INFORMATION TO USERS
This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.
University M icrofilms International 300 N. /I ! H HD.. ANN ARBOR, Ml -18106 8214069
Audeh, Ghazi Rifat
A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF SCIENCE CURRICULUM AND PRACTICES IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN 10 STATES (1970-1980)
The Ohio Stale University Ph.D. 1982
University Microfilms
International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Copyright 1982 by Audeh, Ghazi Rifat All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a checkV mark .
1. Glossy photographs or pages______
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______
3. Photographs with dark background______
4. Illustrations are poor copy______
5. Pages with black marks, not original copy______
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page______
7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages ^
8. Print exceeds margin requirements______
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______
11. Page(s)______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.
12. Page(s)______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages numbered______. Text follows.
14. Curling and wrinkled pages______
15. Other______
University Microfilms International A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF SCIENCE CURRICULUM
AND PRACTICES IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN 10
STATES (1970-1980)
DISSERTATION
Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Ghazi Rifat Audeh, B.Sc., M.A.
* * * * *
The Ohio S tate U niversity
1982
Reading Committee: Approved By
Dr. Robert W. Howe
Dr. Stanley L. Helgeson
Dr. James K. Duncan Advisor Department of Science and Mathematics Education This Dissertation is
Sincerely Dedicated to My
Father and My Mother
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation and
gratitude to the many individuals who contributed to the successful
completion of this study. Recognition of the following persons and
groups of persons is in order.
Dr. Robert W. Howe, major advisor, who made it possible for the
author to pursue the doctoral program; has inspired the study, provided assistance, direction, and continued encouragement throughout the
course of the study. I wish to convey a note of deep-felt respect and affection to him for his unlimited patience, invaluable guidance, generousity with his time, and a true and sincere friendship.
The advise, helpful suggestions, comments, especially during
the final writing phase of the study, the support and encouragement of both Dr. Stanley L. Helgeson and Dr. James K. Duncan, members of the author's doctoral committee, were gratefully received and appreciated.
The cooperation of the states' science supervisors
(consultants), principals, and teachers who participated in this study was ap preciated.
To Mrs. Maxine Weingarth, a true friend who supported and helped in so many ways, and when the help was most needed—a special and sincere appreciation.
iii To the wonderful staff of ERIC/SMEAC, a special thank you is
extended for their help and encouragement.
The encouragement, support and above all the love of my family
deserves the highest tribute; the love, dedication, and faith of my wife, Khadijah and her willingness to assume a disproportionate amount
of responsibility, the patience, endurance, and understanding of our children, Laila, Rifat, Lamees, and Rany made the completion of this
degree as much their achievement as it is the author's.
iv VITA
May 26, 1934.. Born - Biddya, Nablus, Palestine
1958 ...... B.Sc. (Physics and Chemistry), Cairo University - Egypt.
1958-1964 ...... Physics and General Science Instructor, Teachers' Training College - Amman, Jordan.
1964-1966 ...... M.A. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
1966-1978 ...... Physics and General Science Instructor, Toronto, Ontario.
1978-197 9 ...... Research Associate, Faculty of Science and Mathematics Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
1979-198 1 ...... Physics and General Science Instructor, Toronto, Ontario.
1981-1982 ...... Research Associate, The ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science and Mathematics Education, Columbus, Ohio.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Science Education
Studies in Science Education. Professors Robert W. Howe and Stanley L. Helgeson
Studies in Educational Research. Professors Robert W. Howe, James K. Duncan, and Arthur L. White
Studies in Instruction, Evaluation, and Supervision. Professors James K. Duncan and Charles M. Galloway
Studies in Physics. Professors Ely E. B ell, L. C arlton Brown, and David 0. Edwards
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... i i i
VITA...... v
LIST OF TABLES...... x i i i
LIST OF FIGURES...... xx
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION...... 1
Historical Overview ...... 2 Need fo r the S t u d y ...... 6 Design of the Study ...... 20 Overview ...... 22
I I . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...... 24
Review of Science Status Studies ...... 24 The Status of Science Curricula and School Practices from 1950 to 1970 ...... 25 The Status of Science Curricula and School Practices from 1970 to 1980 ...... 26 Review of Literature Related to the Process of Educational Change and the Factors Influencing it. 53 Selected L ite ra tu re on the Change Process ...... 54 Studies Related to the Change Process ...... 55 State Authority and the Process of Change ...... 68 Summary ...... 76
I I I . THE STUDY DESIGN AND PROCEDURES...... 78
Introduction ...... 78 The Population and S am p le ...... 79 Sampling Procedures ...... 83 Instrumentation ...... 89 Data Collection Procedures ...... 103 Analysis of Data ...... I l l
vi Chapter Page
IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS...... 116
PART 1...... 118
Status of Science Teaching in Public Elementary Schools ...... 118 The Principals’ Questionnaire (Q:SP) ...... 118 The Science Teacher Questionnaire (Q:ST)...... 149
PART I I ...... 176
Attitudes Toward Science Curriculum and Instruction ...... 176
PART I I I ...... 231
Changes in Science Curricula and School Practices Between 1970 and 1980 ...... 231
PART I V ...... 264
Relationships Between Changes in Status of Science Education and Level of State Control of Education. 264
PART V...... 269
Correlational Relationships Between Principals' Attitudes and Status of Elementary Science Education ...... 269
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 280
Introduction ...... 280 Summary of the Study De s ig n ...... 280 Summary of F in d in g s ...... 282 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 310
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 318
APPENDIXES
A. School Centralization Scores ...... 329 B. Sampling Information and Cover Letters ...... 334 C. Data Gathering Instruments ...... 346 D. List of Common Variables ...... 392
vii LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Number of Schools and Rank on SCS Scale by State and Region ...... 88
3.2 Variable Categories of the Principal's Questionnaire Q:SP by Number of Variables in Each.....Category ...... 94
3.3 Variable Categories of the Teacher's Questionnaire Q:ST by Number of Variables in Each Category ...... 94
3.4 Variable Categories of the Attitude Q uestionnaire Q:AP and Q:AT by Number of Variables in Each Category ...... 95
3.5 Variable Categories of the Checklist CAST-.PP AND CAST:TP by Number of V ariables in Each Category ...... 95
3.6 Variable Categories of the Common Variables of Principal Survey Questionnaires in Both Studies of 1970-71 and 1979-80 ...... 96
3.7 Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates (Cronbach's Alpha) fo r (Q:AP) and (Q:AT) ...... 101
3.8 Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates (Cronbach's Alpha) for CAST:PP and CAST:TP...... 102
3.9 Response Rate of Elementary Schools that Participated in the Study ...... 108
3.10 Response Rate of Elementary School P rin cip als by S t a t e ...... 109
3.11 Response Rate of Elementary Teachers by S t a t e ...... 110
viii Table Page
4.1 Number and Percent of Public Elementary Schools by Grade L e v e l ...... 119
4.2 Frequency Distribution of Schools and Mean Number of Students by Grade Level ...... 120
4.3 Number and Percent of Schools by School Size Based on Total Student Enrollm ent ...... 121
4.4 Number and Percent of Schools by Trend in Public Enrollment Over the School Years 1977-1979 ...... 122
4.5 Number and Percent of Schools, Grouped According to Pattern of Organization ofGrades byGrade Level ...... 123
4.6 Frequency Distribution of Schools and the Mean Number of Minutes Per Week Spent on Teaching Science by Grade L e v e l ...... 124
4.7 Frequency Distribution of the Number of Schools in Different Week Categories and Mean of Response Category by Grade L e v e l ...... 125
4.8 Number and Percent of Schools by Reported Number of Male F ull-tim e Teachers...... 126
4.9 Number and Percent of Schools by Reported Number of Male P art-tim e Teachers...... 127
4.10 Number and Percent of Schools by Reported Number of Female Full-time Teachers...... 127
4.11 Number and Percent of Schools by Reported Number of Female Part-time Teachers...... 128
4.12 Number and Percent of Schools Reporting the Role of the Teacher in Science Instruction by Grade Level and Teacher's Role ...... 130 ix Table Page
4.13 Number and Percent of Schools Reporting Annual Budgets for the Purchase of Science Equipment ...... 131
4.14 Number and Percent of Schools Reporting Annual Budgets for the Purchase of Consumable Science Supplies ...... 131
4.15 Number of Schools Reporting Annual Budget with Mean and Standard Deviation of the Budget by Budget Category ...... 132
4.16 Number and Percent of Schools Reporting Annual Budgets for Instructional M aterials in Science...... 132
4.17 Number and Percent of Schools That Allow Teachers to Purchase Equipment and Supplies During School Year ...... 133
4.18 Number and Percent of Schools Reporting Degree of Availability of Science Supplies and Equipment by Groups of Grade Levels...... 134
4.19 Number and Percent of Schools Reporting Budget Cuts Affecting the School Program ...... 135
4.20 Numbers of Schools Reported Budget Cuts by Type of Influence of Budget Cuts on S c h o o ls ...... 136
4.21 Number and Percent of Schools by Grade Levels and By the Practice of Science Textbook Series Adoption ...... 137
4.22 Number and Percent of Schools by Grade Levels and by the Type of Room Used for Science Instruction ...... 139
4.23 Percent of Schools by Certain Grade Levels and the Most Frequently Used Textbook Series/Program in 1979-80 School Y ear ...... 141
4.24 Number and Percent of Schools Identifying Children With Interest in Some Curricular Areas, and Those With Special Interest in S c ie n c e ...... 142 x Table Page
4.25 Number and Percent of Schools Reporting Teaching Environmental and/or Conservation S c ie n c e ...... 142
4.26 Number and Percent of Schools by Grade Levels and by Pattern of Teaching Environmental and/or Conservation Science ...... 144
4.27 Number and Percent of Responding Principals According to the Number of Years Category They Served as P rin c ip a ls of Their Present Schools ...... 145
4.28 Number and Percent of Principals Reporting Major Changes in School Science Programs by Type of Change ...... 147
4.29 Number and Percent of Principals By Degree of Satisfaction With Science Programs in Their Schools ...... 148
4.30 Number and Percent of Elementary Science Teachers by S e x ...... 150
4.31 Number and Percent of Elementary Science Teachers by Age Category ...... 151
4.32 Percent of Teachers by Category of Total and Elementary Years of Teaching Experience ...... 152
4.33 Number and Percent of Teachers Holding Academic Degrees by Type of D e g re e ...... 153
4.34 Number and Percent of Teachers Working on a Second Degree ...... 154
4.35 Number and Percent of Teachers Who Had Preparation in the Sciences, Means and Standard Deviation of Quarter Hours by Type of S cience ...... 155
4.36 Number and Percent of Teachers Who Have Attended NSF A ctivities ...... 156
xi Page
Number and Percent of Science Teachers Who Attended One or More NSF-Sponsored A ctivities By Type of A ctivity ...... 157
Number and Percent of Teachers Who Felt the Need for More In-service Opportunities ...... 158
Number and Percent of Responding Teachers by the Type of In -serv ice Opportunities they Reported as Needing. 159
Number and Percent of Teachers by the Reported Type of A ssistance They F e lt Needed ...... 161
Number and Percent of Teachers by Reported Availability of Selected Science Facilities/Audiovisual Aids . . 163
Number and Percent of the Degree of Usage and the Mean of Each Response Category of Special Science Facility/Audiovisual Aid ...... 165
Number and Percent of Teachers Reporting on Degree of Availability of Supplies and Equipment ...... 166
Number and Percent of Teachers by Their Pattern of Teaching Science . . . 167
Number and Percent of Teachers by the Type of Classroom Used for Science Instruction ...... 168
Number and Percent of Teachers by the Type of Curriculum Materials and/or Textbook Used ...... 169
Number and Percent of Teachers Reporting the Degree of Their Use of Certain Learning Activities ...... 171
Number and Percent of Teachers Who Were Teaching at the Same School in 1970-71 School Year ...... 172 x ii Table Page
4.49 Number and Percent of Teachers Reporting on the Occurrence of Major Changes in School Programs Since1971 ...... 173
4.50 Number and Percent of Teachers Who Reported Major Changes in School Science Programs by Type of Change ...... 174
4.51 Number and Percent of Teachers by Degree of Satisfaction With Science Programs in Their Schools ...... 175
4.52 Number and Percent of Principals and Teachers According to Their Perception of Influence in Determining the Science Curriculum ...... 177
4.53 Number and Percent of Principals and Teachers According to Their Perception of the Degree of Influence Certain Groups or Individuals Had on School Science Programs ...... 179
4.54 Number and Percent of Principals and Teachers According to Their Desired Influence in Determining the Science Curriculum for Their Schools by Level of Influence ...... 180
4.55 Number and Percent of Principals and Teachers According to Their Perception of the Degree of Influence Groups or Individuals Should Have on School Science Programs ...... 182
4.56 Number and Percent of Assessments of General A ttitu d es Toward the Introduction of New Practices and Materials by Respondents (Principals) ...... 184
4.57 Number and Percent of Principals' Perception of the Attitudes of Certain Groups or Ind iv id u als Toward Innovation in Schools ...... 185
4.58 Number and Percent of Teachers' Perception of the Attitudes of Certain Groups or Individuals Toward Innovation in Schools ...... 186 x i i i Table Page
4.59 Number and Percent of Principals According to the Level of Spending They Believe Needed for Innovations by Source of Funding ...... 188
4.60 Number and Percent of Teachers According to the Level of Spending They Believe Needed for Innovations by Source of Funding ...... 188
4.61 Number and Percent of Principals' and Teachers' Perception of the Need for Additional Science Equipment and Supplies in Schools ...... 189
4.62 Number and Percent of Principals and Teachers According to Their Perceptions of the Degree of Usefulness or Various Groups or Individuals as Sources of Information ...... 191
4.63 Number and Percent of Principals and Teachers According to Their Perception of the Degree of Usefulness of Printed Communication ...... 193
4.64 Number and Percent of Principals and Teachers According to Their Perception of the Degree of Utility of Formal Courses and In-service Education as a Source of Information ...... 194
4.65 Number and Percent of Principals and Teachers According to Their Perception of the Degree of Utility of Mass Media as a Source of In fo rm a tio n ...... 196
4.66 Number and Percent of Principals and Teachers According to Their Perception of the Utility of Meeting of Professional Organization as a Source of Information ...... 197
4.67 Number and Percent of Principals and Teachers According to Their Perception of the Degree of Utility of Information About Curriculum Would be to Them ...... 199
xiv Table Page
4.68 Number and Percent of Principals and Teachers According to Their Perception of the Degree of Usefulness of Information About Instruction Would be to Them...... 201
4.69 Number and Percent of Principals and Teachers According to Their Perception of The Degree of Utility of Information about Classroom Management, Evaluation Methodology, Policies, Budget, and Court Decision ...... 203
4.70 Number and Percent of Principals According to the Length of Time Allowed for Requested Information about Curriculum by Type of Inform ation ...... 205
4.71 Number and Percent of Teachers According to the Length of time Allowed for Requested Information About Curriculum by Type of Inform ation ...... 206
4.72 Number and Percent of Principal Responses According to the Length of Time Allowed fo r Requested Inform ation about Instruction ...... 207
4.73 Number and Percent of Teacher Responses According to the Length of Time Allowed for Requested Information about Instruction ...... 208
4.74 Number and Percent of Principal Responses According to the Length of Time Allowed for Requested Information by Type of Inform ation ...... 209
4.75 Number and Percent of Teacher Responses According to the Length of Time Allowed for Requested Information by Type of Inform ation ...... 210
4.76 Number and Percent of Principals According to Their Perception of Federal Support for Curriculum Development by the Type of Federal Support ...... 212
xv Table Page
A.77 Number and Percent of Teachers According to Their Perception of Federal Support for Curriculum Development by the Type of Federal S u p p o r t ...... 21A
4.78 Number and Percent of Principals and Teachers According to Their Opinions of the Effect of Reduction of NSF Funds on Science Curricula ...... 215
4.79 Number and Percent of Principals' and Teachers' Perception of the Importance of Specific Objectives of the Elementary Science Programs ...... 217
4.80 Number and Percent of Principal and Teacher Responses Regarding Their Perception of Specific Variables as Barriers to Change ...... 220
4.81 Number and Percent of Principal and Teacher Responses According to the Degree of Importance Assigned to Specific Tangible Incentives ...... 223
4.82 Number and Percent of Principal and Teacher Responses According to the Degree of Importance Assigned to Specific Intangible Incentives ...... 225
4.83 Number and Percent of Principal and Teacher Responses According to the Preferred Science Curriculum Material ...... 227
4.84 Number and Percent of Principal and Teacher Perception of What Does and What Should Take Place With Respect to Specific Categories of Activities in the Science Classrooms ...... 230
4.85 Number, Percent, and S ignificance of Change in Elementary School Enrollment by Grade L e v e l ...... 233
4.86 The Mean Enrollment Change, Number of Schools and Level of Significance of Change by Grade Level ...... 234
xvi Table Page
4.87 Number, P ercent, and S ignificance of Change in Grouping Patterns of Students for Instruction by Grade L e v e l ...... 235
4.88 Number, Percent, and Significance of Change in Time A llocated fo r Science Instruction by Grade Level ...... 237
4.89 Number, Percent, and Significance of Change in Total Number of Teaching Staff by Sex...... 238
4.90 Number, Percent, and Significance of Change in the Role of Regular Classroom Teacher With Respect to No Help From a C onsultant by Grade Level ...... 240
4.91 Number, P ercent, and S ignificance of Change in the Role of Special Science Teacher for Science by Grade Level ...... 241
4.92 Number, P ercent, and S ignificance of Change in the Role of Regular Classroom Teacher With Respect to Help from a Consultant by Grade Level ...... 242
4.93 Number, Percent, and Significance of Change in Schools Having Annual Budgets for Science Equipment, and for Consumables ...... 243
4.94 Number, P ercent, and S ignificance of Change In Number of Schools Allowing Teachers to Purchase Equipment and Supplies Throughout the School Year ...... 244
4.95 Number, P ercent, and S ignificance of Change of the Level of Availability of Supplies and Equipment by Grade Level Groups...... 245
4.96 Number, Percent, and S ignificance of Change in Number of Schools Reporting a Policy of Adopting No Science Textbook Series by Grade Level ...... 247
xv ii Table Page
4*97 Number, Percent, and Significance o f Change in Number of Schools Adopting a Single Science Textbook Series, by Grade Level ...... 248
4.98 Number, Percent, and Significance of Change in Number of Schools Adopting More Than One Textbook Series by Grade Level ...... 249
4.99 Number, Percent, and Significance o f Change in Number of Schools Using a Regular Classroom Without Special Facilities for Science by Grade Level ...... 251
4.100 Number, Percent, and Significance o f Change in Number of Schools Using a Regular Classroom With Special Facilities for Science by Grade Level ...... 252
4.101 Number, Percent, and Significance o f Change in Number of Schools Using SCIS By Grade L e v e l ...... 254
4.102 Number, Percent, and Significance o f Change in Number of Schools Using ESS by Grade Level ...... ; ...... 255
4.103 Number, Percent, and Significance o f Change in Number of Schools Identifying Children With Interests in Any Curricular Area, and in Science ...... 256
4.104 Number, Percent, and Significance o f Change in Number of Schools That Reported Teaching Environmental And/or Conservation Science ...... 257
4.105 Number, P ercent, and Significance o f Change in Number of Schools That Offered Environmental and Conservation Education With Science by Grade Level ...... 258
4.106 Number, Percent, and Significance o f Change in Number of Schools Reporting Offering Environmental and Conservation Education With Social Studies by Grade L e v e l ...... 260 xviii Table Page
4.107 Change V ariables by D ifference of Means, Standard Deviation, t-values, Degrees of Freedom, and Level of Significance...... 261
xix LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3.1 Map Showing Geographic Regions and Locations of States in the Sample ...... 80
3.2 Flow Chart Illustrating Delimitation in Sampling Procedure Design ...... 84
3.3 Sampling Design ...... 85
xx CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Since the beginning of this century educators have agreed in
varying degrees that science plays an important role In the general
education of the child. However, during the past 80 years, changes in
education and more specifically in science education, have taken place
more than in any other period in American history. The changes have
involved basic educational philosophy, learning psychology, curriculum
and methods of teaching among others.
Those changes, through necessity, were closely identified with and influenced by social conditions prevalent in society. Therefore,
at any given time in history crises in society directly or indirectly affected school organization, financial support, programs, and teaching emphasis (Williamson, 1977). The intention here is not to give an exhaustive history of elementary science education over the years, but a glimpse of goals and objectives in selected eras may be of value.
Historical Overview
Elementary Science Education Between 1900 and 1930
Programs in science education for the elementary school during the first 30 years of this century were taught incidentally and the 1 concern was largely with the study of nature. It dealt with the study of plants, animals, rocks, climate, weather, and the like. Emphasis was put on observations, identification, use of the senses, conservation and appreciation (Bingham, 1977; Blough, 1977).
The Depression and World War II Era (1930-1950)
During the great economic depression beginning in 1929 and extending over the next two decades, the use of the textbooks became widespread. This was mainly due to the influence of Gerald S. Craig.
A shift away from the study of nature and factual knowledge was advocated in favor of thinking of an area as contributing to the child's growth in useful directions. Craig (1940) wrote that, "Possibly the most persistent factor operating to influence the content in the curriculum today is the growing insistence that content is valuable only insofar as it meets the needs of the child and of society.” (p. 3)
He also noted that "Growth must start from where the children are."
(P. 27)
Science learnings in this era included different aspects of science that could be used in everyday life, since the impact of science on daily life was the prime stated purpose of science instruction (Streng, 1975). Basic principles and concepts, or "big ideas” as they were called, served as a skeleton for the textbooks
(Bingham, 1977).
Two major publications appeared during this period. The NSSE
Thirty-First Yearbook, A Program for Teaching Science (1932), and the
Progressive Education Association (PEA) report entitled Science in General Education (1938), had a profound influence on science education in America during this period and for years to come (Williamson, 1977;
Fowler, 1977; Decker, 1977). The 31st Yearbook stressed understanding the generalizations of science as a goal rather than the accumulation of facts. It also made three major contributions to science teaching:
1. It supported a K-12 science program.
2. It organized course content around the major
principles and generalizations of science.
3. It emphasized the importance of teaching
scien ce.
The PEA report emphasized the importance of developing science programs with "social utility" as a primary goal. It also stressed that science was important as a discipline because its techniques could be used in solving social problems. Thus, there was emphasis on the
"steps in the scientific method" and of "problem solving" as objectives
(Fowler, 1977; Williamson, 1977). Programs in science education during this period were modified quite drastically in an effort to meet the identifiable needs of students. Changes were made in basic philosophy.
Subject matter lines became less important, and content was organized around broad topics, problems, and projects that were closely related to life activities of youth. In other words, there was less emphasis on the science to be taught and more emphasis on the psychological and educational techniques and skills (Bingham, 1977).
The s itu a tio n described in the previous paragraph was by no means a universal practice among schools. Many teachers shied away from teaching science because of a low regard for it; this was coupled with a feeling of inadequacy both in subject matter and in methods of instruction (Blough, 1977).
The Years of Plenty (1950-1970)
Between the years 1950 and 1970, and e sp e c ia lly a f te r R u ssia's successful launching of Sputnik in 1957, considerable public interest and support was directed toward science teaching at all levels. This resulted in the greatest transformation in science education in
American history (Bybee et a l., 1980; Helgeson et a l., 1977; Klopfer,
1980; Williamson, 1977).
The Congress made large sums of money available for the improvement of science education. Between 1952 and fiscal year 1975 the National Science Foundation (NSF) expended more than $1.6 billion to improve science and mathematics education. In addition, other agencies of government through various mechanisms such as the National
Defense Education Act (NDEA) and the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) contributed funds for the same purpose (Howe, 1974; Helgeson et al., 1977; Mallinson, 1977).
The monies were allocated for various activities. In elementary and secondary education these activities Included institutes to upgrade and update the science background and teaching techniques for thousands of elementary and secondary school teachers. Also included were curriculum development and course content improvement programs, instructional m aterials' development, and improvement of
laboratory facilities, supplies, and equipment.
Among the factors that influenced the speedy allocation of monies and implementation of those activities were the space race and
the need for more skilled manpower, scientists and engineers to reestablish American supremacy in space and m ilitary-related "hard" technology (Klopfer, 1980). Another factor was the post-war knowledge explosion and the ever-widening gap between what the scientists were
teaching in the universities and the science that was being taught in elementary and secondary schools of the nation.
Probably the major result of the ferment in science education
from 1950-1970 was the development of a new assortment of science curricula in almost all areas and levels of elementary and secondary scien ce.
Most science course improvement p ro je c ts during the 1960s included discovery or inquiry approaches to science learning. As a result, indepth preparation in the discipline, academic rigor, and scientific inquiry were stressed, sometimes at the expense of a variety of teaching methodologies, and of the physical and social foundations of education. During this period more emphasis was put upon the academically-able students and the science-oriented students in particular.
It has been said that professional scientists almost alone have been exclusively responsible for national science curriculum reform
(Saadeh, 1973; Smith, 1969). 6
Need fo r the Study
At the beginning of the last decade, we noticed that shifts in
the nation's attention toward societal problems had already started.
Environmental education, crime, pollution, poverty, urban renewal, and
youth alienation were among the major concerns of the public towards
the end of the decade of the 1960s. The interest in educating the
average students and the educationally disadvantaged, many of whom
terminate their schooling shortly after completion of elementary school
programs, began to surface.
As the decade of the 1970s moved on, additional societal drives
were interfering with and influencing the education of the young.
Among them were the "back-to-basics" drive, racial desegregation,
mainstreaming of handicapped children, and the drive for accountability
of teachers and administrators. Other factors that had an impact on
public education and contributed to a new outlook in the fields of
elementary and secondary public education were the tight money
situation, inflation, and the energy crises.
In science education the goals that were advocated were to make
science relevant to the child. Hurd (1970) suggested that education in
the sciences must be based on information that has survival value for
the learner. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) position
statement on "School Science Education for the 1970s" stated that "the goals of science education should be to develop scientifically literate citizens with the necessary intellectual resources, values, attitudes, and inquiry skills to promote the development of man as a rational human being" (NSTA, 1971). Other people and groups have made s im ila r
statements (for example, see Steiner, 1978, Helgeson, et. al., 1977).
Research in developmental psychology and science education
indicates that science can be a useful part of the child's elementary
school program. "Science can provide the child with some of the
experiences...that will help him attain formal thought. The attainment
of formal thought is a goal of education; this goal must permeate the entire elementary school program, including the science program."
(George et al., 1974, p. 2-3)
Science educators began to s tr e s s a movement from goals described in terms of science objectives to broader human development and social value objectives (Streng, 1975). Other writers made a strong pitch for elementary science as a "facilitator of selfhood" or
"self-concept" (Klein, 1974; Mixer et a l., 1974). The urge for individualization and humanization of science was the subject of many articles in professional journals. Martin (1975) wrote, "...the learning of science proceeds in a meaningful way for all students when the emphasis is redirected from science to children. When we teach children they learn." (p. 43)
However, within the past few years important issues have been raised by students in science classrooms. Teachers were asked questions that went beyond the academic study of a particular science discipline; questions dealing with controlling pollution, with ecology, as well as with value decisions for both the student and the society (Gennaro et al., 1975). The approach to value education in the sciences, advocated by some writers, was described as new to most science teachers (Kuhn,
1975). Others said i t in a different way, "...science teaching tomorrow must be the teaching of a value system to deal effectively with what is
known today" (APAS, 1972).
These concerns led to another wave of changes in elementary
science curricula, content design, and a call for new teaching
strategies. The so-called "second generation" programs, to distinguish
them from the " f ir s t generation" ones of the 1960s, began to emerge
(McAnarney, 1977). Some of the developed programs tried to use
Piagetian findings, while other developers consulted Gagne, Bruner,
Ausubel, and others.
As the goals of science education change, new teaching
practices should accompany these changes. Teachers must be prepared to
possess "new" knowledge, pedagogical s k ills , values, and attitu d es to attain these new goals. Have teachers' academic and- professional
preparation changed in the desired direction in order to keep in step with the new emphasis? Have the science teachers' backgrounds improved since 1970, and what is the extent of preparation of elementary teachers for teaching science? Are there characteristics of the teachers that are influencing elementary science instruction in a certain direction? Are there obstacles in the schools, whether monetary or otherwise, that will work to limit the effectiveness of science instruction and hinder the attainment of desired outcomes? Are there still elementary teachers who "save science till last” and often never get to it, or is it included as a definite part of their weekly program?
Do incentives have a role to play in improving science instruction, and are teachers and principals satisfied with their elementary science program(s) and science teaching practices? What courses and/or programs are being used in the elementary schools of the
United States at the present time? Is the back-to-basics drive resulting in science being taught more as a separate subject than being integrated with other subjects?
By contrast, are the reports that science is being removed from the primary grades and not included in the program of studies until grade four valid and to what extent? Are there economic reasons that have led to curtailed consultant activities of science supervision and a reduced number of science supervisors on the state and local levels?
Is it true that in too many elementary schools, science is not an integral part of the school program at all, and is not being taught?
Is it a fact that science has a low priority status in the elementary school? Moreover, is elementary science education "dead" because people are too preoccupied with the 3R's to pay considerable attention to science?
In addition to the foregoing, it is a well-known fact that definite changes have taken place in elementary schools of the nation in the past few years. Enrollments have declined since 1969. This fact created certain problems for elementary education and for science teaching in particular due to budget reductions (Helgeson et al., 10
1977). Science offerings are less popular with the public than they were a decade or two ago; changes with respect to science teacher education have also occurred. Some colleges no longer prepare science teachers; some major universities have phased out graduate programs in science education (Gallagher et al., 1980). Many colleges and universities liberalized general requirements in the early 1970s and provided more freedom for students to avoid science courses (Andrew,
1980). How much impact have these changes had on the qualification and level of preparation of elementary science teachers and on their ability to carry out their assignments? None of the national studies have investigated the change process that has taken place in a selected sample of schools over a certain period of time. Therefore, this study was conducted to collect information from a sample of elementary school principals and teachers to help answer these inquiries and to find the changes that have taken place during the decade of the 1970s in a sample of public elementary schools.
One part of the present study represents a follow-up to a national survey study on the status of science teaching in public elementary schools of the United States in the 1970-71 school year conducted by the Faculty of Science and Mathematics Education at The
Ohio State University (Howe, et al., 1974; Steiner et al., 1974). This phase of the study will report on the status of science teaching and practices, and on the characteristics of elementary science teachers in a selected sample of public elementary schools which participated in the original study. In addition, any significant changes between the two studies over the past decade will be identified, and discussed. 11
Another part of the study was aimed at investigating the attitudes of elementary school principals and teachers towards science curriculum and instruction, and the perception of these key personnel of schools of how changes actually take place or.should take place, of
Information pertaining to new practices, materials, and programs in
science education. Changes or innovation efforts in education are influenced by the organizational structure and by the attitudes of
school personnel toward change. Therefore, factors that effect change in a school setting could be divided into two categories; external factors—these include public opinion, professional organization, school boards, and state and federal laws on education; and internal factors such as the school principal and teachers. In schools, in general, the most important and crucial roles in change are played by principals and teachers.
The school principal's leadership style, support, and own change-orientation importantly influence the course of change (Anderson et al., 1972; Barth, 1972; Devaney, 1974). Teachers are crucial in the success or failure of a change (Sikorski et a l . , 1976). Parkway (1976) wrote that change must begin with what the teacher does, and teacher resistance to change can be fa tal to change. Therefore, the two factors that very much affect change in the classroom are the quality of management leadership style and the characteristics of teachers; thus, the identification of teachers' and principals' attitudes toward change in science programs and practices, and the extent of their support for program changes could help in determining the chances, or 12 the extent of success, of a contemplated change in school science program(s).
Since education in the United States is basically decentralized, and every state in the Union has authority over its educational system, their practices and policies differ markedly in the type and extent of influence they exert on pre-college education.
However, generally speaking, the role of the states in shaping local school policies have expanded in the last quarter century (Helgeson et a l., 1977; Wirt, 1976; Fuller and Pearson, 1969). States have increased their influence in various aspects such as school structural organization, finance, curriculum, and instruction. The influence of the state governments on science education has also increased during the same period due to state regulations whether the latter were related or unrelated to science (Helgeson et a l., 1977).
Wirt (1977) explored the extent of differences among the 50 states in the degree of centralization of control over local school policy by the state government, and reported an analysis of state authority for 1972-73 on 36 areas of educational policy.
A School Centralization Score (SCS) ranging from 0.00 to 6.00 was assigned for each policy area for each state. Summing procedures made possible a total SCS for each state.
The data suggest the role of the state is more important than commonly thought in influencing local school policies and practices.
This study will try to find out if there is a relationship between the degree of centralization of state educational authority as measured on 13 the SCS scale, the status of elementary science education, and the extent of change that has taken place In the selected states of the sample, as demonstrated by the findings of the study.
In summary, this study was designed with the following purposes
In mind:
1. To identify the current status of elementary
science teaching in a sample of public schools
(Grades K-6) that participated in the OSU study
of 1970.
2. To identify changes that have taken place in
science teaching practices in the selected
schools over the past decade.
3. To identify principals' and teachers' attitudes
toward science programs and practices, and the
extent of their support for changes in same.
4. To identify relationships between changes In
science curricula and school practices and
level of state control of education.
5. To continue establishing a longitudinal data
baseline for future research. 14
Definition of Terms
Some of the terms used in this study are defined below:
1. Public Elementary School: An educational institution,
operated on public funds under a principal or head teacher, including
any combination of grade levels from kindergarten through six.
2. Elementary Science Teacher: An elementary teacher who teaches
any science in any grade level or combination of grade levels.
3. Full-time Teacher: A teacher who occupies a teaching position
which requires full-time service throughout the school year and has a
contractfor 100 percent ofthat time.
4. Part-time Teacher: A teacher who occupies a teaching position
which requires less than 100 percent of the time.
5. Science Course or Subject: A course of study designated as
"science" by the individual school or school system (Chin, 1971).
6. Science Course Improvement Project: A course or program of
studies in any area of science developed by a group of individuals,
under the sponsorship of the National Science Foundation, universities,
school systems, state departments of education, or other educational
organizations, to improve instruction in that area of science (Maben,
1971).
7. Conventional Science Course: A science course or program of
studies which is not a science course improvement project.
8. Science-Teaching Practices: Activities chosen by the teacher
to describe science instruction in his/her class. It also includes the extent of use of science curriculum materials such as textbooks,
f a c ilitie s , and equipment. 15
9. Science Equipment: Non-consumables, non perishable science items such as microscopes, balances, models, etc.
10. Science Supplies: Consumables, perishable science materials that must continually be replenished such as chemicals, dry cells, glassware, graph paper, copper wire, etc.
11. Perception: The way one comes to know the world or the way one experiences the world of objects and events (Weintraub and Walker,
1966); a mental image: concept (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary,
1980).
12. Attitude: A tendency to act or react in a certain manner when confronted with certain stim uli (Oppenheim, 1966).
Instruments
The instruments used to gather data for the study are listed below.
Principal Data
1. Status of Science Teaching in Public Elementary Schools in
1979-80 School Year: (Q:SP) Principal Questionnaire—this
instrument contained 310 variables.
2. Attitudes Toward Science Curriculum and Instruction: (Q:AP)
Principal Questionnaire—this questionnaire had 293 variables.
3. Checklist for Assessment of Science Teacher: (CAST:PP)
Principal’s Perception—this instrument included 10 variables. Teacher Data
1. Status of Science Teaching in Public Elementary Schools in
1979-80 School Year: (Q:ST) Science Teacher Questionnaire—
this instrument contained 297 variables.
2. Attitudes Toward Change in Science Education: (Q:AT) Science
Teacher Questionnaire—this instrument included 294 variables.
3. Checklist for Assessment of Science Teacher: (CAST:TP)
Teacher's Perception—this instrument had 10 variables.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made for this study:
1. There was a need to obtain accurate, reliab le, and relevant
information regarding the status of science teaching in a
sample of public elementary schools (Grades K-6) that
participated in the OSU study of 1970-71. This w ill help in
identifying the changes that have taken place in those schools
over a period of one decade.
2. There was a need to obtain accurate, reliab le, and relevant
information regarding the attitudes of elementary school
principals and teachers toward changes in science curriculum
and instruction, and their perceptions with respect to certain
issues related to the same.
3. The descriptive survey method using questionnaires was a
practical and economical way of obtaining data for the study. A. The instruments used in the study were able to provide the
desired information from the elementary school principals and
teachers.
5. The principals and teachers responded to the instruments
honestly and accurately to the best of their ability.
6. Responses of principals and teachers on the attitude
questionnaires reflected their views and attitudes toward
school science curriculum, science instruction, and changes in
same.
7. The data from the schools for this study could be compared
with the data for the same schools in the OSU study of
1970-71.
8. Principals' and teachers' perceptions of science classroom
practices could be represented by their respective scores on
the CAST instrument.
9. The School Centralization Score (SCS) for each state measured
the extent of the state control of education.
10. The instruments used to gather data were valid and reliable
measures regardless of the geographic location of the schools.
11. The selected state sample of public elementary school
principals and teachers was representative of the population
of public elementary school principals and teachers, respec
tively, in that state. Delimitations of the Study
The following were delimitations of the study:
1. The ten states were selected according to their
location and the extent of their control of
education. The states included high, low, and
average ranks in control of education.
2. The measure of the state control of education was
based on W irt's School Centralization Score (SCS) Scale.
3. The random selection of schools was delimited to
public elementary schools (Grades K-6) where both
the principal and a teacher participated in the
1970 OSU study.
4. Schools with Grades K-2, K-3, 1-2, 1-3, 2-4, 4-6,
K-8, were not included in the selection of schools.
5. Schools were delimited to those who had a student
population of 200 or more in the 1970 study.
6. The public elementary schools were delimited to
those listed on the tapes of the OSU study of
1970.
7. The data collected were limited to those related
to the 1979-80 school year in the ten states, and
not to elementary schools in general.
8. Analysis of data was not done on a state-by-state
basis; the unit of analysis was the school
building. 9. This study was not an evaluation of existing
science curriculum and teaching conditions in the
selected states; the data were intended to serve
as a follow-up to a previous study and to continue
the longitudinal baseline data for future research.
10. The maximum number of participating elementary
science teachers per school was delimited to
three, unless the total number of those teachers
was three or less; in such a case, a ll of them
were included.
11. Science education, as used in this study, did not
include mathematics or social sciences.
Limitations of the Study
The study was limited by:
1. The extent to which the instruments used were
valid and reliable means of collecting data for
the study.
2. The extent to which the selected schools were
representative of the schools in their states.
3. The extent to which the selected respondents
completed and returned the instruments.
4. The extent to which the principals of the schools
used the random selection method in selecting the
elementary teachers who answered the question
naires. 20
5. The extent to which the respondents and
nonrespondents responses would not be different.
6. The extent to which involuntary bias influenced
the respondents' responses, and the investigator
in interpreting and analyzing responses to the
questionnaires.
7. The fact that participation of the principals and
teachers was voluntary.
Design of the Study
The design of the study required a selection of ten states, a random selection of ten public elementary schools per state, and a random selection of three elementary school science teachers.
The study involved the development and use of questionnaires to obtain data needed to ascertain (1) the status of science teaching in a selected sample of public elementary schools, and (2) the attitudes of principals and teachers toward changes in curriculum and instruction.
The selection procedure involved a three-stage selection design.
1. Selection of ten states from among eight regions
that made up the whole of the United States. The
selection of at least one state per region was
to include states of high, low, and average ranks
in terms of their control of education. 21
2. Random selection of ten public elementary schools
per state. The schools were to meet certain
requirements.
3. Random selection by the principal of the school
of three elementary science teachers (if
available), according to instructions.
The information reported in this study was obtained using two sets of questionnaires. One set of three instruments was designed for the principal of the school, and the other set of three instruments was designed for each participating teacher.
The Population
The population for this study consisted of all public elementary schools (Grades K-6) in the ten selected states who participated in the 1970-71 OSU study where both the principal and the teacher responded. Schools that did not meet certain criteria (see
Chapter III) were not included in the selection. This reduced the population size for the study to 609 schools.
The Sample
The sample of the study selected using the three-stage selection design was 100 schools. Ten schools were selected randomly from each of the ten selected states. Subjects of the study included the principals of the sampled schools and up to three randomly-selected science teachers. 22 Collection and Analysis of Data
The packets of questionnaires were mailed during March 24-31,
1980. Follow-up phone calls and le tte rs were conducted during May,
June and August, 1980. The data on the returned questionnaires were coded and transferred to computer cards for analysis and summary by standard computer programs. Data analysis was completed in two phases:
(1) independent analysis using descriptive statistics; and (2) analysis of relationships between variables using correlation s ta tis tic s .
Overview
This dissertation has five chapters:
Chapter I contains the introduction and general overview of the
study.
Chapter II presents reviews of related literature reported in
the following sections:
1. Selected national studies on the status of science
education In public elementary schools.
2. Selected studies on the process of educational change.
3. Selected studies on the state's influence and degree of
control of education.
Chapter III describes the study design and procedures.
This includes:
1. Population and Sample
2. Instrumentation
3. Data Collection Procedure 23 4. Analysis of Data
Chapter IV presents the results of the analysis of the data.
Chapter V includes a summary of results for the study, and conclusions and recommendations. CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The literature reviewed for this study is divided into three major areas:
1. Review of selected national studies related to the
status of science teaching, procedures, policies,
and curricula of public elementary schools (grades
K-6).
2. Review of selected studies dealing with the process of
educational change in general terms and the factors that
influence the change process.
3. Review of selected studies on the state educational
authority, its influence and degree of control on the
change process.
Review of Science Status Studies
These studies are subdivided into two parts: (1) studies conducted between 1950 and 1970—these studies will be listed without elaboration on their methodology or findings; and (2) studies which
24 25 took place between 1970 and 1980— they w ill be reviewed in terms of th eir procedures, methods of data collection, and major findings that appear relevant to this study.
The Status of Science Curricula and School Practices from 1950 to 1970
A number of studies were conducted prior to 1970. Among the studies identified as being relevant to this study were the following national research studies (studies related to a single or few states are not included). Dubbins (1953), Bruns and Frazier (1957), Brandow
(1959), Matala (1961), Blackwood (1965), Haworth (1965), Moorehead
(1965), and Leake (1966).
Several findings were reported as being common among these studies; among them, that the most widely used bases for the elementary science programs was the textbook. The use of a single textbook seemed to be the prevailing procedure at the time. Teaching practices were dominated by the teacher, and consisted mainly of reading about science, discussions, and some teacher demonstrations.
Science was taught primarily by the regular class room teacher with little or no help from a science specialist. Science was organized and taught as a separate subject, and the time devoted to teaching varied from less than 20 minutes to more than 160 minutes per week. A majority of science teachers were weak in science content and 26 in science teaching methodology, and there was a need for improvement of teacher training programs.
Physical facilities were regarded most frequently by teachers as presenting the greatest difficulty to teaching science. Very little funds were available to purchase supplies; more adequate financing was needed for more supplies and equipment.
Investigators fe lt other subjects were emphasized more than science in the school curriculum.
The Status of Science Curricula and School Practices from 1970 to 1980
Selected national studies conducted between 1970 and 1980 are described below.
A Survey of Science Teaching in the Public Elementary Schools of the United States During the 1970-1971 School Year (The Ohio State University, 1971)
A national survey of science teaching was undertaken by The
Ohio State University Center for Science and Mathematics Education in cooperation with ERIC/SMEAC in 1970. This study (Howe et a l . , 1974;
Steiner et al., 1974) was conducted in an effort to answer vital questions pertaining to practices, procedures, policies, and conditions of the teaching of science in public elementary schools of the nation in the 1970-1971 school year. 27
A sample of 10,000 public elementary schools was selected for th is study. The number of schools sampled in each state of the Union was a function of the reported total elementary school enrollment of that state.
The study was developed from three concurrent surveys, each of them focused on one of three geographical areas. One survey was conducted by Maben (1971), a second by Webb (1972), and the third by
Nelson (1973). The data collected by Maben was from the public elementary schools of the far Western and Central States region. Webb examined and analyzed the data from the Southeast, Plains, and Rocky
Mountains region. The geographic area of New England and the Midwest was included in Nelson's study.
The Design and Procedures for the Study
The population for the study consisted of all public elementary schools in the United States that were listed in the states' educational directories for the 1969-70 school year. The number of elementary schools sampled was 10,000, or approximately 15 percent of the schools listed in the directories.
The sampling design within each state involved three stages:
(1) the random selection of public elementary schools; (2) the random selection of elementary teachers who teach science in the selected schools; and (3) the random selection of science classes for the selected teachers. Data Gathering Instruments
The data were gathered by means of two structured questionnaires; one for the principal and the other for the elementary school teacher.
The principal's questionnaire was designed to provide summative data for all elementary teachers and classes in each of the selected schools. The questionnaire contained 23 items grouped into the following seven categories: (1) screening questions; (2) school organization and scheduling; (3) science instruction patterns; (4) teaching staff; (5) science budget; (6) course offerings in science; and (7) miscellaneous.
The elementary teacher's questionnaire was designed to provide information concerning characteristics of elementary school science teachers as well as the conditions under which science instruction took place and the approaches used during instruction.
This questionnaire contained 19 items grouped into the following five sections: (1) teacher characteristics; (2) elementary science teaching; (3) special science facilities; (4) audio-visual aids; and (5) miscellaneous. The responses from the two questionnaires were pooled and provided raw data on 623 variables. (Steiner et al.,
1974)
Responses to Questionnaires
Responses from about 70 percent of the to tal sample were re ceived (Howe et al., 1974). This represented a little over 10 percent 29 of all public elementary schools of the United States. Several analyses were conducted to determine the possible effect of nonresponding
schools on the resu lts. No significant differences were found between
the responding and the nonresponding schools.
Findings
The findings reported by Steiner et al. (1974) and Howe et al.
(1974) are summarized below:
Elementary School Science Practices
The following were reported as major findings of the study:
1. Science was taught as a definite part of the curriculum
for more than half of the school year by more than 65 percent
of all schools in certain regions.
2. Departmentalization for science was reported more
frequently for grades four, five, and six than for the
lower grades.
3. Use of NSF science course improvement material was
between 12 and 30 percent in various states.
4. A single science textbook series was the most commonly
used curriculum material.
5. Lecture-discussion was the most commonly used teaching
activity in the science classes.
6. Teaching science as a separate subject was the major
pattern reported by teachers. 30
7. Science was taught mainly by the classroom teacher with
no help from an elementary science specialist or
consultant.
8. Environmental and/or conservation education were
considered as an integral part of elementary school
science rather than as a separate subject.
9. The use of lectures by teachers as a teaching practice
was positively related to the grade level taught.
Teacher Preparation and Instruction
1. The study showed that almost all of the respondents had
a Bachelor's degree and about half of them were working
toward or had completed an advanced degree. However,
overall teacher preparation in terms of undergraduate
semester hours in the sciences and science education
was very low; six semester hours or less were reported by
the majority of teachers in biology, mathematics, and physical
sciences.
2. A large majority of teachers felt that both lack of
science knowledge and of science methods were barriers to
effective science teaching.
3. In-service activities were being used but they were inadequate.
A. Science content knowledge and teaching methodology were positively
related to the selection of a wider variety of science teaching
practices by teachers. 5. The use of small group discussion, field trips, and
Instructional films as science-teaching practices was
positively related to the teachers' participation in
in-service science activities.
Facilities for Science Instruction
1. Over two-thirds of the elementary school science was
generally taught, at most grade levels, in a regular
classroom with no special facilities for science
instruction but with some portable science kits or
science materials.
2. Lack of supplies and equipment was considered as a
barrier to effective science teaching by a compara
tively small percentage of teachers.
3. There were significant differences among different
regions and states in the use of the National Defense
Education Act (NDEA) and the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) funds for science equipment.
4. Special science room and facilities were more available
in larger schools.
5. Teachers with higher levels of academic preparation, male
teachers, and teachers with the role of special science
teachers were associated with larger schools. 32
Teacher Satisfaction with Teaching Science
Over two-thirds of the responding teachers in the study
indicated that they were satisfied with teaching science.
The a v ailab ility of supplies and equipment was positively
related to the use of group and individual laboratory activities,
science demonstrations, field trips, instructional films, as well as to
teacher satisfaction with teaching science.
Preparation of teachers in science content, methods of teaching
science and science teaching experiences as a student teacher, and
participation in in-service science activities were important in
determining teaching practices used by teachers as well as teacher
satisfaction with teaching science.
Three National Studies Sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF)(1978)
The National Science Foundation, in 1976-1978, sponsored three major national studies to determine the status and needs of science, social studies, and mathematics education in the United States. The three studies which brought into focus the practices and conditions that affected science teaching were: (1) a study carried out at the
Ohio State University. The study was a literature review of pre-college science education covering the period 1955-75, conducted by
Stanley L. Helgeson, P atricia E. Blosser, and Robert W. Howe of the
ERIC Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education; (2) a comprehensive national survey of science, mathematics and social 33 studies conducted by the Center for Educational Research and Evaluation of the Research Triangle In stitu te in North Carolina, of which Iris R.
Weiss was project director; and (3) Eleven in-depth case studies in
Science Education carried out in a variety of selected school systems by the center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation at the University of Illinois and directed by Robert E. Stake and Jack A.
Easley. Each of these studies is discussed separately below.
I. The Status of Pre-College Science, Mathematics, and Social Studies Education: 1955-1975. Vol. I, Science Education (Helgeson, Blosser and Howe, 1977)
The focus of this project was a status report on the impact of the intensive activities and involvements by professional educators and scientists, as well as the extensive federal funding on the development of science curriculum materials, teacher education, and instruction over a period of 20 years (from 1955 to 1975).
Data Collection Methodology
This study was archival in nature. The procedures focused on identifying, retrieving, and analyzing existing literature. Major sources of information included the ERIC data base, Education Index,
Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, Dissertation Abstracts
International, published books and journals, federal agencies' files and collections, state departments of education archives, and reports from conferences and committees. 34
The report was organized around four major considerations: (1) existing practices and procedures in schools; (2) science teacher education; (3) controlling and financing education; and (4) needs assessment efforts.
Findings
The findings presented here are delimited to those pertinent to this study.
1. Practices and Procedures in Schools,
a. School Organization Patterns
Most elementary students were enrolled in schools with grades
1-6, K-6, 1-8, and K-8. The most common pattern for teaching
science in elementary schools was the self-contained classroom.
Instruction by a special teacher was seldom the pattern prior
to grade 3. Increasing emphasis on departmentalization and
special teachers was occurring in grades 6-8.
Enrollments in public elementary schools were increasing from
1955 until 1969 for grades K-6. Since that time the enroll
ments have been declining. Forecasts predicted continued
decline u n til at least 1984 or 1985. The impact of the
reduction in enrollment created certain problems: (1) budget
reductions based on enrollment; (2) need for smaller or fewer
schools; (3) reduced need for some equipment and transportation
items; (4) fewer students per grade; and (5) need for fewer
teachers under current patterns. Curricular Patterns
During the middle to late 1950's the curriculum of an elementary school was based primarily on a textbook. The curriculum was mainly one or two textbook series. During the early 1960's considerable interest focused on what should be taught and how it should be taught. The feeling was that elementary science should have more emphasis on the selection of content and i t s organization, more emphasis on the processes of science, and more "hands-on" science instead of reading about science.
Extensive National Science Foundation support was given to the development of a number of alternatives to textbook programs.
Included among such programs were the Elementary Science Study
(ESS), Science—A Process Approach (SAPA), Science Curriculum
Improvement Study (SCIS). These projects offered alternatives both to the textbooks available at the time and to each other, and had a marked effect on classroom instruction. (Hausman,
1976)
Data Indicated that about 30 percent of the elementary schools had used the NSF-sponsored materials. (Howe et al., 1974,
Steiner et al., 1974)
During the 1970's several publishers produced m aterials that were modifications of e arlier NSF-sponsored m aterials. Among those programs were the Modular A ctivities Program in Science; Science, People, Concepts and Processes; and Elementary Science
Learning by Investigation.
Educational theorists' Ideas Influenced the psychological and stru ctu ral organization of the post-1960 curricula, however, stated objectives for elementary science did not change significantly since 1955.
The content and a c tiv itie s of these m aterials were different from the textbooks of the 1950's. The content of many of them had more emphasis on concepts, processes of science, attitudes toward science, and use of laboratory (hands-on) activity.
They also showed the impact of concerns about the environment, pollution, energy, and natural resources.
Elementary Instructional Patterns
Information regarding practice indicated that the average class size was reduced, and the amount of instructional time was increased in the upper grades, especially in classes using
NSF-sponsored m aterials. Lecture-discussion was the most common learning activity, followed by student demonstration. A large percentage of teachers, 30 to 40 percent, taught science largely as a reading/lecture class. There was an increase in the use of educational television and films, especially in the lower grades. Due mainly to NDEA funds, equipment for teaching science was increased. Many schools used procedures to identify students with special
interests and aptitudes. Certain barriers to effective science
teaching in the elementary school were also identified, among
them: lack of consultant services, lack of supplies, lack of
room facilities, and insufficient funds.
Science Teacher Education
Some major findings included the following: a. Even though more science was being taught at the elementary
level, elementary teachers were most comfortable when science
consultants were available. b. While the NSF and Office of Education (OE) did offer intensive
institutes in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the majority of
elementary teachers currently teaching had not participated in
them. c. The average tenure for teaching was about eight years in the
early 1970s, and it has increased lately. This had implication
for in-service education since it appeared that the more recent
graduates were those more likely to go back to school. d. Teachers were being impacted upon by the press for account
ability, the back-to basics movement and textbook contro
versies, but these were rarely the kinds of issues dealt with
in their preparation. e. Pre-service and in-service science education needed to be
viewed and dealt with as a continuous program rather than as
discrete entities handled by two different sets of people.
f. Elementary school science teaching appeared to be handicapped
by deficiencies both in course content and in teaching
methodology, as well as by inadequate teaching conditions
in the schools.
