University Microfilms, a XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS AND TEACHER-STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD PHYSICS Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Elliott, Walter Earl, 1935- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 06/10/2021 15:54:36 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/287850 72-16,154 ELLIOTT, Walter Earl, 1935- RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS AND TEACHER- STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD PHYSICS. The University of Arizona, Ph.D., 1972 Education, scientific University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS AND TEACHER-STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD PHYSICS by Walter Earl Elliott A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 19 7 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my direction by Walter Earl Elliott entitled RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS AND TEACHER-STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD PHYSICS be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy !Z-t7- 7/ Dissertation Director Date After inspection of the final copy of the dissertation, the follovzing members of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and recommend its acceptance:"" /Q--/7-7/ /l- Z3- 71 This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate's adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the final oral examination. The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University- Library to be made available to borrowers under miles of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowl edgment of source is made. Requests for permission for ex tended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNEDf^)/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank Dr. Chester Brown, my dissertation advisor, for his guidance and patience throughout the interim between conception and fruition of this research. Several other individuals deserve an expression of gratitude. A special thanks to Dr. Paul Allen, a committee member whose moral support and suggestions were especially welcomed. Further, I extend my gratitude to the other members of my committee, Dr. Douglas Donahue, Dr. M. M. Gubser, and Dr. John McCullen. A special thanks also to Dr. Arnold Strassenburg, Director, Manpower and Education Division, American Institute of Physics, Inc., for his moral support, his technical guidance, and his arranging for partial funding of the re search. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS viii ABSTRACT .. ix CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES 1 Introduction . 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Significance of the Problem . 2 Assumptions 6 Limitation's 6 Definition of Terms 7 Hypotheses Tested 9 Summary 12 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 14 An Overview of Science Education in America . 14 Historical Background 15 Recent National Curriculum Efforts .... 21 The Need for Science Courses 23 The Fundamental Nature of Physics .... 29 An Evaluation of the Nation-wide Decline in Physics Enrollments 29 The Nature of the Problem 30 Reasons for Declining Physics Enrollments 35 Suggested Remedies for Low Enrollments in Physics 40 Summary 49 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY 53 Populations Sampled ... 53 Physics Student Population 54 Non-physics Student Population 55 Physics Teacher Population 55 iv V TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page Instruments Employed 56 Procedures Employed 57 Administration of Questionnaires .... 57 Methods of Data Analysis 57 Chi Square Analyses 5& Pearson Product-moment Analyses .... 5& Summary 59 IV. FINDINGS 60 Introduction 60 Results of the Questionnaires 60 Non-physics Students 61 Physics Students 66 Physics Teachers . 76 Tests of the Fourteen Null Hypotheses . 106 Chi Square Tests 106 Frequency Tests ...... 113 Secondary Findings 115 Suggested Null Hypothesis 1-s 115 Suggested Null Hypothesis 2-s 116 Summary 11$ Tabulations and Synthesis of the Questionnaire Data 11S Tests of the Fourteen Null Hypotheses . 125 Secondary Findings 127 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 123 Summary of the Study 12# Design of the Study 129 Findings of the Study 130 Conclusions of the Study 134 Conclusions Related to the Null Hypotheses 134 Conclusions Related to the Secondary Findings 13$ Generalized Interpretations of the Findings 139 Recommendations of the Study 140 Recommendations for High Schools .... 140 Suggestions for Further Research 146 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS, INC 149 APPENDIX B: GENERAL GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS 151 APPENDIX C: HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS STUDY 153 LIST OF REFERENCES 162 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Enrollments in Public High School Science, 1964-65 50 2. Why Non-physics Students Avoided Physics . » 64 3. Occupational Preferences of Non-physics Students . 65 4. Reasons Students Enrolled in Physics 68 5. Occupational Preferences of Physics Students . * 70 6. Degrees Held by Physics Teachers 79 7. Institutionally-supported Academic Work Under taken by Physics Teachers . 80 8. Semester Hours Earned in Physics by Physics Teachers 82 9. Teaching Experience of Physics Teachers 83 10. Orientation of Physics Courses Taken by Teachers 83 11. Professional Affiliations of Physics Teachers . 85 12. Professional Publications Read Regularly by Physics Teachers . 85 13. Academic Year Salaries of Physics Teachers .... 86 14. Enrollments in Schools where Physics Teachers Worked 88 15» Orientation of Physics Courses Taught 90 16. Class Hours per Week and Number of Students Taught per Week 91 17. Weekly School-related Activities of Physics Teachers 92 vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Public and Private High School Enrollments, 1BS0 to I960 20 2. Science Enrollment Trends, 194# to 1965 32 3. Physics Enrollment Trends, 1943 to 1965 33 4. Public School Twelfth Grade Physics Enrollments, I960 to 1965 34 viii ABSTRACT In this age of advanced science and technology, when the democratic citizen faces a myriad of vital science-based societal issues (such as environmental pollution, space ex ploration funding, and nuclear weaponry) an overwhelming majority of American high school students are avoiding the study of physics, that science considered basic to all of the natural sciences. Fundamental to the rationale of this study were the tacit assumptions that a significant feature of a viable democracy is that individuals have choices in matters of special concern to them, and that in the field of education a student's choice of school subjects is related somehow to his perceptions of the subject matter of the course, of the possible value of the course to him personally, and of the life-styles incumbent upon the workers or professionals within the subject matter field. Since American high schools generally afford students latitude in course selection, it seemed appropriate to probe student perceptions of physics for clues to possible reasons why so many students avoid physics. Accordingly, this study is addressed primarily to the determination of such percep tions. ix X Instruments were designed which gathered anonymous data related to selected characteristics and attitudes of 347 physics teachers, 2,433 non-physics students, and 10,5^2 physics students in the California public high schools. Fourteen null hypotheses were tested. Conclusions and recommendations were based upon Chi square, Pearson product-moment, and frequency of response analyses and pertained to physics courses, physics teachers, and physics teaching. Significant relationships were found to exist between physics enrollments and fear of poor grades, difficulty of physics, anticipated future usefulness of physics, sex of the students, student grade point average, student class standing, student interest in physics, and student image of physics and physics teachers. Significant relationships also existed between student perceptions of physics and the inclusion of social, political, and historical aspects of physics in course objectives, the teacher's subject matter preparation, teacher time spent in classroom preparation, teacher iden tification with other physics teachers, teacher feeling of course success, teacher commitment to physics teaching, and teacher attitudes toward physics.