Your Name Here

THE STATUS AND MAKEUP OF THE U.S. HIGH SCHOOL ASTRONOMY COURSE IN THE ERA OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND by LAWRENCE E. KRUMENAKER (Under the Direction of David Jackson) ABSTRACT A spring 2007 nationwide survey of high school astronomy teachers investigated: how many high schools teach astronomy, teacher backgrounds, student demographics, classroom materials and facilities and other facets of the modern course. Comparisons were made to Philip Sadler’s 1986 survey and to various states’ Departments of Education existing data. This multimethods study included qualitative questions investigating teachers’ perceptions about effects from 2001’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on their classes, views of course futures in their schools, and the nation. Other questions solicited recommendations on starting a course, defending it, and what needs to be done to increase the number of courses. Significant findings include: the number of regular classes are about 3200, totaling up to 4000 when a ‘hidden’ single-digit-sized classes population is included; fully 20% of all classes may be with 10 or fewer students. A course is found in 2500 schools, 12-13% of all American high schools. Many of Sadler’s numbers are unchanged after 22 years. However, the ratio of male to female teachers has gone from 88:12 to 67:33. Many teachers now come from the bioscience and geoscience majors, not physics. Today are 3-4% more schools offer astronomy than found by Sadler, and nearly twice the number of teachers (3200 now). Schools with astronomy are more often Passing in Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) than the national norm. Classes generally reflect racial, gender and ethnic demographics of their schools and the nation. More than half of all teachers claim no direct effects from NCLB on their courses, most of the rest seeing negative effects, generally dependent on how other science, mathematics and language courses fare. A growing number supplant conventional planetariums with computer “planetarium” software, currently at the same rate as portables ownership. Twenty-eight percent of teachers are not ‘highly qualified’ in that they have never had an astronomy course, let alone an astronomy degree. Teachers are generally more optimistic than pessimistic about the future, but mostly for their own course, not for the fate of courses around the nation. Six-part plans for starting a class and defending it from cancellation are developed for teachers’ use. INDEX WORDS: ASTRONOMY EDUCATION, NCLB, “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND”, DEMOGRAPHICS, TEACHERS, STUDENTS, DISSERTATION, THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA. THE STATUS AND MAKEUP OF THE U.S. HIGH SCHOOL ASTRONOMY COURSE IN THE ERA OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND by LAWRENCE E. KRUMENAKER BS Astronomy, Case Western Reserve University, 1974 MS Astronomy, Case Western Reserve University, 1976 MAT Planetarium Education, Michigan State University, 1978 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ATHENS, GEORGIA 2008 © 2008 Lawrence E. Krumenaker All Rights Reserved THE STATUS AND MAKEUP OF THE U.S. HIGH SCHOOL ASTRONOMY COURSE IN THE ERA OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND by LAWRENCE E. KRUMENAKER Major Professor: David Jackson Committee: Norm Thomson Shawn Glynn J. Scott Shaw Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May, 2008 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I wish to thank all the teachers who gave so freely and fully of their time and knowledge, without which this would have been a project totally dead in the water. I also want to thank three people who, early on, enthusiastically sent out the word that I needed these teachers in the first place and either broadcast my invitation to multiple contacts of their own, or provided large lists of names for me to contact directly. These people are Christine Shupla, a NASA EPO “Broker” (the program has since terminated, regrettably, of the Lunar and Planetary Institute, Dr. Mary Kay Hemenway of the University of Texas, and Jeff Lockwood of TERC, a Massachusetts educational research company. Without these three, I would have never gotten off the ground or found so many names to use. Additional help came from my cousin Susan Edwards who spent hours scouring the Internet for teachers. Several good folks at different state Departments of Education bucked the trend and actually were able to send me data, instead of giving the brush-off as others did. Other persons, too numerous to list, were communicators in various educational regional groups, planetarium groups, and newsletters of astronomy education equipment providers. Philip Sadler also kindly responded to information requests, and sent me a copy of his 1992 article, which provided a well needed benchmark for comparisons. Second, I thank my committee for its guidance and its most insightful comprehensive exam questions that actually helped make this project better. I also gratefully thank my Major Professor, Dr. David Jackson, who both stood back and let me fly as fast as I could, when I could, and came forward and gave great advice when walls were hit. v Third, my shadow committee. I’d like to thank Dr. Paul Schutz, now in San Antonio, for helping take an vague idea and turning it into a viable and virtually finished prospectus within one semester; Dr. Melissa Freeman who opened the door to qualitative research design that I never knew existed; and Dr. Seock-Ho Kim who in person and email helped me over the rough hurdles of statistics, especially chi-squareds when they were driving me insane. Last but of high importance, I wish to thank my family for its support, my son Dimitri (Dema) for having acquired the art of patience when he really would like to go out with Dad and play—I hope you learn from this how to persevere to a goal even when it requires sacrifice—and to my wife Elena, for her understanding when the unexpected chance to take one last jump for the golden ring came to pass. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................... iv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 Purpose of the Study..................................................................................................1 Research Questions ...................................................................................................1 Subjectivities and Theoretical Frameworks ..............................................................3 2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................6 3 OVERALL PROCEDURES AND STRATEGIES .....................................................14 Sampling and Data Collection Procedures..............................................................14 The Survey Instrument ............................................................................................20 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................21 4 ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE DATA.................................................................41 The Schools’ Parameters.........................................................................................41 Schools’ AYP Status and Sizes...............................................................................46 The Courses’ Parameters.........................................................................................52 Characteristics of the Students ................................................................................75 Facilities, Classroom Materials, Operations and Budgets.......................................86 Teachers ..................................................................................................................99 Professional Development and Affiliations ..........................................................110 vii Comparison to the Sadler Study............................................................................119 How Many Schools and Teachers Are There Really? ..........................................123 Case Studies ..........................................................................................................127 Validities and Limitations .....................................................................................138 5 ANALYSIS OF MIXED AND QUALITATIVE DATA..........................................152 Effects of No Child Left Behind ...........................................................................152 Future of the Course in the School........................................................................166 Future of Courses in the Nation ............................................................................181 Attitudes Overall, and “Late” Responders Equals “Non-“ Responders................194 Starting a New Class .............................................................................................198 Defending the Course............................................................................................223 Increasing the Number of Astronomy Courses .....................................................244 Administration Viewpoints ...................................................................................257 6 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................258 The Schools ...........................................................................................................258

Load more