Controlling and Financing Education
Some major findings reported were: a. The influence of state governments on science education has
increased markedly since 1955. b. There has been extreme variation in state control and influence
on education, especially in the fields of school organization,
school curriculum, teacher certification and financial support
for the schools, but regional patterns existed. c. Federal support for science education increased from 1955
un til the late 1960s, but has declined since that time. d. Since state support tends to follow federal trends, state
support for science education also declined.
Needs Assessment Efforts
Some major findings reported: a. The greatest single need facing education has been an improved
program of financial support. b. There has been increasing emphasis on basic s k ills ; knowledge
of science has rarely been considered basic. 39
c. An important and complex need has been for equal educational
opportunity.
d. Pressure for accountability has increased markedly since 1965.
e. Science education was rarely included in state needs state
ments. When it was included, it increasingly reflected Concern
for life s k ills and work s k ills.
f. Nearly all states had some form of accountability or assessment
procedure.
g. Improved science teacher education, especially in-service
education, has been an important need.
II. The 1977 National Survey of Science, Mathematics and Social Studies Education (Weiss, 1978)
The Research Triangle In stitu te (RTI) funded by the NSF,
designed and implemented a national survey to answer specific questions
pertaining to curriculum usage, course offerings and enrollment, and
classroom practices in the areas of science, mathematics, and social
studies in grades K-12 of the schools of the United States.
The Design and Procedures for the Study
The population of the study consisted of all the superinten dents, supervisors, principals, and teachers of the three mentioned
fields in the schools of the nation. The samples were selectedusing a multistage stratified cluster design. A sample of approximately 400 public school districts was selected from 102 different geographic 40 areas across the country. Schools within these districts for each of the four grade range categories K-3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 were selected.
A to ta l of 1,411 schools was selected. Finally, teachers within each sampled school were selected from a l i s t of teachers provided by the principal. A total of 6,378 teachers was selected from the elementary schools. Lists of teachers from K-3 and 4-6 sample schools were used to select three elementary teachers per school at random.
Instrument Development
Questionnaires for teachers, principals, superintendents, and state and local supervisors were developed, tested, revised, refined, and piloted. Further refinement was carried out before they were fin ally approved and used.
Data Collection
The chief state school officers in the states with sample schools were asked for permission to contact sample d is tric ts in their states. After certain requests were complied with and permissions were granted, the questionnaires were mailed to sample members.
Several subsequent follow-up activities were conducted to increase the response rate; a "thank you/reminder" postcard, a second questionnaire mail-out, mailgrams, and phone calls. The response rate was highest (90 percent) for state supervisors, and lowest (72 percent) for district supervisors, the principals had the second highest of 86 41 percent followed by teachers, 76 percent, and superintendents with a 73 percent rate.
Findings
The findings presented here are delimited to elementary school science.
1. Course Offerings - Time Spent in Science
The reported average time per day spent teaching science in grades
K-3 was 17 minutes, and in grades 4-6 the average time was 28
minutes per day. By contrast, the reported time for mathematics
was higher than that and much higher for reading. The average
class size for science in grades K-3 was a little smaller than
those in grades 4-6; however, the overall average of class size
in grades K-6 was about 25 pupils.
2. Federally-funded Curriculum Materials
a. Attendance at NSF-sponsored In stitu tes, Conferences and Workshops
The study showed that the percentage of elementary school
teachers who attended one or more NSF-sponsored a c tiv itie s was
rather small; 2 percent for teachers of grades K-3 and 12
percent for grades 4-6. The percentage of elementary school
principals who attended such activities was about 10 percent. b. Superintendents' Opinion About Federal Support of Curriculum Development
Fifty-eight percent of responding superintendents agreed that
federal support for curriculum development and dissemination
had improved the quality of curriculum alternatives available
to schools, and 27 percent believed that these efforts had
greatly improved the quality of classroom instruction. A large
majority of superintendents (66 percent) believed that con
tinued federal support for curriculum development during the
next ten years was necessary, with 77 percent feeling that NSF
should continue to help teachers learn to implement NSF-funded
curricula. However, superintendents were evenly split on the
issue of whether federal support for curriculum development
tended to create a nationally uniform curriculum. c. Use of Federally-funded Curriculum Materials
About 32 percent of the sampled d is tric ts were using one or
more of the K-6 federally-funded materials during the
1976-77 school year. The percentages of districts using each
of the federally-funded curriculum materials were ESS 15
percent, SAPA 9 percent, and SCIS 8 percent.
Instructional Materials
The textbook was used by most teachers as the principal tool for teaching science. Approximately half of all elementary science classes used a single published textbook/program. A substantial number of them used the hands-on m aterials which accompany those
textbooks.
In most districts, groups most heavily involved in the selection of
textbooks were teachers' committees and individual teachers. In many cases principals, district-wide supervisors, and
superintendents were also involved in these decisions. However,
students, parents, and school board members had only a limited
involvement in the selection process.
Instructional Techniques and Classroom A ctivities
Lectures and discussions were the most frequently used techniques
in the majority of elementary science classes. Class discussions occurred on a daily basis in 50 percent of these classes.
Approximately two-thirds of the science classes were having lectures once a week or more with many of them having lectures
"just about daily."
The use of hands-on experiences or manipulatives was reported as being used, by 48 percent of the science classes, once a week or more often. The study showed that science teachers who attended one or more NSF-sponsored a ctiv itie s were considerably more likely than other teachers to use manipulative materials at least once a week in their classes.
Televised instruction, programmed instruction, computer-assisted instruction, contracts, and guest speakers were rarely used in elementary science classes, however, frequency of use of audio visual materials varied and was only slightly higher. F a c ilitie s, Equipment and Supplies
The study indicated that most elementary schools had microscopes and scientific models. However, the availability of particular
types of facilities did not follow any consistent grade range pattern. The general pattern by type of community was that suburban schools were the best equipped, followed by urban schools.
Schools in large districts tended to be better equipped than those in small districts. Many teachers considered science supplies to be inadequate and the money to buy them on a day-to-day basis needed improvement.
Qualifications of Teachers a. Teacher Characteristics
As expected, very few elementary teachers were male; only
4 percent of the K-3 teachers and 25 percent of the 4-6 grade
teachers were male. The average number of years of teaching
experience was approximately 11 years; about 30 percent of
elementary teachers held one or more degrees beyond the
Bachelor's.
In order to find how competent and how well-prepared elementary
school teachers were, they were asked to give their perceptions
of their qualifications to teach science; 16 percent rated
themselves as "not well qualified," and only 22 percent as
"very well qualified" to teach science. b. Areas of Needed Assistance
Teachers were asked to specify areas in which they needed and 45
areas in which they did not need assistance. Only 23 percent
of the teachers felt that they did not need assistance in any
of I? specified areas. More than 70 percent of the teachers
indicated that they did not usually need assistance in lesson
planning, actually teaching lessons, and maintaining
discipline. Areas of greatest need mentioned by a sizable
number of teachers included obtaining information about
instructional materials, learning new teaching methods,
implementing the discovery/inquiry approach, and using
manipulative or hands-on materials.
7. Sources of Information Used by Science Teachers
The study showed that over 50 percent of elementary science
teachers consider other teachers as a very useful source of
Information about new developments in education. Other
valuable sources of information for elementary teachers
included local in-service programs, journals and other
professional organizations and college courses. Very few
teachers (8 percent) considered teacher union meetings and
state department personnel as very useful sources of
information.
8. Factors Which Affect Instruction in Science
The following six problems were considered to be serious by
more than 20 percent of elementary school teachers: (1)
inadequate facilities; (2) insufficient funds for purchasing
equipment and supplies; (3) lack of materials for individua- 46
lizing instruction; (4) lack of teacher planning time; (5)
inadequate time to teach science; and (6) inadequate student
reading abilities (reported by teachers of grades 4-6).
The elementary school principals also considered the following
as serious problems: (1) the belief that science is less
important than other "basic” subjects; (2) lack of teacher
interest in teaching science; and (3) teachers were
inadequately prepared to teach science.
III. Case Studies in Science Education (Stake and Easley, 1978)
Case Studies in Science Education (CSSE) is a collection of field observations of science teaching and learning in American public
schools during the school year 1976-77, undertaken to provide a
portrayal of current conditions in K-12 science classrooms of the nation. It was organized by a team of educational researchers at the
University of Illinois.
Issues and existing practices and outcomes were found, explored, and described by researchers with the intent of providing a link between school people in the local community and national education policymakers.
Procedures and Data Collection Method
Seeing rather than measuring was the activity of this project.
What was hoped to see was "how much science is being taught (and) the obstacles to good science teaching.” To try to achieve this objective, 47
11 high schools and their feeder schools were selected to provide a
diverse and balanced group of site s. The site s were from a ll parts of
the continental United States; rural, urban, innovative, traditional,
racially diverse, economically well off, as well as impoverished.
Another factor that influenced the selection was the research manpower considerations, so that a qualified researcher with ample relevant experience could be placed at each site. To confirm findings of the case studies and to add special information, a national stratified-
random sample of about 4,000 teachers, principals, curriculum supervisors, superintendents' parents and senior class students were
surveyed.
Four main groups of people worked on the project; the field observers who stayed on sites between 4 to 15 weeks and were instructed
to find out what was happening, what was felt important in science programs, and eventually they wrote the case studies'; site visitors who spent about three days at each site, conducted interviews and wrote reports on their findings; the issue analysts who coordinated work across the sites and wrote the assimilation chapters; and finally, the survey researchers. The written case studies from all the sites were la te r augmented with cro ss-site conclusions by the Illin o is team.
Findings
The findings of the case studies and other data-gathering efforts employed in the project and related to this study are summarized as follows: The Role of the Teacher
The teacher played a key role in setting the purpose and quality of
the science program. For essentially a ll of the science learned
in school, the teacher was the enabler, the inspiration, and the
constraint. He was the manager of instruction and arbiter of
decorum. Most information came from teaching material, but the
teacher provided a measure of information too. Among the least
qualified teachers for present work were those reassigned out of
their area of training because of enrollment shifts or budget cuts.
Back to Basics
Different people meant different things by "back-to-basics"
thinking, but teachers appeared to be fully convinced that
improvement in all of education, including science education, was
directly dependent upon improvement in reading.
Science Curricula
Although there were a few elementary teachers with strong in terest
in and understanding of science, the number was insufficient to
suggest that even half of the nation’s youngsters would have a
single elementary school in which their teacher would give science a substantial share of the curriculum and do a good job of teaching
i t .
Text-bound Teaching
Elementary science lessons might call for occasional observation, or for reading science fiction, but "important" teaching of science was dominated by reading and recitation, and a l i t t l e testing sometimes followed. The pattern was assign-recite-test-discuss.
Textbook and other learning materials were not used to support
teaching and learning, they were the instruments of teaching and
learning. Out-of-school resources were seldom used. Emphasis on
the basics and preparation for testing created doubt about the value of out-of-school resources.
Articulation and Uniformity
There was extremely little articulation in science among different schools in a d is tric t, either between levels (elementary, middle, and secondary) or between school buildings at the same level. There was a little more articulation across classes within a school building, but teachers supported the uniqueness of each other's approach.
Low Priority for Science Education
About half of the respondents agreed that "the general public does not put high priority on the teaching of science." About one- third disagreed. Anti-science feeling was not visible in the country. People wanted a strong science program, but most fe lt that "reading," "vocational skills," "writing ability,” and
"remedial" courses needed bolstering f ir s t.
Selection and Use of Curricular Materials
Selection practices were varied, ranging from local selections by teachers to state-adopted textbooks. Texts used in science were frequently criticized for their difficult reading level.
Restricted budgets had caused postponements of purchases in many 50
districts, but poor purchasing in the past left many usable
materials unused. Textbooks were central to instruction in almost
all classes.
8. The Role Played by Parents, Teachers, Students, School Board Members in the Review, Selection, and Use of Science Curricular Materials
The circumstances varied from place to place. Usually, the larger
the place, the more that was decided at the district office, within
the choices allowed by the state. But many individual teachers
were finding a way to obtain the materials of their choice, among
those permitted, by ordinary expense limits. Parents usually got
involved only when something went wrong. Students had no role
except indirectly as their complaints about texts and other
m aterials were taken seriously by teachers. School boards took the
advice of teachers and administrators.
9. Time Spent on the Teaching of Science by Grade Level
Minimum times were set by districts or states for the lower
grades. The elementary schools sometimes met the requirements in
science only in a perfunctory way. Reading about science topics
was counted as science instruction. Recorded times were likely to
be misleading. In two adjacent classes teaching science for 120
minutes per week, one teacher might be involving students in the
key ideas of science, teaching vocabulary, and helping them work on
projects for more than that while the teacher next door may do no
more than to assign science-related readings and encourage 51
those interested to develop their individual interests.
10. Special Efforts Set Aside for Those Students Skilled or Highly Interested in Science, for Nonreading or Unmotivated Students
The main response of the schools was to group students
homogeneously for instruction. However, there were signs of new
attention to the "gifted child,” but in general, attention for ten
years had been directed to the "less gifted." Actually, very few
special efforts, other than separation and changing-of-pace, were
noted for either the more able or less able students.
11. Existing Types of Local In-service Programs
Staff meeting, district conferences, and university courses were
most common. Most schools had in-service workshop days a couple of
times a year, organized by and staffed by district personnel and
consultants. Participation was high in most places. The teachers
found them more valuable for opportunity to talk with other
teachers than for the help they got from specialists. In-service
leadership by master teachers was sought. NSF institutes were
praised. Many teachers had problems for which they were not
getting in-service help.
12. Elementary Science Programs
Most schools had some written policy about what and how elementary
science should be taught, but what actually was taught was left
largely to individual teachers. By and large, the elementary
teachers did not feel confident about their knowledge of science, 52
especially about their understanding of science concepts.
Even those few who did like science and felt confident in their
understanding of at least certain aspects of it often felt they
did not have the time nor the material resources to develop what
they thought would be a meaningful program. As a consequence,
science had been deemphasized at the elementary school level,
with some teachers ignoring it completely.
When and where science was formally taught, the instructional
material was usually taken directly from a textbook series.
13. Existing Barriers to Improve Science Education at the Local Level as Perceived by Students, Teachers, Administrators, School Boards, Supervisors and Parents
The one largest barrier seen by all groups was student behavior,
particularly student motivation. Financial barriers were often
mentioned. Complaints of teachers indicated dissatisfaction with
materials that did not conform to their resp o n sib ilities for
socializing the youngsters. Many students found the courses
boring. Across the board, there was not a strong feeling that
improving science education was high on the priority list. Other
general concerns, such as for a "back to the basics" curriculum
were seen by almost every science teacher as greatly influencing
the quality of science education offered.
14. Problems
Investigators of the CSSE project felt that some of the most 53
serious problems in science teaching and learning in American
schools were:
a. The proportion of school funding spent for instruction was
diminishing at a distressing rate.
b. There was a diminished concern for scientific ideas central to
instruction in science. Replacing the emphasis on fundamental
relationships to emphasis on fundamental learning s k ills , such
as reading, arithmetic, and spelling.
c. The pedagogical support for teachers was poor in relevance and
small in quantity. Teachers had few resources for assistance
in teaching difficult subject matter or in teaching children
who have trouble learning.
d. Opportunities to learn science out-of-school were not
sufficiently supported by teaching in the schools. There was
l i t t l e o fficia l reward to the teacher who encouraged youngsters
to incorporate into their formal education learnings from the
rich environment around them.
Review of Literature Related to the Process of Educational Change and the Factors Influencing It
As mentioned earlier in Chapter I, extensive effort and millions of dollars have been directed toward change in science educa tion over the past 25 years. The fruits of these labors and expendi tures resulted in a myriad of new instructional programs and in-service a c tiv itie s for teachers (Evans, 1978). One purpose of these a c tiv itie s 54 was to effect permanent changes in attitudes and practices of participants and practitioners. Was there any real change in the
teaching-learning process of today that is basically different from the way it was more than two decades ago? The answer, according to the conclusions of the studies that were discussed earlier, is very little.
For example, teaching methods were reported to be predominantly lecture and/or discussions, the teacher continued to be the dominant figure in the classroom who in itia te s interactions between himself and the students. Textbooks, chalk and the blackboard remained the most frequently used teaching aid (DeRose et a l . , 1979; Evans, 1978). Why has there been so l i t t l e change in classroom practices?
To understand what could be involved in the change process, a listing of several reviews on change literature is supplied and summaries of some theories and findings of selected studies and the factors involved will be presented.
Selected Literature on the Change Process
Listed below are selected research studies, research reviews, and writings which deal with the process of educational change:
Sikorski et al. (1976), Berman et al. (1975), Berman and McLaughlin
(1974, 1975, 1978), Greenwood et al. (1975), Berman and Pauly (1975),
Berman et al. (1977), Baldridge (1972, 1973, 1974), Bredo and Bredo
(1975), Chesler etal. (1975), Deal et al. (1974, 1975), Devaney et al.
(1974), Fullan and Pomfret (1975), Goodlad (1976), Havelock et al.
(1974), Mann (1976), Ost (1976), Parkay (1976), Turnbull et al. (1974), 55
Whitla et a l. (1973), Zaltraan et a l. (1977), Orlosky et al. (1972), and
Bennls et al. (1969).
Studies Related to the Change Process
The terns "educational change" and "innovations," to be
understood, do not always involve a specific product or set of
materials, but they refer generally to changed organizational or
Instructional processes, usually but not always involving the use of
new educational m aterials (Sikorski et a l., 1976).
Following are brief descriptions and summaries of two selected
research studies on the process of change and factors influencing i t .
The first of the two studies is a literature research of writings,
research findings, and opinions of science, mathematics, and social
studies educators on the process and effects of educational change
effo rts. The second one is a report on a research study sponsored by
the federal government to study and to report on the processes of
initiation, implementation and incorporation by the schools and
d is tric ts of federal programs supporting educational change, and the degree of their success with respect to the above mentioned processes.
Factors Influencing School Change (Sikorski et al., 1976)
As mentioned above, this study was based on a literature
research review and informed opinions of educators. Among the findings
pertinent to the study, discussed and explained were the boundaries and 56 parameters that described educational change strategies; environmental, organizational, and individual influence on the change process. The study also reported on change strategies which have been tried and th eir effect, and on goals that change strategies could aim at.
Finally, some recommendations and descriptions of needed research were presented.
Findings
Responsibilities for innovation may be divided between schools or districts, and outside agencies. However, the role of the federal government or any outside agency in local schools' implementation of curriculum innovation became a controversial issue. Recent research
(Berman and McLaughlin, 1975) seems to suggest that only local in itia tiv e w ill lead to effective change. The government role should be to support local people in the form of money, time, or linkages with colleagues, but not to threaten the local autonomy (Fullan and Pomfret,
1975; Schmuck et a l., 1975; Sarason, 1971; Fullan, 1972; Simon et a l.,
1974; House, 1974).
In the past, based on a perception of national needs, subject-m atter experts developed innovative curricula which were disseminated and, once adopted, usually implemented by local people without much outside guidance. This was the research-development- dissemination adoption model (RDDA)(Clark et al., 1965). Little 57 attention was devoted to the implementation phase. The model assumed that implementation by local school people automatically followed adoption.
Recently, a federal program called Head Start Planned Variation
(HSPV) took this phase into account and more attention has been paid to the importance and nature of local implementation.
Environmental, Organization, and Individual Conditions Affecting Innovation
Environmental Conditions
The p o litic a l, economic, and legal environment of schools influences the adoption and use of innovations. Public opinion at the local level and sometimes at the national level is one of the environmental factors that usually influence educational policy.
Pressure from organized groups and well-publicized controversies over change in the curriculum have a predictable chilling effect on innova tion. The nature of the controversy varies according to subject matter. The program Man: A Course of Study (MACOS), is a recent example. The community objections halted both its adoption and federal appropriations for its promotion (New York Times, October 1975).
In the other direction, community support or pressure may promote changes. This support can be crucial for the success of the change process and for continuing implementation of innovation
(Greenwood et a l., 1975). However, the nature of the relationship between schools and the public provides administrators with more incentives for cosmetic changes than for fundamental ones. Schools will 58 adopt innovations that will enhance their public image by demonstrating that they are "up-to-date," "efficient," "professional" and
"responsive" (Pincus, 1974).
Another environmental factor, teacher unions, may come to have considerable influence on whether and how curriculum change occurs.
Collective bargaining now allows teachers to exercise control over curriculum development and implementation, and demands increased teacher participation in decision making among other things (Orrange et al., 1975). This will give the teachers the power to hinder change efforts if they choose, or if they feel that the change is not in their best interest in terms of time and/or money.
Another environmental influence comes from state and federal laws on curriculum change effo rts. This is especially true when adoption of curriculum materials takes place at the state level
(Rosencranz, 1975). On the federal level, some laws affect the needs or resources of districts, while others directly affect curriculum development and dissemination. An example in point is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
Organizational Conditions Affecting Innovation
Variable conditions characteristic of schools and districts determine the nature of innovative processes in those organizations.
Among the important conditions are decision-making structures, leadership and change role influences, communication networks (linkages and organizational clim ate); and demographic influences. 59
Decision-making patterns are one of the most important organizational variables affecting curriculum innovation. The extent of participation in decision making by the ultimate users—the teachers—is a key independent variable, and an important structural characteristic of an educational organization. Participative decision making will generally favor innovation-adoption. Even in implementation, where authoritarian structures may appear to promote rapid change (Fullan and Pomfret, 1975; Zaltman et a l . , 1977), i t is often said that in educational innovations, due to their complex nature, effective implementation requires a quality of user participation and a commitment to the change (Fullan, 1973; L ippitt,
1974; Sikorski, 1975; Fullan and Pomfret, 1975).
Some research suggested that school systems would be more innovative if they established a change agent role as part of the organizational structure. Incentives for change are seldom present in schools; therefore, if the role of change agent became institutionalized, the incentives should shift in the direction of innovation (Carlson, 1965; Gallaher, 1965; Baldridge, 1974; Knight et a l ., 1975).
Schools and districts may have a more or less favorable
"climate" for change due to their incentive structures and quality of intrastaff relationships. Intrastaff support and exchange, both horizontal and vertical are found to be important (Berman and
McLaughlin, 1975; Manning, 1974; Cook et a l . , 1974; Edelfelt et a l.,
1975). Morale is important, and sharing of ideas can be of great help 60 in promoting acceptance and use of new curricula. Flexibility is an important aspect of organizational climate that favors adopting new curricula.
Certain demographic characteristics are also correlated with adoption of new curricula. These include size, location, past experience with innovations and wealth (human as well as material resources)(Deal et a l., 1975; Baldridge, 1974; Berman and Pauly, 1975;
Widmer, 1975; Mort, 1964).
Innovation is seldom inexpensive, and the high cost of change seems to pose a serious problem in elementary science, where the average per pupil spending for materials was one dollar per year in some states. Yet, the NSF-supported systems could cost around three dollars (Whitla et a l., 1973). In elementary science programs, users have even reported d ifficu lty in maintaining and distributing the necessary m aterials and equipment (Whitla et a l., 1973; Anderson et a l., 1972).
Individuals as a Factor in Change
The course of change is importantly influenced by the staff of the school organization. The most crucial roles in change are played by principals and teachers.
The school principal can be a critical force in facilitating innovation. The leadership style, support, and own change-orientation of the principal influences the course of change (Anderson et a l . ,
1972; Barth, 1972; Devaney, 1974; Berman and McLaughlin, 1975). 61
Innovation has a greater chance of success in schools where the
principal encourages open communication and sharing in decision making.
In schools where the principal attitu d e toward change and those who
want to change is supportive and encouraging, innovation w ill be
enhanced. The principal set the tone for tangible incentives, and can
be pivotal in fostering the kind of climate where teachers perceive
that professional or psychological rewards will accrue (Greenwood et
a l., 1975; Mann, 1976). Therefore, if the principal has a desire for
change and participates in it, this will facilitate the process.
Teachers, although sometimes excluded from playing an important
role in the initiation and adoption phases of change, are nevertheless crucial in the success or failure of implementation. It was said that change must begin with what the teacher does (Parkay, 1976); he is the real innovative "expert." However, teacher resistance can be fatal to change, and his support is an important facilitator (Nygren, 1976;
Yegge et a l . , 1971).
Elementary science teachers' fear of science and their reluctance to try new methods and materials are great hindrances to innovation, but acceptance and use of an innovation by the teacher take place if he or she feels the change is consistent with his or her day-to-day activities. When the teachers' beliefs harmonize with those of a curriculum's developers, they are more likely to implement that curriculum effectively (Devaney et a l., 1974). 62
Thus, involving teachers in decision making, or turning the authority over to them can help ensure that the change its e lf is (1) reasonable and appropriate to the reality they face, and (2) one they believe in. Supportive teachers will be more motivated to acquire new skills and behaviors necessary for successful implementation. Teacher competency is crucial to successful implementation. Where it exists, change is fa c ilita te d , where i t does not, change is hindered.
Competent teachers are often eager to try new ideas and they are less likely to be threatened by and resistant to them.
The implementation process that teachers go through involves several "stages" characterized by different concerns. Stages move from
focus on self,to task, and then to impact. At first, users focus on how an innovation will affect them personally. Next they pay more attention to managing their tasks; finally, they focus more on the innovation's impact on students (Hall and Rutherford, 1975).
Teacher competence is fueled by professional interaction and, conversely, the isolation of teachers is cited as a major reason for the slowness of schools to innovate. Therefore, for individuals trying to implement an innovation, there is support in numbers. Programs that involve a number of people have a greater chance of success (Greenwood et a l ., 1975; Rogers, 1976; Drumm, 1976). Individual teachers may be discouraged, even "crushed" in a hostile school environment (Rogers,
1976).
Finally, it seems there is a difference between elementary and secondary school teachers. The latter may be less amenable to change 63 efforts than the former. High school teachers relate to their fields more than to an overall school mission; they cooperate less as a staff and are less dependent upon their principals, and they use their topic specialization to strengthen their resistance to change (Mann, 1976;
Rogers, 1976).
Recommendations
The study report presented research recommendations summarized as follows:
(1) That researchers and practitioners share and use their present
knowledge about change strategies.
(2) That researchers conduct field tr ia ls , continue to seek models
of change, gather more trustworthy information on outcomes,
and remain clear about the differences among goals.
(3) That new strategies that might further adaptive modifications
be explored. 64
II. Rand Study; Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change (Berman, McLaughlin, Pauly, Greenwood and others, 1973-1978)
Among the many a c tiv itie s the federal government undertook in
the late 1950s was the encouragement of innovations in the public
schools through the funding of a number of innovative projects. To aid
in reexamining and redirecting federal education policies, the United
States Office of Education (USOE) awarded a contract to the Rand
Corporation in 1973 to undertake a four-year study of innovative projects funded by specified federal change-agent programs.
The assumption was that if innovation was successful, school districts would incorporate and spread part or all of the projects using other sources of funds. The study assessed the effectiveness of these programs as stim uli of change in local practices, and made suggestions on how to improve federal policies.
At the outset, the study developed a theoretical approach toward innovation described in a Model of Educational Change (Berman and McLaughlin, 1974). The model hypothesized three stages in the life of an innovative project: (1) initiation when the local education agency (LEA) o ffic ia ls plan projects and decide which ones to support;
(2) implementation, when the project confronts the reality of the institutional setting and project plan must be translated into practice; and (3) incorporation, when the innovative practice loses its
"special project" status and becomes part of the routinized behavior of the district. 65
The study was carried out in two phases. Phase I (July 1973 to
April 1975) examined local innovations during their last or next-to-last year of federal funding. It focused on the initiation and implementation stages of change projects. Specifically, this phase of the study identified what kinds of strategies and conditions tended to promote change in the school and which did not. The f ir s t phase included a nationwide survey in 18 states of 293 change agent projects; personal interviews with many people at all levels in the school district; field studies conducted at 29 projects; and interviews with federal and State Education Agency (SEA) officials.
Major conclusions reached in Phase I can be summarized as follows: Federal change agent policies had their primary effect on the initiation of projects, but those policies did not have a strong influence on the implementation of local innovations. Federal change agent policies exercised limited influence on the course of innovation because they did not critically influence those factors most responsible for effective implementation. Factors such as motivation of the people involved or strategies of implementation designed locally. In motivating participants, intangible professional and psychological incentives were more significant than were tangible incentives such as extra pay or credit on the district's salary scale.
Phase II of the research (May 1975 to April 1977) focused on the continuation of innovations after the end of their federal grants, 66 and tried to understand the long-run effect of the federal policy of stimulating local education reform by providing money to school d is tric ts . In other words, i t wanted to find out what happened to innovative projects after the end of their federal funding periods
(normally three to five years). This phase of the study consisted of: a nationwide survey of 100 projects one to two years after the end of their federal funding, field work in 18 selected school districts, and statistical analysis. The survey queried superintendents, key LEA officials, principals and teachers. Teachers were also asked to take a short verbal ability test.
The following were among the findings of Phase II: Differences in the amount of funding had little consistent or significant effect on project outcomes, on teacher change, or on continuation. That is, more money will not purchase those things that mattered; it did not "buy", for example, more committed teachers, more effective project directors, more concerned principals, and so on. Project outcomes reflected not the amount of funds available, but the quality and behavior of the local staff.
The educational method or technique of an innovation had little effect on project implementation, outcome, and continuation. The implementation strategies chosen for a project strongly affected its outcome and its continuation. Teacher participation in project 67
decisions enhanced implementation and increased the chances for
continuation. Its promoted^ "sense of ownership."
Leadership was a vital factor at both the school and project
level. Principal support was important to implementation and
especially to continuation.
Teacher characteristics had major effects on project outcomes.
Teachers' sense of efficacy emerged as a powerful explanatory variable;
It had major positive effects on the percentage of project goals
achieved, improved student performance, teacher change, and
continuation of project methods and m aterials. Teachers' years of
experience was negatively related to the percentage of project goals achieved, teacher change, and student improvement. Teachers with many years on the job were less likely to change th eir own practices. The
teacher's verbal ability was positively associated with improved
student performance, but otherwise did not affect implementation, teacher change, or continuation.
School organizational climate and leadership as demonstrated by the quality of working relationships among teachers, the active support of the principal and the effectiveness of project directors affected greatly the project's implementation and continuation. The importance of the principal to both short-and-long-run effects of innovations can hardly be overstated. All told, the principal amply merits the title of "gatekeeper of change" (Berman and McLaughlin, 1978). 68
The study also found that elementary school projects were more effectively implemented than were junior or senior high school projects and were more likely to produce teacher change. Secondary school teachers may be "subject oriented", in contrast to the "child-centered” orientation attributed to elementary teachers.
In general, effective implementation was essential to the teachers' assimilation of the project's method and material, and to continued use of the projects in the classroom. Neither funding nor educational method employed had a significant effect either on initial project outcomes or on continuation in the classroom. In other words, the project resources and educational methods mattered less than how implementation was carried out. It ultimately depended on the motivation of teachers, principals, and district personnel, and on the choices they made to implement the project and change their behavior.
State Authority and the Process of Change
The authority for education in the United States is basically decentralized. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution provides that
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since responsibility for education is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is legally considered delegated to the States. Thus, each state has the right and responsibility to organize and operate its educational system as it deems 69 appropriate—subject to constitutional guarantees of the rights and privileges of United States citizens (Fuller, et a l., 1969, p. 7)
Since each of the states is responsible for its own educational system, their practices and policies differ. A major factor that influenced the process of change, over the last two decades, is the increase in the degree of influence and control exerted by the state's educational authority on schools in general and on science education in particular. Some examples of areas in which considerable state control is exerted are school organization, school curriculum, teacher certification, and financial support for the schools. Science education has been impacted both negatively and positively by state influences (Helgeson et al., 1977).
Wirt (1977) reported an analysis of state authority for 1972-73 on 36 areas of educational policy and on centralization of authority.
I. School Policy Culture and State Decentralization (Wirt, 1977)
The background of this research was the expanding role of the
American state in local schooling. Wirt tried to analyze the patterns of distribution of authority between state and local agencies, and to explore the extent of differences in the degree of centralization of authority among the 50 states. He used the content analysis of the laws of the 50 states in 36 areas of educational policy. The analysis was performed during 1972-73 by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law under a grant from the National Institute of Education (NIE). 70
Content analyses were made of the statements of legal authority over schools in the policy areas, covering each state's constitution, statutes, court decisions, and administrative regulations.
The centralization of authority over educational policy was conceptualized as a variable that ranges from full state decentrali zation at one end of a continuum to full state centralization at the other end. There were seven logical categories of centralization on which a given school policy was judged:
0. Absence of State Authority: Local Educational Authority (LEA)
is free to act or not.
1. Permissive Local Autonomy: The state is permissive about the
goal of policy and about
providing assistance to implement
that goal.
2. Required Local Autonomy: The specifications are the same
as in Permissive Local Autonomy,
but the d is tric t must do some
thing about the policy.
3. Extensive Local Option The state sets the goal of policy
under State Mandated but lets the LEA implement i t
Requirements: with but few constraints. 71
4. Limited Local Option The state sets extensive
under State Mandated and detailed guidelines for
Requirements: service or assistance
which the LEAs must administer
with little option.
5. No Local Option under State There is no leeway for the
Mandated Requirements: LEA to do anything other
than what is mandated.
6. Total State Assumption: The state undertakes the
educational service in its
entirety, and with no LEA
involvement.
A School Centralization Score (SCS) ranging from 0:00 to 6:00 was assigned for each policy for each state. Using summation procedures, a total SCS for each state and a SCS for each area for all states was made. The data showed that there was a considerable variation among the states, ranging from a SCS of 1.86 for the state of
Wyoming to a SCS of 6.00 for Hawaii. But there were patterns within this range. For example, two-thirds of the states cluster between
Point 3 (Extensive Local Option) and Point 4 (Limited Local Option).
In general, there appear to be three broad patterns of states regarding centralization in school policy: (1) those with substantial 72 decentralization or centralization; (2) those moderately decentralized or centralized; and (3) those that are intermediate:
Data suggested that the role of the state is more important than commonly thought. Local politics of education tended to be episodic and marginal, with the major decisions about how children will be taught being made elsewhere and almost untouchable locally. The states had a major influence in altering the school policy. In the financial support, in equal educational opportunities, in student's rights, in teachers' bargaining position, and even in parental participation in local school affairs, the states have made major impacts with their policies.
II. A Study of State Legal Standards for the Provisions of Public Education (Lawyers' Committee of Civil Rights Under Law, 1974)
The constitution of nearly every state places some obligation on the legislature to maintain a system of public schools. In addition, every state has a long and complex body of education law, consisting of statutes as well as administrative rules and regulations.
The National In stitu te of Education funded a study conducted by the Lawyers' Committee of Civil Rights Under Law. The purpose of the study was to collect, categorize and compare the law on elementary and secondary education in all 50 states. Procedure
The project began by collecting and consulting legal m aterials that contained state education standards, especially school laws, rules and regulations of state boards, or state departments of education.
The materials also included study reports, policy statements, and guidelines or procedural manuals.
After collecting and organizing the material, a framework was developed for summarizing the information found in the m aterial.
Finally, a structure was generated in which some of that information was analyzed. Thirty-seven areas were selected for investigation in a state-by-state project.
Findings
A summary of the findings in some areas related to this study are presented.
Curriculum. The study found that in all states the local district offered a curriculum that the state prescribed. The degree of control exercised by the education agency differed from state to state.
In about half the states a local district offered the curriculum devised by the state. In three states (Alabama, Mississippi and Utah), the curriculum was decided by a state committee other than the education agency; in all others, the education agency formulated the requirements. Even in those states where districts retained some discretion, course offerings were chosen within state guidelines. 74
Some states provided that a district offer a specified number of courses, and that the district's choice of curriculum be a requirement for accreditation. Sanctions for noncompliance included nonrecognition of the district or school and/or loss of state aid.
In-service Training. In most of the states that had in-service training programs, the training took place on the district level.
Only about half the states have developed statutes or regulations dealing with training programs. However, many of these district programs applied to teachers in certain subjects only. In general, very few states had a broad and well-developed program of in-service training.
• Although few states defined any training program, fewer s t i l l elaborated on teachers' training attendance requirements. Only three states had regulations requiring that all teachers attend training.
Pupil Local-Class Size for an Individual Teacher. The average maximum number of pupils a teacher may supervise each day was 150 students, although for some states the teacher's load ranged upward to 180 students. Many states regulated the size of individual classrooms limiting the number of pupils that could enroll in a particular class. Maximum class sizes ranged from 28 to 35 pupils; most states had 30 as a maximum size. The pupil/teacher ratios varied according to grade level. Most ratios averaged around 25:1.
To teach in any public school system of the states, a teacher must have a teaching certificate or approval of a proper authority. 75
Textbooks. The adoption of textbooks occurred at the local level and the decision process was usually subject to some state re stric tio n s. In most states the dis tric t board selected its textbooks from a list prepared by the state education agency. In a few states an independent state textbook committee set up the approved list of textbooks.
In several states, the state education agency did not oversee the local selection process and a d is tric t board might adopt any textbook. Most states required that textbooks be supplied free to all students.
Conelusion
The most concrete conclusion the Lawyers' Committee was able to draw was that the role of the state legislatures and educational agencies, in most instances, has been far less potent than one might imagine in developing and enforcing legal standards for quality education. Relatively few states had constructed any kind of consistent and coherent state-wide scheme for delivering public education services on a basis that could be considered equitable, e ffic ie n t, and effective. Thus, in most states, the major decisions affecting the quality of a particular child's education are made, not in the state capitol, but in the offices of local education agencies. 76
Summary
The review of the literature was divided into three major
parts; national studies on the status of science teaching in the
elementary schools; studies related to the change process; and studies
on states’ authority on education.
The first part dealt with national studies conducted between
1950 and 1970, and those undertaken a fter 1970. Major emphases were
given to the latter. The objectives, procedures and major findings of
four national studies of science teaching practices and science teacher
characteristics over the past ten years have been reviewed. Reference
was also made to eight other national studies prior to 1970.
The second part reviewed two selected studies that dealt with
the change process, factors and variables related to in itia tio n and
implementation of the change process. The variables included both the
principal and the teachers and their attitudes toward the change
process.
The third part dealt with the state authority and its influence
on education. The studies reviewed for this part showed that state
departments of education, through laws, statutes, regulations and
financing, had impacted the change process during the past decade.
Reference was also made to 27 other writings or studies related to the change process. 77
The investigator found no studies that either studied change in specific schools, on a national level in a longitudinal way, or which tried to correlate state control of education to curriculum and other variables.
This study will provide data on the state of the art in science education in certain schools in certain states and will supply data on changes in science curriculum and instruction over the past decade; hence, allowing comparisons with previous studies. In addition, the study will provide data to indicate the relationship of state control to a number of variables related to curriculum and instruction in elementary schools.
These findings w ill provide information that can be used for making policy recommendations, and help determine trends in science curriculum and instruction. CHAPTER III
THE STUDY DESIGN AND PROCEDURES
This chapter contains the following six sections: (1)
Introduction; (2) The Population and Sample; (3) The Sampling
Procedure; (4) Instrumentation; (5) Procedures Used for Data
Collection; and (6) Analysis of Data.
Introduction
The study design included the selection of ten states according to selected criteria, and a two-stage random sampling of 100 public elementary schools from the sample population of the ten states who participated in the original study that was conducted by OSU in the
1970-71 school year.
Two sets of structured questionnaires were developed; one set for the principals and another set for the teachers. Three randomly selected teachers per school was the normal number of teachers requested to answer the questionnaires. Follow-ups were conducted by phone and by mail. The gathered data were coded and transferred to computer cards for analysis.
78 79
The Population and Sample
The 1970-71 Study
The population of the original OSU study of 1970-71 consisted of all public elementary schools in the United States that were listed in the states education directories for the 1969-70 school year. The number of elementary schools sampled was 10,000 schools. This number represented about 15 percent of all listed public elementary schools in the states. (Steiner et al., 1974)
The states were grouped into eight regions for comparative purposes. (Chin, 1971) These regions were: Great Lakes, Far West,
New England, Mideast, Southwest, Rocky Mountains, Plains and Southeast.
Figure 3.1 represents the geographic distribution of the public elementary schools for the 1970-71 survey. The states included in each region were as follows:
Great Lakes: Illin o is, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,
Wisconsin.
Far West: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon,
Washington.
New England: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
Mideast: Delaware, D istrict of Columbia, Maryland,
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania.
Southwest: Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas. Wnoh
Mont Minn
Idaho Wyo 8.Dak
•Include* Alaska and Hawaii.
Hawaii
FIGURE 3.1 MAP SHOWING GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS AND LOCATIONS OF STATES IN THE SAMPLE 81
Rocky Mountains: Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah,
Wyoming
Plains: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, South
Dakota.
Southeast: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, M ississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, West
Virginia, Virginia.
The 1979-80 Study population
The population of interest for this study was intended to be
a ll public elementary (K-6) schools in ten states of the Union,
selected according to selected criteria, and who participated in the
1970-71 OSU study by returning both the principal's and the teacher's questionnaires.
State Selection
As mentioned e a rlie r, the states were grouped into eight regions in the 1970-71 OSU study. For this study, the same groupings of the states was maintained, and one state was selected from each region. The selection was done to include a fair representation of the
three different categories of states according to their level of control of education. According to W irt's (1977) School Centralization
Score (SCS) Scale (see Appendix A), the states were ranked high, 82
intermediate, or low on a scale from 6.00 to 0.00 with respect to their
level of control of education (6.00 being highest). The selected
states were: Ohio, Oregon, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Texas, Colorado,
Iowa, and Alabama.
In addition to these eight states, two other states were also
selected, one state ranked low and the other ranked high on the SCS
scale. These two states were Missouri from the Plains and Florida from
the Southeast, relatively two large regions in the United States. The
selected states in each of the eight regions were as follows:
Great Lakes: Ohio
Far West: Oregon
New England: Connecticut
Mideast Pennsylvania
Southwest Texas
Rocky Mountains: Colorado
Plains Iowa and Missouri
Southeast Alabama and Florida
Oregon, Alabama, and Florida were the states of high control of
education; Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Iowa were the states of
average control of education; while Connecticut, Texas and Missouri were the states of low control of education. 83 The number of schools used in the analyses of these states in
the original study of 1970-71 was 2,816 schools. This number
represented a function of the total school enrollments within those
states at that time. That is, the number of schools sampled per state was a function of the reported number of school children in that state and was in relation to national enrollments. However, the population
for this study was reduced to 865 schools; these schools have been kept
for longitudinal study from these 10 states. This represented a little
over 30 percent of the original sample.
Sampling Procedures
Once the states were selected, the sampling procedures for the
study consisted of the following two stages:
1. The random selection of 10 public elementary
schools per state, and
2. The random selection of three elementary school
teachers, if available, who taught at least one
class or course of science.
Figure 3.2 represents a flow chart of delimitation in sampling
procedure design, and Figure 3.3 shows the sampling design.
Stage 1. (School Selection)
A decision was made to randomly select ten schools (grades
K-6) per state, for a total of 100 schools, from the above mentioned
population. In doing the selection, no special consideration was given either to the size of the original sample in the state or to the total 84
Number of Public Elementary Schools Sampled in U.S. in 1970-71 Study was 10,000
Number of Elementary Schools Schools Sampled Sampled in 1970-71 Study in in Other States the 10 States was 2,816 was 7,184
Number of Elementary Schools Schools Sampled Sampled in Connecticut was 142 in Other 9 States was 2,674
Number of Connecticut Elementary Schools on Tapes Kept for Sampling Similar Longitudinal Study was 53 to Connecticut
Number of Connecticut Elementary Schools Qualified for this Study; Enrollment and Type of School was 41
Number of Connecticut Schools Selected for this Study was 10
FLOW CHART ILLUSTRATING DELIMITATION IN SAMPLING PROCEDURE DESIGN
Figure 3.2 SAMPLING DESIGN
Selection of 10 States by C riteria: 1 - Region 2 - SCS Score Rank
Random Selection of 10 Schools Per State by Criteria*
Identify Principal Per School
Randomly Select 3 Teachers Who Teach Science
Figure 3.3
♦Criteria included:
1 - Enrollment of 200 students or more.
2 - Schools were not to include any of grades 7 and 8, or have the following grades K-2, K-3, 1-2, 1-3, 2-4, 4-6 only.
3 - Principal and teacher responded in the study of 1970-71. This was ensured by using data on OSU survey tapes for the study. pupil enrollment in public elementary schools of the state. Although this arrangement denied equal opportunities of representation in the sample on the basis of pupil enrollment among the different states, i t was felt that an equitable selection of numbers of schools per state will serve the purposes of (1) reporting the existing status; thus, allowing comparisons with the original data by producing equitable and usuable correlations; (2) reduce masking of small states by big states in descriptive statistics; and (3) supplying valid information for a longitudinal follow-up study. There is no intent to interpret the data from this study on a state-by-state basis.
The computer tapes of the schools used in the analyses for the
1970-71 study were run to identify the public elementary schools
(grades K-6) of the selected states. The following information was obtained from the tapes; state code, county code, school number, the exact grades in the school and the total school enrollment. By referring to Form A in the original study (Appendix A), the names of the state, county and school were identified. A list of the schools for each state was prepared using the same code numbers for the state, county and school as the original study.
All schools which were designated as to grade levels of K-2,
K-3, 1-2, 1-3, 1-8, 2-4, 4-6, or K-8 were deleted from the l i s t . This was done to eliminate schools that were not typical of the majority of the schools. 87
A verification of the existence of the remaining schools was carried out using the state educational directories. Schools found to be non existent in the directories were deleted from the list. Furthermore, selection of schools was delimited to schools with enrollments of 200 students or more. At this point, the total number of schools qualified
for the study was reduced to 609 schools. These schools were numbered and entered in the random selection of the ten schools per state.
Tables of random numbers were used in this stage of the sampling.
Large counties with more schools had a higher probability of having one of their schools selected for the study. This procedure completed
Stage 1 of the random sampling technique. The sample of 100 schools represented 16 .k percent of the qualified sample population of schools used for analysis in the ten selected states of the 1970-71 OSU study
(Table 3.1).
Stage 2. (Teacher Selection)
The principal of the elementary school was requested to randomly select three teachers who taught one or more classes of elementary science in any of the grade levels (grades K-6) of the school. First year teachers were not to be included in the selection.
The class of the elementary school could be under any elementary school pattern, including such arrangements as standard grade, nongraded, team teaching, semi-departmentalized, departmentalized, or self-contained.
The random selection of the teachers was to be done according to the teacher selection method (Appendix B). In doing so, the investigator TABLE 3.1
NUMBER OF SCHOOLS AND RANK ON SCS SCALE BY STATE AND REGION
No. of Schools that No. of Rank of Qualified for Sampled Schools State on Number State Region This Study 1979-80 SCS Scale
1 Ohio Great Lakes 110 10 3.65
2 Oregon Far West 22 10* 4.30
3 Connecticut New England 41 10 2.68
A Pennsylvania Mid-East 115 10* 3.75
5 Texas Southwest 102 10 2.88
6 Colorado Rocky Mountains 30 10 3.79
7 Iowa Plains 45 10 3.80
8 Missouri Plains 60 10 2.84
9 Alabama Southeast 13 10 4.67
10 Florida Southeast 71 10* 4.19
Total 609 100
*Two schools were later dropped from the sample, a to tal of six schools 89
was aware that this method of teacher selection may involve the risk of
a biased teacher sample, but he was in no position to select the
teachers directly. Also, the 1970-71 study indicated that the bias was
not extensive (Howe et a l., 1974). The number of eligible teachers was
not known when the schools were selected. If the number of teachers
who qualified under the above description was three or less, the
principal was asked to request the cooperation of all of them.
Instrumentation
The study design meant collecting data from a sample of
principals and teachers. The data were collected from responses to
items on two sets of instruments. One set of instruments was designated for the principal, and the other set was for the teacher(s).
Copies of these instruments can be found in Appendix- C.
Principal's Questionnaires
The set of instruments designated for the principal included the following questionnaires:
1. Status of Science Teaching in Public Elementary Schools in 1979-80 School Year: (Q:SP): Principal Questionnaire
This was designed to be completed and returned by each selected school's principal. It was constructed to provide summative information pertaining to all science classes, science programs, and 90 the teachers in the school. The instrument contained 24 items grouped the following five sections: (1) school organization and scheduling;
(2) teaching staff; (3) science budget; (4) course offerings; and (5) important changes that took place since the 1970-71 school year. In all, the questionnaire contained 310 variables. The development of this questionnaire depended a great deal upon the principal's and teacher's questionnaires of the 1970-71 study. Some items were same while other items were modified.
2. Attitudes Toward Change in Science Education: (Q:AP): Principal Questionnaire
This instrument was designed to be completed and returned by the school principal and the science teachers. It was designed to solicit principal's and elementary science teacher's opinions and feelings with respect to certain issues related to science curriculum and instruction in the elementary schools, and to changes In same. The instrument should not be construed as an instrument to measure the attitudes of principals and teachers toward elementary school science, toward teaching science in the elementary school, or toward science courses and science activities experienced in schools. The literature abounds with instruments to measure the foregoing. (Moore and Sutman
1970, Moore 1973, Schulman and Tamir 1973, Mayer 1974, Earl and
WinkelJohn 1977, Munby 1979).
Therefore, in this study no attempt was made to specify what attitudes should be investigated; thus, no specific position statements leading to the examination of specific attitudes, were written. In other words, no attempt was made to design attitudinal statements to 91 assess the extent to which the respondents accept or reject certain positions. On occasions, respondents were requested to assess their attitudes with respect to certain issues using few response choices that ranged from the very positive to the very negative. The study by
Weiss (1978) was used in developing certain items for this instrument.
The instrument contained the following six sections: (1) decision making in determining the science curriculum; (2) changes in science curriculum and instruction; (3) resources of information about new practices and materials in science education; (4) federal support for curriculum development; (5) science programs; (6) barriers to change and incentives to teachers. The (Q:AP) had a total of 193 variables.
3. Checklist for Assessment of Science Teacher (CAST:PP) Principal's Perception
This instrument was adapted from the work of Williamson
(Howe, 1964), Sagness (1970), and Robert W. Howe, William R. and Betty
J. Brown (1972) at The Ohio State University. Five dimensions out of
15 were selected to be used for this study. These dimensions were:
(1) student's role in class; (2) teacher's role in class; (3) use of textbooks and reference materials; (4) design and use of tests; and (5) conducting the science laboratory.
The instrument was designed to measure the perceptions of the respondent with respect to what usually takes place or should take place in the science classroom. That is, to determine the types of activities the principal feels that usually take place, or should take place in the classrooms of his/her school. 92
Teacher’s Questionnaires
The set of instruments designated for the teachers included the following instruments:
1. Status of Science Teaching in Public Elementary Schools in 1979-80 School Year: (Q:ST): Teacher Questionnaire
This instrument was designed to be completed and returned by each selected elementary school teacher. It was constructed to provide information pertaining to specific characteristics of elementary school teachers who teach science, as well as the conditions under which elementary science instruction takes place, and the approach to teaching science under these conditions. Development of this instrument depended upon the questionnaires of the 1970-71 study, and to a less extent on the Weiss (1978) study. The instrument contained five sections dealing with the following areas: (1) teacher characteristics; (2) special science facilities and audio-visual aids;
(3) elementary science teaching; (4) course offerings; and (5) some major changes in school science programs which took place since 1970.
There were 297 variables in this questionnaire.
2. A ttitudes Toward Change in Science Education: (Q:AT): Teacher Questionnaire
This instrument was similar to the one that the principals were asked to complete. However, the number of variables in this questionnaire was 194. It was intended to supply Information about the attitu d es of the teachers towards changes in science programs and instruction. 93
3. Checklist for Assessment of Science Teacher (CAST:TP) Teacher's Perception
This instrument was identical to the one the principals were asked to complete. It was used to identify the type of a ctiv itie s that were taking place or that the teachers felt should take place in the classroom. The only difference between this instrument and the one the principals completed was in the directions given for each group.
Variables Investigated
The variables of the instruments were grouped under different categories. The categories for each instrument are identified below and the number of variables included in each category is supplied in
Tables 3.2 through 3.7. 94 TABLE 3.2
VARIABLE CATEGORIES OF THE PRINCIPAL'S QUESTIONNAIRE Q:SP BY NUMBER OF VARIABLES IN EACH CATEGORY
Number of Variable Category Variables
School Organization and Scheduling 44
Teaching Staff 28
Science Budget, Curriculum Materials, and Facilities 64
Course Offering 161
Certain Changes Since 1970-1971 11
Satisfaction with Science Program 02
Total Number of Variables 310
TABLE 3. 3
VARIABLE CATEGORIES OF THE TEACHER 'S QUESTIONNAIRE Q:ST BY NUMBER OF VARIABLES IN EACH CATEGORY
Number of Variable Category Variables
Teacher Characteristics 46
In-service Training 19
Assistance Needed by Teachers 15
Special Science Facilities and Audiovisual Aids 47
Elementary Science Teaching 30
Course Offerings 129
Certain Changes Since 1970-71 9
Satisfaction with Teaching Science 2
Total Number of Variables 297 95
TABLE 3.A
VARIABLE CATEGORIES OF THE ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRES Q:AP AND Q:AT BY NUMBER OF VARIABLES IN EACH CATEGORY
Number of ______Variable Category ______Variables
Decision-making re-Science Curriculum 20
Introduction of Change in Science Curriculum and Instruction 10
Resources of Funds, and Information about New Science Materials and Practices 85*
Federal Support for Curriculum Development 10
Objectives of Elementary School Science 12
Barriers to Change, Incentives to Teachers 56
Total Number of Variables 193
*Number of variables in (Q:AT) for this category is 86, increasing the total number of variables to 194.
TABLE 3.5
VARIABLE CATEGORIES OF THE CHECKLIST CASTrPP AND CAST:TP BY NUMBER OF VARIABLES IN EACH CATEGORY
Number of Variable Category Variables
Student Activities 2
Science Teacher's Role 2
Use of Textbook and Reference Materials 2
Design and Use of Tests 2
Laboratory Activities 2
Total Number of Variables 10 96
Common Variables Investigated for Change In Elementary Science Education Between the Studios of 1970-71 and 1979-80
Variables common between the two studies were identified by using the principals' survey questionnaires. It was found that the variables numbered 145. (Appendix D) The variables were grouped under the categories presented in Table 3.6.
TABLE 3.6
VARIABLE CATEGORIES OF THE COMMON VARIABLES OF PRINCIPAL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES IN BOTH STUDIES OF 197 0-71 AND 1979-80
Number of Variable Category Variables
School Organization and Scheduling 22
Teaching Staff 25
Science Budget, Curriculum Materials, and F a cilities 53
Course Offerings 45
Total 145 97
Reliability and Validity of Instruments
Reliability
R eliability of an instrument refers to a measure of its consistency; that is, to obtaining the same results if it was administered again (Cronbach, 1960; Oppenheim, 1966). In developing the status questionnaires Q:SP and Q:ST, in order to ascertain re lia b ility , a number of internal check items were included in the factual questions of the instruments. Among those questions were the ones dealing with type of classroom used for science instruction, types of changes in science programs, and science course offerings and textbook series used. Examination of the data of such factual items revealed a high percentage of agreement between the responses of the teachers and those of the principals. This procedure in turn could be considered as a cross-check on the validity of the instruments.
Furthermore, a test-retest approach was adopted. Ten responding schools were selected at random, and the responding principals and teachers of the schools were requested to complete a second shorter questionnaire containing selected items from the original questionnaire as a measure of reliability of the instruments.
The response rate on the reliability check was over 90 percent. The percentage of agreement between the responses on items on the reliability questionnaire to similar items on the original questionnaires was significant at the .01 level on a t-test of responses and on a correlation analysis. 98
This result was to be expected, since the data requested in the instruments were of the type that will show little variation over time, and since most of the questions were factual in nature. If there was any bias or systematic error in reporting, this cannot be reduced by repeated measurements with the same instrument or part thereof.
As fo r the two a ttitu d e instrum ents (Q:AP) and (Q:AT), a measure of internal consistency was performed using the SPSS Subprogram
"Reliability" to compute the reliability coefficient Cronbach a . Each questionnaire was divided into seven categories: (1) decision making;
(2) changes in science curriculum and instruction; (3) resources of new science materials and programs; (4) information about science materials and practices; (5) federal support for curriculum development; (6) science programs; and (7) barriers to change.
Each questionnaire was also tested with all the categories combined. Table 3.7 presents the results of this computation. The reliability coefficient for the internal consistency Cronbach a for
Q:AP was found to be between 0.55 and 0.92. The reliability coefficient Cronbacha for the categories combined was 0.92. However, for the Q:AT instrument, the reliability coefficient Cronbach a ranged between 0.67 and 0.93, and for the combined categories it was 0.93.
The r e l i a b i l i t y of the CAST:PP was reported by a few investigators. Brown (1972) found that the instrument's KR-20 and
KR-21 estimates were 0.74 and 0.71, respectively, using 327 subjects in his sample. Swami (1975), in his evaluation of the different aspects of preservice teacher education program at The Ohio State University, 99
administered the instrument to administrators, and reported its Hoyt's
reliability estimates as 0.77.
However, in estimating the internal consistency coefficient of
reliability for the CASTrPP and CASTrTP for this study, the split-half method was employed (Cronbach, 1960). Each CAST instrument was
subdivided into two clusters: (1) perception of what does take place;
and (2) perception of what should take place. The SPSS Subprogram
Reliability was employed to compute the reliability coefficient
(Cronbach's ) fo r each instrum ent (CAST). Each c h e c k list was also
tested with the two clusters combined. Data in Table 3.8 show that the
internal consistency reliability coefficient (Cronbach's a) fo r the
principals (CASTrPP) was 0.64 for the first cluster of items, and 0.82
for the second cluster. The reliability coefficient (Cronbach's a) for the total CASTrPP was 0.81. With respect to the CASTrTP, the corresponding values were 0.67 for the first cluster, 0.83 for the second, and 0.80 for the total.
Validity of Instruments
Validity in general tells whether the question or item really measures what it is supposed to measure (Oppenheim, 1966). Therefore, validity cannot be applied to a method of collecting data. To ascertain the validity of factual questions, a cross-check with data from a second independent source could be used. This was done with the factual questions that were included in the instruments of both groups, the principals and teachers on the status of science teaching questionnaires. However, when we deal with attitudinal questions, 100
extreme difficulties will be faced when using the cross-check
technique.
Cataldo et al. (1970, pp 209-210) stated that "a measure is valid if it measures what we intend it to measure.. .when there is no
proven valid external measure of a property, ..., face or content validity is often the best Initial judgment that can be made."
Therefore, to assess the content validity of the four instruments
(Q:SP, Q:ST, Q:PP and Q:AT), the prelim inary d ra fts of the questionnaires were reviewed by different groups of experts in the field. Among those who reviewed the instruments were faculty members of
the Science Education Department at The Ohio State University, doctoral committee members of the investigator, graduate doctoral students, some
National Institute of Education and National Science Foundation personnel, and some principals and science teachers. The reason behind these reviews was to achieve some kind of consensus on the validity of the items included in the instruments, and whether the items identified the intended information and/or criteria. As a result of the feedback received from these experts, the instruments were revised, modified and clarified where needed, to make them appropriate to the task.
Content validity of the checklist for Assessment of Science
Teaching (CAST) was checked and approved by other investigators. Among them was W illiamson, Howe, Brown and Howe (Brown 1972), and Swami
(1975). TABLE 3.7
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITY ESTIMATES (CRONBACH'S ALPHA) FOR (Q: AP) AND (Q:AT)
P rin cip als (N=»66) Science Teachers (N*»178) Reliability Reliability Number Coefficient Number Coefficient Cluster of Items of Items (Cronbach's a ) of Items (Cronbach's a)
Decision Making 18 0.70 18 0.67
Changes in Science Curriculum and Instruction 9 0.84 9 0.77
Resources of New Science Materials and Programs 34 0.82 35 0.89
Inform ation About Science M aterials and P ractices 39 0.92 39 0.92
Federal Support for Curriculum Development 10 0.55 10 0.67
Science Programs 12 0.81 12 0.85
B arriers to Change 31 0.92 31 0.93
Total 153 0.92 154 0.93 TABLE 3.8
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITY ESTIMATES (CRONBACH'S ALPHA) FOR CAST:PP AND CAST:TP
CAST:PP CAST:TP P rin cip als (N=66) Teachers (N»178) Number Reliability Coefficient Reliability Coefficient Cluster of Items of Items (Cronbach's a ) (Cronbach's ct)
CAST:Is 5 0.64 0.67
CAST:Should 5 0.82 0.83
CAST:Total 10 0.81 0.80 103
Data Collection Procedures
Once the study design and the instruments were approved, the science supervisors (consultants) in the departments of education of the selected states were contacted by phone to solicit their cooperation. The request was that the materials for their states be sen t d ir e c tly to them and th a t they, in tu rn , mail them to the principals of the selected schools in their states. Sevenconsultants agreed to the request. The remaining three consultants suggested the packets of materials be mailed by the investigator, directly to the principals of the schools concerned. The investigator contacted the principals of those schools by phone and requested their cooperation.
All of them indicated their willingness to participate in the study.
Packets of Materials
Packets of materials for schools were prepared. Each packet contained the following seven items:
1. A cover letter addressed to the principal of
the school requesting his/her cooperation and
emphasizing the importance of same for the
success of the study (Appendix B).
2. A description of the study (Appendix B).
3. Principal's instruments (Q:SP, Q:AP, and
CAST:PP).
4. Procedures for randomly selecting three
teachers (Appendix B). 104
5. A stamped self-addressed envelope for the
return of the completed principal's instruments.
6. A copy of the 1970-71 OSU elementary school
survey report.
7. Three packets for teachers, each containing.
a. A cover letter addressed to the teacher (Appendix B).
b. Teacher's Questionnaires (Q:ST, Q:AT, and
CAST:TP).
c. A description of the study.
d. A stamped, addressed, return envelope for
the return of the completed teacher's
instruments.
One of the packets in No. 7 above was meant for each of the selected te a c h e rs.
Packets were addressed personally to principals of the sampled schools.
Mailing of the Questionnaires
Ten of the principal's packets, a sample packet addressed to the science supervisor, and a cover letter were mailed as a package to the seven state science supervisors (consultants) who consented to cooperate in the study. The supervisors, in turn, were to mail the packets to the principals of the selected schools in their states with a cover letter requesting the cooperation of the principal. 105
Packets designated for the schools in the other three remaining states were mailed directly to the principals with a thank you letter for agreeing to participate in the study. All materials were sent by first class mail during the period March 24-30, 1980.
Follow-up Procedures
As the questionnaires were received, a record of responses by schools for the principals and the teachers was kept for each state in the sample.
Some difficulties were encountered in the data collection procedure. Six weeks after the mailing took place, just around the time when the first follow-up letter was about to be mailed to the nonresponding schools, the state science supervisor of one of the states informed the investigator that the state committee on elementary instruction had denied him permission to endorse the study because too many studies were being conducted in their schools. Consequently, the investigator requested that the packets be mailed to the principals without endorsement, giving the schools the option to participate in the study.
The investigator contacted, by telephone, and received the willingness of eight of those principals in that state to participate.
The other two schools were dropped; one because the school name was changed and moved to another location and no contact could be established with the principal, and the other school because it declined to be involved in the study. No replacement was attempted 106 because of the special case of this state, and due to the fact that it was almost the end of the school year and some schools in that state had already closed for the summer. Follow-up letters did not improve the rate of return substantially from that state.
Another science consultant had a change of heart. He indicated that he was misunderstood about participating. In his view, it was a little late in the school year, that the principals might not cooperate, and a postponement until the autumn of 1980 would be in order. The investigator then contacted the principals in that state by telephone and they agreed to participate. Consequently, the consultant was informed and he relented and agreed to cooperate.
A third science consultant informed the investigator that two of the selected schools in his state were unable to participate. The research director for their district felt they did not have time, since they were busy with the end-of-year testing programs for the district. Replacements were made, but no response was received from the replacement schools.
Two schools of another state were dropped from the study because they were no longer in existence. Many schools are being closed as enrollments drop. Hence, this situation was to be expected.
The foregoing meant that the total number of sampled schools was dropped to 94 schools. Two of the responding schools indicated that they had only one elementary science teacher who qualified.
On May 19, 1980, the investigator contacted all the principals of nonresponding schools by phone to impress upon them the importance 107 of their participation, and to request that they urge their teachers to respond. Additional materials were sent to schools where requested.
At the same time, follow-up letters were mailed to principals of schools with low response rates requesting their assistance in getting better response rate. Two different forms of follow-up letters were used. One form was used for principals of schools who received the materials directly from the investigator, and the other form for those who received it through the science consultant (supervisor) of their states (Appendix B).
On June 9, 1980, a follow-up letter and a special follow-up form, together with a stamped self-addressed envelope were mailed to the principals of the schools which had not responded or had a low response r a te . The form was designed to be completed and returned by the principal of the school for the purpose of indicating his/her intention and/or the status of the questionnaires (Appendix B).
The f in a l follow-up l e t t e r s were mailed on August 19, 1980, to all school principals who did not respond personally and/or the responses of teachers in his/her school were less than two
(Appendix B).
Responses received after September 1, 1980, were analyzed for the purpose of comparing them with earlier responses as a reliability check on same.
Response Rates
The modified sample for the study consisted of 94 public elementary schools. From this sample, responses were received from 108
70 schools. This represents an overall response rate of about 74.5 percent of the sample (Table 3.9). However, only 66 principals from these schools returned their questionnaires. Thus, the response rate of the principals represented 70 percent of the sample. The schools of the responding principals enrolled a total of 29,185 students. The average number of p u p ils en ro lled in these schools was 442 p u p ils. The h ig h est response ra te was from the s ta te of Iowa where 100 percent of the principals and 90 percent of the teachers responded.
TABLE 3.9
Response Rate of Elementary Schools that Participated in the Study
Sample Size No. of Responding Percent of Response of Schools Schools Per S tate
Ohio 10 9 90.0
Oregon 8* 8 100.0
Connecticut 10 9 90.0
Pennsylvania 8* 7 87.5
Texas 10 5 50.0
Colorado 10 8 80.0
Iowa 10 10 100.0
M issouri 10 7 70.0
Alabama 10 4 40.0
F lorida 8* 3 37.5
Total 94 70 74.5
*Two schools were dropped from the sample, a total of six schools. 109
The maximum possible number of sampled teachers for the study could not have been more than 276 teachers. From this total, 178 teachers responded. This number represented a response rate of 64.5 percent. However, if some of the responding and nonresponding schools had only one, or only two full-time elementary science teachers instead of the assumed number of three, then the percentage of responding teachers could be higher than the one reported. Tables 3.10 and 3.11 show the response rates for the principals and the teachers by state.
TABLE 3.10
Response Rate of Elementary School Principals by State
■ i j b .Ii f-T- ... l Sample Number of Size of Responding Percent of Responding State Principals Principals Principals Per State
Ohio 10 9 90.0
Oregon 8* 7 87.5
Connect icut 10 8 80.0
Pennsylvania 8* 7 87.5
Texas 10 5 50.0
Colorado 10 7 70.0
Iowa 10 10 100.0
M issouri 10 7 70.0
Alabama 10 3 30.0
F lorida 8* 3 37.5
Total 94 66 70.2
*Two schools were dropped from the sample, a total of six schools. 110
TABLE 3.11
Response Rate of Elementary Teachers by State
Probable Number of Percent of Sample Size Responding Responding S tate of Teachers Teachers Teachers Per State
Ohio 30 21 70.0
Oregon 24** 20 83.3
Connecticut 30 22 73.3
Pennsylvania 22** 16 72.7
Texas 30 13 43.3
Colorado 30 19 63.3
Iowa 30 27 90.0
M issouri 26* 17 65.4
Alabama 30 12 40.0
F lorida 24** 8 33.3
Total 276 178 64.5
*Two responding schools had only one science teacher who qualified for the study.
**Two schools were dropped from the sample, a total of six schools. Nonrespondent Bias
Examination of the data that arrived after September 1, 1980
revealed that the data submitted by the early responding schools were
similar to the late responding schools in their state. Based on
response patterns and data analyses of the late respondents compared
to early respondents, the investigator does not believe that those who
did not respond would change the direction of many of the results.
However, in the case of the states with a low response rate such as
Alabama and F lo rid a , i t is recommended th a t g e n eraliz a tio n from the
results of this study with respect to those states be made with caution
and awareness of the small numbers of schools responding.
Analysis of Data
Coding of Questionnaire Responses
Coding keys were developed for both the principals' and the
science teachers' questionnaires. Only numeric codes were used for all
the responses. All questionnaires were assigned a 12-digit
identification code number. The first 11 digits of this code were similar to those of the 1970-71 OSU study. However, the 12th digit was meant to indicate the code number of the principal or the teacher involved in the study. The identification code represented the following:
Column 1 Level: 1 ■ Elementary
Column 2 Respondent: 1 « Teacher
2 " Principal
Column 3 Region number
Columns 4-5 S tate number
Columns 6-8 County number
Columns 9-11 School number
Column 12 Principal’s number or teacher's number
Column 12 for the principals' questionnaires was always 1 (one principal); however, for the teachers it was either 1, 2, or 3 according to the order of arrival of the questionnaires.
Key-punching Coded Data
Each survey questionnaire was individually hand coded and key-punched onto standard computer cards. The identification code described above was used on each of the ten cards required for each of the principal's and teacher's questionnaires. A total of 2,440 computer cards were punched and verified for this study. Columns 79-80 of each card were reserved for the card number. The first four cards
(Nos. 01-04) were used to accommodate data in either Q:AP and CAST:PP, or Q:AT and CAST:TP questionnaires, while the last six cards (Nos.
05-10) were used to punch data for either Q:SP or Q:ST questionnaires.
Cards were arranged by schools sampled and then by state. 113 Data Analysis
Tabulation of data for each instrument was carried out by using the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie, et al.,
1975). The printout obtained included both frequencies and percentages of possible responses for each item. The purpose at this stage was to check on possible coding or key-punching errors and to make the necessary corrections.
The data from each questionnaire, for both groups of principals and teachers, were analyzed separately. Descriptive statistics on all variables were obtained by using the SPSS. The descriptive statistics
Included frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations where appropriate.
Correlational computations for all variables were obtained using the SPSS Subprogram "Pearson Correlation."
Selection of variables for further analysis required elimination of variables that did not meet two criteria: (1) they had a frequency equal to or greater than 10 percent of the sample—this was done to help prevent the results of the analysis from being unduly influenced by a few responses, and (2) the correlation significance of the variable with other variables at p < .05. Hence, the following two actions were undertaken to select the important variables that were included in further analysis: (1) the SPSS output frequencies of each instrument was scanned to keep each variable with a frequency of ^ 10 percent; and (2) the SPSS output 'Pearson Correlation' of each questionnaire was scanned. A tally was prepared for each variable 114 showing the number of times it correlated with other variables at p values of > .05. Variables showing correlations at these levels of significance in totals greater than that explainable by chance were selected for further analysis.
Correlations were determined between selected variable of the survey questionnaire (Q:SP), attitude questionnaire (Q:AP), and the
SCS. (See Chapter IV Part IV.)
Change Variables Between 1970-71 and 1979-80 Studies
The unit of analysis used for the common variables was the school building, thus, the common variables in the principal’s survey questionnaires of the two studies were identified. A computer run on the original data was performed and eight cards per school were provided. Descriptive statistics on all variables were obtained, and recording of the v a ria b les of the 1970 was performed to match the coding of the present study.
The paired t-test were performed on the common variables to determine the level of significance of the change. (See Chapter IV
P art I I I . )
Common variables were also correlated with SCS to find the relationships between the changes that have taken place and the level of the state control of education. In addition, a computer run of the te a c h e rs ’ data from 1970 was carried out and three cards per teacher were provided. Descriptive statistics on these data were obtained. The purpose of the latter was to make comparisons on certain variables related to teachers that were not Included In the principals' questionnaire of the present study (Q:SP). CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS OF RESULTS
The results of the data collected for this study are presented in this chapter in both descriptive and tabular forms. Data were gathered using a total of six instruments; three for each of the principals and teachers participating in the study. Responses from the instruments were obtained on a total of 1,014 variables.
Discussion of results is organized relative to the following five parts.
Part I. This first part reports on the status of science teaching and practices during the 1979-80 school year in a selected sample of public elementary schools (grades K-6). Data were gathered by adm inistering two q u estio n n aires.
1. Principal's survey Questionnaire (Q:SP)
2. Teacher's survey Questionnaire (Q:ST)
Part II. This part reports on the attitudes of principals and teachers toward changes in science curricula and school practices.
Data c o lle c te d involved two q u estio n n aires (Q:AP) and (Q:AT) administered to the principals and teachers, respectively.
Included within this part are the perceptions of the principals and the teachers of science classroom activities where two instruments were used, the CASTrPP and the CASTtTP. (See Chapter III). 116 117
Part III. Reports the changes in science curricula and school
practices between 1970-71 and 1979-80 school years. It involves the
identification and isolation of the common variables between this study and the larger 1970-71 study (Steiner et al.,) for the purpose of detecting and discussing changes of significance between the two studies over the decade of the 1970's. The instruments used for this part were the principals' survey questionnaires as used in the two s tu d ie s.
Part IV. Reports results from a study of the relationship between the state control of education as represented by Wirt's State
Centralization Score (SCS) and the common variables between the two stu d ie s.
Part V. The final part reports results from a study of the interrelationships between selected variables of the attitude questionnaire (Q:AP), selected variables of the status questionnaire
(Q:SP), and SCS.
Reliability and validity of the instruments, and the rate of return were discussed in Chapter III pp. 97-102. PART I
STATUS OF SCIENCE TEACHING IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Discussion of results for this part is dealt with under two sections; one of them draws on the data from the principals' questionnaire (Q:SP) and the other section uses the data of the teachers' questionnaire (Q:ST).
The Principals' Questionnaire (Q:SP)
This instrument collected summative information on all teachers, practices, budgets, and science programs in the responding schools. As mentioned in Chapter III, the instrument included five sections: school organization and scheduling, teaching staff, science budget, course offerings, and certain change item questions.
School Organization and Scheduling
Items under this section included data related to:
1. Grade levels in the school.
2. Student enrollment and trends in enrollment.
3. Organizational patterns of student for instruction.
4. Provisions for instructional time.
118 Grade Levels
Each elementary school principal was asked to indicate the
grade levels in his or her school. Data in Table 4.1 show that 61
schools, or 92.4 percent, reported they had kindergarten grades, 100
percent of the schools had grades 1 through 5, while 53 schools, or
80.3 percent, of the schools reported the existence of grade 6. These
results were to be expected due to the delimitation process that was carried out when the schools were selected (see Chapter I, pp. 18-19).
TABLE 4.1
'NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BY GRADE LEVEL
Percent of Number Schools Having Grade Level of Schools the Grade Level
Kindergarten 61 92.4
F ir s t 66 100.0
Second 66 100.0
Third 66 100.0
Fourth 66 100.0
F ifth 66 100.0
S ixth 53 80.3
Student Enrollment and Trends in Enrollment
School enrollments per grade are shown in Table 4.2. The highest mean number of students per grade for the sample was reported in grades 3, 4 and 5; level of enrollment in grade 6 was not far 120 behind. However, enrollments in grades K, 1 and 2 were lower; grade K had the lowest mean enrollment. This could indicate that there was a further decline in enrollment in elementary schools over the past three years (during the three years preceding the study), 1977-1979. The mean number of pupils per grade ranged from a low of a little over 56
for kindergarten to a high of a little over 71 for grade 4.
TABLE 4.2
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOLS AND MEAN NUMBER OF STUDENTS BY GRADE LEVEL
Number Mean Number Standard Grade Level of Schools of Students Deviation
Kindergarten 61 56.1 22.0
F ir s t 66 60.1 25.1
Second 66 61.6 27.0
Third 66 69.8 29.3
Fourth 66 71.6 32.1
F ifth 66 70.8 30.4
Sixth 53 65.8 27.1
Total student enrollment varied between a low of 178 and a high of 1,161 students per school. This is not surprising, due to the fact that when the schools were selected for this study, they were delimited to those who had an enrollment in 1970-71 of 200 pupils or more. Two of the schools had a drop in enrollment below 200 students.
Average student enrollment was reported to be 442 pupils per school. Table 4.3 shows the various categories under which student 121
enrollment was grouped and the number of schools per category. The
data show that schools with a student population of 300 students or
less accounted for 21.2 percent of the sample analyzed. Schools with a
range of 301 to 500 pupils amounted to 45.5 percent of the sample,
while schools of 501 to 800 students represented 30.3 percent of the
sample. Schools of over 800 pupils accounted for only 3 percent of the
sampled schools.
TABLE 4.3
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS BY SCHOOL SIZE BASED ON TOTAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT
Range of Total Number Percent Enrollment of Schools of Schools
175-300 14 21.2
301-500 30 45.5
501-800 20 30.3
800-up 2 3.0
Total 66 100.0
Enrollment Mean 442.2
Standard Deviation 170.3
The trend for school enrollment is reported in Table 4.4. The majority of schools sampled, 62.1 percent, reported a decline in student enrollment over the school years 1977-79; however, 18.2 percent indicated an increase in enrollment, while 19.7 percent reported no significant changes had taken place in their enrollment. 122 TABLE 4.4
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS BY TREND IN PUBLIC ENROLLMENT OVER THE SCHOOL YEARS 1977-1979
Trend in Number Percent Enrollment of Schools of Schools
Decrease 41 62.1
Increase 12 18.2
No S ig n ific a n t Change 13 19.7
Total 66 100.0
Organization of Students for Instruction
Principals of schools were asked about the method of organizing the students for instruction, whether it was the standard graded approach or the nongraded grouping. Table 4.5 shows that most of the responding schools reported the use of the standard pattern for grades
K through 6. No other specific patterns of grouping were part of the data requested. 123
TABLE A.5
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS GROUPED ACCORDING TO PATTERN OF ORGANIZATION OF GRADES BY GRADE LEVEL
Standard Grades Non-Graded
Grade Number Number Level of Schools Percent of Schools Percent
Kindergarten 56 94.9 3 5.1
F ir s t 60 93.8 4 6.3
Second 59 92.2 5 7.8
Third 59 90.8 6 9.2
Fourth 58 89.2 7 10.8
F ifth 59 90.8 6 9.2
Sixth 46 88.5 6 11.5
Provisions for Instructional Time
Each principal was asked to indicate the number of minutes per week and the number of weeks per school year spent on teaching science
by grade le v e l in h is /h e r school. Table 4.6 shows th a t the average
number of minutes spent per week on teaching science increased with
increasing grade level. The number of minutes per week of science
Instruction reported by the responding principals varied from a low of
15 minutes for kindergarten and grade 1 to a high of 300 minutes per
week for grades 4, 5 and 6. A large majority of schools were devoting
less than 90 minutes of science instruction per week in grades K-3, and 124 more than 90 m inutes per week in grades 4-6. The mean number of minutes spent ranged between 39 minutes per week for kindergarten to
135 minutes for grade 6.
TABLE 4.6
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOLS AND THE MEAN NUMBER OF MINUTES PER WEEK SPENT ON TEACHING SCIENCE BY GRADE LEVEL
Grade Number Mean Number Standard Level of Schools of Minutes D eviation
Kindergarten 58 39.4 28.7
First 62 66.5 42.1
Second 61 78.1 50.0
Third 62 93.5 55.1
Fourth 63 123.4 68.4
F ifth 63 132.2 69.2
S ixth 50 135.0 70.5
Table 4.7 shows the number of schools and the number of weeks per school year science was being taught for different grade levels.
The data also indicate that science was being taught for a period of 27 weeks or more in grade K in about 59 percent, and in grades 1 through 6 in more than 77 percent of the responding schools.
Ten percent of the schools reported that they offered no science instruction for kindergarten. TABLE 4.7
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF SCHOOLS IN DIFFERENT WEEK CATEGORIES AND MEAN OF RESPONSE CATEGORY BY GRADE LEVEL
Number of Schools in Each Week Category* Number 0-8 9-17 18-26 27-36 Standard Grade Level of Schools (1) (2) (3) (4) Mean D eviation
Kindergarten 58 6 3 11 34 3.12 0.80
F ir s t 61 1 6 7 47 3.63 0.65
Second 61 1 6 7 47 3.63 0.65
Third 61 0 5 8 48 3.71 0.62
Fourth 63 0 3 10 50 3.74 0.54
F ifth 63 0 3 9 51 3.76 0.53
Sixth 50 0 3 7 40 3.74 0.57
♦Schools were grouped into four categories based on the number of weeks they offered science per year, 0-8, 9-17, 18-26, 27-36. Each category was assigned a value from 1 (0-8) to 4 (27-36). Means of the values are reported. Teaching Staff
The principals were asked to report the number of full and part-time male and female teachers in their schools. Table A.8 through
4.11 present the number of teachers in each group and the percentages of the corresponding schools.
TABLE 4.8
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS BY REPORTED NUMBER OF MALE FULL-TIME TEACHERS
Number of Male F u ll- Number Percent Time Teachers of Schools of Schools
0 8 12.5
1-3 39 60.9
4-6 15 23.5
7-up 2 3.1
Total 156 64 100.0
Mean 2.44
About 13 percent of the responding schools had no male full-time teachers, 61 percent had between one and three teachers;
the average number of male full-time teachers was less than three teachers per school. TABLE 4.9
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS BY REPORTED NUMBER OF MALE PART-TIME TEACHERS
Number of Male P art- Number Percent Time Teachers of Schools of Schools
0 49 76.6
1-2 11 17.2
3-4 4 6.2
Total 27 64 100.0
Mean 0.42
TABLE 4.10
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS BY REPORTED NUMBER OF FEMALE FULL-TIME TEACHERS
Number of Female Full- Number Percent Time Teachers of Schools of Schools
6-10 8 12.5
11-15 25 39.1
16-20 16 25.0
21-25 13 20.3
27-up 2 3.1
Total 1,063 64 100.0
Mean 16.61 128
TABLE 4.11
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS BY REPORTED NUMBER OF FEMALE PART-TIME TEACHERS
Number of Female Part- Number Percent Time Teachers of Schools of Schools
0 29 45.3
1-3 28 43.8
6-8 6 9.3
9-up 1 1.6
Total 100 64 100.0
Mean 1.56
The vast majority, 87 percent, of full-time elementary school teachers were females. Data in Table 4.10 show that the largest percent of schools, close to 40 percent, had between 11 and 15 female full-tim e teachers, and 25 percent had between 16 and 20 female fu ll time teachers. Tables 4.9 and 4.11 show that more than three-quarters of the responding schools, 77 percent, had no male part-time teachers, while less than half the schools 45 percent, had no female part-time teachers. Data from Tables 4.8 and 4.10 indicate that the percentage of male full-time teachers in the sampled schools was approximately 13 percent of the total full-time teacher population. However, the percent of male part-time teachers to the total part-time teachers was a little over 21 percent. 129
Role of the Teacher
The role of the teacher in teaching science is reported in
Table 4.12. The data show that the most common role, between 61 and 71 percent, was a regular classroom teacher with no help from an elementary science specialist or consultant. However, those regular classroom teachers who were being helped by a specialist amounted to about 25 percent of the teachers, while special science teachers were used only in a small percentage of schools.
School Budgets For Science Equipment, Supplies and Instructional Materials
Included under this category was information about the existence and the amount of annual budgets specifically for equipment, supplies and instructional m aterials; degree of adequacy of equipment and consumable supplies in schools; budget cuts and their effect on school programs; adoption policy for science textbooks; and the type of room used for science instruction.
School Budgets
Principals were asked to indicate if th eir schools had an annual budget specifically for the purchase of new science equipment, and if so, to specify the total amount of money for such equipment in the 1979-80 school year. Principals were also asked to provide this information about the budgets for consumable science supplies and for the purchase of instructional materials. Table 4.13 shows that almost half of the schools, 47.7 percent, had budgets for science equipment. TABLE 4 .1 2 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS REPORTING THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER IN SCIENCE INSTRUCTION BY GRADE LEVEL AND TEACHER'S ROLE
Kindergarten F irs t Second Third Fourth F ifth Sixth Role of Teacher N % N % N % N % N % N % N t a) A Special Science Teacher 3 4.9 3 4. 5 3 4.5 3 4.5 7 10,6 10 15.2 9 17.6 b) The Regular Clasaroom Teacher with no help from an Elementary Science Specialist or C onsultant 43 70.5 47 71.2 47 71.2 47 71.2 43 65.2 40 60.6 34 66.7 c) The Regular Classroom Teacher with help from an Elementary Science Specialist or Consultant 14 22.9 16 24. 2 16 24.2 1 7 25.8 17 25.8 1 7 25.8 12 23.5
Total 60 100.0 66 99.9 66 99.9 67* 101.5 67* 101.6 67* 101.6 55** 107.8
•One school used more than one procedure.
••Two schools used more than one procedure and two schools had no response on th is item. 131
TABLE A. 13
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS REPORTING ANNUAL BUDGETS FOR THE PURCHASE OF SCIENCE EQUIPMENT
Annual Budget Number Percent for Equipment of Schools of Schools
Yes 31 47.7
No 34 52.3
Total 65 100.0
The number of principals who indicated that they had a budget for consumable science supplies amounted to 72.3 percent. More schools had budgets for consumable science supplies than for science equipment
(see Table 4.14).
TABLE 4.14
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS REPORTING ANNUAL BUDGETS FOR THE PURCHASE OF CONSUMABLE SCIENCE SUPPLIES
Annual Budget Number Percent for Consumables ______of Schools ______of Schools
Yes 47 72.3
No 18 27.7
Total 65 100.0
The amount of money reported by the responding principals with respect to the budget for equipment ranged between $25.00 and
$1,655.00, and that for consumable supplies between $25.00 and
$2,500.00. A few of the principals who indicated that their schools 132 had budgets for equipment and supplies failed to report the amount of money budgeted for the same.
TABLE 4.15
NUMBER OF SCHOOLS REPORTING ANNUAL BUDGETS WITH MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE BUDGETS BY BUDGET CATEGORY
Mean of Standard Devia Number Budgets tion of Budgets Budget Category of Schools in Dollars in Dollars
Science Equipment 24 $477.58 $373.61
Consumable Supplies 39 $326.82 $430. 14
Principals who reported having annual budgets in their school for instructional material amounted to 88.9 percent of those reporting, but again, those who reported actual dollar values for such budgets consisted of only 73 percent of those principals. The dollar value for these budgets ranged from $150.00 to $20,000.00.
TABLE 4.16
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS REPORTING ANNUAL BUDGETS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS IN SCIENCE
Annual Budget for Number Percent Instructional Materials of Schools of Schools
Yes 56 88.9
No 7 11.1
Total 63 100.0
Mean of Budgets in Dollars $4,291.95
Standard Deviation $4,604.83 133
From the responses of the principals and from the dollar value allocated for equipment and consumable supplies, it appeared that very few elementary schools had specific annual budgets for the purchase of science equipment and/or supplies. Instead, these items were considered as part of a general school budget for all curricular areas, or segments of elementary school areas.
Permitting elementary science teachers to purchase equipment and supplies periodically throughout the year was reported by 84.4 percent of the responding principals.
TABLE 4.17
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS THAT ALLOW TEACHERS TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES DURING SCHOOL YEAR
Have Funds Number Percent Available of Schools of Schools
Yes 54 84.4
No 10 15.6
Total 64 100.0
Level of Adequacy of Equipment and Supplies
Table 4.18 presents the levels of adequacy reported to have existed for supplies and equipment. Response options were "adequate,"
"inadequate" and "completely lacking." By examining the data in Table
4.18 it was found that at all grade levels more than 75 percent of the principals reported both supplies and equipment as adequate. TABLE 4.18
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS REPORTING DEGREE OF AVAILABILITY OF SCIENCE SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT BY GROUPS OF GRADE LEVELS
Completely Lacking (1) Inadequate (2) Adequate (3) Grade Total Level N N % N % N Z
Kindergarten 58 3 5.2 10 17.2 45 77.6 a> •H H a 1-3 65 1 1.5 13 20.0 51 78.5 a 3 CO 4-6 65 1 1.5 12 18.5 52 80.0
4 J C Kindergarten 59 2 3.4 11 18.6 46 78.0 ga. •H 1-3 65 1 1.5 15 23.1 49 75.4 cr w 4-6 65 1 1.5 14 21.5 50 76.9
Completely Lacking ■ 1 Inadequate ■ 2 Adequate ■ 3 135 Budget Cuts
The principals were asked to indicate if there were any budget cuts during the past three years that had affected the science curriculum in th eir schools, and if so, to check a lis t of items which described the effects that budget cuts had on the schools. The data in
Table 4.19 show that 30.3 percent of the schools had budget cuts that had affected the science curriculum.
TABLE 4.19
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS REPORTING BUDGET CUTS AFFECTING THE SCHOOL PROGRAM
Number Percent Budget Cuts of Schools of Schools
Yes 20 30.3
No 46 69.7
Total 66 100.0
Data in Table 4.20 show the influence that budget cuts had on the responding schools. Assigning less money for instructional materials and equipment, teaching more from textbooks and cutting on the frequency of projects and laboratory work, and reduction in in-service programs were the most cited influences of budget cuts on schools. 136
TABLE 4.20
NUMBERS OF SCHOOLS REPORTED BUDGET CUTS BY TYPE OF INFLUENCE OF BUDGET CUTS ON SCHOOLS
Number of Schools
Influence of Budget Cuts Yes No a) Class size has increased 3 17 b) More teaching from textbooks; less projects and laboratory work 9 11 c) Less money for instructional material and equipment 16 4 d) Good teachers have been "let go” and not replaced 2 18 e) In-service programs have been reduced 6 14 f) Students must purchase their own textbooks and/or laboratory manuals 0 20
N = 20
Curriculum Materials
Data related to practices concerning adoption and usage of science textbook series are reported in Table 4.21. Except for the kindergarten level, the most frequent practice reported by the majority of schools, for all grade levels, was the adoption of a single science textbook series. The percentages for different grade levels ranged from
56.3 to 62.3 percent. The next most frequent practice reported by principals was no science textbook series adopted. The percentages ranged from 52.0 percent for kindergarten to 30.2 percent for grade 6. TABLE 4.21
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS BY GRADE LEVELS AND BY THE PRACTICE OF SCIENCE TEXTBOOK SERIES ADOPTION
Grade Level Practice of Science Textbook Kindergarten F irs t Second Third Fourth F ifth Sixth Adoption N I N t N % N % N « N % N %
No Science Series Adopted 26 52.0 21 34.4 22 34 . 4 22 33.8 21 31.8 21 31.8 16 30.2
One Series Adopted 20 40.0 35 57.4 36 56.3 38 58. 5 40 60.6 40 60.6 33 62. 3
Two or More S eries Adopted 4 8.0 5 8. 2 6 9.3 5 7.7 5 7.6 5 7.6 4 7.5
Total Number of Schools Reporting SO 100. 0 61 100.0 64 100.0 65 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 53 100.0 138
For all schools among all grades, only between 7 and 9 percent of the responding principals indicated that their schools adopted two or more science textbook series.
Type of Classrooms Available for Science Instruction
Principals reported the types of rooms used for science instruction at particular grade levels. Data given in Table 4.22 show that approximately 81 percent to 92 percent of the schools used regular classrooms with no special facilities for science in kindergarten through grade 6. Between 7.6 and 11.3 percent of the schools taught science in regular classrooms with special facilities for science. A smaller percentage of schools used special rooms to which children go for science for certain grades.
Science Course Offerings
The collected data included information on the use of a selected number of science textbook series and/or programs. From a list of 16 specific programs, with the option to indicate others, respondents were asked to identify the science instructional program currently (1979-80) in use in their schools. The data in Table 4.23 were rank ordered, according to use in the upper three grades (4-6), from most frequently used to least frequently used science program or textbook series. Science instructional programs that constituted less than 2 percent of the total reported were not considered of significant frequency to be Included in the table. TABLE 4.22
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS BY GRADE LEVELS AND BY THE TYPE OF ROOM USED FOR SCIENCE INSTRUCTION
Grade Level T ype o f Room Used Kindergarten F ir s t Second Third Fourth F ifth S ixth for Science Instruction N % N t N % N % N t .N % N % a) Regular classroom w ith no special facilities 55 91.7 59 90.8 59 90 . 8 59 89.4 58 87.9 54 81.8 13 81 . 1 for science b) Regular classroom with special facilities for science 5 8. 3 6 9.2 5 7.7 6 9. 1 5 7.6 7 10.6 6 11.3 c) Special room to which the ch ild ren go for science 0 0 0 0 1 1 . 5 1 1 . 5 3 4.5 5 7.6 4 7.6
Total Number of Schools Repo rt ing 60 100. 0 65 100.0 65 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 53 100.0 140
The data show that the science program most frequently used
during 1979-80 In the schools of the responding principals was Science:
Understanding Your Environment by Mallinson. This program was
reportedly used by more than 20 percent of the responding schools and
for most grades. Elementary School Science (ESS) was the second-most
widely used science program with a reported percentage ranging between
10.2 and 17.4 percent for grades kindergarten through 6, followed
closely by Science: A Process Approach (SAPA) as the number three most
widely reported science program in use with a percentage ranging
between 11.9 and 15.3 percent for grades kindergarten through 5.
Reported percent of use of SAPA for grade 6 was only 6.5 percent.
Concepts in Science (Brandwein) was reported as being the fourth in the
frequency of its use with a percent of 10 to 13 for grades 1 throuqh 6.
Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) Life Science, and Physical
Science were reported as number five with a reported- usage range
between 5 and 10 percent of a ll responding principals.
Identifying Children with Special Interests
Principals were asked to indicate if they used certain procedures for identifying children with special interests, aptitudes, or talents in some areas of the curriculum, and for those with special in terest in science. Table 4.24 shows that 54.7 percent of the principals use a special procedure with respect to some areas of the curriculum, but only 9 percent use it with respect to children with special interest in science. TABLE 4 .2 3
PERCENT OP SCHOOLS BY CERTAIN GRADE LEVELS AND THE MOST FREQUENTLY USED TEXTBOOK SERIES/PROGRAM IN 1979-80 SCHOOL YEAR
Grade Level
Kindergarten F irs t Second Third Fourth F ifth Sixth Textbook Series/Program N(59) N (59) N (59) N (59) N (59) N (59) N (46)
Science: Understanding Your Environment (Mallinson) 8.5 20 . 3 22.0 22.0 20.3 20 . 3 15.2
Elementary School Science (ESS) 10.2 11.9 13.6 11.9 13.6 15.3 17.4
Science: A Process Approach (SAPA) 13.6 15.3 15.3 13.6 11.9 11.9 6.5
Concepts in Science (Brandwein) 5 . 1 10.2 11.9 10.2 11.9 11.9 13.0
Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS): Life Science 5.1 10.2 B.5 8.5 6.8 6.8 6.5
Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS): Physical Science 5.1 8.5 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.5
Today's Basic Science Series (Navara) 3.4 3.4 3.4 5 . 1 5.1 6.8 8.7
New Laidlaw Science Program (Smith) 3.2 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5 . 1 6.5
Modular Activities Program in Science (Berger) 0 .0 1.7 1 .7 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.2 142
TABLE 4.24
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS IDENTIFYING CHILDREN WITH INTEREST IN SOME CURRICULAR AREAS, AND THOSE WITH . SPECIAL INTEREST IN SCIENCE
Identifying Interests Identifying Inter- in some Curricular Areas est in Science Identifying Children______Number______Percent ______Number Percent
Yes 35 54.7 9 13.8
No 29 45.3 56 86.2
Total 64 100.0 65 100.0
Environmental/Conservation Education
Principals were asked to indicate if environmental or
conservation education were being taught in their schools, and if so,
to check the appropriate pattern of teaching same, whether as a
separate subject or in relation to other subjects, for all grade
levels. Data in Table 4.25 show that 93.8 percent of the responding
schools taught environmental and/or conservation education.
TABLE 4.25
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS REPORTING TEACHING ENVIRONMENTAL AND/OR CONSERVATION SCIENCE
Teaching Environmental/ Numbe r Percent Conservation Science of Schools of Schools
Yes 61 93.8
No 4 6.2
Total 65 100.0 143
Data related to practices concerning pattern of teaching environmental and conservation education are given in Table 4.26. Four patterns that covered grades kindergarten through 6 were included in the list. They included the following entries: taught separately; taught with science; taught with social studies; and taught with two or more subjects including science. The data show that the most
frequently used pattern in teaching environmental and conservation education was teaching it with science. Over half of the responding schools, between 54.4 and 73.9 percent, selected that pattern for all grades. The second most widely used pattern was teaching it with two or more subjects including science and, more than one in four of the schools, between 25.8 and 30.6 percent were using i t . However, less
than one-fifth of the schools reported teaching it with social studies, between 14.9 and 17.7 percent of the responding schools. Very few principals, between 1.6 and 9.4 percent, reported teaching environmental and/or conservation science as a separate subject.
Specific Changes in Schools
The questionnaire included a section on changes, that asked the principals of the schools to indicate if they were working at the present school in 1970-71 school year, and, if so, to report whether they were administrators or teachers. In addition, they were requested to state the number of years they had been principals of their present schools, counting 1970-71 as one year. Twenty-three, or 35.4 percent, of the principals indicated they had been working at th eir present schools during 1970-71, and a ll were principals at the time. TABLE 4 .2 6
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS BY GRADE LEVELS AND BY PATTERN OF TEACHING ENVIRONMENTAL AND/OR CONSERVATION SCIENCE*
Grade Level
Kindergarten F irs t Second Thi rd Fourth Fifth Sixth Pattern of Teaching N\ N t N %N % N 1 N t N t
Taught Separately 1 1 .7 1 1 .6 1 1 .6 1 1 .6 2 3 . 2 4 6 .5 4 9 .4
Taught with Science 31 54.4 36 58. 1 37 59.7 37 59.7 38 61.3 39 62.9 34 73.9
Taught with Social Studies 10 17.5 1 1 17.7 1 1 17.7 1 1 17.7 1 1 17.7 1 1 17.7 7 14.9
Taught w ith two o r more subjects including science 15 16.3 16 25.8 16 25.8 19 30.6 17 27.4 1 8 29.0 14 29.8
•Columns may add up to more than 100 percent because schools may use more than one approach. 145
Data in Table 4.27 show that more than half the responding principals, 52 percent, had been principals of the present school for a maximum of 5 years; and 75 percent of them had been for a maximum of 10 years. Almost everyone of them had been a principal of his/her present school within the past 15 years. The mean was 6.42 years.
TABLE 4.27
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF THE RESPONDING PRINCIPALS ACCORING TO THE NUMBER OF YEARS CATEGORY THEY SERVED AS PRINCIPALS OF THEIR PRESENT SCHOOLS
Number of Years Number of Percent of Category Principals Principals
1-5 34 52.3
6-10 15 23.1
11-15 15 23.1
15-up 1 1.5
Total 65 100.0
Mean 6.42 146
Changes in School Science Programs
Principals were asked to report if major changes had taken place since 1971 in the science programs of their schools, and if so, to check, with options for others, a list of five items describing the appropriate kind of major change. Number of respondents on this item was 63. Forty-seven of the respondents (74.6 percent) believed that major changes had taken place.
However, only 49 principals (78 percent of the respondents) indicated the type of change that has taken place in th eir schools.
Data in Table 4.28 show that two out of three, 67.3 percent, of the respondents reported that changed textbooks was the major change that had taken place in their schools. Revised courses was the next major change reported by 46.9 percent of the principals. About one-third of the principals, 32.7 percent, listed a change as the development of new materials locally, while 22.4 percent cited the increase in student science requirements as one of the major changes.
Only 6.1 percent of them reported the reduction in student science requirement as a major change in th eir schools. 147
TABLE 4.28
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPALS REPORTING MAJOR CHANGES IN SCHOOL SCIENCE PROGRAMS BY TYPE OF CHANGE
No. of Principals Percent of Type of Change N=*49 Principals
Revised Courses 23 46.9
Developed New Materials Locally 16 32.7
Changed Textbooks 33 67.3
Reduced Student Science Requi foments 3 6.1
Increased Student Science Requirements 11 22.4
Satisfaction with School Science Procram
Table 4.29 contains the results of principals' responses with respect to the degree of th eir satisfactio n with the science programs in their schools. It can be seen that over one-half of the principals,
53.1 percent, were satisfied with the science programs, and an additional 14.1 percent reported being very satisfied. Those who expressed d issatisfactio n with the program amounted to 15.6 percent, and only 3.1 percent indicated that they were very dissatisfied with the programs. The remaining respondents, 14.1 percent, indicated their neutrality with respect to the degree of satisfaction with the science programs in their schools. 148
TABLE 4.29
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPALS BY DEGREE OF SATISFACTION WITH SCIENCE PROGRAMS IN THEIR SCHOOLS
Degree of Number of Percent of Satisfaction Principals Principals
Very Satisfied 9 14.1
Satisfied 34 53.1
Neutral 9 14.1
D issatisfied 10 15.6
Very Dissatisfied 2 3.1
Total 64 100.0 149
The Science Teacher Questionnaire (Q:ST)
The elementary school teachers' responses to the status of
science teaching survey questionnaire are discussed In this section.
Data on teacher characteristics were obtained from the first section of
the instrument. It requested information on sex and age of the
teacher, teaching experience, degree(s) held, credit hours earned in
the undergraduate and graduate level science courses, participation in
the National Science Foundation-sponsored activities, type of
in-service opportunities felt needed, as well as professional assistance in other areas.
The second section inquired about special science fa c ilitie s and audiovisual aids, their availability and the extent of their usage
in the sampled schools. Degree of av ailab ility of supplies and equipment were also included in this part.
The third section dealt with elementary science teaching, in
terms of patterns of instruction, the type of room used to conduct
science classes, kinds of curriculum materials and/or textbooks used
for science classes, and the learning activities most often used in teaching science.
The fourth section included questions about the course offerings, such as different textbook series or programs.
The fifth section was concerned with identifying some major changes in school science programs that the teachers fe lt had taken place in the classroom since 1971 and basic reasons for the change. 150
Finally, the teachers were requested to rate th eir level of satisfaction with teaching elementary school science and what they would like to change if they were dissatisfied with the science program.
Teacher Characteristics
The distribution and total number of responding elementary school science teachers by state was presented in Table 3.11 (p.110).
The breakdown of these teachers by sex is shown in Table 4.30. The data, as expected, show that the vast majority, 80.9 percent, of all responding elementary science teachers were females.
TABLE 4.30
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SCIENCE TEACHERS BY SEX
Number of Percent of Sex Teachers Teachers
Female 144 80.9
Male 34 19.1
Total 178 100.0
Teacher Age and Teaching Experience
Reported teacher age is shown in Table 4.31. Forty-one percent of the responding science teachers were 40 years of age or older. Teachers 50 years of age or older constituted about 19 percent of the respondents. 151 Teachers of age less than 30 years amounted to 18 percent of the teachers. The average age, in years, of responding elementary science teachers was almost 39 years.
TABLE A.31
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SCIENCE TEACHERS BY AGE CATEGORY
Age in Number of Percent of Years Teachers Teachers
20-29 31 17.8
30-39 72 Al.A
A0-A9 39 22.A
50-59 23 13.2
60-69 9 5.2
Total 17A 100.0
Mean Age in Years 38.9
Standard Deviation 10.6
Each teacher was asked to indicate her/his elementary as well as her/his total number of years of teaching experience, including
1979-80 as a fu ll year. Data in Table A.32 show that A2.1 percent of the respondent teachers had a maximum of 10 years, and 16 percent had a maximum of 5 years of teaching experience. Those who had a maximum teaching experience of more than 10 years constituted 58 percent of the TABLE 4.32
PERCENT OP TEACHERS BY CATEGORY OF TOTAL AND ELEMENTARY YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Y«>ars of Teaching Experience Cateoorv Teaching Sample S tandard Experience Size 1 -5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-21 26-30 31 -up Mean D eviation
Elementary 177 16.4 26.5 26.0 15.8 9. 1 3.9 2.3 12.9 7.4
Total 178 15.7 26.4 25 .3 15.7 9.0 5.7 2.2 13.1 7.6 153 responding teachers. Those teachers with more than 20 years of
teaching experience amounted to about 17 percent of the respondents.
The data show no significant difference between total teaching
experience and elementary school teaching experiences. This indicates
that the teaching experience of the teachers was gained almost
exclusively in the elementary school. The average number of years of
teaching experience was about 13 years.
Academic Background of Elementary Science Teachers
Data relative to academic degree(s), and undergraduate and
graduate credit hours in science and science education are presented in
Tables 4.33 through 4.35. The data show that all responding teachers held a Bachelor's degree, 41 percent had a Master's degree, and 2.2 percent a specialist degree.
TABLE 4.33
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS HOLDING ACADEMIC DEGREES BY TYPE OF DEGREE
Number of Percent of Teachers Teachers Degree Held Reported Reported
B .S., B.A. or B.Ed. 178 100.0
M.S., M.A., or M.Ed. 73 41.0
Ph.D. or Ed.D. 0 0.0
Specialist 4 2.2 154 Teachers who reported they were working on a second degree amounted to 12.3 percent of respondents. They were working on eith er a
Master's degree (11.2 percent), or on a specialist degree (1.1
percent).
TABLE 4.34
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS WORKING ON A SECOND DEGREE
Working Toward Number of Percent of A Degree Teachers Teachers
Yes 22 12.3
No 155 87.6
Total 177 100.0
Data on academic undergraduate background, as indicated by
reported credit hours earned in biological sciences, physical sciences,
earth sciences, mathematics, science teaching methods and student
teaching in science is presented in Table 4.35. A little over 76
percent of the teachers reported they had taken coursework in the
biological sciences; the mean for all teachers was 7.7 quarter hours.
Approximately 69 percent reported credit hours in physical sciences,
the mean for all teachers was 5.0 quarter hours. About 55 percent of
the teachers reported credit hours in earth science; the mean for all
teachers was 3.8 quarter hours. About 81 percent of the teachers
reported some coursework in mathematics; the mean number of quarter TABLE 4 .35
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS WHO HAD PREPARATION IN THE SCIENCES. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF QUARTER HOURS BY TYPE OF SCIENCE
Number of Percent of Mean of Quarter T otal Mean Reporting Teachers hours for Report Standard of Quarter Course Work Teachers from Total ing Teachers D eviation Hours
Undergraduate Biological Sciences 1 36 76 .4 10.14 8. 1 7.7 Physical Sciences 122 68. 5 7. 30 4.6 5.0 Earth Sciences 97 54.5 6.90 5.9 3.8 Mathematics 144 80 .9 10.95 7.4 8.9 Science Teaching Methods 118 66. 3 4.90 2.5 3.2 Student Teaching in Science 35 19.7 5.90 3.2 1 . 2
Graduate
Biological Sciences 1 4 7.9 6.25 4.2 0.5 Physical Sciences 17 9.6 5.20 3.0 0.5 Earth Sciences 1 7 9.6 6. 70 4.4 0.6 Mathematics 51 28.7 6.10 5.6 1.7 Teaching Science Methods or Science Education 48 27.0 6.60 5.7 1 . 8 156
hours was 8.9 hours. Science teaching methods was reported by 66
percent of the sample teachers; the mean was about 3 quarter hours.
On the graduate level, it is readily apparent from Table 4.35
that more than 70 percent of the responding teachers had not had any
graduate credit hours in any of the specific science areas discussed
above. About 29 percent of teachers reported credit hours in
mathematics. Twenty-seven percent of the teachers reported coursework
in science education. Each of the other three areas; biological
sciences, physical sciences, and earth sciences was reported by less
than 10 percent of the teachers.
Attendance at NSF-Sponsored A ctivities
Elementary science teachers were asked if they had attended any
NSF-sponsored in s titu te s , conferences or workshops, and if so, to
indicate on a l i s t types of NSF-sponsored a c tiv itie s they had attended.
Table 4.36 shows that only about 13 percent of the teachers had attended NSF-sponsored a c tiv itie s.
TABLE 4.36
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS WHO HAVE ATTENDED NSF ACTIVITIES
Attendance of Number of Percent of NSF Activity Teachers Teachers
Yes 23 12.9
No 155 87.1
Total 178 100.0 157
Prior to 1976. Data in Table 4.37 show that prior to 1976 in-service institutes were the most frequently attended activity, reported by 6.7 percent of the teachers, followed by summer institutes, attended by 3.4 percent, and cooperative college-school science programs by 2.8 percent of respondents.
