A Status Report of Curriculum Processes in Programs Serving Deaf Students. Systematic Collaborative Outreach Project Effort (SCOPE). Final Report

A national survey investigated curriculum processes in programs serving deaf students. The survey was part of a larger project undertaken by the Systematic Collaborative Outreach Project Effort (SCOPE). A representational sample of teachers (N=308) and administrators (N=47) from small, medium, and l...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author Crandall, Kathleen Eilers
Format Report
LanguageEnglish
Published 01.11.1985
Subjects
Administrator Attitudes
Basic Skills
Curriculum Development
Curriculum Evaluation
Day Schools
Deafness
Elementary Secondary Education
Faculty Development
Instructional Materials
Media Selection
National Surveys
Residential Programs
Teacher Attitudes
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:A national survey investigated curriculum processes in programs serving deaf students. The survey was part of a larger project undertaken by the Systematic Collaborative Outreach Project Effort (SCOPE). A representational sample of teachers (N=308) and administrators (N=47) from small, medium, and large day schools and from medium or large residential programs was surveyed. Respondents were queried for the following information: (1) a curriculum description; (2) processes used for curriculum development and monitoring; (3) curriculum training efforts; (4) use of instructional materials; and (5) curriculum review and revision procedures. Results indicated that large day school programs were most likely to have documented curriculum components. Both day and residential schools affirmed a need to use curriculum specifically designed for deaf students; however, day schools more often choose to or were required to modify existing state curricula, while residential schools more often chose to develop their own curricula. Large programs reported providing a greater variety of training activities than did smaller programs. Teachers were often responsible for developing, monitoring, reviewing, and revising curricula. School officials and teachers relied more on internal than external sources to identify strengths and weaknesses in their curricula. Resultant recommendations focus on training activities for teachers, documentation of curriculum components, teacher use of print media, and information dissemination of available curricula. Appendices include the administrators' survey instrument, the teachers' survey instrument, and graphs of data. (CB)