An investigation of the factors which influence teachers to try mastery learning in their classrooms
by Robert Gene Osland
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education
Montana State University
© Copyright by Robert Gene Osland (1985)
Abstract:
The problem of this study was to determine which factors were most important in influencing teachers
to try Mastery Learning. In this study the change process was examined in relation to the
implementation of Mastery Learning and how that process was affected by the following six factors:
the instructional leadership by the principal; the school climate; the support from the central office
administration and the Board of Education; the supervision of the instructional process; the appropriate
in-service education relative to the planned change and the potential for student success.
The study was conducted during the 1984-1985 school year. The population consisted of the regular
classroom teachers in three school districts which initiated the attempt to implement Mastery Learning
during the 1984-1985 school year.
To collect the data a simulation instrument was utilized. The instrument consisted of a series of
simulations or profiles each of which represented a possible change environment. The information cues
within each profile were the six factors which were determined to be important in a change process in
education. The statistical method used was Judgment Analysis (JAN) which yielded policies, multiple
regression equations, for each rater and for clusters of similar raters. The multiple regression weights
represented the policies.
In every group analyzed there were two types of policies. In one policy type the teachers expressed an
equal importance for all of the change factors. In the second policy type the teachers gave a high
priority to the potential for student success and a priority to the appropriate in-service education. The
first policy type indicated that all of the change factors were important to a substantial group of
teachers. For this reason in a curricular change process care should be excercised to meet all six of the
factors. The second policy type showed that early feedback showing student success should be built
into the curricular change process and that the teachers should receive appropriate in-service education
before the change is implemented in the classroom. 
AW INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE
TEACHERS TO TRY MASTERY LEARNING 
IN THEIR CLASSROOMS
by
Robert Gene Osland
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree
of-
Doctor of Education
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY 
Bozeman, Montana
June 1985
APPROVAL
of a thesis submitted by-
Robert Gene Osland
This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis 
committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding 
content, English usage, format citations, bibliographic style, 
and consistency, and is ready for submission to the College of 
Graduate Studies.
6/7/fr- __ ________
Date / ' Chairperson, Graduate Committee
Approved for the Major Department
^  /7 hr__________
Date /  ' Head, Major Department
Approved for the College of Graduate Studies
Date Graduate Dean
iii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for a doctoral degree at Montana State University, 
I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers 
under rules of the Library. I further agree that copying of 
this thesis is allowable only for scholarly purposes, 
consistent with "fair use" as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright 
Law. Requests for extensive copying or rproduction of this 
thesis should be referred to University Microfilms 
Internatioinal, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 
48106, to whom I have granted "the exclusive right to 
reproduce and distribute copies of the dissertation in and 
from microfilm and the right to reproduce and distribute by 
abstract in any format."
Iff %_)
iv
ACKNOLWLEDGMENTS
I express gratitude and thanks to my wife, Karen, for her 
constant support and resourcefulness in this endeavor. I would 
also like to express a very special thanks to little Heather 
and Jeffrey who in their innocence provided encouragement. A 
very special thanks to my mother whose last hour phone call 
provided the impetus for this endeavor. I thank Dr. Don Robson 
for his assistance, guidance and timeliness throughout this 
process. I thank Dr. Leroy Casagranda for the many hours we 
spent together, for the academic opportunities he provided and 
for the thoughts and insights he shared. I express thanks to 
Dr. John Picton for his generous guidance and open door. I 
thank Dr. Al Suvak for his expert, generous and constant 
assistance throught the analysis phase. I express thanks to 
Dr. John Kohl, Dr. Bob Thibeault, and Dr. Eric Strohmeyer, 
members of my graduate committee, for their guidance and 
assistance throughout this process.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................ .............. iv
LIST OF T A B L E S ...................................... . . vii
LIST OF FIGURES.............................................
ABSTRACT............................'..................  x
■ CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................  I
Problem Statement ..........................  3
Need for the S t u d y .................... ■ . . 4
General Questions to be Answered .........  6
General Procedures ..........    7
Limititations and Delimitations ............  8
Definition of Terms ........................ 8
Summary...................................... 10
2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.......... .. . . . 12
Introduction ..............................  12
Mastery Learning ..........................  12
Change Theory ..............................  18
Summary . . . .......................... .. . 35
3 PROCEDURES .......................................38
Introduction .................... '........ 38
Population Description ................... 38
The Categories.............................. 40
Method of Analysis.......................... 41
Method of Collecting D a t a .................... 46
Method of Organizing D a t a .................... 49
Statistical Questions ......................  49
Statistical Hypotheses ................... 50
Analysis of D a t a .......................... 51
Precautions for Accuracy................ . 51
Summary...................................... 52
4 • ANALYSIS OF D A T A .............................   54
Introduction . . . . .  ..................  54
Populations and Samples.................. ' . 54
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
CHAPTER PAGE
Statistical Questions . . . . .  ............  55
Statistical Hypotheses........................ 70
Summary .............. . . . . .  ..........  73
5 CONCLUSIOINS ..................................  76
Introduction............................. 76
Conclusions............................... 76
Proposed Change Model ......................  78
Recommendations for Action . . '............... 81
Recommendations for Further Research . . . .  83
REFERENCES CITED  ................................85
APPEND IC I E S ................................................ 93
APPENDIX A ...................................... 94
APPENDIX B ..................................... 120
APPENDIX C ..................................... 134
vi
vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I Profile Variables . . . ......................... 46
2. Intercorrelations of the Variables . . .  ........ 47
3. Mean and Standard Deviation of Numerical Scale . . 
Values' for the Profile Variables
48
4. Range and Standard Deviation of Mean Crierion Ratings 56
5. Stages for Judgment Analysis Procedure ..........
School Districts Number I, 2 6 3
. 58
6 . Policies (Beta Weights) at Significant Drop Stage 
School Districts Number 1 , 2 6 3
. 60
7. Stages for Judgment Analysis Procedure ..........
School District Number I
. 62
8 . Stages for Judgment Analysis Procedure'..........
School District Number 2
. 63
9. Stages for Judgment Analysis Procedure . . . . . .
School District Number 3
10. Policies (Beta Weights) at Significant Drop Stage 
School District Number I
. 66
11. Policies (Beta Weights) at Significant Drop Stage 
School District Number 2
. 67
12. Policies (Beta Weights) at Significant Drop Stage 
School District Number 3
. 69
13. Likelihood of Trying Mastery Learning and Years 
of Teaching Experience
. 71
14. Likelihood of Trying Mastery Learning and Level 
of Degree Earned
. 72
15. Likelihood of Trying Mastery Learning and Teaching 
Level Assignment
. 73
16. Profile Ratings: Mean and Standard Deviation of .
each Rater, School Districts Number 1 , 2 6 3
. 95
17. Correlations Between the Profile Ratings and the . 
Change Factors for Teachers in School Districts' 
Number 1 , 2 6 3
. 97
18. Stages of the JAN Analysis Procedure . ...........
School Districts Number 1, 2 6 3
. 99
19. Policies for each Rater in Policy I ............
School Districts Number I, 2 & 3
.101
2 0. Policies for each Rater in Policy 2 ............
School Districts Number 1 , 2 6 3
.102
21. Profile Ratings: Mean and Standard Deviation of .
each Rater, School District Number I
.104
2 2. Correlations Between the Profile Ratings and the . 
Change Factors for Teachers in School District 
Number I
.105
viii
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE PAGE
23. Stages of the JAN Analysis Procedure................ 106
School District Number I
24. Policies for each Rater in Policy I ................ 107
School District Number I
25 • Policies for each Rater in Policy 2 ................ 10S
School District Number I
26. Policies for each Rater in Policy 3 ................ 108
School District Number I
27. Profile Ratings: Mean and Standard Deviation of . . .109
each Rater in School District Number 2
28. Correlations Between the Profile Ratings and the . . .109 
Change Factors for Teachers in School District
Number. 2
29. Stages of the JAN Analysis Procedure ........  . . . .110
School District Number 2
30. Policies for each Rater in Policy I ........  . . . . 1 1 0
School District Number 2
31. Policies for each Rater in Policy 2 ................Ill
School District Number 2
32. Policies for each Rater in Policy 3 ................Ill
School District Number 2
33 • Policies for each Rater in Policy 4 ................111
■ School District Number 2
3 4. Profile Ratings: Mean and Standard Deviation of . . .112
each Rater in School District Number 3
35. ' Correlations Between the Profile Ratings and the . . .114
Change Factors for Teachers in School District
Number 3
3 6. Stages of the JAN Analysis Procedure................ 116
School District Number 3
37. Policies for each Rater in Policy I ................117
School District Number 3
38. Policies for each Rater in Policy 2 . ............... 118
School District Number 3
39. Policies for each Rater in Policy 3 ................11 9
School.District Number 3
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
I. Integration of Change Theories . . ; ................ 36
XABSTRACT
The problem of this study was to determine which factors 
were most important in influencing teachers to try Mastery 
Learning. In this study the change process was examined in 
relation to the implementation of Mastery Learning and how that 
process was affected by the following six factors: the
instructional leadership by the principal; the school climate; 
the support from the central office administration and the 
Board of Education; the supervision of the instructional 
process; the appropriate in-service education relative to the 
planned change and the potential for student success.
The study was conducted during the 1984-1985 school year. 
The population consisted of the regular classroom teachers in 
three school districts which initiated the attempt to implement 
Mastery Learning during the 1984-1985 school year.
To collect the data a simulation instrument was utilized. 
The instrument consisted of a series of simulations or profiles 
each of which represented a possible change environment. The 
information cues within each profile were the six factors which 
were determined to be important in a change process in 
education. The statistical method used was Judgment Analysis 
(JAN) which yielded policies, multiple regression equations, 
for each rater and for clusters of similar raters. The 
multiple regression weights represented the policies.
In every group analyzed there were two types of policies. 
In one policy type the teachers expressed an equal importance 
for all of the change factors. In the second policy type the 
teachers gave a high priority to the potential for student 
success and a priority to the appropriate in-service education. 
The first policy type indicated that all of the change factors 
were important to a substantial group of teachers. For this 
reason in a curricular change process care should be excercised 
to meet all six of the factors. The second policy type showed 
that early feedback showing student success should be built 
into the curricular change process and that the teachers should 
receive appropriate in-service education before the change is 
implemented in the classroom.
IChapter I 
' INTRODUCTION
John B. Carroll (1963:27) set forth the basic premises
upon which a new curriculum model was established.
The amount of time actually needed by a person to 
learn a given task satisfactorily is a function not 
only of aptitude, but also of the quality of 
instruction insofar as it is less than optimal.
Carroll's contention was that with a given aptitude, if
sufficient time was spent by the student, under the appropriate
instruction, a given task could be learned satisfactorily. From
Carroll's original work many educators set forth curriculum
models based on this philosophy.
James Block (1971) used the name "Mastery" for a model
which structures curriculum in a manner supportive of what
Carroll advocated. Block explained that Mastery is structured
to maximize the likelihood that each student will reach the
performance levels essential for competence. The process
operates on the proposition that almost every student can learn.
the basic skills and knowledge that are the core of school
curriculum when the instruction is of good quality and
appropriate and when adequate time is spent in learning.
2Madeline Hunter (1983:3) stated,
Consequently, teaching is now defined as a constant 
stream of professional decisions made before, during 
and after interaction with the student; decisions 
which, when implemented, increase the probability of 
learning. . . . Even champions have coaches.
Mastery Learning had become a major curriculum innovation in
education. "Mastery Learning can work and the implications are
very exciting, but it isn't easy" (Knight, 1981:136).
Numerous reports had surfaced concerning the need for
change in education. A common thread in reports by The
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983), Boyer
(1983), Sizer (1984) and Goodlad (1984) was the need for
renewed efforts on the part of educators and supportive
community members to improve our schools. Indeed, a golden
opportunity did avail itself for educators to make substantial
changes for the improvement of our schools.
"The problem is how to change and how to manage change
successfully" (Block, 1974:120). This problem must be
addressed by everyone in education. According to Drucker
(1967:5), "every knowledge worker in modern organizations . . .
is responsible for a contribution that materially affects the
capacity of the organization to perform and to obtain results."
Educators, teachers and administrators, with valid experiences
of their own, need to provide more background information
concerning Mastery Learning. "Otherwise a promising new
direction will become another educational fad" (Knight,
1981:136).
3We are slowly moving toward a new conception of a 
professional discipline concerned primarily .with the 
process of changei It rdsts on the assumption that 
■ social progress can be planned and engineered so that 
it is more reliable and- more beneficial to more 
people. This new concept of "planned innovation" 
stresses the importance of realistic diagnosis of 
needs, adequate resource retrieval, collaborative 
planning and solution building and systematic design 
and evaluation of alternative solutions. (Havelock and 
Havelock, 1973:1,2)
An exciting curriculum model, that worked, had been 
articulated. Educators were provided with a proven approach in 
their repertoire to assist in the quest for educational 
excellence. "The greatest wisdom not applied to action and 
behavior is meaningless data" (Drucker, 1967:5)•
Problem Statement
One area of education which had received a great deal of 
attention was curriculum. Reports dealing with the need for 
school curricula to meet the demands of society and aid 
students in reaching their fullest potential were common. "The 
push toward educational excellence is irreversible, and the 
movement seems likely to benefit the public schools" (Odden,
198/+:318 ). Goodlad (1975:16) stated that there are two widely 
accepted statements of goals for education; "the full 
development of the individual and identification with an 
ever-widening concept of social and cultural responsibility." 
"Education . . . provides new insight and skill, introduces 
new possibilities, and excites new appetites for something 
better than what now exists" (Blake and Mouton, 1964:316). One
4curriculum model which addressed the full development of the 
individual was Mastery Learning. Mastery Learning was viewed in 
this study as an educational change. Change is the process by 
which innovations are implemented.
Therefore, the problem of this study was to determine 
which factors were most important in influencing teachers to 
try Mastery Learning. This study investigated the factors which 
influence teachers to try Mastery Learning. More 
specifically, this study examined the change process relating 
to the implementation of Mastery Learning and how that process 
was. affected, by the following six school factors: the
instructional leadership by the principal, the school climate, 
the support from the central office administration and the 
Board of Education, the supervision, of the instructional 
process, appropriate in-service education relative to the 
planned change, and the potential for student success.
Ancillary information was obtained with three demographic 
factors. The three demographic factors were: years of
teaching experience, level of education degree earned by the 
teacher, and grade level teaching assignment.
Need For The Study
Mastery learning had proven itself an effective curriculum 
model. Bloom (1976:210) indicated that, "one implication of 
this theory is that talent can be developed . . ■ In 
referring to a Mastery Learning implementation project, Rubin
5and Spady (1984:44) wrote, "because the vast majority of 
students learn so well under this system, their success 
reinforces the teachers' sense of success and efficacy." In 
reporting research concerning innovative applications of 
Mastery Learning Bloom (1984:6) concluded, "it would change 
popular notions about human potential and would have 
significant effects on what the schools can and should do with 
the educational years . . . "  Numerous studies pointed to the 
effectiveness of the model and each study contributed more data 
to the information pool which is utilized by interested 
educators.
Even with the impressive record which Mastery Learning 
maintained, the paradigm could be practiced by more educators. 
Owens (1970:141) contended, "it is a commonplace observation 
that actual change in schools— significant, meaningful, 
effective change— is even now proceeding in desultory 
fashion. . . ."
Ne need to know . . . why a particular innovation 
spreads rapidly or slowly, what the causes of 
resistance to change are in educational systems, and 
why particular strategies of change chosen by 
innovators succeed or fail. . . . Given an increase 
in understanding it seems likely that we may be able 
to manage educational innovation somewhat more 
skillfully than we have in the past. (Miles,I 964:2)
No study had been conducted in this geographic area
concerning the change process relative to the implementation of
Mastery Learning. This study attempted to contribute to the
data base concerning the implementation of the Mastery Learning
curriculum model by determining which factors were most
6important in teacher's decisions to try Mastery Learning. It 
was the researcher's expectancy that information from this 
study would be significant in providing assistance to area 
educators in changing school systems and providing a higher 
quality educational outcome.
General Questions to be Answered
This research study and its subsequent statistical 
analysis was designed to answer seven questions. The seven 
questions were:
1. Was there more than one order of importance of the six 
educational change factors.(instructional leadership by the 
principal, the school climate, the support from the central 
office and the Board of Education, the supervision of 
instruction process, appropriate in-service education relative 
to the planned change, and the potential for student success) 
present in the population?
2. What importance did the teachers give each of the 
six educational change factors in trying Mastery Learning?
3. Was there more than one order of importance of the six 
change factors present in each of the three public schools?
4- What importance did the teachers in each of the three 
public school districts give each of the six educational change 
factors?
5. Was a teacher's likelihood of trying Mastery Learning 
independent of years of teaching experience?
76 . Was a teacher's likelihood of trying Mastery Learning 
independent of level of education degree earned?
7. Was a teacher's likelihood of trying Mastery Learning 
independent of teaching level assignment?
General Procedures
The procedures followed in this study were as follows.
1. The study was conducted in three school districts, two 
of which were located in Montana and one of which was located 
in Wyoming. The researcher traveled to each of the school 
districts to obtain permission from the superintendents to meet 
with the teachers and request their participation in the 
study.
2. A simulation instrument utilizing quantitative 
profiles to express change environments was developed. Sample 
profiles are included in Appendix B.
3. To the extent possible, data was obtained from all 
regular classroom teachers in the selected schools. .
4. The researcher was present at the local school 
district to administer the data collection instrument.
5• Hypotheses related to the questions were formulated.
6 . The data obtained was statistically analyzed using ' 
the judgment apalysis (JAN) technique and conclusions and 
recommendations were drawn.
7. An ERIC Search was conducted with the following
8descriptors: JAN; Judgment Analysis; Change; Develop; Improve;
Innovate; Planning; Mastery; and Competency.
Limitations and.Delimitations
The following were the limitations of the study.
1. The only curricular change that was considered was the 
implementation of Mastery Learning.
2. The only schools considered were in school districts 
in which the initial in-service education relative to Mastery 
Learning occurred during the 1984.-1985 school year.
3. The only phase of the change process this 
study examined was the decision to try the innovation.
4. Library searches were restricted to those available 
at Montana State University and inter-library loan.
The following were the delimitations of the study.
1. The study was conducted during the 1984-1985 school
year.
2. Only regular classroom teachers participated in 
completing the research instrument.
Definition of Terms
Mastery Learning— A teaching/learning strategy in which 
material is divided into small learning units and formative 
tasks utilized to assess and diagnose student progress. The 
formative tasks are used not only to identify competent 
learners but also to diagnose the individual learning
difficulties (feedback) and to prescribe specific remediation 
procedures (correctives) (Guskey, 1985).
. Adoption— "A decision to continue full use of an 
innovation" (Rogers, 1962:17). The adoption process is the 
mental process through which an individual passes from first 
hearing about an innovation to final adoption. For this study, 
full use refers to applying Mastery Learning in one class or 
subject.
Rejection— "A decision not to adopt an innovation"
(Rogers, 1983:172).
Change— "The process by which alteration occurs in the 
structure and function of a social system" (Rogers and 
Shoemaker, 1971:7). Alteration in this study, refers to the 
effects of teachers applying Mastery Learning in their 
classrooms where such a system was not previously in use.
In-service Education— "All activities carried out by the 
district or school to promote staff growth and renewal"
(Rogus, 1983:9).
Instructional Leadership by the Principal— "The activity 
of influencing people to strive willingly for group goals" 
(American Association of School Administrators, 1983:19).
School Climate— "The perceived subjective effects of . . . 
environmental factors on the attitudes, beliefs, values, and 
motivation of people in a particular organization"
(Sergiovanni, 1983:56).
9
10
Student Success— "Levels of learning in all students that 
satisfy the public's expectations for minimum standards while 
providing maximum challenges" (Rubin and Spady, 1984:37).
Supervision Process— A rational modification of teaching 
performances based on, "systematic cycles of planning, 
observation, intensive intellectual analysis of actual teaching 
performances . . ." (Acheson and Gall, 1980:11).
Support from the Central Office Administration and the 
Board of Education— The enormous influence superintendents and 
boards exert on principals through their policies, priorities, 
resources allocated for these priorities and communications to
,V •
effect these wants (American Association of School 
Administrators, 1983:56).
Summary
The'United States public education system was under a 
barrage of criticism. One area receiving much attention was 
curriculum. Movements were numerous which purported to have a 
good solution for revitalizing curricula. One movement which 
was solidly based in theory and supportive field research was 
Mastery Learning. Mastery Learning was a curriculum model which 
dealt primarily with identifying student problems early, 
providing appropriate instruction to correct the problems and 
then determining the student's competencies which become the 
necessary entry level skills for future areas of study.
11
Change in education proceeds in desultory fashion even 
with our contemporary research based approaches and insights. 
One example of change taking place in school districts is the 
implementation of Mastery Learning.
In this study an attempt was made to determine which 
factors in the change process promoted the trying of Mastery 
Learning. Three school districts were studied to determine what 
affect six factors had on the decision by individual teachers 
to pursue Mastery Learning. The six factors of interest were: 
instructional leadership by the building principal; school 
climate; support from the central office administration and the 
Board of Education; supervision of instruction; appropriate 
in-service education relative to the planned change; and 
potential for student success. Three demographic factors were 
ancillary to the study. The three demographic factors were: 
years of teaching experience; level of education degree earned; 
and grade level teaching assignment.
The study was conducted during the 1984-1985 school year. 
Data was gathered by the researcher utilizing a simulation 
instrument designed to elicit decisions by respondents relative 
to educational change. The simulation instrument was 
administered by the researcher at the school site of the 
participating teachers.
12
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
I
Introduction
For the purpose of this study, the literature was reviewed 
with regard to two major topics: Mastery Learning and Change
Theory. Mastery Learning was reviewed with regard to its 
historical development, contemporary definition and usefulness 
and effectiveness in contemporary education. Change Theory was 
reviewed from a historical perspective, including the 
contemporary methodology of the science, its application in 
educational change and more specifically in its utilization for 
administrative involvement in .curriculum change in education.
Mastery Learning
The essential new fact is that a developed society 
and economy are less than fully effective if anyone 
is educated to less than the limit of his potential.
The uneducated is fast becoming an economic liability 
• and unproductive. Society must be an "educated 
society" today— to progress, to grow, even to 
survive. (Drucker, 1957:114)
Block (1979), one of the most widely recognized proponents 
of Mastery Learning expressed a similar thought. Block 
(1977:117) stated, "one of the striking societal features of 
Mastery Learning is the degree to which it presses for a
13
society based on the excellence of all participants . . ." The 
theory and basic ideas underlying the mastery structure are not 
contemporary. According to Torshen (1977) the roots of Mastery 
Learning are hundreds of years old. Considerable attention had 
been given by J. Franklin Bobbit, from 1918-1941, Ralph Tyler 
in 1950 and Benjamin Bloom, John Carroll, Fred Keller, Robert 
Meager, and others beginning in the 1960’s. Mueller (1976:44) 
indicated that since its recent resurgence "literally scores of 
papers, articles, and monographs have reported that students 
have learned better under the mastery model than under 
alternative instructional models." A good definition was 
provided by Cohen (1981:36), "Mastery Learning is competency 
based and teaches to precisely defined objectives." Cohen 
further stated that all students must demonstrate mastery of 
the intended outcome before continuing to the next point in the 
curriculum. Students who do not master the steps in one 
curriculum are given additional instruction until they 
demonstrate mastery or competency. Under this schema it is 
possible for all students to earn an 1A*, but some students get 
it faster than others.
This coincides with the Carroll model (Carroll, 1963) in 
which the contemporary theory of Mastery Learning was clearly 
set forth. Carroll cited five elements which are basic to the 
concept of Mastery Learning. Three of those elements were 
considered to be within the individual and two elements were 
external. The three internal elements were aptitude— the time
Uneeded to learn the task under optimal instructional 
conditions, ability to understand instruction— appropriate 
instruction for the individual student and perseverance— the 
amount of time the learner is willing to engage actively in 
learning. The two external elements were opportunity— time 
allowed for learning, and quality of instruction— a measure of 
the degree to which instruction is presented so that it will 
not require additional time for mastery beyond that required in 
view of aptitude. Block (1974) summarized Carroll's model 
in the following manner:
As I interpreted it, the Carroll model made clear 
that if students are normally distributed with 
respect to aptitude for some subject and all students 
are given exactly the same instruction (the same in 
terms of amount and quality of instruction and 
learning time allowed), then achievement measured at 
the completion of the subject will be normally 
distributed. Under such conditions the correlation 
between aptitude measure at the beginning of the 
instruction and achievement measure at the end of the 
instruction will be relatively high (typically about 
+.70). Conversely, if students are normally 
distributed with respect to aptitude, but the kind 
and quality of. instruction and learning time allowed 
are made appropriate to the characteristics and needs 
of each learner, the majority of students will 
achieve mastery of the subject. And the correlation 
between aptitude measure at the beginning of 
instruction and achievement measured at the end of 
instruction should approach zero. (4>5)
"One implication of the theory is that equality of
learning outcomes can be a goal of education rather than
equality of opportunity" (Bloom, 1976:215)• Bloom suggested
that teachers must find ways of giving each child the help and
encouragement needed when needed it rather than ensuring
15
identical treatment of all children. Inequality of treatment
may be needed, at least at certain stages of the learning
process, if children are to attain equality of learning
outcomes. This concept was clarified by Bloom (1981):
The kind and quality of instruction and the amount of 
time available for learning are made appropriate to 
the characteristics and needs of each student, the 
majority of students may be expected to achieve 
mastery of the subject. (156)
This concept was further clarified by Bloom (1979):
The most important is the feedback-corrective 
process. . . . When the feedback corrective process 
is used well, we begin to understand the enormous 
potential of all of our students. They have the 
prerequisites for each new learning task . . . (159)
Bloom explained that students use learning time more
effectively and that the amount of time required to learn each
new step becomes more similar for most students. Bloom
(1976) again stressed the importance of corrective
feedback.
The major thesis . . .  is that a system of feedback 
to the teacher and students can reveal errors in 
learning shortly after they occur, and if appropriate 
corrections are introduced as they are needed, the 
educational system can be a self-correcting system so 
that errors made at one time can be corrected before 
they are compounded with later errors. (212)
By using the feedback-corrective process the history of
the learner is used to advantage. "One assumption .... is that
the history of the learner is at the core of school learning"
(Bloom, 1976:13). This concept passed beyond an assumption
when research indicated:
16
The weight of this evidence suggests not only that 
there is a predictive relation between cognitive 
entry behaviors and subsequent achievement measures, 
but that cognitive entry behaviors are causal links 
in determining learning. (Bloom,I 976:68)
Bloom (1976:68) also stated, "there is a strong positive
correlation between the cognitive entry behaviors of a student
and his achievement in subsequent courses or learning tasks."
It is the contention of Mastery Learning advocates that
the corrective-feedback process detects learning deficiencies
before they are harmful to the student. By doing this the
student enters the next learning task with the necessary entry
level cognitive skills. Because the necessary skills are a part
of the student's history, mastery of the tasks, occurs in a
shorter period of time. According to Hyman and Cohen
(1979:10$), "Learning for Mastery is consistently more
effective than traditional curriculums." Hyman and Cohen
further clarified that if the required competencies are clearly
defined and the process properly monitored and such a technique
compared with the traditional fuzzy, the results have to to be
in favor of Learning for Mastery. . Hyman and Cohen (1979:109)
concluded, "Learning for Mastery appears to us to be the most
potent curriculum model.of our time."
Chandler (1982) found that of ninety-seven studies
comparing average achievement between mastery and nonmastery
groups fifty-nine favored mastery. Three favored non mastery
and no statistically significant results were found for the
remaining thirty-five studies. In another review he found that
17
forty-eight of sixty-one groups indicated statistically
significant average achievement results in favor of mastery
taught students. No study favored nonmastery. Chandler
(1932:10) concluded, "this means that if a student is at the
fiftieth percentile . . .  in the nonmastery group he could be
expected to move to the eightieth percentile using a mastery
approach." According to Bloom (1976:213)> "Mastery Learning
has already amply demonstrated that the large majority of
students in a class can learn selected subjects up to as high a
level as the most able students in the group." Bloom (1984:15)
reported, "after several years . . . the improvements in
students' higher mental process learning and achievement became
very pronounced." Bloom's (1984) research indicated that the
students develop a positive academic self-concept, an interest
in the subject and a desire to learn more in the subject field.
Rubin and Spady (1984) in discussing a successful
implementation of Mastery Learning reported:
Any model that differs this substantially from 
conventional practice is bound to be met with 
skepticism if not outright resistance by teachers and 
administrators, making its implementation highly 
problematic despite the obvious benefits to students 
from all ability levels. (43)
Goodlad (1975:16) stated, "it is often said about education, as 
about many other things, that nothing changes but the 
appearance of change." In discussing change in public schools 
Snyder and Johnson (1983:21) reported, "the emphasis for school 
improvement today is on student achievement, and on students'
18
needs and creating various mechanisms through which these needs
can be met." Bennis, Benne, Chin and Corey (1976) stated:
Agents of planned change must resist in themselves 
the despair and accept the deepened ethical 
responsibility . . . And they must invite their 
clients to open their values, personal, local, 
political, religious, to a test against this new 
universal criterion of good— human survival. (22)
In this society the school is a familiar and omnipresent
institution and as James and Tyack (1983:406) stated, "by
thinking about what consequences today's transformations in
society have for education, Americans can think concretely
about how to shape the future of their children."
Change Theory
In 1900, controversy over planned change was 
typically stated in sweeping ideological terms.
Should or should not men seek, through deliberate and 
collaborative forethought in the present, to mold the 
shape of their collective future? Or should 
confidence rather be placed in a principle of 
automatic adjustment, operating within the processes 
of history to reequilibrate, without human 
forethought yet in the interest of progress and human 
welfare, the inescapable human upsets and 
dislocations of a changing society? (Bennis, et al.,
1976:14)
Bennis, Benne and Chin (1961:2) suggested, "concerning 
methods of change, we can observe two idea-systems . . . that 
are directly counterposed: the law of nonintervention and the
law of radical intervention." According to Bennis, et al. 
(1976) the idea of social scientists participating in 
and actively influencing change in our society has been a 
controversy since the emergence of the idea in the late
19
nineteenth century. In general the 'planners' saw an important 
place for social science in informing various groups in the 
processes of planned change. Proponents of 'automatic 
adjustment' tended to relegate the social scientist to a role 
of observer and denied them leadership in influencing the 
direction of practical affairs or, in essence, arrested planned 
change.
Lester Ward (Gommager, 1950) was one of the early
proponents in the role of 'planners' for social change. He
proclaimed that modern men must extend scientific approaches in
the planning of changes in the patterns of their behaviors and
relationships. In the early twentieth century he was aware
that man was utilizing scientific intelligence to induce
changes in the nonhuman environment and he saw this extending
to the management of human affairs.
Man's destiny is in his own hands. Any law that he 
can comprehend he can control. He cannot increase or 
diminish the powers of nature, but he can direct 
them. . . . Human institutions are hot exempt from this 
all-pervading spirit of improvement. They, too, are 
artificial, conceived in the ingenious brain and 
wrought with mental skill born of inventive genius..
The passion for their improvement is of a piece with 
the impulse to improve the plow or the steam 
engine. . . . Intelligence, heretofore a growth,is 
destined to become a ,manufacture. . . . The origination 
and distribution of knowledge can no longer be left 
to chance or to nature. They are to be systematized 
and erected into true arts. (Commager, 
1950:208,210,213,214)
Proponents of the 'automatic adjustment' approach had 
opinions directly in conflict with planned approaches. Bennis, 
et al. (1961:2 ) suggested that advocates took the position,
20
"tampering and social tinkering with man's natural and social 
universe interferes with the homeostatic forces, which if left 
unfettered, will bring about the perfectly maximized good 
life." William Graham Sumner (Gommager, 1950) was one of the 
.leaders in sociology who emphasized the folly of prophecies 
such as Ward's.
If we can acquire a science of society based on 
observation of phenomena and study of forces, we may 
hope to gain some ground slowly toward the 
elimination of old errors and the re-establishment of 
a sound and natural social order. Whatever we gain 
that way will be by growth, never in the world by any 
reconstruction of society on the plan of some 
enthusiastic social architect. The latter is only 
repeating the old error over again and postponing all 
our chances of real improvement. Society needs first 
of all to be free from these meddlers . . . Here we 
are, then, once more back at the old doctrine laissez 
faire. Let us translate it into blunt English, and 
it will read— Mind vour own business. (Commager,
1950:1 5)
According to Bennis, et al. (1976) subsequent events have 
to a large extent foreclosed on the Sumner argument for laissez
J1
faire. Human interventions designed to shape and modify the 
institutionalized behaviors of people are now familiar features 
of our social landscape. In the fifties we were widely seeking 
to plan social changes.
During the fifties the prevailing model of planned 
change was an engineering model as opposed to a clinical model 
distinguished by Gouldner (1956). In the engineering model 
plans are made by the experts to meet the needs of those 
affected as interpreted by the experts. In the clinical model 
the experts work collaboratively with those affected by the
'21
change to empower them with the abilities to understand and 
internalize the various complexities of the change being 
innovated. Bennis, et al. (1976) credited man's technical 
genius in the physical world with the success of the 
engineering model. The New Deal and World War II had ingrained 
in the public the concept that with our technology we could 
advance and conquer most any problem presented to our society. 
Interestingly, our technical genius, exhibited oy the bomb on 
Hiroshima, initiated a new set of concerns which eventually 
threatened man's existence. "Man's ingenious and inventive 
cultivation of technology had given him the power to pollute 
his planet irreparably and to destroy all terrestrial life" 
(Dennis, et al., 1976:18).
The turbulent sixties were a key period in the evolution
of change theory as suggested by Bennis, et al. (1976):
They exposed and in a measure cleared away some of 
the conventional debris that has clouded the 
realities of existing relationships in our 
society— the distorting effects of power d^ifferentials, 
the dysfunctional inhibitions of expression of 
affect, positive and negative, and many human 
relationships; the gap between professed values and 
values in use; and the dehumanizing effects of 
depersonalized relations in many of our 
bureaucratized institutions, political, industrial, 
and educational. (19)
It was during this period that the need to regard social 
relations and the dynamics between individuals, 'groups and 
cultures or societies in the planning of change became 
apparent. The theoretical traditions of organizational 
analysis and cultural approaches were being established
22
according to Reid and Walker (1975):
These are. seen as mutually interdependent, and the 
reaction to innovation is held to depend on the 
degree to which the consequent reordering of 
relationships within and between . . .  is tolerable 
in terms of the benefits likely to accrue. (245)
By the conclusion of the sixties the various liberation
movements and grass-roots efforts had made permanent
impressions on the status of planned change. Bennis, et al.
(1976) reported:
They have unmasked the assimilationist myth of the 
American melting pot and revealed the pluarlism 
inherent in American life, the variety of groups and 
group interests that are seeking their place in the 
sun and they have thus placed the clarification 
negotiations of differing values and value 
orientations as an inescapable priority upon the 
agenda of agents of change and their clients.:(19)
Chin and Corey in Bennis, et al. (1983) suggested three
types or groups of strategies for planned change:
1. empirical-rational strategies
2 . normative-re-educative strategies
3 . power-coercive strategies
The fundamental assumption underlying the empirical-rational 
strategies is that men are rational. It is assumed that if an 
individual or group can be shown the advantages of a proposed 
change the individual or group will adopt the ,change because of 
their rationality and self-interest. In normative-re-educative 
strategies the rationality and intelligence of the individual 
or group is not denied. Patterns of action are supported by 
sociocultural norms and by commitments on the part of
23
individuals to these norms. Norms are undergirded by the 
attitude and value systems of'individuals. Change will occur 
only as the persons involved are brought to change their 
normative orientations to old patterns and their commitments to 
new ones. Changes in normative orientations involve changes in 
attitudes, values, skills, and significant relationships, not 
just changes in knowledge. In power-coercive strategies the 
application of power in some form assures the compliance of 
those with less power to the plans, directions, and leadership 
of those with greater power. Goodlad (1979)> in developing a 
conceptual system to define the current state of affairs in the 
implementation of curricular innovations included the values of 
the personal domain of all individuals involved in the societal 
considerations as important factors in the change process.
Lewin (1951) stated that man must participate in his own 
re-education if he is to be•re-educated at all. The 
re-education is a normative change as well as a cognitive and 
oerceptual change. Lewin emphasized action research as a 
strategy of changing and participation in groups as' a medium of 
re-education. Lewin1s force field analysis provides a graphic 
understanding of the restraining forces and driving forces 
present in a given situation. The equilibrium may be shifted 
in a given direction by either eliminating one set of forces or 
strengthening the opposing set of forces.
Lewin (1947) identified three phases of the change
process:
1. unfreezing
2. changing
3. refreezing
The aim of unfreezing is to provide the impetus for the 
individual to change. It is a thawing out process in which the 
forces acting on individuals are rearranged so that they now 
see the need for change. It is a breaking down of the mores, 
customs and traditions so that they are ready to accept new 
alternatives. In changing, the individual is ready to conduct 
himself in a new pattern of behavior. Refreezing is the 
process by which the newly acquired behavior is integrated into 
the individual's personality or ongoing activities.
Realizing that early efforts in the behavioral sciences 
seemed to provide knowledge without effecting changes, Hersey 
and Blanchard (1982) proposed a four leveled structure of 
change in people.
I . knowledge
2. attitudes
3. individual behavior
4« group behavior
Changes in knowledge are the easiest to make, followed by 
changes in attitude. The attitude changes are more difficult 
to make due to their being entwined in the value system of the 
individual. Changes in behavior are significantly more 
difficult to attain and more time consuming with the
24
25
implementation of changed group behavior being the most 
difficult and time consuming.
Rogers (1983) articulated a planned change process 
referred to as the Diffusion of Innovations. Rogers (1983:6) 
defines this as "a kind of social change . . .  by which 
alteration occurs in the structure and function of a social 
system." Rogers (1962:14) refered to a social system as, "a 
population of individuals who are functionally differentiated 
and engaged in collective problem-solving benavior." ihe 
members of the social system are individuals but they may 
represent informal groups or schools. Rogers and Shoemaker 
(1971) pointed out that many'changes take place at the 
individual level, that is the individual makes a decision to 
either adopt or reject an innovation. Rogers and Shoemaker 
also pointed out that change occurs at the social system level 
In many situations the individual and system changes are 
interrelated. "The aggregation of a multitude of individual 
changes produces a system—level alteration" (Rogers and 
Shoemaker, 1971:11).
Rogers (1983:10) stated, "there are four elements in any 
analysis of the diffusion of an idea: (I) the innovation, and 
(2) its communication between individuals, (3) in a social 
system, (4) over time." The essence of the process is the 
human interaction in which one.person communicates a new idea 
to another person.
26
"An innovation is an idea, practice,' or object that is 
perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption" 
(Rogers, 1973:11). The period of time from the inception of 
the innovation to the discovery by the individual is of no 
consequence in regard to human behavior. If the idea seems new 
to the individual, it is an innovation. The compatability of 
the innovation is the degree to which it is consistent with the 
existing values of the individual. The relative advantage is 
the degree to which an innovation is superior to the ideas it 
supercedes. The complexity of an innovation is the relative 
difficulty to understand and use the idea. The divisibility is 
the degree.to which an innovation may be utilized to a limited 
extent. Communicability is the degree to which an innovation 
may be diffused to others.
"Communication is a process in which participants create 
and share information with one another in order to reach a 
mutual understanding" (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981:65). In the 
convergence model of communication a cyclical process occurs 
where one individual shares information and perceives the other 
person's understanding by their response, and vice versa.
After several cycles of information exchange the individuals 
move to a mutual understanding,
Social systems are composed of 'individuals and the 
individuals are categorized on the basis of their 
innovativeness. "Innovativeness is the degree to which an 
individual is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than the
27
other members of ,his social system" (Rogers, 1983:22) . The 
five adopter categories are: innovators, early adopters, early
majority, late majority and laggards. Lindquist (1978) 
described the categories in the following manner. Innovators 
are individuals uncomfortable with the status quo, eager to try 
new things amd compose 3-4- percent of the system population. 
Early adopters are open but not as eager as innovators and 
compose 12-15 percent of the system population. Early majority 
individuals are cautious followers and compose 33 percent of 
the system population. Late majority individuals want 
impressive evidence that this new practice is possible, 
effective and rewarding before venturing a try. These 
individuals compose 33 percent of the system population. 
Laggards resist change until everyone else is doing the new 
thing and compose 15 percent of the .system population. The 
categories, as described by Lindquist, approximate a normal 
distribution with divisions in standard deviations from the 
mean.
Time is important in the diffusion process but difficult 
to express in absolute terms. "Time does not exist 
independently of events, but it is an aspect of every activity" 
(Rogers, 1983:20). Rogers clarified this by explaining that 
the time dimension is involved as an individual passes from 
first knowledge of an innovation- through its adoption or 
rejection, the innovativeness of an individual or in an 
innovation's rate of adoption in a system, usually measured by
28
the number of individuals that adopt the innovation in a given 
period of time.
The innovation-decision process is another aspect of the 
time element.
The innovation-decision process is the process 
through which an individual (or other decision-making 
unit) passes from first knowledge of an innovation, 
to forming an attitude toward the innovation, to a 
decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the 
new idea, and to confirmation of this decision.
. This process consists of a series of actions and 
choices over time through which an individual or 
organization evaluates a new idea and decides whether 
or not to incorporate the new idea into ongoing 
practice. (Rogers, 1983:164)
Rogers (1983) described the present conceptualization in 
the following manner:
Knowledge occurs when an individual (or other 
decision-making unit) is exposed to the innovation's 
existence and gains some understanding of how it 
functions.
Persuasion occurs when an individual (or other decision­
making unit) forms a favorable or unfavorabale attitude 
toward the innovation.
Decision occurs when an individual (or other 
decision-making unit) engages in activities that lead to 
a choice to adopt or reject the innovation.
Implementation occurs when an individual (or other 
decision-making unit) puts an innovation into use.
Confirmation occurs when an individual (or other 
decision-making unit) seeks reinforcement of an 
innovation-decision already made, but he or she may 
reverse this previous decision.if exposed to conflicting 
messages about the innovation. (164)
Adoption, in the decision stage, is a decision to make full use
of an innovation as the best course of action available.
Rejection is a decision to not adopt the innovation. Partial
29
use of an innovation is classified as adoption. Zuckerman 
(1933) reported similar conclusions concerning commitment to 
change. The judgment, or decision, will be either positive or 
negative depending on how the change will affect the 
individuals professionally, personally, emotionally and 
financially.
Implementation is marked by "overt behavior change, as the 
new idea is put into practice" (Rogers, 1983:174)• Kirst,
(1982) and Tyack, Kirst and Hansot (1980) reported that reforms 
which endure make structural and organizational additions 
within a school system. Levy (1983) and Kirst (1982) reported 
that positive confirmation will result if innovations are 
firmly grounded in valid educational philosophy, solve 
problems, and are persistently and wisely administered.
A form of planned change unique to education does not 
exist. "Curriculum implementation has been treated . . .  as a 
subcategory of the more general question of how to introduce 
and establish innovations" (Reid and Decker, 1975:244)♦ Reid 
and Decker further stated that in planning curricula we are 
very directly concerned with aims and values and the resources 
must be personal and institutional. Renfro and Morrison,
(1983) in discussing educational change, reported that change 
has come from developments in the external environment— the 
environement in which our institutions must survive and thrive 
and that anticipating and responding to change is a major 
responsibility for all institutions.
30
Lindquist (1978) stated that planned change starts with a 
felt need on the potential user's part. Block (1974) reported 
the condition of readiness for the teaching staff is that of 
being student oriented. Herchberger (1975) stated that three 
elements are necessary prerequisites in successful change. 
First, there must be dynamic leadership. Second, the 
philosophical base must be designed and internalized by the 
faculty and leaders. Third, the environment must allow for the 
designing, implementation and constant evaluation of all school 
program and curriculum.
"For years now, studies have pointed to the pivotal role 
of principals in bringing about more effective schools (Boyer, 
1984:22)." Ghesler, Schmuck and Lippit (1983) and Nicholson 
and Tracy (1982) reported that the principal must have an 
accurate perception of the values and skills of his staff and 
the staff must recognize the principal's knowledge and emphasis 
on instructional improvement to successfully implement 
innovations. Corbett (1982) reported that principals are 
responsible for providing continued incentives so that 
innovative behavior in the classroom will be maintained long 
enough for the new practices to become routine. Corbett 
(I982b:35) stated, "the burden of providing encouragement and 
incentives for change likely will fall to administrators . . ." 
Corbett also suggested that teachers are apt to interpret the 
ending of formal activities as a lack of administrators' 
interest. Torshen (1977:26) concurred that "the teachers
31
cannot be expected to put forth the necessary effort unless 
they receive adequate support and encouragment from their 
superiors."
It seems . . . that if we are to have change in school 
systems, we cannot look to the principal to initiate 
this change. The initiative for change must come 
from the top. Once a change is sanctioned by his 
superiors, the principal will work to effect that 
change at the building level. (Griffiths, 1983:284)
Oliver (1984:9) in discussing how to make change happen stated,
"leadership for change must occur at the highest level if
change is to occur in an organized and systematic manner." In a
change process which was gaining momentum in the confirmation
stage Grossnickle (1983) included the Board of Education as
an important support element.
In short, it may be said that the Board of Education 
has wishfully provided rather extensive resources in 
the hope that students and staff will continue to 
grow . . . and give potential users the necessary push 
to get them going. (16)
The superintendent is also an important element in the change 
process.
Superintendents . . . had better quickly get over the 
comforting notion of leaving everything to building_ 
principals . . . And both superintendents and principals 
had better quickly get beyond the equally comforting 
notion and popular practice of turning over to a team 
of outside consultants the central task of improving 
instruction . . . (Goodlad, 1983:7)
In the effective schools projects in New York City and
Milwaukee, Eubanks and Levine (1983:701) stated, "a
superintendent who maintains high standards and holds schools
32
accountable, yet rewards those who do good work is a key 
ingredient."
The education administrator can make change effective by 
"creating favorable climates, involving people in the change 
process and helping the people responsible for diffusing the 
change" (Coleman, 1983:10). Olivier (1984) reported that the 
principal must provide an atmosphere in which teachers can 
explore and experiment and which provides instructional teams 
the opportunity to work as a group with some degree of 
protection from administrative and peer interference. 
Herchberger (1975) suggested that the environment allows and 
encourages humanistic discussions which plan toward possible 
experimentation of innovation programs. It also provides 
adequate support and time for the implementation of the 
innovation programs and for constant evaluation of the entire 
school program. Lewis (1983) suggested that assessing the 
climate will be a good'indicator for the adoption of an 
innovation.
The organizational climate is almost like a 
barometer, indicating how employees feel about 
specific managerial practices. Employees, may feel 
relaxed, or driven,, uptight, and under suspicion.
The climate consists of the interpersonal and 
environmental factors that shape behavior and 
motivation. The organizational climate is that set 
of characteristics which describe an organization.
The organizational climate . . . influences people's 
behavior- thus different climates stimulate different 
motivation and result in different performance and 
human relationship. (36)
33
Coleman (1983) and Grant (1983) reported that a climate 
favorable to change can be cultivated. The climate is 
characterized by high interpersonal trust and openness, 
democratic leadership styles by the administrators, equal 
power, confronted differences, the involvement of all relevant 
parties and commitment. Herchberger (1975:106) stated, "there 
must be a climate for desirable change before it can indeed 
take place."
Sparks (1982) and Nicholson and Tracy (1982) agreed that
skillful, knowledgeable teachers who are given a chance to
participate are important in the implementation of change. "To
bring about change, the first requirement is an interested and
skillful practicitioner or teacher (Olivier, 1984:9)."
Torshen, (1977) Johnson (1969) and Hannifen and Barrett (1983)
agreed that in schools where teachers are properly educated and
in-service training is provided to the individuals involved in
the implementation, change is occurring.
The improvement of schooling is a systemic problem 
that must be approached at a variety of points and 
with a variety of strategies. Recognizing the 
existence of and intervening in the pattern of social 
interaction ds one obvious strategy. For example, 
reformers might try to . . . do a much better job of 
inservice education . . . (Tye and Tye, 1984:321)
"More than ever before, those who seek to change schools must
change teachers while they are working in schools (Mann,
1978:3)•" Tye (1984) suggested that it is essential that we
make a commitment to provide the necessary support systems for
teachers. "Teachers have to understand new ideas from the
34
inside out if they are to benefit from them" (Ferguson, 
1980:310). She also suggested that even a tiny minority of 
committed teachers and administrators can have a huge impact in 
implementing programs that work.
Acheson and Gall (1980) reported that teachers are 
learners and the content they need to learn is the profession 
of teaching. "At various points in their professional 
development teachers need the skillful assistance of a clinical 
supervisor if they are to make progress" (Acheson and Gall, 
1980:17).
After the change appears to be properly diffused, a 
preliminary review and evaluation is needed to 
determine whether the intended objectives are being 
achieved! An ongoing evaluation of each change . . . 
must be a part of the total change strategy (Coleman,
1983:9).
Cook (1984) expressed that to be successful change agents, 
principals must employ a developmental strategy that assures 
tangible results.
Principals are the professionals who possess all of 
the necessary attributes of leadership: the
initiative to effect change, the willingness to set 
high goals, the ingenuity to seek improvement, the 
experience to find the way and the courage to see 
things through to completion. (13)
"The bottom line, however, is the program’s success. . . . 
The result is a positive team feeling and renewed staff 
vitality" (Rubin and Spady, 1984:44)• Lewis (1983:9 7) reported 
that seeing their work group move smoothly and productively 
toward their goals motivates the leader, "one success becomes a 
challenge to greater success." Lortie (1975:129) reported
35
that, "when students exert more than usual effort or show 
special enthusiasm, some teachers feel self-approval and pride 
in their craft capacities." Corbett (1982:191) suggested that 
in our contemporary society student success has become an 
important motivator for teachers, "primarily because of teacher 
isolation students have been shown to be particularly important 
sources of incentives for teachers." Torshen (1977:27) stated 
that educators need the assurances that educational programs 
will be "used for the benefit of the students" and not for 
other purposes.
, Summary
Current literature is replete with demands for increased 
student achievement in our public schools. A contemporary 
curriculum model which has demonstrated its effects through 
students gains is Mastery Learning. Three of the major 
proponents of Mastery Learning, Block, Bloom and Spady, 
reported student gains in academic achievement, improved 
functioning in the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy, and 
improved attitudes toward the desire to learn the subject 
matter.
The literature also revealed that it is very difficult to 
implement changes in United States public schools. A major 
concern for educators is how to implement proven innovations 
within their respective school programs.
Contemporary planned change processes follow a pattern 
similar to the theories of Levzin, Rogers and IIersey and 
Blanchard. A schematic integration of the three respective 
theories graphically illustrates their overlapping.
Hersey and
Blanchard Rogers Lewin
36
Knowledge■ 
Attitudes-
Individual 
Behavior
Group
Behavior
-^Knowledge
-^Persuasion 
^Decisionf-
mplementation
Confirmation
Unfreeze
Changing
■Refreezing
Figure I
Integration of Change Theories
The review of the literature indicated six categories of 
importance in implementing an innovation. The six categories 
were: instructional leadership by the principal; support from
the central office administration and the Board of Education; 
school climate; appropriate in-service education for the staff 
affected by the innovation; supervision of instruction; and 
student success.
The six categories mesh with the change processes outlined 
by Hersey and Blanchard, Lewin and Rogers. Leadership by the 
principal and support from the central office administration 
and the Board of Education are important throughout all
37
phases'of each process. School climate is important in 
the attitude phase for Hersey and Blanchard, the persuasion 
phase for Rogers and the changing phase for Lewin. In-service 
education is the vehicle in the knowledge phases for Hersey and 
Blanchard and for Rogers and in the unfreezing stage for Lewin. 
Evaluation fits a similar niche in the processes as does 
building climate. Student success is,in the last phases of 
each of the 'planned change processes.
38
CHAPTER 3 
PROCEDURES 
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine which factors 
were most important for influencing teachers to try Mastery 
Learning. In order to describe the procedures that were 
necessary to conduct the study, this chapter is divided in the 
following manner: Population Description, Method of Analysis,
The Categories, Method of Collecting Data, Method of Organizing 
Data, Statistical Hypotheses and Research Questions, Analysis 
of Data, Precautions taken for Accuracy and Summary.
Population Description
Thex population for this study consisted of all the regular 
classroom teacher grades K-I2 in three separate school 
districts attempting to implement Mastery Learning within their 
curriculum. Two of these school districts were located in 
Montana and one district was located in Wyoming. In each of 
these school districts the same consultant was contracted to 
assist in the in-service education for the implementation of 
Mastery Learning.
39
One of the school districts, hereafter referred to as 
school district number one, was located in the northwestern 
portion of Montana. The district contained two elementary 
schools. One of the elementary schools contained children in 
grades K-5 and had an enrollment of 233 students. The second 
elementary school contained children in grades K-6 and had an 
enrollment of 337 students. The junior high school, grades 
7-8, attended to the needs of 182 students and the high school, 
grades 9-12, attended to the needs of 311 students. The second 
school district, hereafter referred to as school district 
number two, was located in the western portion of central 
Montana and had 201 students enrolled in grades 1-8 and had 137 
students enrolled in grades 9-12. The third school district, 
hereafter referred to as school district number three, was 
located in north central Wyoming. This school district was 
composed of eight schools. Three elementary schools which 
contained children in grades K-6 with enrollments of 115 
students, eight students and twenty-five students respectively. 
There were also elementary schools which contained children in 
grades K-5, K-4 and 1-8 with enrollments of 400 students, 
twelve students and 435 students respectively. There were two 
high schools which contained students in grades 7-12 and 9-12 
with enrollments of 100 students and 370 students 
respectively.
The total population of regular classroom teachers in 
these three school districts was 207 teachers. There
40
were eight-two teachers in the first school district, 
twenty-six teachers in the second school district and 
ninety-nine teachers in the third school district. Completed 
instruments were received from thirty-two teachers in school 
district number one, eight teachers in school district number 
two and forty-seven teachers in school district number three.
' The Categories
From the review of the literature six factors were 
determined to be important in the process of implementing 
change in a school district. The six factors were: 
instructional leadership by the principal; support from the 
central office administration and the Board of Education; 
school climate; appropriate in-service education relative to 
the planned change; supervision of instruction; and potential 
for student success. These six factors were incorporated 
within a simulation instrument.and the teachers in the school 
districts where the planned change was attempted were requested 
to participate in the study by completing the simulation 
instrument. Three demographic factors relative to the teachers 
were included. The .demographic factors were: years of
teaching experience; level of education degree earned; and 
grade level teaching assignment. The participants were 
requested to complete a brief questionnaire relating to the 
three demographic factors.
41
Method of Analysis
To determine the factors most important in implementing 
Mastery Learning in schools a technique termed judgment 
analysis was utilized in this study. "Judgment Analysis (JAN) 
is a simple but powerful technique for identifying and 
describing the rating policies that exist within a board or 
committee of judges" (Christal, 1968:24). Bottenberg and 
Christal (1968) described the JAN technique as a method which 
retains maximum predictive efficiency and enables the 
investigator to make a complete analysis of interrater 
(interteacher) agreement. Houston and Stock (1969) reported 
that JAN provides educators with a tool for identifying 
policies that may be present in the decision making process 
which are individually made or collectively determined. 
Christal (1968b) reported the technique had been applied in 
many studies and that the equations developed had been highly 
valid, and had held up in cross-application. Anderson (1977) 
suggested .that the JAN method distinguished the most important 
factors from the others more clearly than did rating and 
ranking and that the method was more consistent in rating 
numerical profiles rather than verbal profiles. An important 
consideration in this study was that the technique could be 
utilized on a population that was widely separated and where 
the change process was initiated at different times. Holmes 
and Zedeck (1973:27) reported, "JAN can be used to analyze and
describe the policies of individuals who are separated by time
and space and not considered members of a board or committee."
To utilize the JAN technique a simulation instrument was
developed. The simulation instrument consisted of a-series of
profiles which incorporate the diagnostic variables or cues
determined to be important for the study. Taylor arid Wherry
(1965) reported successful utilization of simulated profiles in
their research. Keelan, Houston and Houston (1973)
demonstrated the JAN technique where the variable profile
scores were generated by random techniques approximating a
normal distribution. The individual relationship between the
variables in the profiles and their ability to keep the rater
on course are their validities (Beach, 1967). The simulation
instrument containing the profiles comprised of the identified
variables was then presented to a group of decision-makers or
raters. Each rater was asked to make a rating, prediction, or
criterion decision concerning each profile. "After making the
criterion decisions, the raters submitted their ratings for
analysis by JAN" (Houston and. Stock, 1969:24)•
The purpose of JAN is to take a situation in which 
judges are rating subjects on a single attribute and 
through regression techniques capture the policy of 
each judge and iteratively cluster the judges on the 
bases of policy similarity.' (Lutz, 1977:37)
The JAN procedure is broken down into two basic stages.
During the first step a least-squares solution of a multiple
regression equation was computed for each rater. The second
42
step involves a grouping which was used to define the areas of
agreement and disagreement among the raters.
The JAN technique starts with the assumption that 
each judge has an individual policy. It gives an R2 
for each individual judge and an overall R2 for the 
initial stage consisting of all the judges, each one 
treated as an individual system. Two policies are 
selected and combined on the basis of having the most 
homogeneous prediction equations, therefore 
resulting in the least possible loss in predictive 
efficiency. This reduces the number of original 
policies by one and gives a new R2 for this stage.
The loss in predictive efficiency can be measured 
by finding the drop in R2 between the two stages.
The grouping procedure continues reducing the number 
of policies by one at each stage until finally all 
■ of the judges have been clustered into a single group. 
(Houston, Duff and Roy, 1972:57)
Dudycha (1970:501) defined a policy as, "what raters do 
when they are asked to respond to a set of complex stimuli."
The policy for each rater was represented by a regression 
equation and the raw score regression weights define the policy 
(Dudycha and Naylor, 1966). The squared multiple correlation
p
coefficient, R^, was an expression of the consistency of the 
rater's rating across all profiles when a separate 
least-squares weighted regression equation is used for each 
rater (Christal, 1968). "The resulting R2 value furnished 
an indication of the degree to which his-behavior was 
predictable, or, it was the intrarater consistency of his 
ratings (Dudycha, 1970:502). The results of stage one provided 
the investigator with some indication of each rater's policy.
"Using the results from stage one, a hierarchical grouping 
procedure was initiated" (Houston and Stock, 1969:24). During
43
44
the second stage each equation or policy was compared with 
every other policy. In this manner the two raters were located 
who were in closest agreement concerning how the selection 
variables should be weighted. These two raters-had the most 
homogeneous regression equations. A single equation or policy 
was then determined which best represented the joint policy of 
these two raters. It also indicated the overall loss in 
predictive efficiency that resulted when the original N 
policies were replaced by N-I policies. According to Ward and 
Hook (1963:77) it is the goal during each iteration of the 
second stage to, "maximize the between-group sum of squares and 
minimize the within-group sum of squares for all profile 
elements.1 Bottenberg and Christal (1968) reported that at each 
iteration stage the clustering technique should proceed in a 
manner that insures the minimum loss of predictive ^efficiency.
"At each step (iteration) the loss of predictive efficiency
!
makes it possible to identify the different rating policies 
which exist" (Houston and Bentzen, 1969:74)• The process 
continues in a systematic fashion reducing the number of raters 
by one at each step until all raters had been grouped into a 
single cluster. At each iteration of the grouping an 
examination'of the loss of predictive efficiency made it 
possible to identify the different rating policies which 
existed.
The hierarchical grouping procedure identified the minimum 
number of different rating policies which actually existed
45
as well as the areas of agreement and disagreement. At the 
final stage of the grouping it could be determined if a joint 
policy of the collective group existed. If no ,joint policy 
existed it could be determined how many policies existed within 
the group. Christal (1968) reported the technique will also 
provide the equations expressing the different rating policies 
that do exist. Anderson (1977) reported the JAW method 
distinguished the most important variable from the others more 
clearly than did the rating and ranking methods.
To determine the ranking of the six factors a multiple 
regression analysis of the data for the individual raters in a 
cluster and the profile variables was utilized. Lane, Murphy 
and Marques (1982) indicated the raw score regression weights 
of the policy equations were the most appropriate measure of 
variable importance. The beta weight with the greatest 
absolute value was assigned a rank of one and the beta weight 
with the least absolute value was assigned a rank of six. The 
rank numbers between one and six were assigned to the 
respective beta weight values as they decreased successively in 
absolute value. The greatest value is the factor the raters 
considered most important with successively lesser values 
respectively less important. This process was performed for 
each cluster of raters at a significant iterative drop to 
determine their policy.
To determine the independence between the demographic 
factors and the likelihood of trying Mastery Learning the Chi
Square Test for Independence was applied. "Chi square is a 
means of answering questions about data existing in the form of 
frequencies" (Isaac and Michael, 1971:135). In this study the 
researcher determined whether the frequencies observed in the 
population deviated significantly from expected frequencies.
Method of Collecting Data
A simulation instrument consisting of a series of profiles 
was utilized to collect data. The instructions and sample 
profiles for the simulation instrument are included in Appendix 
B. Each profile was a simulation of a planned change process. 
The profile cues or variables were the six factors determined 
to be important in a planned change process from the review of 
the literature.
46
Table I
Profile Variables
Number Variable Abbreviation
I Instructional Leadership by the Principal ILP
2 Building Climate BC
3 Support from the Central Office Administration 
and the Board of Education
SAB
4 Supervision of Instruction SI
5 Appropriate In-Service Education relative 
the Planned Change .
to ISE
6 Student Success SS
47
The intensities, numerical scale value of the variables, 
for each variable were uniformly distributed throughout the 
simulation instrument and the intercorrelations of 'profile • 
variable scores differed only by sampling error from the 
theoretical population correlation matrix used to generate the 
profile intensities (Dudycha and Naylor, 1966). The variables 
within each profile varied in intensity and were assigned a 
scale value to use in determining rating policies as outlined 
by Anderson (1977). The mean and standard deviation of the 
numerical scale values for the six variables are shown in Table 
3. A group of demographic variables were included in the 
simulation instrument.
Table 2
Intercorrelations of the Variables
Variable. I 2 3 4 5 6
ILP I I.0000
BC 2 -.0023' I.0000
SAB 3 .0242 .0134 I.0000
SI 4 .0499 -.0196 .0195 I.0000
ISE 5 .0069 ' .0148 .0320 .0284 I.0000
SS 6 .0345 .0316 - .0 3 5 6 - .0 2 0 5 - .0 5 6 1 1 .0000
Authorization to contact teachers within each school
'district was obtained from the superintendent of each district.
The simulation instrument and cover-letter were administered at 
staff meetings with the building principal and participating 
teachers present. Anderson (1977) indicated that the context 
in which decisions are made may well influence the process and 
suggested that giving judges or raters some leeway in 
determining when they would most conveniently make their 
decisions is more reflective of real-life decision making. 
Following Anderson's suggestion the teachers were requested to 
complete the instrument at a time and place convenient for 
them. Upon completion of the simulation instrument the 
teachers were requested to return the instrument via a stamped, 
addressed envelope which was provided.
48
Table 3
Mean and Standard Deviation of Numerical Scale Values 
for the Profile Variables
Variable 'Mean Standard Deviation
I 50.90 25.26
2 51.30 24.85
3 48.90 26.79
4 ' 49.10 26.35
5 49.20 26.37
6 49.80 25.81
For potential participants who were absent during the 
researcher's attendance an instrument was left at the teacher's
49
school of employment along with a stamped, addressed return 
envelope. Follow-up letters were sent to all potential 
participants two weeks after the distribution of the simulation 
instrument. A 50 peroent return of instruments was realized.
A sample of follow-up letter is included in Appendix C.
Method of Organizing Data
The data collected in the study and obtained through the 
application of the JAN technique was organized in tables.
Tables were used for the following: means and standard
deviations of profile cues; means and standard deviations for 
raters' criterion; intercorrelations between profile variables; 
correlations between raters and profile variables; stages of 
judgment analysis for the participating raters; hierarchy of 
profile variables using standard score regression weights; and 
Chi Square Test of Independence tables for the demographic 
data.
Statistical Questions
Question I: Is there more than one policy utilized
by the teachers in determining which 
factors are most important in trying 
Mastery Learning?
Question 2: What importance is placed on each of the
six factors by the teachers in making 
their decisions to try Mastery Learning?
50
Question
Question
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
3: Is there more than one policy utilized
by the teachers in each of the three school 
districts in determining which factors are 
most important in trying Mastery Learning?
4: Will the teachers in each of the three
school districts in the study place a 
unique importance on the six factors in 
in making' their decisions to try Mastery 
Learning?
Statistical Hypotheses
12 Hq: The likelihood of trying Mastery
Learning is independent of the total years 
of teaching experience.
; The likelihood of trying Mastery 
Learning is not independent of the total 
years of teaching experience.
2: Hq. The likelihood of trying Mastery
Learning is independent of the education 
degree earned by the teacher.
H-j ; The likelihood of trying Mastery 
Learning is not independent of the 
education degree earned by the teacher.
3: Hq. The likelihood of trying Mastery
Learning is independent of the grade level 
of the teaching assignment.
51
H-| ; The likelihood of trying Mastery 
Learning is not independent of the grade
level of the teaching assignment.
Analysis of Data
The computer services of the Montana State University 
Testing Center were used to perform'the Multiple Regression 
analysis utilized in the JAN technique and for the Chi Square 
Test for Independence. As chosen by Keelan, Houston and 
Houston (1973), Mabee (1978) and others an apriori minimum drop 
of .05 in from one stage to the next stage was used to 
•determine a significant change in policy. A .05 level of 
significance was utilized in the Chi Square Test of 
Independence.
Precautions for Accuracy
The data entry process was correlated with the data 
retrieval in a sequential manner which greatly reduced errors 
in the data entry procedure. The researcher then examined the 
computer printout of the data for possible errors and made- 
appropriate corrections. VJhere possible the Montana 
State University Statistical package (MSUSTAT) was utilized 
and the results compared with the printout from the Montana 
State University Testing Center computer services.
52
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine the importance 
df the six factors which were important in the implemention of 
Mastery Learning. The population consisted of the regular 
classroom teachers in three school districts which initiated 
the attempt to implement Mastery Learning during the 1984-1985 
school year.
To collect the data a simulation instrument was utilized. 
The instrument consisted of a series of simulations or profiles 
each of which represented a possible situation for a planned 
change process. The information cues or variables within each 
profile were the six factors which were important in the 
implementation of an innovation in education. The scores of 
the six factors varied and approximated a uniform distribution 
in their useage throughout the instrument. The teachers 
(raters) were asked to rate their probability of trying Mastery 
Learning under the conditions expressed in each profile. 
Demographic data was obtained from several questions 
incorporated within the instrument.
The statistical method used for the Judgment Analysis 
was Multiple Regression. An and policy was determined for 
each rater. These policies were then compared and clusters of 
raters (teachers) with similar policies were formed. The 
regression weights for each policy represented the ranking of 
the six factors. The Chi Square Test of Independence was used
to determine the independence between demographic data and a 
high likelihood to .try Mastery Learning. The computer 
services of the Montana State University Testing Center were 
utilized in computing the statistical analyses of the data.
53
54
CHAPTER 4 
ANALYSIS OF DATA 
Introduction
The data reported in this chapter are arranged in the 
following categories: populations and samples, statistical
questions, hypotheses and summary.
Populations and Samples
This study centered on three different populations, the 
regular classroom teachers in three different school 
districts. The researcher contacted the superintendents of 
each school district to determine the number of potential 
participants. It was thus determined that 207 teachers were 
potential participants.
v Out of the total number of regular classroom teachers who
were selected and given a simulation instrument 104 of 207 
responded by returning the simulation instrument. The valid 
responses of eighty-seven were utilized in this study.
In school district number one there were eighty-two 
simulation instruments administered, thirty-six were returned 
of which thirty-two were valid responses. In school district 
number two there were twenty-six simulation instruments
55
administered, fifteen were returned of which eight were valid. 
In school district number three there were ninety-nine 
simulation instruments administered, fifty-two were returned of 
w h ich forty-seven were valid. Returned instruments were not 
valid for the following reasons: some of the profiles Were not
rated; none of the profiles were rated; the profiles wpre 
rated all zero or all one hundred.
Statistical Questions
The statistical questions in this study were tested using 
the Judgment Analysis (JAN) technique. The standard beta, 
weights, in the prediction equation for each policy, indicate 
the importance of each variable or change factor as expressed 
by the teachers. The R2 value indicates the consistency of 
the rater or raters in the prediction equation. The data are 
presented in tables. The mean and the standard d e v iation of 
the criterion ratings for each group are expressed in a table. 
The tables labeled "Stages for Judg m e n t  Analysis Procedure" 
indicate the clusters of raters at significant stages of the 
process. In the tables used to illustrate the po l i c y  of a 
cluster of raters the decimal values are the standard beta 
weights from the multiple regression analysis of all the raters 
in the cluster and the values in parentheses are the ranks of 
the variables or change factors as rated by the cluster of 
raters. An explanation follows each table. Tables giving the 
mean and standard deviation of the ratings for each teacher,
correlations between the rateings and the profile variables, 
stages of the J A N  procedure and the standard beta weights and 
of each rater in a policy are in Appendix A.
The first table shows the mean and standard deviation of 
the ratings for the various groupings analyzed. The next two 
tables are the data for all three school districts combined. 
Tables 7 through 12 are the data for individual school 
districts one, two and t h r e e . Tables 13 through 15 illustrate 
the demographic data and the last four tables illustrate the 
data concerning the likelihood of trying Mastery Learning.
56
Table 4
Range and Standard Deviation of M e a n  Criterion Ratings
Group M e a n  Criterion Standard Deviation
School Districts 
1 , 2 6 3
48.24 8.25
School District 
I
46.85 8.01
School District 
2
45.82 11.54
School District 
3
• 49.60 7.71
The m e a n  criterion rating for the group including teachers 
from all three school districts indicated they rated their 
probability of trying M a s tery Learning as average. The 
teachers from School District 2 had the lowest mean criterion
57
rating and the greatest standard deviation. The teachers from 
School District three had the greatest mean criterion rating, 
and the least standard deviation.
Statistical Question O n e : Was there more than one
policy utilized by the teachers in determining which factors 
are most important in trying M a stery Learning?
The purpose of this question was to determine if all 
teachers were u n iform in their perspective of the six 
educational change factors relative to trying M a s t e r y  Learning 
w h i c h  would be expressed as one policy or if the teachers had 
significant differences in their importance of the six 
educational change factors relative to trying M a s t e r y  Learning 
w h i c h  would be expressed as group policies or as individual 
policies.
Table 5 illustrates the data from all three school 
districts combined.
Table 23 in Appe n d i x  A shows that at stage one where each 
rater is considered a single system or each holds a separate 
construct of change probability the R2 values were v e r y  high. 
This indicated that they were consistent in their policy. At 
stage eighty-seven there was a significant drop in R2 of 
occurred w h e n  two large groups were united. This loss of 
predictability, or significant d r o p  in R2, showed that two 
separate policies relative to the six educational change 
factors existed in the group. The R^ value at stage 86 shows
58
that 49 percent of the variance was accounted for by using the 
two policies at stage 86.
Table 5
Stages for Judgment Analysis Procedure 
School Districts Number I , 2 & 3
Number Successive
Stage of Rater R^
Policies Drop
I 87
86 2
87 I
single member policies .7866
Policy Number I
( I , 3 , 5 , 10 ,1 1 , 13 , 16 , 20 , 22 ,2 3 , 28 ,  .4850
29,32,33,37,39,42,46,47,49,50,
52,54,59,62,63.64,68,70,74,75,
76,81,85,86 87)
Policy Number 2 
(2,4,6,7,8,9,12,14,15,17,18, 
19,21,24,25,26,27,30,31,34,35, 
36,38,40,41,43,44,45,48,51,53, 
55,56,57',58,60,61,65,66,67,69, 
71,72,73,77,78,79,80,82,83,84)
(I through 87) .3576 .1275
The data illustrated in Table 5 formed the basis for 
answering statistical question one. A significant R2 drop at 
stage 87 of .1257 occurred. Two policies were present in stage 
86 consisting of thirty - s i x  and fifty-one members respectively, 
policy number I was expressed by the thirty-six member cluster 
and policy number 2 was expressed by the fifty-one member 
cluster. This data showed that for the grouping of all three 
school districts combined two policies or rankings of the
59
change factors existed among the teachers in rating their 
p r obability to try M a stery Learning.
Statistical Question T w o : Was there a ranking of the
six factors w h ich are important in teacher's decisions to try 
M a stery Learning?
The purpose of this question was to determine if all of 
the educational change factors were perceived as equally 
important by the teachers or if one or more of the six 
educational change factors was perceived as more important than 
the other change f a c t o r s . To determine the relative importance 
of the six change factors a multiple regression analysis of the 
data for the raters in each policy was utilized. The decimal 
values in Table 6 are the standard beta weights from the
i
multiple regression analysis the R 2 value indicates the 
consistency of the raters. The value in parenthesis is the 
ranking of the change factor.
, Table 6 shows the two policies for the grouping of the 
three school districts combined.
The raters clustered in policy number I utili z e d  a global 
approach to decide their probability of trying M a stery 
Learning. Each of the six educational change factors was 
considered to be of equal importance by these t e a c h e r s . The 
raters clustered in policy number two were more specific in 
their usage of the change factors. These raters placed a 
predominant emphasis on the potential for student success and a 
relatively smaller emphasis on in-service education relative to
60
the planned c h a n g e . The four r e maining educational change 
factors were considered to a lesser extent.
Table 6
Policies (Beta Weights) at Significant Drop Stage 
School Districts Number I, 2 & 3 
Stage 86
Policy
Number
1
ILP
2
BC
Change Factors 
3 4
SAB SI
5
ISE
6
SS
R2
I .31 .22 .22 .22 .26 .23 .3617
(I) (4) (4) (4) (2) (3)
' 2 .09 .11 .12 .08 .19 .68 .5057
(5) (4). (3) (6) (2) (I)
Statistical quest i o n  two is answ e r e d  on the basis of 
information illustrated in Table 6. The relatively equal 
values for the beta weights in po l i c y  number I showed that the 
raters in policy number I considered all of the change factors 
important and utilized all of the information in considering 
trying M a s tery Learning. The comparatively large beta weight 
value in policy number 2 for change factor number 6, the 
potential for student success, showed that this received 
emphasis' from these r a t e r s . Change factor number $, 
appropriate in-service education relative to the planned change
61
was ranked second in policy number 2 as indicated by the 
slightly greater beta weight value.
Statistical Question T h r e e : ■Was there more than one 
policy utilized by the teachers in each of the three school- 
districts in determining which factors were most important in 
trying M a stery Learning?
The purpose of this question was to determine if the 
teachers in each of the three school districts studied were 
similar in the importance of the six educational change 
factors relative to trying Mastery Learning or if they had 
varying p e r s p e c t i v e s . A similar importance by all of the 
teachers in a school district w o uld be expressed as one policy 
and if the teachers in each of the school districts had 
significant differences in their perspectives of the six 
educational change factors they wou l d  be expressed as group 
policies or as individual policies.
The information in Table 7 illustrates the JAN stages 
in school district number one. At stage 31 there was a 
significant drop in R2 whi c h  indicated the first significant 
change in policy occurred when a large cluster and a s m a l l , 
four member, cluster were combined. This loss'of 
predictability or significant drop in R2 showed that three 
separate policies or constructs relative to the six educational 
change factors existed in the school district. The R2 value 
at stage 30 shows that 5 5  percent of, the variance was accounted 
for by u s ing the three policies at stage 30.
62
Stages for Judgment Analysis Procedure 
School District Number I
Table 7
Number Successive
Stage of Raters r 2 r 2
Policies Drop
I 32 32 single member policies .7753 ------
30 3
Policy Number I
(I,3,5,10,13,16,20,22,23,25,28, 
29,32)
.5517 ------
Policy Number 2
(2,4,6,8,9,12,14,15,18,19,21,24, 
27,30,31)
Policy Number 3
(7,11,17,26)
31 2 2 multiple member policies .4965 .0552
A significant r 2 drop occurred at stage 31• Three rater 
clusters were present at stage 30 w h i c h  showed three policies 
were used by the teachers in school district number one.
The return of valid instruments from participants in 
school district number two resulted in a total of eight 
instruments. Recognizing that the d a t a  from school district 
number two is limited the data in Table 8 is presented.
At stage 6 there was a significant drop in R^ which 
indicated the first significant change in policy occurred when 
a two member cluster and a three member cluster were combined. 
This loss of predic t a b i l i t y  or significant drop in R^ showed 
that four separate policies or constructs relative to the six
63
educational change factors existed in the school district. The 
value for stage 5 shows that 72 percent of the variance 
was accounted for by using the four policies at stage 5.
Table 8
Stages for Judgment Analysis Procedure 
School District Number 2
Number Successive
Stage of Raters R2 r 2
Policies Drop
I ■ 8 single member policies .7859
5 4
Policy Number I ■
(1,3) .7230
Policy Number 2 
(2,6,8)
Policy Number 3 
(4,5)
Policy Number 4 
(7)
6 3 2 multiple member policies and 
. I single member policy
.6326
A significant R2 drop occurred at stage 6. Four rater 
clusters were present in stage 5 w h i c h  showed four policies 
were used by the teachers i n  school district number two.
Data from school district number three is illustrated in 
Table 9«
At stage 46 there was a significant drop in R2 w h ich 
indicated the first significant change in policy occurred when .
a large cluster and a small, six member, cluster were combined. 
This loss of predictability or significant drop in R2 showed 
that three separate policies or constructs relative to the six 
educational change factors existed in the school district. The 
r 2 value at stage 45 showed that 58 percent of the variance 
was accounted for by using the three policies at stage 45.
Table 9
Stages for Judgment Analysis Procedure 
School District Number 3
64
Number Successive
Stage of Raters R2 r2
Policies ' Drop
I 47 single member policies .7911 ------
45 3
Policy Number I 
(1 ,2,10,11,13,15,16,17,18,25, 
28,30,31,32,36,43,46)
.5755 ------
'
Policy Number 2
(3,4,6,7,8,9,12,19,20,21,23,24, 
26,29,33,34,35,37,38,39,40,41,45,
47)
Policy Number 3 
(5,14,22,27,42,44)
46 2 2 multiple member policies .5134 .0622
A significant R2 drop of .0622 occurred at stage 46. 
Three clusters were present in stage 45 which indicated three 
policies were used by the teachers in school district number
three.
Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9 illustrate the data which 
answered ques t i o n  three. These tables showed that teachers in 
each of the three school districts used more than one policy in 
deciding w h e ther they would try M a s t e r y  L e a r n i n g . The teachers 
in school district one and school district three expressed 
their different perspectives w i t h  three separate policies and 
the t e a c h e r s ,in school district number two expressed their 
perspectives in four policies.
Statistical Question F o u r ; W o uld the teachers in each 
of the three school districts in the study place a similar 
importance on each of the six factors which are important in 
decisions to try M a s tery Learning?
The purpose of this question was to determine if all of 
the educational change factors were perceived as equally 
important by the teachers in each school district or if one or 
more of the six educational change factors was perceived as 
more important than other change factors by the t e a c h e r s .
The data for school district number one is illustrated in 
Table 10.
The raters clustered in policy number I utilized a global 
approach to decide their probability of trying M a s tery 
Learning. The relatively equal values for the beta weights 
showed that each of the six educational change factors was 
considered an important factor by these t e a c h e r s . The raters 
clustered in policies 2 and 3 were more specific in their 
usage of the change factors. The relatively high beta weight
65
66
values for change factor 6 indicated that these raters placed a 
predominant emphasis on the potential for student success. A 
relatively smaller emphasis on in-service education relative to 
the planned change is indicated by the beta weight value for 
change factor 5. The four remaining educational change factors 
were considered to a lesser extent as indicated by their 
similar beta weight v a l u e s .
Table 10
Policies (Beta Weights) at Significant Drop Stage 
School District Number I 
Stage 30
Policy
Number
I
ILP
2
BC
Change Factors 
3 4
SAB SI
5
ISE
6
SS
R2
I .33 ' .32 .28 .24 .28 .30 .5062
(I) (2) (4) (6) (4) (3)
2 • 09 .12 .17 . .05 .24 .59 .4329
(5) (4) (3) (6) (2) (I)
3 .01 .06 .01 .06 .13 .89 .7767
(5) (3) (5) (3) ' (2) (I)
Recognizing, that the data are limited, the information for 
school district number1 two is presented in Table 11.
The raters clustered in policy number 2 utilized a 
global approach to decide their probability of trying Mastery
67
Table 11
Policies (Beta Weights) at Significant Drop Stage 
School District Number 2 
Stage 5
Policy
Number
I
ILP
2
BC
Change Factors
3 4
SAB SI
5
ISE
6
SS
R2
1 .08 .05 .15 .05 .02 .88 .8215
(3) (4) (2) (4) (6) (I)
2 .36 .33 .21 .32 .30 .39 .6073
(2) (3) (6) (4) : (5) (I)
3 -.28 .04 .05 .07 .06 .41 .2309
(2) (6) (5) (3) (4) (I)
4 .12 .07 ' -03 .88 .08 .01 .8169
(2) (4) . (5) (I) (3) (6)
Learning. The relati v e l y  equal values for the beta weights 
showed that each of the six educational change factors was 
considered an important factor by these teachers. The raters 
clustered in policies I and 4 utilized a more specific approach 
in their decision process as shown by the values for the beta 
weights. The raters in policy I placed a predominant emphasis 
on the potential for student success and placed some emphasis 
on support from the central office administration and the board
68
of education. The remaining four factors were used to a lesser 
extent. The raters in policy 3 placed an emphasis on the 
potential for student success. The negative value on the 
instructional leadership by the principal indicated they felt 
this change factor was actually a hindrance. The remaining 
four change factors were considered to some extent by the 
raters clustered in policy number 3. The low R? value for 
policy number 3 showed the raters were not consistent in the 
application of their policy. The single member policy number 4 
placed a strong emphasis on the support from the central office 
administration and the board of education as indicated by the 
high beta weight value and utilized the other five factors to 
only a small extent. ,
Table 12 illustrates data from school district number 
three.
The raters in policies I and 3 u s e d  an eclectic approach 
to decide, their p r o bability of trying M a stery L e a r n i n g . In 
their holistic approach each of the six educational change 
factors was considered an important factor, as shown b y  the. 
relatively equal beta weight values, in their decision relative 
to trying M a s t e r y  Learning. The raters clustered in policy 
number 2 were more specific in their consideration of the six 
educational change factors in their decision making process. 
These raters placed a predominant emphasis on the potential for 
student success w h i c h  is indicated by a relatively h i g h  beta 
weight v a l u e . The beta weight value for change factor 5
69
indicated they placed some importance on the in-service 
education relative to the planned change. The remaining four 
factors were considered equally but with little emphasis as 
indicated by the value of the beta weights.
Table 12
Policies (Beta Weights) at Significant Drop Stage 
School District Number 3 
Stage 4.6
Policy
Number
I
ILP
2
BC
Change Factors
3 4
SAB SI
5
ISE
6
SS
R2
I .38 .23 .19 .15 . 16 .16 .3698
(I) (2) . (3) (6) . (4) (4).
2 .08 .08 .09 .10 .18 .79 .6616
(5) (5) (4) . (3) (2) (I)
3 .27 .18 .21 .21 .38 .31 .4314
(3) (6) (4) (4) (1) (2)
Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12 provide the data to answer 
question number two. These tables showed that the teachers in 
each of the three school districts expressed at least three 
policies. The policies expressed both global and specific 
approaches in their decision process.
70
Statistical Hypotheses
The three statistical hypotheses in this study were tested 
utilizing the Chi Square Test for Independence because this 
test indicated whether frequencies observed in the study 
differed significantly from expected frequencies. The null 
hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of significance. In 
the contingency tables which are used to illustrate the 
demographic data the values enclosed in the parentheses are the 
expected values. The other values in the cells illustrate the 
observed values, the actual frequencies of the respondents.
Table 13 illustrates the relationship between the 
likelihood of trying Mastery Learning and the years of 
teaching experience.
Hull Hypothesis One; The likelihood of trying Mastery 
Learning is independent of total years of teaching experience,
The data shown in Table 13 formed the basis for rejecting 
the null hypothesis at the .05 level of significance. The 
likelihood of trying Mastery Learning is dependent on the years 
of teaching experience. The ratios between the observed and 
the expected values for the teachers with over twenty years of 
experience are reversed when compared with the other two 
groups. Thus the fewer the years of experience the more 
likely the teachers are to try Mastery Learning.
71
Table 13
Likelihood of Trying M a s t e r y  Learning and 
Years of Teaching Experience
Years Experience High Likelihood Low Likelihood Row Total
I - 10 (33.61) (11.39)
36 9 45
1 1 - 2 0 (18.67) (6.33)
20 5 25
over 20 (6.72) (2.29)
3 6 9
Column
Total 59 20 79
df = 2; Critical = 5*99; Calculated x^ = 9.19; 
Significance = .01039
Table 14 illustrates the relationship between the 
likelihood of trying M a s t e r y  Learning and the level of degree 
earned.
Null Hypothesis Two; The likelihood of trying Mastery 
Learning is independent of the level of degree earned.
The data shown in Table 14 formed the basis for retaining 
the null hypothesis at the .05 level of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The 
likelihood of trying M a s tery Learning was independent of the 
level of degree e a r n e d .
72
Likelihood of Trying M a s t e r y  Learning 
and Level of Degree Earned
Table U
Degree Earned High Likelihood Low Likelihood Row Total
Bachelors
(43.12)
42 17
(15.83)
59
Masters
(16.83)
18 5
(6.17)
. 23
Column
Total 60 22 . 82
df = I ; Critical x 2 = 3.84; Calculated x 2 = .138 
Significance = .7089
Table 1 5 illustrates the relationship between the 
likelihood of trying M a s t e r y  Learning and level of teaching.
Null Hypothesis T h r e e : The likelihood of trying
M a s tery Learning is independent of the grade level of the 
teaching assignment.
The d a t a  shown in Table 1 5 formed the basis for retaining 
the null hypothesis at the .05 level of significance.
The likelihood of trying Mastery Lear n i n g  was independent of 
the grade level of the teaching assignment.
73
Table 15
Likelihood of Trying M a stery Learning and 
Teaching Level Assignment
Teaching Level 
Assignment
High Likelihood Low Likelihood Ro w  Total
Elementary
(K-6)
(25.61)
29 6
(9.39)
35
Intermediate
(6-8)
(23.41)
21 11
(8.59)
32
Secondary
(9.-12)
(10.98)
10 5
(4.02)
15
Column
Total 60 22 82
df = 2; Critical x 2 = 5.99; Calculated x 2 = 2.92 
Significance = .2307
Summary
In every group analyzed there was more than one policy 
expressed by the teachers to determine which educational change 
factors were the most important .in their decisions to try 
M a stery Learning. Each of these policies was an expression of 
a ranking of the six educational change factors. The 
likelihood of trying M a s t e r y  Learning was found to be dependent 
on the years of teaching experience, w i t h  teachers in the
•having less than twenty years experience being more likely to 
try M a s t e r y  Learning.
The judgment analysis was applied to four groupings of 
classroom teachers. The first grouping was composed of all the 
teachers in school districts one, two and three combined. The 
next three groupings were the teachers in each of the three 
school d i s t r i c t s .
The statistical questions were answered w i t h  data obtained 
from the judgment analysis. The teachers in the combined 
grouping of all three schools districts expressed their 
probability of trying M a s t e r y  Learning in two distinct 
policies. The teachers in the first policy expressed a global 
view of the educational change factors by u t ilizing each of the 
factors equally in their deci s i o n  process. The teachers in the 
second policy were more specific and emphasized change factor 
number 6, the potential for student success, in their decision 
process. These teachers also placed some emphasis on the 
in-service education relative to the planned change. The 
remaining four change factors were considered to a lesser 
e x t e n t .
In the analysis of separate school districts, in each 
district the teachers formed three multiple member policies 
expressing their usage of the six educational change f a c t o r s . 
There was one single member policy in school district number 
two. In each district there was a global policy w h ich 
indicated the teachers considered all of the information
74
75
important in their decision'process. In the multiple member 
policies, which were more specific in their consideration of 
the change factors, the potential for student success was 
predominantly emphasized with in-service education for the 
teachers receiving some emphasis.
Null hypothesis one was rejected at the .05 level of 
significance. The likelihood of trying Mastery Learning was 
dependent on the years of teaching experience. Teachers with 
over twenty years experience were less likely to try Mastery 
L e a r n i n g .
Null hpothesis two was retained at the .05 level of 
significance. The likelihood of trying M a s tery Learning was 
independent of the level of degree earned.
Null hypothesis three was retained at the .05 level of 
s i g n i f i c a n c e . The likelihood of trying Mastery Learning was 
independent of the grade level teaching assignment.
76
CHAPTER 5
• ■ CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
In this chapter the conclusions reached are d i s c u s s e d , a 
change model based on the study is proposed and recommendations 
for further study and action are p r e s e n t e d .
Conclusions
The problem of this study was to determine w h i c h  change 
factors were most important in influencing teachers to try 
M a stery L e a r n i n g . In regard to this purpose three 
generalizations were apparent. First, in every group analyzed 
there were two or more policies present. Second, in each group 
analyzed there was a global policy expressed by the raters 
w h i c h  showed they placed equal importance on all six change 
factors. That is, raters in these policies considered 
instructional leadership by the principal, building climate, 
support from the c.entral office administration and the board of 
education, the supervision of instruction process, appropriate 
in-service education relative to the planned changed and 
potential for student success as equally important in an 
implementation of M a s t e r y  L e a r n i n g . T h i r d , in each group
77
analyzed there was a more specific and less global policy 
expressed. These raters tended to strongly emphasize change 
factor six, potential for student success, arid to emphasize 
change factor five, appropriate in-service education relative 
to the planned change, and generally place a small emphasis on 
the remaining four factors.
The presence of two or more, policies in every group 
substantiated the initial phases of three change processes 
cited in the review of the literature. Hersey and Blanchard 
(1982) and Rogers (1983) initiate the process with attention 
focused on the individual. By focusing on the individual 
variations in thoughts, concepts and philosophies, individual 
policies within the larger policies could be dealt with. Lewin 
(1947) suggested identifying driving forces and restraining 
forces. By categorizing individual policies and group 
policies, driving forces could be optimized and restraining 
forces could be weakened or even changed to driving forces.
The existence of global policies in every group showed the 
merit of all of the change factors for a substantial group of 
teachers. This facet of the study substantially reinforced all 
of the, literature cited and showed that an ample group of 
educators viewed each of the six change factors as essential 
and interrelated in a successful change process.
The strong emphasis on the p o tential for student success 
in the less global policies reinforced research by" Rubin and 
Spady (1984), Lewis (1983), Lortie (1975), Corbett (1982) and
r
78
Torshen (1977). Teachers respond to programs used for the 
benefit of students. The emphasis on in-service education 
substantiated research by Tye (1984), Mann (1978) and Ferguson 
(1980). Understanding n e w  idea’s also fits the initial phase of 
the change process as reported by Hersey and Blanchard 
(1982)and Rogers (1983).
One subtle trend was shown in the study. There was an 
emphasis by the teachers on stressing success for students and 
on appropriate training for teachers. The emphasis was a 
bottom up approach emphasizing student and teacher needs as 
compared to a traditional top down approach directed by the 
administrator. The importance of the leadership by the 
principal and support from the h i erarchy was corroborated but 
the real emphasis was placed at the student success and the 
teacher knowledge and awareness level. A plausible approach 
for a principal w o uld be to provide support, encouragement and 
direction for the teachers to facilitate the teacher's 
u n d e r s t a n d i n g , application and confirmation of an educational 
innovation.
Proposed Change Model
The strong emphasis placed on the potential for student 
success and the emphasis placed on in-service education spawn a 
change model for implementing curriculum which is a reordering 
of the phases of the traditional change models. Traditional 
change models place a change in attitude phase before an
79
implementation phase. In this proposed change model the change 
in attitude phase is the final phase. The phases of the 
proposed change model for implementing curriculum are as 
follows:
1 . Provide teachers with knowledge of proposed change
2. Apply the. change in the classroom
3. Observe improved student success
4. Change in attitudes and beliefs of teachers
The six change factors in this study mesh with the phases 
of the proposed change model. In essance phase I is in-service 
education relative to the proposed change. In phase 2 both 
instructional leadership by the principal and the supervision 
of instruction are applied. In phase 3 the reality observed is 
the potential for student success. In phase 4 the building 
climate would be affected by the changes in attitude and 
beliefs'. Support from the central office administration and 
the Board of Education are important throughout all phases.
To implement change following this model it is imperative 
that several concepts are adhered to. In phase I it is very 
important that the process used to determine the particular 
in-service utilized be of high quality and be supported by the 
faculty. A receptive f a culty will gain from the in-service 
e x p e r i e n c e .
Applying the change in the classroom is a critical phase. 
The teachers must receive tangible support in the form of 
n e cessary equipment and supplies and intangible support in the
80
form of leadership and supervision with a coaching,emphasis 
from the principal as well as support and clarification from 
peers. Peer coaching would help provide necessary formative 
evaluation and revision as the change took hold.
The important aspect of phase 3 is that immediate 
feedback be given the teachers concerning student success. It 
is vital that the teachers observe results which justify the 
change applied in their classroom. In this study Mastery 
Learning was the change being implemented. M a stery Learning is 
designed to provide immediate feedback which both reinforces 
the teacher's efforts and facilitates corrective procedures 
for the students which enhances their learning.
The improved student learning in phase 3 provides 
gratification for the teacher and facilitates the changes in 
attitudes and beliefs of teachers. Teachers who are 
successful feel increased satisfaction which would be 
reflected in the school climate.
The possible outcomes.of this proposed change model are 
multiple. The first and most important outcome is improved 
student learning. A school or district which could utilize 
this process effectively would reap numerous benefits from 
increased student success. These benefits may include greater 
student interest in their studies, increased enrollment in 
historically difficult courses, increased student-teacher 
interaction, decreasing student discipline problems and an
81
enhanced role for the school principal as the instructional 
leader.
An effective principal in a school realizing the increased 
student participation could function in an instructional 
leadership role. It is this researcher's opinion that the 
principal with active, growing teachers should provide support 
or lead his staff, with benign neglect. By using the term 
benign neglect the researcher is implying the principal provide 
support and leadership for the staff, remove obstacles which 
may interfere with the teaching learning process and respect 
the teachers for their ability to manage their classrooms 
effectively. If the teachers are realizing increased student 
success from change efforts and there is peer support and 
evaluation among the faculty the teachers will grow 
individually and collectively. The effective principal may 
then take an approach of benign neglect and provide the 
teachers with thp necessary supplies, equipment, freedom and 
conditions which enhance their growth.
Recommendations for Action
. In reviewing the data and conclusions for the study three 
recomendations for action are particularly cogent. First, an 
analysis in regard to the educational beliefs, the teaching 
models utilized and the success in attaining stated goals of 
the group which is to take part in a change process should be 
enacted before the implementation is attempted. The approach
82
utilized should recognize the importance of student success and 
teacher input and in-service education. The change model 
proposed in this study would be an excellent manner in which a 
school district could approach change. To enhance the skills 
of all teachers and especially the teachers with many years of 
teaching experience, a plan should be developed within the 
individual school district to educate and develop all staff.
In analyzing a group the principal could utilize a study 
similar to this study to identify the concerns of the staff.
The utilization of a simulation instrument and judgment 
analysis would provide usable information and insight of a 
given situation. The two drawbacks of the process are that the 
researcher must locate information describing JAN from several 
sources and that appropriate computer facilities are necessary. 
Once the data is obtained the transfer of data to an 
appropriate computer facility would be comparatively simple and 
inexpensive. By identifying specific information the principal 
could exercise quality leadership in the development and 
articulation of a planned change process.
This study showed that programs which enhance the 
potential for student success have a greater probability of 
being successfully implemented. Any curriculum innovation 
should be carefully considered before an attempt is made to 
implement it but if the purpose is other than student success 
it should be very carefully analyzed before asking the teachers 
to try it. .Once.a decision is made to implement change the
83
staff should be thoroughly educated in all aspects of the 
innovation. The in-service education should be of a duration 
that provides a complete education for the teachers. The 
principal's role should be one of support allowing for 
individual differences within given school policies among the 
teaching staff.
To better facilitate the development of experienced 
teachers, a plan should be developed in a school district to 
utilize and assist experienced teachers in personal and 
professional growth. One of the specific goals should be the 
facilitation of increased involvement and acceptance of new 
innovations by teachers with many years of teaching experience.
Recommendations for Further Research
Recommendations for further research are divided into two 
areas. One area is the study of school districts in the 
information phase of the change process. The second area is 
the study of school districts in the confirmation stage of the 
change process.
Conclusions in this study are.based on a population 
of teachers in three school districts. To further clarify 
and provide a broader base from which to make conclusioins 
a study similiar to this study should be completed with 
another population in the initial phase of implementing Mastery 
Learning. A study similar to this study should also be 
completed with another population which is implementing a
different educational innovation and is in the initial phase of 
the change, process. Either of these studies would serve to 
validate information gained from this study.
This study identified the change factors teachers 
perceived as important before an actual implementation was 
initiated. A follow-up study on the same population at the 
conclusion of the change process could be completed. In this 
manner any changes in perceived priorities would be determined. 
A study of the prioritization of the change factors should be 
completed on a population that has confirmed the application of 
Mastery Learning. A similar study on a population that has 
confirmed a different educational innovation could also be 
conducted. , These studies would accommodate a post analysis of 
the proposed change process and would provide added direction 
for subsequent change attempts.
Excellent studies could be made on the phases of the 
proposed change model. To study the various aspects of 
effectively applying a change in the classroom would be 
enlightening and would provide direction for future change 
attempts. A study of the relationship between student success 
and changes in teacher's attitudes and beliefs would be 
particularly interesting and very cogent in relation to teacher 
growth and satisfaction.
84
85
REFERENCES CITED
86
REFERENCES CITED
American Association of School Administrators. The Role of 
the Principal in Effective Schools. S a c r a m e n t o , 
California: Education News Service, 1983.
A c h e s o n , Keith A. and Meredith Damien Gall. Clinical
Supervision of Teachers. New York: Longman I n c . , 1980.
Anderson, Beverly L. "Differences in Teachers' Judgment 
Policies for V a rying Numbers of Verbal and Numerical 
Cues." Organizational Behavior and Human. P e r f o r m a n c e , 
June 1967, p p . 68-88.
Beach, Lee Roy. "Multiple Regression as a Model for Human 
Information Utilization." Organizational Behavior and 
Human P e r f o r m a n c e , Aug. 1967, pp. 276-279*
B e n n i s , Wa r r e n  G., Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin, ed. The 
Planning o f  C h a n g e . Ne w  York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1961.
B e n n i s , War r e n  G., Kenneth D . B e n n e , Robert Chin and Kenneth 
E. Corey, ed. The Planning of C h a n g e . 3rd ed. Ne w  
York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1976.
Blake, Robert R. and Jane Srygley M o u t o n . The Manage r i a l 
Grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1964.
Block, James H. "Mastery L e a r n i n g : The Current State of the 
Craft." Educational L e a d e r s h i p , Nov. 1979, PP- 
114-117.
______ , ed. M a s t e r y  Learning: Theory and P r a c t i c e . New York:
Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1971.
______ , ed. Schools, Society and M a s t e r y  L e a r n i n g . N e w  York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1974-
Bloom, Benjamin. "A Conversation w i t h  Benjamin Bloom." 
Educational L e a d e r s h i p , Nov. 1979, PP- 157-161.
All our Children L e a r n i n g . New York: McGraw-Hill,
1981.
______  Human Characteristics and School L e a r n i n g . New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976.
87
______  "The Search for Methods of G r oup Instruction as
Effective as One-to-One Tutoring." Educational 
L e a d e r s h i p , M a y  1984» PP- 4-17.
B o t t e n b e r g , Robert A. and C h r i s t a l , Raymond E. "Grouping 
Criteria - A Method Whi c h  Retains Maxmimum Predictive 
Efficiency." The J ournal of Experimental Education,
Summer 1968, pp. 28-34-
Boyer, Ernest L. "Clarifying the M i s s i o n  of the A m e r i c a n  High 
School." Educational L e a d e r s h i p , M a rch 1984, pp- 
20-22.
Boyer, Ernest L. High School. N e w  York: Harper and Row 
P u b l i s h e r s , 1983-
Carroll, John B. "A model of School Teaching." Teachers 
College R e c o r d , M a y  1963, pp- 723-733-
Chandler, Theodore A. "Mastery Learning: Pros and Cons."
NASSP B u l l e t i n . May, 1982, pp. 9-15-
C h e s l e r , Mark, Richard Schmuck and Ronald L i p p i t . "The
Principals Role in Facilitating Innovation." Theory Into 
P r a c t i c e , D e c . 1983, PP- 269-277.
C h r i s t a l , Raymond E. "A Technique for Analyzing Group 
Judgment." The Journal of Experimental Education,
Summer 1968, pp. ,24-27.
______  "Selecting a H a r e m — And Other Applications of the
Policy-Capturing Model." The Journal of Experimental 
Education, Summer 1968b, pp. 35-41•
Cohen, S. Alan. "In Defense of M a s t e r y  Learning." P r i n c i p a l , 
May, 1981, pp. 35-37.
Coleman, C y . "One Change Strategy: Consider Peopleware."
T h r u s t , May- J u n e  1983, pp- 8-10.
Cook, D o n a l d . "Shaping the Principal's Role as Change Agent." 
T h r u s t , Feb.-March 1984, PP- 11-13-
Corbett, H. Dickson. "Principals' Contributions to Maintaining 
C h a n g e . " Phi Delta K a p p a n , Nov. 1982, pp. 190-192.
______  "To Make an Omelette yo u  Have to Break the E g g  Cra t e . "
Educational L e a d e r s h i p , Nov. 1982b, pp. 34-35•
Department of Education. Wyoming Education Directory.
Cheyenne, Wyoming: 1982-1983-
88
D r u c k e r , Peter F. Landmarks of T o m o r r o w . New York: Harper 
and Ro w  Publishers, 1957.
______  The Effective E x e c u t i v e . N e w  York: Harper and Row
P u b l i shers, 1 9 & 7 .
'D u d y c h a , Arthur L. "A Monte Carlo Evaluation of JAN: A
Technique for Capturing and Clustering Raters' Policies." 
Organizational Behavior and Human P e r f o r m a n c e , Sept.
1970, p p . $01-51^1
D u d y c h a , Arthur L. and James C. Naylor. "The Effect of
Variations in the Cue R M a t r i x  Upon the Obtained Policy 
Equation of Judges." Educational and Psychological 
M e a s u r e m e n t , Autumn 1966, pp. 583-603.
Eubanks, Eugene and Daniel U . Levine. "A First Look at 
Effective Schools Projects in N e w  York City and 
Milwaukee." Phi Delta K a p p a n . June 1983, pp. 697-702.
Ferguson, Marilyn. The Aquarian Conspiracy. Los Angeles:
J. P. T a r c h e r , I n c . , 1980.
G o o d l a d , John I. A Place Called School. Ne w  York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984.
______ , ed. Curriculum Inquiry. N e w  York: Mc G r a w  Hill Book
C o m p a n y , 1979. ■
"An Emphasis on Change." Amer i c a n  E d u c a t i o n ,
Jan.-Feb. 1975, pp. 1 6-21, 24,28.
______  "Improving Schooling in the 1980's: Toward the
Non-Replication of N o n - E v e n t s ." Educational 
L e a d e r s h i p , April 1983, P P » 4-7.
G o u l d n e r , Alvin W. "Explorations in Applied Social Science." 
Social P r o b l e m s , Jan. 1956, pp. 169-181.
Grant, M i c h a e l . "The Anatomy of Change." T h r u s t . May-June 
1983, pp. 15-17.
Griffiths, Daniel E. "The Elementary-School Principal and 
Change in the School System." Theory Into P r a c t i c e ,
D e c . 1983, P P * 27 8 — 284«
G r o s s n i c k l e , Donald R. and Bruce A. Laird. "Profile of Change 
in Education: Micros Gain Momentum." Educational
T e c h n o l o g y , Feb. 1983, pp. 13-16.
89
G u i l f o r d , J . P . Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and 
Education. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1965.
G u s k e y , Thomas R. Implementing M a s t e r y  Learning. Belmont, 
California: W a dsworth Publishing Company, 1985.
H a n n i f an, Michael J. and Bradley K. Barrett. "Preparing for
Educational C h a n g b : Incorporating the Support Curriculum
into the Basic Curriculum." American Education, May 
1983, p p . 32-37.
Havelock, Ronald G. and Mary C. Havelock. Training for Change 
Agents. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social
Research, 1973.
H e r c h b e r g e r , Robert L. "Creating the Climate for Humanistic 
Change in the Elementary School w i t h  Principal as Change 
Agent." E d u c a t i o n , Wi n t e r  1975, pp. 106-112.
H e r s e y , Paul, and Kenneth. H . Blanchard. Management of
Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. 4th
ed. Englewood Cliffs, N e w  Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.,
1982 .
Holmes, George P. and Sheldon Z e d e c k . "Judgment Analysis for 
Assessing Paintings." The J ournal of Experimental 
■ Education, Summer 1973, pp. 26-30.
Houston, Samuel R. and M a r y  M. B e n t z e n . "Teaching
Effectiveness in Culturally Deprived Jdunior High 
Mathematics Classes." The Journal of Experimental 
Education, Fall 1969, pp. 73-78.
Houston, S. R. and Stock, G. C. "Judgment Analysis (JAN):
Tool for Education Decision-Makers." Colorado J ournal of 
Educational Research, Wi n t e r  1969, pp. 23-26.
Hunter, Madeline. M a stery T e a c h i n g . California: TIP
Publications, 1982.
Hyman, Joan S. and S. Alan Cohen. "Learning for Mastery: Ten
Conclusions after 15 Years and 3,000 Schools."
Educational L e a d e r s h i p , Nov. 1979, pp. 104-106.
Isaac, Stephen and W i lliam B. Michael. Handbook in Research 
and E v a l u a t i o n , San Diego: Edits Publishers, 1971.
James, Thomas and David T y a c k . "Learning From Past Efforts 
to Reform the High School." Phi Delta K a p p a n , Feb.
1983, P P • 400-406.
90
Johnson, David W. "Influences on Teachers' Acceptance of
Change." The Elementary School J o u r n a l , Dec. 1969, pp. 
142-1 53.
K e e l a n , James A., Thomas.R. Houston and Samuel R. Houston.
"Leadership Policies as Perceived by F i r e m e n . " Colorado 
Journal of Educational Research, Winter 1973, pp. 20-23•
K i r s t , Michael W. "How to Improve Schools Without Spending 
More M o n e y . " Phi Delta K a p p a n , Sept. 1982, pp. 6-8.
Knight, T a n i s . "Mastery Learning: A Report from the Firing 
Line." Educational L e a d e r s h i p , Nov. 1981, pp. 134-136
Lane, David M., Kevin R. Mur p h y  and Todd E. Marques.
"Measuring the Importance of Cues in Policy C a p t u r i n g ." 
Organizational Behavior and Hum a n  P e r f o r m a n c e , Oct.
1982, p p . 231-240.
Levy, Ann K. "What's Happening in . . . Tallahassee Florida?" 
Phi Delta K a p p a n , Jan. 1983, pp. 368..
L e w i n , Kurt. "Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method,
and Reality in Social Science; Social Equilibria and 
Social Change." Human R e l a t i o n s , June 1947, pp. 5-41•
______  Field Theory in Social S c i e n c e . New York: Harper and
Brothers P u b l i s h e r s , 1951 .
Lewis, Phillip V. Manag i n g  Human R e l a t i o n s . Boston: Kent
Publishing Company, 1983.
Lindquist, Jack. Strategies For C h a n g e . Berkeley,
California: Pacific Soundings Press, 1978.
L o r t i e , Dan C. S c h o o l t e a c h e r : A Sociological S t u d y .
Chicago: The Univer s i t y  of Chicago Press, 1975.
Lutz, Gary J. "The Multivariate Analogue of JAN."
Educational and Psychological M e a s u r e m e n t , Spring 1977, 
p p . 37-45.
M a b e e , W. Scott. "An Investigation of the Learning Disability 
Construct by the JAN Technique." Journal of 
Experimental Education. Summer 1978, pp. 19-24•
Mann, Dale, ed. Mak i n g  Change H a p p e n . Teachers College,
Columbia University, N e w  York: Teachers College Press,
1978.
91
Miles, M a t t h e w  B., ed. Innovation in E d u c a t i o n . N e w  York: 
Bureau of Publications Teachers College, Columbia 
University, 1964.
Mueller, Daniel J. "Mastery Learning: Partly Boon, Partly 
Boondoggle." Teachers College R e c o r d . Sept. 1976, pp. 
41-52.
The National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation 
at R i s k . April, 1983.
Nicholson, Everett W. and Saundra J. T r a c y . . "Principal's 
Influence on Teacher's Attitude and Implementation of 
Curricula Change." E d u c a t i o n , Fall 1982, pp. 68-73•
O d d e n , Allah. "Financing Educational Excellence." Phi Delta 
K a p p a n , Jan. 1984, pp. 311-318.
Office of Public Instruction. D i rectory of Montana 
S c h o o l s . Helena, Montana: 1983-1984»
Owens, Robert G. ■ Organizational Behavior in S c h o o l s .
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.
Olivier, Peggy S p r o u t .■ "Making the Right Kind of Change 
Happen." T h r u s t , M a r c h  1984, pp. 9-10.
Reid, W i lliam A. and Decker F. Walker, ed. Case Studies in 
Curriculum C h a n g e . Boston: Routledge and K e gan Paul,
1975.
R e n f r o , W i l l i a m  L. and James L. Morrison. "Anticipating and 
Managing Change in Educational O r g a n i z a t i o n s ." 
Educational L e a d e r s h i p , Sept. 1983, pp. 50-54«
R o g e r s , Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed. New 
York: The Free P r e s s , 1983.
______  Diffusion of i n n o v a t i o n s . N e w  York: The Free Press
of Glencoe, 1962.
______  and D. Lawrence Kincaid. Communication N e t w o r k s . New
York: The Free Press, 1981.
______  and F.. Floyd S c h o e m a k e r . Communication of I n n o v a t i o n s .
2nd ed. Ne w  York: The Free Press, 1971. ■
R o g u s , Joseph F. "Building an Effective Staff Development 
P r o g r a m : A Principal's Checklist." NASSP Bulletin,
M a rch 1983, P P • 8-16.
92
Rubin, Stephen E. and W i l l i a m  G. S p a d y . "Achieving Excellence 
Through Outcome-Based Instructional D e l i v e r y . "
Educational L e a d e r s h i p , M a y  1984, pp. 37-44•
S e r g i o v a n n i , Thomas J. and Robert J. S t a r r a t t . Supervision
Human Perspectives. Ne w  York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1983.
Sizer, Theodore R. H o r a c e 's Compromise: The Dilemma of the
American High S c h o o l . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n
C o m p a n y , 1984«
Snyder, Karolyn J. and William L. Johnson. "Instructional 
leadership Training Needs for Secondary Administrative 
Personnel." American Secondary E d u c a t i o n , Spring 1983, 
pp. 21-23.
S p a r k s , D'ennis. "What's Happening in Livonia,. Michigan?" Phi 
Delta K a p p a n , Dec. 1982, pp. 281-282.
Torshen, Kay Pomerance. The Mastery Approach to
Competency-Based E d u c a t i o n . N e w  York: Academic Press,
1977.
T y a c k , David B., M i chael W. Kirst and Elilsabeth H a n s o t .
"Educational Reform: Retrospect and P r o s p e c t ." Teachers
College R e c o r d , Spring 1980, pp. 253-260.
T y e , Barbara B e n h a m . "Unfamililar Waters: Lets Stop Talking
and J u m p  In." Educational L e a d e r s h i p , March 1984, pp. 
27-31.
Tye, Kenneth A. and Barbara Benham Tye. "Teacher Isolation and 
School Reform." Phi Delta Kappan, Jan. 1984, P P •
319-322.
Ward, Joe H. Jr. and Ma r v i n  E. Hook. "Application of an
Hierarachical Grouping Procedure to a Problem of Grouping 
P r o f i l e s . " Educational and Psychological M e a s u r e m e n t , 
Spring 1963, p p . 69-81.
Williams, Frederick. Reasoning W i t h  Statistics. 2nd ed. New 
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.
Z u c k e r m a n , Harold. "Developing Commitment to Change: Case
History in Progress." Thrust, May-June 1983, pp. 11-13.
93'
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
JAN TABLES
95
Table I 6
Profile Ratings: Mean and Standard Deviation of each
Rater, School Districts Number I, 2 & 3
Rater Mean Standard Deviation
I 51.95 15.44
2 38.80 25.42
3 49.96 10.76
4 36 .46 12.64
5 51.65 14.70
6 24.90 12.90
7 50.60 20.85
8 43.70 17.76
9 . 39.10 22.68
10 51.85 16.91
11 58.65 20.32
12 35.90 23.99
13 50.25 19.98
14 45.30 17.40
15 40.10 16.43
16 50.23 10.86
17 49.25 26.72
18 36.20 19.37
19 47.68 23.17
20 68.09 25,30
21 45.55 21.56
22 51.55 15.57
23 52.50 15.74
24 40.95 24.60
25 49.75 13.92
26 . 53.40 23.25
27 45.65 20.84
28 48.60 14.48
29 47.51 18.38
30 42.79 22.20
31 43.81 25.43
32 56.55 16.86
33 ■ 48.30 23.48
34 42.05 21.44
35 49.65 24.75
36 43.05 20.38
37 70.49 15.45
38 46 .40 32.60
39 61.80 15.98
40 46.00 ' 19.44
41 40.30 25.24
42 42.40 20.55
43 41.20 16.20
96
Table 16 (continued)
44 51.81 18.84
45 36.65 17.69
46 58.70 15.90
47 47.97 26.89
48. 44.75 19.20
49 51.65 17.97
50 49.90 10.79
51 53.54 28.56
52 54.70 16.04
53 38.80 19.85
54 66.41 12.88
55 37.43 26.80
56 43.30 15.81
57 46.25 12.77
58 41.75 28.69
59 58.45 16.97
60 41.10 15.77
61 45.10 22.45
62 44.80 17.42
63 52.60 27.15
64 53.92 25.03
65 49.23 24 .66
66 50.45 27.70
67 45.00 18.07
68 49.85 20.63
69 48.20 15.45
70 54.85 15.61
71 53.50 22.96
72 53.80 23.23
73 50.30 19.99
74 68.24 16.60
75 ■ 51.85 16.30
76 61.37 17.43
77 51.00 20.12
78 . 45.80 20.37
79 46.35 17.25
80 49.80 25.81
81 52.80 9.68
82 49.75 19.66
83 26.07 25.80
84 28.65 6.81
85 54.90 15.80
86 51.40 . 25.84
87 . 53.20 16.47
97
Correlations Between the Profile Ratings and the Change Factors 
for Teachers in School Districts Number I , 2 & 3
Table 17
Rater Change Factors
I 2 3 4 5 6
ILP BC SAB SI ISE SS
I .43 .34 .47 .2 6 .26 • 45
2 .15 .00 .0 9 -.03 .86 .28
3 .37 .27 .57 .35 .36 .31
4 .19 .10 .16 .04 .45 .50
5 .35 .23 .3 2 .11 . .14 .36
6 .10 -.09 .05 -.09 -.12 I .00
7 .07 .21 -.03 .01 -.07 .80
8 .17 .00 .05 -.09 048 .69
9 .1 2 — .04 .12 .04 — . 04 .8 6
10 .63 .10 .22 .11 .61 .14
11 .09 -.08 ' .10 .03 .11 .8 6
12 .18 .14 .14 .03 .20 .74
13 .65 .61 .03 -.02 .13 -.06
14 .52 .01 .11 -.08 .23 .74
15 .2 6 .03 .2 9 .33 .43 *44
16 .48 • .33 .4 9 .33 .38 .36
17 .15 -.04 .10 -.09 .09 .92
18 .52 .25 .29 .12 .08 .62
19 .12 -.08 .12 -.10 .42 .78
20 .31 .37 .17 .08 .40 .34
21 .21 -.02 .23 .03 .28 .83
22 .38 .23 .41 .53 .26 .22
23 .40 .2 6 .49 .25 .28 .46
24 -.07 .16 .3 8 -.28 .04 .16
25 .33 .15 .41 .21 .22 .70
26 .07 -;14 .08 -.03 - .0 5 .94
27 .22 • 44 .06 -.03 .19 .54
28 .33 .25 .47 .28 .40 .3 8
29 .48 .28 .3 4 .19' .37 .18
30 .23 .03 . .37 -.17 — • 40 • 45
31 .09 -.02 .7 2 .26 — • 04 .4 5
32 .20 .07 .54 .37 .25 - .0 2
33 .56 .12 .12 — . 01 .50 — .34
34 — . 01 • 47 - .3 3 -.16 -.04 .3 2
35 .29 -.10 .15 — • 04 .00 .91
36 .13 -.02 .25 .07 .11 .81
37 .41 .0 7 .11 .0 4 . .33 = 46
38 .13 -.03 .14 - .0 2 -.02 .9 6
39 .11 .01 -.06 .00 -.13 «73
40 .23 .03 . .2 4 .05 .32 .73
41 .20 . — .06 .06 .15 .15 .79
98
Table 17 (continued)
42 .35 .22 .27 . .05 .71 .2 0
43 .19 .17 .0 7 .09 .62 .48
44 .2 4 .15 .21 .00 -.01 .81
45 .2 4 .28 .05 .05 .50 .45
46 .23 .21 .19 .11 ' .62 .33
47 .21 .13 .17 .37 . .31 — .60
48 .6 2 .13 .25 .16 .28 .53
49 .72 .04 .6 7 .12 .14 .11
50 .47 .30 .50 .39 .42 .35
51 .2 0 — . 04 .13 — . 02 -.05 .9 2
52 .13 .1 2 .19 .16 .27 .63
53 ' .14 1 b .25 .09 .30 .6 7
54 .31 .11 .5 2 .19 .17 .2 6
55 .10 ■ .0 4 .08 .0 4 .12 .72
56 .4 8 .10 .2 8 .05 .14 .6 9
57 .13 .07 .0 9 .10 .55 .43
58 .17 - .0 9 .10. - .0 2 .11 .93
59 .32 .02 .49 .48 .48 - .0 3
60 .38 .46 .46 .14 .21 -.02
61 .15 -.05 .27 .05 - .0 6 .91
62 .68 .26 .25 .01 .62 .0 6
63 .9 4 .01 .15 .00 .11 .13
64 .45 .2 6 .38 .27 .22 .00
65 .06 -.01 .11 .05 . 44 .57
66 .12 -.07 .15 - .0 6 -.06 .9 8
67 .31 .24 .15 .03 .20 .77
68 .38 .34 .45 .16 .28 .37
69 .46 -.04 .31 .02 .29 .68
70 .31 .03 .28 .25 .21 .6 9
71 .17 .0 2 .05 -.07 -.10 .9 6
72 . .17 - .0 3 .17 -.01 .00 .9 6
73 .2 0 - .0 2 .13 -.08 .35 .75
74 .61 .21 .2 2 .07 .21 .19
75 .39 .16 .76 . .2 0 .13 .18
76 .25 .15 .2 2 . 16 .53 .47
77 .27 .19 .2 2 .05 .10 .7 6
78 .66 .14 .17 .18 .14 .4 8
79 .15 -.09 .23 .0 7 .05 .81
80 .10 -.09 .05 -.09 -.12 I .00
81 .47 .27 .32 .34 .33 .2 4
82 .27 .01 .40 .0 9 .00 .7 6
83 - .3 8 -.03 - .0 3 -.15 -.09 «44
84 .17 .20 .35 .03 .29 .46
8 5 . .3 9 .2 $ .2 2 .15 .26 .4 2
86 -.17, .02 .15 .89 — .14 -.10
87 .46 .2 9 .35 .34 .33 .35
99
Stages of the JAN Analysis Procedure 
School Districts Number I, 2 6 3
Table 18
Stage
Number 
of Policies R2
Successive 
R2 Drop
Accumulated 
r 2 Drop
I 87 .7866
2 86 .7866 .0000 .0000
3 85 .7866 .0000 .0000
4 84 .7865 .0000 .0001
5 83 .7864 .0001 .0002
6 82 .7863 .0002 .0003
7 81 .7861 .0002 .0005
8 80 .7859 .0002 .0007
9 79 .7857 .0002 .0009
10 78 .7856 .0002 .0010
11 77 .7854 .0002 .0012
12 76 .7852 .0002 .0014
13 75 .7850 .0002 .0016
14 74 .7848 .0002 .0018
15 73 .7846 .0002 .0020
16 72 .7843 .0003 .0023
17 71 .7840 .0003 .0 026
18 70 .7837 .0003 .0029
19 69 .7834 .0003 .0032
20 68 .7830 .0003 .0 036
21 67 .7827 .0004 .0039
22 66 .7823 .0004 .0043
23 65 .7820 .0004 .0047
24 64 .7816 .0004 .0050
25 63 .7812 .0004 .0 054
26 62 .7808 .0004 .0058
27 61 .7804 .0004 .0062
28 60 .7800 .0004 .0067
29 59 .7795 .0004 .0071
30 58 .7790 .0005 .0076
31 . 57 .7785 .0005 .0081
32 56 .7779 .0 006 .0087
33 55 .7773 .0006 .0093
34 54 .7768 .0006 .0098
35 53 .7762 .0006 .0105
36 52 .7755 .0007 .0111
37 51 .7748 .0007 .0118
38 50 .7741 .0007 .0125
39 49 .7734 .0007 .0132
100
Table 18 (continued)
40 48 .7727 .0007 .0140
41 47 .7719 . .0008 .0147
42 46 .7711 .0008 .0155
43 45 .7702 .0008 .0164
44 44 .7693 .0009 .0173
45 43 .7684 .0009 .0182
46 42 .7674 .0009 .0192
47 41 .7665 .0010 .0202
48 40 .7654 .0010 .0212
49 39 .7644 .0010 .0222
50 38 .7633 .0011 .0233
51 37 .7621 .0012 .0245
52 36 .7607 .0014 .0259
53 35 .7592 .0015 .0274
54 34 .7577 .0015 .0289
55 33 .7562 .0016 .0304
56 32 .7546 .0016 .0320
57 ' 31 .7528 .0018 .0338
58 30 .7510 .0018 .0356
59 29 .7487 .0023 »0379
60 28 .7463 .0024 .0403
61 27 .7439 .0024 .0427
62 26 .7415 .0025 .0451
63 25 .7389 .0025 .0477
64. 24 .7362 .0028 .0505
65 23 .7333 .0029 .0533
66 22 .7300 .0033 .0566
67 21 ..7267 .0033 .0599
68 20 .7231 .0036 .0635
69 19 .7194 .0037 .0672
70 18 .7151 .0043 .0715
71 17 .7106 .0046 .0761
72 16 .7055 .0050 .0811
73 15 .6999 .0056 .0867
74 14 .6941 .0058 .0925
75 13 .6871 .0070 .0995
76 12 .6790 .0081 .1076
77 11 .6707 .0083 .1159
78 10 .6617 .0090 .1249
79 9 .6517 .0100 .1349
80 8 .6384 .0133 .1482
81 7 .6240 .0144 .1626
82 6 .6095 .0146 .1772
83 5 .5931 .0163 .1935
84 4 .5667 .0265 .2200
85 3 .5317 .0350 .2549
86 2 .4850 .0466 .3016
87 I .3576 .1275 .4290
101
Table 19
Policies for each Rater in Policy I 
School Districts Number I , 2 & 3
p
Rater Change Factors R
I 2 3 4 5 6
ILP BG SAB SI ISE ' SS
I .36 .43 . .40 .29 .25 .49 .8497
3 .30 .36 .49 .36 .36 .36 .8446
5 .30 .2 9 .29 .14 .13 .37 ' .4294
10 .55 .14 .15 .17 .57 .17 .7820
11 -.02 .00 .03 .12 .22 .8 9 .7948
13 .67 .6 2 .0 4 .03 .03 -.07 .8244
16 .40 .41 • 41 .37 .38 .42 .9429
20 .23 .42 .12 .15 .42 .41 ■ .5710
22 .35 .30 .30 .56 .27 .27 .7534
23 .32 .35 .43 .2 8 .28 .4 9 .8038
28 .2 4 .33 .40 .32 .41 .45 .7724
29 .42 .34 .29 .22 .33 .21 .5960
32 .18 .12 .48 .32 .22 .00 .4733
33 ' .55 .10 ■ .10 .00 .38 -.35 .6420
37 .32 .12 .04 .12 .35 .49 .4901
3.9 .05 .08 — .10 .08 — . 04 .74 .5610
42 ■ .24 .25 .21 .11 .71 .2 8 .7602
46 .11 .2 6 .12 .19 .66 1 .43 .6764
47 .25 .10 .13 .33 .22 -.57 .6195
49 .69 .10 .65 .0 6 .02 .03 .9461
50 . .39 .3 9 .41 .42 .42 .41 .9862
52 .03 .20 ■ .11 .2 4 .36 .70 .6253
54 ' .26 .17 .47 .17 .15 .2 6 .4678
59 .27 .07 .39 .47 .45 .03 .7187
62 .61 .2 9 .21 .06 .54 .0 9 .8818
63 .93 .05 .11 .03 .00 .04 .8957
64 .43 .3 0 .33 .26 .16 .01 .5052
68 .30 .41 .40 .19 .27 .40 .6911
70 .21 .12 .1 8 .32 .28 .73 .7613
74 .5 8 .26 .18 .11 .15 .17 .5241
75 .35 .23 .73 .13 .07 .15 .7864
76 ..13 .2 2 .14 .2 4 .58 .55 . .6961
81 .42 .33 .24 .3 9 .32 .2 9 .6683
85 .32 .31 .16 .21 . .28 .46 .5351
86 . ■ -.12 .07 .03 .88 -.08 — .01 .8169
87 .39 .37 .27 .39 .34 .41 .7677
102
Policies for each Rater in Policy 2 
School Districts Number I , 2 & 3
Table 20
Rater Change Factors R2
I 2 3 4 5 6 >
ILP BC SAB SI ISE SS
2 .00 .02 .01 .0 6 .91 .3 9 .8890
4 .07 .15 .09 .12 .51 .5 8 .5692
6 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 I .00 1 .0000
7 .00 .2 8 -.07 .11 .03 .8 4 .7376
8 .02 .06 -.01 .01 .57 .76 .7967
9 .02 .05 .05 .12 .07 .8 8 .7652
12 .07 .2 2 .08 .12 .28 .80 .7044
14 .42 .08 .05 .02 .27 ■ .73 .8271
15 .17 .10 .18 .39 .48 .52 .6624
17 .03 .04 .05 .00 .19 .94 .8947
18 .45 .34 .24 .18 .09 .6 2 .8128
19 -.03 — .01 .05 .00 .52 .84 .8812
21 .08 .07 .16 .12 .37 .87 .8795
24 -.11 .19 .44 -.33 .02 .14 .3226
25 .23 .25 ' .33 • .2 6 .27 .74 .8813
26 -.03 - . 0 6 .02 .05 .07 .9 5 .8920
27 .15 .49 .04 .06 .24 .60 .6180
30 .22 .09 .42 -.22 — . 42 .35 .5683
31 .03 .07 .6 8 .2 0  . -.02 • 44 .7413
34 - .0 3 .4 8 -.31 -.06 .01 .37 .4578
35 .19 — .01 .09 .04 .08 .90 .8881
36 . .0 2 .07 .18 .13 .20 .8 4 .7664
38 .02 .06 .09 .07 .09 .98 .9514
40 .11 .11 .17 .13 .40 .78 .7773
41 .10 .02 — .04 .2$ .25 . .84 .7578
43 .0 6 .22 -.02 ■ .20 .69 .5 9 .7768
44 .15 .25 .17 .07 .06 .8 2 .7775
45 .13 .3 2 — .01 .16 .55 .54 .6473
48 .54 .2 2 .17 .24 .28 .54 .8101
51 ■ .10 .05 .07 .06 .04 .9 2 .8731
53 .03 .02 .18 .16 .38 .7 2 .6586
55 .00 .11 .03 .12 .21 .7 6 . 5866
56 .39 ■ .19 .22 .11 .16 .68 . .7625
57 .01 .1 2 .01 .19 .62 .53 .5988
58 ■ .05 .00 .03 .08 .22 .9 6 .9230
60 .37 .50 .46 .12 .14 -.01 .6276
61 .05 .05 .2 2 .10 .03 .91 .8988
65 -.07 .04 .04 .14 .54 .66 .6193
66 .01 .03 .10 .01 .05 .9 8 .9722
67 .21 .3 2 .09 .13 .27 .82 . .8399
69 .35 .04 .24 .08 .32 .68 .7910
103
Table 20 (continued)
71 .08 .11 .01 .0 2 .01 .9 6 .9416
72 .0 6 .07 .11 .07 .11 .97 .9536
73 .06 .05 .0 6 .01 .43 .8 0 .7690
77 .18 .2 8 .17 .13 .16 .7 8 .7533
78 .61 .21 .09 .26 .13 .47 .7413
79 .05 .00 .1 6 .13 .14 ' .8 2 .7274
80 .00 .00 ' .00 .00 .00 I .00 1.0000
82 . .19 .11 .35 .12 .05 .75 .7686
83 — .43 — .01 — e 01 -.12 .01 .47 .3883
84 .07 .2 6 .31 .0 6 .32 .51 .5022
104
Table 21
Profile Ratings: Mean and Standard Deviation of each
Rater, School District Number I
Rater . Mean Standard Deviation
I 51 .95 15.44
2 38.80 25 .4 2
3 4 9 .9 6 10.76
4. ■ 36.46 12.64
5 5 1 .65 14.70
6 24 .9 0 12.90
7 50.60 20 .8 5
8 43.70 17.76
9 39 .1 0 2 2 .6 8
10 51.85 16.91
■11 58.6$ 2 0 .3 2
12 35 .9 0 23 .9 9
13 50 .25 19.98
14 45 .3 0 17.40
15 40.10 16.43
16 50 .23 .10.86
17, 49 .2 5 26.72
18 3 6 .2 0 19.37
19 47.68 23 .1 7
20 68 .0 9 2 5 .3 0
21 45.55 21.56
22 51 .55 15.57
23 52 .5 0 15.74
24 40 .9 5 24.60
25 ■ 49 .7 5 13 .9 2
26 53.40 23 .2 5
27 45 .6 5 20.84
28 48.60 14.48
29 47.51 18.38
30 42 .7 9 2 2 .2 0
31 43 .81 25 .4 3
32 56 .55 16.86
105
Correlations Between the Profile Ratings and the Change 
Factors for Teachers in School District Number I
Table 22
Rater Change Factors
, I 2 3 4 5 6
ILP BC SAB SI ISE SS
I - .43 .34 .47 .26. .26 .45
2 .15 .00 .09 -.03 .86 .2 8
3 .37 .27 .57 .35 .36 .31
4 .19 .10 .16 .04 .45 • .50
5 .35 .23 .32 .11 .14 .36
6 .10 -.09 .05 -.09 . -.12 1 .00
7 .07 .21 -.03 .01 ' -.07 ■ .80
8 .17 .00 .05 -.09 .48 .69
9 .12 — . 04 .12 .04 — • 04 .86
10 .63 .10 .22 .11 .61 .14
11. .09 -.08 .10 .03 .11 .86
12 .18 .14 .14 .03 .20 .74
13 ' .65 .61 .03 — . 02 .13 -.06
14 .52 .01 .11 -.08 .23 .74
15 .26 .03 .29 .33 .43 «44
16 .48 .33 .49 .33 .38 .36
17 .15 — .04 .10 — . 09 .09 .9 2
18 .52 .25 .29 .12 .08 .62
19 .12 - .0 8 .12 -.10 .42 .7 8
20 .31 .3 7 .17 .0 8 .40 .34
21 .21 -.02 .23 .03 .28 .83
22 .38 .23 .41 .53 .26 .22
23 .40 .26 .49 .25 .28 .46
24 -.07 .16 .38 -.28 .04 .16
25 .33 .15 . .41 .21 .22 .70
26 .0 7 -.14 .08 - .0 3 -.05 .94
27 .22 *44 .06 -.03 .19 .54
28 .33 .25 •47 .28 ■ .40 • .3 8
29 .48 .28 • 34 ■ .19 .37 .18
30 .23 .03 .37 — e 1 7 — • 40 .45
31 .09 — .02 .72 .26 — • 04 .45
32 .20 .07 .54 .37 .25 — . 02
106
Table 23
Stages of the JAN Analysis Procedure 
School District Number I
Stage
Number 
of Policies R2
Successive
Drop
Accumulated 
R^ Drop
I 32 .7753 .
2 31 .7753 .0001 .0001
3 30 .7752 .0001 .0002
4 29 .7746 .0005 .0007
5 28 .7737 .0009 .0017
6 27 .7723 .0014 .0030
7 26 .7710 .0014 .0 044
8 25 .7692 .0017 .0061
9 24 .7675 .0017 .0078
10 23 .7657 .0018 .0097
11 22 .7637 .0019 .0116
12 21 .7616 .0021 .0137
13 20 .7592 .0024 .0161
14 19 .7567 .0025 .0187
15 ■ 18 .7531 .0 036 .0222
16 17' .7489 .0042 .026$
17 16 • .7444 .0045. .0309
18 15 .7392 .0053 .0362
19 14 .7333 .0059 .0421
20 13 .7273 .0059 .0480
21 12 .7203 .0070 . .0551
22 11 .7132 .0071 .0622
23 10 .7032 .0100 .0722
24 9 .6913 .0118 .0840
25 8 .6782 .0131 .0972
26 7 .6639 .0143 .1115
27 6 .6446 .0192 .1307
28 5 .6194 .0252 .1559
29 4 .5925 .0270 .1829
30 3 .5517 .0408 .2 237
31 2 .4965 .0552 .2788
32 I .3822 .1143 .3931
107
Table 24
Policies for each Rater in Policy. I 
School District Number I
Rater Change Factors R2
I 2 3 4 5 6
ILP BC SAB SI ISE SS
I .36 .43 .40 .29 .25 .49 .8497
3 .30 .36 .49 .36 .36 .36 .8446
5 .30 .29 .29 .14 .13 .37 .4294
10 .55 .14 .15 .17 .57 .17 .7820
13 .67 .62 .04 .03 .03 -.07 .8244
16 .40 .41 .41 ' .37 .38 .42 .9429
20 .23 .42. .12 .15 .42 • 41 .5710
22 .35 .30 .30 .56 .27 .27 .7534
23 .32 .35 .43 .28 .28 .49 .8038
25 . .23 .25 .33 .26 .27 .74 .8813
28 , .24 .33 .40 .32 .41 .45 • .7724
29 .42 .34 .29 .22 .33 .21 .5960
32 .18 .12 .48 .32 .22 .00 .4733
108
Table 25
Policies for each Rater in Policy 2 
School District Number I
Rater Change Factors R 2
I 2 3 4 5 6
ILP BC SAB SI ISE SS
2 .00 .02 .01 .06 .91 .3 9 .8890
4 .07 .15 .0 9 .12 .51 .5 8 .5692
6 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 I .00 I .0000
8 .02 .06 -.01 .01 .57 .7 6 .7967
9 .02 .05 .05 .12 .07 .8 8 .7652
12 .07 .22 .08 .12 .28 .8 0 .7044
U .42 .08 .05 .02 .27 .73 .8271
15 .17 .10 .18 .39 .48 .52 . 6624
18 .45 .3 4 .2 4 .18 .09 .62 .8128
19 - .0 3 -.01 .05 .00 .52 .8 4 .8812
21 .08 .07 .16 .12 .37 .8 7 .8795
24 -.11 .19 .44 - .3 3 .02 .14 .3226
27 .15 .49 .04 .06 .24 .6 0 .6180
30 .22 .09 .42 — . 22 — . 42 •35 .5683
31 .03 .07 .6 8 .20 -.02 .44 .7413
Table 26
Policies for each Rater in Policy 3 
School District Number I
Rater Change Factors R2
I 2 . 3 4 5 6
ILP BC SAB SI ISE SS
7 .00 .2 8 -.07 .11 .03 .8 4 .7376
11 -.02 .00 .03 .12 .22 .8 9 .7948
17 .03 .04 .05 .00 .19 .94 .8947
26 -.03 -.06 ■ .02 .05 .07 .95 .8920
109
Table 27
Profile Ratings: Mean and Standard Deviation of each
Rater,' School District Number 2
Rater Mean Standard Deviation
I 4 9 .8 0 25 .81
2 52 .8 0 9 .6 8
3 49 .7 5 19.66
4 26.07 25 .8 0
5 28 .6 5 6.81
6 54 .90 15 .8 0
7 51 .40 2 5 .8 4
8 53 .20 16 .4 7
Table 28
Correlations Between the Profile Ratings and the Change 
Factors for Teachers in School District Num b e r  2
Rater Change Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6
ILP BC SAB SI ISE SS
I .10 -.09 .05 —. 09 — •12 1 .00
2 .47 .27 .32 .34 .33 .2 4
3 .27 .01 .40 .09 .00 .7 6
4 -.38 -.03 -.03 -.15 - .0 9 »44
5 .17 .2 0 .35 .03 .29 .46
6 .39 .25 .22 .15 .26 .4 2
7 -.17 .02 • 15 .8 9 —.14 -.10
8 .46 .29 .35 .34 .33 .3 5
110
Stages of the JAN Analysis Procedure 
School District Number 2
Table 29
Stage
Number 
of Policies R2
Successive 
r 2 Drop
Accumulated 
'R^ Drop
I 8 .7859
2 7 .7831 . .0028 .0028
3 6 .7778 .0053 .0081
4 5 .7531 ' .0247 .0328
5 4 .7230 .0301 .0630
6 3 .6326 .0904 .1533
7 2 .4943 .1383 .2916
8 I .2149 .2793 .5710
Table 30
Policies for each Rater in Policy 
School District Number 2
I
Rater Change Factors R2
I 2 3 4 5 ' 6
ILP BC SAB SI ISE ' SS
I .00 .00 .0 0 .00 .00 1 .00 I.0000
3 .19 .11 .35 .12 .05 .75 .7 6 8 6 .
Ill
Policies for'each Rater in Policy 2 
School District Number 2
Table 31
Rater Change Factors
I 2 3 4 5 6
ILP .BC SAB SI ISE SS
2 .42 .33 .24 .39 .32 .29 . 6683
6 .32 .31 .16 .21 .28 .46 .5351
8 .39 .37 .27 .39 .34 .41 .7677
Table 32
Policies for each R a ter in Policy 3
School District Number 2
Rater Change Factors R 2
I 2 3 4 5 , 6
ILP BC SAB SI ISE ■ SS
4 -.43 — .01 — .01 -.12 .01 .47 .3883
5 ' .07 .26 .31 .06 .32 . .51 .5022
Table 33
Policy for each Rater in Policy 4 
School District Number 2
Rater Change Factors R^
I 2 3 4 5 6
ILP BC SAB ■ SI ISE SS
-.12 .07 .03 .88 -.08 -.01 .81697
112
Table 34
Profile Ratings: Mean and Standard Deviation of each
Rater, School District Number 3
Rater Mean Standard Deviation
I 48.30 23.48
2 42.05 21.44
3 49.65 24.75
4 43.05 20.38
5 70.49 15.45
6 46.40 32.60
7 61.80 15.98
8 46.00 19.44
8 40 .30 25.24
10 42 .40 20.55
11 41 .20 16.20
12 51.81 18.84
13 36.65 17.69
14 58.70 15.90
15 47.97 26.89
16 44.75 19.20
17 51.65 . 17.97
18 49.90 10.79
19 53.54 28.56
20 , 54.70 16.04
21 38.80 19.85
22 66.41 12.88
23 37.43 26.80
24 43.30 15.81
25 46.25 12.77
26 ■ 41.75 28.69
27 58.45 16.97
28 41.10 . v 15.77
29 45.10 22.45
30 44.80 17.42
31' 52.60 27.15
32 53.92 25.03
33' 49.23 24 .66
34 50.45 27.70
35 45.00 18.07
36 49.85 20.63
37 48.20 15.45
38 54.85 15.61
39 53.50 22.96
40 53.80 23.23
41 50.30 19.99
.113
Table 34 (continued)
42 68.24 16.60
43 51.8$ 16.30
44 61.37 17.43
45 51.00 20.12
46 45.80 '20.37
47 46.35 17.25
114
Table 35
Correlations Between the Profile Ratings and the Change 
Factors for Teachers.in School District Number 3
Rater Change Factors
' I 2 3 4 5 6
ILP BC SAB SI ISE SS
I • 56 .12 .12 -.01 • 50. — »34
2 — • 01 .47 - .3 3 -.16 — . 04 .3 2
3 .29 — .10 ' .15 — . 04 .00 .91
4 .13 -.02 .25 .07 .11 .81
5 .41 .0 7 .11 .04 .33 .46
6 . .13 - .0 3 .14 — • 02 — • 02 .9 6
7 .11 .01 -.06 • .00 -.13 .73
8 .23 .03 .24 .05 .32 .73
9 .20 -.06 .06 .15 .15 .79
10 .35 .22 .27 .05 .71 .20
11 .19 .17 .07 .09 .62 .48
12 ' .24 .15 .21 .00 -.01 .81
13 .2 4 .2 8 .05 .05 .50 • 45
14 .23 .21 .19 .11 .62 • 33
15 .21 .13 .17 .37 .31 - .6 0
16 .62 .13 .25 .16 .28 • 53
17 .72 .0 4 .67 .12 .14 .11
18 .47 .30 .50 .3 9 .42 • 35
19 .20 — .04 .13 — . 02 -.05 •92
20 .13 .12 .19 .16 .27 .63
21 .14 -.06 .25 .09 .30 .67
22 .31 .11 .5 2 .19 .17 .26
23 .10 .04 .08 .04 .12 .7 2
24
CO .10 .2 8 .05 .14 .6 9
25 .13 .07 .0 9 .10 .55 • 43
26 .17 -.09 .10 -.02 .11 .93
27 .32 .02 .49 .48 .48 -.03
28 .38 .46 .46 .14 .21 -.02
29 .15 -.05 .27 .05 -.06 • 91
30 .68 .26 .25 .01 .62 .0 6
31 . .9 4 .01 .15 .00 .11 • 13
32 .45 .26 - .38 .27 .22 .00
33 .06 -.01 .11 .05 • 44 .57
34 .12 - .0 7 .15 -.06 -.06 .9 8
35 .31 .2 4 .15 .03 .20 .77
36 .38 .3 4 .45. .1 6 .28 .37
37 .46 — . 04 .31 .02 .29. .6 8
38 .31 .03 .2 8 .25 .21 .6 9
39 ' .17 .0 2 .05 -.07 -.10 .9 6
40 .17 -.03 .17 — . 01 .00 .9 6
41 .20 — • 02 .13 -.08 .35 .75
115
Table 35 (continued)
42 .61 .21 .2 2 .07 .21 .19
43 .39 .16 .76 .2 0 .13 .18
44 .25 .15 .22 .16 .53 .47
45 . .2 7 .19 . .22 .05 .10 .7 6
46 . 66 .14 .17 ' .18 .14 .4 8
47 .15 -.09 .23 : .07 .05 .81
116
Table 36
Stages of the JAN Analysis Procedure 
School District Number 3
Stage
Number 
of Policies R2
Successive 
R2 Drop
Accumulated 
R2 Drop
I 47 .7911
2 46 .7917 .0002 .0002
3 45 .7914 .0003 .0005
4 • 44 .7911 .0003 .0008
5 43 .7907 .0003 .0011
6 42 .7904 .0004 .0015
7 41 .7899 .0004 .0020
8 40 .7894 .0005 .0025
9 39 .7888 .0006 .0031
10 38 .7882 .0006 .0037
11 37 .7874 .0007 .0044
• 12 36 .7876 .0008 .0052
13 35 .7859 .0008 .0060
14 34 .7850 .0009 .0069
15 33 .7839 .0010 .0080
16 32 .7828 .0011 .0091
17 31 .7817 .0011 .0102
18 30 .7805 .0012 .0114
19 29 .7793 .0012 .0126
20 28 .7779 .0013 .0140
21 27 .7765 .0014 .0153
22 26 .7751 .0015 .0 168 .
23 25 .7735 .0015 .0183
24 24 .7718 .0017 .0201
25 23 .7697 .0021 .0222
26 22 .7674 .0023 .0245
27 21 .7650 .0024 .0269
28 20 .7615 .0035 .0304
29 19 .7578 .0036 .0341
30 18 .7541 .0037 .0378
31 17 .7496 .0045 .0422
32 16 .7450 .0046 .0469
33 15 .7400 .0051 .0519
34 14 .7347 .0052 .0572
35 13 .7289 .0058 .0630
36 12 .7225 .0064 .0693
. 37 11 .7145 .0071 .0765
38 10 .7081 .0073 .0838
39 9 .6997 . .0085 .0922
40 8 .6894 .0103 .1025
41 7 .6763 .0131 .1156
117
Table 36 (continued)
42 6 .6590 .0173 .1329
43 ' 5 .6395 .0196 .1524
44 4 .6099 .0296 .1820
45 3 .5755 .0343 .2164
46 2 - ' .5134 .0622 .2785
47 I .3828 .1306 .4091
Table 37
Policies for each Rater in Policy I 
School District Number 3
Rater Change Factors R 2
I 2 . 3 4 . 5 6
ILP BC SAB SI ISE SS
I .55 .10 .10 .00 .38 -.35 .6420
2 - .0 3 .48 -.31 -.06 .01 .37 .4578
10 .24 .25 .21 .11 .71 .2 8 .7602
11 .06 .22 — . 02 .20 .69 .5 9 .7768
13 .13 .32 • — .01 .16 .55 .54 .6473
15 .25 .10 .13 .33 .22 -.57 .6195
16 .54 .22 .17 .24 .28 .54 .8101
17 .69 ,10 .65 .06 .02 . .03 .9461
18 .39 .39 .41 .42 .42 .41 .9862
19 .10 .05 .07 .06 .04 .9 2 .8731
25 .01 .12 .01 .19 .62 .53 .5988
28 .37 .50 .46 .12 .14 — .01 .6276
30 .61 .29 .21 .06 .54 .09 .8818
. 31 .93 .05 .11 .03 .00 .0 4 .8957
32 .43 .30 .33 .2 6 . 16 .01 .5052
36 .30 •41 ■ .40 .19 .27 .40 .6911
43 .35 .23 .73 .13 .07 .15 .7864
46 .61 .21 .09 .26 .13 .47 .7413
118
Table 38
Policies for each Rater in Policy 2 
School District Number 3
Rater Change Factors
I 2 3 4 . 5 6
ILP ■ BC SAB SI ISE SS
3 .19 -.01 .0 9 .04 .08 .9 0 .8881
4 .0 2 .07 .18 .13 .20 .8 4 .7664
6 .02 .06 .0 9 .07 .09 .9 8 .9514
7 .05 .08 -.10 .0 8 -.04 .74 .5610
8 .11 .11 .17 .13 .40 .7 8 .7773
9 .10 .02 — • 04 .25 .25 .8 4 .7578
12 .15 .25 .17 .07 .06 .8 2 .7775
19 .10 .05 .07 .06 .04 .92 .8731
20 .03 .20 .11 .24 .36 .70 .6253
21 .03 .02 .18 .16 • 38 .7 2 .6580
23 .00 .11 .03 .12 .21 .76 . 5866
24 .39 .19 .2 2 .11 .16 .68 .7625
26 .05 .00 .03 .08 .22 .9 6 .9230
29 .05 .05 .2 2 .10 .03 .91 .8988
' 33 -.07 .04 .0 4 .14 .54 .66 .6193
■ 34 .01 .03 .10 .01 .05 .9 8 .9722
35 .21 .32 .0 9 .13 .27 .8 2 .8399
37 .35 .04 . .24 .08 .32 .6 8 .7910
38 .21 .12 .18 .32 .28 .73 .7613
39 .08 .11 .01 .0 2 .01 .9 6 .9416
40 .06 .07 .11 .07 .11 .97 .9536
41 .06 .05 .06 .01 .43 .8 0 .7690
45 .18 .2 8 .17 .13 .16 .7 8 .7533
47 .05 .00 .16 .13 .14 .8 2 .7274
119
Policies for each Rater in Policy 3 
School District Number 3
Table 39
Rater Change Factors R2
I 2 ' 3 4 5 6
ILP BC ’ SAB . SI ISE SS
5 .32 .12 .04 .12 .35 .4 9 - .4901
42 .5 8 .26 .18 .11 .15 .17 .5241
22 .26 .17 .47 .17 .15 .2 6 .4678
U .11 .2 6 .12 .19 .66 .43 .6764
44 .13 .2 2 .14 .24 .58 .55 .6961
' 27 . .27 .0 7 .3 9 .47 .45 .03 .7187
120
APPENDIX B
SIMULATION'INSTRUMENT
A SIMULATION OF TEACHER 
DECISION MAKING
An Investigation of the- Factors which 'Influence 
Teachers to Try Mastery Learning . 
in Their Classroom
School System Change Environment Packet
122
INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY
J
INTRODUCTION
The educator today often makes decisions in the face of 
uncertainty. Many of these decisions have widespread 
implications but, all too often, are made without an 
appropriate decision-making procedure. The ability to 
determine which variables are important in making decisions 
concerning curricula, new programs, planned changes and other 
processes is a valuable asset to educators. Simulation 
techniques have provided educators with suitable methods and 
procedures to aid in making informed decisions.
As a participant in this simulation you will make 100 
ratings. There are 100 change environment profiles in this 
instrument. These profiles contain six pieces of information 
that describe a school. Given the information in each profile 
you are to decide whether you would try Mastery Learning in 
your classrooom? In.this simulation "try" means you would 
test the operation and effect of Mastery Learning in your 
classroom. The information on each profile will be explained 
in the next section.
You are to review each change profile and make a rating 
about the probability of you'trying Mastery Learning. You are 
to function as a faculty member of a school. The school may be 
where you are currently employed or an imaginary school. It is 
important that whatever school context you choose that you keep 
a constant frame of reference throughout the simulation. It is 
best that you complete the packet in one sitting. If this is
123
124
not possible please complete profiles I-50 in one sitting and 
profiles 51-100 in a second.sitting. If this is not feasible 
please complete the packet in three sittings. Complete 
profiles I-30 the first sitting, profiles 31-65 the second 
sitting and profiles 66-100 the third sitting. To summarize, 
given the information in each change environment profile, you 
are to make a rating as to whether you would try Mastery 
Learning in your classroom;
INFORMATION CUES
The purpose of this research is to determine how 
different kinds of information about the change process 
environment affects how teachers rate the potential for 
trying Mastery Learning in their classroom. There is much 
information that is related to the implementation of change 
but research indicates that this information can be categorized 
within the following six factors or information cues:
1. Instructional leadership by the principal
2. Building climate
3. Support from the central office administration and 
the board of education
4. Supervision of instruction
5. Appropriate in-service education relative to the 
planned change
6. Potential for student success
The information cues a.re described in the next section. An 
illustration is included which indicates how to go about the
12$
process of rating each change environment profile. The change 
environment profile which indicates the conditions most 
suitable for you trying Mastery Learning is assigned a rating 
of 100. The change environment profile which indicates the 
conditions least suitable for you trying Mastery Learning is 
assigned a rating of 0.
After studying the cue descriptions in the next section 
and the ranking procedure at the end of the section your task 
will be to make 100.decisions and rate them on a 100 point 
scale.
PLEASE READ THE CUE INFORMATION CAREFULLY
SCHOOL SYSTEM CHANGE ENVIRONMENT PROFILE INFORMATION
Cue I
Instructional Leadership by the Principal 
Leadership by the principal is critical in the devlopment of 
excellence within a school curriculum. Leadership by the 
principal is- a direct outcome of authority granted that person 
by the teachers. ,Some typical attributes of effective 
instructional leadership are listed below.
1. Two way communication between the principal and the 
teachers.
2. Necessary materials and resources are provided for the 
teachers.
3. The principal exhibits a thorough understanding of all 
programs in the building.
4. Constant evaluation of programs is provided.
126
5• Receptive to ideas from teachers and students.
6. Shared decision making is commonly utilized.
Some attributes of ineffective leadership are:
1. One way communication, from the principal to the 
teachers, is prevalent.
2. A lack of understanding of programs' is common.
3. An ineffective evaluation process is utilized.
4. Decisions are typically made by the principal.
Cue 2
Building Climate
The building climate is the personality of the building. It 
represents the qualities and patterns of the personnel within a 
building. Some qualities of a positive building climate are:
1. People care for each other.
2. Friendly, respectful, genuine feelings are observed 
between all people involved.
3• High expectations exist for the performance, of all 
concerned.
4* A willingness to accept constructive criticism 
prevails.
5• A favorable environment for learning exists.
. 6. Very personal, people know each other.
Some qualities of a low level building climate are:
1. People remain annonymous and aloof.
2. Low expectations exist for the performance of all 
concerned.
3. Social events are attended but not enjoyed.
127
4. Individuals are very closed with respect to 
constructive criticism.
Cue 3
Support from the Central Office Administration 
and the Board of Education
Support from the hierarchy is often subtle and yet very 
important in achieving excellence in curricula. Some aspects 
of high level support from the school hierarchy are:
1. Priorities are developed and communicated.
2. The overall direction of programs, in light of the 
district goals, are established.
3. Articulation among various disciplines and across 
school levels are ensured.
4. Resources are provided where needed.
5. Individual buildings are allowed to develop their own 
program within the district guidelines.
Some aspects of low level support from the school hierarchy 
are:
1. Resources are not available for program development.
2. District goals are not developed.
3. There is little evidence of uniform program 
development in the district.
Cue 4
Supervision of Instruction
The supervision process is designed to facilitate growth and 
improvement by individuals at whatever level they are currently 
functioning. Some characteristics of an effective supervision
process are:
128
1. Responsive to concerns and aspirations of teachers.
2. The teachers realize a felt need.
3. Intimate, professional relationships result.
4- Aids teachers in improving their instructional 
performance.
5• Improved student learning is one of the outcomes.
6. Instructional problems are diagnosed and solutions 
proposed.
Some characteristics of an ineffective supervision process are:
1. A high anxiety level exists in relation to the 
supervision process.
2. Unpleasant interaction results from supervision 
contacts.
' 3• Little improvement in instructional performance is
achieved.
4« Instructional problems, if identified, are not 
diagnosed.
5• Student learning is not enhanced.
Cue 5
Appropriate In-Service Education relative to the Planned Change 
In-service education is the means by which a faculty, or the 
professionals in a school district can contribute to the 
development of a program, can learn how to implement a new 
program, and can have the opportunity to grow professionally 
while on the job. Some qualities of effective in-service 
education are:
1. Sensitive to the needs' of teachers.
2. Active involvement of the participants including the 
opportunity to add new dimensions to the program.
129
3• Administrators are responsive to the feedback of the 
teachers.
4. They are promoted as an effort to improve the overall 
effectiveness of the educational system.
5. Programs should model the same high quality 
educational practices that teachers are expected to 
give students.
6. Individual programs are part of a sustained sequential 
effort to improve the curriculum.
Some qualities of ineffective in-service education are:
1. Insensitive to the needs of teachers, programs chosen 
and designed by the administration.
2. Promoted as a duty and a part of the school year.
3. Not sequential in addressing the.needs of the school.
4. Active endorsement by the administration not apparent.
Cue 6
Student Success
Some contend that the underlying factor in all school decisions 
should be the welfare of the student. Student success defines 
the outcome of the school process. Some qualities of high 
student success are:
1. Actively engaged in learning while class is in 
session.
2. Students exhibit independent behavior in learning the 
curriculum.
3. Student behavior indicates a positive attitude toward 
peers and teachers.
4. Student behavior indicates a positive attitude toward 
the curriculum and the school.
5. Behavior problems are not typically exhibited.
130
6. Students are actively engaged in dialogue with 
teachers.
7. Students exhibit positive self concepts.
8. Students exhibit high scholastic achievement.
Some qualities of low student success are:
1. Students exhibit negative self concepts.
2. Average or low scholasatic achievement is normal.
.3• School vandalism is prevalent.
4. Contacts between students and teachers are brief and 
formal.
5. Students do not respond well to responsibility or 
opportunity.
SAMPLE SCHOOL SYSTEM CHANGE ENVIRONMENT PROFILE
131
SCHOOL SYSTEM CHANGE ENVIRONMENT PROFILE
Instructional 
Leadership by 
the Principal
Building Climate
Support from the 
Central Office 
Administration 
and the Board of 
Education
Supervision of 
Instruction
Appropriate In- 
Service Education 
relative to the 
Planned Change
Potential for 
Student Success
0 10 20 
Low
8 S 8, 80 90 100 
High
0 10 20 
Low
30 40 50 60\70 80 90 IQO 
High
0 10 20 
Low
30 40 50 60 70 JTO 90 100 
High
0 10 20 
Low
30 40 5 0 ^ 0  70 80 90 100 
High
o i o ^ e ^
Low
^ O  40 50 60 70 80 90 100 
High
0 10 20 
Low
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 
High
RATING SCALE
-100 High Probability 
that you would Try 
-90 Mastery Learning in 
your classroom.
-80
-70
-50 Your Rating
for this orofIIe 
-40
■30
■20
Low Probability 
■10 that you would .ry 
Mastery Learning in 
- 0 your classroom.
There are six pieces of information about the 
school change environment given to you.
1. The level of instructional leadership by the principal 
is quite high at the 70 percent level.
2. The building climate is slightly above normal at the 
60 percent level.
3. Support from the central office administration and the 
board of education is high at the 80 percent level.
4. Supervision of instruction is slightly above normal 
at the 60 percent level.
5. The in-service education relative to the planned 
change is very low at the 10 percent level.
6. Potential for student success as a result of the 
innovation is high at the 80 percent level.
After studying this profile a decision is made that there 
is a probability of 75. that you would try Mastery Learning in 
your classroom.
132
FINAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SIMULATION 
It is important that you complete the profiles in this 
packet in the order in which they are presented. If more than 
one sitting is necessary please follow a suggested sequence 
mentioned earlier. You may review the information explaining 
the information cues at any time you feel it is necessary. It 
is important that you maintain a constant frame of reference 
with respect to school context throughout the simuluation.
Write your rating (score) for each profile in the space 
provided next to the scale. When you are finished, please 
return this booklet via the envelope provided.
Thank you for your contribution to this research. A 
synopsis of the study will be made available to you upon its 
completion.
Participant Information
Before beginning the simulation, please take a few moments 
to complete this section. You may be assured that your 
responses will remain anonymous.
1. With your knowledge of Mastery Learning, please
rate the potential for you trying Mastery Learning 
in your classroom. _____high _____low
2. How many years have you been employed as a full time 
teacher?
3. Please check the appropriate space indicating your 
degree of educational training. _____B.S. _____M.S.
Please indicate your current teaching assignment.
K—3 , K—6, 6—12, etc. __________
4.
133
#i
SCHOOL SYSTEM CHANGE ENVIRONMENT PROFILE
Instructional 
Leadership by 
the Principal
Building Climate
Support from the 
Central Office 
Administration 
and the Board of 
Education
Supervision of 
Instruction
Appropriate In- 
Service Education 
relative to the 
Plemned Chemge
0 10 
Low
0 10 
Low
0 10 
Low
0 10 
Low
0 10 
Low
20 30 40 50 60 7( 80
90 100 
High
90 100 
High
90 100 
High
90 100 
High
90 100 
High
Potential for ■ - . » ..... . . I ■ ,
Student Success 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Low High
pi 00
-90 
-80 
-70 
-60 
-50 
-40 
-30 
-20 
-10 
- 0
#2
SCHOOL SYSTEM CHANGE ENVIRONMENT PROFILE
Instructional , « ■ ----4 »■ r- ■ r-1 ■ %
Leadership by 0 10 20 30 40 50\ 60 70 80 90 100
the Principal Low \ High
Building Climate « « \ ..............
0 10 20 30 40 50 60\ 70 80 90 100
Low \ High
Support from the \
Central Office , , * 4 . . ,
Administration 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70\ 80 90 100
and the Board of Low \ High
Education \
Supervision of , » ■■ ■ » . » ^  » ■
Instruction 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 >80 90 1 00
Low High
Appropriate In-
Service Education « ' ■ ^ ....
relative to the 0 10 20 30 40 50 XtP 70 80 90 100
Planned Change Low High
pi 00
-90 
-80 
-70 
-60 
-50 
-40 
-30 
.20 
-10 
- C
Potential for . . --- - -- - » -V— ■»
Student Success 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Low High
RATING SCALE
High Probability 
that you would Trj 
Mastery Learning in 
your classroom.
(_____ )
Your Rating 
for this profile
Low Probability 
that you would Iry 
Mastery Learning in 
your classroom.
RATING SCALE
High Probability 
that you would Try 
Mastery Learning in 
your classroom.
( , )
Your Rating
for this profile
Low Probability 
that you would Try 
Mastery Learning in 
your classroom.
134
APPENDIX.C 
LETTERS
135
Sample Confirmation Letter
To:
Re: Research Packet
The consideration and interest expressed by yourself in our 
recent visit is appreciated. The cooperation you extended will 
be helpful in making this research successful.
Enclosed is a prototype copy, currently being field tested, of 
the initial pages of the research instrument. I expect the 
final copy will be quite similar with the exception of 
additional profile pages, some wording changes and it will be 
commercially printed and bound.
We discussed.distributing the packet to your teachers during 
the last part of the week of January 28, 1985. I trust this ■ 
still fits your schedule. 'I will contact you in mid December 
to clarify dates.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions 
regarding the research. Am looking forward to working with you 
in January.
Respectfully,
Robert Osland
Enclosure
136
Cover-letter Accompanying Simulation Instrument 
January, 1985
Dear Teacher,
You have been selected to take part in this important 
investigation because of your knowledge of Mastery 
Learning. The purpose of this study is to prioritize the 
factors which influence teachers to try Mastery Learning 
in their classroom.
I am working on a research project sponsored by the 
Department of Educational Services at Montana State 
University. In order to analyze the factors which are 
important in teachers adopting Mastery Learning in their 
classroom I have designed a simulation instrument of 
teacher decision making.
The accompanying packet contains the simulation 
instrument. In field testing the instrument the longest 
time necessary to complete it was an hour and fifteen 
minutes. Most of you 'will complete it in less than one 
hour. Your honest effort will be appreciated. Please 
read the first ten pages carefully and complete the 
Participant Information on page ten before beginning the 
simulation. It is important that you record a score for 
every decision.
I would appreciate your completing the instrument 
within the next two weeks and returning it to me in the 
stamped, self-addressed envelope which has been provided. 
Your responses will be anonymous and a synopsis of the 
investigation will be made available to you.
Thank you for your time and assistance in completing 
this aspect of the investigation.
Respectfully,
Robert Osland
137
Sample Follow-up Letter
To:
Re: Simulation Instrument
I appreciate the time you took from your busy schedule for our 
recent visit'. Everything you have done is very much 
appreciated.
Enclosed are ' copies of a follow-up letter for your
faculty. Please distribute them through faculty mail or 
whatever method is appropriate in your system. To date I have 
received completed returns of a possible which
were handed out. I am hoping for at least a 50 percent return 
and with your help I believe this will be achieved.
I really enjoyed the opportunity to visit with you and your 
faculty. Thank you again for all of your cooperation and ' 
assistance.
Respectfully,
Robert Osland
Enclosures
/
MONTANA STATE  UN IVERSITY  L IB RA R IE S
3 1762 1001 1053 3
D378
Os28 
cop *2
PrVhert Oene
DT78 
Os28 
con. 2