After 1976. The most frequently reported activity after 1976 was the school system projects, reported by 2.2 percent of the teachers; however, these numbers indicate almost no involvement in NSF in-service activity after 1976.
TABLE 4.37
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCIENCE TEACHERS WHO ATTENDED ONE OR MORE NSF-SPONSORED ACTIVITIES BY TYPE OF ACTIVITY
Type of Yes NSF-Sponsored Activity ______Number Percent
Prior to 1976
Academic Year In stitu te s 1 0.6
Administrators Conferences 0 0.0
Cooperative College-School Science Program 5 2.8
In-Service Institute 12 6.7
Summer Institutes 6 3.4
Resource Personnel Workshop 3 1.9
After 1976
Leadership Development Projects 2 1.1
School System Projects 4 2.2
Teacher Center Projects 2 1.1
Chautauqua Short Courses 0___0.0 (N - 178) 158
Teacher Need for In-Service Opportunities
Teachers were asked to indicate if they felt that they needed
more in-service opportunities, and if so, to specify the type(s) of
in-service opportunity by checking a list of a suggested in-service
opportunities. Data in Table 4.38 show that almost 77 percent of
respondents felt the need for more in-service opportunities.
TABLE 4.38
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS WHO FELT THE NEED FOR MORE IN-SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES
Need fo r More Number of Percent of In-S ervice Teachers Teachers
Yes 136 76.8
No 41 23.2
Total 177 100.0
Table 4.39 shows that the large majority of responding
teachers, 85.3 percent, indicated that they felt the need for
in-service opportunities in the area of science teaching techniques.
The next item they felt the need for was in-service opportunities in
science content, reported by 55.9 percent of the teachers. It appears
that elementary science teachers were conscious of their weak backgrounds in both science methodology and content, thus, the frequent requests for these two opportunities. However, in-service opportunities in program change strategies, and in-service opportunities in evaluation were a distant third and fourth, reported by 19.1 percent and 13.2 percent, respectively. 159
TABLE 4 .3 9
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF RESPONDING TEACHERS BY THE TYPE OF IN-SERVICE OPPORTUNIES THEY REPORTED AS NEEDING
• Yes No Total Type of In -S erv ice Needed Number Percent Number Percent Number
In-service Opportunities in Science Teaching Technique 116 85.3 20 14.7 1 36
In-service Opportunities in Science Content 76 55.9 60 44.1 1 36
In-service Opportunities in Program Change S tra te g ie s 26 19.1 110 80 .9 1 36
In-service Opportunities in E valuation 18 13.2 1 18 86.8 1 36 Teacher Need for Assistance
Teachers were asked to specify by checking a list of 14 items of assistance areas, with the option to add others, whether or not they needed assistance in any of them. The data in Table 4.40 were rank ordered from most frequently selected to least frequently selected assistance area needed.
The data show that there were three areas of needed assistance th a t were rep o rted by more than 70 percent of the respondents. They were: obtaining information about new teaching methods reported by
72.0 percent; obtaining information about out-of-school resources, selected by 71.7 percent; and obtaining information about instructional materials, chosen by 70.6 percent of the responding teachers.
Other areas selected by more than half the responding teachers were: developing skills to use new science equipment and facilities
(61.5 percent), obtaining information about recent curriculum development (59.5 percent), implementing new curriculum projects (59.4 percent); obtaining information about subject matter (57.0 percent), using manipulative or hands-on materials (55.6 percent), obtaining information about films, TV, and radio programs (54.9 percent), developing local curriculum materials (52.9 percent), and implementing discovery/inquiry approach (50.0 percent).
Three of the areas were requested by less than half the respondents; evaluating student learning (43.2 percent), articulating instruction across classrooms within a building and across different buildings (37.9 percent), and developing skills to use audiovisual aids
(24.3 percent). TABLE 4.40
NUMBER AND PERCENT OP TEACHERS BY THE REPORTED TYPE OF ASSISTANCE THEY FELT THEY NEEDED
Yes No Total Type of A ssistance Needed Number Percent Number Percent N
O btaining Inform ation About New Teaching Methods 1 18 72.0 46 28.0 164 Obtaining Information About Out of School Resources 1 14 71.7 45 28.3 159 Obtaining Information About Instructional Materials 115 70 .6 48 29.4 163 Developing Skills to U 3e New Science Equipment and F a c i liti e s 96 61.5 60 38.5 156 Obtaining Information About Recent Curriculum Development 94 59.5 64 40.5 158 Implementing New Curriculum Projects 92 59.4 63 40.6 155 Obtaining Information About Subject Matter 90 57.0 68 43.0 158 Using Manipulative or Hands-On Materials 90 55.6 72 44.4 162 Obtaining Information About Films, TV, and Radio Programs 89 54.9 73 45 . 1 162 Developing Local Curriculum Materials 83 52.9 74 47. 1 157 Implementing Discovery/Inquiry Approach 76 50 .0 76 50 .0 152 Evaluating Student Learning 67 43.2 88 56.8 155 Articulating Instruction Across Classrooms Within A Building and Across Different Buildings 58 37.9 95 62. 1 153 Developing Slcills to Use Audiovisual Aids 37 24 .3 115 75.7 152 162 Special Science Facilities and Audiovisual Materials
Teachers were asked to indicate, on a list of selected items, If a certain facility or aduiovisual equipment was available for science instruction, and if so, to indicate the frequency of its use in the respondent's science classes.
Table 4.41 shows that the following five items of audiovisual equipment were reported a v a ila b le by more than 90 percent of the respondents: overhead projectors (99 percent), phonographs (97 percent), motion picture projectors (97 percent), slide projectors (93 percent), and opaque projectors (92 percent). The following five items of equipment were reported available by more than 70 percent of the respondents: commercial models (85 percent), filmloop projectors (80 percent), commercial charts (78 percent), standard television (73 percent), and videotape recorder/player (71 percent).
The remaining 12 facilities and audiovisual aids on the list were reported to be available by less than half the respondents. The percentages vary from a high of 41 percent reported available for nature trails to a low of 4 percent indicated for science darkrooms. TABLE 4.41
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS BY REPORTED AVAILABILITY OF SELECTED SCIENCE FACILITIES/AUDIOVISUAL AIDS
Avallabllitv of Item Special Science Facility T otal or A udiovisual Aid Teachers Yes P ercent No P ercent
Overhead Projector 176 174 98.9 2 1.1
Phonograph 175 170 97.1 5 2 .9
Motion Picture Projector 175 169 96.6 6 3.4
Slide Projector 173 160 92.5 13 7.5
Opaque Projector 176 162 92.0 14 8 .0
Commercial Models 173 147 85.0 26 15.0
Filmloop Projector 170 136 80.0 34 20.0
Commercial Charts 173 134 77.5 39 22.5
Standard Television 171 124 72.5 47 27.5
Videotape Recorder/Player 173 123 71.1 50 28.9
Nature Trails 170 70 41.2 100 58.8
Micro-Projector 163 46 28.2 117 71.8
Closed Circuit Television 169 44 26.0 125 74.0
Planetarium 171 42 24.6 129 75.4
Heather Station 168 32 19.0 136 81.0
Outdoor Laboratory 170 24 14.1 146 85.9
S cience Museum 168 23 13.7 145 86.3
Observatory 170 22 12.9 148 87.1
Greenhouse 168 20 11.9 148 88.1
Auto-tutorlal Laboratory 170 20 11.8 150 88.2
Ventilated Animal Housing 169 18 10.7 151 89.3
Science Darkroom 167 7 4.2 160 95.8 164 Table 4.42 shows the frequency of use of the available facilities and audiovisual aids as reported by science teachers on a three-step ranking scale that included: (3) "often" when the use occurred at least once a week; (2) ."occasionally" when the use occurred once or twice a month; and (1) "rarely" when the frequency of usage was less than once a month.
The data revealed that the frequency of usage of audiovisual aids varied considerably. The mean ranged from 1.00 to 2.24. The most often used instructional aid was the motion picture projector, followed by the overhead projector, with a mean of 1.99, commercial charts, phonographs, and commercial models, ranked third, fourth and fifth respectively. However, the least used equipment reported was the science darkroom, followed by the planetarium, observatory, science museum, and nature t r a i l . The data also show th a t, w ith the exception of the first five pieces of equipment, the vast majority of schools were rarely using the available equipment. 165
TABLE 4 .42 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF THE DEGREE OF USAGE AND THE MEAN OF EACH RESPONSE CATEGORY OF SPECIAL SCIENCE FACILITY/AUDIOVISUAL AID
Special Science Facility No. of Teachers Degree of Usage * or A udiovisual Aid Reported available O ccasionally Often Mean *Rarely
Motion Picture Projector 169 29 70 . 70 2.24 Overhead Projector 1 74 63 46 65 1 .99 Commercial Charts 134 44 62 28 1 . 88 Phonograph 170 74 52 44 1 .82 Commercial Models 147 59 59 29 1 .80 Videotape Recorder Player 123 59 40 24 1 .72 Filmloop Projector 136 64 49 23 1 .70 Slide Projector 160 83 51 26 1 . 64 Auto-tutorial Laboratory 20 1 1 6 3 1 .60 Closed Circuit Television 44 26 8 8 1 .55 Opaque Projector 162 100 47 1 5 1 .48 Micro-Proj ector 46 30 1 1 5 1 .46 Standard Television 1 24 91 1 2 21 1 .44 Heather Station 32 21 8 3 1 .44 Outdoor Laboratory 24 18 2 4 1.42 Greenhouse 20 16 1 3 1.35 Ventilated Animal Housing 16 14 2 2 1 . 33 Nature Trail 70 55 1 3 2 1 .24 Science Museum 23 1 9 3 1 1 . 22 Observatory 22 16 4 0 1.18 Planetarium 42 40 2 0 1.05 Science Darkroom 7 7 0 0 1 . 00
Often ■ 3 Occasionally - 2 Rarely - i
•As expressed by in terms of responses for schools where the item is available. 166
Equipment and Consumable Supplies
Science teachers were asked to rank the extent of availability
of equipment and consumable supplies for science demonstrations and
experiments in their schools. The rank order was: (3) adequate; (2)
inadequate; and (1) completely lacking. Table 4.43 shows the response
rate of the responding teachers. The majority of teachers thought that
supplies (55 percent) and equipment (51 percent) were adequate. Only
about 6 percent of the respondents considered supplies and equipment to
be completely lacking. However, about 38 percent and 43 percent of the
respondents reported that supplies and equipment, respectively, were
inadequate.
Comparing data in Tables 4.18 and 4.43 show a higher percentage of teachers than principals reported that supplies and equipment were
inadequate or completely lacking.
TABLE 4.43
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS REPORTING ON DEGREE OF AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Sudo I i e s Ecuiomer.t Degree of Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Availabilitv Teachers Teachers Teachers Teachers
Completely Lacking (1 ) 1 1 6 . 3 1 1 6.2
Inadequate (2) 67 38 . 3 76 42.9
Adequa te (3) 97 55.4 90 50 . 3
T otal 1 75 100.0 1 77 1 CO . 0
Category Mean 2 . 49 2 . 44
Completely Lacking • 1 Inadequate - 2 Adequate « 3 167 Elementary Science Teaching
Teaching Patterns
Teachers were asked to report on the pattern that most aptly described the approach they used with their classes in teaching science. Table 4.44 shows that the majority of responding teachers, about 55 percent, taught science in the elementary school as a separate subject. One in four of the responding teachers taught science both as a separate subject and incidentally. Science integrated with other subjects was being taught by almost 16 percent of the teachers, and 10
percent taught it integrated with other subjects and incidentally.
Less than 2 percent taught science only incidentally.
TABLE 4.44
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS BY THEIR PATTERN OF TEACHING SCIENCE
Yes No Pattern of Teaching Total Number Percent Number Percent
Separate Subject 178 98 55.1 80 44.9
Integrated with Other Subjects 178 28 15.7 150 84.3
Incidentally 178 3 1.7 175 98.3
Separate Subject and Incidentally 178 44 24.7 134 75.3
Integrated and Incidentally 178 17 9.6 161 90.4 168
Types of Classrooms Available for Science Instruction
Teachers were asked to report what type of classroom they used
to teach science in their schools. The data in Table 4.45 reveal that a large majority, 59 percent, of the respondents used regular classrooms with portable science kits; however, about one in three of the responding teachers conducted her/his science classes in a regular classroom with no science facilities or kits. Only 8 percent used special science rooms or laboratories for their science classes.
TABLE 4.45
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS BY THE TYPE OF CLASSROOM USED FOR SCIENCE INSTRUCTION
Total No. of Yes ______No______Type of Classroom ______Teachers Nummber Percent Number Percent
Laboratory or Special Science Room 178 15 8.4 163 91.6
Classroom with Por table Science Kits 178 105 59.0 73 41.0
Classroom with No Science Facilities or Kits 178 63 35.4 115 64.6 169
Curriculum Materials and/or Textbook Adoption Practices
Data showing the types of practices concerning adoption and use of textbooks and other curriculum materials are presented in Table
4.46.
TABLE 4.46
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS BY THE TYPE OF CURRICULUM MATERIALS AND/OR TEXTBOOK USED
Type of Curriculum Yes No Material adopted Number Percent Number Percent
Single Textbook including Laboratory Manual 27 15.4 148 84.6
Single Textbook 55 31.4 120 68.6
Multiple Textbooks including Laboratory 19 10.9 156 89.1 Manuals
Multiple Textbooks 28 16.0 147 84.0
Locally-prepared Materials 54 30.8 121 69.2
Separate Laboratory Manual 21 12.0 154 88.0
The most frequent practices reported were the adoption of a single textbook and the locally-prepared materials, each reported by 31 percent of the respondents. The practice of adopting multiple textbooks was a distant third with 16 percent of the respondents reporting it, followed closely by the practice of adopting a single textbook including laboratory manual, 15 percent. The remaining two 170 options, Separate Laboratory Manual, and Multiple Textbooks Including
Laboratory Manuals, were reported by 12 percent and 11 percent, respectively.
Learning Activities
Teacher respondents were asked to rank the three learning activities or teaching methods they used most often with their science classes, and to indicate all other activities used. Table 4.47 contains the frequency distribution of teacher respondents who assigned each rank to the activities.
Lecture-discussion was the most frequently used learning activity. If all responses for this item are combined, it can be seen that 83.1 percent of the teachers used lecture-discussion as a-learning activity for science instruction. This activity was also selected by
38.4 percent of the respondents as the most often used activity.
Instructional films were selected by 71.2 of the respondents, and it was reported as a used activity by the highest percentage of respondents, 28.8 percent. However, it was ranked as most often used by only 6.2 percent.
Teacher-demonstrations, group laboratory activity, and student reports or projects were ranked third, fourth and fifth with a combined percentage usage of 66.1, 62.1 and 59.3 percent, respectively.
< Other activities were reported with frequencies reaching as low as 6.2 percent for the use of auto-tutorial instruction. TABLE 4 .4 7
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS REPORTING THE DEGREE OF THEIR USE OF CERTAIN LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Rank of Use Second Third Total Total Learning Activity Most Often(3) Most Often(2) Most Ofton(l) Used N P ercent
Lecture-Discussion 68 27 32 20 147 83.1
Instructional Films 1 1 30 34 51 126 71 .2
Teacher-Demonstrations 23 29 22 43 117 66.1
Group Laboratory Activity 28 30 19 33 1 10 62 . 1
Student Reports or Projects 7 19 29 50 105 59.3
In-Class Written Assignments 7 10 9 47 73 41.2
Individual Laboratory Activity 20 14 7 31 72 40.7
Independent Study 5 5 7 43 60 33.9
Lecture 4 6 2 46 58 32.8
Televised Instruction 0 3 5 31 39 22.0
Programmed In stru c tio n 0 2 6 9 1 7 9.6
Auto-Tutorial Instruction 2 0 2 7 11 6.2
"Number of reporting teachers - 177
Most Often « 3 Second Most Often - 2 Third Most Often “ 1 172
Science Course Offerings
Teachers were supplied with a list that included 16 specific programs - the same list included in the principal's questionnaire.
The teachers were also asked to identify the science instructional program(s) they use with their classes. The result of the analysis of the teacher responses showed no significant difference on any of the items reported by both principals and teachers; hence, the table from the teachers' questionnaire was deleted to avoid repetition. (See
Table 4.23)
Changes in School Science Programs
Respondent teachers were asked to indicate if they had been teaching at the same schools during the 1970-71 school year, and if so, to report if major changes had taken place since 1971 in the school science program(s). The teachers were asked to check, with option for others, a list of five items that describe the kinds of major changes.
TABLE 4.48
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS WHO WERE TEACHING AT THE SAME SCHOOL IN 1970-71 SCHOOL YEAR
Number of Percent of Teaching in 1970-71 Teachers Teachers
Yes 96 53.9
No 82 46.1
Total 178 100.0 173 Table 4.48 shows that the majority, 54 percent, of the responding teachers were working at the same school in the 1970-71 school year.
Teachers' responses to whether major changes have taken place in the school science programs since 1971 is reported in Table 4.49.
The data show that 82.2 percent of the respondents believed that major changes have taken place in their school science program(s) since 1971.
TABLE 4.49
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS REPORTING ON THE OCCURRENCE OF MAJOR CHANGES IN SCHOOL PROGRAMS SINCE 1971
Had Major Changes in Number of Percent of School Science Programs Teachers Teachers
Yes 79 82.2
No 17 17.8
Total 96 100.0
Data in Table 4.50 shows th a t more than two out of th re e , 67.1 percent, of the responding teachers reported that textbook change was the major change that had taken place in their schools. This response was in agreement with the principals' responses to the same item (see
Table 4.28). Revised courses was the next major change selected by
45.6 percent of the respondents. More than two-fifths, 43.0 percent, indicated that the change was the development of new materials locally, while 16.5 percent cited the increase in student science requirements, and only 2.5 percent cited reduced student science requirements as major changes in school science programs. 174
TABLE 4.50
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS WHO REPORTED MAJOR CHANGES IN SCHOOL SCIENCE PROGRAMS BY TYPE OF CHANGE
No. of Reporting Teachers Percent of Type of Change N - 79 Teachers*
Revised Courses 36 45.6
Developed New Materials Locally 34 43.0
Changed Textbooks 53 67.1
Reduced Student Science Requirements 2 2.5
Increased Student Science Requirements 13 16.5
*Some teachers reported more than one major change •
Satisfaction with School Science Program(s)
Teacher respondents were asked to rate the degree of their satisfaction with the science programs in their schools. Five response choices were given: (5) very satisfied; (4) satisfied; (3) neutral;
(2) dissatisfied; and (1) very dissatisfied.
Table 4.51 contains the results of teachers' responses on this item. It can be seen that over half of the teachers, 51.7 percent, indicated that they were either very satisfied (15.3 percent), or satisfied (36.4 percent). Those who expressed dissatisfaction with the program amounted to 20.5 percent of the respondents, with another 4.5 percent indicating that they were very dissatisfied with same. These 175
responses differ to a certain extent from those of the principal respondents where 67.2 percent expressed satisfaction and 18.7 percent reported dissatisfaction with the science programs in their schools
(see Table 4.29).
TABLE 4.51
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS BY DEGREE OF SATISFACTION WITH SCIENCE PROGRAMS IN THEIR SCHOOLS
Degree of Number of Percent of Satisfaction Teachers Teachers
Very Satisfied 27 15.3
Satisfied 64 36.4
N eutral 40 22.7
Dissatisfied 36 20.5
Very Dissatisfied 8 4.5
Total 175 100.0 PART II
ATTITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
This instrument was administered to both the principals and the teachers. The first part of this instrument (Decision Making) asked the respondents about their perception of how much influence they, themselves, and other selected groups or individuals have on the school's science curriculum.
The second part asked how the respondents as well as other selected groups or individuals closely connected to elementary schools and pre-college public education, perceived the general attitude with respect to changes in the school science curriculum and instruction.
The third part was concerned with the opinions of the principals and teachers regarding monetary resources, and the importance and usefulness of different sources of information on a variety of items.
The fourth part was concerned with the opinions of the respondents in relation to federal support for curriculum development and course improvement.
The opinions on the importance of certain objectives of elementary school science education was dealt with in the fifth part.
The sixth and last part, Barriers to Change, requested principals and teachers to express their opinions on certain factors
176 177 that may have a negative effect on the improvement of practices in science programs. This part also asked the respondents how they felt about tangible and intangible incentives for teachers, and the type of science curricula they preferred.
Decision Making
Principals and elementary school science teachers were asked to rate the influence they had in determining the science curriculum for their schools. In addition, they were requested to indicate what influence they felt other certain groups or individuals had in determining the science curriculum of the respondents’ schools.
Response options were three: (3) considerable; (2) some; and
(1) none. Table A.52 shows that the principals rated their influence higher (mean»2.30) than the teachers did for theirs (mean=2.10).
Approximately 36 percent of the principals considered their influence to be considerable, while 57.8 percent indicated they had some
TABLE 4.52
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR PERCEPTION OF INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING THE SCIENCE CURRICULUM
Level of P rin cip al Teacher Influence Number Percent Number Percent
Considerable 23 35.9 33 19.4
Some 37 57.8 96 56.5
None 4 6.3 41 24.1
Mean 2.30 2.10
Standard Deviation 0.58 0.62 178 Influence. However, only 19 percent of the responding teachers felt they had a considerable influence, and the majority, 56.5 percent, thought they had only some influence in determining the science curriculum of their schools.
Respondents', principals and teachers, perception of the extent of influence of each specific group, or individuals had in determining the school science program is presented in Table 4.53.
The data clearly show that principal and teacher respondents almost had identical conception of who actually runs the show in determining what is to be taught in the elementary school science programs. The principals felt that the teachers had considerable
Influence, followed by the science coordinator or supervisor with 63.1 and 54.7 percentage points, respectively. The percent for some influence was 35.4 percent for teachers and 42.2 percent for coordinators (supervisors). However, respondent teachers felt that considerable influence belonged to coordinators followed by teachers with almost 60 percent and 34 percent, respectively. Also, 36 percent and 54 percent of teacher respondents considered coordinators and teachers, respectively, as having only some influence.
Principals considered the principal to rank third in influencing the science programs of schools, while teachers reported that the district superintendent and the state department of education were the third in line of influence.
Both principals and teachers rated parents and students lowest in influence. TABLE 4.53
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR PERCEPTION OP THE DEGREE OF INFLUENCE CERTAIN GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS HAD ON SCHOOL SCIENCE PROGRAMS
P r in c i p a l T each er Considerable Some None To t a J. Considerable Some None T o ta l Group/Individual N « N 4 N t N He an N » N « N » N Mean
Department of Education 5 7.0 37 56. 1 24 30.4 66 1.71 43 24.6 100 6 0 .6 26 14.9 175 2.10
Superintendent* 1 3 19.7 40 00.6 1 3 19.7 66 2.00 44 25.4 103 59.5 26 15.0 173 2.10
Central Staff** 35 54. 7 27 42.2 2 3. 1 64 2.52 1 04 59.8 63 36.2 7 4.0 174 2.56
School Board 7 10.6 39 59. 1 20 30. 3 66 1 . 80 26 14.9 108 62. 1 40 23.0 174 1.92
P r in c i p a l 25 37.9 38 57.6 3 4.5 66 2 .3 3 27 15.3 1 10 02. 5 39 22. 2 176 1.93
Tcachera 4 1 63. 1 23 35. 4 1 1 .5 65 2.62 60 34. 1 95 54.0 2 1 11.9 176 2.22
S tu d e n ts 1 1 . 5 32 49. 2 32 49.2 65 1 . 52 6 3.4 62 35.2 108 61 . 4 176 1.42
P a re n ts 1 1.6 28 43.8 35 54. 7 04 1 .47 0 0 . 0 51 29. 0 1 25 71.0 176 1 . 29
"District Superintendent *‘Curriculun Coordinator or Supervisor
Considerable ■ 3 Some » 2 None • ! 179 180 In order to initiate changes in the school science program, the principal and teachers should have a considerable influence in deciding what science to be offered in their schools. To determine the extent of responsibility (desire) the respondents desired to have, they were asked to indicate the influence they should have and the influence other groups and/or individuals should have in determining the school science curriculum.
The means for both the principals and teachers regarding influence they desired to have were higher than means on influence they felt they already had (see Tables 4.52 and 4.54). Teachers, in particular, wanted much more influence than they felt they had. Table
4.54 presents principal and teacher opinions regarding influence they felt they should have.
TABLE 4.54
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR DESIRED INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING THE SCIENCE CURRICULUM FOR THEIR SCHOOLS BY LEVEL OF INFLUENCE
Level of Principal Teacher Influence Number Percent Number Percent
Considerable 34 54.0 98 57.3
Some 29 46.0 68 39.8
None 0 0.0 5 2.9
Mean 2.54 2.54
Standard Deviation 0.52 0.56 181 Data in Table A.55 presents principal and teacher opinions
regarding how much influence various individuals and groups should have
in influencing the curriculum.
Principal means ranged from 1.71 to 2.75, and nearly all of
them were higher than those on the item regarding influence individuals
and groups did have. Teacher means ranged from 1.77 to 2.80. Teachers wanted certain groups (teachers, principals, students, and parents) to
have more influence, and other groups (supervisors, Department of
Education, superintendents and school board) to have less influence
than they had. Both groups felt teachers should have the most
influence and that the principal and central staff should also be
involved.
Principals felt the students should have more influence than
local school boards, state department of education, and parents, while
the teachers put them ahead of all these and ahead of the district superintendent in the influence they should have on school science curriculum (see Table 4.55). TABLE 4.55
NUMBER AND PERCENT OP PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR PBRCFPTION OP THE DEGREE OP INFLUENCE GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS SHOULD HAVE ON SCHOOL SCIENCE PROGRAMS
P r i n c i p a l T each er Considerable Soae None T o ta l Considerable Soaie None T o ta l Group/Individual N 4 I) 4 H 4 N Me an H 4 N 4 N 4 N
Department of E d u catio n t 1.5 45 68. 2 20 30. 3 66 1.71 22 12.7 129 74.6 22 12.7 173 2.00
Superlntcndenta* 1 3 19. 7 43 65 . 2 10 15.2 66 2.05 IB 10.3 1 16 66. 7 40 23.0 1 74 1.87
Central Staff** 29 45. 3 32 50.0 3 4 .7 64 2.41 73 42.2 94 54. 3 6 3.5 173 2. 39
School Board 5 7.6 43 6 5 .2 18 27.3 66 1 . 80 9 5. 1 1 1 7 6 6 .9 49 28.0 175 1 . 77
Principal 17 5 6 .9 27 4 1.5 1 1 . 5 65 2.55 52 29.2 1 13 63.5 1 1 7. 3 178 2.22
Toachera 49 75.4 16 24.6 0 0.0 65 2 . 75 142 79. 8 36 20.2 0 0 . 0 178 2.80
S tu d e n t* 9 13.8 46 70. 8 10 15.4 65 1 .99 35 20. 1 105 60. 3 34 19.5 174 2.01
P a re n ts 2 3. 1 55 84.6 8 12.3 65 1 .91 1 1 6. 3 1 1 7 66. 5 48 27. 3 176 1.79
•District Superintendent l#Currlculu« Coordinator or Supervisor
Considerable ■ 3 Some ■ 2 None • 1 182 183 Changes In Science Curriculum and Instruction
Without identifying the agent of change, respondents were asked to assess their general attitude toward the introduction of new
practices and materials in their schools. Five response choices were given: (5) very positive, (4) positive, (3) neutral, (2) negative, and
(1) very negative.-
Data in Table 4.56 show that 92.2 percent of the principals and
86.8 percent of the teachers assessed their attitudes as either very positive or positive toward the introduction of new practices and materials in their schools. None of the respondents felt he or she had a very negative attitude toward change.
Principals and teachers were asked to assess the general attitudes, according to their own beliefs, of other groups and individuals toward the introduction of new practices and materials in the schools of the respondents.
Data in Table 4.57 present principals' reactions and data in
Table 4.58 p resen t te a c h e rs' re a c tio n s. P rin cip al means ranged from
3.45 to 4.33. These means indicated they felt all groups had positive a ttitu d e s toward change. They f e lt the most p o sitiv e group was the principals and the least positive was the State Department of
Education. Teacher means ranged from 3.46 to 4.09. These means
Indicated they also felt all groups had positive attitudes toward change. Teachers felt that the principal and central staff held the most positive attitudes toward change and that parents, the local school board, and the State Department of Education held the least positive attitudes. Response patterns of both groups were very s im ila r. TABLE 4 .56
NUMBER AND PERCENT OP ASSESSMENTS OF GENERAL ATTITUDES TOWARD THE INTRODUCTION o r NEW PRACTICES AND MATERIALS BY RESPONDENTS ■ General A ttitu d e (Principals) Very Very Posi tive(5) Positive(4) Neutral! 3) N egativo( 2) Negative!1) Total Respondent N t N » N % N % N t N Mean
P rin c ip a l 1 7 26.6 42 65 .6 4 6 . 3 1 1.6 0 0.0 64 4.17
Teacher 41 23.6 1 10 63.2 16 9.2 7 4 . 0 0 0 . 0 174 4.06
Very P o sitiv e » 5 Positive « 4 Neutral « 3 Negative « 2 Very Negative ■ 1 184 TABLE 4.57
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPALS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE ATTITUDES OF CERTAIN GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS TOWARD INNOVATION IN SCHOOLS
Gene -al Attitude (Principals) Ve ry Very Individual Positive(5) Posltivel4) Neutral! 3) Negative( 2) Negative!1) Total or Group N » N t N \ N % N % N Mean
Department of Education 2 3. 1 27 4 1.5 34 52 . 3 2 3. 1 0 0.0 65 3.45
Superlntendent* 8 12.1 39 59. 1 15 22. 7 3 4.5 1 1 . 5 66 3.76
Central Staff** 16 25.4 40 63.5 4 6. 3 2 3.2 1 1 .6 63 4.08
Local School Board 5 7.6 38 57.6 2 1 31 .8 2 3.0 0 0.0 66 3. 70
P rin c ip a l 24 36.4 40 60 .6 2 3.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 66 4.33
Teache rs 1 1 16.7 4 1 62 . 1 1 1 16.7 2 3.0 1 1 . 5 66 3. 89
Studen ts 10 15.2 29 43.9 26 39.4 1 1 . 5 0 0.0 66 3.73
Pa ren ts 7 10.6 30 45.5 28 42.4 1 1 . 5 0 0.0 66 3.65
•District Superintendent "Curriculum Coordinator or Supervisor
Very P o sitiv e « 5 Positive » 4 Neutral » 3 Negative - 2 Very Negative = 1 185 TABLE 4 .58
NUMBER AND PERCENT Or TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE ATTITUDES OF CERTAIN GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS TOWARD INNOVATION IN SCHOOLS
General Attitude (Teachera) Ve ry Very Total Individual Positive(5] Positive(4) N e u tra l(3) N egative(2) Negative(1) N Mean or Group N % N « N % N \ N %
Department of Education 1 1 6 . 5 68 40.0 89 52 . 4 2 1 .2 0 0.0 170 3.52
Superintendent* 1 7 10.1 98 58. 3 4 7 28.0 6 3.6 0 0 . 0 168 3. 75
Central Staff** 40 23.3 105 61.0 24 14.0 2 1 .2 1 0.6 1 72 4.05
Local School Board 9 5.8 86 50.0 63 36. 6 10 5.8 3 1 . 7 172 3. 52
Principal 45 25.4 109 61.6 20 11.3 0 0.0 3 1 . 7 177 4.09
Teachers 25 14.1 109 61.6 29 16.4 1 3 7. 3 1 0.6 177 3.81
Students 29 16.4 98 55.4 45 25.4 4 2.3 1 0.6 177 3.85
Pa ren ts 9 5.1 73 41.5 86 48.9 6 3.4 2 1 . 1 176 3.46
•District Superintendent ••Curriculum Coordinator or Supervisor
Very P o sitiv e - 5 P o sitiv e m 4 Ne utr a 1 m 3 Negative - 2 Very Negative ws 1 186 187
Resources
Funding
Innovations require personnel time and money. Major efforts
are usually expensive. Respondents were asked to assess what they
believed the level of spending on new science materials and programs
should be, compared to the current spending. Funding was assumed to
originate from three sources: local, state, and federal. Five
response choices were included: (5) much more; (4) more; (3) same; (2)
less; and (1) much less.
Table 4.59 presents the principals* opinions regarding funding.
Means for the items ranged from 3.47 to 3.65. These data indicated the
principals felt the schools should receive more money from all sources,
particularly state and local. Very few principals felt they should
receive less or much less funding.
Table 4.60 presents the teachers' opinions regarding funding.
Means for these items ranged from 3.46 to 3.65. These data indicated
the teachers also felt the schools should receive more money from all
sources, especially the state and local. The response pattern of the
teachers was very similar to the principals.
Both teachers and principals were asked to assess the need for
additional science equipment and supplies in their schools. Three
response choices were given: (3) much more; (2) somewhat more; and (1) no more.
Data in Table 4.61 sh|w the mean for the principals was 2.09
and the mean for the teachers was 2.27. These data indicate both TABLE 4 .59
HUMBER AND PERCENTOF PRINCIPALS ACCORDING TO THE LEVEL OF SPENDING THEY BELIEVE NEEDED FOR INNOVATIONS BY SOURCE OF PUNDING
Level of Spending Much More(5) More(4) Samel 3) L essl2) Much L essl1 Total Source of Funds N % N % N % N t N % N Mean
From Local Funds 5 7.6 30 45.5 30 45.5 1 1.5 0 0.0 66 3. 59
From State Funds 9 13.6 25 37.9 32 48.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 66 3.65
From Federal Funds 8 12.5 19 29. 7 34 53.1 , 1 1.6 2 3. 1 64 3.47
TABLE 4.60
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THE LEVEL OF SPENDING THEY BELIEVE NEEDED FOR INNOVATIONS BY SOURCE OF FUNDING
Level of Spending Much Morel 5) Morel4) Samel 3) L essl2) Much L essl1) Total Source of Funds N % N «N % N % N % N Mean
From Local Funds 19 11.0 77 44.5 74 42.8 3 1 . 7 0 0.0 173 3.65
From S tate Funds 27 15.6 68 39. 3 71 4 1.0 5 2.9 2 1 . 2 1 73 3.65
From Federal Funds 26 15.0 53 30.6 76 43.9 1 1 6.4 7 4.0 173 3.46
Much More 5 More 4 Same m 3 Less - 2 Much Less ss 1 TABLE 4.61
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPALS' AND TEACHERS' PERCEPTION OF THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SCIENCE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES IN SCHOOLS
Level of the Need for Equipment and Supplies Much Morel 3) Somewhat More(2} No More ( 1) Total Respondent N t N % N % N Mean
P rin c ip a ls 1 5 23.4 39 60.9 10 15.6 64 2. 09
Teachers 69 39. 2 66 48.9 21 11.9 1 76 2.27
Much More • 3 Somewhat More ” 2 No More = 1 190 groups felt there was a need for some more equipment and supplies. The teachers indicated a stronger need than did the principals.
Sources of Information
Principals and teachers were given a list of possible sources of information about new practices and materials in science education and asked to rate the usefulness of each. These sources were classified into five categories:
A. Person-to-person communication
B. Printed communication
C. Formal courses and in-service education
D. Mass media
E. Meetings of professional organizations.
Three response choices were given: (3) very useful; (2) useful; and (1) not useful.
Person-to-Person Communication
This section was subdivided into three subsections: communication within the school of the respondents; communication within the district; and communication outside the school district.
Table 4.62 presents the principal and teacher reactions.
P rin c ip a l means ranged from 1.50 to 2.26. These means in d icated they felt most groups were useful to less than useful. Principals felt only two groups were useful in this respect, teachers in the principal's school and curriculum specialists within the respondent's school d i s t r i c t . TABLE 4.62
NUMBER AND PERCENT OP PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR PERCEPTIONS OP THE DEGREE OP USEFULNESS OF VARIOUS GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS AS SOURCES OF INFORMATION
P r l n c io a 1 T e a c h e r Very Not Very Not U seful (3) U seful (2) U seful (1) T otal U seful (3) UBeful (2) U seful (1) T o tal Sources of Inforsatlon N t N » N » N Mean N \ N » N I N Mean
Porson-to-nerson cosiminlcation
Your Pulldlnq
Teachers 21 31.8 41 62.1 4 6.1 66 2.26 42 29.9 93 53.4 29 16.7 174 2.13 P rin c ip a ls 34 19.7 88 50.9 51 29.5 173 1.90
Your School D istrict (other than the buildlnq)
Teachers outside school, but within school district 4 6.2 45 69.2 16 24.6 65 1.82 26 15.0 108 62.4 39 22.5 173 1.93 Principals outside the school, but within the school district 8 12.9 42 67.7 12 19.4 62 1.94 9 5.4 66 39.8 91 54.8 166 1.51 Curriculum socialists within the school district 22 36. 1 28 45.9 11 18.0 61 2.10 36 21.2 92 54.1 42 24.7 170 1.97 Other professionals within the school district 4 6. 3 45 70.3 15 23.4 64 1.83 16 9 .7 90 54.5 59 35.8 165 1.74
Outside Your School D istrict
Teachers outside the school d i s t r i c t 3 4 .6 32 49.2 30 46.2 65 1.59 10 5 .9 89 52.4 71 41.8 170 1.64 Principals outside the school district 3 4 .6 35 53.8 27 41.5 65 1.63 1 0.6 50 30.5 113 68.9 164 1.32 State department personnel 0 0 .0 32 50.0 32 50.0 64 1.50 7 4.2 62 37.6 96 58.2 165 1.46 Curriculum specialists outside the school district, but not from state department 5 7.8 32 50.0 27 42.2 64 1.66 15 9 .0 84 50.6 67 40.4 166 1.69 Textbook sales representatives 3 4 .6 30 46.2 32 49.2 65 1.55 6 3.6 92 55.1 69 41.3 167 1.62 College professors 3 4 .6 30 46.2 32 49.2 65 1.55 16 9 .6 80 47.9 71 42.5 167 1.67 Science project and materials d evelopers 6 9.5 36 57. 1 21 33. 3 63 1.76 22 13.4 89 54.3 53 32.3 164 1.81 191
V«*ry u seful « 3 U seful « 2 Not useftil - 1 192
Teacher means ranged from 1.32 to 2.13. These means indicated that, except between teachers in the same school, all of the other groups were considered to be less than useful. However, curriculum specialists, teachers in the same school district, and principal of the respondents' schools were considered to be, in comparison, more useful than other groups.
Printed Communication
Table 4.63 presents the principal and teacher responses in regard to the usefulness of information they get from printed communication. Principal means ranged from 2.19 to 2.25. These data indicated the principals felt printed communications were useful. The degrees of usefulness reported by teachers and by principals were almost identical.
Teacher means ranged from 1.94 to 2.22. These means indicated they felt books (textbook and others), and professional journals and periodicals were useful, however, bulletins and newsletters were considered to be somewhat less than useful.
Formal Courses and In-service Education
Table 4.64 shows the principal and teacher responses.
Principal means ranged from 1.76 to 2.29. The data indicated they felt local district in-service programs (seminars and workshops) and special college courses and workshops were useful, while other formal courses and in-service education were less than useful. TABLE 4.6 3
NUMBER AND PERCENT OP PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR PERCEPTION OP THE DEGREE OP USEFULNESS OP PRINTED COMMUNICATION
P r i n c i p a l T e a e h#» r Very Not Very Not U seful (3) U seful (2) U seful (1) T o tal U seful (3) Useful (2) Useful (1) T otal Source of Information N % N % N % N Mean N % N % N % N Mean
Printed Communication
Professional Journals and Periodicals 18 27.7 45 69.2 2 3.1 65 2.25 43 24.9 113 65.3 17 9 .8 173 2.15
Textbooks and Other Books 16 25,0 44 68.6 4 6 .3 64 2.19 53 30.8 103 59.9 16 9 .3 172 2.22
Bulletins and Newsletters 18 28.1 43 67.2 3 4 .7 64 2.23 25 14.7 110 64.7 35 20.6 170 1.94
Very Useful - 3 U seful - 2 Not Useful « 1 TABLE 4 .6 4 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR PERCEPTION OF THE DEGREE OF UTILITY OF FORMAL COURSES AND IN-SERVICE EDUCATION AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION
P r i n c i p a l I T e a c h e r Very Not Very Not U seful (3) U seful (2) U seful (1) T o tal U seful (3) U seful (2) Useful (1) T otal Source of Information N % N % N % N Mean N « N » N « N Mean
Formal Courses and Tn-service Education
Formal Courses
Regular college courses and workshops 9 14.1 44 68.8 11 17.2 64 1.97 27 15.7 119 69.2 26 15.1 172 2.01 Special college courses and workshops (designed In cooperation with local or regional groups especially for them) 20 31.3 40 62.5 4 6 .3 64 2.25 64 38.1 83 49.4 21 12.5 168 2.26
In-service Programs Local district in-service programs (seminars, workshops, etc.) 25 40.3 30 48.4 7 11.3 62 2.29 55 32.0 94 54.7 23 13.4 172 2 .1 9 County or intermediate unit in-service programs (semlnarsi workshops, etc.) 5 8.2 39 63.9 17 27.9 61 1.80 28 17.2 05 52.1 50 30.7 163 1.87 State in-service programs (seminars, workshops, etc.) 5 7.9 38 60,3 20 31.7 63 1.76 29 17.5 68 41.0 69 41.6 166 1.76 National Science Foundation (NSF) or othor federally-sponsored in-service proqrams (courses, seminars, workshops, e t c . ) 10 15.9 36 57.1 17 27.0 63 1.89 36 22.6 76 47.8 47 29.6 159 1.93
Very Useful * 3 U seful * 2 Not Useful - 1 V6T 195
Teacher means ranged from 1.76 to 2.26. The means indicated
the teachers also felt special college courses and workshops, local district in-service programs and, to a lesser degree, regular college courses and workshops were useful. Other courses and in-service activities were perceived of as less than useful.
Mass Media
Table 4.65 presents principal and teacher reactions. Principal means ranged from 1.25 to 2.05. The data indicated they felt all mass media with the exception of educational television and to a less extent, newspapers or magazines were less than useful.
Teacher means ranged from 1.31 to 2.19. The means indicated they generally agreed with the principals. Response patterns of both groups were very similar.
Meetings of Professional Organizations
Table 4.66 presents principal and teacher responses. Principal means ranged from 1.68 to 1.74, while teacher means ranged from 1.33 to
1.46. It is readily apparent that the two groups felt that meetings of professional organizations, on all levels, local, state, and national, were less than useful, with teachers expressing a stronger feeling.
Types of Information
Principal and teacher respondents were given a list of specific types of information about school curriculum and instruction and asked TABLE 4,65
HUMBER AND PERCENT OP PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR PERCEPTION OP THE DEGREE OP UTILITY OP MASS MEDIA AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION
P r i n c i p a l T e a c h e r Very Not Very Not Useful (3) U seful (2) U seful (1) T o tal Useful (3) Useful (2) U seful (1) T o tal Source of Information N % N 1 H » H Mean N 4 N % N % N Mean
Mass Media
Educational TV 1 7 27.0 32 50. 8 14 22 . 2 63 2 .0 5 57 3 3 . 1 90 5 2 . 3 25 1 4 .5 1 72 2 . 19
Commercial TV 4 6 . 3 24 3 7. 5 36 5 6 . 3 64 1 .5 0 6 3 .6 84 5 0 .0 78 4 6 .4 168 1 . 57
Educational Radio 4 6 . 6 20 3 2 .8 37 6 0 .7 61 1 .4 6 6 3 .7 46 2 8 .6 109 6 7 . 7 161 1 . 36
Commercial Radio* 1 1 .6 14 2 2 .2 48 7 6 .2 63 1 .2 5 7 4 . 3 37 2 2 .6 120 7 3 .2 164 1 .3 1
Newspapers or Magazines 7 1 1 .1 47 7 4 .6 9 1 4 .3 63 1 .9 7 37 2 1 .8 1 1 7 6 8 , 6 16 9 . 4 170 2 .1 2
Very useful ■ 3 U s e f u l - 2 Not useful • 1 196 TABLE 4.66
NUMBER AND PERCENT OP PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR PERCEPTION OP TflE UTILITY OP MEETING OP PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION AS A SOURCE OP INFORMATION
P r i n c i p a l T e a c h e r very Not Very Not Useful (3) U seful (2) Useful (1) T o tal U seful (3) U seful (2) U seful o> T o tal Source of Information N % N t N » N Mean N » N \ N t N Moan
Nectlnq of Professional Organisations
Local Professional Organizations 4 G.S 38 61.3 20 32.3 62 1.74 10 5.9 57 33.7 102 60.4 169 1.46
State Professional Organizations 4 6 .3 38 60.3 21 33.3 63 1.73 4 2.4 53 31.9 109 65.7 166 1.37
National Professional Organizations 4 6 .3 35 55.6 24 38.1 63 1.68 5 3.0 45 27.3 115 69.7 165 1. 33
Very U seful * 3 U seful ■ 2 Not Useful *• 1 198 to Indicate how useful each would be to the respondent. These types were classified into seven categories:
1. Information about curriculum
2. Information about instruction
3. Information about classroom management
4. Information about classroom methodology
5. Information about policies, standards and regulations
6. Information about budget and expenditures
7. Information about court and judicial decisions related
to education.
Three response choices were supplied: (3) very useful; (2) useful; and (1) not useful.
Information About Curriculum
Respondents were asked to rate the usefulness of information about curriculum in general and about specific curriculum materials and related practices.
Table 4.67 shows principal and teacher responses. Principal means ranged from 1.83 to 2.42. The means ind icated the p rin c ip a ls felt almost all types of information about curriculum would be useful.
State curriculum guides and materials, and National Science
Foundation-sponsored materials were rated on the overall less than useful, even though the majority of the respondents indicated they were useful. Locally-developed curriculum materials had the highest ra tin g . TABLE 4.67
HUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR PERCEPTION OF THE DEGREE OF UTILITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT CURRICULUM NOULD BE TO THEM
Principal Teacher Very Not Vary Not Useful (3) U seful (2) U seful (1) T o tal Useful (3) U seful (2) U seful (») Total Type of Information N \ N 3 N t N Kean N % N » N t M Moan
Information about Curriculum 11 21.6 37 72.5 3 5.9 51 2.16 26 19.0 89 65.0 22 16.1 137 2.03
National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored materiala e 12.7 41 OS. 1 14 22.2 63 1.91 13 8. 1 92 57.5 55 34.4 160 1.74
State curriculum guides and m a te ria ls 5 7.9 42 66.7 16 25.4 63 1.83 10 6. 1 94 57.0 61 37.0 165 1.69
Locally-developed curriculum m a te ria ls 32 49.2 28 43.1 5 7.7 65 '2.42 57- 33.9 96 57.1 15 8.9 168 2.25
Implementat'ion strategies 14 22.2 39 61.9 10 15.9 63 2.06 21 12.7 106 64.2 38 23.0 16S 1.90
Supplementary activltiea IS 23.8 41 65.1 7 11.1 63 2. 13 36 21.3 109 64.5 24 14.2 169 2.07
Pliilosophy/Rationale underlying cu rricu lu m 14 22.6 34 54.8 14 22.6 62 2.00 7 4 .3 83 50.9 73 44 .8 163 1.60
Very Useful ■ I U seful * 2 Not Useful ■ 1 200 Teacher means ranged from 1.60 to 2.25. These data Indicated the teachers felt only information about locally-developed materials, supplementary activities, and curriculum in general were useful. All others were rated less than useful, even though the majority of teachers selected”useful" for the ratings.
Information About Instruction
Principals and teachers were asked to rate the utility of information about instruction in general and about specific instructional techniques.
Table A.68 presents the respondents' reactions. Principal means ranged from 1.77 to 2.38. The means in d icated the p rin c ip a ls f e l t a l l instructional information, except for televised instruction, was u se fu l. Teacher respondents f e l t the same way w ith means ranging from
1.86 to 2.26. Only televised instruction was rated less than useful.
Inform ation About Classroom Management
Respondents were asked to rate the degree of usefulness of
Information about classroom management, and student behavior.
Table 4.69 presents the principal and teacher reactions.
Principal means were very close; they ranged from 2.21 to 2.23. The data indicated that principals felt these types of information were useful. Teacher means were also close; they ranged from 2.00 to 2.08.
Teachers felt the information categories were all useful. Principals f e l t the inform ation was more useful than did teach ers. TABLE 4.68
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR PERCEPTION OF THE DEGREE OF USEFULNESS OF INFORMATION ABOUT INSTRUCTION WOULD BE TO THEM
P r l n c l p a l T e a c h e r Very Not Very Not Useful (3) U seful (2) U seful (1) T o tal U seful (3) U seful (2) Useful (1) Total Type of Information N X N X N X N Ho an N X N X N X N Mean
Information about Instruction 21 38.2 34 61.8 0 0.0 55 2.38 38 2H. 1 87 64.4 10 7.4 135 2.21
Teaching Techniques 26 39.4 37 56.1 3 4 .5 66 2.35 58 33.9 99 57.9 14 8 .2 171 2.26
Laboratory Techniques 24 36.4 35 53.0 7 10.6 66 2.26 51 30.0 89 52.4 30 17.6 170 2.12
Individualized Instruction 21 33.3 37 58.7 5 7.9 63 2.25 39 23.4 92 55.1 36 21.6 167 2.02
Televised Instruction 9 13.8 32 49.2 24 36.9 65 1.77 23 13.5 101 59.1 47 27.5 171 1.86
Audiovisual Instruction 14 20.0 43 66.2 9 13.8 65 2.06 37 21.9 103 60.9 29 17.2 169 2.05
Very Useful ■ 3 U seful - 2 Not Useful ■ 1 202
Information About Evaluation Methodology, Policies, Budget, and Court Decisions
Respondents were asked to rate the utility of information about four other items: evaluation methodology; policies, standards, and regulations; budget and expenditures; and court and judicial decisions related to education.
Table 4.69 also presents principal and teacher responses on these four items. The means of principals ranged from 1.83 to 1.98, while teacher means ranged from 1.48 to 1.80. The means indicated both groups of respondents felt information about the foregoing four items were useful to less than useful. Teachers consider the items less useful than did administrators.
Length of Time Allowed fo r Requested Information
Principals and teachers were asked to indicate how soon they require the requested information about science materials and practices from a source such as a publisher, ERIC, State Department of Education and the like. Four response choices were given: (4) within 48 hours;
(3) within a week; (2) within one month; and (1) within six months.
The requested information was to include information about curriculum, instruction, classroom management, evaluation methodology, policies, regulations, budgets, and court decisions related to education.
A few of the respondents did not respond to these items, believing as some had indicated, that they did not apply to them. The reason was due to the fact that they had never requested any of the stated types of information from the sources indicated. TABLE 4.69
NUMBER AND PERCENT OP PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR PERCEPTION OP THE DEGREE OF UTILITY OP INFORMATION ABOUT CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT, EVALUATION METHODOLOGY, P O L IC IE S , BUDGET, AND COURT DECISIONS
P rin c ip a l Teacher Very Not Very Not Useful (3) U seful (2) Useful (D T o tal U seful (3) U seful (2) Useful (1) T o t a l Typo of Information N % N \ N N Mean N . \ N % N % N Mean
Information About Classroom Management 18 36.7 25 51.0 6 12.2 49 2.25 35 26.5 63 47.7 34 25.8 132 2 .0 1
Student's behavior 24 36.9 33 50.8 B 12. 3 65 2.25 46 26.7 88 51.2 38 22.1 172 2 .0 5
Classroom management 23 3 4 .B 35 53.0 B 12.1 66 2.23 50 29.1 85 49.4 37 21.5 172 2 .0 8 I nfom a t ion About:
Evaluation Methodology 11 17.2 41 64.1 12 18.8 64 1.90 23 13.5 90 52.6 58 33.9 171 1 .8 0
Policies, Standards and Regulations 6 9.1 43 65.2 17 25.8 66 1.83 9 ^ 5.3 74 43.3 88 51.5 171 1 .5 4
Budget and Expenditures 11 16.7 37 56.1 18 27.3 66 1.89 5 2 .9 72 42.1 94 55.0 171 1 .4 8
Court and Judicial Decisions Related to Education 10 15.2 35 53.0 21 31.8 66 1.83 18 10.5 67 39.2 86 50.3 171 1 .6 0
Very Useful * 3 Useful 3 2 Not Useful “ 1 203 Information About Curriculum
Tables 4.70 and 4.71 (pp. 205-206) show principal and teacher responses, respectively. Principal means ranged from 1.93 to 2.53, while teacher means ranged from 1.86 to 2.56. The means in d icated th a t both groups felt about one month was a reasonable length of time to wait for most of the requested information about curriculum.
Information about locally-developed curriculum materials was desired a little faster. Both groups had similar patterns of responses.
Information About Instruction
Data in Tables 4.72 and 4.73 (pp. 207-208) show principal and teacher responses, respectively. The principal means ranged from 2.15 to 2.30, while teacher means were between 2.14 and 2.41. The means indicated that both groups felt between one week and one month was an appropriate time to wait for requested information on instruction.
However, information about teaching techniques and about audiovisual instruction was desired more rapidly by principals and teachers alike.
Response patterns for both groups were similar.
