ro -r
ON ---~- -- "-"
o~ c,,,, r-





QYI -- -------- --~ --- rc--- --- --


-----

os
o-

u--
UP
UN


om L----~-
~a - c~-- -e
on
ur ~Io~

~~ "'e



4a -L
tn
r ~n c-
m 4N
L---~-L-r.- -----~-- -~r~--r--~~cL~--r
O
Y ~~ I*90DOOOOPOOOP~P
C -n --~--~~~L~r

~ ~"- '"~
ul~a
c
r.
n
u, P
Y n
-I

I, rmn
o -mN --L--------~-r(~~r -~r(-r(----- "-"""-""

,o ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,CLL
C-
L C~U~ --
~"' -~-~---"~'~""~'~"""
~n ,,,,,cc-,,rrLr--- ,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,~-rrr-r---
O
U) P4
U: CC
Q CN
-I
U IC~~

(CO
OCh
Ir rc-~---------~----~Lrc-----~-C~
~h ~-rL-L~-r-r---~r-~--~-L"-----~"---cc-r--
I~-N NNN NNNNN NNIN-NnNN-~NI\IN N~---NCC--C----N(YN ~NN rNNNN
OI ~~O~~-~LrL-rOPO~nONN~nnnnNNNn~NNPNNNNNOO
~.~~Fnrnn~n~cn~n~~R~Onnnnn~nnnnnnnnrnonn
c -- "
NIN--NNN-~-hnN
---L-NNNNNNnN~~-~-~NN-----NNN--NN~NN
I O ID aE P P ~ IDPC ID I~P ~ lDlDlD 1 m Io p~oco momco~pomPo~o~~~eEoopor"'p~

~



LNnr~o~cDo-nnr~accoe-ao~noLcoo-Nop~o~oDO-Nnpno~ooo
nnnnnnn~no000000QOO~LC~LCCCCC0000IOOOIIOOODOOOOOPO
NNIINNNNNNnNn~NnNNNnNNhNNNNNNNNNnNNNINNN
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000





87





























on
u- ---cc-cce ~-I--,,- cc ,,,


Dn ----e
ON ---- c
0]- ~-~-~ r cc ~- -- ---------

,-e


00
On ---- ----~------I------ ----~---
04
qn
4N
-"-c---"- -Icc

on
cl-

or-
ua
~,,~ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
o-

ioca r ----e -- -
I 00

YI ~~P
Tr IDO
a IDN cc
C P- cc crc- --- ----cc-r
U
40 --
IL '00
40
4*1 --
P 4N


Y -9 n oonnnonnnoonnnnnn
c -o ------c--

"P -N
VIZD

Cc
II)
0 c-ccc--rcc ~
W n -~clll~-~--~~-- --,,,-,,, cc-
c-c-

IL rDln
a rPN --------c--r-c~--~ ~----~-~~------ ---------~------

On ,,-----,---,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,

I-o N- -----C-~--r----r~ --rr~~-----~-r~e c-r-~r~--~---r
a ~Dl~----~~~~-r---- ccc-r-rr--rC-c-~~- --r~---~r-----r~-

~o ----lc.-r.---r.-L- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, p,
VI CP
On
4 ON
O- rrr c-----r---~~~-~-~l- --~~------~~-~-- ------~~~-re
o rUN
o- r-rr----------rrc-- --r~~~---c~~~~rr-r- rr-r~~-r
DO

~~ r -r-~~rr~r~-------- ---------------c--r crr---^-
4N ~r~~---~~-~---l- I------------------ -----------
04 -NNNNNNNN~~-~-N~~--~-------NNNNN---h~NN-
P( 9 O co OOOn 9 9 99 0 CI 0 0 Nh NN h 0 4 4 0 0 O- ~ - N 0 00 n O OhNN Nh N- ~ r -
Ollnonnnnnonnn9nn999OnnoPnorr~qrPo~~rnnr
a r --- --- -r-- r--~~c~ c - -r ~ ~- ~-e 0000 o 0000 a a ao a o a a
- L N Nc ~ -~- --- c cc rNN NN N c - r -N N N N N c-cN N Nc- - c -N N N h h
~P000m~~mPOOC00mOIIDlmDlm~ma10011~4~~~44

~



-Nn~n~~~DarN09nQLOPO~Nn~nOC9PO~Nn~nOL000
0000000~~-c-r-r-L~~NNNNNNNNNN~~0~0nnn0~0
O~OOOO~OOOO~OOnOnOOOOnn~noonnnnnnn~onnnn
~000000000000000000UOa003000000000000000
000000000000000000POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOa





OCI




mo
PN
a-






~vl

4n
rn --
-

on
o-

u--
uo
uN ---
u-

---
mo
my,
v: ,m~
mn
o ~N
C
Y

L 40
~yl
~CI c~-
P 4N
4~ -_-~ --
D
W -~ nonnnnnODO
c -n ---,-
O -N
O
V)~O
e

t
v~
w o


ODDD


______________I_______C______C_______CL_

----CC---~~----~~r-----CCL-~~-~r--------

L--_--CLCC~-----~r~--~-----e-C-
--LL-~C~~~~---L-~C~r---------~~--C~~~-L-
~~9--PPPIIIPIPPPPPla~O--~~4~CCCIII~~~-~~




-r~r-r--~------r-c------Lr~~-r---r~----r

rr------rrr~---r--rrr~~----r-


-r~---------rrr----r---rr---r~-r----r---
----r---r-----c---rr----r----------~
L-rh~NNNN-~NN~NNNNN------~rr~r~hN~NNrrNrr~
--rp~n--nNcll~OnnnO------rr--nnrnonnn~o
Yrb~Od~~O-9-~~Pn~nP~~~rrrrTCOII-~~~~C~Y~
COee00COOCOOOOC00000000Ca00DO-00COOCOJn0
hNrr-rrN-rN-~--NNNNNNNN~NNNNNNN~NNNNNNNNNN
~44~~~4~~(~441444~4~Q((Q11441~4444~4444~






'N~-nCLODO~NllnOLODD-NOln0~000LNn~n0~000
nn~nnnnR~OQOQQQ00~0cccLLcL~~~PoooooPo~~o
noonn~onn~nO~OOnonnnnn~00~n~~on000nnnnn0
0000000~00000Q00000000000QOOOOOOOOOOD000
Oe~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00000000000000000000





UCI
Uc ~------

1~0
mo --~ccic-
mnr
LC-

~-D
(0
Qle

~n ---

40




OY,
O- -r---~



UO -
UN
U-



mo
ov,
~mo
mn
mN
ie




rn -~ccc~c~

4N



rp
-CI



O
O

F
O
CI



-mcl
~fN -c-----
-m-
~n -----



-m- -
4 CI ~ 999 P P 9(

Cs~
Cn
Oh

1UI*
Ur
LC"

D-
en --cc~c~~
c~~~~L-C
Ct (YI*NNNNO
~~~~P~rl
P DOCCCOE(

I Q((~QQI
Y
V1


_________CCCC

VIYIYIYI~YI


____CC___C___

CCCC_________



rr-r~--rrr~ObbDPD
00119~PtlOPPIP001





"rcCr-





---




~rr~~Fr~nn~019999
~000aeP00eOe00005
NNNNN~NN~N-NNNNNN
~~~~~4~~~(~~(a~9a


N"~nrCD00-NnPROIm00-Nn9
e00000000~-~---r-r-NNNNN
01000010011901010*010109
00000000000000000000OOeO
00000000000~00000000OeOO




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs