University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan INTRODUCTION

This dissertation has been 63—52 microfilmed exactly as received GRAFF, George Portsmouth, 1932- CONSERVATION UNDERSTANDINGS IN THE INTERMEDIATE GRADES. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1962 Education, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan INTRODUCTION There is increasing interest in the teaching of conservation in the public schools. Conservation materials are prepared and disseminated to schools by many groups and agencies on the national* state* and local levels. However, few studies have been made to determine the extent of students' conservation understandings in the elementary grades. Little is yet known about the effects of any or all specific efforts upon the development of conservation understandings. The purpose of this study is to provide an index to some of the conservation understandings held by intermediate grade students in Ohio. This study should not be considered as an examination of intermediate students' knowledge about conservation* nor should it be taken as a complete appraisal of all the factors determining the development of conservation understandings. This research does, however, point out the more important causal factors related to the development of conservation understandings. It does show characteristics of the conservation understandings evidenced by students in each intermediate grade (4, 5, 6) in three different school locations (rural, suburban, and urban). The study shows (l) the resources considered important by intermediate students, (2 ) the 1 effectiveness of the experience could be made* These responses showed considerable depth development* especially in soil: however, only one student mentioned his visit to the outdoor laboratory and that visit was not with his school class. It was apparent that these students sampled were not making use of the outdoor laboratory. However, from discussions with the senior high principal and elementary supervisor, the investi gator learned that some classrooms were making regular visits to the facility. Computer analysis of sources of students1 conservation information The c omputer analysis of sources of students' conservation information involved the treatment of the mean scores of the students who indicated the use of conservation material and a comparison of that mean score with that of all other students. A wide difference between mean scores indicated a significant difference in scores between those indicating use of the material and those not so indicating. Significant mean scores are evidenced by a wide difference between the mean of the users and all others. For example, **38 students (out of 1,56?) indicated that books had been a source of information. These students had a mean score of 0 .57** with reference to soil, where the remainder of the students (1,587 less **38) had a mean score in soil of 0.316. With reference to water the mean score was 0.**89 for book users and 0 .2**6 for others; for plants 0.82** and 0.**57; animals 0.660 and 0.386. All of these were significant differences. Table 22 (Mean Scores of Subject Areas According to Teachers' Previous Exposure to Conservation, page 98) and Table 24 (Mean Scores of Subject Areas According to College Courses Taken by Teachers, page 101) nay be read In similar fashion. This statistical analysis substantiated the finding of the machine sorted data. Books were an important source of conservation understand ings; however, the statistical analysis indicated that science classes also provided many conservation understandings for the students. TABLE 20 MEAN SCORES FOR SUBJECT AREAS AS RELATED TO SOURCES OF CONSERVATION INFORMATION* . - , . Number of Soil Water Plants Animals ea Responses Users asers Users 5 S S s Users Books 438 *.574 .316 *.489 .246 *.824 .*57 *.660 .386 Television 174 .397 .387 .405 .302 .710 .5*1 *.658 .438 Home and Par. 208 .391 .387 .305 .315 .53* .566 .500 .*55 Science Class 137 *i887 .340 *.511 .295 *.701 .5*7 *.566 .*53 Soc. Studies 181 *.483 •376 .337 .311 .517 .566 .315 .*82 Gen. Classroom 461 .431 .370 .411 .273 *.73* .487 *.619 .397 and Teacher Mean of Subject Area .388 for All Students 31 * .560 .463 * For validity of this data, see Appendix III, Nt" test. The Effect of Teacher Factors The Teacher Questionnaire was designed to indicate the effect of the classroom teachers* background and use of conservation materials upon the students in their classrooms. Student conservation understand ings obtained in this part of the study cannot be considered to be from direct experiences of the student. For example, the material used by the teacher first had to be organized and prepared by the teacher into a form suitable for presentation to the students. The students, in turn, had to incorporate the material presented by the teacher into their own understandings and then express these through the writing of the paper "What Conservation Means to Me." It may be assumed that many of the conservation understandings presented by the teacher was not evidenced by the students on their papers. Therefore, the investigator believes the data obtained in this section of the study may be indicative of gross differences in teachers background and use of materials relative to students' conservation understandings; however, those differences should not be considered as a detailed measurement of either teachers' or students' conservation understandings. The three most important items of the Teacher Questionnaire was "Previous Exposure to Conservation," "College Courses" and "Materials Used by the Teacher." Originally other items, i.e., "Years Teaching Experience," "Areas of Previous Teaching," "Highest Degree Obtained" and Year in Which Degree Was Obtained" was to be included in this study. However, because of the time involved in mechanical sorting and the belief that they were of minor importance in this particular study, these items were omitted. Sherman (1950) studied the conservation attitude and information possessed by elementary teachers. Through the use of a multiple-choice questionnaire, Sherman was able to measure the background and conserva tion held by the teacher in much greater detail than was attempted in this study. Sherman, however, did not correlate these data with the 2 Sherman, op. cit. conservation understandings possessed by students of these teachers. I was unable to find reference of any previous work which attempted such a correlation. Previous exposure to conservation It was hypothesized that teachers with training in conservation or who used a variety of conservation materials in their classroom will stimulate the development of' students' conservation understandings. To test this hypothesis comparisons were made of the conservation under standings held by students whose teachers possessed differing backgrounds and who used different conservation teaching materials. All IBM cards were machine sorted into nine groups according to grade and school location. Each group was further sorted according to teachers; exposure to conservation through either (l) In-service Training Projects, (2) special conservation schools, (3) college courses, (4) curriculum development programs. All cards were then sorted for percentage response, one-depth development, two or more depth develop ments and scope-only. This three-step sorting method was also used for all other teacher related factors. Teachers' previous exposure to conservation The teachers' previous exposure to conservation was divided into two parts. First, college courses in general and exposure to conserva tion while teaching were considered. Second, the teachers' exposure to conservation through particular college courses. As pointed out on pages 92-93» the percentage of depth developments used as the index of students* understandings were obtained through indirect methods, i.e., 95 the teacher selected the material and presented only portions to the students. Teachers1 previous exposure to conservation through college courses in general and teaching experience Four factors were considered relative to this portion of the teachers' previous exposure to conservation. They were (1) in-service training, (2) attendance at a special conservation school, i.e., Ohio Conservation Laboratory, (3) college courses in general, (if) curriculum development programs. Both the machine sorting method and the computer analysis showed that students of teachers who had attended the special conservation schools evidenced significantly more depth development in their con servation understandings than did the group whose teachers had not attended such a school. Students of teachers who had participated in in-service training programs and curriculum development projects related to conservation also generally showed greater depth development of conservation understandings than did the other group* Students of teachers who stated that they had been exposed to conservation through college courses in general did not evidence signifi cantly more conservation understandings than did students whose teachers did not so indicate. (See Table 21.) TABLE 21 PERCENTAGE OF THOSE RESPONDING EVIDENCING DEPTH DEVELOPMENT AS RELATED TO TEACHERS1 PREVIOUS EXPOSURE TO CONSERVATION Soil Water Plants Animals Sub Sub Sub Sub Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban urban urban urban urban Participated 81 78 88 84 61 84 72 66 Conservation 79 83 87 71 Did not Schools 70 66 78 70 64 74 64 participate 69 79 67 65 49 Participated 98 76 92 89 78 68 In-Service 87 91 79 59 93 ■f*9 Did not Training 74 64 94 62 participate 65 78 69

Load more