Inform ation About Classroom Management
Data in Tables 4.74 and 4.75 (pp. 209-210) show principal and teacher responses, respectively. Principal means ranged from 2.24 to
2.49, while teacher means ranged from 2.05 to 2.12. The data indicated both groups felt a period of about one month was generally the period during which they would like to receive requested information on classroom management. Principals, on the average, desired the information more rapidly than did the teachers. TABLE 4.70 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPALS ACCORDING TO THE LENGTH OF TIME ALLOWED FOR REQUESTED INFORMATION ABOUT CURRICULUM BY TYPE OF INFORMATION
. P r i n c i p a l W ithin W ithin W ithin W ithin 48 h ours (4) One Week (3) One Month (2) Six Months (1) T o tal Type of Information N % N % N 1 N 1 N Mean
Information about Curriculum 0 0.0 4 10.0 29 72.5 7 17.5 40 1.93
NSF-sponsored materials 0 0.0 5 9 .6 39 75.0 8 15.4 52 1.94
State curriculum guides and materials 3 5.5 11 20.0 31 56.4 10 18.2 55 2.13
Locally-developed curriculum m a te ria ls 11 19.6 13 23.2 26 46.4 6 10.7 56 2.53
Implementation strategies 3 5 .7 9 17.0 36 67.9 5 9 .4 53 2.19
Supplementary activities 3 5.4 14 25.0 35 62.5 4 7.1 56 2.29
Philosophy/Rationale underlying curriculum 4 7.5 6 11.3 30 56.6 13 24.5 53 2.02
Wi th in 48 hours - 4 Wi th in 1 week - 3 Wi th in 1 month - 2 W ithin 6 months - 1 205 TABLE 4.7 1 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS ACCORDINC TO THE LENGTH OP TIME ALLOWED rOR REQUESTED INFORMATION ABOUT CURRICULUM BY TYPE OF INFORMATION
T e a c h e r
W ithin W ithin W ithin W ithin 48 hours (4) One Week (3) One Month (2) Six Months (U T o tal Type of Information N I N « N » N « N Mean
Information about Curriculum 4 3.6 21 18.8 71 63.4 16 14.3 112 2.12
NSF-sponsored materials 3 2.3 17 12.9 86 65.2 26 19.7 132 1.98
State curriculum guides and matorials 3 2.2 24 17.8 87 64.4 21 15.6 135 2.07
Locally-developed curriculum m a te ria ls 13 9. 3 64 45.7 51 36.4 12 8.6 140 2.56
Isplementation strategies 4 3.0 31 23.1 71 53.0 28 ' 20.9 134 2.08
Supplementary activities 9 6.5 40 28.8 70 50.4 , 20 14.4 139 2.27
Philosophy/Rational underlying a c t i v i t i e s 6 4 .7 17. 13.2 59 45.7 47 36.4 129 1.86
W ithin 48 hours - 4 W ithin 1 week - 3 w ith in 1 month - 2 W ithin 6 months - 1 206 TABLE 4.72
NUMBER AND PERCENT OP PRINCIPAL RESPONSES ACCORDING TO THE LENGTH OP TIME ALLOWED POR REQUESTED* INFORMATION ABOUT INSTRUCTION
P r i n c i p a l W ithin W ithin W ithin W ithin as v CO hours (4) One Week (3) One Month (2) Six Honths (1) T o tsl Typs of Information % N \ N 4 N 4 N Masn
Information about Instruction 2 4 .6 9 21.4 28 66.7 3 7.1 42 2.24
Teaching Techniques 2 3.7 15 27.6 34 63.0 3 5.6 54 2.30
Laboratory Techniques 2 3.8 13 25.0 30 57.7 7 13.5 52 2.19
Individual1 red Instruction 3 5.6 12 22.2 36 66.7 3 5.6 54 2.28
Televised Instruction 3 5.7 14 26.4 24 45.3 12 22.6 53 2.15
Audiovisual Instruction 4 5.7 12 22.6 27 50.9 10 18.9 53 2.19
W ithin 4fl hours • 4 W ithin 1 week - 3 W ithin 1 month • 2 W ithin 6 months ■ 1 207 TABLE 4.73
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHER RESPONSES ACCORDING TO THE LENGTH OF TIME ALLOWED FOR REQUESTED INFORMATION ABOUT INSTRUCTION
T e a c h e r
W ithin W ithin W ithin W ithin 48 h ours (4) One Week (3) One Month 12) Six Months (1) T o tal Type of Information N H \ N \ N % N Mean
Information about Instruction 7 6.4 28 25.5 58 52.7 17 15.5 110 2.23
Teachinq Techniques H 5.7 36 25.7 71 50.7 25 17.9 140 2.19
Laboratory Techniques 9 6 .5 30 21.6 77 55.4 23 16.5 139 2.18
Individualized Instruction 5 3.7 33 24.4 73 54.1 24 17.0 135 2.14
Televised Instruction 14 10.2 46 33.6 55 40.1 22 16.1 137 2.38
Audiovisual Instruction 15 10.9 46 33.3 58 42.0 19 13.8 138 2.41
W ithin 49 hours - 4 W ithin 1 week - 3 w ith in 1 month - 2 W ithin 6 months * 1 208 TABLE 4.74
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPAL RESPONSES ACCORDING TO THE LENGTH OF TINE ALLOWED FOR REQUESTED INFORMATION BY TYPE OF INFORMATION J------P r i n c i p a l W ithin W ithin W ithin w ith in 4B hours (4) One Week (3) On* Mouth (2) Six Month* <1J Total Typa of Information N « N \ N . % N 4 N Ms an
Information about Classroom Nanaoement 1 2.4 14 34.1 20 48.8 6 14.6 41 2.24
Students' behavior 7 13.2 16 34.0 22 41.5 6 11.3 53 2.49
Classroom management 4 7.4 21 38.9 22 40.7 7 13.0 54 2.41
Information About: Evaluation Methodology 2 3.7 10 18.5 35 64.8 7 13.0 54 2.13
Information about Policies, Standards and Regulations 5 9.1 12 21.8 28 50.9 10 18.2 55 2.22
Information about Budget and Expenditures 4 7.4 10 18.5 28 51.9 12 22.2 54 2.11
Information about Court and Judicial Derisions Related to Education 3 5.6 10 18.5 30 55.6 11 20.4 54 2.09
W ithin 48 hours - 4 W ithin 1 week - 3 W ithin 1 month - 2 W ithin 6 months - 1 209 TABLE 4.75
NUMBER AND PERCENT OP TEACHER RESPONSES ACCORDING TO THE LENGTH OP TIME ALLOWED POR REQUESTED INFORMATION BY TYPE OF INFORMATION
T e a c h e r W i t h i n W i t h i n Wi t h i n Wi t h i n 48 hours (4) One Week (3) One Month (2) Six Months (1) T o t a l Type of Information N % N % N % N % N Mean
Information about Classroom Management 4 3 .6 24 2 1 .4 57 5 0 .9 27 24. 1 112 2.05
Student behavior 9 6 . 7 30 2 2 .4 63 4 7 .0 32 2 3 .9 134 2 .1 2
Classroom management 7 5 . 1 2 B 2 0 .6 68 50 .0 33 2 4 .3 136 2 .0 7
Information About: Evaluation Methodology 3 2.3 13 9 .8 71 53.8 45 34.1 132 1.80
Information about rollcles. Standards and Regulations 4 2.9 20 14.7 59 43.4 S3 39.0 136 1.82
Information about Budget and Expenditures 2 1.5 21 15.6 56 41.5 56 41.5 135 1.77
Information about Court and Judicial Decisions Related to Education 3 2 .2 23 17.2 56 . 41.6 52 38.8 134 1.83
W ithin 4B hours - 4 W ithin 1 wf»rk “ 3 W ithin 1 month • 2 W ithin 6 months - 1 211
Information About Evaluation Methodology, Regulations, Budget, and Court Decisions
Tables 4.74 and 4.75 show principal and teacher responses, respectively. Principal means ranged from 2.09 to 2.22, while teacher means ranged from 1.77 to 1.83. Data indicated that a period of about one month was agreeable to the principals, while teachers indicated their willingness to wait for requested information on these topics for a period that exceeded one month.
Federal Support for Curriculum Development
Principal and teacher respondents were given a list of eight statements about federal support for curriculum development. They were asked to indicate the degree of their agreement or disagreement with each statement. Five response choices were supplied: (5) strongly agree; (4) agree; (3) neutral; (2) disagree; and (1) strongly d isag ree.
Table 4.76 shows the responses of the p rin c ip a ls . The principals' means ranged from 2.86 to 3.56. The data indicated the principals felt that federal support for course improvement and dissemination had improved the quality of curriculum alternatives available to schools. They also felt that federal course improvement efforts had improved the quality of classroom instruction. They were almost neutral to the statement that the "federal government should direct more attention toward disseminating materials and practices."
They tended to disagree with the statement that "federal support of the development of materials and practices was probably unnecessary," and TABLE 4 .7 6
NUMBER AMD PERCENT OF PRINCIPALS ACCORDING TO THEIR PERCEPTION OF FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT BY THE TYPE OF FEDERAL SUPPORT
P r i n c i p a l S tro n g ly S tro n g ly Agree (5) Agree (4) N eutral (3) D isagree (2) Disagree <1) T o tal Statement of Federal Support N \ N % N % N % N % N Mean
Federal support for course Improvement and dissemination has Improved the quality of curriculum alternatives available to schools* 3 4.7 32 50.0 18 28. 1 8 12.5 3 4 ,7 64 3.38
The federal course improvement effort has improved the quality of classroom instruction. 2 3.1 29 44.6 18 27.7 12 18.5 4 6.2 65 3.20 • The federal government sliould direct more attention toward disseminating materials and practices. 2 3.1 21 32.B 22 34.4 14 21.9 5 7.8 64 3.02
Federal support of the development of materials and practices is probably unnecessary. 6 9.4 15 23.4 15 23.4 25 39.1 3 4 .7 64 2.94
Federal support for course lirprovomcnt and dissemination tends to create a nationally uniform curriculum. 3 4 .6 16 24.6 19 29.2 23 35.4 4 6 .2 65 2.86
The National Science Foundation (NSF) should Sfionsor programs to help teachers learn to inclement NSF-funded courses and m a te ria ls . 7 10.9 32 50.0 18 28.1 4 6.3 3 4 .7 64 3.56
The National Science Foundation (NSF) should sponsor programs to help teachers learn to inclement non-NSF funded courses and materials. 5 7.B 26 43.8 20 31.3 8 12.5 3 4 .7 64 3.38
redcral fundinq should be provided to schools for the purchase of laboratory equipment and facilities. 5 7.7 23 35.4 21 32.3 10 15.4 6 9 .2 65 3.17
Strongly Aqroc * 5 A q ro r « 4 Ncut ra1 « 3 Disagree ■ 2 Stronqly Disagree • 1 212 213 with the statement that "federal support for course improvement and
dissemination tended to create a nationally uniform curriculum."
However, the m ajority of them 60 p ercen t, agreed th a t the
National Science Foundation should sponsor programs to help teachers
learn to implement NSF-funded courses and materials, as well as non-NSF
funded courses and materials (52 percent). Principals also agreed, to
a lesser extent, that federal funding should be provided to schools for
the purchase of laboratory equipment and facilities.
Teacher means ranged from 2.71 to 3.75 (Table 4.77). The means
indicated the teachers felt federal support for course improvement and dissemination had improved the quality of curriculum alternatives available to schools and that the federal government should direct more attention toward disseminating materials and practices. They did not feel that the federal course improvement effort had improved the quality of classroom instruction or that federal support for course improvement and dissemination tended to create a nationally uniform curriculum. Teachers did not agree with the statement that "federal support of the development of materials and practices was probably unnecessary."
The large majority of teachers, about 60 to 70 percent, felt that the National Science Foundation (NSF) should sponsor programs to help teachers learn to implement both NSF-funded and non-NSF funded courses and materials and that federal funding should be provided to schools for the purchase of laboratory equipment and facilities. TABLE 4 .7 ?
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR PERCEPTION OF FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT BY THE.TYPE OF FEDERAL SUPPORT
T e a c h e r S tro n g ly Stro n g ly Agree (5) Aqree (4) N eu tral (3) D isagree (2) D isagree (1) T o tal Statement of Federal Support N \ N % N % N % N % H Mean
Federal support for course improvement and dissemination has improved the quality of curriculum alternatives available to schools 9 5.3 48 28.2 81 47.6 20 15.3 6 3.5 170 3.17
H*e federal course improvement effort has inproved the quality of classroom Instruction 5 3.0 31 18.5 84 50.0 40 23.8 8 4 .8 108 2.91
The federal government should direct store attention toward disseminating materials and practices 8 4 .7 69 40.8 56 33.1 25 14.8 11 6 .5 169 3.23
Federal support of the development of materials and practices is probably unnecessary 6 3.6 32 19.3 48 28.9 68 41.0 12 7.2 166 2.71
Federal support for course improvement and dissemination tends to create a nationally uniform curriculum 9 5.4 38 22.8 51 30.5 58 34,7 11 6 .6 167 2.86
The National Science Foundation (NSF) should sponsor programs to help teachers learn to inclement NSF-funded courses and materials 27 15.9 94 55.3 36 21.2 5 2.9 8 4 .7 170 3.75
The National Science Foundation (NSF) should sponsor programs to help teachers learn to implement non-NSF funded courses and materials 19 11.2 82 48.2 50 29.4 11 6 .5 e 4 .7 170 3.55
Federal funding should be provided to schools for the purchase of lab. equipment and facilities 34 20.0 66 38.8 38 22.4 20 11.8 12 7.1 170 3.53
S tro n g ly Aqree » 5 Agree ° 4 Neutral - 3 Disagree « 2 Stronqly Disagree ■ 1 214 215 Effect of the Reduction of the NSF Funds for Science Education on Science Curricula
Respondents were asked to rate their attitude toward the effect the recent reduction of the NSF funds for science education has had on science curricula. Six response choices were given: (5) very positive; (4) positive; (3) neutral; (2) negative; (1) very negative; and (0) d o n 't know.
Data in Table 4.78 show that about 13 percent of the principals and 26 percent of the teachers had no definite opinion about the item.
The mean response of the p rin c ip a ls was 2.70 and for the teachers 2.60.
The means indicated both groups felt the reduction of NSF funds had a negative effect on science curricula.
TABLE 4.78
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THEIR OPINIONS OF THE EFFECT OF REDUCTION OF NSF FUNDS ON SCIENCE CURRICULA
Principal Teacher Ranks N % N %
Very Positive (5) 0 0.0 0 0.0
P o sitiv e (4) 2 3.2 4 2.4
N eutral (3) 35 56.5 73 43.4
Negative (2) 16 25.8 42 25.0
Very Negative (]) 1 1.6 6 3.6
Don't Know (0) 8 12.9 43 25.6
Total N 62 100.0 168 100.0 Mean (Respondents) 2.70 2.60 216 Science Programs
Respondents were given a list of 12 specific elementary science
program objectives and asked to rate the importance of each on a
three-step scale. The three response choices were: (3) very
important; (2) important; and (1) not important.
Table 4.79 shows the responses for both principals and
teachers. Principal means ranged from 2.17 to 2.71. The data indicated
that they felt all of the objectives were either very important or
important. A majority of principal respondents, 52 to 71 percent,
considered attitudes toward science, processes of science, and
relationships of self and environment as three very important
o b je ctiv es of the elem entary science program (s). Very few respondents
considered the objectives not important.
Teacher means ranged from 2.10 to 2.67. The means also
indicated that they felt all of the stated objectives either were very
important or important. Like the principals, the majority of teachers
(51 to 69 percent), felt that relationships of self and environment, attitudes toward science, and processes of science were very important objectives of the elementary science program. Response patterns for both groups of respondents were similar. TABLE 4.79
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPAL.? AND TEACHER? PERCEPTION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE PROGRAMS
P r i n c i p a l T e a c h e r Very llot Very Not Objectives of Elementary Inportant (3) Important (7) Irportant (1) T o tal Isportant (3) Important (2) laportant (1) T otal Science Proqraa(s) N t N » N t N Kean N \ N 1 N « N Mean Factunl knowledge: Facts, concepts, principles 24 36.9 36 58.5 3 4.6 65 2.32 86 48.9 84 47.7 6 3.4 176 2.46
Processes of science 42 65.6 22 34.4 0 0.0 64 2.66 90 51.4 81 46.3 4 2 .3 175 2.49
Interaction of science and society 27 41.5 33 50.8 5 7.7 65 2.34 66 37.7 102 58.3 7 4 .0 175 2.34
Interaction of science and tech nology 23 35.4 37 56.9 5 7.7 65 2.28 65 37.1 97 55.4 13 7.4 175 2.30
Values and ethics of science 20 31.3 as 54.7 9 14.1 64 2.17 41 23.6 109 62.6 24 13.8 174 2.10
A p p ie clatlo n o f human and scientific endeavor 29 44.6 34 52.3 2 3.1 65 2.42 75 43.1 94 54.0 5 2.9 174 2.40
Attitudes toward science 46 70.8 19 29.2 0 0.0 65 2.71 105 59.7 70 39.8 1 0 .6 176 2.59
Interrelationship of science and humanities 22 33.6 38 58.5 5 7.7 65 2.26 68 38.9 100 57.1 7 4 .0 t75 2.35
Career knowledge and awareness 21 32.3 39 60.0 5 7.7 65 2.25 57 32.6 110 62.9 8 4 .6 175 2.28
S k il ls 20 30.6 42 64.6 3 4.6 65 2.26 56 32.0 116 66.3 3 1.7 175 2.30
Nature of science 19 29.2 42 64.6 4 6.2 65 2.23 58 33.0 1 .3 64.2 5 2.8 176 2.30
Relationships of self and environment 34 52.3 30 46.2 1 1.5 6S 2.51 120 68.6 53 30.3 2 1.1 175 2.67
Very Infjortant ■ 3 * 2 Not Important ■ 1 B arrie rs to Change
Principals and teachers were given a list of 31 specific variables, with options for others, that may have a negative effect on the improvement of practice in science program(s). These variables were called barriers to change, and the respondents were asked to rate each according to their perception of how much of a problem each was.
Three response choices were: (3) serious problem; (2) somewhat of a problem; and (1) not a significant problem.
Table 4.80 contains the responses of both groups. The principal means ranged from 1.23 to 2.21. The top six problems according to the principals were:
1. Teachers do not have sufficient science knowledge
2. High cost of curriculum materials
3. Teachers do not know methods for teaching science
4. Lack of interest of teachers
5. Inability of teachers to improvise materials and equipment
6. Not enough time to teach science.
The following six barriers were not seen as much of a problem:
1. State regulations and policies
2. Lack of community support for change in science programs
3. Federal regulations and policies
4. Lack of administrative support for change in science programs
5. Lack of federal support for curriculum development
6. Lack of communication between principals and teachers 219
The teacher means ranged from 1.30 to 2.28. The top six barriers to change according to teachers were:
1. High costs of curriculum materials
2. Not enough time to teach science
3. Insufficient budget
4. Lack of science equipment and supplies
5. Inadequate facilities
6. Lack of materials for individualized instruction.
The following six problems were not seen as much of a problem by teach ers:
1. State regulations and policies
2. Federal regulations and policies
3. Lack of communication between principals and teachers
4. Lack of community support for change in science programs
5. Lack of administrative support for change in science programs
6. Lack of staff support for change in science programs.
It is readily apparent that the principals saw the problems associated with elementary science teaching in a different light from the teachers. The principals felt that teacher training, background in science and consequently lack of interest in teaching science were major problems. In addition, lack of time and the high cost of curriculum materials were part of the problem. However, teacher respondents considered lack of money, and consequently lack of equipment, supplies and facilities as the main reasons for the problem. TABLE 4.80
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER RESPONSES REGARDING THEIR PERCEPTION OF SPECIFIC VARIABLES AS BARRIERS TO CHANGE i------—:------*~j------P r i n c i p a l T e a c h e r Not A Not A S erio u s Somewhat o f Siqnificant S erio u s Somewhat o f Significant Problem!!) A Problem(2) Problem !1) T otal Problem (3) A Problem (2) Problem !!) T o tal V ariab les N \ N » N \ N Mean N % N t N « N Mean
Lack of inseivice opportunities 14 21.2 34 51.5 18 27.3 66 1.94 39 22. 0 07 49.2 51 28.8 177 1.93 Lack of adequate consultant services 13 19.7 10 45.5 23 34.8 66 1.85 35 19.9 78 44.3 63 35.8 176 1.84 Inadequate facilities 13 20.0 31 47.7 21 32.3 65 1.88 52 29.4 75 42.4 50 28.2 177 2.01 Lack of science equipment and supplies 12 1B.2 27 40.9 27 40.9 66 1.77 58 12.8 65 36.7 54 30.5 177 2.02 Lack of Materials for individualized instruct ion 16 24.6 22 33.0 27 41.5 65 1.81 53 29.9 70 39.5 54 30.5 177 1.99
Insufficient budget 11 16,7 28 42.4 27 41.9 66 1.76 50 28.2 87 49.2 40 22.6 177 2.06 lliqh costs of curriculum materials 21 31.8 35 53.0 10 15.2 66 2. 17 70 39.5 86 48.6 21 11.9 177 2.28 Out-of-date teaching materials 9 13.6 25 37.9 32 48.5 66 1.65 45 25.4 64 36.2 68 38.4 177 1.87 Nn agreement on what should be included in the curriculum 11 16.7 30 45.5 25 37.9 66 1.79 32 18.2 56 31.8 88 50.0 176 1.68 Schools believe other areas arc more Important than science 16 24.2 24 36.4 26 39.4 66 1.05 33 18.8 73 41.5 70 39.8 176 1.79
Inadequate student reading ability 7 10.6 30 45.5 29 43.9 66 1.67 36 20.3 87 49.2 54 30.5 177 1.90 Inadequate articulation of instruc tion across classrooms within a b u ild in g 7 10.6 32 48.5 27 40.9 66 1.70 20 11.6 77 44.5 76 49.9 173 1.68 Inadequate articulation of instruc tion across classrooms across buildings within a district 11 16.7 34 51.5 21 31.8 66 1.85 19 11.2 79 46.5 72 42.4 170 1.69
Teachers do not have sufficient science knowledge 25 37.9 30 45.5 11 16.7 66 2.21 37 21.0 95 54.0 44 25.0 176 1.96 Teachers do n o t know methods fo r teaching science 19 28.8 37 56.1 10 15.2 66 2.14 33 18.8 94 53.4 49 27.8 176 1.91 Inability of teachers to improvise materials and equipment 17 26.2 35 53.8 13 20.0 65 2.06 32 18.1 101 57.1 44 24.9 177 1.93 220 TABLE 4.80 (Continued) HUMBER AND PERCENT OP PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER RESPONSES REGARDING THEIR PERCEPTION OP 8PECIPXC VARIABLES AS BARRIERS TO CHANGE
P r i n c i p a l T e a c h e r Not A Not A S erio u s Somewhat o f Significant S e rio u s Somewhat o f Significant Problem(3) A Problem (2) Problem (1) T o tal Problem! 3) A Problem (2) P roblem (l) T o tal V a ria b le s N % N \ N % N Mean N % N * % M % N Me nn Not enouqb tiue to toach science 17 2G.6 30 46.9 17 26.6 64 2.00 75 42.4 62 35.0 40 22.6 177 2.20 Lack of interest of teachers 21 32.3 30 46.2 14 21.5 65 2.11 41 23.2 90 50.8 46 26.0 177 1.97 Lack of federal support for curricu' iw development 4 0.1 18 27.3 44 66.7 66 1.39 17 9 .8 73 42.0 83 48.3 174 1.62
I.ark of state support for curriculum development 8 12.1 15 22.7 43 65.2 66 1 .47 IB 10. 3 71 40.8 85 48.9 174 1.62 Lack of local supftort for curriculum development 8 12. 3 17 26.2 40 61.5 65 1.51 25 14.3 70 40.0 80 45.7 175 1.69 Lack of administrative stfiport for chnnqe in science program 4 6.1 16 24.2 46 69.7 66 1.36 24 13.6 52 29.5 100 56.8 176 1.57 lack of community support for chanqe in science program 3 4 .5 13 19.7 50 75.8 66 1.29 11 6 .3 54 31.0 109 62.6 174 1.44 Lack of staff support for change in science proaram G 9.1 24 36.4 36 54.5 66 1.55 21 12.0 59 33.7 95 54.3 175 1.58
State regulations and policies 2 3.0 11 16.7 53 80, 3 66 1.23 5 3.0 41 24.3 123 72.8 169 1.30 Federal regulations and policies 4 6.1 12 18.2 50 75.8 66 1.30 8 4.7 39 22.9 123 72.4 170 1.32 Lark of communication between principals and teachers 6 9.1 18 27.3 42 6 3.6 66 1.46 9 5.1 46 26.3 120 68.6 175 1.37 1«ack of consultants 7 10.6 29 43.9 30 45.5 66 1.65 26 14.9 73 42.0 75 43.1 174 1.72 Lack of tangible incentives to faculty 11 17.2 26 40.6 27 42.2 64 1.75 33 19.0 75 43.1 66 37.9 174 1.81
Lack of intangible incentives to faculty 9 14.1 24 37.5 31 48.4 64 1.66 20 11.6 67 35.9 85 49.4 172 1.62 Increasing emphasis on basic skills 1.74 and knowledge 17 25.8 27 40.9 22 33.3 66 1.92 1 26 14.8 78 44.3 72 40.9 176
Serious Problem “ 3 Somewhat o f A Problem * 2 Not A Si'tnlfleant Problem ■ 1 2 2 2 Both groups did not consider state and federal regulations, lack of community or administrative support, or lack of communication between principals and teachers, to be significant problems.
Incentives
Principals and teachers in the sample were given a list of specific tangible incentives, and another list of specific intangible incentives. The respondents were asked to select three incentives from each list, in order of priority, they felt would encourage teachers to try new ideas for the improvement of the practice. Responses were:
(3) most important; (2) second most important; and (1) third most im portant.
Tangible Incentives. Table 4.81 shows the responses of both principal and teacher respondents. Data indicated that participation in workshops and in-service training courses was rated the most important tangible incentive by over 45 percent of the responding principals. Over 65 percent of the principals consider it one of the three most important. Released time was rated second, selected by over
63 percent of the principals, followed by extra pay for special activities, 46 percent, and travel funds, 41 percent. Promotion, and college credit were selected by 17, and 20 percent, respectively, of the responding principals.
Teacher respondents selected released time most frequently as the Important incentive, 67 percent, followed by extra pay for special activities, 65 percent, and participation in workshops and in-service TABLE 4.81
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER RESPONSES ACCORDING TO THE DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE ASSIGNED TO SPECIFIC TANGIBLE INCENTIVES
P r In c i r a l T e a c h e r Most Second Most Third Host Host Second Most Third Host IsportantO) Im p o rta n t(2) Tsportantd) T o tal Respondents Im p o rta n t(3) Important (2) Important(l) T o tal Respondents Typo o f Tangible In c e n tiv e N % N \ N % H N \ N % H \ N % N N % 64.8 Extra Pay for Special Activities 12 18.5 12 18.5 6 9.2 65 30 46.2 50 28.4 26 14.8 38 21.6 176 114
Salary Differential 5 7.7 9 13.H 6 9 .2 65 20 30.7 20 11.6 19 11.0 14 B. 1 172 53 30.8
Colleqe Credit 3 4.7 2 3. 1 8 12.5 64 13 20.3 26 15.0 31 17.9 24 13.9 173 81 46.8
67.4 R eleased Time 9 14. 3 19 30.2 12 19.0 63 40 63.5 34 19.4 41 23.4 43 24.6 175 118
Travel Funds 1 1.6 12 19.0 15 23.8 63 28 41.4 4 2.3 14 8.1 25 14.5 173 43 24.9
Participating In Workshops and In-service Training Courses 29 45.3 5 7.8 8 12.1 64 42 65.2 40 22.9 37 21.1 26 14.9 175 103 58.9
11 17.2 0.6 6 3.5 3 1.8 171 10 Promotion 3 4 .7 2 3.1 6 9.4 64 1 5 .8
Most Im portant ■ 3 Serond Most Important “ 2 Third Most Important ■ 1
PO U> 224
training courses, 59 percent. College credit was selected by about 47
percent. Promotion was the least on the minds of teacher respondents;
6 percent of them sele c ted th is item .
Intangible Incentives. Table 4.82 shows principal and teacher
responses. Data indicated that principal respondents felt the most
important intangible incentive was ’’intrinsic satisfaction derived from
doing better teaching" selected by over 48 percent of the principals'
followed by "a possible solution to perceived student needs”, and
"increased sense of influence over educational outcomes", selected by
44 and 43 percent of the responding principals. The least selected
intangible incentives were "desire to escape from boredom and routine,"
9 percent, and "opportunity to pursue beliefs and ideas,” 14 percent.
Teacher respondents were also in favor of "intrinsic
satisfaction derived from doing better teaching” selected by 54 percent of the respondents, followed by "professional interest or commitment” and "opportunity to pursue new ideas," selected by 45 and 39 percent, respectively. The incentives "opportunity for the development of strong and lasting group affiliation based on shared purposes," and
"opportunity to pursue beliefs and ideas" were selected by the smallest number of teachers, 6 and 11 percent, respectively.
Science Curriculum Materials
Principals and teachers were asked to indicate the type of science curriculum material they preferred to use in their schools. A list of four items, with option for others, was given and the respondents were asked to check only one item. Data in Table 4.83 TABLE 4.02
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER RESPONSES ACCORDING TO THE DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE ASSIGNED TO SPECIFIC INTANGIBLE INCENTIVES ------P r i n c i p a l T e a c h e r Host Second Most Third Host Host Second Host Third Host Im p o rta n t(3) Im p o rta n t(2) Tnportant(1 ) T o tal Respondents Im p o rta n t(3) Im p o rta n t(2) Im p o rta n t(1) T o tal Respondents Type of Intanqible Incentive N « N t U % N N \ H % N t N » N N «
Recognition end prestige of e x ce lle n c e 10 15.6 5 7 .8 6 9 .4 64 21 32.8 30 17.6 8 4 .7 17 10.0 170 55 32.3 Opportunity to pursue beliefs and id e a ls 2 3.1 4 6 .3 3 4.7 64 9 14.1 9 5.2 3 1.7 7 4.1 172 19 11.0 O pportunity to p ursue new id eas 5 7.8 10 15.6 6 9.4 64 21 32.8 23 13,2 23 13.2 22 12.6 174 68 39.1 D esire to know and understand 4 6.3 3 4 .7 10 15.6 64 17 26.6 22 12,8 IB 10.5 12 7.0 172 52 30.2 Desire to escape from boredom and routine 0 0.0 2 3.1 4 6 .3 64 6 9.4 0 5.3 21 12.3 20 11.7 171 50 29.2 Professional interest or commi tmont 7 10.8 10 15.4 6 9 .2 65 23 35.4 18 10.4 36 20.8 23 13.3 173 77 44.5 Intrinsic satisfaction derived from doing better teaching 14 21.9 8 12.5 9 14.1 64 31 48.5 35 20.5 26 15.2 31 18.1 171 92 53.8 Opportunity for the development of stronq and lasting group affiliation based on shared purposes 4 6.3 0 0 .0 7 11.1 63 11 17.4 2 1.2 2 1.2 6 3.5 170 10 5.9 Increase sense of Influence over educational outcomes 9 14.3 9 14.3 9 14.3 63 27 42.0 8 4.7 16 9 .4 14 8.2 171 38 22.2 A possible solution to perceived student needs 10 15.6 14 21.9 4 6 .3 64 28 43.8 20 11.5 23 13.2 24 13.8 174 67 38.5
Most lf»TK»rtant ■ 3 Second Most Important • 2 Third Most Important ■ 1
NJ ro Ln 226 indicated that the most frequently selected item was a textbook supplemented with other materials. The majority of the principals, 53 percent, and almost half of the teachers, 48 percent, selected it. A distant second selected by about 17 percent of the principals was teacher-developed materials for a local program. However, teacher respondents selected as a second choice the use of several textbooks, each used when most appropriate for the students, 26 percent. Very few respondents indicated their preference for the use of a single textbook with very little modification. TABLE 4.8 3
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER RESPONSES ACCORDING TO THE PREFERRED SCIENCE CURRICULUM MATERIAL
Principal Teacher Yes No Total Yes No Total Science Material N \ N « NN t N % N
A textbook; use parts and supplement with other m aterials 35 53.0 31 47.0 66 85 48.0 92 52.0 1 77
Teacher-developed materials for a local program 1 1 16.7 55 83.3 66 22 12.5 154 87.5 1 76
Several textbooks; use each when i t is most app rop riate for the students* 10 15.2 56 84 . 8 66 45 25.6 131 74.4 176
A textbook; use with very little modification 1 1 . 5 65 98.5 66 3 1.7 173 98. 3 176
•This item ranked second for teachers. 227 ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHERS
The third instrument, Check List for Assessment of Science
Teachers (CAST), asked the p rin c ip a l and teacherrepondents what types
ofactivities they felt were usually taking place in the classrooms.
They were also asked what they believed should take place in the
classrooms in science.
In the case of the principal respondents he/she was asked to
respond to the first request according to how he/she believed the
teachers would respond.
The science activities dealt with in this instrument, CAST:PP
AND CAST:TP, included five categories. Each category had five to six
statements. The statements ranged from extensive student involvement
to little or no involvement. The categories of the activities were:
1. Role of student in science class instruction
2. Role of the teacher in class
3. Use of the textbook and reference materials
4. Text design and usage
5. The way the laboratory was conducted.
Two responses were required for each category, one to indicate what actually takes place, and the other to show what should take place. The response choices were alphabet letters from (a) to (e) or
(f). The (a) choice being the extensive student involvement. The coding of responses ran from a ■ 6 to f ■ 1. 228 229
Data In Table 4.84 show the p rin c ip a l and teacher mean
responses. Mean responses of principal perception of what actually
takes place in the science classrooms of their teachers ranged from
4.04 to 4.79. The means indicated they felt the teachers were almost
in the middle of the road with slight tendency toward student centered
type of instruction and more emphasis on the processes approach to
teaching science. However, they believed that a larger shift in that
direction should take place as demonstrated by the corresponding means.
The latter ranged from 4.94 to 5.39.
Teacher responses followed a similar pattern. The means for what takes place in the classrooms ranged from 3.61 to 5.01. Test design and usage, and use of textbook and reference material had the
lowest means, indicating that a large percentage of teachers either did not use them or had rated them low. The means of th e ir b e lie f of what
should take place ranged from 4.50 to 5.51. The means were higher on all categories for what the respondents believed should take place than those for what actually takes place in the classroom. The role of the teacher in class was rated the highest, by both groups of respondens, on all counts, indicating that the teacher was perceived as trying to involve the students in the teaching learning process. TABLE 4 . 8 4
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER PERCEPTION OF WHAT DOES AND WHAT SHOULD TAKE PLACE WITH RESPECT TO SPECIPIC CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOMS Principal Teacher Do Take Place Should Take Place Do Take Place Should Take Place Numbe r Mean Number Mean Number Mean Number Mean Category of Activity
1. Role of student in science 61 4.43* 58 5.24* 164 4.52* 152 5.14* class
2. Role of the teacher in class 61 4 .79* 57 5 . 39* 162 5.01* 150 5.51*
3. Use of textbook and reference 59 4.25 54 4 .94 158 4.13 1 49 5.07 m a teria ls
4. Test design and Usage 56 4.04 56 4 .96 151 3.61 141 4.50
5 . Ways of conducting the 60 4.28 58 5.36 159 4.49 152 5.29 Laboratory.
‘The Scale on these items was 6 to 2. Hence a center score would be 4.00. The scale on Items 3 through 5 was 6 to 1. Hence a cen ter score would be 3.5. 230 PART III
CHANGES IN SCIENCE CURRICULA AND SCHOOL PRACTICES BETWEEN 1970 and 1980
As mentioned earlier in Chapter III, only the principal status questionnaire of the present study Q:SP, and the principal questionnaire of 1970 were used, for this part of the study, in identifying and discussing the changes that took place in the past decade in the status of science curriculum and instruction. Later, in
Chapter V, a reference to certain aspects of the Teacher's
Questionnaire of the 1970 study will be cited in order to make viable comparisons with some data that were not included in the Principal's
Questionnaire (Q:SP), such as characteristics of teachers their preparation and level of satisfaction with the science program, level of availability and usage of certain audiovisual aids and facilities, and types of learning activities.
A computer run of the data on the OSU tape for the 1970-71 study was performed. Although data were received from a total of 70 schools, there were only 66 responding principals. Their data were used in examining the changes that have taken place over the decade of the 1970's. Descriptive statistics on all variables of the earlier study were obtained using the SPSS Subprogram "Frequencies". Common variables between the two studies were identified. A recoding of the variables in the 1970-71 study, to make it identical to the coding of 231 232
variables in the present study was performed. The common variables
that could be entered in the comparison totaled 145 variables.
To show the overall pattern of change in terms of general
trends on the common variables in the sample schools as a whole, and to
obtain descriptive data on direction of variable change, a computation
of the differences between the paired variables was performed using
SPSS (1975) Computer Package. Paired t-tests were also performed
between these variables to determine the level of significance of the
change. Changes where the overall level of significance P < 0.1 are
discussed and presented in tables that show the change and its
d ire c tio n .
In the tables the number (-1) represents a decrease in the
status of the item below that of 1970-71 level, while the number (0) means no change was reported, and the number (+1) indicates an increase
over the level of 1970-71.
All common variables identified for comparisons are listed in
Appendix D. However, Table 4.107 p. 261 contains significant change
varialbes and their level of significance. Discussion of change variables is presented according to their appearance on the Principal's
Questionnaire (Q:SP).
School Organization and Scheduling
Student Enrollments
Data in Table 4.85 indicate a drop in the level of enrollment, at all grade levels, and consequently in the total enrollment in elementary schools between 1970-71 and 1979-80. The data show that close to 80 percent of the schools had a decrease in enrollment. TABLE 4 .8 5
HUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANCE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVEL
Grade Level
T otal E n ro ll Grade K Grade 1 Crade 2 Crade 3 Grade 4 Crade 5 Grade 6 ment Change In Enrollment N Z .N Z N ZN Z N Z N Z N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) 39 75.0* 55 83.3* 53 80.3* 49 74.2* 51 78.5* 46 69.7* 43 82.7* 48 79.4*
No change (0) 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 7.6 2 3.1 1 1.5 2 3.0 0 0 .0 1 1.6
Increase (+1) 13 25.0 11 16.7 8 13.1 15 22.7 13 20.0 18 27.7 9 17.3 13 21.0
T otal 52 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 65 100.0 66 100.0 52 100.0 63 100.0
* p < .001 233 234
Table 4.86 shows group mean enrollment change between 1970 and
1980 for every grade level, as well as level of significance for the change. These differences in enrollment were found to be statistically significant (p < .001) for all grade levels.
TABLE 4.86
THE MEAN ENROLLMENT CHANGE, NUMBER OF SCHOOLS AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE BY GRADE LEVEL
Grade Number of Group Mean* Standard Level of Level Schools D ifference D eviation Significance
Kindergarden 52 -16.81 34.56 0.001
F ir s t 66 -24.02 32.06 0.000
Second 66 -20.39 29.64 0.000
Third 66 -15.02 30.08 0.000
Fourth 65 -12.89 30.50 0.001
F ifth 66 -14.52 30.48 0.000
Sixth 52 -21.83 30.10 0.000
Total Enrollment 63 -120.11 194.71 0.000
*Mean enrollment change for all matched p airs
Organization of Students for Instruction
As mentioned earlier in Part I of this chapter p. 123, more schools were using the standard approach for instruction, than were TABLE 4 .8 7
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE IN CROUPING PATTERNS OF STUDENTS FOR INSTRUCTION BY GRADE LEVEL
Grade Level
Kindergarten First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Change In Grouping P a tte rn N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z
Decrease 1 2.1 3 4.8 4 6.3 5 7.8 5 7.9 5 7.8 5 19.6 (to nongraded classroom )
No change 39 83.0 50 79.4 50 79.4 48 75.0 50 79.4 51 79.7 39 69.6
Increase 7 14.9* 10 15.9** 9 14.3 11 17.2 8 12.7 8 12.5 6 10.7 (to standard classroom )
T otal 47 100.0 63 100.0 63 100.0 64 100.0 63 100.0 64 100.0 50 100.0
*p < 0.03 **p < 0.0 5 235 236 using the non-graded pattern, at all grade levels. However, this trend had been the prevailing one as reported in the 1970 study.
Data in Table A.87 show a continuation in this trend; however, the change in this trend was not statistically significant except for kindergarten p < 0.03 and grade one p < 0.05. Table A.87 shows that
75 percent of the schools remained the way they were in 1970.
Provision for Instructional Time
For comparison purposes, a recoding of these variables was performed on the two studies to reflect two groupings of time: (2) taught half a year or more; and (1) taught less than half a year.
The data in Table A.88, p. 237 show no statistically significant differences in the changes of the length of time assigned for science instruction between the two studies at all grade levels, little increase in the time allocated for kindergarten and grade one, and a slight decrease in the time devoted for science instruction in grades 2 through 6. Over 75 percent of the schools have not changed the amount of instructional time for science.
Teaching Staff
Since the number of teachers in a school is directly related to student enrollment, and since the vast majority of elementary school teachers were females, (see p. 150), it was to be expected that the number of female full-time elementary school teachers would be TABLE 4 .8 8
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE IN TIME ALLOCATED FOR SCIENCE INSTRUCTION BY CRADE LEVEL
Crade Level
Change In Kindergarten F ir s t Second Third Fourth F ifth S ix th Instructional Tlae N ZZZZN N N N ZZN N Z
Decrease (-1) 4 10.5 5 8 .5 5 8 .5 4 6.7 2 3.3 2 3.2 2 4 .2
No change (0) 29 76.3 47 79.7 50 84.7 54 90.0 58 95.1 59 95.2 45 93.8
Increase (+1) 5 13.2 7 11.9 4 6.8 2 3.3 1 1.6 1 1.6 1 2.1
T otal 38 100.0 59 100.0 59 100.0 60 100.0 61 100.0 62 100.0 48 100.0 237 238
significantly reduced. The data in Table 4.89 indicate that there was a considerable change in the number of schools who either increased or
reduced their teaching staff. There was no significant difference in
the changes of the numbers of male full-time teachers between 1970-71
and 1979-80 school years in the responding schools. The decrease in
the number of female full-time teachers between the two studies was
significant, p < .001. The data also indicate a trend toward adding
more male teachers to the staff as compared to female teachers.
TABLE 4.89
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE IN TOTAL NUMBER OF TEACHING STAFF BY SEX
Change in Male F u ll -time Teachers Female Full-time Teachers Number of Teachers N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) 20 38.5 45 75.0*
No change (0) 10 19.2 4 6.7
Increase (+1) 22 42.3 11 18.3
T otal 52 100.0 60 100.0
*p < .001
Role of the Teacher
It appears from the comparison between the results of the two
studies that no significant change had taken place in the role of the
teacher since 1970. The majority of schools reported, in both studies, 239 that the regular classroom teacher who received help from an elementary science specialist or consultant was, and still is, the prevailing practice in grades kindergarten through sixth. This trend continued to be strengthened, where the changes in its direction exceeded those departing from it; nevertheless the changes were not significant for any grade level, except for kindergarten, p < 0.02. (See Table 4.90, p. 240.)
Data in Table 4.91, p. 241 also show that the trend is in the direction of reducing the number of special science teachers in schools, but the changes were not statistically significant for grades kindergarten through the fourth grade, for which there was a small number of specialists to begin with. However, there was a significant reduction in such teachers for grade 6, p < 0.04, and to a lesser extent for grade 5, p < 0.109. In over 70 percent of the schools, no change in the role of the special science teacher was reported.
Regular classroom teachers who teach science and receive help from a science specialist or consultant appear to be on the decline for almost all grade levels; however, the change was not statistically significant. (See Table 4.92, p. 242.) TABLE 4 .9 0
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE IN THE ROLE OF REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHER WITH RESPECT TO NO HELP FROM A CONSULTANT BY GRADE LEVEL
Crade Level
Kindergarten First Second Third Fourth Fifth S ixth Change In Role of Teacher N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) 6 11.3 7 10.6 8 12.1 7 10.6 9 13.6 10 15.2 5 9.4
No change (0) 32 60.4 49 74.2 48 72.7 49 74.2 45 68.2 44 66.7 40 75.5
Increase (-ft) IS 28.3* 10 15.2 10 15.2 10 15.2 12 18.2 12 18.2 8 15.1
T otal 53 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 53 100.0
*p < .02 240 TABLE 4 .9 1
NUMBER. PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANCE IN THE ROLE OF SPECIAL SCIENCE TEACHER FOR SCIENCE BY CRADE LEVEL
Grade Level
Kindergarten F ir s t Second Third Fourth F ifth S ix th Change In Trend N ZZZZN N N N ZZN N Z
Decrease (-1) 0 0.0 3 4.5 3 4.5 7 10.6 8 12.1 13 19.7**12 22.6*
No change (0) 50 94.3 60 90.9 60 90.9 56 84.8 51 77.3 47 71.2 37 69.8
Increase (+1) 3 5.7 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 7 10.6 6 9.1 4 7.5
T otal 53 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 53 100.0
*p < 0.04 **p < 0.1 241 TABLE 4 .9 2
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE IN THE ROLE OF REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHER WITH RESPECT TO HELP FROM A CONSULTANT BY GRADE LEVEL
Grade Level
Kindergarten First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Change In Trend N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) 10 18.7 11 16.7 11 16.7 10 15.2 12 18.2 9 13.6 9 17.0
No change (0) 37 69.8 49 74.2 49 74.2 50 75.8 47 71.2 48 72.7 39 73.6
Increase (+1) 6 11.3 6 9.1 6 9.1 6 9.1 7 10.6 9 13.6 5 9.4
T o tal 53 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 53 100.0 242 243 Changes in Science Budget
The data in Table 4.93 show a reduction in the number of schools which reported the existence of annual budgets for science equipment, while there was a slight increase in the number who reported annual budgets for science consumables. However, there were no significant differences in the changes of these numbers.
TABLE 4.93
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE IN SCHOOLS HAVING ANNUAL BUDGETS FOR SCIENCE EQUIPMENT, AND FOR CONSUMABLES
Science Equipment Science Consumables
Change in budget Number of Percent Number of Percent Availability Schools of Schools Schools of Schools
Decrease (-1) 20 31.7 9 14.8
No change (0) 27 42.9 40 65.6
Increase (+1) 16 25.4 12 19.7
Total 63 100.0 61 100.0
The amount of funds reported by the schools also showed a decrease in the total amount allocated for science equipment, while an
Increase was recorded for the consumable supplies. No significant difference was reported in the change of the allocated amount of funds.
Allowing for inflation and the decline in the purchasing power during the decade, 1970-1980, there was a significant decrease in the financial support offered the schools for new equipment and supplies. 244
Teachers who were allowed to purchase equipment and supplies throughout the school year appear to have increased significantly, p < .09. (See
Table 4.94.)
TABLE 4.94
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE IN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS ALLOWING TEACHERS TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES THROUGHOUT THE SCHOOL YEAR
Change in Schools Allowing Teacher Purchase Number of Percent of of Equipment Schools Schools
Decrease (-1) 5 8.1
No change (0) 45 72.6
Increase (+1) 12 19.4*
Total 62 100.0
*p < 0.09
Level of Availability of Equipment and Supplies
The level of availability of equipment and supplies appears to be on the Increase for all grade levels, compared to that of 1970, as reported by the principals of the two studies; nevertheless, the change in the level of availability was not statistically significant (See
Table 4.95) except for equipment in grades 4 through 6 (p < 0.04). TABLE 4 .9 5
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANCE IN THE LEVEL OF AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT BY GRADE LEVEL GROUPS
Supplies Equipment Change In Level of Availability Kindergarten 1 - 3 4 - 6 Kindergarten 1 - 3 4 - 6 of Supplies and Equipment N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) 5 10.7 9 13.8 8 12.3 6 13.1 10 15.4 8 12.3
No change (0) 33 70.2 41 63.1 43 66.2 29 63.0 40 61.5 39 60.0
Increase (+1) 9 19.1 15 23.1 14 21.5 11 23.9 15 23.1 18 27.7*
T o tal 47 100.0 65 100.0 65 100.0 46 100.0 65 100.0 65 100.0
*p < 0.04 245 Adoption of Textbooks
Data in Table 4.96 reveal that, for all grade levels, there was an increase in the number of schools that reported a policy of not adopting any science textbook series. The change in number of schools was significant, p < 0.02, for grades 2 through 5.
The policy of adopting a single science textbook series seems to be the continued practice of the majority of all responding schools in the two studies. There was a very slight reduction in the number of schools adhering to this policy, nevertheless the change was not significant for any grade level. (See Table 4.97, p. 248.)
The number of schools who reported their policy to be the adoption of two or more science textbook series in the present study was by far fewer than the number of schools that reported a similar policy in the 1970-71 study. The change is significant, p < 0.03, for grades 4 and 5, and, p < 0.07, for grades 3 and 6. (See Table 4.98, p.
249.)
From the data in Tables 4.96 through 4.98 it is readily apparent that elementary schools in 1979-80 were indicating a trend of not adopting as many science textbook series as they used to. Major variables influencing this pattern were the increased costs of curriculum materials, and the shrinkage in available funds. TABLE 4 .9 6
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANCE IN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS REPORTING A POLICY OF ADOPTINC NO SCIENCE TEXTBOOK SERIES BY CRADE LEVEL
Crade Level
Change In Schools Kindergarten F irs t Second Third Fourth F ifth S ixth not adopting Textbooks N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) 12 22.6 4 6.1 4 6.1 3 4.5 2 3.0 2 3.0 2 5.4
No change (0) 28 52.8 53 80.3 50 75.8 51 77.3 51 77.3 50 75.8 29 78.4
Increase (+1) 13 24.5 9 13.6 12 18.2* 12 18.2* 13 19.7* 14 21.2* 6 16.2
T o tal 53 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 37 100.0
*p < 0.02 247 TABLE 4 .9 7
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE IN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS ADOPTING A SINGLE SCIENCE TEXTBOOK SERIES BY CRADE LEVEL
Crade Level
Change In schools Kindergarten F ir s t Second Third Fourth F ifth S ix th adopting a single textbook series N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) 8 15.1 11 16.7 13 19.7 12 18.2 10 15.6 10 15.6 7 14.0
No change (0) 32 60.4 46 69.7 43 65.2 45 68.2 45 70.3 45 70.3 36 72.0
In crease (-*-1) 13 24.5 9 13.6 10 15.2 9 13.6 9 14.1 9 14.1 7 14.0
T otal 53 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 64 100.0 64 100.0 50 100.0 248 TABLE A. 98
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANCE IN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS ADOPTING MORE THAN ONE TEXTBOOK SERIES BY CRADE LEVEL
Grade Level
Change In schools Kindergarten F ir s t Second T hird Fourth F ifth S ixth adopting no re than one textbook series N 2 N 2 N 2 N 2 N 2 N 2 N 2
Decrease (-1) 3 5.8 8 12.1 9 13.6 11 16.7** 13 20.6* 15 23.1* 11 21.6**
No change (0) 46 88.5 54 81.8 53 80.3 51 77.3 46 73.0 46 70.8 36 70.6
Increase (+1) 3 5.8 4 6.1 4 6.1 4 6.1 4 6.3 4 6.2 4 7.8
T otal 52 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 63 100.0 65 100.0 51 100.0
*p < 0.02 **p < 0.07 6VZ 250 Type of Classroom A vailable for Science Instruction
The classroom most predominantly used for science Instruction, at all grade levels, reported in the two studies was the regular classroom with no special facilities for science. This trend seems to
be on the rise especially for upper grades 4-6; however, the increase
in number of schools reported using this type of classroom was not
statistically significant at any grade level. Over 70 percent of the
schools reported no change in this variable between the study of 1970 and the present study. (See Tables 4.18 and 4.99.)
With respect to the degree of usage of classrooms with special
facilities for science instruction, the data in Table 4.100 clearly show the trend is in the direction of reducing the use of this type of classroom; however, the change in the number of schools was not significant at any grade level with the exception of grade 4, p < 0.07, and grade 5, p < 0.05. Seventy-five percent of the school and over reported no change in these variables.
The number of schools which reported the use of a special room to which the children go for science was very low in 1970, between 2 and 6, and still is in the present study, between 1 and 5. No significant change could be detected between the two studies on this item at any grade level. TABLE 4 .9 9
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE IN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS USING A REGULAR CLASSROOM WITHOUT SPECIAL FACILITIES FOR SCIENCE BY CRADE LEVEL
Grade Level
Change In schools using classrooa Kindergarten F ir s t Second T hird Fourth F ifth S ixth without science f a c i l i t i e s N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) 5 9.4 5 8.2* 6 9.8 5 8.2 5 8.2 6 9.8 5 10.0
No change (0) 38 71.7 55 90.2 53 86.9 52 85.2 50 82.0 47 77.0 35 70.0
Increase (+1) 10 18.9 1 1.6 2 3.3 4 6.6 6 9.8 8 13.1 10 20.0
T otal 53 100.0 61 100.0 61 100.0 61 100.0 61 100.0 61 100.0 50 100.0
*p < .10 251 TABLE 4 .1 0 0
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANCE IN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS USING A REGULAR CLASSROOM WITH SPECIAL FACILITIES FOR SCIENCE BY CRADE LEVEL
Grade Level
Change In schools using classroom Kindergarten F ir s t Second T hird Fourth F ifth S ixth equipped with special facilities N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) 3 5.9 7 10.6 8 12.1 10 15.2 11 18.3* 12 19.0** 9 17.3
No change (0) 44 86.3 54 81.8 54 81.8 51 77.3 45 75.0 47 74.6 39 75.0
Increase (-fl) 4 7.8 5 7.6 4 6.1 5 7.6 4 6.7 4 6.3 4 7.7
T otal 51 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 66 100.0 60 100.0 63 100.0 52 100.0
*P < .07 **p < .05 252 253
Science Course Offerings
Two of the science course improvement projects, SCIS and ESS, were used in comparing the results of the two survey studies. This was due to the fact that the reported frequency of their use in the 1970
study was the highest among the sampled schools. Others were reported
by less than 3 percent of the schools in the 1970 study.
The reported frequency of use of both courses in 1980 was le s s
than that reported in 1970 for all grade levels. The decrease in the number of schools using SCIS was significant, p < 0.05 for grades 4, 5, and 6. However, for schools using ESS, the decrease was significant
(p < 0.05) for grade 3, and for grade 1 (p < 0.10). (See Tables 4.101 and 4.102)
Identifying Children with Special Interests
The data in Table 4.103 show that there was a sizable increase in the number of schools that used formal procedures for identifying children with special interests, aptitudes, or talents in any area of the curriculum. The change in the number of schools was statistically significant, p < 0.015.
However, th ere was no s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ce in the number of schools that reported the use of formal procedures for identifying children with special interests in science. TABLE 4 .1 0 1
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANCE IN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS USING SCIS BY GRADE LEVEL
Grade Level
Kindergarten F ir s t Second T hird Fourth F ifth S ix th Change In schools using SCIS N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) 2 4.2 4 6.8 5 8.5 6 10.2 10 17.5* 8 14.3* 9 16.1*
No change (0) 45 93.8 51 86.4 50 84.7 48 81.3 45 78.9 46 82.1 42 80.4
Increase (+1) 1 2.1 4 6.8 4 6.8 5 8.5 2 3.5 2 3.6 2 3.6
T otal 48 100.0 59 100.0 59 100.0 59 100.0 57 100.0 56 100.0 53 100.0
•p < 0.05 TABLE 4 .1 0 2
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE IN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS USINC ESS BY GRADE LEVEL
Crade Level
Kindergarten F ir s t Second Third Fourth F ifth S ix th Change In schools using ESS N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) B 15.7 10 16.9** 11 18.6 10 16.9* 7 14.0* 6 12.2 7 14.3
No change (0) 40 78.4 45 76.3 43 72.9 46 78.0 39 78.0 38 77.6 37 75.5
Increase (+1) 3 5.9 4 6.8 5 8.5 3 5.1 4 8 .0 5 10.2 5 10.2
T otal 51 100.0 59 100.0 59 100.0 59 100.0 50 100.0 49 100.0 49 100.0
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.1 0 255 256
TABLE 4.103
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE IN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS IDENTIFYING CHILDREN WITH INTERESTS IN ANY CURRICULAR AREA, AND IN SCIENCE
Identifying interests Identifying interests in any curricular area in science Direction of Change N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) 10 16.1 9 14.5
No change (0) 28 45.2 46 74.2
Increase (+1) 24 38.7* 7 11.3
Total 62 100.0 62 100.0
*p < 0.015
Environmental and Conservation Science
Schools that reported teaching environmental education and/or conservation science increased significantly since the 1970-71 study.
Some principals have reported teaching these courses instead of science. The change is significant at p < 0.004 level. (See Table
4.104) 257 TABLE 4.104
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE IN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS THAT REPORTED TEACHING ENVIRONMENTAL AND/OR CONSERVATION SCIENCE
Change in schools Teaching Environmental Number of Percent Education Schools of Schools
Decrease (-1) 3 4.8
No change (0) 44 71.0
Increase (+1) 15 24.2*
Total 62 100.0
*p < 0.004
Patterns of Teaching Environmental and Conservation Science
Very few schools in the two studies reported teaching environmental or conservation science as a separate subject. A slight increase in the number of schools that did was reported in the present study. The number ranged from 1 to 2 in 1970-71 and from 1 to 4 in
1979-80.
The number of schools that reported teaching environmental and conservation education with science had increased substantially.
The change in the number of schools was statistically significant p < 0.05 for all grade levels except for grade 6 (p < 0.10). (See
Table 4.105.) TABLE A. 105
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANCE IN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS THAT OFFERED ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSERVATION EDUCATION WITH SCIENCE BY GRADE LEVEL
Crade Level
Change in schools Kindergarten F ir s t Second T hird Fourth F ifth S ixth offering EE with Science N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) 4 8.9 9 14.5 10 16.1 9 14.5 8 14.0 10 16.7 8 16.7
No change (0) 24 53.3 30 48.4 29 48.8 30 48.4 29 50.9 29 48.3 24 50.0
Increase (+1) 17 37.8* 23 37.1* 23 37.1* 23 37.1* 20 35.1* 21 35.0* 16 33.3**
T otal 45 100.0 62 100.0 62 100.0 62 100.0 57 100.0 60 100.0 48 100.0
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.10 259 Data in Table 4.106 also show that there was an increase in the number of schools which reported teaching these subjects with social studies, however, the change in the number of schools adopting this policy was not significant except for kindergarten p < 0.01, and to a less extent for grades 2 and 5, p < 0.10.
A substantial number of schools in the two studies, close to 25 percent, reported teaching environmental and conservation education with two or more subjects including science, but no significant change between the two survey studies, in the number of schools doing so, was detected at any grade level.
Table 4.107 lists change variables, difference of means between
1980 and 1970 studies for the variables, standard deviations, the t-values, degrees of freedom, and level of significance of change that was found between the two studies with respect to these variables. TABLE 4 .1 0 6
NUMBER, PERCENT, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANCE IN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS REPORTING OFFERING ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSERVATION EDUCATION WITH SOCIAL STUDIES BY GRADE LEVEL
Grade Level
Change In Schools Kindergarten F irs t Second Third Fourth F ifth S ix th offering EE with Social Studies N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z N Z
Decrease (-1) 1 1.9 5 8.1 4 6.5 5 8.1 5 8.3 4 6.8 4 8 .3
No change (0 ) 43 81.1 47 75.8 48 77.4 47 75.8 45 75.0 45 76.3 37 77.1
Increase (+1) 9 17.0* 10 16.1 10 16.1** 10 16.1 10 16.7 10 16.9** 7 14.6
T o tal 53 100.0 62 100.0 62 100.0 62 100.0 60 100.0 59 100.0 48 100.0
*p < 0.01 **p < 0.10 260 261
TABLE 4 .1 0 7
CHANGE VARIABLES BY DIFFERENCE OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATION, t-VALUES, DEGREES OF FREEDOM, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Change Difference Standard V aria b les of Means Deviation t-value df P
Student Enrollment
Enrollment In Kindergarten -16.81 34.56 -3.51 51 0.001
Enrollment In Grade 1 -24.02 32.06 -6 .0 9 65 0.000
Enrollment In Grade 2 -20.3 9 29^64 -5 .5 9 65 0.000
Enrollment In Crade 3 -1 5 .0 2 30.08 -4 .0 6 65 0.000
Enrollment In Grade 4 -12.89 30.50 -3.41 64 0.001
Enrollment In Grade 5 -14.52 30.48 -3 .8 7 65 0.000
Enrollment In Grade 6 -2 1 .8 3 30.10 -5 .2 3 51 0.000
Total Student Enrollment -120.11 194.71 -4.90 62 0.000
Pattern of Organizing for Instruction
Standard grades-Klndergarten 0.13 0.40 2.21 46 0.032
Standard grades-Grade I 0.11 0.44 1.99 62 0.051
Teaching Staff
Number of fem ale te a c h e rs -3 .6 7 5.42 -5 .2 4 59 0.000
Role of the Teacher
A special Science Teacher G-S -0 .1 6 0.53 -1 .6 3 65 0.109
A special Science Teacher G-6 -0 .1 5 0.53 -2 .0 6 52 0.044
Regular classroom teacher with NO help of a consultant-Grade K -0 .1 7 0.57 2.37 53 0.021
Science Budget
Teachers allowed to purchase equipment and supplies 0.11 0.52 1.72 61 0.090
Supplies and Equipment
A vailability of equipment G 4-6 0.17 0.65 2.10 64 0.040 262
TABLE 4.107 Continued
Change Difference Standard V ariab les ____ of Means D eviation ______t-v a lu e ______df ______P
Adoption of Textbooks
No Science Textbook Series Adopted-Crade 2 0.12 0.48 2.05 65 0.045
No Science Textbook Series Adopted-Grade 3 0.14 0.46 2.41 65 0.019
No Science Textbook Series Adopted-Grade 4 0.17 0.45 3.01 65 0.004
No Science Textbook Series Adopted-Grade 5 0.18 0.46 3.20 65 0.002
Two o r More S cience S e rie s Adopted-Grade 3 -0.11 0.47 -1.84 65 0.070
Two o r More Science S e rie s Adopted-Grade 4 -0.14 0.50 -2.25 62 0.028
Two o r More Science S e rie s Adopted-Grade 3 -0.17 0.52 -2.64 64 0.010
Two o r More Science S e rie s Adopted-Grade 6 -0.14 0.53 -1.85 50 0.070
Type of Classroom
Regular classrooa with no special facilities for sclence-Grade 1 -0.07 0.31 -1.66 60 0.103
Regular classroom with special facilities for sclence-Grade 4 -0.12 0.49 -1.84 59 0.070
Regular classrooa with special facilities for sclence-Grade 5 -0.13 0.49 -2.05 62 0.045 263
TABLE 4.107 Continued
Change Difference Standard V ariab les of Means D eviatio n t-v a lu e df P
Course offerings
Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS)-Grade 4 -0 .1 3 0.43 -2 .1 8 55 0.034
Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS)-Grade 5 -0.11 0.41 -1 .9 4 55 0.057
Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS)-Grade 6 -0 .1 3 0.43 -2 .1 8 53 0.034
Elementary Science Study (ESS)-Grade 1 -0 .1 0 0.48 -1.63 58 0.109
Elementary Science Study (ESS)-Crade 3 -0 .1 2 0.46 -1 .9 9 58 0.051
Identifying Children with Special Interests In Any Areas of Curriculum 0.23 0.71 2.50 61 0.015
Offering of Environmental and Conservation Education 0.19 0.51 3.01 61 0.004
Pattern of offering Environmental and Conservation Education
Taught with Sclence-Grade K 0.29 0.63 3.10 44 0.003
Taught with Sclence-Grade 1 0.23 0.69 2.59 61 0.012
Taught with Sclence-Grade 2 0.21 -0 .0 2 2.34 61 0.022
Taught with Sclence-Grade 3 0.23 0.69 2.59 61 0.012
Taught with Sclence-Grade 4 0.21 0.67 2.36 56 0.022
Taught with Sclence-Grade 5 0.18 0.70 2.03 59 0.047
Taught with Sclence-Grade 6 0.17 0.69 1.66 47 0.103
Taught with Social Science G-K 0.15 0.41 2.67 52 0.010
Taught w ith S o cia l Science G-2 0.10 0.47 1.62 61 0.109
Taught with Social Science G-5 0.10 0.48 1.63 58 0.109 PART IV
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CHANGES IN STATUS OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND LEVEL OF STATE CONTROL OF EDUCATION
As previously stated, in Chapter I, the study used as a measure of the degree of centralization of state authority on education, a scale devised by Wirt (1977), called the SCS (See Chapter II p 69-72).
The investigator realizes that the ranking of states on thisscale is based on a study that was completed seven years ago, however, comparison of the states on curriculum practices indicate it is unlikely that the rankings changed significantly over that period.
To find out if there was a relationship between the degree of centralization of state educational authority and the extent of change that had taken place over a period of one decade in elementary science curriculum and school practices, correlations were calculated between the SCS rankings of the states and the variables common to the two status questionnaires; the Principal's Questionnaire of the 1970 study, and the Principal's Questionnaire (Q:SP) of 1980.
In addition, correlations were also performed between SCS and other important variables in the attitudes questionnaire for the principals (Q:AP), and the CAST:PP.
264 265
A brief discussion of the correlational analysis of SCS and some of the common change variables is presented in this part. The discussion is limited to significant correlational relationships between the SCS and the variables. It was decided against including any of the correlational matrices in this report; interested readers may order the item from the ERIC System. Ordering information can be obtained from the ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and
Environmental Education, at the Ohio State University.
V ariables th a t showed high c o rre la tio n a l re la tio n s h ip s, but involved small number of respondents were eliminated from the analyses.
(See Chapter III, p. 113) Correlational relationships at the p < .10 level of significance and which have a logical meaning are reported in th is p a rt.
Time Allotment for Science Instruction.
There appears to be a general trend of negative correlational relationships between the level of state educational authority, represented by SCS, and the number of weeks per school year, and number of minutes per week science was being taught in the elementary schools in almost all grade levels of the sampled states. There was a significant negative correlation (p < .08) between the number of weeks science was taught in kindergarten and in grade 2; however, number of minutes per week science was taught related negatively at a significance level of .05 for grade 3, .08 and .07 for grade 4 and grade 6, respectively. 266
A possible explanation for the foregoing trends could be that the state educational authorities in the higher SCS states were mandating adherence to certain regulations that required offering specific programs and/or subjects which, when followed, had the effect of reducing the time and the resources left for other "low" priority programs such as science.
Level of Availability of Supplies and Equipment
The trend with respect to the level of supplies and equipment in schools seemed to follow the above mentioned pattern. The level of availability related negatively to the SCS ranking. Significant negative correlations (p < 0.07) existed between SCS and the availability level of the consumable supplies and of equipment for grades 4 through 6. A possible explanation for this trend is identical to the previously stated one; the increased regulations of the state authority, in effect, spread out available funds to comply with the regulations if the state had good funding, however, funds would not be available if the state had low funding, that is, science would be competing with "high" priority or "basic" programs for scarce funds, hence the negative outcomes.
Type of Classroom A vailable for Science Instruction
Correlation of SCS with the type of classroom used for science instruction showed a significant negative correlation, p < .086 to
0.060, between SCS and a regular classroom with no special facilities 267 for science for grades 3, 4, and 6. It seems, by comparing the findings in the last section and the findings in this section, that provision for funds was made before construction of the rooms to
Include special facilities for science instruction. However, the budgets, and the process of supplying the needed equipment and consumable supplies on yearly basis, was a different matter. States with higher SCS tended to use funds for other purposes.
Formal Procedures to Identify Children With Special Interests, Aptitudes, or T alents
There was a significant positive correlation, p < .034, between
SCS scores and the existence of formal procedures in schools to identify children with special interests, aptitudes or talents in any area of the school curriculum, but not with science. The correlation indicated that schools with high SCS in their states were more likely to use the procedure than schools in states with low SCS scores. These data provide further evidence for the inference that high SCS states are placing emphases on other areas of the curriculum.
Environmental and Conservation Science
The findings from the correlation between the SCS and different patterns used in offering environmental and conservation education revealed a positive significant correlation, p < .03, between SCS and the pattern of teaching environmental and conservation education with social studies for grades 1 through 6. However, teaching them with two or more subjects including science was negatively related at p < 0.067 for grade 3 only. 268 Satisfaction with School Science Programs
The variable which asked about the degree of satisfaction with the science program in schools was not a common variable. That is, it was not included in the questionnaire of the 1970-71 study. However, it was felt that it was an important variable that could supply valuable information in relation to how the principals felt about their school science programs. The correlation of this variable with the SCS showed a significant negative relationship (p < .03). This correlation
Indicates that principals in higher SCS states felt less satisfaction with their science programs than principals in low SCS states. PART V
CORRELATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRINCIPALS’ ATTITUDES AND STATUS OF ELEMENTARY SCIENCE EDUCATION
One of the purposes of this study was to identify the attitudes of the principals and teachers toward science programs and practices, and the extent of their support for changes in same. (See Chapter I, p. 13 and Chapter III, p. 89.) The descriptive analysis was presented in Part II. (This part is a presentation of the interrelationships between selected variables of the attitude questionnaire (Q:AP) considered by the investigator to have a bearing, whether direct or indirect* on some perceptions of the principals with respect to elementary science programs and practices, and selected variables of the principal's questionnaire on the status of elementary science
(Q:SP), and the SCS.) Variables in the Q:SP were mainly those common to the two survey stu d ie s of 1970 and 1980.
The findings, as a result of the correlations, are presented in the following sections.
School Size
It was found that the size of the school did not significantly correlate with many variables on the status questionnaire (Q:SP).
However, the amount of monies allocated for budgets for science
269 270 equipment, and supplies showed significant positive relationship,
(p < .01) with the size of the school. This was to be expected, since large schools usually allocate more money for such items.
Principals of large schools were more likely to have a positive attitude toward the introduction of new practices and materials in their schools (p < .05).
Insufficient budgets, high cost of curriculum materials,
Inadequate articulation of instruction, lack of administrative support, lack of staff support, state regulations and policies, and federal regulations and policies, were considered by principals of large schools to be barriers to effective science instruciton (p < .01).
The principals of the large schools also preferred the use of several textbooks, using each when it was most appropriate for students
(p < .0 5 ).
Principals of large schools did not perceive that the role of the student or that of the teacher in science classes should be geared toward more student participation and/or individual inquiry on the part of the student.
However, a high degree of consistency was noticed in certain patterns of school practices with respect to different grade levels.
That is, what was practiced or applied to one grade level seemed to apply to the rest of the grades; a school that offered, relatively, more science to one grade seemed to do the same with other grades. 271
Some variables that did not show significant relationships to school size were the following.
1. Decision making power of principals.
2. Length of time science was being offered.
3. Level of availability of supplies and equipment.
4. Teachers being helped by a consultant.
5. Textbook adoption policy.
6. Type of classroom science being tau g h t.
7. Practice of identifying school children with special
interest, aptitudes, or talents in some area of the
curriculum.
8. Pattern of teaching environmental or conservation
education.
It Is inferred that size of the school had very little relationship to the variables investigated.
Time Allotement fo r Science Instruction
Principals perceived themselves as having more influence in deciding on the time allotted for teaching science in the higher grades, 4through 6. They also tended to feel they needed more influence in this field (p < .01).
A significant positive relationship (p < .01) was found between amount of money for equipment budgets in schools and the number of weeks of teaching science, that is, the amount of science being taught in schools, from grades 1 through 6. 272
There was a positive significant relationship (p < .001)
between more science teaching in upper grades, and a perceived positive
attitude of principals toward the introduction of new practices and materials, a need for more funding, and a need for more equipment and
su p p lies.
The use of a single textbook correlated positively (p < .05) with the number of weeks of teaching science for grades K and 1. That
is, teachers who adopted a single science textbook were spending more
time teaching science than those not using a single textbook.
The c o rre la tio n s also showed th a t schools th a t used the p a tte rn
of teaching environmental and/or conservation education with science
spent more weeks (longer time) on the task than did schools which used
other patterns of instruction especially in grades 3 and 4, (p < 0.05).
Principals of schools that spent more time teaching science
perceived barriers to change as less restrictive to effective science
teaching, except for the lack of consultants, lack of materials for
individualized instruction, and lack of state support for curriculum development, (p < .001). Incentives for teachers were not viewed as
important or needed by these principals. However, these principals
perceived their teachers as having the students involved in the process of scientific inquiry and they were looking for more of the same in grades 4 through 6, (p < .001).
Science Teachers
Most teachers of science were regular classroom teachers who taught science with no help from an elementary science 273 specialist or consultant. There was a significant negative relationship, at the .001 level, between the influence (decision making power) of the principals and regular classroom teachers, especially in the lower grades K through 3. An inference could be drawn that these
teachers are given more influence in decisio n making when i t comes to teaching science in the lower grades (K through 3).
The re g u la r classroom teacher w ith no help from a co n su ltan t had a significant relationship, at the .001 level, with the practice of adopting a single science textbook series for grades 1 through 6.
These teachers were more likely to teach in a classroom with no special
facilities for science, especially for grades 4 through 6, (p < .05).
These teachers were perceived by the principals (p < .01) to need funding as well as supplies and equipment at the higher grade level (grade 4 through 6).
These teachers, especially in the lower grades, were perceived to be in favor of a variety of tangible and intangible incentives,
(p < .001 to .05). Their preference, at the .001 level, for a science curriculum was several textbooks, each to be used when most appropriate for the student.
The principals believed that lower grade teachers perceived barriers to change to be more significant than did teachers at higher grades. Among the b a rrie rs th a t showed s ig n ific a n t p o sitiv e correlation, at the .01 level, were lack of in-service opportunities, lack of adequate consultant services, lack of adequate facilities and supplies, school administrators believed other areas are more important 274 than science, inadequate student reading ability, teachers do not have sufficient science knowledge, and state regulations and policies.
Teachers, especially in the lower grades, were not perceived by the principals to involve the students actively compared to other groups in the learning ofscience, as indicated by the CAST correlations, except for grades 4 through 6.
School Budgets
The availability of budgets for supplies and equipment correlated positively (at the 0.01 level) with the level of availability of the same. It is obvious that schools which had budgets tended to have more supplies and equipment.
Budget cuts had a significant positive correlation, at the 0.05 level, with barriers to change, such as lack of in-service opportunities, lack of science equipment and supplies, insufficient budgets, out-of-date teaching materials, no agreement on what should be included in the curriculum, inadequate student reading ability, lack of local support for curriculum development, to name only a few.
Curriculum Materials
Adoption of Textbooks. The pattern of textbook adoptions shows that principals who felt they had significant influence in deciding the curriculum for their schools related positively to adopting a science textbook series in grades 5 and 6 (p < .01) and related negatively for grades K through 4 (p < .001). These 275 principals perceived a need for funding (p < .05), but not for supplies and equipment at any grade level. These correlations lend further
support to demands on administrators for funds for other areas of the
curriculum. The same principals considered themselves as having a
positive attitude toward innovations when it involved grades 5 and 6,
(p < .01). The need for incentives (tangible and intangible) were
identified for teachers of lower grades, but not for teachers of grades
5 and 6 (p < .01). Generally, they believed that barriers to change
had a more negative effect on instruction at the lower grade levels
than at the higher levels. This pattern continues the separation of
grades K through 4 as viewed by the principals.
Insufficient budgets, inadequate student reading ability, and
lack of state support for curriculum development were cited by the
principal as major problems (p < .05) to effective science teaching.
Most principals (p < .001) preferred that teachers use a single
textbook and modify the use of the textbook by using supplemental materials. Teacher responses agreed with these findings. Teachers using single textbooks in grades K through 4 were perceived to provide less student involvement than did teachers using no textbooks.
Teachers in grades 5 and 6 using single textbooks were perceived as providing substantial student involvement (p < .05). These data show substantial curriculum and instruction differences between grades K
through 4 and grades 5 and 6, as viewed by the principals. 276
Classroom for Teaching Science
Significant positive relationships (p < .01) were found between
the use of a classroom with no special facilities for science in grades
5 and 6 only and the perceived decision making power of the principals.
These principals were receptive to change, desired more funding, more
supplies and equipment (p < .001), and did not perceive of barriers to
change as negatively influencing science instruction. However, lack of materials for individualized instruction, inadequate articulation for
instruction, and lack of consultants were among the few barriers that
were cited (p < .001). The principals also perceived the students to
be actively involved in the science classes, especially in grades 5 and
6 (p < .01).
Identifying Students with Special Interests in Some Areas of the Curriculum
Fairly influential principals and those who stated they wanted more influence were more likely to identify children in their schools who had special Interests, aptitude, or talent (p < .01), but not necessarily in science. The principals perceived themselves as having
positive attitudes toward change, and they desired more funding
(p < .05), but their need for supplies and equipment for science did not seem to be substantial. Barriers to change were not considered to be much of a problem, and no incentives for teachers were needed according to them; however, they perceived the students as active participants in the science classes in their schools and wanted more student Involvement (p < .001). 277 Teaching Environmental and/or Conservation Education (EE)
Principals with significant decision making power seemed to offer more environmental and conservation education In their schools for all grade levels (p < .05); basically offered with science. These principals also had positive attitudes toward innovation (p < .05), and they desired more funding, and more supplies and equipment in general
(p < .001); however the latter was not specifically to teach EE with science. Barriers were not perceived as much of a problem, and
Incentives for teachers were not perceived as desirable. Participation of students in class activities were perceived to be greater at the higher levels, grades 5 and 6. Schools which had equipment tended to teach EE with science in grade K through 6 (p < .05).
Teaching EE with social studies or two or more subjects. There was a significant positive relationship (p < .01) between the principal's perception of the decision making influence of the State
Department of Education and teaching EE with social studies, and also with that of the influence of local school boards and teaching EE with two or more subjects including science. In both cases, no more funding and no more su p p lies and equipment were reported as needed.
Specific Science Program Changes in Schools
A desire for more decision making influence by principals was related positively (p < .01) with making changes in school science programs; the major change was selection of textbooks. They per ceived themselves as having a positive attitude toward change (p < .01), 278 and indicated their desire for more funding (p < .05), but were not
very keen on additional supplies or equipment, and they did not desire
Incentives for teachers. Barriers to change were not perceived as a
problem except for lack of consultants, lack of materials for
individualized instruction, and inadequate articulation of instruction
(p < .05). Principals who felt they had decision making powers also
felt their students were involved more in sceince classroom activities
(p < .05) than students in schools of other principals.
Satlsflcation with Science Programs
Principals with more decision making authority were more likely
to be satisfied (p < .001), have a positive attitu d e toward change, and desire more funds (p < .001), but were less concerned about equipment and supplies. They thought that lack of consultants, lack of state support for curriculum development, and inadequate articulation of instruction were major barriers to effective science instruction
(p < .001).
These principals perceived a high degree of participation of students in science classroom activities (p < .001).
Level of State Control of Education (SCS)
A significant positive relationship (p < .001) existed between the level of state control of education, represented by SCS values, and principals' beliefs that they had a positive attitude to change, and had substantial influence in the decision making power with respect to the curriculum in their schools. These principals also perceived the need for more funds, as well as more supplies and equipment. The principals were not strongly in favor of incentives for the teachers, and considered the lack of consultants, lack of state support for curriculum development, lack of materials for individualized instruction and lack of adequate articulation of instruction as barriers to effective science teaching (p < .001). However, they perceived their students to be actively participatng in classroom activities more than students in schools of other principals (p < CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The study Is summarized in this chapter and conclusions from major findings reported in Chapter IV are stated. Due to the large number of variables, the volume of tabular data, and the number of findings, no attempt is made to reiterate in a comprehensive manner material presented in Chapter IV. Only outcomes of the study which received the highest ratings and had the highest significance are discussed in this chapter. The reader is encouraged to refer to the findings discussed in the previous chapter for more detailed results.
Summary of the Study Design
The purposes of the study were to:
1« Obtain information about the status of a sample of public
elementary science curricula and instruction (grade K-6),
as a follow-up study to a study conducted by the Ohio State
University in 1970.
280 281
2. Investigate the attitudes of principals and teachers in
view of th eir perceptions of factors that influence the
science curricula and school practices, and the change in
same.
3. Study the changes that have taken place in the status of
science curricula and instruction in a sample of public
elementary schools over the decade of the 1970's.
4. Detect if there is a relationship between the existence and
level of change in the status of science curriculum and
instruction, and the centralization of educational
authority as measured by a school centralization score
scale.
The design of the study included a selection of 10 states according to established criteria (see page 81), and a random selection of 10 schools per state. The principals of the schools randomly selected three elementary teachers, who taught science in their schools, to participate in the study.
Two sets of structured instruments were developed for the study. One set of three questionnaires was designed for the principal, and the second set of three questionnaires was intended for each participating teacher. Follow-ups were conducted, and data were received from 74 percent of the sample schools.
Analysis of the data was performed by using standard computer programs. Descriptive statistics, t-tests and correlations were used where appropriate. No analysis on a state by state basis was 282 attempted. The reader is urged to avoid over-generalizing. No generalizations beyond those that can be related to the respondents were intended.
Summary of Findings
The summaries are presented under the following broad sections:
(1) summaries related to the status of science curriculum and instruc tion and significant changes that took place in same since 1970. This section includes major findings presented in the following subsections; school organizations and enrollment, teacher characteristics and preparation, teacher's role, science budgets, facilities, supplies and equipment, elementary science teaching practice, environmental/ conservation education, course offerings, textbook adoption policies, and level of satisfaction with the program(s) and with teaching science on the part of the respondents. Summaries in this part will include, where appropriate, a reference to significant changes that have taken place between the study of 1970 and the present study with respect to the status of science education in the elementary schools; (2) summaries related to the stated attitudes of both principals and teachers with respect to curriculum and instruction in terms of decision making, attitu d e toward innovation, resources, school science programs, barriers to change, perception of classroom practices, and incentives to teachers; and (3) summaries related to the influence of the state educational authority, the extent of changes that have taken place described in Number 1 above, and certain relationships between 283 the perceived attitudes of the principals and selected variables on
status of elementary science.
Summary Related to the Status of Science Curriculum and Instruction
This section draws on the major findings resulting from analyzing data gathered from the administration of the status questionnaires for the principals and for the teachers.
School Organization, Enrollment, and Time Allotment for Science Instruction
Due to the delimitation procedure, almost all schools had enrollments of more than 200 students, and included all grades except
for few schools with no kindergarten or grade 6. Enrollment in schools generally is on the decline; 62 percent reported this trend. The drop in enrollment between 1970 and 1980 studies was significant at the .001 level for every grade level. Most of the schools used the standard approach (graded) in organizing students for instruction. No significant change in this trend since 1970 was reported. Seventy-five percent of the schools remained the way they were except for grades K and 1. In grades K and 1 the change was significant at the .05 level away from a non-graded toward a standard pattern of organization.
Time spent on teaching science was estimated by the principals to range between 15 and 300 minutes per week for grades kindergarten through 6. Time spent on teaching science increased with increasing 284 grade level. No significant change was reported in the length of time allotment for science between the 1970 and this study in the sample schools. Over 75 percent of the schools had not changed th eir instructional time for science. The large majority of schools, 77 percent, taught science as a definite part of the curriculum in grades
1 through 6, for a period of 27 weeks or more per school year.
Characteristics of Teachers
As expected, female full-time teachers constituted over 87 percent of full-time elementary school teachers. However, there was an increase in the male part-time teachers in 1980; they accounted for 21 percent of the part-time elementary teachers compared to about 14 percent in 1970 study. There was a significant decrease, at the 0.001 level, in the number of female full-tim e teachers between the two studies; declining enrollments was the main reason for the decrease.
The mean age of the elementary teachers was about 39 years and the mean number of years of teaching experience was about 13 years.
By comparison, the mean age of responding teachers from the same schools in the 1970 study was a little over 36 years, and their mean number of years of teaching experience amounted to a little over 9 years. These differences are statistically significant (p < 0.05).
This is an indication that the teacher population at the elementary level is aging, as fewer teaching positions become available each year for young graduates, and more tenured teachers cling to their jobs in a trend of declining enrollment, and in an uncertain economic climate.
These conditions may, in turn, explain the lack of change in certain 285 curricular areas and in school practices; hence the continuation of an established routine and the tnaintance of the status quo which works to give a feeling of security and comfort.
Teacher Preparation
This study, at the outset, raised specific questions about teachers' professional preparation and their science background. It inquired about whether their qualifications and level of preparation had improved, and to what extent. (See Chapter I, pp. 8 & 10.) In order to help answer these questions, and make valid comparisons to detect any change in the foregoing, a computer run of the 1970-71 teacher questionnaire from the same schools was carried out and the corresponding data were compared.
Academic and Professional Preparation in Science
Analysis of the findings of the present study showed that 100 percent of the teacher respondents had earned a Bachelor's degree, and
41 percent held a Master's degree. Thus, the percentages of teachers who completed undergraduate and graduate degrees were a little higher than those reported in 1970 study which was about 96 and 37, respectively. This trend toward more teachers with degrees has persisted as one of the findings reported in earlier research studies in Chapter II.
However, data on undergraduate preparation in all of the sciences, and in science teaching methodology and student teaching in 286 science show that the overall level of preparation in the foregoing was lower than that reported in the 1970 study. A mean ranging from 7.7 quarter credit hours in Biological science to 1.2 credit hours in student teaching in science was reported in 1980, compared to a mean range between 9.8 to 1.4 in the same subjects in 1970. That is, it seems there is a reduction in the level of preparation in all areas of the sciences and in science education.
On the graduate level, the lack of preparation in science was also obvious; the reported number of credit hours was very low. Only
27 percent of the teachers reported having any coursework in science teaching methods or science education, and less than 10 percent reported having coursework in any of the three sciences (Biological
Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Earth Sciences). The total mean of quarter credit hours reported was 1.8 in science methodology or science education, and 0.5 for each of Biological and Physical Sciences. Most teachers had taken no science course work since graduation from college.
The data for the 1970 study show that about 33 percent of the teachers had graduate coursework in science methodology or science education and between 17 and 21 percent had graduate work in the other three* sciences. The to tal mean in quarter credit hours ranged from 2.4 in science education to 1.0 in physical science. Again, the trend is in the direction of decreasing the level of science background and in professional preparation in science education for elementary school teachers. 287 The investigator believes that, among other things, attitudinal considerations have contributed to this attitu d e of elementary school
teachers; some of the teachers do not identify with science, they do not enjoy it, and do not enjoy teaching it. However, due to the fact
that, traditionally the vast majority of elementary school teachers are females, a cultural stereotype dictates that they are not expected to be interested in science. Among school girls different sciences are
perceived differentally in terms of the sex-role stereotype. Physical
sciences are perceived as more masculine than are biological sciences
(Vockell et al.,1981); hence, the reported results of this and of other studies of more credit hours of preparation in thebiological
sciences than in the physical sciences.
This state of affairs certainly was not improved with reported changes in certain policies of some colleges and universities, with respect to teacher preparation. Some colleges no longer prepare science teachers, others have phased out graduate programs in science education, and some have liberalized general requirements and provided more freedom for students to avoid science courses (See Chapter I p.
10). On the other hand, in stitu tio n s that followed the route of increasing graduation requirements, without requiring an increase in the sciences, would probably produce the same net result, as potential teachers will be left with a diminished opportunity to consider science as an elective.
The development of positive attitudes toward science on the part of the principals and teachers, through participation in in-service a c tiv itie s, and more emphasis on the importance of science 288 in the general education of the child, coupled with appropriate policy changes of universities could result in desired changes in elementary science education.
In-Service Training of Teachers
The findings of this study identify significant characteristics of elementary science teachers' needs. More preparation in the sciences appears to be vital. Also, more in-service opportunities are critical and should be made available. The data show that only about
13 percent of the teachers had attended any NSF in-service activity.
The 1970 study showed that the percentage of those who had attended in-service activities was much higher, reaching 41 percent for elementary science workshops. The drop was anticipated since NSF has not provided any workshops since 1973-74.
Many teachers were conscious of the fact that their professional and academic formal training in the sciences was weak. A large percentage of those who felt the need for in-service opportunities, 85 percent, indicated a need for in-service opportunities in science teaching techniques, and 56 percent felt the need for in-service education in science content. (See Table 4.39.)
In addition, the percent of teachers who requested assistance in obtaining information about new teaching methods was highest, 72 percent, among other forms of needed assistance. (See Table 4.40.)
Expressing the need is one thing and doing something about i t is another matter. It seems teachers seldom study science on their 289 own, or take science methods or science courses beyond the minimum requirements for their undergraduate degrees.
These findings are also reinforced by the fact that the principals considered the lack of knowledge of both science and of methods of teaching science as two major barriers to change, and to effective science teaching.
These findings do not seem to d iffer significantly from findings of previous research studies, especially those of the 1970 study.
Science Budgets, Supplies and Equipment
Science Budgets
More schools reported having budgets for consumable science supplies than having budgets for new science equipment. However, it appeared that very few elementary schools had specific annual budgets for science equipment and/or for consumable science supplies. It could be inferred that there was a general budget for all curricular areas in the elementary school including science as a segment of the general budget. No significant change was found on this item between the present study and that of the 1970 in uncorrected dollars. There was no significant change in the amount of funds allocated for equipment and supplies. Correcting for inflation (to 1970 dollars) there was a significant decrease in the financial support offered the schools for new equipment and supplies from 1970 to 1980 (p < .01). 290
Budget cuts that took place in the last three years, (1977-79), and considered to have affected the science curriculum were reported by
30 percent of the schools. The main effect of the cuts was assigning less money for instructional materials and equipment.
Supplies and Equipment
Over 75 percent of the principals reported that supplies and equipment were adequate in their schools; however, only a slim majority of teachers, 55 and 51 percent, respectively, considered them to be adequate. Data from the two studies showed no significant increase in the level of a v ailab ility of supplies and equipment as reported by the principals and the teachers, except for equipment in grade 4-6
(p < .04) reported by the principals only.
Science Facilities
The vast majority of teachers, over 70 percent, reported the availability of 10 items of facilities and audiovisual aids out of 22 listed items. More than 96 percent of the respondents reported the availability of overhead projectors, phonographs, and motion picture projectors. The remaining 12 items were reported as available by less than 40 percent of teachers. There was no significant difference in the reported availability of any of the facilities or audiovisual aids between the study of 1970 and the present study.
The data also showed that, with the exception of five pieces of equipment, the vast majority of teachers rarely used the available equipment. (See Tables 4.41 and 4.42). 291 This reported fact is a good Indication that teachers always have the choice. Their desire and willingness to use the equipment and materials depends to a great extent on their attitudes and/or degree of commitment to the subject. If they disliked the subject, considered it
too much work, did not think i t was appropriate, or were unwilling to
change their style to accommodate it, then the reported outcome is
inevitable.
Type of Classroom Available for Science Instruction
Over 80 percent of the principals reported that science was being taught in regular classrooms with no special facilities for
science. The majority of teachers, 59 percent, indicated that they had portable science kits available.
There was no significant increase between the 1970 and 1980 studies in the number of schools for which the use of classrooms with special facilities was reported.
Curriculum Materials
Over 70 percent of the schools reported similar curriculum materials in use in 1980 as in 1970. The most frequent practice reported for the majority of schools, over 56 percent, was the adoption of a single science textbook series, followed by the practice of not adopting any science textbook series. Adoption of two or more science textbook series was reported for less than 10 percent of schools. 292
Teachers also indicated that the adoption of a single textbook was the most frequent practice in their classes. (See Tables 4.21 and
4.46.)
No significant reduction was found in the number of schools which reported a policy of adopting a single science textbook series; however, a significant increase, at the 0.02 level, was reported in the number of schools that reported a policy of not adopting any science textbook series especially for grades 2 through 5. (See Tables 4.96 and 4.97.)
A significant decrease, p < .05 level, was reported in the number of schools adopting two or more science textbook series for grades 3 through 6. (See Table 4.98.)
It appears that the general trend in the elementary schools is in the direction of not adopting as many science textbook series as they used to, or not adopting any textbook at all, especially in lower grades. A possible reason for this trend could be the cost of the curriculum materials, coupled with shrinking budgets and funds allocated for such expenditures. It does not appear to be due to a reduction in time allocated to science.
Role of the Teacher
About 70 percent of the schools had no change in the type of teacher providing instruction since 1970. The predominant person providing instruction in science, over61 percent, was the regular classroom teacher who received no help from a consultant or a specialist. There was an apparent increase in this practice (reduction 293 in use of consultants or specialists) for all grade levels, but there was no significant change since 1970, except for kindergarten (p <
.02 ).
Teachers who had help amounted to about 25 percent of the regular classroom teachers. A trend toward a decrease in this pattern was found, but it was not a significant decrease.
The number of schools reporting the use of a special science teacher was small in both the 1970 and 1980 studies; however, a significant reduction was reported in the number of schools using this practice in 1980 in grades 5 and 6 at levels of 0.10 and 0.04, respectively. Many schools are giving less personnel support to teachers in the area of science and are tending to use generalists more than specialists.
Elementary Science Teaching
Science is most frequently taught as a separate subject.
Fifty-five percent of the teachers reported this pattern. No significant difference was reported between the results of 1970 and
1980 studies on this variable.
The three most commonly used learning a c tiv itie s were:
(1) lecture-discussion, reported by 83 percent of the teachers;
(2) instructional films, 71 percent; and (3) teacher-demonstrations reported by 66 percent of the teachers. In the study of 1970 the same three learning activities were reported as the most commonly used ones; lecture-discussion, 82 percent, science-demonstrations, 79 percent, and 294 instructional films, 75 percent. Instructional patterns appear to be
nearly the same now as they were in 1970.
Science Course Offerings
The five science programs most frequently reported to be used
by both principals and teachers, were Understanding Your Environment
(Mallinson), Elementary School Science (ESS), Science A Process
Approach (SAPA), Concepts in Science (Brandwein), and Science
Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS). Percentages ranged from a high of
over 20 percent to about 5 percent of the schools. No single program
dominated the curriculum. There was substantial variation from school
to school. (See Table 4.23.)
There was a decrease in the reported level of use of ESS and
SCIS programs for a ll grade levels; the decrease was significant, at
the 0.05 level, for grades 4, 5, and 6 using SCIS, and for grades 3 and
4 using ESS. Teacher and principal comments indicated they felt SAPA,
ESS, and SCIS were expensive, required substantial teacher time, and required substantial management of materials and students. With
pressures on funds and time these variables influenced the reduction in
the use of these materials.
The large majority of principals and teachers (67 percent of each) selected "changed textbooks" as the major change that had taken
place in the school science programs since 1970. "Course revision" was
the next major change reported by 47 and 46 percent of the principals and teachers, respectively. It appears that most teachers and
principals consider changing textbooks as curriculum change in science. 295 Identifying Children With Special Interest
The majority of the principals, 55 percent, used formal procedures to identify children with special interests, aptitudes, or talents in some areas of the curriculum, but only 9 percent used the procedure with respect to science. This tends to support the trend of more emphasis on other areas of the curriculum and less on science.
There was a significant increase, at 0.01 level, in the number of schools that identified children with special interests in 1980 compared to the 1970 study. No significant difference was found in the number of schools that reported identifying children with special in terest in science, however, the trend, as reported, showed a reduction in the practice. (See table 4.103.)
Environmental and/or Conservation Education (EE)
Environmental/Conservation Education (EE) was taught in approximately 94 percent of the schools. There was a significant increase, p < .004, in the number of schools teaching EE since 1970, and in the number of schools teaching these subjects with science,
(p < .01) for almost a ll grade levels. The most frequently used pattern was teaching it with science. Teaching EE with two or more subjects including science was the second most widely used pattern.
Teaching EE with social studies has shown an increase; however, the change is not significant except for kindergarten p < .01, and, to a lesser extent, for grades 2 and 5, p < .10. The same trend was also 296 reported for teaching EE with two or more subjects including science, however, the increase was not significant.
Satisfaction with the Science Program
The majority of both principals and teachers indicated their satisfaction with the science program(s) in their schools, 67 and 52 percent, respectively. About 19 percent of the principals and 25 percent of the teachers indicated dissatisfaction with the science programs in their school.
This variable was not included in the Principal's Questionnaire of the 1970 study. However, comparing the responses of the teachers in the two studies indicated that a higher percentage of teachers in 1970,
65.2 percent, were satisfied with the science programs, and about 19 percent of them were not satisfied .
Summary Related to the Attitudes of Principals and Teachers With Respect to Curriculum and Instruction
The conclusions in this part draw on the major findings resulting from the analysis of the data gathered by administering the attitude questionnaires Q:PA and Q:TA. The instruments were designed to solicit respondents' opinions and feelings with respect to certain issues related to science curriculum and instruction and changes in same. Decision Making
Principals rated their influence in determining the science
curriculum for their schools higher than the teachers rated theirs.
Both groups desired more influence than they already had.
As for their perceptions of their influence of other groups,
principals felt that teachers had the greatest influence followed by
science consultants, however, the teachers felt that the order of influence was reversed. Both groups wanted students, who were rated very low in influence, to have more influence in deciding the school curriculum for the school, and they wanted state departments of education and school boards to have less decision making power than they already had. Both groups agreed that teachers should have the most influence. (See tables 4.52 through 4.55.)
Attitudes Toward Innovations
The vast majority of principals, 92 percent, and teachers, 85 percent, assessed their attitudes as positive toward the introduction of new practices and materials in schools. They also felt all other groups had positive attitu d es toward change with the principals and consultants having the most positive attitu d e and the State Department of Education, parents, and local school boards as having the least positive. Resources
Funding, Science Equipment and Supplies
There was a general feeling that schools should receive more funds from federal, state, and local sources and especially from the la tte r two. They fe lt there was a need for more science equipment and supplies with the teachers indicating a stronger feeling for the need than the principals. (See tables 4.59 through 4.61.)
Sources of Information
Person-to-person communication. This type of communciation as a source of information about new practices and materials in science education was considered by the teachers to be less than useful, especially from individuals and groups outside the teachers' school d is tric t; however, i t was considered to be useful between teachers in the same school. Principals were in agreement with the teachers' assessment and considered communication with curriculum sp ecialists within the school district to be useful also. (See Tables 4.56 through
4.58.)
Teachers' sharing of ideas or teachers observing other teachers in their schools teach is a valid way of developing a more positive attitude toward science and science teaching in elementary schools that administrators should encourage. The findings of this study with respect to this variable support this claim.
Printed communication. This type of communication was fe lt to be useful by both groups; the principals expressed a more favorable attitu d e toward this type of communication than did teachers. 299
Formal courses and In-service education. The Information received from special college courses and workshops designed especially for the respondents was considered by both principals and teachers to be useful. Also, regular college course and workshops were perceived to be useful, but to a lesser degree.
Only on the local district level (seminars and workshops) were inservice programs considered useful by the teachers and principals.
Other in-service programs on the county, state, or national level were considered to be less than useful by both principals and teachers.
(See Table 4.64.)
From the findings on these variables it seems that a more personal in-service activity, tailored to the needs of the individual teachers involved, should be the one to offer. Assessment of the needs of potential participant in planned in-service activities should take into consideration such variables as prior experience, grade level taught, and academic and professional background in the sciences. This would enhance the chances of success and the outcome of the activity should result in a general upgrading of science instruction.
Mass Media. Only educational television and, to a lesser extent, newspapers or magazines were considered to be useful sources of information on new practices and materials. Other media sources such as commercial television and educational and commercial radio were perceived as less than useful by school administrators and teachers.
(See Table 4.65.)
Meetings of professional organizations. The information received from this type of meeting, whether on the local, state, or 300 national level, was considered to be less than useful by both groups.
(See Table A.66.)
Types of Information
The degree of usefulness of certain types of information as perceived by administrators and teachers is summarized in the following subsections.
Information about curriculum. Principals and teachers considered information about locally-developed curriculum materials, supplementary activities, and curriculum in general to be useful.
State curriculum guides and material, and National Science Foundation
(NSF) sponsored materials were rated overall as less than useful. (See
Table 4.67.)
Information about Instruction. All types of information about instruction, (teaching techniques, laboratory techniques, individualized instruction and audiovisual instruction) were considered useful by both groups except for televised instruction which was perceived as less than useful. (See Table 4.68.)
Information about classroom management. Principals and teachers considered this type of information which covered student behavior and classroom management to be useful; principals showed stronger in te re st. (See Table 4.69.)
Information about evaluation methodology, policies, budgets, and court decisions. These types of information did not seem to impress the principals or the teachers as they were rated overall as less than useful. (See Table 4.69.) 301 Length of Time Allowed for Requested Information
Both groups had similar patterns of responses on this item.
They indicated that a period ranging between one week and one month was a reasonable length of time to wait for most of the requested
information on science curriculum materials, various instructional
techniques, and classroom management from such sources as a publisher,
ERIC, the State Department of Education, and the like. Information about locally-developed curriculum materials were usually desired
faster than were other forms of information.
Teachers indicated that they were willing to wait a little over a month for information about evaluation methodology, policies, budget, and court decisions related to education. (See Tables 4.70 through
4.75, pp. 205-210.)
Federal Support for Curriculum Development
The principals and teachers appear to have a neutral to a positive attitude toward the federal government as a source of funds for curriculum development.
Principals, 61 percent, and teachers, 71 percent, felt that the
National Science Foundation should sponsor programs to help teachers learn to implement NSF-funded courses and m aterials. The majority of principals and teachers, 52 percent and 59 percent, respectively, felt the same way about NSF sponsoring of non-NSF programs for the same purpose. 302 Principals and teachers were in favor of more federal funding for the purchase of more laboratory equipment and fa c ilitie s for the schools. They also tended to agree (especially the principals, 55 percent) that federal support for course improvement and dissemination has improved the quality of curriculum alternatives available to schools. (See Tables A.76 and 4.77, pp. 212-213.)
Both groups felt that the reduction of NSF funds had a negative effect on science curricula. (See Table 4.78, p. 215.)
Science Programs
In rating the importance of specific objectives of the elementary science programs, the principals and teachers considered all of them to be either very important or important. (See Table 4.79, p.
217.) The three top rated objectives by both groups were: (1) atti tudes toward science; (2) processes of science, and (3) relationships of self and environment. These choices of the principals and teachers represent a focus on objectives other than what was the traditional belief: concentrating on factual knowledge and content learning.
The single textbook supplemented with other materials was the science curriculum material preferred by both principals and teachers.
(See Table 4.83, p. 227.)
Barriers to Change
The attitudes of principals and teachers differed considerably on what each group considered to be the greatest barriers to change, and consequently had the most negative effect on the improvement of 303
practice in science programs. Principals blamed the lack of
preparedness of teachers and their lack of interest, in addition to the
high cost of curriculum materials, and lack of time. Teachers on the
other hand, blamed lack of material things, such as lack of funds,
equipment, supplies, facilities and high cost of curriculum materials
in addition to lack of time. (See Table 4.80, p. 220.)
Incentives - Tangible and Intangible
Participation in workshops and in-service training courses,
followed closely by released time, and extra pay for special activities
as a distant third, were selected by the principals as the top three
desirable tangible incentives for teachers.
Teachers also selected released time followed closely by extra
pay for special services and participating in workshops and in-service
training courses as the three most desirable tangible incentives for
them.
Intangible incentives were less popular with both groups as demonstrated by the numbers who selected them. The one selected by most principals and teachers was "intrinsic satisfaction derived from doing better teaching." The principals selected also, "a possible
solution to perceived student needs" and "increased sense of influence over educational outcomes." The teachers selected as a second incentive "professional in terest or commitment", and "opportunity to pursue new ideas" as a distant third (See Tables 4.81 and 4.82, p. 223-
225.) Assessment of Science Teachers
Both principals and teachers perceived the teacher to be about
average with respect to level of student involvement in activities
related to science learning; there was a tendency toward student
centered type of instruction and emphasis on the processes approach to
teaching science. Both groups indicated they felt there should be more
emphasis on student involvement and the processes of science. (See
Table 4.84, p. 230.)
Summary Related to Level of State Control on Education and Changes in Science Education
This study indicates the higher the level of state control on
education as represented by the SCS data the less the amount of science
being taught as represented by the to tal number of weeks and number of minutes per week science is being offered in schools, SCS was also
related to a lower level of av ailab ility of equipment and consumable
supplies, especially for grades 3 through 6, (p < .05).
States with greater control (high SCS) of education were more likely to have schools that taught science in classrooms equipped with special facilities for science (p < .02) than are schools in the states with low level of control (p < .07.). (See Part IV, p. 266.)
A significant positive relationship was found between states with higher SCS and the existence of formal procedures to identify children with special interests, aptitudes, and talents in the school curriculum in general (p < .03). 305 The pattern of teaching environmental and conservation
education in the states with high SCS scores was more likely to take
place with social studies (p < .03) in grades 1 through 6, and not with
science or with two or more subjects including science.
For further analysis, SCS was correlated with the degree of
principal satisfaction with the school science program. There was a
significant negative relationship between SCS, vis-a-vis, high control
of education and satisfaction with the program (p < .03).
These data indicate that several policies adopted by states
with high SCS may have had a negative effect on elementary science
education; data in part IV indicate that administrators have recognized
these problems. The data suggest the amount of funds available were
not sufficient to provide for programs and standards required by the
states and also to allow sufficient funds for other programs. It
appeared that resources in states with higher SCS scores were being
directed to other parts of the curriculum and school programs.
Summary Related to Interrelationships Between Selected Variables of Q:SP and Q:AP
School Size
The study found that the size of the school had very little
relationship to the variables investigated.
Amount of Science Taught
The study found that the length of time for teaching science was positively related to the decision making power of administrators 306 when dealing with grades 4-6, amount of money for equipment budgets, positive attitu d e of principals toward change, more need for funding supplies and equipment, the use of classroom with no special science facilities for grades K-3, use of a single textbook for grade K and 1, and teaching EE with science.
In schools where more time was spent teaching science, barriers to change were perceived as less restrictiv e to effective science teaching, except for lack of consultant services, materials, and state support for curriculum development.
Administrators in schools teaching more science believed that students were more involved in the process of scientific inquiry especially for grades 4 through 6, (p < .001), than did principals of schools that were teaching less science.
Science Teachers
The teacher of the lower grades (K-3) who teaches science without help from a consultant was viewed by principals as having considerable influence in making decisions regarding science teaching in these grades. Barriers to change were perceived by principals to be more significant to teachers of lower grades than teachers of higher grades. Barriers identified included lack of consultant services, lack of in-service opportunities, lack of adequate facilities and supplies, the belief that other areas of the curriculum are more important than science, and lack of sufficient science knowledge on the part of the teachers. These teachers were perceived to prefer a variety of tangible, as well as intangible incentives. They preferred to use 307 several textbooks, and they were not perceived by the principals as involving the students in science activities as much as desired. The teacher with no help from a consultant was more likely to adopt a single science textbook, for grades 1 through 6, and more likely to teach in a classroom without special facilities for science, especially for grades 4-6.
Curriculum Materials
Schools that did not have a science textbook series at the lower grades (K-4) usually did in grades 5 and 6. These schools generally had administrators who perceived that they had decision making powers and positive attitudes toward innovation. The practice of not adopting textbooks correlated significantly with need for funding, but not with science supplies and equipment at any grade level; use of teacher developed materials; need for incentives for teachers; and some barriers to change such as lack of consultants, lack of support of community and staff, and lack of incentives for teachers.
Teachers not using a textbook were not perceived, by principals as involving the students as much in science learning activities compared to students of teachers using other materials.
Schools that adopted a science textbook or series did not always adopt at lower grade levels, but nearly always at grades 5 and
6. Schools that adopted a textbook or series correlated positively with, (1) the decision making power of the principal and his/her attitude toward innovation, (2) strong need for funding from local, state, and federal sources for grades 5 and 6 but not for more science 308
supplies and/or equipment, (3) need for incentive for teachers of lower
grades, (4) and barriers to change such as lack of in-service
opportunities for teachers of lower grades, insufficient budgets,
out-of-date teaching m aterials, teachers do not know methods of
teaching science, and lack of incentives. Teachers of grades 5 and 6
were perceived as providing substantial student involvement in science
activities.
Science Classrooms
Schools in which the teaching of science took place in regular
classrooms with no special facilities for science at the upper grade
levels correlated positively with principals who had decision making
power (and wanted more), their attitudes toward innovation, desire for more funding, more supplies and equipment, but not with incentives for
teachers. Barriers to change were not considered to-have a great negative influence on science teaching except for lack of consultants,
lack of state support, and lack of materials for individualizing instruction at the higher grade levels, grades 5 and 6. More students were perceived by the principals in these classrooms.
Students with Special Interest
Schools that used a procedure to identify students with special interests in some areas of the curriculum, but not necessarily in science, correlated positively with principals with influence and with the principal's attitu d es toward innovation and desire for more funding. They did not believe they needed more science equipment and 309
supplies nor did they need incentives for teachers. Barriers to change
were not considered much of a problem, except lack of consultants and
lack of state support for curriculum development. Students were
perceived as active participants in science classes in most schools
that identified students with special interests.
Environmental and Conservation Education (EE)
Schools that offered environmental/conservation education for
all grade levels, and offered it with science correlated positively
with (1) the decision making power of the principals and their
attitudes toward change, (2) more funding, more supplies and equipment
in general, but (3) not necessarily to teach EE with science. No
incentives were considered important except the opportunity to pursue
new ideas on the part of the teachers. Barriers to change were not
perceived as much of a problem except lack of consultants and lack of
state support for curriculum development. Active participation of
students was not as strong in the lower grades (K-3) as it was in the
higher grades.
Schools which had equipment tended to offer EE with science in
grades K through 6.
Schools which offered EE with social studies relates positively
to the decision making influence of the state department of education, and schools which offered EE with two or more subjects including
science related positively with the decision making power of school boards. 310 Conclusions and Recommendations
Certain trends were identified during the course of summary presentations of the study and some conclusions and recommendations were drawn where appropriate. However, this study and the analyses of the literature in chapter two provide the basis for a number of major conclusions and recommendations. These are organized into the following sections:
Teachers
Data from this study and previous studies indicate that elementary teachers take a minimal amount of science content in undergraduate study and take virtually n About 30 percent of the teachers had no biological sciences, 30 percent had no physical sciences, and 50 percent had no earth science. Both the teachers and the administrators recognized the need for better content background, and many indicated that the lack of background influenced what they taught (and what they did not teach), as well as how well they taught the subject. Elementary school teacher preparation in science has been a persistent problem for several decades and has not improved. Data from several studies suggest it was improving in the early 1970's (primarily due to NSF support), but those 311 gains in teacher preparation appear to have been lost during the past five to six years. Current certification patterns and school inservice policies in these 10 states are not solving the problem. If elementary school science is to be taught by generalists, then at least minimal requirements of courses in biological science, physical science, and earth science ought to be required prior to graduation. After graduation there is a need for at least some course work in science on a periodic basis. Teachers could be required to take a course on "Current Trends in Science and Science Instruction" on a periodic basis (once every five years or so) to keep them at least aware of current science developments, recent materials for teaching science, and some effective ways of teaching these concepts to young children; these courses could be similar to many developed by NSF programs in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Differentiated assignments should also be considered, especially in schools large enough to consider a science (and perhaps mathematics) specialist. Many of the teachers in this study desired assistance with their instruction and programs. Hiring a science specialist would tend to provide stronger instruction and support services; the recent trend is away from this practice and has helped influence several program changes and the reduction of hands-on science. Administrators Administrators indicated involvement with the science education program, substantial concern about some aspects of the programs, and less concern about others. Administrators were more involved with the science programs in grades 5 and 6 and less involved in the programs in grades K-4; more decision making was left to the teachers in the lower grades and the use of established sets of materials was less frequent in the lower grades while quite common in the upper grades. Many administrators were concerned about the teachers' preparation, interest in teaching science, and the way some of them were teaching science. They were also concerned about the articulation of the science programs, need for assistance for their teachers, and, in many cases, for supplies and m aterials. It appeared that many principals viewed science as less important than several other parts of the curriculum, that they viewed curriculum change as a change in textbooks, that they have provided relatively little inservice work in science, and that they have not influenced school districts to require teachers to gain additional course work in science. Staff in a substantial number of schools have made curricular changes in other areas (environmental education, reading, e tc .), have made efforts to provide for the identification of pupils with special needs or abilities in other areas, and staff in these schools (administrators and teachers) fe lt that barriers to change were less 313 restrictive than staff in schools that have either not attempted such changes or have not been successful in making such changes. The literature reviewed in Chapter II indicates, and this study supports, the generalization that administrators can be effective agents for change or can block change in some areas due to negative action, neutral actions, or positive actions in other directions. There is a need for information that can be given to the administrators to inform them about types of programs and m aterials, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. There is also need to work with adm inistrators in inservice programs or workshops to identify the importance of good science programs to the scien tific attitu d es, interests, and learning of pupils. Finally, there is a need to work with administrators to develop effective ways of improving inservice teacher knowledge and skills related to the teaching of science. This study and previous studies suggest that many teachers do not gain the necessary sk ills and knowledge in undergraduate education, are not required by the states to get such knowledge and skills, and currently are not helped or required by most school districts to get such knowledge and sk ills. Materials and Instruction The literature reviewed in Chapter II and this study both identify the single textbook as the major source of information in grades five and six. Most of the schools use a single textbook, while in the lower grades, K-4, there is more variation. The trend is toward 314 the use of the single textbook and away from multiple textbooks, and modular approaches. Teachers and administrators indicated the main reasons for the current sh ifts were (1) costs of books and laboratory m aterials, (2) teacher time in using hands-on types of materials and multitext materials, (3) administrative support time to provide materials for laboratory type activities, and (4) security for teachers who did not have sufficient science content background and education in the use of other types of m aterials. Instruction in the classroom tended to follow the text materials and used some group and individual activity, but hands-on activity appeared to be declining. The development and successful implementation of science programs in the elementary schools depends on the above variables. Therefore, schools considering the development and/or implementation of an alternative program need to consider ways of overcoming these four barriers on a sustained basis. Many schools have considered the barriers at the implementation stage, but have not provided for recurrent costs, continued technical support, and inservice education for new teachers. Curriculum developers should also consider these barriers and design programs and materials that help the school reduce recurrent costs, reduce technical support required, reduce teacher time required to prepare a c tiv itie s, and provide background information for new 315 teachers. Such materials are likely to be used longer by a school and are more likely to be used as designed. State departments and universities need to consider effective inservice programs that w ill help schools use good m aterials and w ill assist teachers in gaining knowledge and sk ills needed for teaching science. This study indicated that many schools lack staff and/or resources to maintain programs such as ESS, SCIS, and SAPA. Without substantial inservice assistance the trend away from these materials and similar kinds of materials will continue. F a c ilities and Equipment Most science was taught in a regular classroom without much special equipment for teaching science. The lack of some special facilities did not seem to be an important variable in determining what science was taught. The lack of any special equipment did appear to be a variable related to what science was taught. Schools with more available resources and equipment reported programs that use more resources and equipment, though a ll teachers certainly did not use the resources. Adequate resources for supplies and m aterials appeared to exert more influence on the school science program than did facilities and equipment. Schools should be careful in their expenditures for equipment, provide inservice use on how to use the equipment, and maintain a budget to provide supplies and materials that are needed for the use of the equipment. 316 School Organization Nearly a ll schools in this study involved grades K-6. Three important conclusions regarding the schools, however, should be noted: (1) there were substantial differences between programs, staff attitu d es, and administrative attitu d es when comparing grades K-4 and grades 5 and 6; (2) science programs within a school were more likely to be similar than different; and (3) size of school showed very little relationshiop to science programs. These data tend to support developing middle schools where feasible, and organizing units within a building to improve communication and planning among the lower grade teachers or the upper grade teachers. Obtaining administrative support for a program appears essential for continuing programs; this includes both philosophical and financial administrative support. These data also suggest the principal as a good starting point regarding program improvement or change. SCS The correlations and frequencies yielded several relationships that relate to a few major conclusions. In general, correlations indicated that SCS correlated negatively with available funds and budgets for science programs, materials, and supplies. The correlations also indicated a consistent relationship between the desire for more resources on the part of schools in states with higher SCS scores. 317 Science programs tended to be more sim ilar in high SCS states, but there was still substantial variation within states. There did not appear to be any single required state program in any state. Since this was not an experimental study, no definite cause and effect can be determined. However, data obtained in this study indicated states with higher SCS scores tend to have regulations that compete for funds and time with science; i t appeared that science was losing to other parts of the curriculum in materials, and funds, and time. Research on a.state level needs to be done to assist policy planners; they need to be aware of the impact of regulations and funding patterns on school programs. This investigator could find very little data collected by states to assist in the policy development and implementation procedures related to curriculum. If such information has been collected, i t does not seem to have been published. In the absence of such data, policy makers do not know how their actions are impacting on the school programs. High SCS states without substantial budgets probably are causing schools to spend less money (in real dollars) on science programs and m aterials. If this is not their intent, then they should take corrective action, either by modifying existing regulations or providing additional funding. 318 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alberty, H. B. (Chairman). Science in General Education. Report of the Committee on the Function of Science in General Education. Commission on Secondary Curriculum, Progressive Education Association. New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1938. Anderson, Ronald D. and Horn, Jerry G. "Diffusion of the Elementary School Science: An Assessment of One Model." Science Education, 56(3): 317-327, 1972. Baldridge, J. Victor. The Impact of Individuals, Organizational Structure, and Environment on Organizational Innovation. Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, Stanford, C alif., 1974. Baldridge, J. Victor and Deal, Terrance E. (eds.) Managing Change in Educational Organizations. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1975. ED 120903. Barth, Roland S. Open Education and the American School. New York: Agathon, 1972. Belanger, Maurice. "Learning Studies in Science Education." Review of Educational Research, 39(4): 377-395, 1969.' Berman, Paul and McLaughlin, Milbrey W. Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. I: A Model of Educational Change. Santa Monica, C alif.: Rand Corporation, 1974. ED 099957. Berman, Paul and McLaughlin, Milbrey W. Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. IV: The Findings in Review. Santa Monica, C alif.: Rand Corporation, 1975. ED 108330. Berman, Paul and McLaughlin, Milbrey W. Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. VIII: Implementing and Sustaining Innovations. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 1978. ED 159289. Berman, Paul and Pauly, Edward W. Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. II: Factors Affecting Change Agent Projects. Santa Monica, C alif.: Rand Corporation, 1975. ED 108324. Berman, Paul., et al. Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. V: Executive Summary. Santa Monica, C alif.: Rand Corporation, 1975. ED 108331. 319 Berman, Paul., et al. Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. VII; Factors Affecting Implementation and Continuation. Santa Monica, C alif.: Rand Corporation, 1977. ED 140432. Bingham, N. Eldred. "Changes in Science Education During the Past 60 Years," in Science Education: Past or Prologue, edited by Robert L. Steiner, 1978 AETS Yearbook, ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1977. Blackwood, Paul E. Science Teaching in the Elementary School. Office of Education (OE-29059), U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1965a. Blackwood, Paul E. "Science Teaching in the Elementary School: A Survey of Practices." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3: 177-197, 1965b. Blough, Glenn 0. "Some Reflections about Elementary School Science," in Science Education: Past or Prologue, edited by Robert L. Steiner, 1978 AETS Yearbook, ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1977. Brandow, Frederic M. "Organization, Practice and Changes in Elementary Science Programs." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1959. Bredo, Anneke E. and Bredo, Eric R. "Effects of Environment and Structure on the Process of Innovation," in Managing Change in Educational Organizations, edited by J. Victor Baldridge and T. Deal. Berkeley, C alif.: McCutchan, 1975. Brown, William R. "Teacher Competencies and Characteristics in a Science Preservice Teacher Education Project." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1972. ED 059864. Burns, Richard F. and Frazier, Alexander. "Scope and Sequence of Elementary School Science." School Science and Mathematics, 57: 560-568, October, 1959. Bybee, Rodger; Harms, Norris; Ward, Barbara; and Yager, Robert. "Science, Society, and Science Education." Science Education, 64(3): 377-395, 1980. Carlson, R. D. Adoption of Educational Innovations. Eugene,’ Oregon: CASEA, 1965. Cataldo, Everett F., et al. "Card Sorting as a Technique for Survey Interviewing." Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2): 202-215, 1970. 320 Chesler, Mark; Schmuck, Richard; and Lippitt, Ronald. "The Principal's Role in Facilitating Innovation," in Managing Change in Educa tional Organizations, edited by J. Victor Baldridge, et al. Berkeley, C alif.: McCutchan, 1975. Chin, Long Fay. "A Survey of Science Teaching in the Public Secondary Schools of the Great Lakes and Far West Regions of the United States in the 1970-71 School Year." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1971. Clark, David L. and Guba, Egon G. "An Examination of Potential Change Roles in Education." Paper presented at the Symposium on Innovation in Planning School Curricula, Arlie House, Virginia, 1965. Commission on Science Education. American Association for the Advancement of Science. "Science for Society, Education Review," Vol. 2, No. 3, November, 1972. Cooke, Robert A.; Duncan, Robert B.; and Zaltman, Gerald. "An Assessment of a Structural/Task Approach to Organization Development in School Systems." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA, April, 1974. ED 097354. Craig, Gerald S. Science for the Elementary School Teacher. New York: Ginn and Company, 1940. Cronbach, Lee J. Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1960. Cunningham, John D. and Butts, David P. A Summary of Research in Science Education for the Years 1963-64, Elementary School Level. ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1970. ED 040304. Deal, Terrence E .; Meyer, John W.; and Scott, W. Richard. "Organiza tional Influences on Educational Innovation," in Managing Change in Educational Organizations, edited by J. Victor Baldridge, et al. Berkeley, C alif.: McCutchan, 1975. Decker, Donald G. "Forty Years of Becoming, Being, and Begoning: An Account of a Personal Journey into the Science Education of Students and Teachers 1936 to 1976," in Science Education: Past or Prologue, edited by Robert L. Steiner, 1978 AETS Yearbook. ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1977. 321 DeRose, James V.; Lockard, J. David; and Paldy, Lester G. "The Teacher is the Key: A report on three NSF studies." The Science Teacher, 46(A): 31-37, 1979. Devaney, Kathleen. Developing Open Education in America. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1974. Devaney, Kathleen and Thorn, Lorraine. Curriculum Development in Elementary Mathematics: 9 Programs. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory, 1974. Drumm, George B. "The Center for Open Education: A Center Without W alls.” Educational Leadership, 33(6): 441-443, March 1976. Earl, Robert D. and Winkeljohn, Dorothy R. "Attitudes of Elementary Teachers Toward Science and Science Teaching." Science Education, 61(1): 41-45, 1977. Edelfelt, Roy A. and Johnson, Margo (eds.). Rethinking In-Service Education. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975. Evans, Thomas P. "Bringing About Change in Science Education," in Science Education/Society: A Guide to Interaction and Influence, edited by Michael R. Abraham, 1979 AETS Yearbook. ERIC Clearing house for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1978. Fowler, H. Seymour. "Some Comments on the History of Science Education in the United States," in Science Education: Past or Prologue, edited by Robert L. Steiner, 1978 AETS Yearbook. ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1977. Fullan, Michael. "Overview of the Innovative Process and the User." Interchange, Vol. 3 (2-3): 1-46, 1972. Fullan, Michael and Eastabrook, Glenn. "The Process of Educational Change at the School Level: Deriving Action Implications from Questionnaire Data." Paper presented at AERA, New Orleans, February, 1973. Fullan, Michael and Pomfret, Allan: Review of Research on Curriculum Implementation. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1975. Fuller, Edgar and Pearson, Jim B. (eds.). Education in the States: Nationwide Development Since 1900. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School O fficers, National Education Association, 1969. ED 031467. 322 Gallagher, James J. "Why the Government Breaks Its Promises." New York University Education Quarterly, 6(4): 22-27, Summer 1975. Gallagher, James J. A Summary of Research in Science Education for the Years 1968-69, Elementary School Level. ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1971. ED 050999. Gallaher, Art J. "Directed Change in Formal Organizations: The School System," in Change Processes in the Public Schools, edited by R. 0. Carlson, et al. Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, Eugene, Oregon, 1965. Gennaro, Eugene D. and Glenn, Allen D. "Science and Social Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Values and Value Decisions." Science Education, 59: 85-93, 1975. George, Kenneth D., et a l. Elementary School Science, Why and How. Boston: D. C. Heath, 1974. Goodlad, John I. "Principals are the Key to Change," in New Dimensions for Educating Youth, edited by J. Chaffee. Denver: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1976. Greenwood, Peter W.; Mann, Dale; and McLaughlin, M. W. Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. I ll: The Process of Change. Santa Monica, C alif.: Rand Corporation, 1975. ED 108325. Hall, Gene E. and Rutherford, William L. "Concerns of Teacher about Implementing Faculty Teaming." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA, Washington, D.C., 1975. Haney, Richard, et al. A Summary of Research in Science Education for the Years 1965-67, Elementary School Level. Research Review Series—Science Paper 2. ERIC Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1969. ED 038554. Hausman, Howard J. Choosing a Science Program for the Elementary School. Council for Basic Education, Washington, D.C., 1976. Havelock, Ronald G. and Havelock, M. C. Educational Innovation in the United States, Vol. I, The National Survey: The Substance and the Process. Prepared for the National Institute of Education by the Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, May, 1974. Haworth, Leland J. Science Education in the Schools of the United S tates. Report of the National Science Foundation to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, Document No. 44-521. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1965. 323 Helgeson, Stanley L.; Blosser, Patricia E.; and Howe, Robert W. The Status of Pre-College Science, Mathematics, and Social Science Education: 1955-1975. Vol. I: Science Education. Center for Science and Mathematics Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1977. Herron, J. Dudley. "Declining Enrollments: Here are the facts. Where are the answers?" The Science Teacher, 44(1): 26-29, January, 1977. Herron, J. Dudley, et al. "A Summary of Research in Science Education- -1974.” Science Education. Special Issue, 1976. House, Ernest R. The Politics of Educational Innovation. Berkeley, C a lif.: McCutchan, 1974. Howe, Robert W. "Impact of NSF-sponsored Programs on Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Teachers, and Students," in A Report on the Exploratory Conference on the National Science Foundation’s Impact on U.S. Science Curriculum Development, edited by J. D. Lockard. College Park: University of Maryland, 1974. Howe, Robert W., et al. A Survey of Science Teaching in Public Schools of the United States (1971), Vol. Ill, Elementary Schools. ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1974. Hurd, Paul DeHart. New Curriculum Perspectives for Junior High School Science. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California, 1970. Kahle, Jane Butler and Yager, Robert E. "Current Indicators for the Discipline of Science Education." Science Education, 65(1): 25-31, 1981. Klein, Judith S. "Elementary Science: Facilitator of Selfhood." Science and Children, 23-24, April, 1974. Klopfer, Leopold E. "Preface: Science Education in the 1980s." Science Education, 64(1): 1-6, 1980. Knight, K. E. and Gorth, W. P. Toward an Understanding of Educational Change: An Investigation of 77 Changes in 20 High Schools. Austin, Texas: University of Texas, 1975. Kuhn, David J. "Value Education in the Sciences: The Step Beyond Concepts and Processes." School Science and Mathematics, 74: 582-588, 1974. 324 Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. A Study of State Legal Standards for the Provision of Public Education, 1974. ED 122461. Leake, John Benjamin. "A Study of Attitudes of Elementary Teachers Toward Science.’’ Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1966. L ippitt, Ronald 0. Identifying, Documenting, Evaluating and Sharing Innovative Classroom Practices. The United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C., 1974. Maben, Jerrold W. "A Survey of Science Teaching in the Public Elementary Schools of Two Selected Regions of the United States During the 1970-1971 School Year." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1971. Mallinson, George G. "Some New Perspectives on an Issue in Doubt," in Science Education: Past or Prologue, edited by Robert L. Steiner, 1978 AETS Yearbook. ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1977. Mann, D. "Making Change Happen." Teachers College Record, 77: 313-322, 1976. Manning, B. A. "The Trouble-Shooting Checklist: A Guide for Educational Change Agent." Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of AERA, Chicago, April, 1974. Martin, David J. "Individualizing Junior High Science." The Science Teacher, 43-45, March, 1975. Matala, Dorothy, "Current Activities in Elementary and Junior High School Science." School Science and Mathematics, 61: 339-367, May, 1961. Mayer, V. J. (Ed.) Unpublished Evaluation Instruments in Science Education: A Handbook. ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1974. McAnarney, Harry. "What Direction(s) Elementary School Science?" Science Education, 62(1): 31-38, 1978. 325 Mcllwaine, William B. and Ziegler, Robert E. "Science Supervision: Form and Function," in Science Teacher Education: Vantage Point 1976, edited by Gene E. Hall. 1977 AETS Yearbook, ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1977. Mixer, Anthony S. and Milson, James L. "Self-Concept in the Science Classroom." School Science and Mathematics, 74: 16-21, 1974. Moore, R. W. "The Development, Field Test and Validation of Scales to Assess Teachers' Attitudes Toward Teaching Elementary School Science." Science Education, 57(3): 271-278, 1973. Moore, R. W., and Sutman, F. X. "The Development, Field Test and Validation of an Inventory of Scientific A ttitudes." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7: 85-94, 1970. Moorehead, William D. "The Status of Elementary School Science and How It Is Taught." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1965. Mort, P. "Studies in Educational Innovations from the Institute of Administrative Research," in Innovation in Education, edited by M. Miles. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Munby, Hugh. Unpublished Investigation into the Measurement of Attitudes in Science Education. Queen's University, London, Ontario, 1979. National Science Foundation. What are the Needs in Precollege Science, Mathematics, and Social Science Education? Views from the Field. Office of Program Integration - Directorate for Science Education NSF, Washington, D.C., 1980. National Science Teachers Association Committee on Curriculum Studies. "Social Science Education for the '7 0 s.” Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1971. National Society for the Study of Education. A Program for Teaching Science. T hirty-F irst Yearbook, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932. Nelson, Bessie E. "A Survey of Science Teaching in the Public Elementary Schools of the New England, the Mideast, and the Southwest Regions of the United States During the 1970-71 School Year." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1973. Nie, Norman H., et al. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 197 5. 326 Nygren, Burton M. "Innovations that Nearly Ruined the Schools in the 1960s." The Education Digest, April, 1976. Ogletree, Earl J. "State Legislated Curriculum in the United States." Phi Delta Kappan, 61(2): 133-135, 1979. ED 177713. Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1966. Orlosky, D. and Smith, B. 0. "Educational Change: Its Origins and C haracteristics." Phi Delta Kappan, 53: 412-414, 1972. Orrange, Patricia A. and VanRyn, Mike. Agency Roles and Responsi bilities in In-Service Education," in Rethinking In-Service Education, edited by Edelfelt and Johnson, NEA, 1975. Parkay, Forrest. "Innovation in a Chicago Inner-City School." Phi Delta Kappan, 57(6): 384-390, 1976. Pincus, John. "Incentives for Innovation in the Public Schools." Review of Educational Research, 1(44), 1974. Progressive Education Association, Commission on Secondary School Curriculum. Report of the Committee on the Function of Science in General Education. Science in General Education. New York: Appleton-Century, 1938. Rogers, Vincent R. "Why Teachers' Centers in the U.S.?" Educational Leadership, 33(6), March, 1976. Rosencranz, Armin D. "Who Decides What Pupils Read?" Compact, December 1975. Rowe, Marry Budd and DeTure, Linda. "A Summary of Research in Science Education—1973." Science Education, Special Issue, 1975. Saadeh, Ibrahim Q. "Direction of the New Science Curricula: An Appraisal and An Alternative." Science Education, 57(3): 247-262, 1973. Sagness, Richard Lee. " A Study of Selected Outcomes of a Science Pre-Service Teacher Education Project Emphasizing Early Involvement in Schools of Contrasting Environmental Settings." Unpublished doctoral disseration, The Ohio State University Columbus, 1970. Sarason, Seymour B. The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971. 327 Schulman, Lee S. and Tamir, Pinchas. "Research on Teaching in the Natural Sciences," in Second Handbook of Research in Teaching, edited by R. M. W. Travers. Chicago: Rand McNally Publishing Co., 1973. Shumack, R. A., et al. Consultation for Innovative Schools: Organizational Development for Multiunit Structure. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, 1975. Sikorski, Linda A. "An Analytical Summary of Knowledge About Curricula Implementation in U.S. Schools," in Pre-College Science Curriculum A ctivities of the National Science Foundation, Vol. I I —Appendix. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, May, 1975. Sikorski, Linda A., et al. Factors Influencing School Change. Final Report. Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco, C alif., 1976. Smith, Herbert A. "Curriculum Development and Instructional M aterials." Review of Educational Resources, 39(A): 397-414, 1969. Stake, Robert E., Easley, Jack A., et al. Case Studies in Science Education, Vol. I: The Case Reports. Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, Urbana, Illinois, 1978. Stake, Robert E., Easley, Jack A., et al. Case Studies in Science Education, Vol. II: Design, Overview and General Findings. Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, Urbana, Illinois, 1978. S ta tistic s of Public Schools, 1965-75. National Center for Education S ta tistic s, Washington, D.C., 1976. Steiner, Robert L., et al. Survey of Science Education in Public Schools of the United States (1971), Vol. IV. Elementary Schools. ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1974. Streng, Evelyn. "The Mission of Science Education," in Reflections on Science Education, edited by William Capie. 1976 AETS Yearbook, ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1975. Swami, Piyush. "A Follow-up Study for Evaluation of the Preservice Secondary Science Teacher Program at The Ohio State University." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1975. 328 Trowbridge, Leslie, et al. A Summary of Research in Elementary, Secondary and College Levels of Science Education for 1970. ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1972. ED 085219: Turnbull, Brenda; Thorn, Lorraine; and Hutchins, C. L. Promoting Change in Schools: A Diffusion Casebook. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory, 1974. Vockell, Edward L. and Lobonc, Susan. "Sex-Role Stereotyping by High School Females in Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18:(3) 209-219, 1981. Webb, Melvin R. "Teaching Science in Public Elementary Schools of the Plains, Rocky Mountain and Southeast Regions of the United States." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1972. Weintraub, Daniel J. and Walker, Edward L. Perception. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1966. Weiss, Iris R. Report of the 1977 National Survey of Science, Mathematics, and Social Studies Education. Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1978. Whitla, Dean K. and Pinck, Dan C. Something of Value, A Summary of Findings and Recommendations for Improving Elementary Science in Massachusetts. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1973. Widmer, Jeanne Maguire. "What Makes Innovation Work in Massachusetts? Strategies for State and Local Systems." Paper presented at AERA: Washington, D.C., March, 1975. Williamson, Stanley E. "Science Education in the Twentieth Century," in Science Education: Past or Prologue, edited by Robert L. Steiner. 1978 AETS Yearbook. ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1977. Wirt, Frederick M. "School Policy Culture and State Decentralization," in The Politics of Education. The Seventy-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part I I . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977. Yegge, John F ., et al. The Decision-Making Process in the Adoption of a New Physics Course in American High Schools. Final Report. National Science Foundation, May, 1971. ED 052961. Zaltman, Gerald and Duncan, Robert. Strategies for Planned Change. New York: Wiley Interscience Publication, 1977. APPENDIX A 1. School Centralization Scores (SCS) By State (Wirt, 1977) 2. School Centralization Scores on 36 Variables, By Regions and Subregions (Wirt, 1977) 3. Form-A 329 TABLE A.l 330 truer scale School Centralization Scores fSCS1) bv State Number S tate SCS Number State SCS 1 Hawaii 6.00 26 Arkansas 3.57 2 Oklahoma 4.91 27 Maryland 3.56 3 Alabama 4.67 28 Tennessee 3.48 4 South Carolina 4.61 29 Montana 3.47 5 Washington 4.37 30 Utah 3.42 6 Oregon 4.30 31 Kansas 3.38 7 Florida 4.19 32 Alaska 3.38 8 Minnesota 4.10 33 Illinois 3.32 9 West V irginia 3.94 34 Idaho 3.26 10 M ississippi 3.93 35 Georgia 3.24 11 Indiana 3.90 36 Rhode Island 3.21 12 Kentucky 3.90 37 Louisiana 3.19 13 V irginia 3.88 38 Vermont 3.17 14 New Jersey 3.87 39 Delaware 3.15 15 Michigan 3.85 40 New Hampshire 3.13 16 Nebraska 3.81 41 Maine 3.09 Iowa 3.80 42 South Dakota 3.08 18 North Carolina 3.80 43 Arizona 2.91 19 Colorado 3.79 44 North Dakota 2.89 20 New Mexico 3.79 45 Texas 2.88 21 Pennsylvania 3.75 46 Missouri 2.84 22 C alifornia 3.65 47 Nevada 2.84 23 Ohio 3.65 48 Massachusetts 2.73 24 New York 3.63 49 Connecticut 2.68 25 Wisconsin 3.62 50 Wyoming 1.86 TABLE A. 2 SCHOOL CENTRALIZATION SCORES ON THIRTY-SIX VARIABLES, BY REGIONS AND SUBRECIONS ( W ir t , 1 9 7 7 ) 1 o M g in K H B V)H 3 to 55 VARIABLE o 3 3 n y. H in < in -< 'I 55 • M H 1 n VI £ o M o § 3 O SOUTHWEST VEST FAR V. g r . VI MIDWEST o CL. a: FOR MEAN STATES ALL Accreditation -3.90 A.7A -2.90* 95.70* A.58 -A. 07 9A.9A -3.92 +5.13 -A. 30 -2.81 A. 00 School calendar A.21 A. 09 9A.35 -3.91 94.38 A. 20 9A.51* -3.90 -3.68 -3.28 9A.37 A. 09 Cert 11 lc.it Ion -A. BO -A. A A 5.2A 95.73 5.05 95.76 5.A1 95.77* 95.82* 5.67 95. 7A 5.A9 In-sorvlcr training -1.63 -1.67 -1.00 12.59 -1. 7A 92.3/ -1.29 92.31 9 3.00 2.00 9 1. IB 2.09 Salary nclvdule - 3. 1A -2.92 3. A0 9A.32* -2.70 9A.59* -1.36* -3.06 -3.00 -2.60 9 A. 00 3.29 Toi loinic-1 j,c> lie Ion A. 7A 9A.59* -3.82 -3.86 9 A. A A 9 A. 61 IA.32 A. 13 lA.IIA* 9 A. 56 -3.95 A.17 ScIomi I jitnnt 13.71 3.51 9 1.95* 9A.18* -2.A6* -2.96 -2.10* -1.16 -2.08 3.34 1A.HA * 3.36 Scliool cun-t m et Ion nnd equipment IA .09 -3.57 9 A. 71 * -3.33 93.92 J. 78 I A. 02 3.75 -2.00* 15.63* 3.7/ 3. 76 Safety mul lio.iltli standards A. 71 -3.92* IA.09 IA.92* A. JO - J. 60 9A.89* -A.0A IA.9H* A. 52 -3.71 A.37 Grade «ii i;.inl /at Ion 93.81 -3. u CKVTCNS fl3N M to u to r. s s * 9 H o * toH •< “• t; §+t. H K 1 K to su U 5 - j VARIAIU.F. n 9 O PAR VEST PAR PLAINS CREAT LAKES CREAT to SOUTHEAST j : s 9 NORTHEAST « Ilipl t-teacher ratio I. i'll -2.87 3 3.33 93.67 33.92* 43.6 A 9A.12 -2.02* -1.25 -2. 10 9 3.69 3.11 Attendance requirements -A. 16 -3.51* IA.9A 9A.98 * -A. 33 -A. 66 -A. 30 3A.95 -A.0A A.67 9 5.63 * A.AA Admission requirement!) -3.15 -2.31* IA. 15 9A.3A 9 A. 03 45.12* -3.25 3.73 9A. 1 1 2.B7 4A. OA 3.82 Ornduat1 on requlromonts -3.87 -3.A6 IA.37 A. 20 -3.67 -3.80 -3.58 IA.A0 9A.80* -3.06 95. 17* A. 06 School d is tric t organization -2.1 9* 2.12 -2.26 9A. 17 33.81 9 A. 03 3.66 9 3.93 V,. 00 -2.00 95.25* A.06 Equal educal 1 onil opportunity -2.37* -1.90* -2.93 3.70 33.53 45.27* -2.29 33.60 -2.61 -1.90 45.61* 3.3A Oli l e d 1 v c b - 2 .IA* -2.58 -1.60* 13.67 9 A. 71 35.30* 3.A3 3.50 9A.75 3.50 - 3.00 3. Al l * n p l 1 transportation -A. 17 -3.16 A.A? A.AA -A. 12 A. 20 -A. 06 9A.56 - 3. A 5 4A.67 ♦A. 91 A.3A Financial records 3.60 -2.61* IA. 79 IA.77 -A. (10 -3.30 9 A. 50 9A.55 9 5 .3A* 4A. TJ* A. 15 A.26 Account ali 11 11 v <3.3/ 3.7? 13.53 IA.02 3.10 3.11 3.10 -2.30 4 A. 25 -1.70 -1.37 3. IA EvaluatIon * 3. it 1 -2.00 lA .67* -2.81 33.51 33.20 3.73 -2.56 9 A. 2 5 -1.20 -2.3A 2.99 IVr puiill expenditure -1 .AA* -1.71 -1.12 2. A A 3 1.08 33.19 33.01 92.71 4 A. 2 2 2.3A -1.50 2.A5 Bonds 9 1.07 -0.00* 32.35* 0.50 0.6A -0.00* 31.09 -0.17* 0.65 -0.00* -0.00* 0.56 Revenue -3.12 3.53 -2.62 9A.31 3.62 +A.18 32.26 -3.28 -3.19 -3.08 3A.AA 3.57 Mean 3.27 3.00 3.59 3.87 3.52 3.67 3. Al 3.A7 3.62 3.16 3.79 3.59 Notea: The score* (or the r.iclflc rep I on are omitted from thl* table because of tho unusual deviation of Hawaii, one state of a two-state act. The scores for the region are Included, however. In all roporta of means for all states. - ~ less than mean SCS for all states by 0.20 + - more than SCS for all states by 0.20 * Indicates a "t" value significant at less than .15. oo oo NO FORM A S ta te ______County ______D is tr ic t______No. of Elementary Schools in District ______No. of Elementary Schools to be Sampled (N/UPE) ______Random Numbers ______ Code ------E n ro l1- N . n y of School AHdrrna rrlnelp.il wont Tenchcra c n c d j c d d C D C L D C D D c n c n u r r n on ajjcm C D C C D C D D C D C C D C D D 333 APPENDIX B SAMPLING INFORMATION AND COVERLETTERS 1. Cover L etter to the Principal 2. Cover Letter to the Teacher 3. Cover Letter to the State Science Supervisor (Consultant) 4. Follow-up Letters and Follow-up Forms 5. Elementary Science Teacher Selection Method 6. Study Description 334 335 Th* Ohio SIX* Untvenlty Academic Faculty of Sctanc* and M athem atics Education 2 8 3 A rp s H all IMS North High Street Columbus. Ohio 43210 Plton* 614 422-4121 March 20, 1980 During the 1950'a and 1960's substantial emphasis vas placed on the Improvement of science teaching and learning In elementary schools. Recognizing the need for Identifying science teaching conditions In public schools. The Ohio State University (OSU) conducted a National Survey of Elementary Schools in the early 70's and smaller surveys after that time. A study Is being conducted by the SMEAC Information Center of OSU to Identify changes that have occurred In science programs and practices from 1970-71 to 1979-80 and ldenclfy some variables related to state control of education, state financial support and teachers' and principals' attitudes toward the change process. Your school was Included in the 1970-71 study and selected for this study. Your participation In this study vhich Is voluntary Is highly appreciated and will provide useful information regarding the process of change In schools, the selection of Instructional materials and the development of science curricula. Your willingness to participate In this study Is appreciated. Enclosed for yourrevlew Is a sample of material which contains: 1. A description of the study. 2. A set of the principals' Instruments (three questionnaires). 3. A set of the teachers' instruments (three questionnaires). A letter and a description of the study are,attached to each set of Instruments for each teacher. 6. Procedures for selecting three science teachers on your staff. 5. A copy of reports from one of the previous studies. Please feel free to call or write If you desire clarification of any aspect of this study. All the Information collected from these questionnaires will be kept confidential. No names or other Identification for schools and Individuals responding to questionnaires will be released In the final report. Each school participating In this study will get a summary of this study. The success of the study depends on your cooperation. We are sure that your cooperation in this project will provide data of Interest to both administrators and teachers as well as to curriculum developers. Please complete this form and return by April 10, 1980 or call collect (616) 622-6717 (ERIC Center). The self-addressed, stamped envelope Is enclosed for your convenience. An early response will be gready appreciated. Again, we wish to express our gratitude to you for your cooperation. Thank you. Sincerely, CL,, Robert U. Howe Chazl R. Audeh Director of SMEAC Graduate Research Associate Professor of Science Education Enclosure RWH/GRA/dmw 336 Th* Ohio Slate U ntvm lty Academic Faculty of Seianc* and M athamatiea Education 2B3 Arps Hall 1945 North Hijn Street Columbus. Ohio 43210 Phona 614 422-4121 March 20. 1980 Dear Principal: During the 1950's and 1960's substantial emphasis was placed on the Improvement of science teaching and learning In elementary schools. Recognizing the need for Identifying science teaching conditions In public shcools. The Ohio State University (OSU) conducted a National Survey of Elementary Schools In the early 70's and smaller surveys after that time. A Study Is being conducted by the SMEAC Information Reference Center of OSU Co Identify changes that have occurred in science programs and practices from 1970-71 to1979-80 and Identify some variables related to state control of education, state financial support and teachers' and principals' atclcudes toward the change process. Your school was Included in the 1970-71 study and selected for this study. Your participation In this study Is highly appreciated and will provide useful Information regarding the process of change In schools, the selection of Instructional materials and the development of science curricula. Enclosed are: (1) A description of the study (2) A package of materials which contains: a. Three Instruments to be completed by you b. Three instruments to be completed by each of the selected teachers. A letter and a description of the study are attached to each set of Instruments for each teacher. (3) Procedures for selecting three teachers Us are requesting you to: (1) Randomly select three teachers on your staff (2) Give each selected teacher a set of the teachers' Instruments and a self-addressed stamped envelope (3) Complete the principal Instruments and return directly to us in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope by April 20, 1980 or as soon as convenient. All the Information collected from these questionnaires will be kept confidential. No names or other Identification for schools and Individuals responding to questionnaires will be released In the final report. The success of the study depends on your cooperation and on completing the Instruments to the best of your ability. We are sure that your cooperation In this project will provide data of Interest to both administrators and teachers as well as to curriculum developers. A copy of one of the previous reports Is enclosed for your review. Each school participating In this study will get a summary of this study also. Please feel free to call or write If you desire clarification of any aspect of this study. Again, we wish to express our gratitude to you for your cooperation. Thank you. Sincerely fcd'U'y^ZO Robert U . Howe Ghazl R. Audah Director of SMEAC Graduate Research Associate Professor of Science Education Enclosure RWH/CRA/bara The Ohio State University Faculty of Science and Mathematics Education 253 Arps Hall Columbus. Ohio 43210 Phone 614 422-4121 March 20, 1980 Dear Teacher: During r.he 1950's and 1960's substantial emphasis was placed on the Improvement of science teaching and learning in elementary schools. Recognizing the need for Identifying science teaching conditions in public schools, The Ohio State University (OSU) conducted a National Survey of Elementary Schools in the early 70's and smaller surveys after that time. A study Is being conducted by the SMEAC Information Reference Center of OSU to identify changes that have occurred in science programs and practices from 1970-71 to 1979-80 and identify some variables related to state control of education, state financial support and teachers' and p rin cip als' a ttitu d e s toward the change process. Your school was Included in the 1970-71 study and selected for this study. Your participation In this study is highly appreciated and will provide useful Information regarding the process of change in schools, the selection of instructional materials and the development of science curricula. Enclosed are: (1) a description of the study; and (2) three Instruments to be completed by you. We are requesting you to complete these Instruments and return them directly to us in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope by April 20, 1980 or as soon as convenient. All the Information collected from these questionnarles will be kept confidential. No names or other identification for schools and individuals responding to the questionnaires will be released in the final report. The success of the study depends on your cooperation and on completing the Instruments to the best of your ability. 'Je are sure that your cooperation in this project will provide data of Interest to both administrators and teachers as well as curriculum developers. A copy of a previous study has been sent to your principal. A summary of this study will be sent to your school also. Please feel free to call or write If you desire clarification of any aspects of this study. Again, we wish to express our gratitude to you for your cooperation. Thank you. Sincerely, Robert U. Howe Ghaz Audett Director of SMEAC Graduate Research Associate Professor of Science Education RWH/GRA/bam Enclosures College ol Education Ths Ohio SUta Unlvaralty ERICl' Clearinghouse lor Scltnco, Mathamatlca and Environmental Education Room 310 1200 Chamber* Road Columbus. Ohio 43212 Phono 61* 422-6717 March 20, 1980 During the 1950’s and 1960’s substantial emphasis was placed on the Improvement of science teaching and learning In elementary schools. Recognizing the need for identifying science teaching conditions in public schools. The Ohio State University (OSU) conducted a National Survey of Elementary Schools in the early 70’s and smaller surveys after that time. A study is being conducted by the SMEAC Information Reference Center of OSU to identify changes that have occurred in science programs and practices from 1970-71 to 1979-80 and identify some variables related to sta te control of education, state financial support and teachers' and principals' attitudes toward the change process. Your state was included in the 1970-71 study and selected for this study. Your help and cooperation in this study is highly appreciated. We hope the study will provide useful information regarding the process of change in schools, the selection of instructional materials and the development of science curricula. Enclosed are: (1) a description of the study; (2) a set of teachers' and principals' questionnaires for your information; (3) a list of the selected shcools in your state; (4) packages of materials for each of the selected schools; (5) copies of reports from one of the previous surveys. Please mail the packages to the schools. Directions are provided with each package for the selected schools. Principals and teachers are requested to mail all the completed questionnaires directly to us by April 20, 1980 or as soon as convenient. All the information collected from these questionnaires will be kept confidential. No names and other identifications for schools and individuals responding to questionnaires will be released in the final report. The success of the study depends on your cooperation. We are sure that your cooperation in this project will provide data of interest to both administrators and teachers as well as curriculum developers. Please feel free to call or write if you desire clarification of any aspects of this study. Again, we wish to express our gratitude to you for your cooperation. Thanks. Sincerely, Robert W. Howe Ghazl R. Audeh Director of SMEAC Graduate Research Associate Professor of Science Education Enclosure RWH/GRA/draw The Ohio StateUnlveraity ERIC* Cltarlnghout* lor Science. Mathematics and Envlronmanial Education Room 310 1200 Chambers Road Columbus. Ohio 43212 Phone 614 422-6717 Early In April we sent to you through the Science Consultant In the Department of Education, materials for a study of science teaching In elementary schools. The materials included four sets of Instruments; one to be completed by you, and the other three each by a teacher who teaches science in the school. We have received the responses from: Principal Teacher if 1 Teacher 1/2 Teacher <13 / / / / / / / / For the success of the study a high rate of response is desired. We are soliciting your help and cooperation in this matter. Please check the boxes on the enclosed form, for each respondent, and return i t in the stamped envelope provided by June 5, 1980 or as soon as convenient. Please feel free to call collect (612) 422-6717 (ERIC Center) if you desire c la rific a tio n of any aspect of this study. We wish to express our gratitude for your assistance. Thank you. Ghazl Director of SMEAC Graduate Research Associate Professor of Science Ed Enclosure dmv College of Education Academic Faculty ol Science-Mathematics Education The Ohio State University ERIC Clearinghouse for Science. Mathematics and Environmental Education Room 310 1200 Chambers Road Columbus, Ohio 43212 Phone 614 422-6717 Early in April we sent to you through the Science Consultant in the Department of Education, materials for a study of science teaching in elementary schools. The materials Included four sets of Instruments; one to be completed by you, and the other three each by a teacher who teaches science in the school. We are sending you another four sets of questionnaires, as requested by you last May during the telephone call, to replace the lost ones. We are soliciting your help and cooperation in this matter. The data from your school is Important since we wish to obtain representative information from your state. Any effort on your part that will facilitate the return of the responses will be highly appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, Robert W. Howe Ghazl R. Aqdeh Director of SMEAC Graduate Research Associate Professor of Science Education dmw College of Education Academic Faculty of Science-Mathematics Education Tha Ohio Stata Univaraity ERIC* Cltaringhouia for Sclenca. Malhamatica and Environmental Education Room 310 1200 Chambers Road Columbus. Ohio 43212 Phone 614 422-6717 In response to the phone c a ll on concerning the OSU Elementary Schools Study, a complete set of materials Is enclosed. Your willingness to participate in this study is highly appreciated. Again, we wish to express our gratitude to you for your cooperation. Thank you. Sincerely Robert W. Howe Ghazl R. Audeh Director of SMEAC Graduate Research Associate Professor of Science Education Enclosure gra College ol Education Academic Faculty ol Science-Mathematica Education The Ohio State University e r i c ]* Clearinghouse lot Scltnca. OSU Mathematics and Environmanul Education Room 310 August 19, 1980 1200 Chambers Road Columbus. Ohio 43212 Phone 614 422-6717 In tha Spring of 1980, four se ts of questionnaires were mailed to you from the Ohio State University Center for Science and Mathematics Education. The inform ation was requested from you and from three of your teachers. Wa were encouraged by your positive response to the telephone calls, however, we have not received the response from the: Principal Teacher #1 Teacher1 2 Teacher #3 o o o o The data from your school is important since we wish to obtain representative information from your state. Any effort on your part that will facilitate the return of the responses will be highly appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, /Cr&of-'fZZ/ Robert W. Howe Ghazl Director of SMEAC Graduate Research Associate Professor of Science Education dmw College of Education Academic Faculty of Science-Mathematics Education ' 343 c n \.i / SMEAC/INFORMATION REFERENCE CENTER THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX FOR EACH RESPONDENT: P T1 T2 T3 EJ / / E J E J Completed questionnaires have been returned to OSU. EJ EJ EJ EJ Questionnaires will be completed and mailed a b o u t ______ EJ EJ EJ EJ Questionnaires have been received, but we are unable to participate in this Study. EJ EJ EJ EJ Questionnaires have not been received or have been lost. Please send another set. Comments: ______ Thank you! Please Return Answer Sheet To: Ghazi R. Audeh, Graduate Research Associate SMEAC Information Reference Center 1200 Chambers Road, Room 310 Columbus, OH 43212 Phone: (614) 422-6717 344 Teacher Selection Method We request your cooperation in randomly selecting three teachers on your staff to participate in this study. The method of selecting these teachers is as follows: 1. List the names of all teachers who teach full-time in your school, and are responsible for science instruction in their classes. Please do not include in your selection any teacher who has started working only last fu ll (1979) in your school. 2. Select your techers according to the following criteria: If the total number of teachers in your school is: a. Less than or equal to 3, select all of them. b. Greater than 3, please write the number for each teacher on a piece of paper. Put all these papers (which have to be of equal size) in a container. Pick three papers and select the three teachers on your l i s t with these numbers. Example: 1. If you have 10 teachers and you picked papers with numbers 2, 5, 7 select teachers with numbers 2, 5, 7 on your list. 2. If you have 5 teachers and you picked papers with numbers 1, 2, 5 select teachers with numbers 1, 2, 5 on your list. STUDY DESCRIPTION Following Is a description of the study to provide Information to the participating principal and teacher(s). I. Size of the Study The target population of this study consists of public elementary schools (grades K-6) which p articip ated in the 1970-71 OSU study and in which both the principal and the teacher responded. Ten states were selected according to certain c rite ria . Ten schools were selected randomly for each s ta te . The principal of each of the sampled schools and three teachers are requested to participate in this study. II. Principal and Teacher Participation The principal of each of the sampled schools w ill be requested to select randomly three teachers to p articip ate in the study. Each principal and teacher is requested to complete two questionnaires and one checklist. The first questionnaire is concerned with the status of science teaching in the current 1979-80 school year. The second questionnaire deals with attitudes toward changes in science programs and practices. The Checklist for Assessment of Science Teacher (CAST) will be used to measure principals' and teachers' perceptions of what usually takes place or should cake place in the science classroom. The instruments used are listed below. The approximate times for completing each instrument are given in parentheses. Principal Data: 1. Status of Science Teaching Public Elementary Schools in 1979-80 school year. Principal Questionnaire (15-25 minutes) 2. Attitudes toward Science Curriculum and Instruction. Principal Questionnaire (15-25 minutes) 3. Checklist for Assessment of Science Teacher (CAST:PP). Principal's Perception (10-20 minutes) Teacher Data: 1. Status of Science Teaching in Public Elementary Schools in 1979-80 school year. Science Teacher Questionnaire (15-25 minutes) 2. Attitudes toward Science Curriculum and Instruction. Teacher Questionnaire (15-25 minutes) 3. Checklist for Assessment of Science Teacher (CAST:TP). Teacher's Perception (10-20 minutes) Principals and teachers are requested to return their completed questionnaires in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. The names and other identification of school principals, teachers, and schools will be kept confidential. All information will be treated in a professional manner. APPENDIX C DATA GATHERING INSTRUMENTS 1. Status of Science Teaching in Public Elementary Schools: Principal's Questionnaire (Q:SP) 2. Attitudes toward Science Curriculum and Instruction: Principal's Questionnaire (Q:AP) 3. Checklist for Assessment of Science Teacher: Principal Perception (CAST:PP) 4. Status of Science Teaching in Public Elementary Schools: Teacher Questionnaire (Q:ST) 5. Attitudes toward Science Curriculum and Instruction: Teacher Questionnaire (Q:AT) 6. Checklist for Assessment of Science Teacher: Teacher Perception (CAST:TP) 346 SMEAC Information Reference Center College of Education The Ohio State University 1200 Chambers Road, Room 310 Columbus, Ohio 43212 STATUS OF SCIENCE TEACHING IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Selected Sample for 1979-80 PRINCIPAL'S QUESTIONNAIRE Name of School: Address of School: (number) (stre e t) (city) (county) (state) (zip) General Instructions This questionnaire is to be answered for an individual public elementary school, not for the school system at large. Please read the questionnaire before beginning to f i l l out the form. Check ( • /) , or f i l l in every item that applies. I. School Organization and Scheduling: 1. Please check the grade levels or grade equivalents that are in your school: Please give the enrollment for each grade level in your school as of F all 1979. Give also the to ta l school enrollment. If you do not have students in a particular grade level, please leave the corresponding space blank. Enrollment Grade Level Enrollment Grade Level K 4 1 5 2 6 3 (Total school enrollment: ______) 348 3. Indicate the prevailing way the children are organized for science Instruction in your school: Grade Standard Grades Non-Graded K I 2 3 4 5 6 4. In what grades and for how many weeks per school year Is science taught? Indicate also the number of minutes per week (on the average) science is being taught at each grade level. Minutes Number of Weeks Grade Per Week 0-8 9-17 18-26 27-36 K I 2 3 4 5 6 S. Please check the trend In pupil enrollment over the past three years in your school (1977 - 1979): Decrease: _____ Increase: No significant change: _____ II. Teaching Staff For Item 1 the following definitions apply: Full-tim e teachers: Those teachers who occupy teaching positions which require full-time service everyday, throughout the school year and have a contract for 1007. of the time. Part-tim e teachers: Those teachers who occupy teaching positions which require less than 1007, of the time. (Substitute teachers, defined as persons employed on a day-to-day basis, are NOT considered as part-time teachers in this study). 349 1. Specify the number of regularly employed teachers (a ll grades) In your school. Sex Number of full-cine teachers Number of Part-time ceachers Male ______ Female ______ Who teaches science to the children in your school? (Check a ll that applies). a ) A special science ceacher...... b) Their regular classroom teacher...... 1) u lth no help from an elemen tary science specialist or consultant ...... 11) u lth help from an elementary science specialist or con su lta n t ...... c) Other (specify) ...... H I. Science Budget 1. Does your school have an annual budget for the purchase of new science equipment (excluding books)? Yes: ______No: ______ If yes, uhat Is the total amount of money for such equipment In 1979-80?: $ ______ 2. Does your school have an annual budget for the purchase of consumable science supplies such as chemicals, batteries, balloons (excluding books)? Yes: ______No: ______ If yes, what Is the total amount of money for such supplies In 1979-80?: S ______ 3. Does your school have an annual budget for the purchase of Instruc tional material? Yes: ______No: ______ If yes, uhat Is the total amount of money for such materials in 1979-80?: $ ______ 4. Are your elementary science teachers permitted to purchase equip ment and supplies periodically throughout the school year? Yes: No: 350 5. To what exteat are equipment and supplies for science demonstrations and experiments available In your school? (Check one column for each grade level). Supplies Completely lacking Inadequate Adequate K ______1-3 ______4-6 ______Equipment K ______1-3 ______4-6 ______ 6. Have you had any budget cuts during the la st three years In your school that have affected the science curriculum? Yes: No: If yes, please check the responses that describe the effects that budget cuts have had on your school: a) Class size has Increased. b) More teaching from textbooks; less projects and lab work. c) Less money for Instructional materials and equipment. d) Good teachers have been "le t go" and not replaced. a) In-service programs have been reduced. f) Students must purchase their own textbooks and/or lab manual. 8 ) Other (specify): . 7. What la the practice regarding the adoption of science textbook series? (Check one for each grade group In your school). K 1 2 3 4 5 6 No science textbook series adopted. . . . Single science textbook series adopted. Two or more science series adopted: . . . 8. In what type of room is science predominantly taught In your school? KI 2 3 4 5 6 a) Regular classroom ...... 1) with no special facilities for science ...... 11) with special f a c ilitie s for science ...... b) Special room to which the children go for science ...... c) Other (Specify): 351 IV. Course Offerings Please specify the number of children In your school by grade level which use any of the following curriculum material(s) during the 1979-80 school year. If particular course materials are not being used in your school, please leave the corresponding spaces blank. Science Course M aterial Year of Publica K 1 2 3 tion 5 6 Concepts in Science (Brandweln). . . 1I •1 Elementary Science Learning by Investigating (ESLI) ...... Heath Science Series (Schneider). . 1 1 Introductory Physical Science (Haber-Shaim)...... Investigating in Science (Jacobson). Kindergarten Keys (Economy) ...... 1 Modern Elementary Science (F ls c h le r)...... i i Modular A c tiv itie s Program in Science (Serger) ...... i New Laldlaw Science Program (Sm ith)...... Science: A Process Approach i (SAPA) ...... i t Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS): Life Science .... Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS): Physical Science . . 1 I Science: Understanding Your En vironment (Mallinson) ...... Steck-Vaughn Elementary Science Series (Ware)...... Today's Basic Science Series (N avarra) ...... 1 i i ' Elementary School Science (ESS) i Others (specify) I ! i 2. Do you use formal procedures In your school for Identifying children with special Interests, aptitudes, or talents In any area of your curriculum? Yes: ______No: ______ 3. Do you use formal procedures for Identifying children with special interest In science? Yes: ______No: ______ 4. a) Is Environmental and/or Conservation Science taught in your school Yes: ______No: ______ If yes, please answer 4b: b) Is Environmental and/or Conservation Science taught as s separate subject or in relation to other subjects? (Check the appropriate space for each grade level). K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Taught sep arately ...... Taught with science ...... Taught with social studies. . Taught with two or more subjects Including science . Other (specify): Change you working at this school du ring the 197C)-71 schc ol year Yes: No: If yes, please check the kind of work you were doing: Administrator: ______Teacher:______ 2. Please indicate how many years you have been principal of this school (count 1979-80 as one year). _____ years 3. Have major changes been made since 1971 in your school science program? Yes: ______No: ______ If yes, please complete a and b; if no, go on to i)4. 353 a) Please check all Items below which best describe the major changes in your school science program: Revised courses Developed new materials locally _ _ _ _ Changed textbooks Reduced student Increased student science requirements science requirements _ _ _ Other (specify) _____ b) Please indicate what you believe are the ba3lc reasons for changes that havi taken place: 4. How satisfied are you with your current science program? a) _____ Very sa tisfie d b) _____ S atisfied c) Neutral d) D issatisfied e) _____ Very d issatisfie d 5. If you marked any of c, d or e in -*4 above, please indicate what you would like to change: 354 nrrrrrrr SMUAC Iruorndtiun Center Ca U p ^i. of Education The Ohio State University 1200 CIijr.h»rs Hold, Room 310 voiunbu&, OH h3-.i 2 ATTITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION PRINC1FAL QUESTIONNAIRE Please road the questionnaire to get an idea of the scope of questions before beginning to fill out the form. Please provide a response for each question. Thank you for your cooperation .and a ssista n ce. I. DECISION MAKING 1. How cuch influence do you feel you have ir. detemini.-.g the science curriculum for your building? (Circle your response) 2. How much influence do you feel each of the following orouos or individuals ho: in determining the science curriculum for ycur building? (Circle your recponse) State Department of Education ...... 3 2 1 D istrict Superintendent ...... 3 2 1 Central Staff (Curriculum Coordinator or Supervisor) ...... 3 2 1 Local School Board 3 2 1 P r i n c i p a l ...... 3 2 1 T eachers...... 3 2 1 S tu d en ts ...... 3 2 1 P a r e n t s ...... 3 2 1 Other (Specify) 3. How much influence do you ftol you should have in determining the science curriculum in your building? (Circle your respense) 355 4. How much influence do you feel each of the following groups or Individuals should have in determining the science curriculum in your building? (Circle your rosponsas) / 4? State Department of Education ...... 3 1 D iatrlct Superintendent ...... 1 Central Staff (Curriculum Coordinator or Supervisor). 1 Local School Board ...... 1 P r in c i p a l ...... 1 T e a c h e rs...... S tu d e n ts ...... P a re n ts ...... Other (Specify) I I . CHANGES IN SCIENCE CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION 1. Which of the following conditions best describes your general attitude toward the intro duction of new practices and materials in your building? (Circle your response) 2. Which of the following conditions do you believe best describes the general attitude of each of the following groucs or individuals coward Che introduction of new practices and materials in your building? (Circle your response) / X a* a® 4(? Wr / N* -* / / / / ■a® State Department of Education ...... 4 3 2 1 D istrict Superintendent ...... 4 3 2 1 Central Staff (Curriculum Coordinator or Supervisor) . . . . , . 5 4 3 2 1 Local School Board ...... 4 3 2 1 P r in c ip a l ...... 4 3 2 1 T e a c h e rs...... 4 3 2 1 S tu d e n ts ...... 4 3 2 1 P a re n ts ...... 4 3 2 1 Other (Specify) III. RESOURCES 1. What do you brlicve should he rrnnt on new science materials and programs compared to current spending? (Circle your response) T reat local funds . From state funds • From federal funds 2 . In your opinion* how much additional science equipment and supplies are needod in your school? (Circle your response) 3. Zn your opinion* how useful Is the information you get about new practices and materials in science education from each of the following? (Circle your response) P c rio n -to-Person Communication Contact With s i/ r > •b/ 1 . Your Building /• / * ° a. Teachers in your school ...... 2 1 2 . Your School District (Other than your building) a. Teachers outside your school, but within your school district ...... 2 1 b . Principals outside your school, but within your school district ...... 2 1 c . Curriculum specialists within your school district .... 2 1 d. Other professionals within your school district ...... 2 1 a. Other (Specify) 3 . Outside Your School D istrict a. Teachers outside your school district...... 2 1 b . Principals outside your school district ...... 2 1 c . State department personnel ...... 2 1 d . Curriculum specialists outside your school district, but not from state department ...... 2 1 a. Textbook sales representatives ...... 2 1 f . College professors ...... 2 1 9 - Sciencs project and materials developers ...... 2 1 h . Other (Specify) 357 /, / s. Printed Communication /k -S' a4. 4? 4? 1 . Professional journals and periodicals 2 1 2 . Textbooks and other books ...... 2 1 3. Bulletins and newsletters ...... 2 1 4. Other (Specify) c. Formal Courses and Ir.serviees Education 1 . Formal Courses. a. Regular college courses and workshops 2 1 b. Special college courses and workshops (designed in cooperation with local or regional groups especially for them)...... 2 1 2 . Inservice Programs. a. Local district lnservica programs (seminars, workshops, etc.) ...... 2 1 b. County or intermediate unit lnservlce program s (seminars, workshops, etc.) ...... 3 2 1 c. State inservice programs (seminars, workshops, etc.). . . . 2 1 d. National Science Foundation (HSF) or other federally-sponsored mservice programs (courses, seminars, workshops, e tc .) ...... 2 1 «. bfrfer (Specify) D. Hass Media 1 . Educational TV ...... 2 1 2 . Commercial TV ...... 2 1 3. Educational Radio ...... 2 4. Commercial Radio ...... 2 1 5. newspapers or Magazines ...... 2 1 6 . Other (Specify) E. Meetings of Professional Crosm oat ions 1 . 2 1 2 . State professional organizations ...... 2 1 3. National professional organizations . . . 2 1 4. Other (Specify) 358 4 . Ploase indicate how useful each of the following typos of Information would be to you. A. Informationabout Curriculum 3 2 1. National Sclenca Foundation(NSF) sponsored materials 3 2 2. State curriculum guides and materials ...... 3 2 3. Locally developed curriculum materials ...... 3 2 4. Implementation strategies ...... 3 2 5. Supplementary activities ...... 3 2 6 . Philosophy/Rationale underlying curriculum ...... 3 2 7. Other (Specify) B. Information about Instruction 3 2 1. T each in g te c h n iq u e s ...... 3 2 2. Laboratory techniques ...... 3 2 3. In d iv id u a liz e d i n s t r u c t i o n ...... 3 2 4. Televised instruction ...... 3 2 5. Audiovisual instruction ...... 3 2 6 . O th e r (S p ecify ) C. Informationabout Classroom Management ...... 3 2 1. Students' behavior ...... 3 2 2. Classroom management ...... 3 2 D. Informationabout Evaluation Methodology ...... 3 2 E. Informationabout Policies, Standards, andRegulations ...... 3 2 F. Informationabout Budget and Expenditures ...... 3 2 G. Informationabout Court and Judicial Decisions Related to Education ...... 3 2 H. Cther (Specify) 359 5. It you request information about science naterials and practices frcnt a source such as a publisher. ERIC, state department of education, etc., how soon do you usually neod the following types of information? (circle your response) A. In fo rm a tio nab o u t C urriculum ...... 4 3 2 1. National Science foundation(NSF) sponsored m aterials ...... 4 3 2 2. State curriculum guides and materials ...... 4 3 2 3. Local developed curriculum materials ...... 4 3 2 4. Implementation strategies 4 3 2 5. Supplementary activities 4 3 2 6 . Philosophy/Rationale underlying curriculum ...... 4 3 2 7. Other (Specify) B. Informationabout Instruction ...... 4 3 2 1. Teaching techniques 4 3 2 2. Laboratory techniques ...... 4 3 2 3. Individualized Instruction ...... 4 3 2 4. Televised instruction ...... 4 3 2 5. Audiovisual instruction ...... 4 3 2 6 . Other (Specify) C. Information about Classroom Management ...... 4 3 2 1, Students' behavior ...... 4 3 2 2. Classroom management ...... 4 3 2 □. Information about Evaluation Methodology ...... 4 3 2 E. Informationabout Policies, Standards, andRegulations ...... 4 3 2 r. Informationabout Budget and Expenditures ...... 4 3 2 Z. Informationabout Court and Judicial Decisions Related to Education 4 3 2 H. Other (Specify) 360 IV . FEDERAL SUPPORT FOP CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: 1 . plea*. Indicate your acreenent or disaqreenent with each of the followlr.q statements about federal aupport for science course irrrovement. (Circle your response) $ 3 Aw * o? *c . i t a. Federal support for course improvement and *• i; g -i dissemination has improved the quality *0 ** of curriculum alternatives available to schools 5 4 3 2 b. The federal course improvement effort has improved the quality of classroom instruction 5 4 3 2 c. The federal government should direct more attention toward disseminatino materials and nractices 5 4 3 2 d. Federal support of the development of materials and practices is probably unnecessary S 4 3 2 e. Federal support for course improvement and dissemination tends to create a nationally uniform curriculum 5 4 3 2 f. The National Science Foundation (NSF) shculd sponsor programs to help teachers learn to implement NSF-funded courses and materials S 4 2 2 g. The National Science Foundation (NSF) should sponsor programs to help teachers learn to implement non-NSF funded courses and materials 5 4 3 2 h. Federal funding should be provided to schools for the purchase of lab equipment and facilities ...... 5 4 3 2 2 . In your opinion, what effect has the recent reduction of the National Science Foundation funds for science education nad on science curricula? (Circle your response) 361 V. SCIENCE PROGRAMS 1. How important are the following for the elementary school science program? (Circle your response) Tactual knowledge: Pacts, concepts, principles ...... 3 2 Processes of science ...... 3 2 Interaction of science and society...... 3 2 Interaction of science and technology 3 2 Values and ethics of science ...... 3 2 Appreciation of human and scientific endeavor ...... 3 2 Attitudes toward science ...... 3 2 Interrelationship of science and humanities 3 2 Career knowledge and awareness 3 2 S k i l l s ...... 3 2 Nature of science ...... 3 2 Relationships of self and environment ...... * 3 2 V I . BARRIERS TO CHANCE 1. The following factors may have a neoatlve effect on the Improvement of practice In your science program. In your opinion, how much of a problem is each of the following? (Circle your response) s * 9 9 O c As J f i “S n Lack of lnservlce opportunities ...... Lack o f ad eq u ate c o n s u lt a n t s e r v i c e s ...... Inadequate facilities ...... Lack of science equipment and supplies ...... Lack of materials for individualized instruction. Insufficient budget ...... High costs of curriculum m aterials ...... Out-of-date teaching materials ...... No agreement on what should be included in the curriculum . Schools believe other areas are more important than science. Inadequate student reading ability. Inadequate articulation of instruction across classrooms within a building Inadequate articulation of instruction across classrooms across buildings within a district ...... Teachers do not have sufficient science knowledqo ...... 2 Teachers do not know methods for teaching science ...... 2 Inability of teachers to inprovisa materials and equipment 2 Not enough time to teach science ...... 2 Lack of interest of teachers ...... 2 Lack of federal support for curriculum development. 2 Lack of state support for curriculum development ...... 2 Lack of local support for curriculum development ...... 2 Lack of administrative support for change in scienceprogram. 2 Lack of cccmunity support for change in science program , . , 2 Lack of staff support for change in science program ...... 2 State regulations and policies ...... 2 Federal regulations and policies ...... 2 Lack of communication between principals and teachers 2 Lack of consultants ...... 2 Lack of tanoible Incentives to faculty ...... 2 Lack of intangible Incentives to faculty ...... 2 Increasing emphasis on basic skills and knowledge 2 Other (Specify) Recent research studies havr identified a number of tangible incentives. Please select -u~ae and cnly throe of the following tangible incentives which you feel would encourage te a c n e r s to try ideas for the improvement of practice. Mark the most important "3," the second most important "2," and the third most important "1." Extra pay for special activities Salary differential College credit Released time Travel funds Participating in workshops and in-service training courses Promotion Other (specify) ______ Recent research studies have identified a number of intangible incentives. Which of these intangible incentives do you feel would be most important for encouraging teachers to try ideas for the improvement. Select the three highest. Mark the most important "3," the second most important "2," and third most important "1." Recognition and prestige of excellence Opportunity to pursue beliefs and ideals Opportunity to pursue new ideas Desire to know and understand Desire to escape from boredom and routine Professional interest or commitment Intrinsic satisfaction derived from doing better teaching Opportunity for the development of strong and lasting group affiliation based on shared purposes Increase sense of influence over educational outcomes A possible solution to perceived student needs Other (specify) Which type of science curricula do you prefer in your school? Please check one. a. A textbook; use with very little modification, b. A textbook) use parts and supplement with other materials. c. Several textbooks; use each when it is most appropriate for the students. d. Teacher developed materials for a local program. e. Other (specify) ______ END OF THE PRINCIPAL'S QUESTIONNAIRE THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION SMEAC Information Reference Center College of Education The Ohio State University 1200 Chambers Road, Room 310 Columbus, Ohio 43212 ♦CHECKLIST FOR ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHERS: PRINCIPAL'S PERCEPTION (CAST: PP) The purpose of this checklist is to determine the types of activities which you feel usually cake place or should take place In your classrooms. Please select the response for each item that 3EST describes what usually does take place AND what vou believe should take place in your classrooms. Respond as you believe your teachers w ill respond for what does take place; respond as you believe what should cake place. Use the answer sheet provided. Example How often are hands-on materials used In your science classrooms? (a) Once a week (b) Twice a week (c) Three times ei week Does take place a b d e £ Should take place abed f ♦This instrument was adapted from the work of Robert W. Howe, William R. and Betty J. Brown, 283 Arps H all, The Ohio Scate U niversity, November 1970, edition. 365 1. What do the pupils do In your class? a. The pupils often discuss the problems faced by scientists in the discovery of a scientific principle. They also discuss the kind of evidence that is behind a scientist's conclusions. If the students do not agree with me, I encourage them to say so. The students are frequently given time in class to talk among themselves about ideas In science. They usually do most of the experiments and demonstrations themselves. b. The pupils sometimes discuss the problems faced by scientists in the discovery of a scientific principle. They also discuss the evidence that is behind a scientist's conclusions. They sometimes do experiments and demonstrations themselves. They can question what I say. c. The pupils Infrequently discuss the problems faced by scientists in the discovery of a scientific principle. They spend part of the class time answering my questions. They also write answers to questions from their textbook or study guides. They do some experiments themselves. d. The pupils ask questions to clarify what I, or the textbook, have cold them. They watch me do demonstrations. They write answers to questions from the textbook or study guides. They answer my questions. e. The pupils must copy down and memorize what I ce ll them. Most of the pupils' questions are to clear up what I or the textbook has told them. They often write answers to my questions or to questions from the textbook or study guides (if used). 2. What is your role in your classroom? a. I help the pupils understand the general objectives or purposes of a lesson before they begin work on the lesson. I question the pupils about ideas thac the pupils have studied previously. I often ask the pupils to explain diagrams and graphs. b. I often question the pupils about ideas that they have studied previously and about the evidence that is behind statements that are made in the textbook. I sometimes ask the pupils to explain diagrams and graphs. c. I spend most of the class time telling the pupils about science. I repeat much of what the textbook says. I sometimes question the pupils about ideas chat they have studied. d. I sometimes repeac exaccly what the textbook says. If there is a disagreement among pupils during a discussion, I usually tell the pupils who is right. Most of the time I tell the pupils about science. e. I show the pupils chat science has almost all of the answers co questions about the natural world. If there is a disagreement among pupils during a discussion, I tell the pupils who is right. I often repeat exactly what Che textbook says. 366 3. How do you use the textbook and reference materials? a. I expect Che pupils to find the major ideas In the textbook and the evidence to support the Ideas. I show the pupils how to question Ideas In the textbook. I provide time for the pupils to read about science In magazines and books other than the textbook. b. I expect the pupils to learn some of the details In the textbook. There are books and magazines In the room If the pupils want to uae them. I show che pupils how to question Ideas In the textbook. c. I expect the pupils to learn many of the details in the textbook. I have the pupils look for some of the major Ideas in the textbook and the evidence to support the ideas. I sometimes require pupils to outline parts of the textbook. The only science talked about Is from the textbook and my notes. d. I expect the pupils to outline part of the textbook. The only science talked about is from che textbook and my notes. I require Che pupils to learn most of the details In the textbook. c. I do not like che pupils to question information In the textbook. I often have the pupils write out definitions to words. I require the pupils to o utline parts of che textbook and co memorize most of the d e ta ils In che textbook. f. Nona la used In my class. 4. How are your tests designed and how are they used? a. My tests have many questions about the laboratory activities. The tests often require the pupils co figure out answers to new problems. Sometimes che pupils must find ways of looking for answers to problems. Often they must repeat skills they have learned In che laboratory, such as making observations and in te r preting data. b. My tests have many questions about che laboratory activities. The tests sometimes require the pupils to figure out answers to new problems. Sometimes che pupils must repeat s k ills they have learned In the laboratory, such as making observations and in te r preting data. c. My tests sometimes ask the pupils co label drawings. The tests sometimes have questions about the laboratory activities. Some times the tests require che pupils co cell about ideas that they have learned previously. d. My tests often ask che pupils to write out definitions to words. The tests do not require che use of mathematics co answer che questions. Often che tests require che pupils to label drawings. e. My tests often require the pupils co write out definitions to words. Often the pupils must label drawings. The tests do not require Che use of mathematics to answer che questions. I do not discuss the test questions In class. f. Tests are not necessary and they are not used la my class. How do you conduct your laboratory? a. My pupils and I spend time before an experiment discussing the purposes of Che experiment. I often allow che pupils co cry Chelr own ways of doing che laboracory experiment. The pupils can compare cheir answers co chose of others when they are finished. They are allowed co do che experiments on chelr own. b. My pupils and I spend time before most experiments discussing the purposes of che experiment. The daca one pupil gachers from an experiment are often different from the data gathered by another pupil. 1 allow che pupils co do some experimenting on chelr own. c. My pupils and X sometimes discuss che purposes of an experiment. The pupils sometimes may compare cheir answers co chose of others when they are finished. X allow less chan one-third of class time for laboracory experiments. d. I sometimes conduce che laboracory in such a way thac che pupils know the answers co a question before they do an experiment. My pupils and X seldom discuss Che purposes of an experiment. X allow less chan one-fourth of che class time for laboracory ex periments . e. I do not allow pupils to do experiments on chelr own. X conduct Che laboracory in such a way chat che pupils know che answers co a question before they do che experiment. X do aoc discuss che purpose of an experimenc. X allow very llctle class cime for laboracory experlmencs. f. I do not use laboracory experlmencs or activities. END OF QUESTIONNAIRE 368 ZTZZZZZZZ7 CAST: PP ANSWER SHEET No n of school: Pleas* CIRCLE she resoonse Chat BEST fits vour answer. 1. Does take place c Should take place c 2. Does take place c Should take place c 3. Does take place c Should take place c A. Does take place c Should take place c 5. Does take place c Should take place c THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION Pleas* return answer sheet to: Chazt Audeh, Graduate Research Associate SMEAC Information Reference Center 1200 Chambers Road, Room 310 Columbus, Ohio *3212 Phone: (6li) C22-o7l7 SMEAC Information Reference Center College of Education The Ohio State Universicy 1200 Chambers Road, Room 310 Columbus, Ohio 43212 STATUS OF SCIENCE TEACHING IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Selected Sample for 1979-80 ELEMENTARY TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Name of School: Address of School: (number) (street) (city) (county) (state) (tip) General Instructions This questionnaire is to be answered by the individual elementary school science teacher. Please read the questionnaire before be ginning to fill out the form. Check (✓ ) or fill in every item that applies. I . Teacher Characteristics Check ( ✓•) or fill in che blank. 1. Sex: male female Age in years: ______ 2. Number of years of teaching experience (including the present school year 1979-80): ______years 3. Number of years of teaching experience in an elementary school (including this year 1979-80): ______years 370 4. Please check the degree(s) you now hold, and specify the major and minor subject matter field of the degree(s): Degree(s) Held Major Minors B.S., B.A., or B.Ed. ______ M.S., M.A., or M.Ed. ______ Ph.D or Ed.D ______ Specialist Non-degree Other(speclfy) 5. Are you now working on a formal degree program? Yes: ______No:______ If yes, what degree? ______ Major subject matter field: Minor(s) subject matter field: ______ 6. Please specify the number of credits you have In the following areas In either quarter hours or semester hours: Quarter Semester Undergraduate work Hours Hours Biological Sciences ...... Physical Sciences...... Earth Sciences...... ______Mathematics ...... Science Teaching Methods ...... Student Teaching in Science ...... Graduate work Biological Sciences ...... Physical Sciences...... ______Earth Sciences...... ______Mathematics...... ______Science Teaching Methods or Science Education ...... 7. Have you attended any NSF-sponsored institutes, conferences, or workshops? Yes: ______No:______371 8. If your answer to <‘7 Is yes, please Indicate which of the following NSF-sponsored activities you have attended: Prior to 1976 a ) _ Academic Year Institutes d) In-service Institute b) _ Administrators Conferences e) Summer Institutes c) _ Cooperative College-School f) Resource Personnel Science Program Workshop Other (Specify): ______ After 1976 ■ ) Leadership Development Projects b) School System Projects c) Teacher Center Projects d) Chautauqua Short Courses e) Other (Specify):______ Do you feel that you need more in-service opportunities? Yes: ______No: ______ 10. If your answer is yes (above) please indicate the type of in-service opportunities needed (check as many as applicable): In-service opportunities in science content. In-service opportunities in program change strategies. In-service opportunities in evaluation. In-service opportunities in science teachingtechniques. Other (Specify): ______ 11. Do you feel that you need assistance in any of the following areas? (Check one on each item.) Yes No a) Obtaining information about recent curriculum development ...... b Obtaining information about new teaching methods ...... c Obtaining information about instructional materials ...... d Obtaining information about subject matter ...... e Obtaining Information about out-of-school resources ...... f Obtaining information about films, TV, and radio programs ...... 8 Implementing new curriculum projects ...... h Developing local curriculum materials ...... i Inplementing discover/inquiry approach ...... J Articulating instruction across classrooms within a building and across different buildings ...... k Using manipulative or hands-on materials ...... I Developing skills to use new science equipment and facilities ...... ml Developing skills to use audiovisual aids ...... n) Evaluating student learning ...... o) Other (Specify):______II. Special Science Facilities, and Audiovisual Aids Please Indicate the special science facilities and audiovisual aids available for your use In teaching science In your school, and how much you use them In teaching science: Usage (Circle one) Often Occaslonallv Rarely (At least (Once (Less than Availability once a or twice once a (circle one) week) a month) month) a. Auto-tutorlal laboratory ...... Yes. , ■ No. Oft. .Occ. .R b. Closed-circuit television ...... Yes., No. Oft. • Occ. .R c. Standard television ...... Yes.. .No. Oft. ■ Occ. .R d. Greenhouse ...... Yes.. ■ No. Oft. • Occ. • R e. Nature tra ils ...... Yes.. .No. Oft. .Occ. .R f. Observatory ...... Yes.. .No. Oft. .Occ. .R g. Outdoor laboratory ...... Yes., .No. Oft. .Occ. ■ R h. . Planetarium...... Yes.. .No. Oft. .Occ. • R 1. Science darkroom ...... Yes.. .No. Oft. .Occ. ■ R j . Science museum...... Yes. . .No. Oft. .Occ. .R k. Ventilated animal housing ...... Yes.. . No. . . . .Oft. .Occ. .R 1. Video tape recorder/player.... Yes. . • No. Oft. .Occ. ■ R m. Weather station ...... Yes. . .No. Oft. .Occ. • R n. Motion picture projector ...... Yes.. .No. Oft. .Occ. .R o. Flimloop projector ...... Yes.. .No. Oft. .Occ. • R p. Slide projector ...... Yes.. .No. Oft. .Occ. • R q. Overhead projector ...... Yes., .No. Oft. .Occ. • R r. Opaque projector ...... Yes.. .No. Oft. .Occ. .R a. Phonograph ...... Yes.. • No. Oft. .Occ. • R t. Micro-projector ...... Yes. . .No. Oft. .Occ. .R u. Commercial charts...... Yes.. .No. Oft. .Occ. ■ R v. Commercial models ...... Yes.. • No. Oft. .Occ. • R (e.g.: molecular, eye, ear model) w. Other (Speclfy):_ 2. Equipment is defined as non-consumable, non-perishable items, such as microscopes, scales, models, aquariua, etc. Supplies are defined as perishable or easily breakable materials that must continually be replenished, such as chemicals, dry cells, glass ware, electric bulbs, copper wire, etc. To what extent are equipment and supplies for science demonstrations and experiments available In your school (check only one)? Completely lacking Inadequate Adequate Supplies ______ Equipment 373 III. Elementary Science Teaching L. What pattern of science teaching most aptly describes the approach you use with your classes? (Check one) a) Separate subject...... b) Integrated with other subjects ...... c) Incidentally ...... d) Combinations 1) Separate subject and Incidental.... _____ 2) Integrated and Incidental ...... e) Other (Specify):______ 2. Please check the kind of room that you use to conduct your classes: Laboratory or special science room ...... Classroom with portable science k its ...... Classroom with no science facilities or k its .... ______Other ( S p e c i f y ) : ______ 3. Please check Che kind of curriculum materials and/or textbook that you use for your classes: Single textbook Including laboratory manual ...... Single textbook ...... Multiple textbooks Including laboratory manuals ...... Multiple textbooks ...... Locally prepared materials...... Separate laboratory manual ...... Other (Specify):______ 4. Rank the three learning activities that you use most often. Use "3" for the most often used activicy; Use "2" for the next most often used activity; Use "I" for the third most often used activicy. Mark all other activities which you use with a check (, Lecture _____ Leeture-Dlscusslon Teacher - Demonstrations Instructional Films Independent Study Student Reports or Projects _____ Televised Instruction _____ Individual Laboratory Activity Group Laboratory Activity In-class written assignments _____ Programmed Instruction _____ Auto-cutorlal Instruction Other (Specify):______Course Offerings Please specify the number of children In each grade level you teach which use any of the following curriculum material(s) during the 1979-80 school year. If particular course materials are not being used, please leave the corresponding spaces blank. Year of Science Course Material Publican K I 2 3 4 5 6 tion Concepts in Science (Brandwein). . . Elementary Science Learning by Investigating (ESLI) ...... Heath Science Series (Schneider). . 1 Introductory PhysicaL Science (Haber-Shalm)...... Investigating In Science (Jacobson). Kindergarten Keys (Economy) ...... Modern Elementary Science (Flschier)...... Modular Activities Program in Science (Berger) ...... New Laidlaw Science Program (Smith)...... Science: A Process Approach (SAPA)...... Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS): Life Science .... Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS): Physical Science . . Science: Understanding Your En- ' vironment (Malllnson) ...... Steck-Vaughn Elementary Science Series (Ware)...... Today's Basic Science Series (Navarra) ...... Elementary School Science (ESS) Others (specify) 375 V. Change 1. Were you teaching during the 1970-71 school year at this school? Yea: No: ______ If yea, please complete a. a) Have any major changes been made since 1971 in your classroom science? Yes: No: ______ If yes, please complete b and c; If no, go on to #2. b) Please check all items which best describe the major changes in your classroom science: ■ _____ Revised courses _____ Developed new materials locally Changed textbooks Reduced student Increased student science requirements science requirements ^ _ _ _ Other (specify) c) Please indicate what you believe are the basic reasons for changes that have taken place: 2. How satisfied are you with teaching elementary school science? a) _____ Very satisfied b) _____ Satisfied c) Neutral d) Dissatisfied e) Very dissatisfied 376 3. If you marked any of c, d, or e in ’>2 above, pleaae indicate what you would like to change: rrrniTm 377 SKEAC Information Reference Center College of Education The Ohio S ta te U niversity 1200 Chambers Road, Room 110 Columbus, On 41212 ATTITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION ELEMENTARY TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE i> Please read the questionnaire to get an idea of the scope of questions before beginning to fill out the form, fleasc provide a respcr.se for each question. Thank you :or your cooperation and assistance. I . DECISION MAKING 1. How much influence do you feel you have in determining the science curriculum for your building! (Circle your response) 2. How much influence do you feel each of the following croups or individuals hzz in determining the science curriculum for your building? (Circle your response) f / State Department of Education ...... 2 1 D istrict Superintendent ...... 2 1 Central Staff (Curriculum Coordinator or Supervisor) 2 1 Local School Board ...... 2 1 P rin c ip a l ...... 2 1 T eachers...... S tu d en ts ...... P arents ...... Other (Specify) 3. How much influence do you feel you should have in determining the science curriculum in your building? (Circle your response) 378 4. How Much influence do you feel each of the following oroups or Individuals should have In determining the icience curriculum in your building? (Circle your responses) cf / * * State Department of Education 3 2 1 D istrict Superintendent ...... 3 2 1 Central Staff (Curriculum Coordinator or Supervisor) ...... 3 2 1 Local School Board ...... 3 2 1 P r i n c i p a l ...... 3 2 1 T eachers...... 3 2 1 S tu d en ts ...... 3 2. 1 P a r e n t s ...... 3 2 1 Other (Specify) I I . CHANGES IN SCIENCE CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION 1. Which of the following conditions best describes your general attitude toward the intro duction of new practices and materials in your building? (Circle your response) 2. Which of the following conditions do you believe best describes the general attitude of each of the follcwir.c trouts or individuals toward the introduction of new practices and materials in your building? .Circle your response) S' z 2 f c a* / * / <1 / / / / / State Departncnt of Education ...... 4 3 2 1 D istrict Superintendent ...... 4 3 2 1 Central Staff (Curriculum Coordinator or Supervisor) . . . . 4 3 2 1 Local School Board ...... 4 3 2 1 P rin c ip a l ...... 4 3 2 1 T eachers...... 4 3 2 1 S tu d en ts ...... 4 3 2 1 P arents ...... 4 3 2 1 Other (Specify) 379 III. RESOURCES 1. What do you believe should be spent on new science materials and programs compared to current spending? (Circle your response) From s t a t e fu n d s ...... 3 2 1 From f e d e ra l fu n d s ...... 5 4 3 2 1 2. In your opinion, how much additional science equipment and supplies are needed in your school? (Circle your response) ^ / * 3. In your opinion, hew useful is the information you get about new practices and materials in science education from each of the following? (Circle your response) / \. F erso n - to-Person Communication Contact With / 1 . Your Building / ** a. Teachers in your school ...... 2 1 b. Principal in your school ...... 2 1 2 . Your School District (Other than your building) a . Teachers outside your school, but within your school district ...... 2 1 b . Principals outside your school, but within your school district ...... 2 1 c . Curriculum specialists within your school district .... 2 1 d. Other professionals within your school district ...... 2 1 e. Other (Specify) 3. Outside Your School D istrict e. Teachers outside your school district ...... 2 1 b. Principals outside your school district ...... 2 1 c. State department personnel ...... 2 1 d. Curriculum specialists outside your school district, but not from state department ...... 2 1 e. Textbook sales representatives ...... 2 1 f. College professors ...... 2 1 / vV s. Printed Communication •IP 4? 4? 1. Professional journals and periodicals ...... 3 3 1 3. Textbooks and other books ...... 3 3 1 3. Bulletins and nevsletters ...... 3 3 1 4. Other (Specify) c . F orm al Courses and :.-.«ervices Education 1. Formal Courses. a. Regular college courses and workshops ...... 3 3 1 b. Special college courses and workshops (designed in cooperation with local or regional groups especially for them) ...... 3 3 1 3. Inservice Programs. a. Local district inservice programs (seminars, w o rk sh o p s, e t c . ) ...... 3 3 1 b. County or intermediate unit inservlce programs (seminars, workshops, e tc .) ...... 3 3 1 c. State inservice programs (seminars, workshops, etc.). 3 3 1 d . N a tio n a l S c ie n c e F o u n d a tio n (liSF) c r o th e r federally-sponsored inservice programs (courses, seminars, workshops, e tc .) ...... 3 3 1 e. Other (Specify) D. Mass Media 1 . Educational TV ...... 3 3 1 3. Commercial TV ...... 3 3 1 3. Educational Radio ...... 3 3 4 . Commercial Radio ...... «.... 3 3 1 5. Newspapers or Magazines ...... • . 3 3 1 6 . Other (Specify) E. Meetir.os of Professional Iroanioations 1 . Local professional organizations ...... 3 3 1 3. State professional organizations ...... 3 3 1 3. National professional organizations i ...... 3 3 1 4. Other (Specify) 381 4 . Please indicate how useful each of the following types of Information would be to you. A. Information about Curriculum ...... 1. Rational Science Foundation (N'Sr) eponeored material* 2. State curriculum guide* and material* ...... 3. Locally developed curriculum material* ...... 4. Implementation strategies ...... 5. Supplementary activitie* ...... 6 . Philosophy/Rationale underlying curriculum ..... 7. Other (Specify) B. Information about Instruction. 1. T each in g te c h n iq u e * . . . . 2. Laboratory techr.lquee. . . 3. Individualized instruction 4. Televised instruction. . . 5. Audiovisual instruction. . 6 . Other (Specify) C. Information about Classrocn Management ...... 1. Students' behavior ...... 2. Classroom esnagerent ...... D. Information about Evaluation Methodology . . . C. Information about Policies, Standards, and Regulations ...... F. Information about Budget and Expenditures ...... C. Information about Court and Judicial Decisions Related to Education . , ...... H. Cther (Specify) 382 3. If ycu rcquost information about science materials and practices from a source such as a publisher, LAIC, state department of education, etc., how soon do you usually neod the following typv* information? (Circle your response) / / / / v* * * cT 5 ■a,e «c «• ■c A. Information about Curriculum ...... 1. National Science foundation (S5F) sponsored materials. 2. State curriculum guides and materials ...... 3. Local developed curriculum materials ...... 4. Implementation strategies ...... 5. Supplementary activities ...... 6 . Philosophy/Rationale underlying curriculum 7. Other (Specify) V. Information about Instruction. 1. Teaching techniques. . . . 2. Laboratory techniques. . . I. Individualized instruction 4. Televised instruction. . 5. Audiovisual instruction. 6 . O th e r (S p ecify ) C. Information about Classroom Management 1. Students' behavior ...... 2. Classroom management ...... 3. Information about Evaluation Methodology ...... C. Information about Policies, Standards, and Regulations Information about Budget and Expenditures ...... Z. Information about Court and Judicial Decisions Related to Education ...... H. Other (Specify) 383 IV. FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENTi 1. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of the following atatenent* about federal support for acience course improvement. (Circle your response) / / a. Federal support for course Improvement and £/ / k 3g . dissemination has improved the quality •» of curriculum alternatives available to schools 5 4 3 2 b . The federal course Improvement effort has improved the quality of classroom instruction 5 4 3 2 C. The federal government should direct more attention toward disserur.atlng materials and nractices ...... S 4 3 2 d. Federal support of the development of materials and practices is probably unnecessary S 4 3 2 a. Federal support for course improvement and dissemination tends to create a nationally uniform curriculum S 4 3 2 f. The National Science Foundation (NSF) should sponsor programs to help teachers learn to implement NSF-funded courses and materials S 4 3 2 g. The National Science Foundation (NSF) should sponsor proqrans to help teachers learn to Implement non-NSF funded courses and materials S 4 3 2 h. Federal funding should be provided to schools for the purchase of lab equipment and facilities ...... S 4 3 2 2. In your opinion, what effect has the recent reduction of the National Science Foundation funds for science education had on acience curricula? (Circle your response) 384 V. iCTEHCE PROGRAMS 1. How Important are the folloving for the elementary ichool science program? (Circle your respcr.se) *r * / --S / / / ✓ / i Factual knowledge: Facts, concepts, principles ...... 3 2 1 Processes of science ...... 3 2 1 Interaction of science and society ...... 3 2 1 Interaction of science and technology ...... Values and ethics of science ...... 3 2 1 Appreciation of huaan and scientific endeavor ...... 3 2 1 Attitudes toward science ...... 3 2 1 Interrelationship of science and humanities ...... 3 2 1 Career knowledge and awareness ...... 3 2 1 S k i l l s ...... 3 2 1 Nature of science ...... 3 2 1 Relationships of self and environment ...... 3 2 1 V I. BARHtERS TO CHJChiE 1. The following factors nay have a negative effect on the Improvement of practice In your acience In year opinion, how much of a problem it each of the folloving? (Circle your response) o*t I Lack of inservlee opportunities ...... Lack of adequate consultant services ...... Inadequate facilities ...... Lack of science equipment and supplies ...... *• Lack of materials fcr individualized instruction ...... Insufficient budget ...... High costs of curriculum m aterials ...... Out-of-date teaching naterials ...... No agreement on what should be included in the curriculum ...... Schools believe other areas are more important than science ...... Inadequate student reading ability ...... Inadequate articulation of instruction across classrooms within a building . Inadequate articulation of instruction across classrooms across buildings within a district ...... Teachers do not have sufficient science kncwledqe ...... Teachers do not know methods for teaching science ...... Inability of teachers to improvise naterials and equipment ...... Not enough time to teach science ...... Lack of interest of teachers ...... Lack of federal support for curriculum development ...... Lack of state support for curriculum development ...... Lack of lecal support for curriculum development ...... Lack o f a d m in is tr a t i v e s u p p o rt f o r change i n s c ie n c e program ...... Lack of ccnnunity support for change in science program ...... lack of staff support for change in science program ...... S t a t e r e g u l a t i o n s and p o l i c i e s ...... Federal regulations and policies ...... Lack of coshunication between principals and teachers ...... Lack of consultants ...... Lack of tanuible incentives to faculty ...... • ...... Lack of intangible incentives to faculty ...... I n c r e a s in g e m p h asis on b a s ic s k i l l s and know ledge ...... Other (Specify) 386 2. Accent research studies hjir iiel a nuncor of incentives. Please select tli.-t-; ar.d -i.ly ’.hr.-i. of the following tangible incentives which you feel would encourage '.uj.'curt to try iduas fcr the ir.: rovenent of practice. Mark the nost important "i," the second most important "2," and the third most important "1." Extra pay for special sctivitles Salary differential College credit Released time Travel funds Participating in workshops and in-service training courses Prom otion Other (specify)______ 3. Recant research studies have identified a number of intangible incentives. Which of these intangible incentives do you feel would be nost important for encouraging teachers to try ideas for the inproveaent. Select the three highest. Mark the most important "3," the second nost important "2," and third nost important ”1." Recognition and prestige of excellence Opportunity to pursue beliefs and ideals Opportunity to pursue new ideas Desire to know and understand Desire to escape from boredom and routine Professional interest or commitment Intrinsic satisfaction derived frcm doing better teaching Opportunity for the development of strong and lasting group affiliation based on shared purposes Increase sense of influence over educational outcomes X possible solution to perceived student needs Other (specify) 4. Which type of science curricula do you prefer in your school? Please check one. a. A textbook; use with very little modification. b. A textbook; use parts and supplement with other materials. c. Several textbooks; use each when it Is most appropriate for the students. d. Teacher developed materials for a local program, e. Other (specify) ______ END Or THE TEACHER'S OUESTIONNAIRE THANK YOU rOR YOUR COOPERATION SMEAC Infornatlon Reference Center College of Education The Ohio State I'niverslcy 1200 Chanbers Road, Rocn 310 Columbus, Ohio -3212 ♦CHECKLIST FOR ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHERS: TEACHER'S PERCEPTION (CAST: TP) The purpose of chls checklist is to determine the' types of activities which you feel usually cake place or should cake place in your classroom. Please select the response for each item that BEST describes what usually does cake place AND what vcu believe should take place In YOUR CLASSROOM regarding the teaching of scion.e. if you do no: taacn science, ansuer only what you believe should cake place. Use the answer sheet provided. Example How often are hands-on naterials used in your science classrooms? (a) Once a week (b) Twice s week (c) Three tir.es a week (d) Four tines a week (e) Five tlr.es a week (f) Never Answer Does take place a b ( ^ ) ^ * Should cake place abed ♦This Instrument was adapted from the work of Robert W. Howe, William R. and Betty J. Brown, 283 Arps Hall, The Ohio State University, November 1970, edition. 388 1. Whit do che puolls do In vour class? a. The puolls often discuss Che problems faced by scientists In the discovery of a scientific principle. They also discuss Che kind of evidence that is behind a scientist's conclusions. If che students do noc agree vith me, I encourage them to say •o. The students are frequently given time In class to talk among themselves about ideas in science. They usually do most of the experiments and demonstrations themselves. b. The pupils sometimes discuss che problems faced by scientists In the discovery of a scientific principle. They also discuss Che evidence that is behind a scientist's conclusions. They sometimes do experiments and demonstrations themselves. They can question what I say. c. The pupils Infrequently discuss che problems faced by scientists In the discovery of a scientific principle. They spend part of Che class time answering my quesdons. They also write answers Co questions from their textbook or study guides. They do some experiments themselves. d. The pupils ask questions to clarify what I, or che textbook, have Cold them. They watch me do demonstrations. They write answers Co questions from the textbook or study guides. They answer my questions. e. The pupils must copy down and memorize what 1 te ll them. Most of the pupils' questions are to clear up what I or che textbook haa told them. They often write answers to my questlsns or to questions from the textbook or study guides (if used). 2. What Is your role in vour classroom? a. I help the pupils understand che general objectives or purposes of a lesaon before they begin work on che lesson. 1 question the pupils about ideas that the pupils have studied previously. I often ask che pupils to explain diagrams and graphs. 0 b. I often question che pupils about ideas that they have studied previously and about che evidence thac is behind scacements that are made In the cexcbook. I somecimcs ask the pupils co explain diagrams and graphs. c. I spend most of che class time celling the pupils abouc science. I repeat much of what che cexcbook says. I sometimes question the pupils abouc ideas thac cney have studied. d. 1 sometimes repeat exaccly what che cexcbook says. If Chere is a disagreement among pupils during a discussion, 1 usually cell the pupils who is right. Most of che tine I cell che pupils about science. e. I show che pupils chat science has almost all of che answers co questions abour che nocural world. If chere is a disagreement among pupils during a discussion, 1 cell che pupils who is right. I often repeac exaccly whac the textbook says. 3. How do you use the textbook and reference naterials? a. X expect the pupils co find the major Idea* In the cexcbook and the evidence co support che Ideas. I show che pupils how t o question Ideas In che cexcbook. I provide cine for che p u p il s co read abouc science In magazines and books ocher chan Che textbook. b. X expect Che pupils co learn some of che decalls in che cexcbook. There are books and magazines In the room if che pupils wane co use them. I show che pupils how co question ideas in che cexcbook. c. X expect the pupils to learn cany of che details in che cexcbook. X h a v e Che pupils look for some of che major Ideas In che cexcbook and th e evidence to support the Ideas. I socecines require pupils to outline parts of che cexcbook. The only science calked abouc I s from the cexcbook and my notes. d . 1 expect Che pupils co outline part of che cexcbook. The only science calked abouc is from che cexcbook and my notes. I require the pupils co learn mosc of che decalls in che cexcbook. e. I do not like the pupils to quesdon Information in che cexcbook. I o f t e n have che pupils write out definitions co words. 1 require th e pupils co outline pares of che textbook and co memorize mosc o.f th e decalls in che cexcbook. f. Nona la used In my class. 4 . How a re your tests designed and how arc they used? a. My tescs have many questions abouc che laboratory activities. The t e s t s often require che pupils co figure out answers co new problems. Sometimes che pupils muse find ways of looking for a n sw e rs to problems. Often they must repeat skills they have le a r n e d In che laboratory, such as making observations and inter p r e t in g data. b. My tescs have many questions abouc che laboratory activities. The tescs sometimes require che pupils co figure ouc answers Co new problems. Scr.eclr.es che pupils muse repeac skills they have learned In che laboracory, such as making observations and inter preting daca. c. My tescs sometimes ask che pupils co label drawings. The cescs som etim es have questionsabouc che laboracory activities. Some t im e s che cescs require che pupils to cell abouc ideas thac they have learned previously. d. My tescs ofcen ask che pupils co wrlce ouc definitions co words. The c e s c s do noc require the use of mathematics co answer che questions. Ofcen che tescs require che pupils co label drawings. e. My cescs ofcen require che pupils co write ouc definitions co words. O f te n the pupils must label drawings. The cescs do noc require t h e u se of nachemodcs to answer che questions. 1 do noc discuss t h e tesc questions in class. f. Tests are not necessary and chey are noc used In my class. How do you conduct your laboratory? a. My pupils and I spend cine before an experlnenc discussing che purposes of the experlnenc. X ofcen allow the pupils co cry their own wavs of doing Che laboratory experiment. The pupils can compare Cheir answers co chose of ochers when they are finished. They are allowed co do the experiments on cheir own. b. My pupils and I spend cine beforecost experiments discussing the purposes of che experiment. The data one pupil gathers froa an experlnenc are ofcen different from che data gathered by anocher pupil. I allow che pupils co do some experlaencing on cheir own. c. My pupils and I sometimes discuss che purposes of an experlnenc. The pupils sonednes nay conpare cheir answers co chose of ochers when they are finished. I allow less chan one-chird of class Cine for laboracory experiments. d. I sonetines conduce che laboracory in such a way thac che pupils know the answers to a aueseicn before they do an experiment. My pupils and I seldom discuss che purposes of an experiment. I allow less than one-fourth of che class cine for laboracory ex periments . a. I do noc allow pupils co do experiments on cheir own. I conduct the laboracory in such a way chac Che pupils know che answers co a question before chev do che experiment. I do noc discuss the purpose of an experiment. I allow very little class cine for laboracory experlnencs. f. I do not use laboracory experimencs or activities. END OF QUESTIONNAIRE L J J J J j-L u J CAST: TP ANSWER SHEET Hum of school: Please CIRCLE Che response thac BEST fits vour answer. 1 . Does take place a b c d Should take place a b c d 2 . Does take place a b c d Should take place a b c d 3 . Does take place a b c d Should take place a b c d 4 . Does take place a b c d Should take place a b c d 5. Does take place a b c d Should take place a b c d THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION Plssse reeurn answer sheec co: Ghazl Audeh, Graduate Research Associate SMEAC Information Referable Center 1200 Chambers Road, Room 310 Columbus, Ohio 43212 Phone: (614) 422-6717 APPENDIX D List of Variables Common in the Study of 1970-71 and the Study of 1979-80 3 9 2 393 TABLE D.l COMMON VARIABLES IN THE PRINCIPALS' SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES OF 1970 AND 1980 STUDIES ENTERED IN THE PAIRED T-TESTS Variable Variable Number Number Q:SP______Variable Name______1 8 Student Enrollment Grade K 2 9 Student Enrollment Grade 1 3 10 Student Enrollment Grade 2 4 11 Student Enrollment Grade 3 5 12 Student Enrollment Grade 4 6 13 Student Enrollment Grade 5 7 14 Student Enrollment Grade 6 8 15 Total School Enrollment Organization of Student: 9 16 Standard graded or Non-graded Grade K 10 18 Standard graded or Non-graded Grade 1 11 20 Standard graded or Non-graded Grade 2 12 22 Standard graded or Non-graded Grade 3 13 24 Standard graded or Non-graded Grade 4 14 26 Standard graded or Non-graded Grade 5 15 28 Standard graded or Non-graded Grade 6 16 30 Number of weeks science is being taught Grade K 17 32 Number of weeks science is being taught Grade 1 18 34 Number of weeks science is being taught Grade 2 19 36 Number of weeks science is being taught Grade 3 20 38 Number of weeks science is being taught Grade 4 21 40 Number of weeks science is being taught Grade 5 22 42 Number of weeks science is being taught Grade 6 23 45 Number of fu ll-tim e male teachers 24 46 Number of part-time male teachers 25 48 Number of full-time female teachers 26 49 Number of part-time female teachers 394 Variable Variable Number Number Q:SP______Variable Name 27 51 Special Teacher of Science Grade K 28 52 Special Teacher of Science Grade 1 29 53 Special Teacher of Science Grade 2 30 54 Special Teacher of Science Grade 3 31 55 Special Teacher of Science Grade 4 32 56 Special Teacher of Science Grade 5 33 57 Special Teacher of Science Grade 6 34 58 Regular Classroom Teacher with no Help Grade K 35 59 Regular Classroom Teacher with no Help Grade 1 36 60 Regular Classroom Teacher with no Help Grade 2 37 61 Regular Classroom Teacher with no Help Grade 3 38 62 Regular Classroom Teacher with no Help Grade 4 39 63 Regular Classroom Teacher with no Help Grade 5 40 64 Regular Classroom Teacher with no Help Grade 6 41 65 Regular Classroom Teacher with Help Grade K 42 66 Regular Classroom Teacher with Help Grade 1 43 67 Regular Classroom Teacher with Help Grade 2 44 68 Regular Classroom Teacher with Help Grade 3 45 69 Regular Classroom Teacher with Help Grade 4 46 70 Regular Classroom Teacher with Help Grade 5 47 71 Regular Classroom Teacher with Help Grade 6 48 73 Annual Budget for Science Equipment 49 74 Science Equipment Money for 1979-80 50 75 Annual Budget for Science Supplies 51 76 Science Supplies Money for 1979-80 52 79 Ability to purchase Science Equipment and Supplies during the year 53 80 Availability of Supplies Grade K 54 81 Availability of Supplies Grades 1-3 55 82 Availability of Supplies Grades 4-6 56 83 Availability of Equipment Grade K 395 Variable Variable Number Number Q:SP______Variable Name 57 84 Availability of Equipment Grades 1-3 58 85 Availability of Equipment Grades 4-6 59 94 No Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade K 60 95 No Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 1 61 96 No Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 2 62 97 No Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 3 63 98 No Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 4 64 99 No Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 5 65 100 No Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 6 66 101 Single Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade K 67 102 Single Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 1 68 103 Single Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 2 69 104 Single Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 3 70 105 Single Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 4 71 106 Single Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 5 72 107 Single Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 6 73 108 Two or More Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade K 74 109 Two or More Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 1 75 110 Two or More Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 2 76 111 Two or More Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 3 77 112 Two or More Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 4 78 113 Two or More Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 5 79 114 Two or More Science Textbook Series Adopted Grade 6 80 115 Regular Classroom with no Special Facilities for Science Grade K 81 116 Regular Classroom with no Special Facilities fo r Science Grade K 396 V ariable V ariable Number Number Q:SP Variable Name 82 117 Regular Classroom with no Special Facilities for Science Grade 2 83 118 Regular Classroom with no Special Facilities for Science Grade 3 84 119 Regular Classroom with no Special Facilities for Science Grade 4 85 120 Regular Classroom with no Special Facilities for Science Grade 5 86 121 Regular Classroom with no Special Facilities for Science Grade 6 87 122 Regular Classroom with Special Facilities for Science Grade K 88 123 Regular Classroom with Special Facilities for Science Grade 1 89 124 Regular Classroom with Special Facilities for Science Grade 2 90 125 Regular Classroom with Special Facilities for Science Grade 3 91 126 Regular Classroom with Special Facilities for Science Grade 4 92 127 Regular Classroom with Special Facilities for Science Grade 5 93 128 Regular Classroom with Special Facilities for Science Grade 6 94 129 Special Room for Science Grade K 95 130 Special Room for Science Grade 1 96 131 Special Room for Science Grade 2 97 132 Special Room for Science Grade 3 98 133 Special Room for Science Grade 4 99 134 Special Room for Science Grade 5 100 135 Special Room for Science Grade 6 101 218 SCIS Grade K 102 219 SCIS Grade 1 103 220 SCIS Grade 2 104 221 SCIS Grade 3 105 222 SCIS Grade 4 106 223 SCIS Grade 5 107 224 SCIS Grade 6 108 257 Elementary School Science (ESS) Grade K 109 258 Elementary School Science (ESS) Grade 1 110 259 Elementary School Science (ESS) Grade 2 111 260 Elementary School Science (ESS) Grade 3 112 261 Elementary School Science (ESS) Grade 4 113 262 Elementary School Science (ESS) Grade 5 114 263 Elementary School Science (ESS) Grade 6 115 266 Special Procedure to Identify Interests, A ptitudes 397 Variable Variable Number Number Q;SP______Variable Name______116 267 Special Procedure to Identify Interests, in Science 117 268 Environmental or Conservation Education (EE) 118 269 EE taught sep arately Grade K 119 270 EE taught separately Grade 1 120 271 EE taught sep arately Grade 2 121 272 EE taught separately Grade 3 122 273 EE taught separately Grade 4 123 274 EE taught separately Grade 5 124 275 EE taught sep arately Grade 6 125 276 EE taught with science Grade K 126 277 EE taught with science Grade 1 127 278 EE taught with science Grade 2 128 279 EE taught with science Grade 3 129 280 EE taught with science Grade 4 130 281 EE taught with science Grade 5 131 282 EE taught with science Grade 6' 132 283 EE taught with social studies Grade K 133 284 EE taught with social studies Grade 1 134 285 EE taught with social studies Grade 2 135 286 EE taught with social studies Grade 3 136 287 EE taught with so cial stu d ie s Grade 4 137 288 EE taught with social studies Grade 5 138 289 EE taught with social studies Grade 6 139 290 EE taught with two or more subject Grade K 140 291 EE taught with two or more su b ject Grade 1 141 292 EE taught with two or more subject Grade 2 142 293 EE taught with two or more su b ject Grade 3 143 294 EE taught with two or more subject Grade 4 144 295 EE taught with two or more su b ject Grade 5 145 296 EE taught with two or more subject Grade 6